This article both points out, and is part of, the problem with American politics. Candidates are full of hyperbole (Trump takes the cake, no doubt). The people

This article both points out, and is part of, the problem with American politics. Candidates are full of hyperbole (Trump takes the cake, no doubt). The people who vote for them, do not agree with them on everything and may not even fully agree with them on anything. Are we to believe the every Biden voter, agrees with most of his political record? Are we to believe that they don't have any misgivings about his ability to govern? No. It's the same with Trump supporters. They vote for him because they see the slimmest positive difference between what they think he will do and what his opponent will do. Out in the real world, the majority of people don't magnify the things they disagree on. And they aren't partisan at all. They find common ground and focus on that. But in politics, things have become almost completely partisan. No Republican would ever dare to offer any kind of support for universal healthcare. No Democrat would dare to support stopping illegal immigration. Why is that? Why does the New Yorker fail to see that voters are simply using a risk reward matrix to cast their vote. At any given time the risks and rewards may look or feel different. Publications that boil these issues down to red and blue/black and white/yes and no are doing a great disservice. It just creates more divisiveness. Recently, I was reading about Reagan's tax reform bills. The first one Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 passed in the Senate 89-11. The second one, Tax Reform Act of 1986, passed 97-3 in the Senate. Whether you think those bills were big mistakes or not, what impressed me was that a President was able to produce that much bi-partisan support. I tend to lean heavily to one side of the political spectrum but I would gladly take some moderate compromises on many issues if it meant a more civil discourse in American politics.