In an American political scene that has seen the rise, fall, and rise again of one of the most extreme and controversial candidates in its history, many are left wondering: what brand of candidate constitutes a winner at the highest political levels?
The answer to that question is not a simple one, with minds from all corners of the political theater divided.
Some surmise that a down-the-middle, run-of-the-mill politician is the key to electoral victory. This belief has been echoed by many in the American political conversation; Dritan Nesho, a Harvard academic and pollster, claimed in an interview with Forbes, “It doesn’t seem like going the direction of AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and Bernie Sanders is the winning path for the Democratic party.”
While this is a common sentiment shared by many, it is simply not true.
A winning candidate for either major party is defined less by their ability to convince the few impressionable voters in the center of the political spectrum than by their ability to invigorate and motivate unlikely voters.
Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign is a supreme example of this concept. Trump ran his most radical and unabashed race by far on his way to winning back the presidency in an election that saw him gain over three million more votes than he did in 2020. In fact, he became the first Republican to win the popular vote since George W. Bush capitalized on a post-9/11 electorate during the 2004 cycle.
This campaign strategy was by no means a mistake, though. A 2024 article from Reuters details the Trump campaign’s emphasis on ‘low propensity’ voters. Low propensity voters are those who are unlikely to vote in an election. The blueprint for this style of race was first tested at the Iowa caucus in January of that same year, where Trump won 51% of the total vote — far higher than his share at his prior Iowa caucus in 2016 (24.3%). Iowa is the first state to hold a caucus and is considered among the most influential in the presidential primary cycle.
Later on, the Trump camp employed their style of emphasizing unlikely voter turnout in other states, namely Pennsylvania — the most important battleground state with 19 electoral college votes.
Meanwhile, it was apparent that the Kamala Harris campaign on the Democratic side was casting a wide net, attempting to win over a broader group of individuals by pandering to the Republican coalition instead of creating a zealous base. The most infamous example of this strategy was Harris’ decision to repeatedly campaign with Liz Cheney — the former Republican congresswoman from Wyoming’s at-large district.
“Republican voters couldn’t have cared less,” John Nichols, executive editor of The Nation wrote following the 2024 election. “The Cheney strategy was an abject failure that added few if any votes to the Democratic total.”
The same aggressive populist formula used by Trump has shown success for Democratic candidates as well. Zohran Mamdani, the current mayor of New York City, ran on one of the most politically ambitious agendas the left has seen in years.
Mamdani’s platform was characterized by a couple distinct positions. The Democratic-Socialist promised to freeze the rent in the nation’s largest city along with providing a ‘fast and free’ public bus system. These, along with a few other promises, became the mantra of a campaign that took not just New York City but the whole country by storm.
Although Mamdani ran in blue-blooded New York City, he still bested his moderate challenger, Andrew Cuomo, twice — both in the party’s primary and in the general election… a general election that saw the highest voter turnout in the City since 1969.
Not only do flame-throwing candidates have a tendency to churn out high vote totals in elections, they are also quite popular among their constituents.
Bernie Sanders, the famed progressive from Vermont, has consistently boasted one of the highest approval ratings in Congress. In fact, he was rated as the most popular senator among Vermonters, a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult showed.
Sanders, however, was not the only hardline senator to score highly in this poll. The poll also showed Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren (whose progressive record fueled a semi-successful bid for the presidency) as the upper chamber’s third most popular member.
On the other hand, officeholders that attempt to please both sides of the political spectrum often end up satisfying neither.
Susan Collins, Maine’s longtime Republican senator, consistently notches approval ratings below 50%. Collins is a self-described ‘pro-choice’ senator (a stance contrasting with the rest of her party that serves as a testament to her centrism). This strong disapproval has become especially common in recent years, with Collins only boasting a positive rating once since 2020. In contrast, Sanders has not been marked with an approval rating below 56% in that same time frame.
Although many in the political sphere would argue against hyperpartisan politicians upon examining the approval of Donald Trump. While Trump has consistently scored presidential approval ratings below 50%, he remains immensely popular among his enthusiastic base, having only lost a few percentage points since the start of his second term.
Another popular talking point commonly used by centrist advocates, especially in Nevada, regards the electoral success of Senator Jacky Rosen. It can be argued that since Rosen, a centrist, was able to secure reelection in 2024 (a year in which Republicans picked up four senate seats en route to a majority in both chambers of congress) against Republican challenger Sam Brown, a more moderate approach is needed in “purple” states.
Rosen’s victory, however, can be attributed to the “incumbency advantage,” one of the most prominent and widely accepted political theories since its development in the 1970s. The incumbency theory assumes a slight advantage to incumbent candidates, explaining Rosen’s reelection anomaly.
Candidates with radical platforms have not only run some of the most successful campaigns, but have also remained among the most popular politicians once in elected office.
It’s not that there aren’t people who sympathize with both Republicans and Democrats – in fact, most do. But there are almost none who are unable to choose a side they support more.
Given the recent success of radical, hyperpartisan candidates, the path forward for both leading political parties heading into the midterm elections this fall seems clear: In a country where roughly a third of eligible adults choose not to vote, political parties should be more focused on winning votes from non-voters rather than siphoning off supporters from other parties.
