Is the 2016 election more similar to 1948 or 1976?

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

I've often heard 2016 being compared to 1948 and 1976. Which comparison do you like better?

1976-2016:
-Both Donald Trump and Carter ran an anti-establishment Washington outsiders.

-Both Donald Trump and Carter were absolutely hated by the GOP/Democratic Party establishments for being inexperienced, unqualified, unconventional nutjobs who were seen by the conservative/progressive wings of their parties as not being truly conservative/liberal.

-At first, it seemed like both men had no chance of winning the nomination. However, they both start anti-establishment revolutions and rapidly gain support.

-The GOP/Democratic Party establishments did everything they could to stop Trump/Carter from winning their respective nominations. A movement arose known as "ABC" (Anybody But Carter) arose within the Democratic Party to try to stop Carter from winning the nomination. A movement arose known as #NeverTrump within the Republican Party to try to stop Trump from winning the nomination.

-Both Trump and Carter win their respective nominations, despite the fact that the GOP/Democratic Party establishments did everything they could to stop them from doing so.

-Many Democratic Party politicians refused to endorse Carter such as Ted Kennedy, etc. He received almost no endorsements from primary Democratic Party politicians. Likewise, many Republican Party politicians refused to support Donald Trump such as Bush. Both were absolutely hated by the establishment.

-On the flip side, Ford/Hillary both seemed like the inevitable nominees at first. However, Reagan/Sanders decide to run and begin revolutions within their respective parties.

-Reagan started a conservative revolution within his party. Sanders started a liberal revolution within his party. They both rapidly gained momentum and only narrowly lose to Ford/Hillary (the establishment candidates)

- Both Donald Trump and Carter attack their opponents for being corrupt and pro-establishment. They both attack their opponents for their scandals. They both run as working-class heroes and anti-establishment outsiders. They both did terribly with college-educated voters. Both men were absolutely toxic to college-educated voters. However, they crush their opponents with non-college educated voters and that's how they win their respective elections. On the flip side, Ford/Hillary primarily attack their opponents for being unqualified and lacking the necessary experience to be president.

- Both Carter and Donald Trump have sexual-related scandals that deeply hurt them, but they still end up winning anyway. Carter admitted to having “lusted in my heart” for women other than his wife in a leaked Playboy interview, which deeply hurt him amongst women and evangelical Christians. Likewise, tapes were leaked of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women ("grab 'em by the pussy"), which deeply hurt him amongst suburban women.

-Both Donald Trump and Carter win by posing as anti-establishment Washington outsiders and attacking their opponents as corrupt and scandal-riddled.

1948-2016:

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Both Truman and Trump were anti-establishment outsiders who railed against the elites. However, it seemed that Dewey and Hillary were both inevitable. Almost every poll showed Dewey/Hillary in the lead. However, a rural revolt occurs in both elections. Both Truman and Donald Trump end up pulling upset victories by crushing their opponents in rural areas that they completely ignored.

[Bigby]

"Hillary Defeats Trump" makes 2016 a 1948 parallel.

[AtorBoltox]

Neither are that comparable, since in 1948 Truman was running on defending the status quo of the last 16 years and in 1976 Carter was the overwhelming favourite nearly all of the campaign

[Vosem]

The 1976 primaries are a weirdly close fit to the 2016 primaries (like...scary), but the general elections were totally different. The correct parallel to the 1976 general election would've been Trump starting out with a double-digit lead in June, losing it by late October, and then being bailed out by a Hillary gaffe in the last debate that allows Trump to eke it out after all. Instead, what we saw was a constant bouncing of the lead between a small, single-digit Hillary lead whenever the focus was on her scandals (in hindsight, we realize that the Electoral College distortions mean Trump was winning during these periods) and large, nearly-double-digit Hillary leads whenever the focus was on Trump, and the election concluded during a focus-on-Hillary moment. In this sense there is a comparison to 1980, in which large portions of the electorate had misgivings about Reagan and Carter, though in that case it was Reagan with the constant poll lead, Carter with the large hidden Electoral College advantage, and the race finished on a high Reagan note.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I picked 1948.  Neither is a great fit, but Hillary was a Democratic Dewey in many ways and Trump was Trumanesque in some ways. 

