> If voters pick the candidate closer to their views, and voters are spread out across the spectrum, then both candidates would converge to the middle. It’s no surprise that politicians seek the “average vote.” It also suggests why it’s so hard to tell the difference between candidates during the campaign trail.
Maybe the differences in the 2016 election were more of style than substance.
Both candidates pointed the finger at powerful (but opposing) foreign-policy enemies (China and Russia). Both made statements in line with interventionist foreign policies. Both lacked any substantial policies to change course on deficit-financed spending. Both said little to nothing about the appropriateness of domestic surveillance. Neither had anything remarkable to say about promoting freedom of the press.
Of course there were some visible policy differences. For example: who to tax and who to let into the country.
And then there were the abundant stylistic difference.
Getting back to the game/analogy presented in the article's video, maybe the differences we saw were more about what color to paint your hot-dog stand and what resemblance if any your logo bears to those used by boogeymen from the past. It had less to do with the quality of the ingredients or prices.
The fact that you think issues immigration (and healthcare, etc.) are dwarfed in importance by the stylistic differences between the candidates says more about your utter callousness and the sheltered bubble you live in than the absence of substantive differences between the candidates.
One candidate wanted to repeal the ACA and replace it with something else TBD, the other wanted to keep it. Unfortunately, the ACA is not going to solve this country's health care problems. So a candidate's position on it largely doesn't matter.
(Ironically, the current administration struck the penalty for not carrying health insurance, reducing health care costs for some of the poorest)
Compare this approach to Sanders, who wanted to extend Medicare to everyone. That is a clearly different policy approach.
Going back to the hot dog stand analogy, Sanders wasn't only far from the middle of the beach. He was on top of a cliff on the opposite end of the island.
That's what a policy difference looks like to me.
I'm not saying that health care and immigration don't matter. I'm saying the party nominees of 2016 were like two hot dog stands located within spitting distance of each other on the beach.
It hasn’t changed, politicians are just less subtle about expressing their views. They don’t bother about trying to use dog whistle politics like showing the “welfare queen” or “Willie Horton” ads.
This is also not a Republican or Democratic thing. While yes, the Republicans have Trump, the Clintons also championed the get tough on crime “Three strikes you’re out” laws to protect the good citizens against evil non violent “inner city” criminals.
Needs a (2008)...