When will this hideous polarization end?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The number of swing states dwindles each cycle, as polarization increases. I'm sick of the blue firewall, and I'm sick of red America. 2012 was a dull map, and 2016 looks like it's going to be worse. Can anyone expand the map? You people can't possibly be enjoying this from a political junkie standpoint.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I suppose if the Electoral college is done away with, there will be less geographic polarisation. True, it would probably be replaced with metropolitan/small town rivalry, but it should be more interesting and lead to  slightly less "us vs them" twattery.

[Simfan34]

I mean, something simple like a blue Oregon or a red Missouri would be nice...

[GaussLaw]

The 2016 polls make it seem like the trend map will be quite interesting.  The county map will change a lot in 2016 if Clinton runs, not sure about the state map though.

[DS0816]

The number of swing states dwindles each cycle, as polarization increases. I'm sick of the blue firewall, and I'm sick of red America. 2012 was a dull map, and 2016 looks like it's going to be worse. Can anyone expand the map? You people can't possibly be enjoying this from a political junkie standpoint.

It has to do with the campaigning.

As George W. Bush proved—twice—winning the Electoral College with 271 and 286 electoral votes is just as legit as winning with 321 and 336 or 371 and 386 or 421 and 436 or 471 and 486 electoral votes.

The two major political parties are choosing to not allocate their campaign funds to compete in states apparently because their strategies are to pursue the states which tend to carry closely to the national outcomes (from recent elections). Other states considered are ones which emerge as "competitive." (The next bellwether: North Carolina.)

Today's Democratic Party is making a mistake not pursuing a 40-state landslide. Between the two major parties, and given this latest realigning presidential period (which began in 2008), the Democrats are the ones who should be able to pull it off. (Put it this way: Historically, it is California and not Texas which has been carried in more presidential elections. That is, if you wanted to compare just those two states to each other.)

Since after the 1980s, it appears both major parties have not been particularly disturbed by the fact that roughly 20 states from each of the five cycles were not carried. (The average amount of states carried in Elections 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 were 29. That is 58 percent of available states.) That's quite the disappointment given the past 100 years' worth of presidential elections—since New Mexico and Arizona joined the union and first participated in 1912—in which there were eleven presidential elections with a winner having carried on average four of every five states: 1912 (Woodrow Wilson); 1928 (Herbert Hoover); 1932 and 1936 (Franklin Roosevelt); 1952 and 1956 Dwight Eisenhower); 1964 (Lyndon Johnson); 1972 (Richard Nixon); 1980 and 1984 (Ronald Reagan); and 1988 (George Bush).

The two major parties continue to perpetuate this red-and-blue electoral paradigm.

[henster]

When we have a popular incumbent moderate President who works with both parties in order to get things done.

[Mister Mets]

It's complicated. If Democrats can win Senate elections in North Dakota and Republicans can get reelected big in New Jersey, big wins are possible.

Even in the case of massive landslides, a good chunk of the population was against the winner.

Ronald Reagan won 49 states and 37,577,352 (40.6% of the population) supported the other guy.

In FDR's best showing, 36.5% of the populace preferred an obscure small-state Governor.

Some things may be worse now, as politics has become more nationalized, so liberals have less Republicans to support and conservatives have less Democrats to support. But as long as you have people who genuinely believe that their policies will help more people achieve their potential then the other side's policies, you'll have polarization.

[Free Bird]

Get rid of the electoral college and outlaw political parties for a start...

[Mister Mets]

Two more points.

For political junkies, a period when races are close would be more interesting than a period in which races.

The odds of a landslide in the near future are limited.

Democrats have been in the White House too long for Hillary to reach her full electoral potential. She could do well, but her odds in states like West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas and Georgia would be higher with an unpopular Republican in the White House.

Hillary also seems to be too strong a Democratic candidate for Republicans to have a cakewalk no matter what the national mood. It's not going to be 1920, where a decent Democrat loses by 26 points.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Is it really that polarized?  Even a GOP bastion like Alabama has a solid 40% of the population voting for the Democrat.  The "polarization" is simply a result of our use of the Electoral College.  The two parties aren't even that different if you look at things on a global scale.  Are we polarizaed in Presidential politics in 2014 as compared to, say, 1960?  Well yea, sure, but that was when the two candidates didn't even really disagree about anything. 

