It's not a necessary qualifier either, even if you're just hedging like a politician. My first reaction was "Well of course he has to do that to win, otherwise the media will destroy him as a crazy 'Big Lie' believer." But then I realized, why? We always do this, try to act like the "reasonable" party. The media isn't going to be fair either way. Argue from your extreme as the reasonable position. In this case it isn't extreme at all. It's the right thing to do. Imagine as a candidate if you answered "I'll pardon ALL the accused on my first day in office". The controversy and attention an "unreasonable" statement like that stir up would harden some people against you, but would wake many others up by forcing them to consider how you could say that. "What does he know that I don't?" They may investigate the issue and learn the whole thing was a setup and innocent people have been locked up indefinitely without bail. Push the Overton window and cultural frame a little bit towards our side. At least get the other side arguing on your terms, don't meet them in the middle right out the gate.

It's not a necessary qualifier either, even if you're just hedging like a politician. My first reaction was "Well of course he has to do that to win, otherwise the media will destroy him as a crazy 'Big Lie' believer." But then I realized, why? We always do this, try to act like the "reasonable" party. The media isn't going to be fair either way. Argue from your extreme as the reasonable position. In this case it isn't extreme at all. It's the right thing to do. Imagine as a candidate if you answered "I'll pardon ALL the accused on my first day in office". The controversy and attention an "unreasonable" statement like that stir up would harden some people against you, but would wake many others up by forcing them to consider how you could say that. "What does he know that I don't?" They may investigate the issue and learn the whole thing was a setup and innocent people have been locked up indefinitely without bail. At least get the other side arguing on your terms, don't meet them in the middle right out the gate.

It's not a necessary qualifier either, even if you're just hedging like a politician. My first reaction was "Well of course he has to do that to win, otherwise the media will destroy him as a crazy 'Big Lie' believer." But then I realized, why? We always do this, try to act like the "reasonable" party. The media isn't going to be fair either way. Argue from your extreme as the reasonable position. In this case it isn't extreme at all. It's the right thing to do. The controversy and attention an "unreasonable" statement like "I'll pardon ALL the accused on my first day in office" stirred up would harden some people against you, but would wake many others up by forcing them to consider how you could say that. "What does he know that I know?" They may investigate the issue and learn the whole thing was a setup and innocent people have been locked up indefinitely without bail. At least get the other side arguing on your terms, don't meet them in the middle right out the gate.