2024 marks 20 years since the Republicans last won the popular vote

[Vosem]

This seems like it's mostly explicable by a mixture of 'Barack Obama was an uncommonly effective politician' and 'the GOP has inherent advantages that let it shoot for fewer voters than the Democrats'. Over the same period (including 2004 itself) there's been a 5-5 tie in the House popular vote (and of course an outright GOP advantage in how often they hold the House).

When you let the sect of a religion (Evangelicals) not only influencing but dictating your policy decisions then it's inevitable that you'll antagonize and alienate the rest of the country.

Amusingly enough, the most recent presidential election at which the GOP nominee improved with non-evangelicals was earlier than this data-set; it was 2000. (I'm not sure of the numbers for House elections, but I have to assume that something like 2010 would qualify, and given the patterns actually probably 2022). Of course the reason the GOP stays competitive (in fact on the election-results level rather than the popular-vote level, literally wins more often than not) is that evangelicals are growing pretty rapidly as a fraction of the population.

[Del Tachi]

If it wasn't for the South (and Southern White Evangelicals, in particular), the Republican Party would be in the same category as the Whigs - extinct.

America would be in a much better place.

And if it wasn’t for non-White voters, the Democrats would be extinct.  So what’re you trying to say?  lmao   

[Vosem]

This seems like it's mostly explicable by a mixture of 'Barack Obama was an uncommonly effective politician' and 'the GOP has inherent advantages that let it shoot for fewer voters than the Democrats'. Over the same period (including 2004 itself) there's been a 5-5 tie in the House popular vote (and of course an outright GOP advantage in how often they hold the House).

When you let the sect of a religion (Evangelicals) not only influencing but dictating your policy decisions then it's inevitable that you'll antagonize and alienate the rest of the country.

Amusingly enough, the most recent presidential election at which the GOP nominee improved with non-evangelicals was earlier than this data-set; it was 2000. (I'm not sure of the numbers for House elections, but I have to assume that something like 2010 would qualify, and given the patterns actually probably 2022). Of course the reason the GOP stays competitive (in fact on the election-results level rather than the popular-vote level, literally wins more often than not) is that evangelicals are growing pretty rapidly as a fraction of the population.

Interestingly, and contrary to my expectations, the GOP improved by quite a bit with non-evangelicals in 2022 (went from 61-36 to 59-40, or D+25 to D+19), and also improved strongly with evangelicals (from 75-25 to 83-15, or from R+50 to R+68); the reason their overall gains were muted was that evangelicals actually crashed as a proportion of the electorate, from 28% to 24%. Wonder if there was an overlooked downscale-GOP turnout problem, or if some meaningful number of 'casual self-identified evangelicals' actually stopped self-identifying as evangelical after Dobbs, which would also explain the group's large swing right.

The last time there was an electorate as non-evangelical as 2022's was in 2006; 2022 also marked the first time in the 21st century that self-reported evangelicalism declined at an exit poll, and it did so pretty dramatically.

According to the exit poll, there was an enormous shock to pro-choice numbers, with Americans in the 2020 election saying abortion should be legal by a 51-43 margin, but in 2022 saying it should be by a 60-37 margin. (Again contrary to my expectations, Republicans actually barely gained with self-identified pro-legal-abortion voters, but this is basically certainly a mirage caused by people who considered themselves marginally anti-abortion in 2020 calling themselves supporters of legal abortion in 2022).

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

And if it wasn’t for non-White voters, the Democrats would be extinct.  So what’re you trying to say?  lmao  

Evangelicals hold the country back with their regressive views and voting patterns.

The majority of non-Evangelical White voters support the Democratic Party. White Evangelicals are literally the only thing keeping the worthless Republican Party alive.

[GP270watch]

If it wasn't for the South (and Southern White Evangelicals, in particular), the Republican Party would be in the same category as the Whigs - extinct.

America would be in a much better place.

And if it wasn’t for non-White voters, the Democrats would be extinct.  So what’re you trying to say?  lmao  

 If the county in increasingly non-white why should future policy, law, and representation be shaped primarily by white voters?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Had it not been for so much concern over national security Bush might not have won that election. Republicans have lost the popular vote because they have alienated much of the electorate to maintain a base.

If they are so unpopular, why are they popular with the military and police and other forces? Why? Especially the rank and file.

Said every brutal authoritarian military regime propped up by military grunts and corrupt police forces around the world.

As if those groups compose at most what, 2% of the population?

[Ferguson97]

Had it not been for so much concern over national security Bush might not have won that election. Republicans have lost the popular vote because they have alienated much of the electorate to maintain a base.

If they are so unpopular, why are they popular with the military and police and other forces? Why? Especially the rank and file.

What???

If they are so unpopular, why are they popular with the security arms of the country?

I don't even know what you're saying. The "security arms" of the country are not representative of the average person. Just because something is popular with a small portion of the population doesn't mean it's going to be popular with the rest.

[Inmate Trump]

It’s because the name of the game isn’t to win the popular vote but rather to win the most electoral votes . So you run your campaign and strategy based on winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote .

