FWIW ... I believe you are correct.
Seems that the, so called, "independent" voter, who we have been told is miniscule, in other elections, is about to take on gigantic proportions.
You are ignoring a very important fact - the middle is much bigger than the base. You can't win without the middle.
In a presidential election, yes.
In Congressional elections, no.
Nonsense. The "moderate middle" is a creation of the inside-the-beltway punditry aided and abetted by the dinosaur media. The voting public is near evenly split left and right. What wins elections is turnout, i.e. motivating the base.
FWIW ... I believe you are correct.
Seems that the, so called, "independent" voter, who we have been told is miniscule, in other elections, is about to take on gigantic proportions.
Reagan never courted the so-called "middle." He stuck to his conservative principles and didn't lose his base by doing so, and people who just thought they were "moderates" realized they agreed with him.
"Courting the middle" is a losing strategy. Those in the middle of the road get run over by both sides, as the saying goes.
It's midterms, the middle doesn't even know there's an election.
Bush won without the "monkeys in the middle" in 2000, 2002, and 2004. "Middle of the road, independents" are less likely to vote than the base of either party.
The Middle is said to be anywhere from 5-15%.
No, they are not larger.