Why do the Democrats have a popular vote advantage?

[Calthrina950]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

[RINO Tom]

Their policies are more popular, even if they're not a good idea.

[The Govanah Jake]

Due to winning massive margins in states like California, New York, and Illinois while keeping states like Texas much closer then they used to be. When the democrats cant keep up there margins in these states then you see that popular vote advantage quickly fly away. That's why Bush won the popular vote in 2004: Because he won over 60% in Texas while keeping Kerry to 10% and 12% in California and Illinois respectively. As for county's, they do win much less county's and land area then republicans and on a county map they look like they get crushed every single time since the 90's. This geography however is very much a illusion: much of the hundreds of county's republicans are winning are virtually uninhabited places (this can be seen most in the rural plain states) while the Democrats win (in often massive numbers) most of the city county's and many suburban dominated county's. In the end of the day, these combined have much more populated then the rest, and thus a Democrat could run up margins in these county's (60-90%) and lose the rest of the country's county's by Trump like numbers and still win the popular vote 2-4%. This could be seen in the 2016 election. Trump got unprecedented Rural margins but lost big league in the urban areas (like the Bay Area, Las Angeles, Chicago, Dallas) and lost ground among the suburbs which are suppose to be a anchor weight to the city for republicans post 2000. Clinton kept Obama numbers in states like California and Illinois and expanded on Obama numbers in states like Texas (which its huge population) in the places like Harris county and suburban county's like Fort Bend. This made the state only a 9% win for Trump, which is a republicans death wish if they ever want to win the popular vote. If a republicans wants to win the popular vote then first and foremost, secure large margins in supposedly red states like Texas. You may never get Bush levels in the state again due to changing demographics but you can do better then 7%. And second try not to get galloped in states like California with 61-31% margins. At least aim for Bush levels in the state which can be achieved through many different ways.

[SamTilden2020]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876 (most terrifyingly), 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

In 1888, 2K and 2016, the dem margins in the big states outweighed the smaller gop wins in the other states.

In the case of 1876, blame the corrupt southern governors and the "Compromise (Inside Job) of 1877".

[Rookie Yinzer]

They have a broader coalition and they have a near monopoly on the vast majority of the country's urban centers. When you're getting 70-80 percent in Los Angeles, San Fran, Philly, Detroit, NYC, Atlanta, etc that adds up. If Republicans ever made any gains in the cities then it would be more contestable.

Bush only won the popular vote in 2004 due to 9/11 and intense patriotism during that time. Take that away and Republicans haven't won the popular vote since the late 80's.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876 (most terrifyingly), 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

In 1888, 2K and 2016, the dem margins in the big states outweighed the smaller gop wins in the other states.

In the case of 1876, blame the corrupt southern governors and the "Compromise (Inside Job) of 1877".

If anything 1888, was the opposite of big state dominance for the Democrats. With the dominance of the Solid South because of vote suppression, the Republicans had to win by bigger margins in the larger Northern states to compensate for that. The Republicans won all the big industrial states like NY, PA, OH, IN, and ILL. The problem was that they only narrowly won them (Harrison was at 49% in all of them), except Pennsylvania, which was won by 8% and Harrison got 52%. This meant that the huge margins coming out of the Solid South was only countered by narrow, plurality wins in the big states, and the Democrats won the popular vote as a result.

In 1880 where the popular vote was narrowly for the Republicans, They were over 50% in all of those states and won MA by 20% instead of 9% in 1888.

In 1876, most every state was close except for the border states, GA and TX, thus skewed the popular vote towards Tilden, and it is hard to underestimate the impact of voter suppression in the Southern States, particularly Mississippi. I think if there was any instance where the popular vote was stolen, it was by voter suppression in 1876.

[Mr. Morden]

Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

Because people who live in high population density areas tend to be Democrats, while people who live in low population density areas tend to be Republicans?  Thus, Dems win more people while Republicans win more land.  I'm not sure what's so mysterious about this.....

