Instead of taking moderate positions somewhere in between the polar left and right wing positions, utilize tactics and policies that each side favors to achieve political balance.
Moderatism promotes compromise in the "if both sides are unhappy it must be a fair deal" sense.
Balanced compromise seeks to meet needs of both sides providing a "we can do both if we can agree what to sacrifice collectively.
This works because political arguments are rarely opposing views on a spectrum in conflict. They are values on different spectrum issues that come into conflict only when those spectrums overlap.
Ex: immigration is not about if people should be allowed to come into the country or not. It is fear of racial prejudice overlapping fear of a diluted tax base bleeding public assistance dollars out of the country to non-citizens. The issue is further complicated by drug and crime issues that also overlap. You can't solve these issues by picking a point on the immigration policy continuum. You clearify each indiviudal interest and address each issue as it is. Then you can incorporate those solutions into a comprehensive complimentary plan.
Extreme positions get you noticed in a mass media. But in a targeted permission marketing connection economy moderates can be reached.