This. The popular vote is just a vanity statistic calculated by the media that shouldn't be given any serious historical weight. We use the electoral college to get an honest representation of the whole country, rather than the PV, which could just result in a candidate winning by uniting voters in the 3-4 biggest states and getting third party type support everywhere else.

Obviously the popular vote doesn’t determine election outcomes. But it does show a mandate (or lack thereof). It’s also frankly embarrassing to  it be the will of the people in every election for 20 years.

If election's were based on popular votes, campaigns would be run differently so you cant use popular vote totals to determine who has a mandate or not really.

It's meaningful, even if it doesn't technically matter. Most of the country does not want a Republican president.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It’s because the name of the game isn’t to win the popular vote but rather to win the most electoral votes . So you run your campaign and strategy based on winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote .

This. The popular vote is just a vanity statistic calculated by the media that shouldn't be given any serious historical weight. We use the electoral college to get an honest representation of the whole country, rather than the PV, which could just result in a candidate winning by uniting voters in the 3-4 biggest states and getting third party type support everywhere else.

Obviously the popular vote doesn’t determine election outcomes. But it does show a mandate (or lack thereof). It’s also frankly embarrassing to  it be the will of the people in every election for 20 years.

If election's were based on popular votes, campaigns would be run differently so you cant use popular vote totals to determine who has a mandate or not really.

It's meaningful, even if it doesn't technically matter. Most of the country does not want a Republican president.

You cannot use a measure that campaigns aren’t designed around . Campaigns would be different if elections were based on the popular vote so you can’t claim this

[Ferguson97]

You cannot use a measure that campaigns aren’t designed around . Campaigns would be different if elections were based on the popular vote so you can’t claim this

This is a cope. You can't just say that "the only relevant metric is the one that actually elects the president". The popular vote is still relevant in terms of gauging public opinion, and you know that it is,  because I never see a conservative dismiss a national poll on the basis that there are no national referendums or whatever.

[SWE]

It’s because the name of the game isn’t to win the popular vote but rather to win the most electoral votes . So you run your campaign and strategy based on winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote .

This. The popular vote is just a vanity statistic calculated by the media that shouldn't be given any serious historical weight. We use the electoral college to get an honest representation of the whole country, rather than the PV, which could just result in a candidate winning by uniting voters in the 3-4 biggest states and getting third party type support everywhere else.

Obviously the popular vote doesn’t determine election outcomes. But it does show a mandate (or lack thereof). It’s also frankly embarrassing to  it be the will of the people in every election for 20 years.

If election's were based on popular votes, campaigns would be run differently so you cant use popular vote totals to determine who has a mandate or not really.

It's meaningful, even if it doesn't technically matter. Most of the country does not want a Republican president.

You cannot use a measure that campaigns aren’t designed around . Campaigns would be different if elections were based on the popular vote so you can’t claim this

This kind of works for defending Bush in 2000, but Hillary and Trump both ran extremely incompetent campaigns in 2016 so I doubt either would adjust their strategy if it was rational to do so

[emailking]

I don't find the campaigning argument particularly compelling. Everybody should be doing their own research and voting. A lot of people don't and campaigns are trying to take advantage of that sure. So maybe Republicans could have gotten more votes if they tried harder? Well, they didn't.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You cannot use a measure that campaigns aren’t designed around . Campaigns would be different if elections were based on the popular vote so you can’t claim this

This is a cope. You can't just say that "the only relevant metric is the one that actually elects the president". The popular vote is still relevant in terms of gauging public opinion, and you know that it is,  because I never see a conservative dismiss a national poll on the basis that there are no national referendums or whatever.

Uh no what you are saying is pure cope, as campaigns would be very different if elections were designed around the popular vote rather than the electoral vote. If elections were designed around the popular vote, you would see far more campaigning in the largest states and less in the smaller ones.

I don't find the campaigning argument particularly compelling. Everybody should be doing their own research and voting. A lot of people don't and campaigns are trying to take advantage of that sure. So maybe Republicans could have gotten more votes if they tried harder? Well, they didn't.

Cause it would be stupid for Republicans to put resources into California and New York

[jojoju1998]

And if it wasn’t for non-White voters, the Democrats would be extinct.  So what’re you trying to say?  lmao  

Evangelicals hold the country back with their regressive views and voting patterns.

The majority of non-Evangelical White voters support the Democratic Party. White Evangelicals are literally the only thing keeping the worthless Republican Party alive.

Evangelicalism is growing among minority people, and are less political than their white counterparts.

Indeed, go to any evangelical church, or even Catholic Church where I live at least, and you can see a very diverse set of attendance.

Fuller Seminary in California, the most premier Evangelical Seminary on the West Coast, half of the Faculty are all Koreans. And they now have a Black President.

Even the Southern Baptists, Their fastest growing component are Asians. There's a literal Vietnamese Church affiliated with the Southern Baptists in Sacramento.

Go look at the Catholics. In The Diocese of Orange alone, 3/4rds of all the Seminarians are either Asian or Hispanic.

And if you look at this, https://www.lsu.edu/research/news/2020/1109-unchurched.php, Trump voters are LESS likely to attend a Church service of any kind.

