Is the Popular Vote unwinnable for the GOP?

[Adam Griffin]

Can we end this myth now? Including Maine with Democrats just to make things easier, in the last election there were more small states voting Dem than small state voting GOP (looking at states with under 5 ECs). Everyone always wants to chide MT, WY, ND, SD, etc. and then omit VT, HI, RI, DE, etc. That goes along with the argument against having a Senate. Small Dem states are just as represented as small GOP states.

Fun fact: an Electoral College based on population alone produces exactly the same result in the 2016 election: 306-232.

(ME/NE CDs not shown here but accounted for)

[Skill and Chance]

Can we end this myth now? Including Maine with Democrats just to make things easier, in the last election there were more small states voting Dem than small state voting GOP (looking at states with under 5 ECs). Everyone always wants to chide MT, WY, ND, SD, etc. and then omit VT, HI, RI, DE, etc. That goes along with the argument against having a Senate. Small Dem states are just as represented as small GOP states.

Fun fact: an Electoral College based on population alone produces exactly the same result in the 2016 election: 306-232.

(ME/NE CDs not shown here but accounted for)

Yes, it's never really been about the 3 EV states or the 2 "Senator" EVs in each state.  It's about EVs being allocated WTA and one candidate winning a bunch of medium-size (10-20 EV) states narrowly.  In the case of very large states, Texas cancelled out a lot of the Dem margin in California until recently. 

[Skill and Chance]

I think we are overlooking that Trump is from NY and NY has a strong pro-incumbent tendency to boot.  If the 2020 Dem doesn't also have NY ties like Clinton did, the state could trend pretty hard to Trump.  Trump only losing NY by say 12% in a close 2020 election vs. 22% in 2016 would be a game changer in terms of the PV.

[Virginiá]

I think we are overlooking that Trump is from NY and NY has a strong pro-incumbent tendency to boot.  If the 2020 Dem doesn't also have NY ties like Clinton did, the state could trend pretty hard to Trump.  Trump only losing NY by say 12% in a close 2020 election vs. 22% in 2016 would be a game changer in terms of the PV.

The last time we've had a Republican incumbent president run is 2004 and Bush got blown out by 18 points. All things considered, there doesn't seem to have been any advantage for Republicans.

I don't think Trump is going to come close to those numbers in New York. They don't seem to like him, going by his approvals.

[Skill and Chance]

I think we are overlooking that Trump is from NY and NY has a strong pro-incumbent tendency to boot.  If the 2020 Dem doesn't also have NY ties like Clinton did, the state could trend pretty hard to Trump.  Trump only losing NY by say 12% in a close 2020 election vs. 22% in 2016 would be a game changer in terms of the PV.

The last time we've had a Republican incumbent president run is 2004 and Bush got blown out by 18 points. All things considered, there doesn't seem to have been any advantage for Republicans.

I don't think Trump is going to come close to those numbers in New York. They don't seem to like him, going by his approvals.

Yes, but Bush went from losing NY by 25 in 2000 (doing even worse than Trump did) to losing it by 18 while he went from losing nationwide by 0.5 to winning by 2.5.  NY swung to him much harder than the nation as a whole.

[Anna Komnene]

I think we are overlooking that Trump is from NY and NY has a strong pro-incumbent tendency to boot.  If the 2020 Dem doesn't also have NY ties like Clinton did, the state could trend pretty hard to Trump.  Trump only losing NY by say 12% in a close 2020 election vs. 22% in 2016 would be a game changer in terms of the PV.

The last time we've had a Republican incumbent president run is 2004 and Bush got blown out by 18 points. All things considered, there doesn't seem to have been any advantage for Republicans.

I don't think Trump is going to come close to those numbers in New York. They don't seem to like him, going by his approvals.

Yes, but Bush went from losing NY by 25 in 2000 (doing even worse than Trump did) to losing it by 18 while he went from losing nationwide by 0.5 to winning by 2.5.  NY swung to him much harder than the nation as a whole.

There was this thing called 9/11 that happened in NY between 2000 and 2004. It might have played a small role in Bush's standing here at the time.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I think we are overlooking that Trump is from NY and NY has a strong pro-incumbent tendency to boot.  If the 2020 Dem doesn't also have NY ties like Clinton did, the state could trend pretty hard to Trump.  Trump only losing NY by say 12% in a close 2020 election vs. 22% in 2016 would be a game changer in terms of the PV.

The last time we've had a Republican incumbent president run is 2004 and Bush got blown out by 18 points. All things considered, there doesn't seem to have been any advantage for Republicans.

I don't think Trump is going to come close to those numbers in New York. They don't seem to like him, going by his approvals.

If anything, he'll probably do worse, since the city will hate him just as much and upstate will have likely soured on him quite a bit by 2020. I'm not sure what makes him think he has any realistic chance of narrowing down his margins to 12%.

[christian peralta]

if they get moderate on some issues or the democrat candidate is a complete mobile disaster (like McGovern or Mondale), they will win

[Flyersfan232]

Is the popular vote unwinnable for the GOP in this day and age? Just look at the 2016 results and the degree of political polarization.

Hillary still beat Trump by 3 million votes despite losing the EC. IMO the GOP will need to cut down the Democrats' margins in California and widen their lead in Texas in order to have a chance.

we only lost by 2%

[Flyersfan232]

My guess is that no, but narrowly winning the popular vote would be equivalent to a medium sized victory (like Obama's victories), and winning the popular vote comfortably would mean a landslide.

