Why Trump is almost certain to lose the popular vote again

[Sir Mohamed]

I always had a feeling that Trump, if reelected, would again not win the popular vote. Now at a late hour I found some time to calculate it through. The result was a really shocking: Even in the best scenario I forsee, Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote in 2020 either. He could become the first two-term president who lost the PV both times.

How I made the table up:
I used Microsoft Excel and copied (from Wikipedia) all numbers of total votes per state in 2016. Then I went on to fill in the percentage points. A very good scenario for Trump. Assuming the voter turnout remains somewhat the same, Trump still falls short a half a million votes. And again, the scenario is extremly negative for the Democratic nominee. Trump not only keeps his 2016 states, he's also winning ME, NH and very close in VA, CO and NV. He has increased his voter share in most close 2016 states and gained in TX, UT and SC, among others. I also gave him higher voter shares in Democratic strongholds like CA, IL, NY, MD and IL due to an expected lower third-party voter share. In some of these states, the Democratic nominee even lost some percentage points.

Any thoughts and suggestions on this?

I made two screenshots of the table. I hope the numbers are readable.

EDIT: I corrected some errors, but the result remains almost the same.

[rosin]

It seems like you have interchanged the D and R numbers in AZ and AR.

[Medal506]

In the total amount of registared voters there's still more republicans than democrats? Also where are the independents in this chart?

[The Mikado]

It definitely seems like California transitioning from a state Dems win by 10-20 to a state where Dems win by 25-35 is something that's going to have long-term impacts on this...ditto Texas moving from a state the GOP wins by 20 to a state the GOP wins by 10.

The interesting result on that isn't the presidential popular vote, though, it's the eventual, slowly-approaching wipeout of CA Republicans on the House level. Just like it took until 2004 for the TX Dems to finally get ground into the dust, it'll take a while for this to catch up to CA Republicans, but it will.

[Beet]

This is why the Democrats must continuously protest the electoral college.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Texas and California both trending over 10 points Democrat since 2016 is the short answer explanation.

Although another reason why Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote is that college whites, Asians, and Hispanics are all increasing shares of the population and electorate which vote to the left of noncollege whites who are a decreasing share of the electorate. And the GOP will continue targeting noncollege whites since they're disproportionately represented in the electoral college swing states.

[Skill and Chance]

This is why the Democrats must continuously protest the electoral college.

Well, it's actually politically easier to break up CA the next time they have a trifecta than it is to change the EC rules.  If they want reform, they should focus on the former.  There was a referendum proposed to break up CA a couple years back that was mostly backed by conservatives/libertarians, so it's not like it's something so radical it's never even been discussed before.
,

[Skill and Chance]

For a Trump best case scenario, I would have all of the Midwestern states shift toward him by another 5%+.  Have him flip MN, win PA, WI and MI by 5, crack 55% in OH and IA and crack 60% in MO and IN, and have IL vote more like 2012.  Surely that would be enough to give him the PV even if Texas and California stay unusually strong for Dems?

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, there is really no way Trump can win the popular vote. I wonder what happens if he loses the PV by 3-4 points but somehow ekes out an incredibly narrow win in the Electoral College?

[TDAS04]

Yeah, there is really no way Trump can win the popular vote. I wonder what happens if he loses the PV by 3-4 points but somehow ekes out an incredibly narrow win in the Electoral College?

I'd imagine the outcry against the Electoral College would grow much, much bigger.

It could easily happen if only Michigan and Pennsylvania flip.

[หมูเด้ง]

There is a chance that there is some sort of Black Swan event that pushes the culture in such a direction that causes more of a permanent realignment towards Nationalism in a way that gives Trump a clear and convincing win. He's so long back in the PV, that I would give him only a 50/50 chance of winning the PV and a somewhat less chance of cracking 50.

The only way I think he does it without there being some big realignment is that either 1) The Democrats are done as a Political Party, 2) The Democrats do well in 2018 and overreach (this and the economic recovery probably saved Obama and Bill's ass...probably gave Reagan a slight boost, too), or 3) see above.

