I first learned about this during the 04 election, they make it very technical in this article but it’s really not that tough. Here’s the easy understanding:
By and large the country is divided in 3rds: there’s the conservative 3rd, the liberal 3rd, and everybody else (aka the Mushy Middle).
The Mushy Middle are the people that really decide election.
TMM likes incumbents, but they don’t like the allies of incumbents.
So in 2004 The Mushy Middle theory said Bush would win re-election, the Dems would win seats in 06, the White House in 08, retain the White House in 12. And also that the GOP would gain seats in 10 and 14, and win the White House in 16, and retain in 20. While of course the Dems gain seats in 18 and 22 and get the White House back in 24.
The theory does a good job of explaining the vast majority of national elections since the Civil War. And even the exceptions really make sense. The GOP gained seats in 2002 because the Dems tried to turn it into 2000 redux and TMM said “no we really did mean to elect Bush”, similar to 98. Bush 1 won the presidency basically by running as an incumbent (”4 more years” was the cry) banking on Reagan’s popularity, 4 years later TMM said “you ain’t him” and out he went. Carter was such a train wreck the power of incumbency didn’t help. And that’s pretty much all the exceptions.
It’s kind of depressing actually how predictable things are.
Yeah. Especially how high JEB’s poll numbers ain’t.And the identity of the leading Republican candidate . . .
Actually, I agree with your analysis otherwise. But rather than relying on a “mushy middle” theory, IMHO turnout is usually the trump card.Same effect, except that the mushy middle theory tells the GOPe that they really are going to win if they avoid associating with conservatives. Whereas the turnout theory says you can gain more by going conservative than you lose in the middle.