Unable to Excite the Base? Moderate Candidates Still Tend to Outdo Extreme Ones

Unfortunately, today's Republicans don't recognize a so-called "moderate" Democrat. To them all Democrats are socialists, and LIBERALS. I don't think it matters who the Democratic candidate is nor for what office. The Hannity/Limbaugh axis will find a way to reveal the true "extremism" in every Democratic candidate. This is the problem.

Dems, listen. The more moderate candidates are more electable in a general election. Vote in primaries accordingly! Position ourselves to unite w independents and small business owners people of morality of all parties who hate the endless scandals.

The NYT is obsessed with the ideological "spectrum" -- far right, far left, center-right, center-left, moderate... What they don't realize is that their version of the spectrum -- let alone the whole paradigm of a spectrum -- is sorely outdated and inaccurate. Maybe these terms were never accurate to begin with -- I wouldn't doubt it. The whole idea that the "far left" (read: progressives, per the NYT -- who fight for unions, single payer, free public college, etc.) is comparable to the "far right" (white supremacists/neo-Nazis) in their placements on the spectrum -- it simply makes no sense. The NYT does everyone a grave disservice by sticking to their own grossly inaccurate definitions of these terms. I wish I could get the EIC on a panel and ask him why, why, WHY. According to the NYT, "center" or "moderate" equals tax cuts for corporations, for instance -- but in the real world (read: not within the Beltway, nor in corporate board rooms), a majority of Americans is FOR raising taxes on corporations. Americans in huge numbers are for a federal jobs guarantee as well. But the NYT's version of the "center" dismisses the idea. Am I crazy, or isn't it where the majority of Americans land that's technically the center? Not what the establishment thinks, not what the Clintons think, not what the DCCC thinks. It's what the majority of Americans think.

Donald Trump is president because Hillary Clinton was his opposition. As this article states, when the opposition excites voters negatively they are more likely to vote. Her hatred by some is so extreme that it was red meat to Trump base. Even worse is the sorry manipulations by the DNC to shove aside any opposition to her. Salivating to make history with the first female president they didn't stop to think was this the right woman? By alienating Sanders supporters many stayed home. As a lifelong Democrat I was furious watching it unfold. The DNC leadership was stupid and blinded and the Clinton machine didn't even bother to take the temperature of the electorate.

The single most popular resolution to our health care problems, in polls, is to have a single-payer system. That plan is more popular in polls than either the purely capitalist system we used to have or the ACA. I think it probably has a hidden groundswell of support, in the same way Trump tapped into a hidden groundswell of anti-immigrant feeling. It's easy for party insiders to call anyone "extreme" who doesn't say the same thing the corporate donors want. But what voters want... that may be the real question.

Interesting, but I'm very skeptical about any study that uses 30 years worth of data at this point. The nature of political communication has changed so much in just the last 5-6 years, and it is very likely the old patterns do not apply. The right-wing propaganda channels are absolutely dominating the country right now -- Fox News, Breitbart, the Koch Networks vast propaganda operations, Russian bots operating on Facebook, Twitter and all the commenting platforms. The average voter simply does not get the kind of objective information about issues and candiates that they could get 15 years ago.

There's a big problem here, one that's endemic to American politics. To be considered "extreme" on the left, one may simply call into question even the most minor of the givens of the capitalist order. Support taxing people fairly for what are considered basic government services in the rest of the civilized world, like health care? You'll likely be called a "socialist" or worse. On the right, you have to nudge aggressively into white power, neo-Nazism, or some other cultism before people even begin to think about whether your views might be extremist. Views very similar to what the militia movement embraced during the Timothy McVeigh era are now mainstream Republican positions in the era of Trump. That leads one to ask, given the excess of unrequited extremism on the right, where is the giant backlash of left votes this ought to inspire if the premise of this article is to be believed? One would think this should bring on an army of Bernies, not just him and Elizabeth Warren, plus Jill Stern. I can only hope. But I think the authors of the research covered here have some explaining to do about better compensating for the rightwing dominance of American politics than done here, despite poll after poll showing the electorate as a whole (remember when majorities ruled? yeah, not sure I do either) preferring progressive positions at odds with the rightward spiral of American government