Most likely, the scenario of Trump's reelection is what the OP is talking about or something of the scenario that MTT is talking about. That is, maybe the Democrat does as well as Hillary was supposed to in the PV and may even win a majority, but that Democrat still loses because its all based on losing TX by 8, AZ by 2 or 3,  and GA by 3 or 4... and losing Ohio and Iowa by double digits but maybe winning back Pennsylvania and Michigan but coming up 5000 votes short in Wisconsin and 10000 or 20000 short in Florida.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/0GRBP
This is more or less a 2004-like scenario where Trump barely loses the PV. This probably happens because nothing really bad has happened yet and the Democrats have either overreached or can't campaign.


http://www.270towin.com/maps/ZkDBe
This is more or a 2012-like scenario where the benefit of the doubt has begun to wear off but there isn't a credible opposition ready to take over yet
This would be like 268-270. This could be a 51-47-2 map.

[Beet]

This is why the Democrats must continuously protest the electoral college.

Well, it's actually politically easier to break up CA the next time they have a trifecta than it is to change the EC rules.  If they want reform, they should focus on the former.  There was a referendum proposed to break up CA a couple years back that was mostly backed by conservatives/libertarians, so it's not like it's something so radical it's never even been discussed before.
,

How would breaking up California help? That could give them more seats in the Senate only, but even then how many pieces would it have to be to negate the natural GOP advantage? Like 7-8 strip-shaped pieces to be admitted to the Union. Once CA leaves the GOP could just say bye bye.

[Doomer]

I don't see him keeping Michigan.  His approvals in the state are in the tank.

[Sir Mohamed]

It seems like you have interchanged the D and R numbers in AZ and AR.

Correct, it was a little too late at night

But even as I corrected the numbers and deceased the third-party vote to not more than four percent in total the result remains almost the same. Even in this very negative scenario (for Dems) Trump loses the PV by a decent margin.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't see him keeping Michigan.  His approvals in the state are in the tank.

I don't see it either. I'm currently in making a scenario up, where he just barely wins to electoral vote. If he ends up in the 270-285 EC range, he could even lose by five million votes.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, there is really no way Trump can win the popular vote. I wonder what happens if he loses the PV by 3-4 points but somehow ekes out an incredibly narrow win in the Electoral College?

Close preidential election rarely happen 2 times in a row, but 2000 and 2004 were kind of close but John Kerry was swiftboated and Gore had impeachment (1960,1964; 1968, 1972; 1976, 1980)

If Trump loses, and he will(due to his ethics) he will lose by 3 million votes, and lose WI,VA, PA and MI)

[The_Doctor]

Would a different Republican, e.g, Pence be able to break out of this trap with a slightly different coalition?

[หมูเด้ง]

Would a different Republican, e.g, Pence be able to break out of this trap with a slightly different coalition?

Pence would try to run as W's 3rd term as an invitation to crawl back from Populists and Progressives.

That would be hard because he would have to win back CO and VA while holding the rust belt.

[Pollster]

I think you have Rhode Island a little bit too close - I really don't see the 15-point 2016 margin shrinking to a 9-point margin in 2020 especially with Trump's approvals numbers in the high 30's/low 40's. Regardless, this obviously won't impact the national popular vote by much. Great chart.

[President Johnson]

Yeah, if Trump somehow manages to win reelection, I'm 95% sure that he won't win the national popular vote. Basically because of the two largest states: California and Texas. If Democrats get 60% and more in the Golden State, I don't see how (or where) Trump (or any Republican) can find these million of extra votes to make it up. Texas, while still reliably Republican, has trended Democratic as well. And it makes a huge difference whether you lose the Lone Star State by 7 or 17 points. These factors make it really hard to overcome the Democratic advantage in the popular vote. And even if the Rust Belt trends more Republican, it's not enough to make that up, especially because these states still remain very close (at best for the GOP).

And I even don't see the above scenario (good work by the way) to occur if Trump wins a second term. Probably Michigan and Pennsylvania flip back, while he only adds small states like New Hampshire and Maine to his column. It's absolutely possible that he again loses by two or three million votes, but wins the Electoral College by a small margin. Even a deficit of four million is possible.

That's why we should abolish the Electoral College. It belongs into the 19th century, not the 21st.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

For a Trump best case scenario, I would have all of the Midwestern states shift toward him by another 5%+.  Have him flip MN, win PA, WI and MI by 5, crack 55% in OH and IA and crack 60% in MO and IN, and have IL vote more like 2012.  Surely that would be enough to give him the PV even if Texas and California stay unusually strong for Dems?

Illinois's vote percentage in 2016 was almost identical to how it voted in 2012.