Vote: Publish pending minor changes
[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
Overall, this was an extremely well written article, and it was a pleasure to read. There were a few minor issues and one more substantial item that would make it easier for. First, the author goes back and forth between the use of extreme right and radical right. It would be beneficial to review Mudde (2019) on the differences of the terms to make the manuscript clearer to readers. Additionally, it would be great to get a sense on just how much more support the NRM received from 2010 to 2018. Is it possible to include the percent of the vote, or number of votes, which could help unpack if the NRM is becoming a more mainstream political party? The last minor issue is to discuss more explicitly the limitations of the study, which are not thoroughly addressed. As far as the more substantial suggestion. The current structure of the manuscript makes it challenging for the reader to remember each of the categories that are unpacked in the 2010 and 2018 time periods. Instead, could the paper be restructured to look at each category from the 2010 and 2018 in the same section, instead of breaking it up by year. This way the reader would be able to see the readily see the pattern for each area of inquiry, instead of trying to remember everything from the earlier period when reading the later period.
Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. John Wiley & Sons.