Is the Popular Vote unwinnable for the GOP?

[Tekken_Guy]

Is the popular vote unwinnable for the GOP in this day and age? Just look at the 2016 results and the degree of political polarization.

Hillary still beat Trump by 3 million votes despite losing the EC. IMO the GOP will need to cut down the Democrats' margins in California and widen their lead in Texas in order to have a chance.

[I’m not Stu]

Yes, unless the party becomes far less conservative. This would lead to a major ideological realignment. If the 6th party system (1980-present, starting with Reagan) continues any longer, the popular vote is unwinnable for the GOP.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

I think you gave the correct analysis. While the GOP is unfairly favored in the Electoral College thanks to the disproportionately many votes of the tiny states, the Democrats have a tremendous advantage for the popular vote thanks to the huge states.

[Beet]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

I think you gave the correct analysis. While the GOP is unfairly favored in the Electoral College thanks to the disproportionately many votes of the tiny states, the Democrats have a tremendous advantage for the popular vote thanks to the huge states.

I mean, the size of the states don't really impact the Democrats' popular vote. It's the people in them.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think they can win it, but things would have to be either REALLY GOOD under a Republican President (though even this probably wouldn't be enough for someone as controversial as Trump) or REALLY BAD under a Democratic President.

[Mr. Smith]

Was it unwinnable for Democrats after 1968? Certainly would've looked that way, but Carter cracked it, Dukakis had it until he blew with the tank op and failures to defend himself, and then 1992 saw a yuge shift

A slight improvement in Texas, max out Utah and Idaho, and recede the trend in Arizona ought to do it.

[Skill and Chance]

Was it unwinnable for Democrats after 1968? Certainly would've looked that way, but Carter cracked it, Dukakis had it until he blew with the tank op and failures to defend himself, and then 1992 saw a yuge shift

A slight improvement in Texas, max out Utah and Idaho, and recede the trend in Arizona ought to do it.

They aren't really big enough though.  The best short term bet for Republicans to run up the PV is to win Florida and Pennsylvania by 5 and have all of the Clinton 96-McCain 08 states vote like OK.

[Former President tack50]

My guess is that no, but narrowly winning the popular vote would be equivalent to a medium sized victory (like Obama's victories), and winning the popular vote comfortably would mean a landslide.

So to tie the election, you wouldn't need a popular vote tie, but a D+2 or 3 popular vote

[Skill and Chance]

My guess is that no, but narrowly winning the popular vote would be equivalent to a medium sized victory (like Obama's victories), and winning the popular vote comfortably would mean a landslide.

So to tie the election, you wouldn't need a popular vote tie, but a D+2 or 3 popular vote

Keep in mind that EC vs. PV changes faster and more frequently than most are assuming.  Dems actually held the EC advantage from 2004-2012.  In 2008, Obama could have lost the PV as badly as Trump and still won the election. 

[Mister Mets]

If Trump came within three million of the popular vote, the best possible GOP candidate would be able to do significantly better

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's probably only unwinnable for Trump.

[Tartarus Sauce]

It depends on which path they decide to choose as a party post-Trump. Double down on Trump's strategy? Not only will they never win the popular vote, they probably won't even crack 45% again. Run a more palatable candidate against a really bad Democratic candidate? Certainly, I'm just not sure such a candidate could survive the GOP primaries nowadays.

[twenty42]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

I think you gave the correct analysis. While the GOP is unfairly favored in the Electoral College thanks to the disproportionately many votes of the tiny states, the Democrats have a tremendous advantage for the popular vote thanks to the huge states.

It wasn’t just the big blue (Atlas red) states that gave Hillary the PV. She also wasted her resources in states she didn’t need to win such as AZ, NC, and GA, which pulled these states slightly to the left. This ran up her PV score but was ultimately meaningless in her path to 270. We have no idea what the PV would look like if Hillary strictly focused on MI, WI, PA, and FL. Who knows...if she had hammered on those states and Trump was the one trying to “expand the map,” we may have seen a PV/EV split in the opposite direction.

[FalloutBoy97]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

I think you gave the correct analysis. While the GOP is unfairly favored in the Electoral College thanks to the disproportionately many votes of the tiny states, the Democrats have a tremendous advantage for the popular vote thanks to the huge states.

It wasn’t just the big blue (Atlas red) states that gave Hillary the PV. She also wasted her resources in states she didn’t need to win such as AZ, NC, and GA, which pulled these states slightly to the left. This ran up her PV score but was ultimately meaningless in her path to 270. We have no idea what the PV would look like if Hillary strictly focused on MI, WI, PA, and FL. Who knows...if she had hammered on those states and Trump was the one trying to “expand the map,” we may have seen a PV/EV split in the opposite direction.

I seriously doubt that television ads and GOTV operations could have swung the popular vote by 3 million. Those things generally only make a difference with marginal and very low propensity voters, regardless of where they are deployed. Hillary had a built-in advantage in the PV while Trump had a built-in advantage in the EC as a result of the coalitions they had built.

[Virginiá]

I think it would either take a substantial shakeup in the coalitions or a term-limited Democratic president presiding over a recession at the end of their term (like Bush). Perhaps not necessarily a recession even, but some combination of events that causes the outgoing Democrat to be very unpopular. Maybe a relatively popular Republican incumbent president as well.

[RINO Tom]

Absolutes in politics are always dumb, IMO.  Alabama is going to vote Democratic again, and Massachusetts will eventually support another Republican.  To say otherwise is to not learn from history.  So, no, the PV isn't "unwinnable" for Republicans, but they are certainly at a disadvantage right now.  We also have to see what a post-Trump GOP looks like, too.  We can really only look to 2020 to make too many predictions.

[Red Tory Indy]

I agree a different Republican coalition can absolutely win the PV but for the current Republican coalition it’s going to be difficult. Generic D certainly has a pv advantage over Generic R even in a 2016 or 2012 like economic situation. For Republicans to win the PV your going to need an very strong  Republican versus a weak Democrat.

[LabourJersey]

It's unwinnable for Trump. But if the GOP runs Pence in 2020 or someone "fresh face" in 2024, who knows

[I’m not Stu]

Unwinnable for Trump. Not unwinnable for every candidate.

[ctrepublican512]

I don't know if I'd say unwinnable, but under the current conditions it's very unlikely that a Republican can win the national popular vote. it's hard to win the popular vote when you're getting blown out in states like California, Illinois, New York, and running close in states like Texas and Florida.

I think you gave the correct analysis. While the GOP is unfairly favored in the Electoral College thanks to the disproportionately many votes of the tiny states, the Democrats have a tremendous advantage for the popular vote thanks to the huge states.

Can we end this myth now? Including Maine with Democrats just to make things easier, in the last election there were more small states voting Dem than small state voting GOP (looking at states with under 5 ECs). Everyone always wants to chide MT, WY, ND, SD, etc. and then omit VT, HI, RI, DE, etc. That goes along with the argument against having a Senate. Small Dem states are just as represented as small GOP states.

[TNcon4]

No, but it will be increasingly less likely.

[fluffypanther19]

No, but it will be increasingly less likely.

[Frodo]

With their current coalition under Trump? Yes, and everyday it becomes more so. 

[morgankingsley]

Not unwinnable, but very hard. Rubio could have done it. Trump could do it if he went against a disaster like Warren, The Rock, or oh mighty heaven forbid Kanye West