“Romney is the strongest to face Obama in the Fall, because he appeals the most to moderate voters.”
This is a line of thinking so often repeated, that it’s just assumed as a given to be correct. I mean, surely the candidate who is most moderate would obviously appeal to independent voters, since, he’s in the middle and they’re in the middle. This is ingrained in most prognosticator’s skulls so badly, that it almost doesn’t matter that it’s flat wrong.
Or at least it’s been wrong for thirty years. Let’s take a quick look back at history.
“Ronald Reagan is way too conservative to win. There’s no way he can.” Two-term president who won in landslides. “George H. W. Bush is much less conservative than Reagan, and should appeal more to moderates.” Lost to Bill Clinton. “Bob Dole is a moderate senator who can end all the bitter partisanship of the Clinton years.” Lost big time to Clinton. “George W. Bush is way too conservative to win. He’s gone too far to the right.” Two-term president. “John McCain is a maverick who can excite independent voters and Obama is too liberal.” Obama won. “The Tea Party will never win because they’re too…” Sigh…
There has been a clear, unmistakable pattern over the last thirty years where the most “reasonable” candidate seems to get their clock cleaned. So why haven’t prognosticators picked up on this pattern?
For one thing, it may have to do with a common misconception about independent voters. People seem to think that independent voters don’t commit to a party because they’re firmly middle of the road, but let’s be honest, everyone considers themselves middle of the road. I don’t know anyone who would label themselves as a “radical.” Rick Santorum fans think they’re the most reasonable for wanting a Theocracy, Bernie Sanders fans think they’re the most reasonable for wanting a socialist revolution, and Ron Paul fans think they’re the most reasonable for basically wanting a one-man dictatorship that re-shapes America into a “Libertarian” country.
It’s not inconceivable for an “independent” voter to actually be more liberal or conservative than people who claim a party. The difference is whether they make the effort to vote at all or not. An “independent” might actually be TOO liberal to be enthused enough about John Kerry to vote or too conservative to feel a need to vote for John McCain.
Plus, the idea that independents are these wise voters sitting back gathering information and then making the most informed decision is a flat-out myth. Every study I’ve ever seen says that independent/moderate voters are actually the LEAST informed of all voters.
And that makes sense on a fundamental level: If someone is watching Faux News or MSNBC, sure they’re getting their slant, but at least they’re keeping up with something they’re interested in—-politics. If someone is “moderate” or “middle of the road,” then they don’t really care about politics and probably watch VH1 or E or anything that won’t expose them to it. I’m fond of saying that if you’ve got all the information, you’re a liberal, if you’ve got half the information, you’re a conservative, and if you’ve got no information, you’re an independent.
What independent voters use far more than “facts” or “reason” is a gut-instinct. A feeling that one person is better than the other. The last thirty years have shown that that person winds up being the one with the most passionate following from their base. And something tells me this cycle won’t be any different.