The GOP has to expand the battleground in 2024.

[Alcibiades]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

[RI]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

The report was clearly wrong on the issue of immigration and how to appeal to Hispanics. It only barely touched on economic populism and placed too much emphasis on moderating on social issues, which is the opposite of what the GOP base wants.

[Vosem]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

No it isn't.

[VAR]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

No it isn't.

Uh, why?

[ProgressiveModerate]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

That’s the whole point though, the GOP does poorly in the NPV and is relying on a very specific balance; if one thing in that balance falls (looking at you TX), they have to completely revamp their strategy, and they have few states to turn to. The EV advantage tends to swing back and forth; in 2012, it favored Obama because you had all these rust belts states slightly to the left of the nation, but in 2016 it flipped to Trump. The GOP has become so used to losing the NPV that when they actually have to win it, they won’t know how.

Democrats on the other hand have a higher floor or of safe EVs that don’t seem to be going away anytime soon, at least 183 EVs.

Think about it as 2 buidlings; one is a tall skyscraper that is poorly constructed and the other is shorter but is much stronger. A hurricane comes, and the tall poorly built skyscraper falls over and they have to start from scratch whereas the smaller stable building just needs a few repairs, mostly cosmetic

[LAKISYLVANIA]

They can't Klobuchar, Kaine, Stabenow, Manchin, Tester, Casey, Brown, Stabenow, Rosen and Sinema are all up for reelection and have won landslides in 2018, including Baldwin

Collins won in a landslide (or by your definition if winning by 3% is considered a landslide), while Trump lost badly in Maine. 2018 was an off-presidential year with a different political environment. All elections are different, unless you really believe Manchin survives in 2024.

In 2004 Blanche Lincoln won in a landslide. We all know what happened in 2010. She didn't lose in a landslide. She got Blanched with capital B. If you really believe all incumbent D's are safe, i'll have to get you back to reality. Perhaps some senators might indeed help the Democrat, but that might not be enough, and the president - if unliked - might make it harder for some Democrats to survive (esp. in deep red states like MT, WV and some consider OH as one as well.)

Kaine is from VA. That's a safe D state. Baldwin, Casey jr., Stabenow, Rosen and Sinema will have to fight for their victory and it won't be easy. Sure they can win and are the favourites as they are liked and have the benefit incumbency and name recognition. But it's going to be a tough race anyway.

If i'm not mistaken, you were an ardent believer of the 413 / 416 map as well? We all know how that turned out to be. Despite getting the winner right, someone like Forumlurker was closer to the actual result.

So stop spreading that myth. Meme or not, it's annoying.

[Catalyst138]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

If anything, it was probably closer to an R maximum (in the party’s current form) than a D maximum because as I pointed out earlier, R turnout was significantly better than D turnout

[Chips]

Fair argument.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

If anything, it was probably closer to an R maximum (in the party’s current form) than a D maximum because as I pointed out earlier, R turnout was significantly better than D turnout

I wonder how much of that was Trump-specific enthusiasm, Democrats not fully engaging minority/campaign outreach due to COVID or some combination of the two.

Because either of those answers could make the problem even worse for the GOP than it already looks.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Think about it this way; if AZ, GA, and TX become out of reach for the GOP, where do they turn next? Obviously, this won’t be an issue in 2024 but could be in 2028 or 2032, so it’s imperative the GOP tries to narrow a state that could be winnable down the road like IL.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=6pps

[Roll Roons]

Think about it this way; if AZ, GA, and TX become out of reach for the GOP, where do they turn next? Obviously, this won’t be an issue in 2024 but could be in 2028 or 2032, so it’s imperative the GOP tries to narrow a state that could be winnable down the road like IL.

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=6pps

Not just Arizona, Georgia and Texas. If Republicans continue on a Trumpist path, Utah would also likely come into play, at least at the presidential level.

[Central Lake]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

The report was clearly wrong on the issue of immigration and how to appeal to Hispanics. It only barely touched on economic populism and placed too much emphasis on moderating on social issues, which is the opposite of what the GOP base wants.

[Alcibiades]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

The report was clearly wrong on the issue of immigration and how to appeal to Hispanics. It only barely touched on economic populism and placed too much emphasis on moderating on social issues, which is the opposite of what the GOP base wants.

But is what the base wants the only consideration? Opposition to abortion should obviously be kept from the GOP’s perspective, as it does turn out a huge portion of the base who might not otherwise vote, but opposition to LGBT rights (and probably also marijuana legalisation) is a completely losing issue for the party.

