comment: >
  
  Can you explain what you mean by that?
  I talked through OnThe_Spectrum's point / math.
  The comment that I replied to did a breakdown of how doing a bit of "fast forward" suggests that Republicans have a demographic problem coming/starting. So the electoral college seems to have already been taken into consideration.
context: The article you linked pretty much explains everything.
  When it comes to the presidential election, most states don't have absolute "sore loser laws", they just have filing deadlines that make it less feasible to run for one party's nomination and then drop out and run again as an independent. But even in the states with sore loser laws or early deadlines, there's always the chance of fighting in court to secure a spot on the ballot. >
  
  Would it be possible for Trump to file twice in every state as both an independent and a Republican as a sort of loophole? In that case his application would be on time, regardless of which direction he needs it to go. I imagine anyone else doing that would tank their chances in the primary, but I doubt it would hurt Trump much. >
  
  Possible? Yes - there's nothing saying it couldn't be done.
  But on a practical level it would require a huge number of warm bodies, nationwide, to navigate the paperwork requirements & filing deadlines. And while Trump does have a large number of people willing to support him, he's had a very poor track record of getting competent legal minds on his side, and that's what he'd need here - in quantity. >
  
  
  a very poor track record of getting competent legal minds on his side
  
  This is completely due to his unwillingness to pay his bills. The only reason he's had reasonably effective lawyers these past couple of years was due to the GOP paying his legal bills. The agreement was that they would pay the bills if and only if he didn't run for President again. The reasoning was that if he did run again, then it would be an unreasonable campaign advantage against the other candidates. >
  
  Source on this back room agreement? This is the first I’m hearing about it. >
  
  Thank you for the info! >
  
  "Trump Loses Primary, Runs Third Party" is every Democrat's dream headline for 2024. >
  
  At this point, I think the path to success for Republicans in 2024 is to allow Trump to get locked up and have DeSantis spin it as martyrdom to claim his base. Democrats are trying to have their cake and eat it too by prosecuting him while hoping he splits the 2024 ticket.
  Then again, Trump has proven that he would delay any possible court proceeding way beyond two years, so it may be moot. >
  
  No.  Every year 3 million mostly boomer and silent generation die, and every year 4 million Gen Z turn 18.  
  There’s a net gain of a million democratic voters every year, and that will continue for about a decade.  
  Republicans only chance is to turn a million Latinos from blue to red every year, and that’s not sustainable.  Everyone talking about Roe V Wade deciding the election towards the Democrats are just ignoring reality.  There were 4 million more net Democratic voters in 2022 than there were in 2018, and that’s why Democrats “won”.  
  The change has already happened, and Republicans will have to change to win again. >
  
  That’s only true if everyone votes and the generational party loyalty is split 100%. >
  
  The comment you replied to did foul up the math. However the point is entirely valid. The big demographic change that's been talked about for the past fifteen years or so? The one that regularly got mocked by people who had trouble understanding what "beginning in 2020" means? Yeah, that change is happening. And it's hyuuge.
  If you look at the 2020 election, and set aside the votes from people aged 50+, the remaining votes had Biden winning by a 400+EV landslide. Every single battleground state in the US wasn't a battleground. A supermajority of states were solidly Dem. This is partly why the 2022 election went more Dem then usual, and it's why the 2024 will go more left. Because at that point it'll be voters 53 and under voting overwhelmingly Dem, and in 2028 it'll be voters 57 and under.
  Have you ever wondered why the Repubs at the national level have been engaged in a sort of smash and grab? Pushing so hard to grab every bit of money and power they can, despite the backlash it's generating? They know their days are numbered. Every year their reliable voting base gets smaller. >
  
  I don't think they fouled up the math, they just didn't explain it very well. As they noted in their follow-up, the 7 million figure is if we assume as 100% party loyalty, which isn't reasonable.
  I plugged in a pretty generic 60:40 split for those leaving/entering the voting population. For leaving, 60% Republicans, 40% Democrats. For entering, 40% Republicans, 60% Democrats. Take the total gain of Democrats (60% to 4mm less 40% of 3mm) and subtract the total gain of Republicans (40% of 4mm less 60% of 3mm) and you get 1.2mm.
  The 60:40 I assumed isn't exactly correct, Pew Research has the breakdown by generation for the 2020 election. Probably something similar for 2022, but it didn't turn up quickly and I'm still on my first cup of tea. So the 60:40 split isn't perfect, but it's in the general ballpark, and is in reasonably close alignment with OnThe_Specrum's figure. Switch to a 42:58 split (again just using the same split but switching party for exist/entrance) and you get a little under 1mm, but still relatively close.
  Perhaps they can share the sources for the generation breakdown and the numbers exiting/entering the voting population (I took 3mm exits and 4mm entrances at face value, didn't really try to check that).
  That being said, your additional insight is interesting as well. I'm curious if there's a source that lays this out that you saw, would just be interested to read it myself. >
  
  This is where the Electoral College comes in.