So the next question is who is extreme- in the eyes of the Party base, the insiders, the donors or the opposition? Ask each and what they define as extreme will be different. Seems like the NYT is pushing the Clinton/DLC/Third Way/Republican Lite agenda, trying to warn Progressives that if they run it will hurt the party and the bad old Republicans will control the Courts and everything else. Well Center Right Obama didn't get very far and Wall Street Hillary lost- twice. In the meantime, Democrats took a thrashing at every level of government. I would also remind people that the Democratic Representatives that voted for the ACA and defended it during the re-election campaign for the most part were re-elected while those who voted for it and ran away from the vote back home were swept from office. Maybe voters are allergic to hypocrites- i know I am. I have more respect for a principled and consistent conservative that does not duck their beliefs than some poll tested pseudo-liberal who runs defending DOMA in 2008 and then acts like a long time friend to the LGBTQ community in 2016 (Hillary Rodham Clinton comes to mind). I also have no respect for outfits like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign that turned their back on Bernie Sanders who has always been on the right side of equality and reproductive rights to endorse an almost Republican Woman (Hillary Clinton) just because of her gender. Ms Clinton is not evil- she is just in the wrong party.

Clearly the Democrats did not read this before the last election or they would have never nominated Hillary who had some pretty low approval ratings going into the election. The reason Trump won is because Hillary ran, pure and simple. But out of arrogance, the Dems put her up thinking they could foist her upon us whether we liked it or not. Let's be real, everyone in this country was pretty dang sure three years ago that Hillary would be the next president and we could do nothing to stop it. Except vote for Trump which is what happened. What would have happened if Hillary had chosen Bernie as her running mate? Or what would have happened if the Dems had put up Sanders/Warren instead? But no, it was Hillary's turn and they were so confident that they didn't even bother to show up in places like Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania. A wise man once said (in red letters) that "A house divided against itself will not stand". If a candidate can not muster better than 50% approval from all voters, then how can they possibly lead when at least half the country is opposed to them from the get-go?

This is flawed logic. We are not living in normal times. "An analysis of more than 30 years" is irrelevant, old news. For decades, Democratic candidates have grasped toward that elusive "center," a moving target that continually shifts to the right. The next election cycle will reward Democrats who articulate Democratic values. I don't want to hear about "fixing Medicare." I want to hear about the tax increases to be paid by Pharmaceutical companies and their overpaid CEOs. I want to hear about "fixing" the Lobbyists who bought all those votes in the US Congress without shame or remorse. "An analysis of more than 30 years" takes us back to the Reagan administration. Let's analyze Homelessness, our national disgrace. Let's observe its tragic acceleration ever since Reagan convinced "moderates" that Trickle-Down Economics would benefit the downtrodden. Start by admitting that there is no "center." Aiming for the center is a problem in these abnormal times, not a solution.

This experiment flows from a flawed assumption; that candidates have some inherent level of public policy moderation or extremism, and that voters are both interested in that and able to accurately perceive it. It's just not the case. Perceptions of a candidate absolutely drive the other side to show up to vote against. I can't remember a race where the Republicans haven't sought to disqualify the Democrat by virtue of something, even if only name-calling. The tactic may even dampen enthusiasm for the Democrat by Democratic voters. The tactic works a bit less well in the other direction, as Democrats generally prefer a functional over nonfunctional government and so fear poisoning the well by disqualifying the opposition. But it worked for Democrats in this year's Alabama Senate race. But these perceptions have absolutely no necessary relationship with the reality of a candidate's public policy preferences. In the end, successful politicians are charismatic figures, able to inspire unreliable voters to vote without driving away their base.

I think our primary system needs an overhaul. That said, I see an America where conservatism (I want things to be like they were in the past) and progressivism (things have changed recently - we need to do something different) are ever more at odds because the country is changing rapidly. Let's take the emergence of China. China has nearly four times the population of the United states. Assuming equal levels of economic development, four out of five products or services sold world wide would be made in China. The US (assuming it doesn't manage to somehow stifle China's growth, which seems ludicrous) will be losing market share for a long time. I think a move toward the middle by our political parties would help defuse what I see as a dangerous situation developing in our nation.

