You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] CuriosityOnFire 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

All candidates are moderate. Moderates are too stupid to see it. Being as close as possible but on the bigger side of the vote relative to a candidate is how you win a two candidate race. If you are already right of your opponent, it makes no sense to be anymore right than u have to be, ul only turn off the letier voters and gain nothing because you already have all the right ones.


[–] 13493335? 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Wrong. In the US there are three possible votes, R, D, and “didn’t bother.” In an election with a hard left socialist and a milquetoast RINO; small government pro-2A nationalists just won’t show up to pull the lever for a cronyist pussy globalist RINO.


[–] CuriosityOnFire 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

got data to back that up? the other is literally stalin so..


[–] PewterKey 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This would be true for a single bell curve. But politics is not a single issue continuous bell curve. It is more like a set of hills. Where each hill is a party and they can gain or lose land (votes/members) by changing their stances.

For the US two party system the effect is two sides each form a bell curve with an overlapping of moderates in the middle. But pushing towards the middle only works until a more extreme party starts to be closer to the peak. This can easily be seen in both the Green Party and the Tea Party disrupting American politics in recent years.


[–] CuriosityOnFire 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Look if a candidate keeps 99% of employees policis laws an agencies. It's a moderate. and they all do that.

if it was 10%, there could be a semantic debate. but when it's less than 1% it's all moderate. That's how delusional you all are. If nothing changes it can't not be moderate.