No, you're missing the point again.
Because if they do, then they're extremists?
Well, they're idiots either way. No intelligent person is that polarizing without an agenda.
Do you have any idea how many listeners Rush Limbaugh has?
Sigh. I'm talking about the right in general and the general campaign messages. You're honing in too much on a specific person and specific issues. The fact is, most people on this planet are pretty centre, and don't care about either side. Polarizing is bad.
The fact is, creating a divide is not the right way to go about getting your point across.
The fact is, calling people out is not the right thing to do.
The fact is, refusing to acknowledge that people do get annoyed at posters and rallies is short sighted.
Think of the bigger picture.
The bottom line is that you seem to think it's reasonable that people who are annoyed by a campaign or insults would vote based on that annoyance.
I didn't say it's reasonable - i said it's a fact. Just because you don't doesn't mean other people don't. You are a sample size of 1.
All the polls pointed towards a democratic victory in America - yet why did Trump win? Well, two reasons:
The same thing is happening here. People cannot voice their opinion without being outright shunned, called a "bigot" or being insulted. Again, these people do not care enough to vote. But when they are forced to in the Federal Election, they will. People are tired of seeing the same leftwing drivel, much in the same way people were sick of the rightwing drivel people were spouting 10 years ago.
"I don't care, and now you've annoyed me so I'm voting against you."
Again, and I'll repeat myself for a third time - I'm talking bigger picture. These people will not vote in this plebiscite and against this specific topic. They will harbor their annoyance/frustration/inability to speak out and will do so in a situation where it actually matters, like the Federal Election. They do not see it as "voting against the annoying people". That is not their main concern. It's not so black and white. They see it as actually being able to say something without being torn down for simply having a different viewpoint. It's far, far better to have your opponents in plain sight, and by attacking them you're simply making them hide, striking only when it matters.
Anyway, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I hope I've made you critically think about the current political landscape, and why "calls to action" aren't as good or effective long term as most people think.