CANDIDATE PERCEPTION AMONG NOMINATION ACTIVISTS - A NEW LOOK AT THE MODERATION HYPOTHESIS

The moderation hypothesis, that ideologically moderate candidates in a two-party contest are more likely to win elections than extreme candidates, is both prevailing wisdom and a major conclusion of spatial theories of elections. We examine the hypothesis using perceptual data from samples of caucus attenders in the 1984 and 1988 presidential nomination campaigns at both the individual and the cross-candidate levels of analysis. In both analyses, we find qualified support for the moderation hypothesis. In explaining individuals' perceptions of the four nominees' electability, we find a modest effect of perceived proximity to the American voter for all candidates, save George Bush. Other variables, such as party, candidate affect, and nomination chances are stronger predictors, and the candidate's perceived abilities on TV rivals moderation in its impact. In our comparative analysis of some 20 candidates, we find that Ronald Reagan and John Glenn were very significant outliers in what is otherwise a strong relationship between moderation and electability. We also find that performance on TV is a strong and significant predictor of electability. We conclude that the moderation hypothesis holds up reasonably well for the large majority of candidates, but that other candidate factors are also important to include in any complete assessment of candidate electability in November.