Nate Silver: Moderate Candidates' Electoral Advantage Increasingly Challenged by Hyper-Partisanship

Renowned political statistician Nate Silver recently weighed in on the ongoing "WAR wars" in political analysis, asserting that while moderate candidates historically win more often, the current era of hyper-partisanship is significantly complicating this trend. In a social media post, Silver, founder of the influential FiveThirtyEight and now publishing on his "Silver Bulletin" Substack, stated, > "Me on the WAR wars. Having studied this a LOT, I do think moderate candidates win more often, but it's getting more complicated in an an era of hyper-partisanship." This commentary highlights a key debate among election forecasters regarding the efficacy of candidate moderation in contemporary politics.

The "WAR wars" refer to discussions surrounding "Wins Above Replacement" (WAR), a metric adapted from sports analytics by political modeling sites like Split Ticket. This sophisticated metric attempts to quantify a candidate's electoral performance relative to data-based expectations, aiming to isolate their individual quality and campaign effectiveness from broader partisan or demographic trends. The debate often centers on how accurately WAR can measure this "candidate quality" and its true impact on election outcomes, especially as political landscapes shift.

Silver's insights, detailed further in his "Real talk on models, moderation, and the misuse of academic authority" post on Silver Bulletin, delve into the nuances of the median voter theorem and its diminishing relevance. Historically, this theorem suggests that candidates who align more closely with the ideological center tend to be more successful in general elections. Silver acknowledges this principle, noting that moderation has often provided a tangible electoral advantage by appealing to a broader base of voters.

However, he emphasizes that the increasing ideological coherence and polarization of political parties mean voters infer more from simple party labels, potentially reducing the impact of a candidate's individual moderate stance. This heightened partisanship leads to a situation where traditional "candidate quality" factors, including perceived moderation and even incumbency, are becoming less influential. Electoral contests are increasingly driven by national partisan tides and the base mobilization of each party, rather than a candidate's ability to sway undecided centrist voters.

The shift towards hyper-partisanship creates a challenging environment for candidates attempting to appeal across the political spectrum, as the middle ground shrinks. While a "moderation bonus" of a few percentage points in vote share might still exist, its overall impact is diminished when elections are decided by razor-thin margins and deeply entrenched partisan divisions. Silver's remarks also underscore the broader, often contentious, landscape of political modeling and forecasting, where analysts continuously grapple with adapting their methodologies to capture the complexities of modern electoral behavior. His ongoing work on Silver Bulletin continues to analyze these phenomena, contributing to the evolving understanding of political success.