I see. So when your response when provided with data is to basically hand-wave it away, with a "well I'm sure things are different NOW".
Do you think things are not different now?
I think the data that researchers used in their analysis (which included at least up to 2016) is recent enough that the results should be relevant. (i.e. I doubt very much would have shifted in such a limited time).
I also think the underlying psychology (i.e. that people will act in their own self interest, and opposition will be stronger with bigger differences between parties) probably hasn't changed much.
Like I said, there have been lots of studies, often coming to different conclusions depending on the years they're looking at.
But I have not yet seen any studies that contradict the ones that I posted. Not one study that shows that "extremism is more successful in an election than moderation". Not one.
Maybe they exist. But if they do exist, then by all means, show me.
Well, no, my argument is based on the fact that 'electability' is not something that we can do anything useful with. Did you read the article I posted?
Yes I did.
Your article covers a lot of areas... candidate's gender, race, even their voice. I have no problem that those probably all feed into a candidate's chances of success, and may even overwhelm whether a candidate is moderate.
As I have said before, it isn't a law that "moderates always win". Its one factor. Its just a statistical thing... if all other factors are the same, the moderate will
usually win.
The article you referenced does talk about moderation (even admitting that it was an advantage in the past). Its only evidence that it was not an issue was when it stated:
Abramowitz’s analysis of the 2018 House elections turned up evidence that an incumbent candidate’s past voting record — whether they were more moderate or not — didn’t really make much of a difference in whether they won or lost...
Even there its not completely discounting the effect of moderation... it says it "didn't make much difference" rather than "it made no difference".
If I'm tempted to handwave anything, it's Yglesias' contention that Trump ran as a moderate. He didn't. And he'd have to explain why Clinton then lost, given that she did.
Actually I have also made the claim that Trump ran as a moderate.
Yes, Trump was a bigot back in the 2016 elections (as he is now). And yes, he is a well-known liar, and many of his policies were poorly thought out (if not outright contradictory). But, a willingness to believe in lies is not always a left wing/right wing/centerist thing. And if someone was gullible enough to believe in Trump, what would you see? A republican politician who: claimed he opposed the war in Iraq (it was a lie, but again, I'm not talking about Trump's honesty but his political positions), would not touch medicare/social security, would provide a "great" health care plan, and although he was often vague about things like gay marriage, he said he would "protect" LGBTQ people.
Compared to your average republican at the time, an anti-war candidate who would protect your social security and provide health care would be seen as quite moderate.
And even if you assume Trump was extreme, remember that he still lost the popular vote, and only became president through a combination of the Electoral College, Russian interference, and voter suppression. (Even if being a moderate provides some advantages, sometimes it may not necessarily be enough to overcome other disadvantages.)
