By and large, if you have opinions on stuff, one party meets your needs better than another, and you say, 'better 6 out of 10 then 4' very few genuinely straddle the middle. Some, of course, simply have views which are too antithetical to be with either group, many libertarians are of this group, I wouldn't call them moderate, even though many if judged on a dem-rep axis would show up as such.

We are very specifically not talking about people who after careful study and review just can't align with either party, we're talking about people who don't know much and have chosen to assume non-partisianship is somehow on a higher moral plane, a celebration of ignorance, though they would never admit to it.

It is definetly better, as you say, to acknowledge neutrality if you meet that bill, but really, how often does someone who is genuinely knowledgeable of politics have no opinion on something? Fairly common, sure, but all the issues? Not very often. Yes, later on it isn't abnormal to have some sort of issue where you say "Well, I don't really support tariffs but I understand why we need them, so either is fine by me" or such. This is that less than 10% I refer to. They're entirely ready to give the pros and cons.

Let's take a case like israel and palestine. Lots of people have a side on that issue, right or wrong. How often do you hear some ninny say "I just don't see what their arguing about" that's the group of mods I dislike. They don't know what they're talking about, but they still decide to have a position and they basically picked it for some sort of illusionary 'higher moral ground' when in reality they simply don't know what they're talking about, and they simply don't get that while neutrality is an option, neutrality through ignorance is just as bad or worse than picking a side.

These are the sorts who if one side was horribly wrong and the other totally right would still be 'moderate', and they're saved from this normally because on most major issues if both sides don't have a bunch of good points one side would already have one. I truly think a lot of them would be neutral on genocide or slavery in the right circumstances, and I think history circa 1930s or 1850s backs that.

But I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, it is entirely possible to be moderate and know you're stuff, it just tends to be the minority, and I generally dislike the reasoning of most who pick this stance.