This study does not take into account the rightward shift of the two main American political parties over the past 30 years, and uses a flawed and movable definition of the political center: The window has shifted such that 'extreme' democrats effectively do not exist, nor do 'moderate' republicans. During the past 30 years, the right has become increasingly extreme as a whole, and third way democrats have shifted right to keep up with them, putting considerable effort into removing any left elements who do not agree with the austerity, imperialist, and market consensus of the party. The trend has gone from a modestly left party, and a modestly right party in the late 70s to a deeply centrist 'left' party, and a fully extremist right, who currently hold their greatest power in a century. People are happy to vote in extremes, as evidenced by the entire modern republican party. The democrats need to start offering a meaningful alternative.

Thirty years of continuous Democratic loses at all levels of office would suggest otherwise.

Well written. On a national basis it is true also. The republicans nominated Goldwater in 1964 when the country was not yet ready for a fiery conservative and he was shellacked by LBJ. In 1972 when the democrats nominated McGovern, the era of the bleeding heart liberal was gone and he got creamed by Nixon. The last election when the democrats nominated an identity obsessed candidate like Hillary, when the country was not ready for it, instead of a more mainstream candidate she did not get creamed but lost to a ego, maniac, pathological liar like Trump. Learn from history or forever be condemned to suffer the consequences.

The study raises an important parameter to consider about the dynamic, complex, multidimensional process of choice making. What I have difficulty understanding in this description, which does not adequately explain, is how reality’s ongoing dynamic,interacting dimensions of uncertainties, unpredictabilities, randomness and lack of total control, whatever the types, levels and qualities of one’s efforts, operate on/within populations who are diverse in many ways, even as they may and often do share similarities? What are “extreme,” “moderate,” and any other label, within an individual and systemic behavioral political landscape of complacency? Willful blindness about enabled harmful words and deeds? Myopia about what is unavailable and inaccessible which is needed?Willful deafness to voiced pains as well as muted ones? Ignorance about FACTs, their implications and consequences, under currently known and knowable conditions, as well as what are Faux-facts, garbed as they are in the semantic surrealism of “alt-facts!” This study’s researchers, while summarizing answers, their right, might also continue to help us to better move from levels and qualities of knowing to needed understanding by helping us to consider questions which need further explorations. And lastly, to help us “risk” feeling challenged,as well, by considering that we all too often choose “not knowing” that we do not know, as a defensive maneuver.For known, currently unknown as well as unknowable reasons.

I’m essentially an independent voter, and agree with the title. I disagree with extreme positions of both parties, and I truly don’t agree with the disfunction of the Republican party. I think the ACA needs a bit of adjustment, but Republicans are Balkanized to point of uselessness. And I suspect that Racism is at work in both parties. It seems one party is feeling guilty about being fortunate, while the other party has no compassion. What a mess.

Let's be clear in the use of terms like '' radical or extreme''. If you are the far right, you are trying to outdo the ''moderates'' to cut more taxes for businesses/the top 1% in lieu of social programs and are trying to eliminate regulations/protections for workers and/or the environment. If you are on the far left, you are trying to bring about fairness in the tax code immediately and within reality of the lives of every day Americans, and are trying to hold those businesses/people accountable that are breaking the law and hurting people/the environment right now. ( and not gradually down the road ) There is a major difference.

Suppose it has anything to do with who gets labeled moderate and who gets labeled extreme in the reporting? Intrinsic bias is still bias, no?

I’m a moderate person, and I look for candidates who can find the commonality among many people. These “representatives” are supposed to represent us, and that is often more than just one group. The problem now is we have a President and Congress that represent a minority. I think Democrats and Republicans are mistaken thinking we all want to go farther right or left: many of us have opinions to the left and the right.

