The reality is that we need *other moderate conservatives/Republicans* to say it.

I knew Yellen but then got confused and thought she was still at the Fed, so second guessed myself. I knew Garland, but totally blanked that AG is a cabinet position. And I could visual Haaland’s face but forgot her name. (I was never gonna get any of the others though.)

A little A, a little B. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy to make MAGAs look moderate for the sake of making them look sane; I think they think it just makes for a better story to have an undecided

I don’t understand why main stream media let themselves fall for this every time.

It’s insane to me that traditional mainstream media continue to fall for this

That would be Chris Kluthe.

(I also maintain that abandoning plurality-first-past-the-post voting would stop the Senate from naturally forcing a two-party system. Less sure about that on the Presidential ticket, but probably that too.)

Like I get that you believe a huge chunk of the American electorate is conservative. But nothing *requires* that to be true in the future.

So I guess we're back to square one as to why there has to be a *strong* *conservative* party? Why not just a "left" vs "centrist" with some right-y voters going under the centrist umbrella when they need to?

I mean, if we’re dreaming that big, I would also kill plurality voting, electoral college, and fix senate representativeness? Though I’m not 100% sure I understand your argument that the Senate/presidency necessarily results in two parties? I read your link and I’m not seeing the connection.