[emailking]

Cause it would be stupid for Republicans to put resources into California and New York

Sure. But it's not a counter to the observation that they got fewer votes. Fewer people who care about the election wanted Republicans to win. So you're saying that you think they could have gotten more people to care who don't care if they thought it made strategic sense. Well they didn't.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cause it would be stupid for Republicans to put resources into California and New York

Sure. But it's not a counter to the observation that they got fewer votes. Fewer people who care about the election wanted Republicans to win. So you're saying that you think they could have gotten more people to care who don't care if they thought it made strategic sense. Well they didn't.

Yes but its a stupid observation cause it usually just pure cope from Democrats cause of course parties will campaign under the rules of the game, and not another figure.
 

[emailking]

I think more people believing their votes matter would have a much bigger effect than any campaigning in California or Texas.

[jojoju1998]

When you let the sect of a religion (Evangelicals) not only influencing but dictating your policy decisions then it's inevitable that you'll antagonize and alienate the rest of the country.

Evangelicals are not a monolith. You are probably thinking about White Evangelicals, who actually attend Church at a lower rate compared to Evangelical people of color.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Evangelicalism is growing among minority people, and are less political than their white counterparts.

Indeed, go to any evangelical church, or even Catholic Church where I live at least, and you can see a very diverse set of attendance.

Fuller Seminary in California, the most premier Evangelical Seminary on the West Coast, half of the Faculty are all Koreans. And they now have a Black President.

Even the Southern Baptists, Their fastest growing component are Asians. There's a literal Vietnamese Church affiliated with the Southern Baptists in Sacramento.

Go look at the Catholics. In The Diocese of Orange alone, 3/4rds of all the Seminarians are either Asian or Hispanic.

And if you look at this, https://www.lsu.edu/research/news/2020/1109-unchurched.php, Trump voters are LESS likely to attend a Church service of any kind.

OK cool but this is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

[jojoju1998]

Evangelicalism is growing among minority people, and are less political than their white counterparts.

Indeed, go to any evangelical church, or even Catholic Church where I live at least, and you can see a very diverse set of attendance.

Fuller Seminary in California, the most premier Evangelical Seminary on the West Coast, half of the Faculty are all Koreans. And they now have a Black President.

Even the Southern Baptists, Their fastest growing component are Asians. There's a literal Vietnamese Church affiliated with the Southern Baptists in Sacramento.

Go look at the Catholics. In The Diocese of Orange alone, 3/4rds of all the Seminarians are either Asian or Hispanic.

And if you look at this, https://www.lsu.edu/research/news/2020/1109-unchurched.php, Trump voters are LESS likely to attend a Church service of any kind.

OK cool but this is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Yes it does. In my view, you have painted Evangelicals with a broad brush. By associating all Evangelicals, with a subsection of it.

[Pericles]

These results and Senate results show that Republicans are squandering much of the advantage they get through more efficient distribution of their voters.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Yes it does. In my view, you have painted Evangelicals with a broad brush. By associating all Evangelicals, with a subsection of it.

No, I didn't. I specifically mentioned from the beginning that I was talking about White Evangelicals (and Southern ones in particular).

Regardless, like I said, what you brought up is completely irrelevant.

[DrScholl]

Five election cycles is not enough of a sample size to support any kind of robust inference about the inherent electability of the Republican Party.  It is not difficult to imagine a counterfactual world where Republicans win the popular vote in 2008 (after Kerry narrowly wins in 2004) or a non-Trump Republican winning it in 2016 and 2020.   

And even so, Republicans have won the national popular vote in high-turnout elections for Congress, like 2022 and 2016, and Democrats did not win a majority of the popular vote in either 2000 or 2016.  Your point is over-specified, for all these reasons.

That is plenty enough examples to show the Republican Party has issues with electability and considering this isn't a poll sample size is irrelevant. The congressional popular vote is not the same as the presidential as you have uncontested races and gerrymandering that heavily reduces competitive races. With that said the GOP barely gaining seats in the last midterm shows they have a elections problem.

[Benjamin Frank]

It’s because the name of the game isn’t to win the popular vote but rather to win the most electoral votes . So you run your campaign and strategy based on winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote .

It’s just like the name of the game in the playoffs is to win 4 games and not really score the most points . For example the team who won two of their games say by 20 and 25 points respectively but lost the other four games by less than 10 points each would still lose the series even though they have scored more points in the series itself .

To add to this, it can also be a hassle to win a large majority (though whether even 53% - as Barack Obama received in 2008 - is a 'large majority' is a matter of opinion.)

The more narrowly you tailor your winning coalition, the less diverse set of voters you theoretically have to please. Of course, this isn't really true specifically for the modern Republican Party in that they clearly have very contradictory supporters and they are incapable of governing, but:
1.That doesnt' necessarily take away from when the Republicans in 2004 seemingly made a conscious choice that they didn't want to win with more than 51% of the popular vote.
2.The Republicans are aware that their contradictory coalition is very loyal despite all their contradictions.

The Democrats, in contrast, try to be a 'big tent' party and, the most obvious example of that falling apart was between 1964 and 1968.

There are theories from academic psephologists who argue that elections tend to be close primarily for that reason.