If Republicans win the PV but lose the EC...

[Adam Griffin]

The notion that candidates would merely contest places that have the densest populations and/or their strongest areas is nothing short of dense (pun intended).

Candidates would obviously compete in areas where the greatest value ($) per vote could be extracted (which, contrary to popular belief, isn't going to be in expensive California or New York media markets) and in areas where the greatest concentrations of elastic voters exist - which certainly is not going to be in Democratic strongholds. It'd result in candidates targeting media markets (and therefore voters) all over the country, including many places that get zero attention in current presidential campaigns.

It'd be more likely that Democrats would compete nowhere, given that the country has wanted us in 6 out of the past 7 presidential elections, than to confine ourselves to the densest urban areas in a few states.

[Adam Griffin]

The real reason the GOP hates the idea of the popular vote is because it would intensify the prevailing national sentiment - but not in the way they describe.

They of course come up with their bogeyman claims to justify it, but the reality is: given the fact that non-white voters are far less elastic than white voters, Democrats would constantly be on offense, able to leave Blue America on auto-pilot while targeting vast swathes of Red/White America in order to improve performance, while the GOP would be forced to fight to gin up turnout on their home turf at the same time that Democrats are persuading and mobilizing in their neighborhoods.

In short, they wouldn't be able to win - because the country already doesn't want them in the White House - and so they're forced to cling to the system that disenfranchises the will of the voters. Otherwise, the outcomes would be even more lopsided than they are in the PV in the modern era.