[RI]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

The report was clearly wrong on the issue of immigration and how to appeal to Hispanics. It only barely touched on economic populism and placed too much emphasis on moderating on social issues, which is the opposite of what the GOP base wants.

But is what the base wants the only consideration? Opposition to abortion should obviously be kept from the GOP’s perspective, as it does turn out a huge portion of the base who might not otherwise vote, but opposition to LGBT rights (and probably also marijuana legalisation) is a completely losing issue for the party.

Opposition to marijuana legalization will almost certainly fall by the wayside in the near future as it's not even that popular of a position among the base. LGBT rights is a more nebulous thing and not exactly a major issue right now; as stated elsewhere, gay marriage is likely done as an issue, but the GOP strongly feels it can win on the transgender issue, so that's not going away any time soon.

[Central Lake]

The GOP needs to remain socially conservative. As Del Tachi and others have said the premise is wrong.
However one caveat that I take from the post is below. I thought about this in November actually long before the thread was started.

I do think that the future of the GOP depends on doing better with minorities nationally and in particular in the states of Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia. I think most conservatives and Republicans are aware of this and are trying to get a higher % of the vote among Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans.

[Vosem]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

I mean that it was probably a local maximum in Democratic margin (at D+5); I too expect turnout to fall under a Democratic presidency, as it did under Clinton and Obama (but rose under Bush and Trump). Some of the characteristics of the year boosting Democrats (such as Trump being seen as responsible to some degree for the pandemic/recession) are obviously going to disappear in the near future, and it seems no likelier to me that Democrats can maintain this than they could maintain D+7 after 2008.

The difference is that at that time the system tended towards helping Democrats; House Democrats ran ahead of Obama and the Electoral College buffeted him by two points. Obama had a ways to fall and still control the country. By contrast, a fairly tiny slide for Biden and House Democrats (to D+1, which would be an historically successful midterm) would still be a result the system would interpret as a Republican landslide.

[DaleCooper]

After 2020, Republicans should learn from Democrats that just because their opponent won by slim margins in the previous election doesn't mean that it won't take a lot of resources to win those states back the next time. Trump winning the Rust Belt wasn't a fluke and Biden winning Arizona and Georgia (and winning back the Rust Belt at the same time) likely wasn't a fluke either.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

I mean that it was probably a local maximum in Democratic margin (at D+5); I too expect turnout to fall under a Democratic presidency, as it did under Clinton and Obama (but rose under Bush and Trump). Some of the characteristics of the year boosting Democrats (such as Trump being seen as responsible to some degree for the pandemic/recession) are obviously going to disappear in the near future, and it seems no likelier to me that Democrats can maintain this than they could maintain D+7 after 2008.

The difference is that at that time the system tended towards helping Democrats; House Democrats ran ahead of Obama and the Electoral College buffeted him by two points. Obama had a ways to fall and still control the country. By contrast, a fairly tiny slide for Biden and House Democrats (to D+1, which would be an historically successful midterm) would still be a result the system would interpret as a Republican landslide.

That's the point though; the Republican coalition relies on fragile advantages in the structure of the House, Senate, and Electoral College that could easily dissipate fast. At least when the EC had a slight D tilt, Democrats were able to reliably win the PV so when it turned against them they were a little bit better prepared and had already made investments in places that would eventually become key to their winning path.

Also, as I said, it was actually the Republicans who were far closer to their maximum possible turnout as the registered Republican turnout rate was at least 15% higher than Democrats being very very generous with the math. Independents could turn against Democrats more, and they may not vote by the lopsided margin they did for Biden again, but you can't use the argument Democrats were at their maximum in 2020 when only about 62% of registered Ds actually voted while about 91% of registered Republicans voted.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

I mean that it was probably a local maximum in Democratic margin (at D+5); I too expect turnout to fall under a Democratic presidency, as it did under Clinton and Obama (but rose under Bush and Trump). Some of the characteristics of the year boosting Democrats (such as Trump being seen as responsible to some degree for the pandemic/recession) are obviously going to disappear in the near future, and it seems no likelier to me that Democrats can maintain this than they could maintain D+7 after 2008.

The difference is that at that time the system tended towards helping Democrats; House Democrats ran ahead of Obama and the Electoral College buffeted him by two points. Obama had a ways to fall and still control the country. By contrast, a fairly tiny slide for Biden and House Democrats (to D+1, which would be an historically successful midterm) would still be a result the system would interpret as a Republican landslide.