[darklordoftech]

In 1876 and 1888, it was because of the Solid South. In 2000 and 2016, it was because of cities.

[Skill and Chance]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876 (most terrifyingly), 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

In 1888, 2K and 2016, the dem margins in the big states outweighed the smaller gop wins in the other states.

In the case of 1876, blame the corrupt southern governors and the "Compromise (Inside Job) of 1877".

If anything 1888, was the opposite of big state dominance for the Democrats. With the dominance of the Solid South because of vote suppression, the Republicans had to win by bigger margins in the larger Northern states to compensate for that. The Republicans won all the big industrial states like NY, PA, OH, IN, and ILL. The problem was that they only narrowly won them (Harrison was at 49% in all of them), except Pennsylvania, which was won by 8% and Harrison got 52%. This meant that the huge margins coming out of the Solid South was only countered by narrow, plurality wins in the big states, and the Democrats won the popular vote as a result.

In 1880 where the popular vote was narrowly for the Republicans, They were over 50% in all of those states and won MA by 20% instead of 9% in 1888.

In 1876, most every state was close except for the border states, GA and TX, thus skewed the popular vote towards Tilden, and it is hard to underestimate the impact of voter suppression in the Southern States, particularly Mississippi. I think if there was any instance where the popular vote was stolen, it was by voter suppression in 1876.

The margin was so wide for Tilden that I'm not sure about this either way, and some Southern states still had Union troops fighting back aggressively against the white supremacist militias in 1876.  Without suppression of the black vote, Hayes would have an unambiguous EC win due to AL and MS.

It's much clearer, IMO, that the PV was stolen in 1884, 1888, and 1916.  The nationwide Dem margin was almost as wide as 1876, but it was near the absolute peak of Jim Crow and suppression of the black vote.  1892 might fall into this category as well, but Cleveland's margin was wide and the Populists appear to have picked up significant black support in states where black people could vote freely. 

[Pericles]

It's more luck of the draw than any reality. In 2004, 2008 and 2012 the Democrat could have lost the popular vote and still won the Electoral College, the same was true in 1996. It's entirely possible a Republican will win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College in a future election(though I would agree that 2020 would not be that election)

[Arbitrage1980]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876 (most terrifyingly), 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

In 1888, 2K and 2016, the dem margins in the big states outweighed the smaller gop wins in the other states.

In the case of 1876, blame the corrupt southern governors and the "Compromise (Inside Job) of 1877".

If anything 1888, was the opposite of big state dominance for the Democrats. With the dominance of the Solid South because of vote suppression, the Republicans had to win by bigger margins in the larger Northern states to compensate for that. The Republicans won all the big industrial states like NY, PA, OH, IN, and ILL. The problem was that they only narrowly won them (Harrison was at 49% in all of them), except Pennsylvania, which was won by 8% and Harrison got 52%. This meant that the huge margins coming out of the Solid South was only countered by narrow, plurality wins in the big states, and the Democrats won the popular vote as a result.

In 1880 where the popular vote was narrowly for the Republicans, They were over 50% in all of those states and won MA by 20% instead of 9% in 1888.

In 1876, most every state was close except for the border states, GA and TX, thus skewed the popular vote towards Tilden, and it is hard to underestimate the impact of voter suppression in the Southern States, particularly Mississippi. I think if there was any instance where the popular vote was stolen, it was by voter suppression in 1876.

1876 was the most disgraceful election in American history. The corrupt bargain the GOP made to maintain power resulted in the end of Reconstruction and blacks suffering nearly a century of segregation and oppression.

[Arbitrage1980]

As the title says. I've noticed that over the past 25 years, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one election (that of 2004). In all four elections where the popular-vote winner lost the election (1876 (most terrifyingly), 1888, 2000, and 2016), that person was a Democrat. Why is it that Democrats have this advantage, even when, geographically speaking, most of the nation's counties vote Republican every cycle?

In 1888, 2K and 2016, the dem margins in the big states outweighed the smaller gop wins in the other states.

