The effect of combining a populist rhetoric into right-wing positions on candidates’ electoral support

Abstract

The recent electoral success of right-wing populists in various democracies sparked a rich body of studies investigating the causes of populists’ mass support. These studies agree that populists’ “thick” policy positions, such as anti-immigration and social conservatism, partially explain their support, but there are mixed findings on whether populists’ “thin” rhetoric affects support for populists. This paper examines this problem by asking if combining a “thin” populism with different “thick” positions gives candidates any electoral advantage over adopting only the latter. Using an original conjoint experiment conducted in the US, it shows that populist leaders’ “thin” rhetoric alone does not affect their electoral support. However, when right-wing candidates combine “thin” populism with “thick” positions, the effect of combining these two stances on candidates’ ratings is substantially larger than adopting the same respective right-wing positions but not combining them with populism. This was found only among right-wing voters who hold populist attitudes, suggesting that populism can be electorally advantageous for right-wing candidates, but it does not lead voters to cross ideology lines because of populism.