What if Trump wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The scenario that isn't getting enough talk is Trump winning the popular vote but losing the election.  If New York, California, and Florida all trend substantially Republican, that will dramatically help Trump in the popular vote (potentially 2-3 points by themselves) while not mattering at all in the electoral college.

Then, the 2022 midterms (and some current polling) showed Republicans holding up well in the South but struggling to reclaim victories in the Upper Midwest (plus PA) states Trump flipped in 2016.  I'm confident Trump will win Georgia, but much less so that he can again flip MI/WI/PA.  If that trio trends a bit left relative to the nation, it opens the door to a reverse PV/EC split.

I'll also note that, in 2022, the median House district voted to the left of the nation.  In other words, Republicans won the House popular vote more comfortably than they actually won the House.  And, finally, while Republicans clearly benefited (or nearly did) from the electoral college in 2000, 2016, and 2020, that wasn't the case in the Obama years.  In fact, in 2012, there was a lot of talk about Romney winning the popular vote, while losing the election (and that might have actually happened if the election were in mid-October).

[Skill and Chance]

It seems extremely likely a Republican-controlled House would find a reason to reject EV from a close big state that voted for Biden, but extremely unlikely a Republican-controlled Senate would go along with it.  However, Republicans aren't at all assured of controlling the House in this scenario to begin with.

[heatcharger]

In fact, in 2012, there was a lot of talk about Romney winning the popular vote, while losing the election (and that might have actually happened if the election were in mid-October).

Even after all these years Romney cope is still funny to me.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The scenario that isn't getting enough talk is Trump winning the popular vote but losing the election.  If New York, California, and Florida all trend substantially Republican, that will dramatically help Trump in the popular vote (potentially 2-3 points by themselves) while not mattering at all in the electoral college.

Then, the 2022 midterms (and some current polling) showed Republicans holding up well in the South but struggling to reclaim victories in the Upper Midwest (plus PA) states Trump flipped in 2016.  I'm confident Trump will win Georgia, but much less so that he can again flip MI/WI/PA.  If that trio trends a bit left relative to the nation, it opens the door to a reverse PV/EC split.

I'll also note that, in 2022, the median House district voted to the left of the nation.  In other words, Republicans won the House popular vote more comfortably than they actually won the House.  And, finally, while Republicans clearly benefited (or nearly did) from the electoral college in 2000, 2016, and 2020, that wasn't the case in the Obama years.  In fact, in 2012, there was a lot of talk about Romney winning the popular vote, while losing the election (and that might have actually happened if the election were in mid-October).

I recall before the 2000 election a lot of pundits suggesting that Gore could lose the PV but win the EV, instead of the other way around.  And in 2004, there could have been a split if Bush had lost Ohio, which could have happened without the anti-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot there.

Back to the topic at hand, the best thing about this result would be that it might finally get rid of the cursed Electoral College.

[ND, SD, MT, WY, and ID statehood was and is unconstitutional]

Not going to happen.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Not going to happen.

Yes, it's very unlikely to happen, and we all know that.  But a general comment (and you're not the only one to do this): when someone asks "what if" about a hypothetical outcome, just saying that it's not going to happen adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.  The key word in the question is "if", not "whether".

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Lol do you know polls overestimated Rs in 22 Rs haven't won the Prez PVI since 2004, there are more Ds the reason why they win in Midterms we get fewer poor people to turnout in Midterms not because there are are more Rs, poor blks people and Latinos didn't vote in 2010/14 R landslide


Users get so freaked out about Trump leads in polls they are polls not votes as I keep telling Redban , he's obsessed with polls even Xing said that and he criticize no one else

[Annatar]

In the 2018 elections, if you look at the House vote by state, it seemed as if the GOP advantage in the EC had disappeared, states like PA saw much bigger swings from 2016-2018 than the nation as a whole, so did WI.

None of this mattered in 2020, states like WI & PA ended up even more Republican relative to the nation in 2020 then they were in 2016. I wouldn't extrapolate midterms results to presidential years.

I remember people saying after 2018 how Trump was going to lose PA by a large margin as Republican statewide candidates lost by double digits up and down the ballot and it was just a total blowout. In 2020 Biden barely eked out a 1.2% victory against Trump in the state.

[GeorgiaModerate]

In the 2018 elections, if you look at the House vote by state, it seemed as if the GOP advantage in the EC had disappeared, states like PA saw much bigger swings from 2016-2018 than the nation as a whole, so did WI.

None of this mattered in 2020, states like WI & PA ended up even more Republican relative to the nation in 2020 then they were in 2016. I wouldn't extrapolate midterms results to presidential years.

I remember people saying after 2018 how Trump was going to lose PA by a large margin as Republican statewide candidates lost by double digits up and down the ballot and it was just a total blowout. In 2020 Biden barely eked out a 1.2% victory against Trump in the state.