I definitely second the bringing back of moderate candidates. An extreme fanatic, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on, is going to make decisions mainly by ideology instead of facts and common sense. That's all I want in a candidate--someone who has common sense, has foresight to consider things on a longer time scale, and who relies on scientific findings to make decisions. It's incredibly sad and frustrating that it's almost impossible to find a moderate candidate anymore. I think a lot of people still think that moderate candidates are wishy-washy and don't know where they stand on issues but that's certainly not the case. A moderate candidate should be someone who can see both sides of the issue and take the facts as they are to find a solution that makes the most logical sense. I wish there was a Common Sense political party.

Both parties are so far from public opinion of so many issues - single payer, increased Social Security benefits, a financial transaction tax, increased corporate and wealth taxation, decreased spending on the Pentagon etc. - that what the researchers claim as "moderate" is really extreme. The authors thesis didn't even work with the 2016 presidential election. Sanders, who BTW, espoused the more popular platform, would be considered the "extremist candidate" by the authors, Clinton the "moderate candidate". Exit polls are pretty clear, many came out to vote against Clinton - the exact opposite of what the authors would have predicted. With public dissatisfaction with the two parties off the charts, perhaps views that are labeled "extreme" by the mainstream politicians and analysts should be given priority. It just might set the country back on the right track. Meanwhile, research based on faulty premises that happen to be congruent with the corporate agenda like this one should end up in landfills.

The problem, for unclear reasons, is that the more ideological voters tend to vote disproportionately in the primaries where therefore, not surprisingly, the more extreme candidates tend to win. Unfortunately, while not an ideal outcome, I think that political leaders - who have a much better sense as to which candidates can win in which elections - will have to exert greater influence over the primary system so that more moderate candidates emerge. Only if there are more moderate candidates in both parties can we possibly hope for a more collaborative legislature.

A moderate *personality*

“Keep an eye on how likely your nominee is to motivate the other side to show up and nominate accordingly.” Awful advice. It can be interpreted as saying don’t raise any issue important to the opposition unless you agree with their stand on it. Also, it can be taken to suggest never opposing the oppositions’ intentions, but focus on other matters. And if a program is suggested by you, and the opposition takes up the issue, don’t defend your program unless the opposition agrees with it. In short, make the election meaningless.

Called spine-less, cowards, weak and unworthy, those folks who hold moderate views are a real rock for our nation. Independent of allegiance to left or right, they are NOT the silent majority invoked by the previous criminal occupant of the White house. Most moderates tend to be evenly skeptical, analytical and unmoved by the "scream, shout and run about" incitements of BOTH "sides." Perhaps they find living under the thumb of either a Democrat or a Republican is equally unpalatable.

What's the hidden assumption in this headline (from a Matt Iglesias article in Vox)? "Stormy Daniels is crowding out Democrats’ 2018 message" Answer: that the Democrats HAVE a message in 2018. Other than being against whatever Trump proposes (even laws that prohibit convicted felons from carrying guns!), I haven't noticed any Democratic "message." Have you? If so, can you tell the rest of us what it is?

Incorrect! "The analysis ... seems to confirm the destructive trend that further disconnects the core democratic processes of voting and governing. For centuries we have assumed that one necessarily leads to the other, and that the electoral process both identifies and selects those who will provide the best available talent once in office." We have NOT assumed that voters will necessarily pick the "best available talent" (whatever that means). Quite the contrary: implicit in democracy is the assumption that no group or individual knows better than any other group or individual, and so we let EVERYONE vote. Whoever gets the most votes wins, even if the other side insists that the loser had more "talent." We all could probably agree that "deplorables" shouldn't be allowed to vote, but we'd never agree on who's deplorable and who's not.

Hall and Thompson are obviously missing something. If a more moderate candidate has a better chance to win than an extreme candidate, how does that fit with the drift of the modern Republican party from EPA creating Nixon to climate-change denying Trumpism? Did the researchers only study Democrats? Who you going to believe, the research, or your lying eyes?

The analysis by Hall and Thompson seems to confirm the destructive trend that further disconnects the core democratic processes of voting and governing. For centuries we have assumed that one necessarily leads to the other, and that the electoral process both identifies and selects those who will provide the best available talent once in office. How and why these processes became separated deserve even more study, but it seems clear that for both politicians and voters winning elections is much more important than effective performance in office.