Path to a popular vote victory for the Republicans in 2024

[TwinGeeks99]

Now knowing the results of the 2020 election, where and how can the Republicans improve so that they could win the popular vote in the next election?

[morgankingsley]

Actually running a national campaign that doesn't only focus on random swing states

[Matty]

figuring out how to maintain rural margins while clawing back with suburbanites. sprinkle in a some improvement among minorities.

[Del Tachi]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

[Matty]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

could be true.

nightmare scenario for dems is that their collapse in the rural areas is due to structural reasons (change in dem party platform, general issues, etc), while the gop collapse in suburbs is largely due to trump's conduct. Nightmare scenario for dems is a 2024 gop nominee maintaining trump margins in the rurals, while swinging burbs 5-10% gop.

[Skill and Chance]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

Hmmm... I think I agree on 2016.  It's plausible Rubio or Cruz even end up on the receiving end of an EV/PV split.  As for reelection in 2020, judging by global election results/approvals this year, they would have to go authoritarian early on COVID to win.  If Trump wouldn't do that after his campaign positions on trade/immigration/China, I doubt anyone else in the 2016 GOP field ever would have?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

LOL no.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. That one time in 2004 was mainly due to the rally-around-the-flag effect and incumbency advantage for Bush 43.

Until the GOP can appeal to urban areas more, no GOP candidate is winning the popular vote in the foreseeable future (unless a Democratic presidential candidate has some extreme scandal against them).

[Skill and Chance]

For the short term, a Southwestern strategy is the best way for the GOP to win the popular vote.  Eventually, it will be winning the entire Midwest/Rust Belt with 60%+, but we clearly aren't there yet. 

[Gass3268]

For the short term, a Southwestern strategy is the best way for the GOP to win the popular vote.  Eventually, it will be winning the entire Midwest/Rust Belt with 60%+, but we clearly aren't there yet. 

There are enough college educated voters in the Midwest to prevent the Midwest from going the way of the Upper South.

[MATTROSE94]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

John Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio would have definitely won the popular vote in 2016 in retrospect given the type of campaign Hillary Clinton ran.

[MATTROSE94]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

could be true.

nightmare scenario for dems is that their collapse in the rural areas is due to structural reasons (change in dem party platform, general issues, etc), while the gop collapse in suburbs is largely due to trump's conduct. Nightmare scenario for dems is a 2024 gop nominee maintaining trump margins in the rurals, while swinging burbs 5-10% gop.

I am thinking that Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or Marco Rubio are the types of candidates who could do that in 2024, which would be terrible for the Democrats going forward. They are already locked out of the Senate until 2032, so this would be a worse case scenario for them.

[Skill and Chance]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

could be true.

nightmare scenario for dems is that their collapse in the rural areas is due to structural reasons (change in dem party platform, general issues, etc), while the gop collapse in suburbs is largely due to trump's conduct. Nightmare scenario for dems is a 2024 gop nominee maintaining trump margins in the rurals, while swinging burbs 5-10% gop.

I am thinking that Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or Marco Rubio are the types of candidates who could do that in 2024, which would be terrible for the Democrats going forward. They are already locked out of the Senate until 2032, so this would be a worse case scenario for them.

Not sure about that senate lockout?  They start off down at most 2.  Not a ton to worry about in 2022.  2024 will hurt, but a 2026 GOP midterm could have quite a high ceiling if Trump era trends continue. 

[Frodo]

Abandoning the Southern Strategy in its entirety would be a good start. 

[Arizona Iced Tea]

The issue is that Texas just isn't as Republican anymore, and that California is far too Democratic. In 2004 when Bush won the popular vote, he won Texas by 20+ points and kept California by less than 10%. However now, California is D+30 and Texas is single digits for the Republican party it is hard to win the popular vote.

[DINGO Joe]

Perhaps giving statehood to Hell

[TwinGeeks99]

Abandoning the Southern Strategy in its entirety would be a good start. 

Then what would replace it? Would you be presuming that the deep red southern states will go Republican anyway, so they should just focus more on winning over moderates?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The issue is that Texas just isn't as Republican anymore, and that California is far too Democratic. In 2004 when Bush won the popular vote, he won Texas by 20+ points and kept California by less than 10%. However now, California is D+30 and Texas is single digits for the Republican party it is hard to win the popular vote.

You can compensate for TX being less Republican but only by so much. You run out of states and math to make it happen, unless you get back to the mid 40s in ILL, NY and/or CA.

There are things you can do though with say a 8% - 12% TX win to win the PV, but those include being over 5% margin as well in PA/WI/MI, winning OH by more then 10%, winning Florida by 5%-6%, and getting over 60% in IN, MO, KS and NE. 

Some of this math is already there.

