system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: There are no swing voters and policy doesn't matter. Last 4 presidents were only determined by excited/bored Democrats.

There exists a spectrum of political beliefs from far left to far right. A candidate crafts a message to appeal to a continuous range somewhere on this line. If he’s too far right, he’ll miss the middle. If she’s too centrist, she’ll miss the far left. You must choose each public position very carefully, because it will gain votes from one side of your targeted range and lose votes from the other side. It’s important to be exceptionally careful with which direction you migrate, since the loss and gain will probably not be equal.

This has been the accepted wisdom for as long as I can remember. I didn’t know it was possible to even question it. Based solely on the numbers, however, I believe something very different is going on. The same rules don’t even apply to the different parties. Here’s what I’m proposing, and I’m especially looking for hard data to refute this. Specifically, the last three elections.

There are a lot of Democrats, and how many turn out to vote depends on how excited they are about their candidate. Gore was pretty boring, so he got 50m. Kerry made it to 60m because they really wanted to defeat Bush in a rematch. They were very excited about Obama the first time, so 70m turned out, and a less excited 65m the second time. People weren’t too excited about Hillary, so she only got 60m. The variation between 50m and 70m is enormous.

Republicans, however, consistently turn out to vote for their candidate. Their last four candidates got 60m votes. Whether it’s Bush the second time around after he started the Iraq war, McCain the friendly war veteran who ran on being mavricky, level-headed Romney the consummate businessman, or Trump the blowhard lying racist, sexist, tax-dodging real estate mogul, it doesn’t matter. Sixty million Republicans will consistently come out and vote for them all. They may wring their hands when the media asks and claim to weigh his personal life against Hillary’s e-mails, but it’s all for show. They never really considered doing anything but punching the chad next to whoever’s name is next to the R.

If these analyses are correct, then the strategy each party should pursue is wildly different, and neither has anything to do with whether to capture centrists at the cost of the base or vice versa.

Republicans can field whatever candidate they want. A black Christian doctor, a racist grandpa who’s never held any office, or probably even a wrestler. The same people will vote for him. Maybe not the same people, I don’t know, but for every centrist lost, it appears exactly one extremist is gained. The Republicans discovered this with Trump. (Are they the same people or is it +5m extremists and -5m moderates? Do we have that kind of data?)

The relevant takeaway for Democrats is that only enthusiasm matters. Centrist or far left isn’t particularly important. Obama is a centrist but killed it with enthusiasm while Hillary has almost exactly the same policy and did not. Bernie is far left and, perhaps, would’ve done so, too, I don’t claim to know but suspect so. The Democrats must field candidates that awaken people who may not vote if they’re not sufficiently excited. There are apparently tons out there, enough for a permanent Democratic majority, if only they were sufficiently excited by a candidate.

This is a pretty outlandish view, since it implies that there aren’t a meaningful number of swing voters that usually vote Republican and occasionally pick a Democrat (or vice versa) when they see a someone they like. We often see maps showing Trump winning precincts that Obama handily won and it gives us the impression that the same people are changing their votes from one election to the next. Looking at the raw numbers, what’s really happening is the same number of Republicans are voting for whoever the Republican is, and the excitement-sensitive Democrats are either turning out or staying home, solely determining every one of the past four elections.
gpt
Obviously turnout is a huge factor and it's been established for quite a while that Republican voters turnout more reliably across all elections, mostly because they are older.

In the same vein, younger voters tend to vote strongly Democrat but also have a much lower turnout.

So yeah, what you say is true but it's not the only deciding factor.

The message and policy behind the candidates do have an effect on swinging votes, however this happens more on a macro level.

To wit, it's not that long ago that a rich Wall-Street banker would have been the stereotypical Republican voter whereas a Rust Belt Unionist would be a guaranteed Democrat vote.

This has almost switched by now, as the partys have changed their focus a bit.

People aren't just aligned on a left-right axis, even in a absolutely simplified view most voters tend to have an ideology along at least two axes, economic and social.

Some voter groups are economically left and socially conservative (e.g. majority of Unionists, older Black and Hispanic voters,etc.) while some voters are economically right to centrist and socially liberal (e.g. Silicon Valley and Wall-Street types).

Depending on where a candidate puts their focus they can expect to get other types of votes.

E.g. Romney or Kasich can speak to the Wall-Street type whereas Trump could not.

A lot of voters do tend to vote strictly along party lines and here is where turnout matters the most. However a lot of people vote according to their pet issues (LGBT rights, trade policy, immigration policy, etc.) and depending on the ideas offered by the candidates can and do switch their vote.

Also agreeing with policies is relevant to turnout the same way charisma is.