Final answer:
Presidential candidates with moderate views often win because they appeal to the broadest group of voters, from undecided centrists to less extreme partisans, in a politically diverse electorate. The U.S.'s two-party system and strategic voting also favor moderates, who are seen as more viable in a winner-take-all electoral system.
Step-by-step explanation:
Presidential candidates with moderate views often win elections because they appeal to the widest spectrum of voters, which is crucial in a politically diverse electorate. Centrist policies tend to attract undecided voters and those who are less ideologically extreme, providing a broader base of support. In primaries, while more extreme views might energize the base, they can alienate moderate voters who are key in general elections. In the general election, candidates need to win the support of the general population, which is often more moderate than the party extremes.
Candidates like President Bill Clinton in 1996 successfully employed the strategy of appealing to a broad range of voters by adopting moderate stances. This helped him secure votes from both moderate conservatives and liberal supporters, ensuring his reelection. Moreover, the two-party system in the United States, with its 'winner-take-all' approach, tends to marginalize third parties and reinforces the idea that votes for moderates are more effective; voters often cast strategic votes for candidates they believe can win. Therefore, moderate candidates can navigate through the complexities of the electoral system more effectively and emerge as the most viable candidates.