Great post on Quora which I copied (too bad I didn't write this myself):
Why are there no moderate Republican candidates?
David Schneider, Retired Professor of Psychology
Many good answers here. The GOP long ago make a bargain with the South (based at the time --1968 election-- onn race issues -- not so much now) and with evangelical voters among others. Others have mentioned that there are two wings to the party -- roughly interested in economic or in social issues. The bargains they have made have meant that a significant number of GOP voters are less interested in economic issues than in social, and the latter tend to be one-issue voters, passionate in their beliefs, and not open to compromise. Over time the social wing has captured the party. The fact that many, perhaps most, voters either disagree with them or don't care about things like abortion, gay marriage, crime, immigration, etc. means that they fight an uphill battle when it comes to the general election. They don't seem to get that.
Another issue is that the far right wing can rightly say that the the more moderate wing has had a terrible record in national elections. Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and then Romney. Yes, I am well aware that Bush II won both elections (well the first one by the deciding vote of the conservative Supreme Court) but he has become toxic as witnessed the poor showing of bother Jeb. The Bush issue is complicated, but along with the war many conservatives hold him responsible for a gigantic increase in the debt (those few Republicans who acknowledge being aware of that fact) and his support for social programs including the drug additions to Medicaid. There are, of course, lots of reasons why these other candidates have done poorly -- lack of charisma is one -- but nonetheless uninformed GOP folks blame those loses on the fact that they were moderate. Then there's Ford and Nixon both moderate by contemporary standards -- Ford did little and lost an election, and Nixon -- well another complicated case. And they point to Reagan's success as a "real conservative" ignoring the fact that he was moderate or silent on a lot of social issues, and that by contemporary GOP standards he would be a moderate on economic issues; also they ignore his many failures (dramatic increases in the debt as one example). He was popular for several reasons, but at the end of the day he was pragmatic (meaning, among other things, willing to compromise) and far less doctrinaire than his rhetoric might suggest. The net result is a myth that the reason that the GOP keeps losing Presidential elections is because the candidates are too moderate. If only they would present a real conservative platform, voters would flock to their messages.
There is an interesting social psychological theory called naive realism. The simplistic but basic idea is that we tend to think that we are in contact with reality so that those who disagree with us are either deluded, ignorant, or crazy. Sound like any political rhetoric you have heard? People tend to overestimate (sometimes wildly) the extent to which others agree with them. So, for example, we've heard a lot from right wing folks that the idea of gay marriage is wildly unpopular when in fact it's supported by a majority or plurality of voters (by small margins admittedly). Those who oppose abortion think that their position is held by far more people than is the case. So they are convinced that if a GOP candidate ran on a platform that endorsed their views, he would win handily because, well, everyone knows that abortion is wrong, that gay marriage is an abomination, that illegal immigration is leading to the downfall of civilization as we know it, that Muslims are evil, etc. Three points to make in that regard. First, liberals also overestimate support for their ideas (although typically not as much as conservatives). Second, a lot of these hot button issues are subject to framing effects -- shorthand for saying that how the question is phrased makes a big difference. So some ways of asking about abortion show more opposition than others. And third this over-estimation of the popularity of one's opinions is not a mystery. Most 0f us live with, work with, and socialize with people who are mostly just like us and who tend to share the same views. It's just as hard for a Northern CA liberal (say from Silicon Valley) to understand why an Indiana farmer has fairly conservative views as the reverse. Speaking personally, to the best of my knowledge, I only know well two Republican families, and we just don't talk about politics for obvious reasons.
In that regard, conservatives have made a bargain with the devil in supporting people like Rush, Glen Beck (and the other Fox "commentators"). It's not so much that they are conservative as the fact that they deliberately lie, distort more than most political commentators, and use inflammatory language (who wants to listen to a conservative who is reasonable?). These folks get many conservatives fired up and eager to show their displeasure with any form of moderation. It's comparatively rare to hear any GOP politician openly criticize these folks although privately many of them wish they would go away. Until we hear GOP candidates openly saying that Rush is crazy, he will continue to influence some voters and they will continue to lose elections. I quite appreciate that anyone who criticizes the crazies probably forfeits chances of being nominated, but there you are. Not my problem.
Finally the GOP primaries are rigged to lean conservative. When your first three primaries are Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, there's no percentage in being a moderate if you hope to still be a candidate in March.
