American Thinker

by Joseph Ford Cotto

    The economy will not determine how the midterms play out. Coming from me, that may surprise a few people.

    In 2024, I created the Five-Point Forecast. This model asserted that household economics would decide the race between President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Its five points were economic sentiment and inflation; jobs and growth as voters actually felt them; energy prices and consumer confidence; public judgment of Washington’s economic responsiveness; and the exact polling which had earned trust.

    That forecast correctly called Trump’s national victory and every swing state. It worked because a presidential electorate still featured enough movable voters for prices, wages, fuel bills, and distrust of government spending to cut through old partisan habits.

    The midterms are a different animal.

    Presidential years pull in a gargantuan slice of the country. Midterm years do not. Since 1980, reported turnout among voting-age citizens has averaged 63 percent in presidential elections, but only 48 percent in midterms. A 15-point drop-off changes who shows up. The remaining voters are older, more settled, and far less willing to split tickets over a jobs report. They vote because they already pledge allegiance to their side.

    Verified records prove the process. Sixty-eight percent of 2020 presidential voters returned in 2022. Trump’s 2020 supporters turned out at 71 percent. President Joe Biden’s supporters turned out at 67 percent. Among people who voted in both 2018 and 2022, 95 percent of 2018 Republicans and 92 percent of 2018 Democrats stayed with the same party. Switching was barely a ripple.

    That is why the Five-Point Forecast does not travel.

    In 2024, inflation’s peak of 9.1 percent in June 2022, the lag between official cooling and household pain, weak feelings about real wages (despite a 3.8-percent unemployment rate), energy costs that hammered confidence, and skepticism over Washington’s spending binge were the levers that decided a presidential ticket. Midterms strip those levers of their audience. The people left on the field are rarely desperate for economic miracles. They are vigorously defending their camp.

    Polarization made that inevitable.

    Issue divisions in the United States have widened 64 percent since 1988, with nearly all of the jump after 2008. Clustering of more than 35,000 American National Election Studies responses shows the left became 31.5 percent more socially liberal on abortion, family, equality, health insurance, and racial questions. The right became only 2.8 percent more conservative. Each side stayed roughly equal in size.

    The gap exploded because one side sprinted leftward. Mixed views that used to be common have thinned out. People now take cues about which opinions belong together and vote as blocs. Democrats own most of that radicalization. A party that moved more than 10 times as far as its rival on core social questions should not get to pose as the country’s moderate default. Therefore, in a midterm, most voters do not need a forecast of gasoline prices to choose red or blue. They need a reason to defend their tribe.

    History already killed the idea that the economy automatically writes the midterm script.

    In 2018, the labor market was tight, economic growth had accelerated, and a major tax cut was in force. Republicans still lost about 30 House seats. Losses ran through low-unemployment districts, manufacturing-gain districts, districts with voters who disproportionately benefited from tax breaks, and affluent suburbs that had recovered fastest from the Great Recession’s aftereffects. Prosperity did not save GOP candidates. Blue base energy did its intended damage, and then some.

    In 2022, the economics-are-king argument failed again. Inflation hit 40-year highs. Electricity and fuel costs were alleged political poison for Democrats. The blue team nonetheless posted the strongest midterm showing in two decades for an incumbent president’s party. Democrats held the Senate and won key governorships. Fiscal discontent was real. Yet, it did not kneecap the donkey, as analysts had expected. The blue faithful who showed up voted their side, regardless of green.

    The out-party has a longtime structural tailwind. Since 1946, the president’s party has lost an average of 25 House seats in midterms. Presidents under 50-percent approval have seen losses near 37 seats. Only two modern presidents saw their party gain seats, and both had approval in the mid-60s. That penalty is real. The Five-Point Forecast cannot cook up some economic theory to override reality. The plain truth is that midterms traditionally punish the White House by galvanizing its opposition’s loyalists.

    Polling, on the whole, will not provide the clarity that so many desperately seek as November nears.

    Republicans now answer surveys at lower rates than Democrats, even after ordinary demographic weighting. That partisan nonresponse helped miss Republican strength in 2016, 2020, and 2024. The 2026 primaries showed a rot that has grown by leaps and bounds since 2016, the drop-off point for polling reliability. In recent months, double-digit leads vanished, races deemed safe went the other way, and a pollster altered responses to its client’s favor.

    One surveyor was revealed to be a complete sham. From the start, it was meant to test how fast and far fake polls could run. Its numbers dovetailed with those of “respectable” firms. They were all wrong in a key gubernatorial primary. That says something about the real-world value of “legacy brand” pollsters.

    Therefore, treat most polling stats as arguments, not measurements. Needless to say, these arguments often, and increasingly, are not worth hearing.

    These midterms are not one national referendum. They are hundreds of separate contests for the House, Senate, governorships, legislatures, and local offices. High polarization means fewer genuine swing voters. Closer results than the loudest, typically Democrat, voices expect are the rational baseline.

    A party can create the noise, win the volume contest, and still lose a statewide race. Three suburban districts can outweigh a national talking point. A lazy county operation can blow a winnable legislative seat while a disciplined machine holds a tossup. “Prestigious” forecasters (who claimed Vice President Harris would defeat President Trump), well-paid consultants (who have blown their paymasters’ races), and social-media personalities (who cash in on doom-scrolling) shall not decide how the midterms go.

    Americans should not twist November into a rerun of 2024. The Five-Point Forecast worked then because inflation scars, wage frustration, energy costs, and distrust of government overreach still reached enough movable voters to decide a presidential map. That movable middle barely exists now. The people who will decide this cycle have long since joined a tribe.

    Motivation beats message-testing. Organization beats vibes. The party that treats its voters as optional will lose the elections that matter.

    I called 2024 when the data said economic pain would cut through. I will not boil 2026 down to the same five points. The midterms are fundamentally about turning a base out in the places where two or three points decide who writes the laws.

    Election night will be close and stomach-churning. Count on that.

    The Five-Point Forecast called 2024 because prices still moved a nation. They will not move America in mere weeks. Midterms belong to tribes, not ledgers. Democrats sprinted left. The middle collapsed. Whichever party motivates enough of their own voters to the polling station will govern America’s future.

    The stakes are sky-high. Whoever best understands this shall win.

    Dr. Joseph Ford Cotto is the creator, host, and producer of News Sight, delivering sharp insights on the key events that shape our lives. He publishes Dr. Cotto’s Digest, sharing how business and the economy really impact us all. During the 2024 presidential race, he developed the Five-Point Forecast, which accurately predicted Donald Trump’s national victory and correctly called every swing state. Cotto holds a doctorate in business administration and is a Lean Six Sigma Certified Black Belt.