In the political landscape of 2016-20, this belief was exaggerated. While Donald Trump did win the 2016 presidential election with a minority of the popular vote, more Americans voted for Republican congressional candidates than Democrats. Additionally, more Americans voted for right-of-center presidential candidates, including the Libertarian vote, than for Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. From a strictly majority standpoint, liberalism was deserving of defeat in 2016, even if Trump's victory may not have been deserving. Despite Republican advantages, Democrats were able to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the presidency in 2020, and the Senate in 2021. These victories continued the trend of American politics in the 21st century, where there have been significant shifts every few election cycles instead of one party gaining power permanently. However, after 2024, the political landscape may resemble the challenges faced by liberals during the Trump administration. According to David Shor, a liberal strategist, a combination of an unfavorable Senate map for Democrats along with their existing disadvantages in the Electoral College and Senate could result in a situation where the party wins a majority of the popular vote but still loses the presidency and faces a strong Republican majority in the Senate. This outcome would be troubling for liberals, but conservatives should not view it as a positive development either. Conservatives have recently defended institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College by arguing that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. However, these arguments become less convincing when the overall results of the system become consistently undemocratic. The legitimacy of the Electoral College and Senate can withstand occasional deviations from popular vote results, but sustained governing power without majoritarian support can lead to delegitimization and disillusionment. The Republican Party should strive to win majorities outright to avoid undermining the perceived legitimacy of conservative governance. You cannot expect a political party to easily give up its advantages. There will never be a bipartisan constitutional amendment to get rid of the Senate. However, you can expect a political party to strive for more electoral success, unlike the GOP recently. They should aim to win elections like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon did, rather than settling for close margins and relying on luck. The current situation, which appears grim for the Democrats, gives the Republicans a chance to address Electoral College concerns by taking reasonable positions, nominating viable candidates, and winning majorities outright. This involves rejecting voter-fraud paranoia and moving away from divisive Tea Party politics, as seen in Rick Scott's recent proposal for tax hikes on the working class. And it implies - and I am worried that this may be too difficult for the GOP to do - selecting a different candidate than Trump in 2024. Even if a Republican Party could secure popular majorities, its Senate or Electoral College majorities could still be increased by its structural advantages. This kind of amplification is common in democratic systems, not just in our own. It is distinct from consistently losing the popular vote and still gaining power. As for how the Democrats should address their disadvantages - that is a topic for a longer discussion, but for now, two quick points. First, if the party wants to address its structural challenges, it needs to have a clear understanding of what electoral reforms would be effective. During the Biden era, liberal reformers spent a lot of time and energy on voting bills that ultimately did not pass and would not have significantly benefited the party even if they had. Another reform idea, granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, may not have been feasible at that time, but it would have better addressed the challenges facing Democrats in the Senate. Therefore, pushing for an expanded Senate may be a more realistic strategy for liberal activists and legislators when their party is in power. Secondly, without structural reform, the Democratic Party may need to focus on winning back culturally conservative Latino and working-class white voters who were part of Barack Obama's coalition but have since shifted towards the right, in order to regain greater parity in the Senate and Electoral College. That group would have two main goals: To stick to a poll-tested economic policy agenda that is different from the business-friendly agenda supported by many centrist Democrats, and to consistently distinguish itself from organized progressivism on cultural and social issues. It would not just be about tactics, but about principles, showing voters that this group truly believes in its moderate stance and will continue to challenge progressivism even in Washington. Currently, there are scattered politicians across the country who somewhat embody this approach, but they lack a unified agenda, funding sources, and intellectual support. However, necessity may force the Democratic Party to come together and create such a faction in the near future. Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.