GOP Could Face Electoral College Backlash in 2024

[applegrove]

GOP Could Face Electoral College Backlash in 2024

November 27, 2022 at 4:18 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 1 Comment

https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/27/gop-could-face-electoral-college-backlash-in-2024/

"SNIP........

For members: The new issue of Ballot Access News.

“Never in history has the electoral college damaged the Republican Party. In 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, the Democratic Party presidential nominee won the most popular votes but still lost the presidency.”

“But the 2022 election returns suggest that for the first time, in 2024 it might be the Republican Party that is hurt by the electoral college.”


Taegan Goddard:

If you’re not yet a member, check out our membership options for instant access.

........SNIP"

Article says in 2022 Democrats won in statewide elections by smaller margins than Republucan won statewide elections. Republicans won by huge margins in the states where their Senate, governors and congress people did well.

[SergeStorms]

1. How, exactly?

I'm not subscribing to anything for a single article.

[LakeArenal]

3. ✔️

[applegrove]

6. Here:

Article says in 2022 Democrats won in statewide elections by smaller margins than Republucan won statewide elections. Republicans won by huge margins in the states where their Senate, governors and congress people did well.

[LakeArenal]

8. Thanks much.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. If the premise is that Republicans will win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College vote...

...spoiler alert: they won't.

[Wounded Bear]

23. They won the popular vote in the presidential once since 2000...

and that was Shrub's re-election based on the war bump.

I don't see it happening again.

[SergeStorms]

18. Thank you!

Took me awhile to get back to this, but I appreciate your fleshing this out for us.

[Tribetime]

25. They still lost by 7 Million votes And still almost one the election

So how was that benefiting the democrats

[applegrove]

5. Here:

Article says in 2022 Democrats won in statewide elections by smaller margins than Republucan won statewide elections. Republicans won by huge margins in the states where their Senate, governors and congress people did well.

[TheRealNorth]

17. Did CA have a statewide election?

Might explain it.

[David__77]

2. I can easily imagine that happening.

Republicans could run up huge margins in stares with few electoral votes and Democrats narrowly win many bigger states.

[applegrove]

7. That's it exactly.

[W_HAMILTON]

10. It won't happen.

Republicans "running up huge margins in states with few electoral votes" will be wiped out by California Democrats alone.

Odds are that Republicans won't be winning the popular vote, and they CERTAINLY won't be winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College vote. That just won't be happening.

[roamer65]

4. That's why they have the state legislature case in front of SCOTUS.

I fully believe they intend to nullify the popular vote in states with Repuke legislatures in 2024, if SCOTUS makes the decision they want in Moore v Harper.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/december-argument-session-will-feature-divisive-cases-on-election-law-first-amendment/

[spooky3]

12. Is it possible that SCOTUS will be more hesitant to rule in that direction

Now that Republicans underperformed in the elections? If they give the right to state legislatures, they’re giving it to Dems as well as to Rs.

[roamer65]

13. That's the $64K question.

Oral arguments begin next month.

[Hieronymus Phact]

27. that and this:

It seems doubtful the court will go along with a theory that cuts the courts themselves out of the loop.

[Zeitghost]

15. The state legislature case

Has to do with Congressional elections. The Constitution already gives the state legislature complete control over the selection of electors to the EC and no public vote is required.

[roamer65]

16. We will see.

Give RW nut jobs and inch and they take a mile. If Repuke state legislatures get a “green light” from the Court, I can see a LOT of overreach coming.

[NowsTheTime]

21. If they do this, it would go against the Constitutional principle of checks and balances....

..........but I wouldn't put it past some of the justices....

[SouthernDem4ever]

28. you think we should continue to call all of them justices?

That seems like an overreach lately.

[spooky3]

11. Interesting! Nt

[Baitball Blogger]

14. It doesn't help that they kill off their

Voters with bad advice, like they did with Covid.

[Polybius]

19. 2004 we came mega-close to doing just that

Had we won Ohio, we would have lost the popular vote but won the EC.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

20. You can thank Kenneth Blackwell and Diebold!

[DFW]

24. Exactly!!! Blackwell was a poisonous snake.

He was Ohio Secretary of State AND Ohio chairman of the re-elect Bush committee. No conflict of interest, was there?

Blackwell oversaw the installation of the Diebold ("I will deliver Ohio for Bush" ) voting machines, and then sat back smugly as the voting machine makers went to court and successfully argued that the machines were private property, and therefore could not be forensically examined. Not without permission from the owners, anyway, and that was not forthcoming.

As it turned out, ONE, count 'em, ONE of the Ohio voting machines WAS forensically examined. It was in some rural out-of-the-way area with 600 registered voters. Before it got collected, it did get forensically examined. In a precinct with 600 registered voters, it gave 3000 votes to Bush. Oops. So Ohio deducted 2400 votes from Bush's total (all 600 legit votes MUST have been for Bush, right?), called it a one-off glitch, and forbade ANY OTHER MACHINE to be forensically examined. Was there any reason to do that? I mean, other than the pre-election polls AND the exit polls saying that Ohio went for Kerry?

If there were any justice, the Kerry administration's Attorney General should have prosecuted and convicted Blackwell. Instead, the smug bastard became a Republican Party hero.

[jaxexpat]

22. To me, the data reveals a more likely case that..........

Democrats are losing voters among those who are traditionally "undecided". That, if true, simply means fly-over Republican voters are entrenching ever deeper, making their votes even more difficult to earn.

For decades it was:
-unthinkable that a Republican would win the southern vote, the exact opposite is now true.
-hard to imagine Latinos voting Republican and yet today, some areas of Hispanic Texans and Floridians are predictably GOP.
-a sure bet the Democrats would carry the states where union labor and life standards were a given. That ship has sailed and sunk.
-a bankable concept that agricultural communities were pro-Democrat, yet in our age of international factory farms there are barely enough agri-voters in the entire wheat belt to hold a respectable county fair.

If voter preference entrenchment is like a virus, running its course and then abating over time, we may be in the expansion phase of the phenomenon. Even without gerrymandering, the evolution of fly-over voting preferences illustrates republican expansion into new geographic areas. Places where, compared to historic elections, their losses are less lopsided and their wins more so. (Then again, if even I'm noticing this, it's probably been a hard fact for at least 20 years and may already be reversing and the infection should be dissipated from the demographic by 2024. 2028?)

Stages of the inevitable reign and fall of reactionaryism are difficult to pin onto a calendar. Sometimes, barring civil rebellion, it takes a "great depression or a world war" to re-fix the pendulum. Apparently.

[MichMan]

26. That would sure change the dynamics of the push for the popular vote compact