Pitfalls of Choosing a Moderate Candidate

Some quick observations on where our last two candidates have fallen on the political spectrum:

The median voter theorem suggests that the politician whose preferences are closest to the median voter will win. However, in the last two presidential elections, Republicans have put forth very moderate candidates against a candidate whose positions seem far enough left that the Republican should have won.

This makes me wonder: It seems that as a politician approaches or crosses the median, there seems to be a sort of an increase in the “elasticity of voting propensity” at the tail that moves inward as the candidate moves farther from their side. That is: incremental moves toward the other side result in an increasing rate of decline in voter propensity at the base. (This would be similar to the way that price elasticity of demand changes as one moves along the demand curve.)

If voting bases do behave this way, then it seems that it would make sense to nominate candidates that are clearly to the right of center. This would also help better distinguish our platform from theirs. Besides, if we don’t look much different than the other side, then why should anyone in the middle pick us over them?

I suppose this observation is nothing new, but Republicans often seem to be pushing for moderation and compromise while Democrats often stake out hard positions on the left. Perhaps the push for compromise is an attempt to counter Democrats’ unfair portrayal of Republicans, but in doing so, we’re helping cement that image and fighting on their terms.