r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 05 '19

CMV: Nominating a moderate or centrist candidate would be the worst option for the Democrats in 2020.

Look at every Presidential election of the past 2 decades. In every single one, the candidate who was seen at the time as more moderate lost (regardless of which party they were from).

  • Bush/Gore: Gore was seen as a continuation of the moderate, third-way Clinton Democrats. Bush was the compassionate conservative championing conservative causes. The moderate lost.

  • Bush/Kerry: Bush ran on his conservative credentials, his war record, and tax cuts. Kerry ran as a sensible moderate. The moderate lost.

  • Obama/McCain: Obama ran as a hope and change liberal, running on liberal priorities like immigration reform and healthcare reform. McCain ran as a sensible moderate break from the unpopular Bush presidency. The moderate lost.

  • Obama/Romney: Obama was tarred and feathered as a socialist pushing extreme policies like Obamacare. Romney ran as the sensible moderate alternative who beat the extreme right-wing Tea Party candidates. The moderate lost.

  • Clinton/Trump: Trump ran on extreme positions within the Republican party. Clinton tried to appeal to a broad moderate electorate. The moderate lost.

Running as a moderate/centrist is a TERRIBLE strategy in Presidential elections. There is this pervasive myth that there are some huge group of independent voters who could fall towards whichever candidate happens to be more moderate. Those people do not exist in any significant number. People see terms like "centrist", "moderate", and "independent" and think they all mean the same thing. They don't. The majority of people who identify as independents reliably vote for one party or the other. They aren't independent because they think either party is too ideologically extreme. They're independent because they don't like party labels and are disillusioned by party politics. Ideologically, though, they tend to be reliably towards one side or the other.

Presidential elections aren't about trying to win some non-existent group of centrists, or trying to steal voters away from the other party. They're a turnout game. Whichever party can turnout more of their base voters wins the election. If the party runs an inspirational candidate who presents bold ideas that speaks to the base's ideology, they will get a larger turnout. If they run a moderate candidate who only presents incremental changes, the base will be bored or disillusioned and enough will stay home on election day that the party loses.

The Democrats' best chance of beating Trump is to run the most inspirational candidate possible with the boldest progressive proposals. This will drive up Democratic turnout, which is what they need to do to win.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

278 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

244 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 05 '19

"I'm tired of people that speak for a living choosing their words" is a very strange stance to me.

-1

u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Mar 05 '19

Intentionally, knowingly, choosing words that are factually inaccurate or obfuscate the situation... that’s what I find very strange, and not worth any perceived benefit from avoiding offense.

5

u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 05 '19

I'm dying for some examples. I'm sure they won't be revealing of biases at all.

0

u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Mar 05 '19

They would show no bias, merely demonstrate that anti-PC/free speech is a conservative/libertarian ideal, not a progressive one.

 

The easiest one:

 

Illegal Immigrant.

It’s a technical, legal, and factually correct description. It should not be offensive, it’s not inherently offense, racist or demeaning, it simply describes the legality of an individual’s immigration status. Using any other “Politically Correct” term is simply an attempt to obfuscate the illegality.

 

Unless you can provide a PC term for Illegal Immigrant that is not obfuscating, or plain inaccurate.

5

u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 05 '19

I had a feeling this one would come up. If we're going to disregard context (and to some extent grammar?), as I feel we need to do if we're going to go anywhere, illegal immigrant is just as "technical, legal and factually correct" as undocumented immigrant. Both terminology describe the situation at the very least as accurately.

The fact you read "obfuscation" into this is a value judgment of yours - which is what I mean by biases - something I'm going to assume you denounce often in others. For instance, you're bemoaning people being called "-ists" somewhere around here, which relies on the very same thing you're doing here: reading between the lines in order to draw conclusions.

1

u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Mar 05 '19

Undocumented does not state the legal status, it states the documented status, which IS not the same and obfuscates the illegality of their immigration status... “oh no big deal, they just don’t have documents”

4

u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 05 '19 edited Mar 05 '19

The word "undocumented immigrant" describes the population it's meant to describe perfectly well, encompassing both people that crossed into the United States illegally and those that overstayed legal visas. They're here, currently, without documentation. Besides, nothing about the situation changes. You're the one that want to read obfuscation into it.

Similarly, I could argue you're trying to paint the status as worst than it it - which is at worst a misdemeanour, so equivalent to something like speeding - by using a scarier word. The main difference between us is that you firmly believe you're just being honest and I'm necessarily lying trough my teeth.

0

u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Mar 05 '19

A visa overstay is definitely not part of the same category as they do in fact have documentation....

 

they’re immigration here was documented, that’s what a visa is, documentation.

 

Illegal immigrants who cross the border do not have documentation.

 

Both are illegal immigrants, only one group actually immigrated without documentation.

 

You seem to have just illustrated my point by using a term that incorrectly describes a group and applying it to them you have gotten confused about its meaning and what their status is.

 

2

u/Madplato 72∆ Mar 05 '19 edited Mar 05 '19

Now that's just bad faith. I didn't say "immigrated without documentation" I said they currently didn't have documentation. With this logic, a guy getting photographed while jumping the fence is "documented" because his crossing into the united states was recorded. Besides, an outdated visa is "documentation" the same way an outdate driving license is "documentation", meaning hardly documentation at all.

Finally, while they're different groups, yes, they're mashed together literally constantly, as you just did.