Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomjen3 | Hacker News Reader

This is interesting as others have asserted that they lost because they were still too leftists.

What data would settle this?

Look at senate and governor candidates that over performed and underperformed vs Kamala in their state. People have studied it for years and the basic finding is the classic one. Moving to the center wins you votes. You'll find that moderate/centrist dems over perform and leftist dems underperform.

They've studied this. And the cause is is the following. Yes you get your base to turn out more. But extremism motivates their base even more than your own, and switched vote from an independent is twice as impactful as an extra vote. A simple example is you get one more of your base to turn out. You lose an independent, and you get 2 of their base to turn out. And end up down 3 votes.

Hotelling's law should apply, no?

This sounds plausible to me. Can you please link to some of these studies you mention?

https://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_Thompson_Base_Turnou...

Here's the study on turnout. And basically comes to the conclusion extremists motivate the opposing party base more than their own.

Here are a couple of journal articles.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...

https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...

Note: There is small minority that show that this is effect shrinking with time. My personal belief for why this is happening is basically voters are judging individual politicians more by the moderation/extremeness of the party's positions and less by the politicians personal beliefs.

Part of the problem is that our primaries are weird. Primary voters tend to be more extreme (left and right) and when moderates show up to vote in the election, they're upset there's no moderate choice. I was talking to some colleagues from Australia and not voting is a fine. Makes primaries much more representative of the actual election when you get everyone to vote.

There are no primaries in Australia.

I've had the thought that the US primary system prevents any meaningful application of Ranked Choice, or other alternative methods. Currently there's no other proximate-choice candidates that make it to the general election; i.e., the case where Kamala and Bernie and Trump are on the General Election ballot can't happen in most places right now, which narrows the choice field significantly.

> Moving to the center wins you votes.

I'm confused. No one moved further from the center than Trump and it worked fantastically for hm.

I think people mistake his radical-styled rhetoric for radical policies

Trump is one of the most moderate Republicans on most social issues (abortion, lgb, criminal justice etc.)

He is the most moderate on entitlements (constantly promises to not cut medicare, medicaid and social security) contrary to every Republican campaign in the past (remember Paul Ryan?)

He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk, not a 60's style pacifist)

I could go on but I think the important point is; every point he wants to make, he makes in the loudest most wild way possible and people who aren't disposed to vote for him anyway see that as "radical". The correct word IMO is "crazy" or "wild".

Voters who are in the center or can swing either way see him as promising fairly conventional things but in a crazy tone. Maybe tone doesn't matter as much to them

I agree that there's a huge difference between the rhetoric and policies. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people viewing him as both a "straight talker" and someone who's "just jokin'". There's also huge variability about his personal policy whims he may lose interest in, and those in power around him with strong and motivated agendas.

He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk)

Which is hogwash, because at the time Trump went along with the Iraq war just like everybody else, of course:

   In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

   "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/in-2002...

So actually, um yeah, he was a "Cheney/Bush war hawk" just like the rest of them.

That really doesn't make your point. "I guess so" is the absolute opposite of what a hawk would say. "I guess so" is what the comment you're replying to is still implying he'd say.

I have no idea if they edited this in later or you removed it but just pointing this out: > not a 60's style pacifist

for the record; was not edited.

The part you need to focus on is where he says: "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

An election.

A linear model (liberal vs conservative) is not great. Consider a planar model with two dimensions: social and economic policy. Trump combined conservative social policy with populist economic policy. Harris promoted liberal social policy. However, in her last town hall, framed herself as a "pragmatic capitalist" (her emphasis). This is a continuation of Democratic rightward shift, the Neoliberal compromise, that was crystallized by Clinton with NAFTA in the 90s. In this election, like 2000, the US public had to choose: a liberal social policy -or- a populist economic policy. What was not on the ballot: liberal social policy with populist economic policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com