"L (or R) candidate lost the election because he was not L (or R) enough"

[buritobr]

In many countries in many times, we here supporters of the losing candidate saying

"The left-wing candidate lost the election because he was not leftist enough, and so, the people preferred the original to the copy"
or
"The right-wing candidate lost the election because he was not rightist enough, and so, the people preferred the original to the copy"

Usually, I don't believe in these sentences. I think that in most of the cases, it is pure wishful thinking. Even the person who is saying doesn't believe sincerely.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of all the factors politicians lose elections due to, ideology is very rarely one of them. So there's no such thing as "being too left" or "being too right" or "being too moderate" ...

[Zioneer]

Part of it is the state's political culture (both ideology and general attitude), and part of it is the personality of an individual candidate. Additionally, many elections have complicating factors.

But for example, Alan Grayson in Florida is a bad fit for his state and would not win because 1) He's more liberal than the state is (the state barely goes for Democratic for President in most years), and 2) his liberalness manifests itself as a smarmy, obnoxious superiority, which Florida voters don't seem to like (none of their other major elected offices are loudly obnoxious).

On the flip side, if your state likes a bit of obnoxiousness, then it can help: Chris Christie is to the right of his side, but New Jersey seems to have liked the mix of brash ego, pretended moderation, and carefully publicized caring moments that Christie has displayed through his years as governor (and through the disasters). Like any state though, they don't like dishonesty and corruption (well, some states like entertaining corruption, but despicable corruption like Bridgegate is a no-go anywhere).

Loudly ideological candidates tend to be a little obnoxious more often than not, so being too far right or left tends to produce obnoxious candidates, who solidify the reputation of their opposing parties in the minds of their opponents. But partisan leans of districts or states tend to protect most of the obnoxious types who manage to be elected (Louis Gohmert on the GOP or Corrine Brown on the Democratic side, for example).

In terms of pure ideology, I would say that the more moderate candidates usually win, but when a cluster of more conservative or liberal candidates win, it tends to provide an impetus for the more moderate types to move one way ideologically to keep up. Hence, why the Republicans are so right-wing; they have a nucleus of too-far-right candidates actually winning. And the voters often move with the candidate instead of the candidate moving with them. Hence why someone who happily voted for a liberal Republican back in the day could reject the same or a similar candidate running now. Why Boehner, who was a very conservative Republican when he was first elected, is now perceived as establishment and almost liberal by far-right voters (who could have voted for hypothetical liberal Republican). Boehner hasn't really moved much ideologically, but voters have.

I'm a little sleep-deprived right now so I hope this made sense and that I didn't contradict myself.

[Orser67]

I think there is some truth to needing to turn your base out.

With that said, I think this line of thought is largely a product of:

a)People being under the wrong impression that what "the people" really want are conservative/liberal policies and that if a "true conservative/liberal" would just run on those policies than they would win. Imo this opinion is formed since people assume that the people that they interact with on a day-to-day basis (and/or the internet) are representative of the country at large.

b)Motivated reasoning (basically, wishful thinking): People want to believe that a conservative/liberal candidate would be more electable, and so that is what they believe.

[buritobr]

I have the impression that American politics is asymmetric since 1980. It is not left vs. right anymore, but center vs. far right.
In the Republican primaries, the candidates try to show that they are very conservative. In the Democratic primaries, the candidates try to show that they are moderate.
John McCain and Mitt Romney hid their moderate past and tried to be more conservative than the very conservative candidates.
John Kerry convinced the Democratic voters to vote for him because he was more moderate than Howard Dean, and so, he would have more probability to win against Bush.

Is it true?

[mencken]

The swing voter is either a mythical creature or the lowest order of mankind (how can you honestly have no preference between the candidates unless you know absolutely nothing about them?) Either way, the key to winning elections is and always has been having enough conviction and charisma to motivate your base to show up while having enough empathy and charisma to not scare your opponent's base to show up.

