Can a Democrat win the election without the PV?

[Tekken_Guy]

We've had four Republicans win the presidency without the Popular Vote (Hayes, Harrison, Bush and Trump). But it's never happened the other way around. Will it be possible to happen in this environment?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

In 2012 it was certainly possible.

[Mr. Smith]

Almost happened in '04.

[Heisenberg]

That ship has sailed. I can't see that happening anytime soon, simply because I think the popular vote favors Democrats, and in a way that if they carry the popular vote, they win the EC in a landslide. 2004 was when Republicans won Texas by more than 20 and kept California way, way closer than Trump did. Those days are gone, and now California, as well as the Chicago area and NYC are massive natural Democratic vote sinks that lead to a lot of "wasted votes."

[peterthlee]

That ship has sailed. I can't see that happening anytime soon, simply because I think the popular vote favors Democrats, and in a way that if they carry the popular vote, they win the EC in a landslide. 2004 was when Republicans won Texas by more than 20 and kept California way, way closer than Trump did. Those days are gone, and now California, as well as the Chicago area and NYC are massive natural Democratic vote sinks that lead to a lot of "wasted votes."

Yeah, you've get the point, Heisenberg.

[LLR]

Yes, if they run on a platform of "F[inks] California," and get 55% there instead of 60%

[mvd10]

When I played with the demographic tools I found out that a Republican overperforming with minorities while underperforming with whites could win the PV while losing the EV, so I guess it's possible. But I fear we won't be seeing a Republican candidate cracking 40% with hispanics anytime soon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

That's what I predicted in 2012 :

Obama 272 49 percent
Romney 266 50 percent

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats did better in the tipping point state than the popular vote in 3 of the last 5 elections. It's just you pay more attention to the divergence in the other 2, since it actually made the difference there.

[Pericles]

It could have happened in 2004, 2008 and 2012. If Democrats did weaker with minorities and college-educated whites, costing them in states like California, New York and Texas but being ineffectively distributed in the popular vote, while doing better with non college-educated whites they could win the EC and not the PV.

[Adam Griffin]

Until Trump broke the map, it was widely assumed under 08/12 scenarios that Democrats were much more likely to win the EC and lose the PV than vice-versa; roughly ten times more likely (1-2% versus 0.1-0.2%).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Until Trump broke the map, it was widely assumed under 08/12 scenarios that Democrats were much more likely to win the EC and lose the PV than vice-versa; roughly ten times more likely (1-2% versus 0.1-0.2%).

Nate Silver is overrated, but he did figure out that it was much more likely (10.5%) for Hillary to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote than vice versa (0.5%).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[jamestroll]

Until Trump broke the map, it was widely assumed under 08/12 scenarios that Democrats were much more likely to win the EC and lose the PV than vice-versa; roughly ten times more likely (1-2% versus 0.1-0.2%).

This is pretty much why we should avoid making hasty predictions. Right now this forum is predicting +40 or so GOP house gains and +10 to 15 GOP Senate gains because of MIDTERM!!!

Politics can be counter intuitive

[Sir Mohamed]

Flip OH in 2004 narrowly to Kerry, and there you go. It could also have happened in 1960. But as already pointed out, it is more likely for Republicans, since Democrats “waste” a lot of votes in safe states like CA, NY, IL and MD. If these were closer (with Dems winning with only 51-52%), it would be a different ballgame.

Trump could have won the PV in 2016, had Hillary won these four states with less than ~53% and he got over 60% in TX.