"One of the truly ancient debates in U.S. political circles is whether candidates in highly competitive partisan elections can best win by persuading swing voters or mobilizing base voters. There's no absolute identity between ideology and strategy, but speaking generally, right- or left-wing ideologues tend to adopt base mobilization strategies that don't require any accommodation of the other party's views. Republican or Democratic "moderates" generally hew to the "median voter theory" that winning over a swing voter is especially effective because it adds a vote to one's own column while denying a vote to the opposing candidate. So they value cross-over voting as much as turnout advantages."
"Hardly anyone would deny that in the Trump-era Republicans have gone over almost completely to the base mobilization strategy. To the extent MAGA candidates try to persuade swing voters, it's mostly via vicious attacks on the opposition as extremists, encouraging a lesser-of-two-evils voting or even non-voting by "moderates." But among Democrats, the base-versus-swing debate rages on, and we may be about to see a laboratory test of the two approaches in a red-hot Texas Senate contest."
Candidates in highly competitive partisan elections face a strategic choice between persuading swing voters and mobilizing base voters. Right- and left-wing ideologues generally pursue base mobilization that avoids accommodating the other party's views. Moderates follow median-voter theory, valuing crossover persuasion as much as turnout. Republicans in the Trump era have largely embraced base mobilization, often attacking opponents as extremists to depress crossover support. Democrats remain divided between base and swing strategies. The 2026 Senate path depends on surprises in red states, and a contentious Texas Senate contest may provide a real-world test of which approach proves more effective.
Read at Intelligencer
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]