Carter was nowhere near the outsider Trump was.  He was a Southern Democrat who was looked at by the Democratic Establishment as the person who could best neutralize Wallace in the South (which he did).  They did not count on him winning in IA and NH, however.  The Democratic Party yielded to the inevitability of Carter after a while because it dawned on them that he might actually end the Democrats' slide in the South (which he did, for one election).  He was also a Southern Democrat that, for all his recalcitrance, was on record of saying he'd vote for McGovern, and who showed some interest in bringing Georgia back into the National Democratic Party.

[Vosem]

I picked 1948.  Neither is a great fit, but Hillary was a Democratic Dewey in many ways and Trump was Trumanesque in some ways. 

Carter was nowhere near the outsider Trump was.  He was a Southern Democrat who was looked at by the Democratic Establishment as the person who could best neutralize Wallace in the South (which he did).  They did not count on him winning in IA and NH, however.  The Democratic Party yielded to the inevitability of Carter after a while because it dawned on them that he might actually end the Democrats' slide in the South (which he did, for one election).  He was also a Southern Democrat that, for all his recalcitrance, was on record of saying he'd vote for McGovern, and who showed some interest in bringing Georgia back into the National Democratic Party.

Carter literally spearheaded the national anti-McGovern Democratic organization in 1972. His nomination was a shock in the same way that the next open Republican race going to Ben Sasse would be a shock.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I picked 1948.  Neither is a great fit, but Hillary was a Democratic Dewey in many ways and Trump was Trumanesque in some ways. 

Carter was nowhere near the outsider Trump was.  He was a Southern Democrat who was looked at by the Democratic Establishment as the person who could best neutralize Wallace in the South (which he did).  They did not count on him winning in IA and NH, however.  The Democratic Party yielded to the inevitability of Carter after a while because it dawned on them that he might actually end the Democrats' slide in the South (which he did, for one election).  He was also a Southern Democrat that, for all his recalcitrance, was on record of saying he'd vote for McGovern, and who showed some interest in bringing Georgia back into the National Democratic Party.

Carter literally spearheaded the national anti-McGovern Democratic organization in 1972. His nomination was a shock in the same way that the next open Republican race going to Ben Sasse would be a shock.

There have been plenty of other elections where a party nominated a very different sort of candidate from 4 years before. 1896 Democrats, 1940 Republicans, 1980 Republicans.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I picked 1948.  Neither is a great fit, but Hillary was a Democratic Dewey in many ways and Trump was Trumanesque in some ways. 

Carter was nowhere near the outsider Trump was.  He was a Southern Democrat who was looked at by the Democratic Establishment as the person who could best neutralize Wallace in the South (which he did).  They did not count on him winning in IA and NH, however.  The Democratic Party yielded to the inevitability of Carter after a while because it dawned on them that he might actually end the Democrats' slide in the South (which he did, for one election).  He was also a Southern Democrat that, for all his recalcitrance, was on record of saying he'd vote for McGovern, and who showed some interest in bringing Georgia back into the National Democratic Party.

Carter literally spearheaded the national anti-McGovern Democratic organization in 1972. His nomination was a shock in the same way that the next open Republican race going to Ben Sasse would be a shock.

Hmmmm . . .

Close, but not quite.  Carter, who was expected to deliver Georgia for Wallace, threw his support to Sen. Henry Jackson, the most hawkish Democrat running, but clearly a national Democrat.  This was brinksmanship by Carter, who spoke of McGovern's unelectability, and suggested that he was quite liberal, but NEVER questioned McGovern's competence to be President.  Indeed, after McGovern failed to be stopped, Carter, behind the scenes, lobbied to be McGovern's running mate.  McGovern was not interested in this, and he grew to dislike Carter intensely, but Carter plainly stated that he would vote for McGovern.  Sasse went much further; he not only stated he wasn't voting for Trump, he stated that Trump wasn't a "serous adult".  

