A really obvious point that will probably make some people mad
Well, it depends. Bad press isn’t good, and neither is high unemployment. To the extent either of those are the result of gridlock, it’s probably bad for popularity.
Sorry if this is a dumb question: Don't you need an X axis here to see how much action these politicians take? Maybe political moderates aren't popular, maybe moderates who don't do much are popular?
1) Gretchen Whitmer a moderate? You just lost your credibility. 2) I despise moderates. They’re leftist enablers.
Not this year. Say goodbye to almost all of those red state Dems who have to run on Biden's horrific record. This is going to be a whoopin' of Biblical proportions. The media and big tech will try again to bury the truth about the Biden family crime syndicate and the radical left wing policies supported by these "moderates", but the cat's out of the bag now.
On what planet are Warner, Kaine, Klobuchar and Whitmer "moderates"?
And Warner DOES NOT have a +19 approval rate from any legitimate polling process. He just barely, by a handful of votes won reelection, and that was in a race where the national party did not support his opponent!
I think your causation is backward. People who can win elections in a state that heavily favors the other party will of necessity be "moderates", and that condition of course results in a large gap between personal and party favorability. This doesn't provide useful information about what a person should do to be popular in a more competitive state or one which heavily favors your party, because your extremists are both more numerous and don't have their expectations tempered by the other party's dominance. Those people won't vote for the other party - but they might not vote at all, and with so few genuinely persuadable voters today that can be decisive.
And, of course, this whole discussion ignores that outcomes can be discontinuous on policy, such that "moderate" policies can actually lead to worse outcomes than either extreme: for example, a "moderate" might spend resources to try to prevent a disaster, but not enough to do so, resulting in both the disaster and the loss of the resources.
There are a lot of names on that list who are not "moderates".
Would you rather be a moderate or someone who stands for something? Being popular doesn't necessarily mean you're in the right.
The premise is unproven. In fact, the list disproves it. Governors Abbott, DeSantis, Whitmer et al would bristle at the "moderate" label, as would their supporters and opponents.
I am familiar with Oregon and Ron Wyden's approval isn't state-wide only in the two most populist counties, Lane and Multnomah. It makes me question the rest of this poll.
Wow. Just wow. It’s stuff like this that makes libs feel informed? Fodder.
For a minority party state-wide candidate to be elected, they need lots of cross-party support. For a majority party candidate, not so much, not at all, or even not all of their own party. Is Collins more popular than King? Brown more so than Portman? Does it make them more effective?
3 years - a lot has changed. Uh, Doug Jones lost reelection in a landslide. The correct title should be "the most popular politician WERE Moderates"
Manchin is most certainly NOT a moderate, he is very solidly left.
It's just that the rest of his party has become so incredibly ultra-radical and ultra-extreme that he seems less so by contrast.
The reason the Moderates are "popular" is that both parties hope to be able to swing their votes to their side. The Moderates are not really popular, they just hold out hope to either side that they will change their vote.
I understand the love for Susan Collins. She votes mostly with the democrats. No different than Romney or McCain when he was alive. Manchin votes mostly with the Republicans.