Agreed, primarily due to the trend that's been discussed in a few other threads lately, which is that high-propensity voters (the type more likely to vote in a midterm) have shifted from more R to more D in recent years.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not happening, though it would be some overdue irony, as well as a nightmare scenario.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Realistically, I'd laugh, since Republicans would 100% be hypocritical about it.

I'd also still support efforts to get rid of the Electoral College.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Realistically, I'd laugh, since Republicans would 100% be hypocritical about it.

I'd also still support efforts to get rid of the Electoral College.

I would laugh as well, and support efforts to eliminate it, but let's be real - the Republican answer to "the electoral college cost us the Presidency" would not be "eliminate the electoral college" (the sensible, sane, answer). Their reaction would be, "this is justification for us breaking laws we were going to break anyway" and "the election for President should be re-designed to more strongly favor Republicans".

[DaleCooper]

I think this is a lot more plausible than people think. This is the first time in a long time (possibly in my entire lifetime) where Democrats finally seem to have realized that all that matters is the electoral college, while Republicans are jerking themselves off about winning over NYC voters or winning the popular vote. It's also interesting that Florida is now uncontested, and Republicans are swarming there like flies to sh-t. Not to mention that the most dysfunctional Republican state parties seem to be in the crucial swing states. I think it's very possible that Republicans win the popular vote but lose the election.

[emailking]

Then Biden is the new POTUS.

[mjba257]

This is a very plausible scenario, moreso than people realize. Here's how:
- The safe red states are maxed out. Places like AL, KY, TN, OK, MO, IN give net the GOP 500,000+ votes in each.
- FL and TX are won by over a million raw votes, while OH is won by double digits, netting the GOP 500,000+ raw votes
- CA is D+20, rather than D+30, while NY is D+15, rather than D+23
- Other blue states like NJ, IL, WA, MA, MD swing rightward, cutting the Dems raw vote margin
- Dems pull off narrow victories in PA, WI, and MI, keeping the presidency, despite losing the popular vote

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think this is a lot more plausible than people think. This is the first time in a long time (possibly in my entire lifetime) where Democrats finally seem to have realized that all that matters is the electoral college, while Republicans are jerking themselves off about winning over NYC voters or winning the popular vote. It's also interesting that Florida is now uncontested, and Republicans are swarming there like flies to sh-t. Not to mention that the most dysfunctional Republican state parties seem to be in the crucial swing states. I think it's very possible that Republicans win the popular vote but lose the election.

You're right on all accounts, but I just don't thonk the swings will be big enough in major safe D states (or even Florida) to overcome Biden's previous 4.5 margin of victory-no matter the turnout differences.

Of course, Biden still probably needs to win the popular vote to win the electoral college. Maybe still at a minimum of three or so points.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I wouldn’t rule it out because of Texas. Biden is not contesting it, it’s majority minority  very religious and has lots of children <18. California is also majority minority and Kamala is now seen as a more national figure. I’m not optimistic about this election and I don’t think it’s the most likely outcome but it is no longer implausible enough to dismiss the possibility of it happening.

[ProudModerate2]

The scenario that isn't getting enough talk is Trump winning the popular vote ...

[Stranger in a strange land]

Realistically, I'd laugh, since Republicans would 100% be hypocritical about it.

I'd also still support efforts to get rid of the Electoral College.

We'll definitely start seeing a lot of over-wrought thinkpieces from the usual suspects about how the Electoral College is a "guardrail of democracy" and whatnot.

[หมูเด้ง]

I’m not that lucky. Stop it.

[DrScholl]

If you thought January 6th was bad, the violence under this hypothetical would be ten times worse. But the constitution is clear and only the electoral college winner counts. It would actually be a good thing if this happened because it would mean the electoral college would finally go.

[VBM]

Not going to happen.

Yes, it's very unlikely to happen, and we all know that.  But a general comment (and you're not the only one to do this): when someone asks "what if" about a hypothetical outcome, just saying that it's not going to happen adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.  The key word in the question is "if", not "whether".

The brain of your typical Atlasian seems to have trouble processing the concept of a hypothetical scenario.

[SWE]

ER and a few others in this thread present compelling points as to why this is more likely than you'd guess intuitively, do the people writing it off as absurd have any responses to those points? The EC/PV advantage is prone to swinging wildly between elections, is there a reason that'd be absurd to expect that's deeper then "well Trump won two coin flips in a row so he must win the third"?

[emailking]

Yeah I don't think 2016/20 say a whole lot about how PV-EV split would go, other than it might be more likely than not a PV-EV split is in Trump's favor than Biden's. But it's still far more likely there is no split, even in a close election, and that whoever wins the PV wins the EV.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Trump rails against the EC without a hint of irony.

Progressives who previously railed against it also without a hint of irony sig its praises.

About 70% of people do a complete 180 on their view.

Trump tries to get the to get the closes states electors thrown out fails. Biden reelected.