Also, as I said, it was actually the Republicans who were far closer to their maximum possible turnout as the registered Republican turnout rate was at least 15% higher than Democrats being very very generous with the math. Independents could turn against Democrats more, and they may not vote by the lopsided margin they did for Biden again, but you can't use the argument Democrats were at their maximum in 2020 when only about 62% of registered Ds actually voted while about 91% of registered Republicans voted.

I feel Mr. Vosem is trying everything he can to conveniently ignore that or brush it aside, as it pretty much negates his entire take.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I actually think this election illustrates the GOP’s problem well. They had absolutely stunning turnout, won a number of key swing states the Dems were hoping to, and they still fell up short. They need something close to a best-case scenario (as the incredibly close 2016 victory was) to win the White House; the Dems can underperform expectations as they did this year and still win.

This year was in the aftermath of a horribly mismanaged pandemic and a recession in the year of the election, with a candidate who had persistently terrible favorability ratings for four years and with Democratic turnout so juiced that Biden won the most votes of any candidate ever, though. Long-term trends are what they are, but the circumstances of 2020 suggest it was a local Democratic maximum and probably not a sustainable performance.

(And in fact 2020 was a huge Democratic victory in a certain sense. This was the second-largest popular vote margin of my lifetime after the Obama landslide. It's just that the electoral system really didn't reflect this: assuming universal swing Trump '20 came closer to a victory than Clinton '16.)

It was a “maximum” for both parties. In 2024 neither side is going to replicate 2020 turnout.

I mean that it was probably a local maximum in Democratic margin (at D+5); I too expect turnout to fall under a Democratic presidency, as it did under Clinton and Obama (but rose under Bush and Trump). Some of the characteristics of the year boosting Democrats (such as Trump being seen as responsible to some degree for the pandemic/recession) are obviously going to disappear in the near future, and it seems no likelier to me that Democrats can maintain this than they could maintain D+7 after 2008.

The difference is that at that time the system tended towards helping Democrats; House Democrats ran ahead of Obama and the Electoral College buffeted him by two points. Obama had a ways to fall and still control the country. By contrast, a fairly tiny slide for Biden and House Democrats (to D+1, which would be an historically successful midterm) would still be a result the system would interpret as a Republican landslide.

Also, as I said, it was actually the Republicans who were far closer to their maximum possible turnout as the registered Republican turnout rate was at least 15% higher than Democrats being very very generous with the math. Independents could turn against Democrats more, and they may not vote by the lopsided margin they did for Biden again, but you can't use the argument Democrats were at their maximum in 2020 when only about 62% of registered Ds actually voted while about 91% of registered Republicans voted.

I feel Mr. Vosem is trying everything he can to conveniently ignore that or brush it aside, as it pretty much negates his entire take.

Yeah, at this point this thread has gone in like 5 circles already. It’s important that we build off of each others opinions but we literally keep saying the same argument against each other’s argument to back and forth

[Del Tachi]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

Also, one thing that should concern  the GOP is that they lost a trifecta in the 2020 election despite GOP turnout being like 90%+ or something crazy like that, whereas Democratic turnout was only in the mid-60s. It just seems like the line they need to walk gets thinner and thinner and they're only staying viable through a gerrymandered House, a Senate which over-represents smaller states, and an electoral college that happens to benefit them at this moment. The electoral college, however, can have pretty significant swings in who it favors in just a cycle or two, and House gerrymanders can only go so far, and often fail.

The fact is there are just more registered Ds than Rs, which means Republicans need to get Republican turnout to pretty extreme levels or win Independents, or some combination of both. Trump was able to get very high R turnout but couldn't win Independents, while many argue that a more establishment canidate may be able to win over more Independent voters but will struggle to get base turnout. I'm curious to see if their is a happy medium to this problem, and if so, how the GOP deals with it.

Cite?

The numbers are vague because their estimates and not exact amounts, but if you look at exit polls, it's about 36% of people who voted in 2020 that were registered Democrats and about 36% were registered Republican., or about 57 million each. However, nationally, party registration estimates indicates that there are about 63 million Republicans or so and 92 million Democrats. You can get these numbers by looking at states that have the party registration breakdown (about 30 states) and then estimate the rest using a correlation from the most recent election results, most of these states are smaller states anyways so there is more room for error. These numbers put Republicans at exactly 90% turnout while Democrats only at 62%. Again, these calculations are estimates, and there are many places where there is a MOE, but it can be said with relative certainty that Republicans had a higher turnout rate than Democrats in the 2020 election; it could be 86% vs 68% or 93% vs 58%, there is some room for error, but it can safely be assumed it was at least 10-15% higher.