As Georgia Governor, Carter often walked the line between conservative stances and finding agreement with the national Democratic Party, but he plainly established himself as a Democrat by stating in his Inaugural Address as Governor, "I say to you, quite frankly, that the time for racial discrimination is over."  This was a remarkable statement in Georgia in 1971.  Carter also campaigned for President as an unabashed supporter of Civil Rights legislation.  It should also be noted that while Carter was to the right of liberal Democrats, he was probably right in the middle of where the ENTIRE Democratic Party of 1976 was at.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How was Truman anti-establishment?  He was President and he became President by being Vice President to the guy who had been President for the last 12 years?

[Pericles]

2016 is 2016. No other election can compare to whatever he he'll we just witnessed.

[uti2]

2016 is 2016. No other election can compare to whatever he he'll we just witnessed.

There are parallels with 1992 and 1912 with Perot and Teddy Roosevelt, i.e. in the scenarios that either of them had won.

[Mr. Smith]

1976 is most glaringly obvious, although 1988 if Dukakis bothered to defend himself and/or  Jesse Jackson were the nominee would be a close second.

[uti2]

although 1988 if Dukakis bothered to defend himself and/or  Jesse Jackson were the nominee would be a close second.

Remember, Dukakis was originally leading. That's what 2008 was looking like with Obama until the economic collapse, which made the year a freebie.

[URICK3]

Melior, you are absolutely spot on. However, you are overlooking numerous other similarities. For example:

1976-2016

 - In 1976 seventeen Democratic candidates ran for president. In 2016 seventeen Republican candidates ran for president.

 - In 1976 there was a bitterly contested Republican National Convention between the establishment candidate President Gerald R. Ford and the conservative candidate, former Governor of California Ronald Reagan. Ford wins the nomination, but then Reagan gives a speech that brings down the house and convinces a lot of people that they nominated the wrong guy. In 2016 there was a bitterly contested Democratic National Convention between the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton and the progressive candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. Hillary wins the nomination, but Bernie's unfair treatment at the hands of the DNC, as well as his enormous popularity among the millennials and progressives, convinces a lot of people that they nominated the wrong guy.

 - Both elections 1976 & 2016 were not called until after three o'clock in the morning the following day. In 1976, NBC News called the election for Jimmy Carter at 3:31 AM ET. In 2016, NBC News called the election for Donald Trump at 3:04 AM ET.

 - On Election Night 1976 when President Ford realized that he'd lost, he retired to bed and sent one of his aids to the hotel where thousands of his supporters had gathered expecting a grand victory celebration to tell them to go home. On Election Night 2016 when Hillary Clinton realized she'd lost, she locked herself in her hotel room and sent John Podesta to the Javits Center in Manhattan to tell her thousands of supporters to go home.

 - And this was the icing on the cake for me. On Election Night 1976, during his victory address, President-elect Jimmy Carter said and I quote: "We will make America great once again!"

[Virginiá]

I'll leave this here:

Is Trump, like Carter, a disjunctive President?

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/the-politics-trump-makes/

It's a pretty interesting comparison, and says a lot not only about the similarities between the two elections and presidents, but also of the party coalitions and how they were/are at the end of their functional cycle.

[darklordoftech]

I'll leave this here:

Is Trump, like Carter, a disjunctive President?

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/the-politics-trump-makes/

It's a pretty interesting comparison, and says a lot not only about the similarities between the two elections and presidents, but also of the party coalitions and how they were/are at the end of their functional cycle.

Also interesting that in 1976 the eastern half of America went Democratic and the western half Republican while in 2016 the reverse happened.

[Mr. Smith]

I'll leave this here:

Is Trump, like Carter, a disjunctive President?

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/the-politics-trump-makes/

It's a pretty interesting comparison, and says a lot not only about the similarities between the two elections and presidents, but also of the party coalitions and how they were/are at the end of their functional cycle.

Also interesting that in 1976 the eastern half of America went Democratic and the western half Republican while in 2016 the reverse happened.

Not just then.

The West resisted them both in the primaries too.

[MarkD]

I see much more similarity between 2016 and 1976. Comparing 2016 to 1948 does not work, except to see Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as being a little bit like Thurmond and Wallace -- a very little bit of comparison. But Truman was nothing like Trump, and Hillary is not very comparable to Dewey.

[Tekken_Guy]

Neither, how about 1964?

