Were US elections always this crazy/entertaining/outdoing-themselves?

[Blue3]

Were US elections always this crazy/entertaining/outdoing-themselves?

Starting in 2008, something started that makes each presidential election very compelling/entertaining/chaotic/crazy/groundbreaking in some way. Obama versus Hillary, Sarah Palin, McCain's antics, the backdrop of the Iraq War and Katrina still felt as well as the start of the global meltdown, 2012 flavors of the month, 9-9-9, Gingrich's resurrection, Romney's neverending gaffes... and now... what we have in this election.

I remember 2004. It was boring.

I remember 2000. Besides the results in Florida, it was tame.

Was 1996 with Bob Dole challenging Clinton really exciting and wacky and compelling? I don't remember this one, but I doubt it.



Yeah, there's was some craziness with Adams versus Jefferson in 1800, with Andrew Jackson a generation later, and of course the messes a generation later in 1860 and a century later in 1968.

But it seems to usually be something that happens once a generation. Not consecutively, like now (and we are not really catching a break in-between either, it's like 2008's never ended).

Is it me? Or has something been genuinely different in US politics since 2007/2008?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1996 was a pretty dull election.

[Gunnar Larsson]

I think the political demography has changed. The 90s and 00s was the era of triangulation, which makes for rather dull elections. Now there is much greater desire for politicians that have more clear views that distinguish them from the triangulated middle, which makes for more interesting elections. The trend is not really limited to the US, but quite common in western countries.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah, for a while after the Cold War and the "neoliberal consensus" a lot of developed economies went through the motions politically, with only occasional third parties to provide interest. The financial and debt crises have changed all that.

[Reaganfan]

I think it's the rise of "social media". I was always really into the internet, but I never caught onto "social media" the same way many others did. I left public high school after Freshman year and that was 2004. Bush was re-elected in a world without twitter or facebook or myspace or youtube.

I miss when things were less futuristic looking and hard on the eyes.

For example, I prefer this:


over this:


Even with things like The Weather Channel, when I was tracking storms as a kid, it was simpler graphics and better broadcast quality.

Then:

Now:


It's not "The View" or Wolf Blitzer's ridiculous TV sets on CNN. It's The Weather Channel.

I guess I miss the old days of even 15 years ago. Ahhh...

[riceowl]

REAGANFAN PREFERS ELECTION 2000 WITH BLUE (ATLAS RED) FLORIDA

[DINGO Joe]

1996 was a pretty dull election.

But 1992 was constant chaos.

Obviously, intensity of elections ebb and flow depending on the issues of the day and personalities involved.  The 1890s, the 1960s, heck 1860, were all intense thanks to issues of the day.  As far as the nomination process goes, I guess the openness and length of the primary process has replaced the craziness that previously was contained to conventions.

[Maxwell]

2012 was pretty boring.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Internetification of media and society. This might as well be a buzzfeed click-bait election.