Does anyone have one of those nifty purple maps?  I can definitely argue for a rural/urban divide in America, but the idea that the absence of "swing states" would be indicitive of extreme polarization is not a valid one. 

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

When the media stops pretending that the two parties are radically different.

[SWE]

Get rid of the electoral college and outlaw political parties for a start...

Outlawing political parties would probably violate the First Amendment

[King]

When the earth is swept beneath our feet.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What hideous polarization?

[Rockefeller GOP]

When both parties moderate.  If being a pro-life or anti-gay marriage Democrat isn't at least tolerated by the DNC, then the Dems will never gain back lost ground in the South.  If being a pro-choice and pro-immigration reform Republican is grounds for being attacked as a RINO, the GOP will never gain back territory in the Northeast.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The number of swing states dwindles each cycle, as polarization increases. I'm sick of the blue firewall, and I'm sick of red America. 2012 was a dull map, and 2016 looks like it's going to be worse. Can anyone expand the map? You people can't possibly be enjoying this from a political junkie standpoint.

The cultural differences between people from different regions as well as the urban/rural divide are too big.  That's why politics seem to be so polarized.

[DS0816]

When both parties moderate.  If being a pro-life or anti-gay marriage Democrat isn't at least tolerated by the DNC, then the Dems will never gain back lost ground in the South.  If being a pro-choice and pro-immigration reform Republican is grounds for being attacked as a RINO, the GOP will never gain back territory in the Northeast.

The Democratic National Committee doesn't nominate the presidential/vice-presidential ticket. The primaries and caucuses voters do that.

What you wrote about "moderation" doesn't mean much of anything.

The two parties should not be alike in their platforms. They should have stark differences in their positions.

Your advice particularly for Democrats makes me wonder what in hell you were drinking when you wrote, " If being a pro-life or anti-gay marriage Democrat isn't at least tolerated…."

The last thing, specifically with Democrats, that should happen with the party is a willingness to nominate for president and/or vice president any "pro-life" and/or "anti-gay marriage" Democrats in Name Only.

And the "south" isn't anywhere near as pivotal as you have suggested. In the 33 elections that began with the Republican realigning election of 1860, with the winner Abraham Lincoln, approximately 20 of the 33 elections were won by candidates who base states were not in the "south." The states which are historically most reliable in carrying for winners are not the likes of Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. To name two pairs of states as examples: California, frequently pitted against Texas (cultural differences, yes, but that they are currently they two most-populous states), kicks Texas's ass historically. Michigan, with the same-number electoral votes as Georgia, kicks Georgia's ass historically.

[muon2]

Is it really that polarized?  Even a GOP bastion like Alabama has a solid 40% of the population voting for the Democrat.  The "polarization" is simply a result of our use of the Electoral College.  The two parties aren't even that different if you look at things on a global scale.  Are we polarizaed in Presidential politics in 2014 as compared to, say, 1960?  Well yea, sure, but that was when the two candidates didn't even really disagree about anything. 

Does anyone have one of those nifty purple maps?  I can definitely argue for a rural/urban divide in America, but the idea that the absence of "swing states" would be indicitive of extreme polarization is not a valid one. 

I agree with much of this. If you want polarization consider the US in the decades after Reconstruction. There were very few swing areas, so it came down to turnout in states like NY or third party candidates to split the vote to swing the election to the Dems.

Today that same dynamic is in play between the urban and rural areas. Suburban areas can either align more with rural or urban interests based on the age of the suburb and region. Swing states emerge when the the urban-leaning and rural-leaning populations are roughly equal in voting strength. Then it can come down to turnout for the respective groups in a particular election to create a swing.

Regional political polarization is a feature of many countries as seen in this thread. So if the US is "hideous" in that respect, I'm not sure how the OP would characterize these other countries.