I am not sure I buy this hypothesis.
In modern times Eisenhower gave his eight years of splendid order and we elected Kennedy who got into office deploring the economy and debunking the "order."
In 1968, after Johnson, we had extreme disorder and the electorate went for the other party and elected Nixon - A point for Barone.
In '76 we had reasonable order but the country switched to the other party and elected Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had produced a certain level of disorder and an extreme level of economic deterioration, the country switched parties.
Ronald Reagan gave us order and economic growth and the country stayed with his successor after eight years-the economy favored the incumbents and they were rewarded. After four more years in 1992, the economy was in fact quite good but Clinton was elected running against the economy-but by a minority of the voters. Was his election the result of an absence of order? Hardly. It was either the result of a perception of a weak economy or the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot.
Clinton left the country in reasonable order but his administration was in extreme disorder, nevertheless, his party's candidate won a majority of the votes but not enough to prevail in the electoral college.
During the first four years of George Bush the country sustained the shock of the attack on 9/11 yet George Bush was elected despite that shock, and problems with a war in Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan. How can one assess the effect of "disorder" on these elections?
Barack Obama was elected in a time of massive economic shock, economic disorder, and wars abroad so was it disorder or the economy the put Obama in office? The world did not get much more orderly and the economy did not much improved but Obama was reelected in 2008. Why? In each one of these elections one can abandon the question was it the "economy or order" and ask, what was the perception in the electorate which was created by the media?
1960, the media created the impression that the country was drifting and needed the messianic Kennedy. The media was bent on electing Kennedy.
In 1964, the media slaughtered Goldwater and the reelection of Johnson was a foregone conclusion.
In 1968, riots, assassinations, wars all combined to narrowly derail the media's effort to elect Johnson's vice president, Hubert Humphrey, and Nixon prevailed. In 1972, Nixon's approval was through the roof and media could not prevail against them, although they certainly tried.
By 1976 the media had painted the Republican Party as the creature of Nixon, Ford was a fool and a tool of Nixon, and Jimmy Carter as the pristine knight of honor. The media prevailed.
1980, the media turned every trick it knew to derail the campaign of Ronald Reagan but the combination of gas lines, terrible economy, interest rates, hostages in Iran, bumbling everywhere, plus Reagan's magical campaigning skills coupled with a strong conservative message carried Reagan decisive victory. His reelection was assured as his policies produced economic recovery. Note however, the media tried throughout to portray Reagan as a dangerous cowboy who could blow up the world, just as they had done to Barry Goldwater. It did not work with Reagan.
1992, the media distorted the economy and painted George Bush as out of touch. Ross Perot did the rest.
2008 economic disaster and the media's determination to deify the first African-American president overwhelmed everything. The electorate put in office a man of whose real biography they were appallingly ignorant. The media wanted it that way.
My thesis: the media will elect Democrats unless events make it clear to a blind man that the Democrats are unfit for office.
