Will You Say Anything to get Elected?

During the first Democratic debate of this election cycle, Anderson Cooper "confronted Hillary Clinton with a laundry list of issues where her position has shifted."  Over a 25 year career, it appears that Clinton's values have changed drastically on many major issues (Keystone XL, Iraq War, War on Drugs).  On the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump appears to have crammed that same amount of policy change in a year of campaigning for the presidency. While their time in the political arena contrast vastly, the criticism from each candidates' opponents is almost the same.  For Clinton, the perception is "will you say anything to get elected?" For Trump, it's sifting through his statements to find "the most elusive presidential platform in modern history," Different candidates, Different levels of political experience, the same criticism of inconsistency in values.

Does this line up with Hotelling and Downs models? In both theories, the shifting of policies in order to gain voters is generally encouraged. Hotelling argues that it is in this competition that true stability among political parties is found. There is no limit to the number of changes a candidate can make in order to grab votes while also not alienating their supporters.  The main takeaway of each model is that eventually, whether in the political spectrum or grocery stores, the two opposing parties will end up as close as possible to the midpoint to gain the most voters and shoppers as possible. If Downs' assumptions hold, the "voters have as their goal the attainment of a government responsive to their wants" (Downs, 12). Using this statement, wouldn't it be beneficial for the voters when Clinton and Trump change their policies based on the perceived desires and values of the electorate?

Perhaps there needs to be further examination of the Downs' model. If it takes many changes in policy to reach the median, will the number of alienated voters increase due to the perception that the candidate is more concerned with "political expediency" than the values of the people? Furthermore, could this new metric of measuring alienation influence the deterministic voting model presented by Mueller if the candidate moves too far from their position on the political spectrum? In essence, would the perception that the candidate does not take into account the wishes of the people cause more alienation among voters so that they abstain.  If this is true, it makes sense that their opponents would accuse them of "political expediency" regardless of their time in office.