[TJ in Oregon]

I have the impression that American politics is asymmetric since 1980. It is not left vs. right anymore, but center vs. far right.
In the Republican primaries, the candidates try to show that they are very conservative. In the Democratic primaries, the candidates try to show that they are moderate.
John McCain and Mitt Romney hid their moderate past and tried to be more conservative than the very conservative candidates.
John Kerry convinced the Democratic voters to vote for him because he was more moderate than Howard Dean, and so, he would have more probability to win against Bush.

Is it true?

Clinton and Sanders don't seem to be taking that track this year, though we may disagree on what constitutes "center", "right", and "left". I guess my view of center is something like the Blue Dogs circa the late 90s.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The swing voter is either a mythical creature or the lowest order of mankind (how can you honestly have no preference between the candidates unless you know absolutely nothing about them?) Either way, the key to winning elections is and always has been having enough conviction and charisma to motivate your base to show up while having enough empathy and charisma to not scare your opponent's base to show up.

Whether swing voters exist in significant numbers depends on what you're thinking of. The type of swing voter who is low-information and highly controlled by media narratives, yeah, those types of people definitely exist (My Mother is effectively this). But those like myself who are high-information and take an honest look at both candidates with absolutely no party preference to start, yeah, it's an insignificant number.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The swing voter is either a mythical creature or the lowest order of mankind (how can you honestly have no preference between the candidates unless you know absolutely nothing about them?) Either way, the key to winning elections is and always has been having enough conviction and charisma to motivate your base to show up while having enough empathy and charisma to not scare your opponent's base to show up.

My own swinginess depends in large part upon what issues are important at the time, which varies from election to election. At this point in the election cycle I have a rough idea who I'll be voting for in the Republican primary. but even if that candidate goes on to win and face Hillary, I don't know who I'll support in November, (I'm planning on voting in the Republican primary because it is fairly clear right now that Hillary has South Carolina locked down to the point where if the Democratic primary here were competitive, Bernie would be a shoo-in for the nomination, so that primary is unimportant. Conversely, since South Carolina won't be a swing state, I'm free to consider the various third party candidates in the general election and not worry about which is the lesser weevil of the two major party candidates.)

[mencken]

The swing voter is either a mythical creature or the lowest order of mankind (how can you honestly have no preference between the candidates unless you know absolutely nothing about them?) Either way, the key to winning elections is and always has been having enough conviction and charisma to motivate your base to show up while having enough empathy and charisma to not scare your opponent's base to show up.

My own swinginess depends in large part upon what issues are important at the time, which varies from election to election. At this point in the election cycle I have a rough idea who I'll be voting for in the Republican primary. but even if that candidate goes on to win and face Hillary, I don't know who I'll support in November, (I'm planning on voting in the Republican primary because it is fairly clear right now that Hillary has South Carolina locked down to the point where if the Democratic primary here were competitive, Bernie would be a shoo-in for the nomination, so that primary is unimportant. Conversely, since South Carolina won't be a swing state, I'm free to consider the various third party candidates in the general election and not worry about which is the lesser weevil of the two major party candidates.)

Is the idea here that issues that become relevant near the election cycle are likely to continue to be relevant in policy discussions for the subsequent four years, or that you value the issues based on the news cycle? If the latter, I would argue that my definition still applies. If the former, then I still question your judgement, as the fact that a lot can happen in 12 months that would lead you to change your vote also suggests that the issues that you voted on may be of negligible importance for over three quarters of your preferred candidate's administration.

I suppose your argument makes sense if you are solely voting out of protest, as your history of third-party voting suggests. I suppose I can understand this. I voted for Johnson in 2012 out of protest for my doubts of Romney's sincerity to small government principles. Nevertheless, I believe Romney would have been a much more competent and restrained executive than Obama, and the fact that Obama made the election a referendum on Romney's business record may have even made a vote for Romney a wiser protest vote than my ineffectual vote for Johnson.