Sadly, I just don’t see the GOP ever winning VA, OH or FL again in a National election. The demographic shift, esp in VA and FL, is just too titanic.
That is why I find it amusing folly that Conservatives DON’T favor abolishing the Electoral College. Our ONLY chance ever again of taking the WH is the popular vote. If we keep relying on the EV well ... the Dims might as well make it their permanent election HQ.
That would be a complete disaster. The only thing that would have changed in the last 25 years would have been the 2000 election -- which would have been won by Al Gore under that scenario. Popular elections are a miserable idea, because they inevitably end up with slimy, charming candidates winning.
A more effective route would be to push for more and more states to adopt the model used by Maine and Nebraska in awarding their electoral votes. Electoral votes are allocated to their states based on their combined representation in the House and Senate. In Nebraska and Maine, each congressional district has its own electoral vote and the candidate who wins the state overall gets the two electoral votes for the Senate. That's why a candidate can "lose" a state like Maine but still get one of the four electoral votes anyway.
If a state like California adopted this approach, you'd never have an election where a candidate was awarded all 55 of California's electoral votes. You'd have the 53 districts split between the two candidates, and the Democrat would almost certainly win the last 2 by winning the state overall.
> “That is why I find it amusing folly that Conservatives DON’T favor abolishing the Electoral College. Our ONLY chance ever again of taking the WH is the popular vote.”
Now it’s completely clear you are a troll.