In the case of 1876, blame the corrupt southern governors and the "Compromise (Inside Job) of 1877".

If anything 1888, was the opposite of big state dominance for the Democrats. With the dominance of the Solid South because of vote suppression, the Republicans had to win by bigger margins in the larger Northern states to compensate for that. The Republicans won all the big industrial states like NY, PA, OH, IN, and ILL. The problem was that they only narrowly won them (Harrison was at 49% in all of them), except Pennsylvania, which was won by 8% and Harrison got 52%. This meant that the huge margins coming out of the Solid South was only countered by narrow, plurality wins in the big states, and the Democrats won the popular vote as a result.

In 1880 where the popular vote was narrowly for the Republicans, They were over 50% in all of those states and won MA by 20% instead of 9% in 1888.

In 1876, most every state was close except for the border states, GA and TX, thus skewed the popular vote towards Tilden, and it is hard to underestimate the impact of voter suppression in the Southern States, particularly Mississippi. I think if there was any instance where the popular vote was stolen, it was by voter suppression in 1876.

The margin was so wide for Tilden that I'm not sure about this either way, and some Southern states still had Union troops fighting back aggressively against the white supremacist militias in 1876.  Without suppression of the black vote, Hayes would have an unambiguous EC win due to AL and MS.

It's much clearer, IMO, that the PV was stolen in 1884, 1888, and 1916.  The nationwide Dem margin was almost as wide as 1876, but it was near the absolute peak of Jim Crow and suppression of the black vote.  1892 might fall into this category as well, but Cleveland's margin was wide and the Populists appear to have picked up significant black support in states where black people could vote freely. 

Don't forget 1960, which JFK stole with help from his dad, the Irish Mob, and Mayor Richard Daley.

[Arbitrage1980]

To win the national popular vote, the Republican needs to lose CA by less than 20 points, win TX by 15-20 points, win FL by around 5 points and do better than Trump/Romney/McCain did in GA and NC. That was how W Bush won the national popular vote by 2.5% in 2004; despite this, he only converted 2 states from 2000 by narrowly winning IA and NM. He came fairly close in WI, MN, MI, NH, PA, losing all those states by less than 4 points.

[The Mikado]

Worth pointing out that in 2004, 2008, and 2012, the tipping point would hit in Republican-friendly territory. In 2004, the tipping point was Bush +0.4, in 2008, it was McCain +2.1 (!), and in 2012, it was Romney +1.2. That's right: both of Obama's wins had Obama strongly favored in the electoral college so that even swinging the election to tied would still have him comfortably favored. 2016 was actually the first election since 2000 that the electoral vote was more favorable to the GOP than to the Dems, with the tipping point at a ludicrous Clinton +2.8.

[twenty42]

In the last 14 election, the EC has favored each party seven times. The stat is pretty random and self-correcting.

[SamTilden2020]

1876 was the most disgraceful election in American history. The corrupt bargain the GOP made to maintain power resulted in the end of Reconstruction and blacks suffering nearly a century of segregation and oppression.

Words cannot express how much I agree.

Anyway as I said, with the Dems having nowhere to go but up in the biggest states, and republicans losing more and more ground in TX, I can definitely say that the republicans need a strong win to even have a chance at a PV majority.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

1824 was more disgraceful than 1876. Andrew Jackson got totally robbed.

If that election happened today, there'd be riots on the street everyday.

[Mr. Smith]

1824 was more disgraceful than 1876. Andrew Jackson got totally robbed.

If that election happened today, there'd be riots on the street everyday.

1888 was worse than EITHER of them.

[Arbitrage1980]

1824 was more disgraceful than 1876. Andrew Jackson got totally robbed.

If that election happened today, there'd be riots on the street everyday.

1824 was dirty but not out of bounds, as no candidate got a majority of the electoral votes; hence, the election went to the House. In contrast, 1876 involved a corrupt bargain in which the Democrats agreed to give electors to Hayes in return for Union soldiers leaving the South, so they can get back to terrorizing and oppressing the blacks. It's not even comparable.