At a public discussion at the National Governors Association summer meeting in Oklahoma City, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-Okla.) and Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.) argued that the structure of partisan primaries and the dynamics of social media are driving elected officials toward the extremes of their parties, complicating efforts to govern and to appeal to broader electorates.
Consensus on problems, disagreement on remedies
Speaking during a moderated conversation that included Dr. Tim Shriver, the two governors described a political environment in which candidates who cater to the most energized elements of their base often prevail in primaries, only to face different challenges in general elections. Stitt framed the issue as a practical obstacle for politicians who must first survive intraparty contests before competing in the broader electorate.
"Of course, you get to the general election, it wins. But the problem is, you got to get through the primaries,"
Both men stressed they share large areas of agreement on policy priorities, pointing to common objectives such as improving education, infrastructure, health care and economic performance. Moore characterized most officeholders as motivated by similar goals rather than strict partisan identity.
Social media and the incentives of primaries
They singled out social media as amplifying polarization by rewarding combative, attention-grabbing commentary. Stitt said it’s easier in that environment for candidates to take aggressive positions that win primary contests but can become liabilities in broader contests. Moore echoed that point and suggested that politicians who focus on divisive rhetoric risk marginalizing themselves.
The governors used their own political trajectories as examples of the tension: each faces pressure from different ideological directions inside their parties, Stitt on the right and Moore on the left, even as they said policy aims often overlap.
History, dignity and political tone
When asked to identify an exemplar of the kind of dignity he endorsed, Moore invoked an ancestor, describing a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather who fought at Bunker Hill and Concord, noting the complexity of serving a nation that did not yet regard him as fully equal. He used the reference to make a broader point about public sacrifice and the moral stakes of civic life.
"He knew that he was willing to sacrifice for this country, because he was willing to sacrifice for the hope of its future,"
The remarks reflect a broader refrain among some elected officials who argue that restoring a more civil tone could appeal to the sizable portion of voters who do not primarily identify by party.
Implications for national politics
The governors’ comments underscore how structural features of the nominating process shape candidate selection and political messaging. If the dynamic Stitt described—where the most extreme primary contenders advance—holds, it presents a persistent challenge for parties seeking nominees who can win competitive general elections. Their conversation also signals growing bipartisan attention to the role of technology platforms in shaping incentives for politicians.
Policy prescriptions were not detailed during the session. Instead, the exchange stressed shared concerns about the health of democratic norms and the incentives created by current campaign and communication systems.
- Issue: Partisan primaries can incentivize more extreme candidates.
- Consequence: Candidates who win primaries may struggle in general elections.
- Amplifier: Social media rewards polarized messaging, according to both governors.
| Governor | Party | Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Kevin Stitt | Republican | Being outflanked on the right in primaries |
| Wes Moore | Democrat | Being outflanked on the left in primaries |
The dialogue at the National Governors Association reflects an ongoing debate about how to reconcile internal party dynamics with the need to govern in a politically diverse country. Whether proposals to change primary systems, alter party nomination rules, or regulate platforms gain traction remains an open question, but the governors’ comments add a prominent bipartisan voice to the conversation about incentives that shape contemporary American politics.
