Many people who visit here ("DK") or RedState, follow politics and understand civics. They get policy arguments, and grasp the relationship between outcomes on the one hand, and on the other, liberal leaning or conservative leaning leaders. One characteristic shared by all of those who are cognizant of, and are wedded to one side of the political spectrum is that they seem incapable of comprehending their status as representing the mindset of only a tiny fraction of the mass of voters in a presidential election. On both the liberal and conservative wings, the true believers live in a bubble that hides from them the truth about the people who actually elect presidents (or other leaders).
From the Republicans, we are offered extremists who are uncompromising in their devotion to policies that have few virtues to recommend for the betterment of the voters at large, and in many respects are odious, stupid, laughable, or in service to a special interest that is anathema to what would be good for the average voter.
On the left, we have seen elections lost by devotees of ideological candidates such as Ralph Nader; and then there were the gift-candidates the left gave to Nixon, and Bush I -who pleased the left wing base, but could not make a sale to the country.
What is missing from the ardent followers of the left or right is acceptance of the historical fact that absent a near revolution (which seems unlikely in 2016) the voters will be like sightseeing tourists in the voting booth, or casual shoppers with little knowledge of the features being offered by the candidates. The average voters will not be digging into the policies of the candidates, learning their records of achievement and consistency, or even worrying about what kind of Supreme Court they might be indirectly picking.
Therefore, the winner in 2016 will be the candidate who will seem to the voters to be the most entertaining, novel and comfortable as a figure on the TV who will be intruding on their lives in times of emergency or national importance.