Some people may argue "muh ancestral Democrats", but pretty much all the data we have indicates that Biden won about the same % of Republicans as Trump won of Democrats; ancestral Ds and suburbanites cancelled out.

This methodology is.....questionable, to put it politely

Self-reported partisan identification (i.e., what is used in exit polls) is much more dynamic than partisan voter registration.     

Red avatars have been singing the "demographics is destiny" song since 2005 and, as Vosem pointed out, the GOP is really in no worse position that it was 15 years ago.  If anything, their advantages in Congress and the Courts are the strongest they've been since the 1920s.   

[ProgressiveModerate]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

Also, one thing that should concern  the GOP is that they lost a trifecta in the 2020 election despite GOP turnout being like 90%+ or something crazy like that, whereas Democratic turnout was only in the mid-60s. It just seems like the line they need to walk gets thinner and thinner and they're only staying viable through a gerrymandered House, a Senate which over-represents smaller states, and an electoral college that happens to benefit them at this moment. The electoral college, however, can have pretty significant swings in who it favors in just a cycle or two, and House gerrymanders can only go so far, and often fail.

The fact is there are just more registered Ds than Rs, which means Republicans need to get Republican turnout to pretty extreme levels or win Independents, or some combination of both. Trump was able to get very high R turnout but couldn't win Independents, while many argue that a more establishment canidate may be able to win over more Independent voters but will struggle to get base turnout. I'm curious to see if their is a happy medium to this problem, and if so, how the GOP deals with it.

Cite?

The numbers are vague because their estimates and not exact amounts, but if you look at exit polls, it's about 36% of people who voted in 2020 that were registered Democrats and about 36% were registered Republican., or about 57 million each. However, nationally, party registration estimates indicates that there are about 63 million Republicans or so and 92 million Democrats. You can get these numbers by looking at states that have the party registration breakdown (about 30 states) and then estimate the rest using a correlation from the most recent election results, most of these states are smaller states anyways so there is more room for error. These numbers put Republicans at exactly 90% turnout while Democrats only at 62%. Again, these calculations are estimates, and there are many places where there is a MOE, but it can be said with relative certainty that Republicans had a higher turnout rate than Democrats in the 2020 election; it could be 86% vs 68% or 93% vs 58%, there is some room for error, but it can safely be assumed it was at least 10-15% higher.

Some people may argue "muh ancestral Democrats", but pretty much all the data we have indicates that Biden won about the same % of Republicans as Trump won of Democrats; ancestral Ds and suburbanites cancelled out.

This methodology is.....questionable, to put it politely

Self-reported partisan identification (i.e., what is used in exit polls) is much more dynamic than partisan voter registration.     

Red avatars have been singing the "demographics is destiny" song since 2005 and, as Vosem pointed out, the GOP is really in no worse position that it was 15 years ago.  If anything, their advantages in Congress and the Courts are the strongest they've been since the 1920s.   

Yes, the math is flimsy, which is why I advise there is a very large MOE but even assuming these calculations are off by millions, it's really hard to argue the Democrats had a higher share of their registered voters show up compared to the GOP.

As to your second point, the courts have a conservative skew not because the GOP is in a particularly amazing place but because they chose to play hardball since 2014. Losing a trifecta in just 4 years, especially when the electoral systems moderately to heavily benefit your party is not normal. Losing the popular vote in 7/8 past elections is not normal. Receiving a collective 17% fewer votes than Democrats for Senate across the last 3 cycles is not normal. The whole issue is when these advantages start to wane, how is the GOP going to win elections? Electoral advantages, especially when it comes to the Presidency and the House swing back and forth on a relatively regular basis, relying on minority rule just isn't sustainable in a somewhat representative Democracy.

[It’s so Joever]

2005: DEMOCRATS ARE SCREWED FOR A GENERATION
2009: REPUBLICANS ARE SCREWED FOR A GENERATION
2013: REPUBLICANS ARE SCREWED FOR A GENERATION
2017: DEMOCRATS ARE SCREWED FOR A GENERATION
2021: REPUBLICANS ARE SCREWED FOR A GENERATION