- Trump and Goldwater had little support within their own parties.
- LBJ and Hillary portrayed their opponents as dangerous extremists.
- Both Trump and Goldwater were accused of wanting to start dangerous nuclear wars.
- LBJ's running mate Humphrey is from Minnesota; Hillary's running mate Tim Kaine was born in Minnesota.
- Several newspapers that normally stayed neutral endorsed LBJ and Hillary because of who their opponents were.
- Psychologists said Trump and Goldwater were "unfit" for office.

Only difference, LBJ won in a landslide, Trump narrowly won his election.

[dw93]

1976 is the post war election with the most similarities to 2016 and I could conceivably see Trump's presidency being for the GOP what Carter's was for the Democrats. It's only comparable to 1948 in a sense that Trump won in an upset. 

With that said, I bet a lot of folks would be comparing 2016 to 1988 had Hillary won, and 2020 would probably be compared to 1992 if she'd won, especially if there were a strong third party candidate in the mix.

[Sumner 1868]

Neither, how about 1964?

- Trump and Goldwater had little support within their own parties.
- LBJ and Hillary portrayed their opponents as dangerous extremists.
- Both Trump and Goldwater were accused of wanting to start dangerous nuclear wars.
- LBJ's running mate Humphrey is from Minnesota; Hillary's running mate Tim Kaine was born in Minnesota.
- Several newspapers that normally stayed neutral endorsed LBJ and Hillary because of who their opponents were.
- Psychologists said Trump and Goldwater were "unfit" for office.

Only difference, LBJ won in a landslide, Trump narrowly won his election.

There are a few odd similarities. However, these races are actually quite different.

*Johnson had the Great Society (much of which he had already passed) while Clinton borrowed bits of Sanders platform unconvincingly.

*Goldwater was the most right-wing nominee since at least Coolidge. Trump, if anything, was slightly left of several of his preceding Republican candidates in rhetoric.

*Johnson maintained and increased the white working-class Democratic vote outside Jim Crow territory (more than even FDR, in fact). Clinton was possibly the worst Democrat for this subset since McGovern.

*LBJ broke into heavily Republican areas across the board - rural, suburban, and urban. Clinton gained a couple points in a few suburbs but otherwise was wiped out of Republican strongholds.

*LBJ's ads attacked Goldwater's policy positions but never commented on his personality. Clinton almost exclusively attacked Trump's personality and implied that alone disqualified him.

*The public was largely optimistic about the future of the nation in 1964. 2016 was possibly the nation's most pessimistic year since the Depression.

*LBJ managed to carried most of the South despite signing civil rights legislation. By contrast racial issues were a major part of Clinton's defeat and she lost every Southern state.

*Goldwater was a Senator. Trump was a real estate billionaire turned TV star.

[History505]

None, because every election is different in its own way.

[Mr. Smith]

Neither, how about 1964?

- Trump and Goldwater had little support within their own parties.
- LBJ and Hillary portrayed their opponents as dangerous extremists.
- Both Trump and Goldwater were accused of wanting to start dangerous nuclear wars.
- LBJ's running mate Humphrey is from Minnesota; Hillary's running mate Tim Kaine was born in Minnesota.
- Several newspapers that normally stayed neutral endorsed LBJ and Hillary because of who their opponents were.
- Psychologists said Trump and Goldwater were "unfit" for office.

Only difference, LBJ won in a landslide, Trump narrowly won his election.

There are a few odd similarities. However, these races are actually quite different.

*Johnson had the Great Society (much of which he had already passed) while Clinton borrowed bits of Sanders platform unconvincingly.

*Goldwater was the most right-wing nominee since at least Coolidge. Trump, if anything, was slightly left of several of his preceding Republican candidates in rhetoric.

*Johnson maintained and increased the white working-class Democratic vote outside Jim Crow territory (more than even FDR, in fact). Clinton was possibly the worst Democrat for this subset since McGovern.

*LBJ broke into heavily Republican areas across the board - rural, suburban, and urban. Clinton gained a couple points in a few suburbs but otherwise was wiped out of Republican strongholds.

