Is it possible for the democrat to win a majority of counties

[cwh2018]

The democratic presidential nominee has not won a majority of counties since 1976.  With trends massively against them in rural areas and small counties being on average older, and with young people born in rural areas leaving for the cities and suburbs, can the dems win a majority of counties again?  Can they even win 1,000 counties?

Second part would be how many counties would you see the dem candidate winning when winning by 10 points plus (a true landslide)?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

No.

[Calthrina950]

The democratic presidential nominee has not won a majority of counties since 1976.  With trends massively against them in rural areas and small counties being on average older, and with young people born in rural areas leaving for the cities and suburbs, can the dems win a majority of counties again?  Can they even win 1,000 counties?

Second part would be how many counties would you see the dem candidate winning when winning by 10 points plus (a true landslide)?

I don't think the Democrats will win a majority of counties any time soon. In fact, it would not surprise me if this century passed with Republicans carrying the majority in every presidential election. Democrats will probably struggle just to match the number of counties carried by former President Obama in 2008 (he won ~875 that year, the most any Democrat has managed since Clinton won over 1500 in 1996). However, a Democrat might manage to get into the 900-1200 range if they are winning by double digits. But given demographic trends, it's possible that such a margin could be achieved with just 600 or 700 counties.

[AudmanOut]

No.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

[IceSpear]

No.

[Calthrina950]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

I think it's a tragedy that Republicans carry the majority of counties these days. It's an indicator of polarization. I would like for us to go back to the days when counties were far more flexible than they are now.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

This is spot on. I'd rather be in charge of the countries largest and most influential urban centers than cornfields.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

I think it's a tragedy that Republicans carry the majority of counties these days. It's an indicator of polarization. I would like for us to go back to the days when counties were far more flexible than they are now.

But why, why do you care about an imaginary line when it's the people who matter?

[Calthrina950]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

I think it's a tragedy that Republicans carry the majority of counties these days. It's an indicator of polarization. I would like for us to go back to the days when counties were far more flexible than they are now.

But why, why do you care about an imaginary line when it's the people who matter?

The maps are more aesthetically pleasing. A very simple reason, actually. I would not like every election in this century to be decided by the same monotonous 2,000+ Republican county maps we have seen since the turn of the millennium.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Why do people care about this irrelevant statistic? Winning counties has no relationship to anything meaningful in Presidential politics, Georgia has a greater number of counties than California and New York combined.

I think it's a tragedy that Republicans carry the majority of counties these days. It's an indicator of polarization. I would like for us to go back to the days when counties were far more flexible than they are now.

But why, why do you care about an imaginary line when it's the people who matter?

The maps are more aesthetically pleasing. A very simple reason, actually. I would not like every election in this century to be decided by the same monotonous 2,000+ Republican county maps we have seen since the turn of the millennium.

Hmm. That's actually a very good reason, I entirely approve.

[ElectionsGuy]

Even in a huge Reagan '84/Nixon '72 equivalent landslide, they would still lose a majority of counties. In fact, even in a landslide now they may not even get more than Obama got in 2008.

[Calthrina950]

Even in a huge Reagan '84/Nixon '72 equivalent landslide, they would still lose a majority of counties. In fact, even in a landslide now they may not even get more than Obama got in 2008.

Democrats would probably obtain their margin of victory by getting >80% or 90% of the vote in the major metropolitan counties, and running up 20, 30, or 40 point margins in the suburban and exurban counties.