Why do the major political parties keep picking candidates that are extreme in their views?

Question

The presidential candidates are always so far left and so far right. Why not even the playing field by nominating someone who is more in the middle, like most americans?
I am a Christian, but not everyone is. Gays are not in the majority and neither are foreigners, so why choose to target these groups as a reason to elect you? Why not focus on things that are important to Americans in general, like education, health care, and social security.
Why do people get so stuck on the minor issues that will probably never be resolved?

Answer 1

Because education, health care, and social security are not sexy. Terrorism and foreigners sounds good in a news flash. Those first three things make me want to change the channel.

On the candidates the way it seems is that the candidates start off far left or right to get supporters and than slowly go to the middle to get more support. Moderates decide who leads the USA, not the extreme.

Answer 2

Margaret Thatcher once said that people who stand in the middle of the road tend to get knocked down by the traffic coming from both directions.

By definition, the parties do not nominate "extremists." Or perhaps it is more appropriate to say that the best evidence that a party HAS nominated an extremist is the fact that the nominee lost by a landslide (Goldwater in '64, McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84). Be that is it may, the Republicans will nominate someone who is generally conservative and the Democrats will nominate someone who is generally liberal and then both nominees will "hug the center" in order to get elected.

Don't act as if the issues of gay marriage and illegal immigration are not "important" just because you think that there are other things that are more important to you. And I do think that there are three possible solutions to the issue of gay marriage: 1) legalize it, 2) don't legalize it, or 3) compromise (civil unions). Illegal immigration, on the other hand, is indeed an insoluble problem.

Answer 3

Most presidential candidates are never far left or right. A president has not been elected without the moderate vote in decades.
They are the "swing" vote - those who are moderate enough they will cross back & forth between Democrat & Republican.
Everyone tries to play to some extreme issues at conventions but the final dominee will be more moderate in outlook.

Answer 4

They're all trying to get the swing vote. The 50% of party voters that can go either way. Personally, I think the whole idea of voting out of fear of a black hat backfired.
By trying to keep us afraid of this and that, politicians seem to have driven a lot of people nuts. And not just in the good 'ole USA.

Answer 5

It's the primary system. To get nominated in a primary, a candidate has to appeal to a broad spectrum of his party, including the lunatic fringes. I wish that there were a simple fix for this; there isn't.

Answer 6

We know who the current democratic candidate will be, more than likely, and they are indeed far left. Who is the republican that is far right? Bush is not a true conservative in all areas. So he is not far right.

Answer 7

the radicals are more likely to vote I guess

but I don't really believe that we have had many radicals lately though

Clinton was notable for being moderate, so was old Bush; Kerry, Gore, and Dole were certainly not extremists either

Answer 8

the bigger issues are the vote getters and it is a two way street I agree with you

Answer 9

Hillary is a liberal. Look at her record.

Answer 10

Hillary is a centrist,,, look at her record