*LBJ's ads attacked Goldwater's policy positions but never commented on his personality. Clinton almost exclusively attacked Trump's personality and implied that alone disqualified him.

*The public was largely optimistic about the future of the nation in 1964. 2016 was possibly the nation's most pessimistic year since the Depression.

*LBJ managed to carried most of the South despite signing civil rights legislation. By contrast racial issues were a major part of Clinton's defeat and she lost every Southern state.

*Goldwater was a Senator. Trump was a real estate billionaire turned TV star.

Virginia says hi, or you gonna suggest Ford lost every southern state too because he won those NoVA areas which "don't count".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Neither, how about 1964?

- Trump and Goldwater had little support within their own parties.
- LBJ and Hillary portrayed their opponents as dangerous extremists.
- Both Trump and Goldwater were accused of wanting to start dangerous nuclear wars.
- LBJ's running mate Humphrey is from Minnesota; Hillary's running mate Tim Kaine was born in Minnesota.
- Several newspapers that normally stayed neutral endorsed LBJ and Hillary because of who their opponents were.
- Psychologists said Trump and Goldwater were "unfit" for office.

Only difference, LBJ won in a landslide, Trump narrowly won his election.

There are a few odd similarities. However, these races are actually quite different.

*Johnson had the Great Society (much of which he had already passed) while Clinton borrowed bits of Sanders platform unconvincingly.

*Goldwater was the most right-wing nominee since at least Coolidge. Trump, if anything, was slightly left of several of his preceding Republican candidates in rhetoric.

*Johnson maintained and increased the white working-class Democratic vote outside Jim Crow territory (more than even FDR, in fact). Clinton was possibly the worst Democrat for this subset since McGovern.

*LBJ broke into heavily Republican areas across the board - rural, suburban, and urban. Clinton gained a couple points in a few suburbs but otherwise was wiped out of Republican strongholds.

*LBJ's ads attacked Goldwater's policy positions but never commented on his personality. Clinton almost exclusively attacked Trump's personality and implied that alone disqualified him.

*The public was largely optimistic about the future of the nation in 1964. 2016 was possibly the nation's most pessimistic year since the Depression.

*LBJ managed to carried most of the South despite signing civil rights legislation. By contrast racial issues were a major part of Clinton's defeat and she lost every Southern state.

*Goldwater was a Senator. Trump was a real estate billionaire turned TV star.

Virginia says hi, or you gonna suggest Ford lost every southern state too because he won those NoVA areas which "don't count".

Ford also won Oklahoma

[libertpaulian]

Melior, you are absolutely spot on. However, you are overlooking numerous other similarities. For example:

1976-2016

 - In 1976 seventeen Democratic candidates ran for president. In 2016 seventeen Republican candidates ran for president.

 - In 1976 there was a bitterly contested Republican National Convention between the establishment candidate President Gerald R. Ford and the conservative candidate, former Governor of California Ronald Reagan. Ford wins the nomination, but then Reagan gives a speech that brings down the house and convinces a lot of people that they nominated the wrong guy. In 2016 there was a bitterly contested Democratic National Convention between the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton and the progressive candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. Hillary wins the nomination, but Bernie's unfair treatment at the hands of the DNC, as well as his enormous popularity among the millennials and progressives, convinces a lot of people that they nominated the wrong guy.

 - Both elections 1976 & 2016 were not called until after three o'clock in the morning the following day. In 1976, NBC News called the election for Jimmy Carter at 3:31 AM ET. In 2016, NBC News called the election for Donald Trump at 3:04 AM ET.

 - On Election Night 1976 when President Ford realized that he'd lost, he retired to bed and sent one of his aids to the hotel where thousands of his supporters had gathered expecting a grand victory celebration to tell them to go home. On Election Night 2016 when Hillary Clinton realized she'd lost, she locked herself in her hotel room and sent John Podesta to the Javits Center in Manhattan to tell her thousands of supporters to go home.

 - And this was the icing on the cake for me. On Election Night 1976, during his victory address, President-elect Jimmy Carter said and I quote: "We will make America great once again!"

Another glaring similarity is the electoral map.  Both Clinton and Ford did well in the West and Northeast, while Carter and Trump did well in the South and Midwest.