So to tie the election, you wouldn't need a popular vote tie, but a D+2 or 3 popular vote

Keep in mind that EC vs. PV changes faster and more frequently than most are assuming.  Dems actually held the EC advantage from 2004-2012.  In 2008, Obama could have lost the PV as badly as Trump and still won the election. 

how would that look?

[Medal506]

If Cruz or Paul were the nominee in 2016, they both probably would have won the popular vote.

[CEO Mindset]

as long as we've got illegals and the dead voting, democrats get a free 7 million lead in PV+30-60 EV each election.

[Flyersfan232]

If Cruz or Paul were the nominee in 2016, they both probably would have won the popular vote.

paul yes cruz i debate that

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If Cruz or Paul were the nominee in 2016, they both probably would have won the popular vote.

The primary reason Trump was able to win cross-over "Obama-Trump" voters was because he didn't threaten entitlement programs. Despite Hillary's flaws there's ZERO chance she loses the PV to Republicans whose main selling point was their opposition on principle to the existence of a social safety net.

[Senator Incitatus]

Of course not. It's not like they nominated a particularly popular candidate in 2016, but he still got within 3 points. This is like asking if North Carolina is Safe R in 2020.

[adrac]

My guess is that no, but narrowly winning the popular vote would be equivalent to a medium sized victory (like Obama's victories), and winning the popular vote comfortably would mean a landslide.

So to tie the election, you wouldn't need a popular vote tie, but a D+2 or 3 popular vote

Keep in mind that EC vs. PV changes faster and more frequently than most are assuming.  Dems actually held the EC advantage from 2004-2012.  In 2008, Obama could have lost the PV as badly as Trump and still won the election. 

how would that look?

2012-OH, VA, and FL. Colorado is the tipping point state.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If the GOP candidate were a broadly popular, centrist, incumbent President, running during an economic boom, then he absolutely could win a PV majority. Especially if the Democratic challenger were a hot mess.

Imagine President Marco Rubio with the current economy, no scandals, and having made SCOTUS picks that satisfied conservatives but weren't particularly controversial.

In 2020 such a GOP President may pick up 53% and gain a map that looks like this:

...which is pretty much what 1984 would look like given 2020's electorate.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

If the GOP candidate were a broadly popular, centrist, incumbent President, running during an economic boom, then he absolutely could win a PV majority. Especially if the Democratic challenger were a hot mess.

Imagine President Marco Rubio with the current economy, no scandals, and having made SCOTUS picks that satisfied conservatives but weren't particularly controversial.

In 2020 such a GOP President may pick up 53% and gain a map that looks like this:

...which is pretty much what 1984 would look like given 2020's electorate.

No Republican candidate would win OR, unless there was massive third party siphoning.

[Badger]

as long as we've got illegals and the dead voting, democrats get a free 7 million lead in PV+30-60 EV each election.

2/10. Would not recommend trolling again.

You may leave now.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If the GOP candidate were a broadly popular, centrist, incumbent President, running during an economic boom, then he absolutely could win a PV majority. Especially if the Democratic challenger were a hot mess.

Imagine President Marco Rubio with the current economy, no scandals, and having made SCOTUS picks that satisfied conservatives but weren't particularly controversial.

In 2020 such a GOP President may pick up 53% and gain a map that looks like this:

...which is pretty much what 1984 would look like given 2020's electorate.

No Republican candidate would win OR, unless there was massive third party siphoning.

A well-liked and respected incumbent President running in a boom economy, with nothing particularly polarizing in the political environment, and a lousy Democratic challenger, would win Oregon. People talk about Oregon like it's hard to crack. W came within 7,000 votes.

We haven't had a strong GOP incumbent since 1984, so we haven't seen the sort of Republican performance that would win states like Oregon and Minnesota.

[The3rdParty]

If the GOP candidate were a broadly popular, centrist, incumbent President, running during an economic boom, then he absolutely could win a PV majority. Especially if the Democratic challenger were a hot mess.

Imagine President Marco Rubio with the current economy, no scandals, and having made SCOTUS picks that satisfied conservatives but weren't particularly controversial.

In 2020 such a GOP President may pick up 53% and gain a map that looks like this:

...which is pretty much what 1984 would look like given 2020's electorate.

No Republican candidate would win OR, unless there was massive third party siphoning.

A well-liked and respected incumbent President running in a boom economy, with nothing particularly polarizing in the political environment, and a lousy Democratic challenger, would win Oregon. People talk about Oregon like it's hard to crack. W came within 7,000 votes.

We haven't had a strong GOP incumbent since 1984, so we haven't seen the sort of Republican performance that would win states like Oregon and Minnesota.

Rubio wouldn't be a strong GOP incumbent president....

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

If the GOP candidate were a broadly popular, centrist, incumbent President, running during an economic boom, then he absolutely could win a PV majority. Especially if the Democratic challenger were a hot mess.

Imagine President Marco Rubio with the current economy, no scandals, and having made SCOTUS picks that satisfied conservatives but weren't particularly controversial.

In 2020 such a GOP President may pick up 53% and gain a map that looks like this:

...which is pretty much what 1984 would look like given 2020's electorate.

No Republican candidate would win OR, unless there was massive third party siphoning.

A well-liked and respected incumbent President running in a boom economy, with nothing particularly polarizing in the political environment, and a lousy Democratic challenger, would win Oregon. People talk about Oregon like it's hard to crack. W came within 7,000 votes.

We haven't had a strong GOP incumbent since 1984, so we haven't seen the sort of Republican performance that would win states like Oregon and Minnesota.

W came within 7,000 votes because Nader siphoned off enough votes from Gore to make it close. You just proved my point.