When everyone talks about migration: how mainstream parties shift to the right and still lose

The rise of populist radical right parties (PRRPs) has prompted mainstream parties (MPs) to adopt more sceptical positions toward immigration. Spatial theory suggests that MPs benefit electorally by adopting issues associated with PRRPs. However, empirical evidence indicates adverse effects as this strategy bears the potential to legitimise the radical right’s core agenda. This study investigates whether centre-left and centre-right MPs gain or lose from a visible right-wing shift on migration during campaigns in which a significant proportion of people identify immigration as the most pressing issue, making the accommodation strategy seem more promising. Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) on fourteen high-salience elections and 37 MPs, we show that, even in contexts of high issue salience, MPs do not benefit from adopting tougher stances on immigration. While a right-wing shift is not a necessary condition for significant vote losses, not shifting to the right is a sufficient condition for avoiding considerable losses to PRRPs. We describe further conditions that could influence voter migration between MPs and PRRPs.