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

could be true.

nightmare scenario for dems is that their collapse in the rural areas is due to structural reasons (change in dem party platform, general issues, etc), while the gop collapse in suburbs is largely due to trump's conduct. Nightmare scenario for dems is a 2024 gop nominee maintaining trump margins in the rurals, while swinging burbs 5-10% gop.

I am thinking that Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or Marco Rubio are the types of candidates who could do that in 2024, which would be terrible for the Democrats going forward. They are already locked out of the Senate until 2032, so this would be a worse case scenario for them.

Yes those three would be on the list of possibilities to pull that off. There are one or two others as well.

[Catalyst138]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

John Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio would have definitely won the popular vote in 2016 in retrospect given the type of campaign Hillary Clinton ran.

I actually doubt that. IMO Trump had an unusually good matchup against Clinton, he was able to portray himself as an outsider fighting a corrupt elitist. I think Clinton would have narrowly beaten Rubio or Jeb, though they would have won Florida by more. Not sure about Kasich.

[Del Tachi]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

LOL no.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. That one time in 2004 was mainly due to the rally-around-the-flag effect and incumbency advantage for Bush 43.

If the GOP nominee in 2016 had been someone other than Donald Trump, we'd be talking about the GOP winning the popular vote thrice in the past 30 years instead of only once (to the Democrats' five, three of which they won with less than 50%.)

Nothing you said in your post even pretends to argue with this assessment, you're just repeating a tired talking point about how electorally "lame" the GOP is, lmao

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

LOL no.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. That one time in 2004 was mainly due to the rally-around-the-flag effect and incumbency advantage for Bush 43.

If the GOP nominee in 2016 had been someone other than Donald Trump, we'd be talking about the GOP winning the popular vote thrice in the past 30 years instead of only once (to the Democrats' five, three of which they won with less than 50%.)

Nothing you said in your post even pretends to argue with this assessment, you're just repeating a tired talking point about how electorally "lame" the GOP is, lmao

You have no evidence to prove your first claim. Thus, it is null & void.

[Frodo]

Abandoning the Southern Strategy in its entirety would be a good start. 

Then what would replace it? Would you be presuming that the deep red southern states will go Republican anyway, so they should just focus more on winning over moderates?

Appeal to minorities.  You have more in common with them than you think, and if you abandon your white grievance gimmick, you would see that. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is no path without Cali, IL and NY

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Stop supporting current Republican policies.

[Del Tachi]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

LOL no.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. That one time in 2004 was mainly due to the rally-around-the-flag effect and incumbency advantage for Bush 43.

If the GOP nominee in 2016 had been someone other than Donald Trump, we'd be talking about the GOP winning the popular vote thrice in the past 30 years instead of only once (to the Democrats' five, three of which they won with less than 50%.)

Nothing you said in your post even pretends to argue with this assessment, you're just repeating a tired talking point about how electorally "lame" the GOP is, lmao

You have no evidence to prove your first claim. Thus, it is null & void.

And you have no “evidence” that the GOP starts out with a popular vote disadvantage in 2024.  So your claim is null and void too, I guess lol

[MATTROSE94]

Republicans supposed "disadvantage" in the popular vote is oversold.  Any plausible Republican nominee *not named Donald Trump would have won the popular vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and said Republican would have probably been reelected (with a popular vote mandate) in 2020.

could be true.

nightmare scenario for dems is that their collapse in the rural areas is due to structural reasons (change in dem party platform, general issues, etc), while the gop collapse in suburbs is largely due to trump's conduct. Nightmare scenario for dems is a 2024 gop nominee maintaining trump margins in the rurals, while swinging burbs 5-10% gop.

I am thinking that Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or Marco Rubio are the types of candidates who could do that in 2024, which would be terrible for the Democrats going forward. They are already locked out of the Senate until 2032, so this would be a worse case scenario for them.

Not sure about that senate lockout?  They start off down at most 2.  Not a ton to worry about in 2022.  2024 will hurt, but a 2026 GOP midterm could have quite a high ceiling if Trump era trends continue. 

2022 could be a bloodbath, as Rick Scott is angling for Phil Scott, Adam Kinzinger, Chris Sununu, Doug Ducey, Larry Hogan, Brian Sandoval, and Chris Shays to run for the Senate in their respective states. The Democrats do have a couple of pick up oppritunities that year such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alaska, and (depending on the runoff election results) Georgia, though they still will might end up with a net loss of seats. 2024 is to be expected to be a bloodbath as well and could potentially see a net gain of at least 10 seats for the Republicans.

2026 will likely be a good year for the Democrats in terms of the Senate, but there is not enough seats up that for them to close a 18 seats advantage by the Republicans. If they widdle away at the Republican advantage in each year starting in 2026, they could have a narrow Senate majority by 2032. Maybe even 2034 would be the year of a Senate breakthrough by Democrats at the latest as well.