Most polarizing election in the past 70 years

[OSR stands with Israel]

What do you think the most polarizing election in the past 70 years is .


For me its hard to tell between these three, because you can make a case for all 3 .


Most Polarizing Atmosphere : 1968

Most Polarizing Rhetoric : 2016

Most Partisan : 2004

[Mr. Smith]

2012 (So partisan and heated that in the incumbent LOST some of his vote, this isn't supposed to happen. And downballot, the only anomalies were Dean Heller and Deb Fischer...hell even in the face of disaster, it was taboo to shake hands)

[OSR stands with Israel]

2012 (So partisan and heated that in the incumbent LOST some of his vote, this isn't supposed to happen. And downballot, the only anomalies were Dean Heller and Deb Fischer...hell even in the face of disaster, it was taboo to shake hands)

By that standard 2004 is definitely number one:


No Candidate who won was as universally hated by the other side as Bush was in 04(Trump appealed to Rust Belt dems and Nixon appealed to Southern Dems)

The Results of each state basically stayed the same as they were in 2000(except NM , IA , and NH)

Bush was close to losing despite winning the popular vote by 3 points

The map looked like a jig saw puzzle(with dems winning the west coast , upper midwest, and the North East while GOP won everything else)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

2012 (So partisan and heated that in the incumbent LOST some of his vote, this isn't supposed to happen. And downballot, the only anomalies were Dean Heller and Deb Fischer...hell even in the face of disaster, it was taboo to shake hands)

[darklordoftech]

1968. Race riots, white flight, hippies, anti-war protests, assasinations, hysteria about the world coming to an end, etc.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1968. Race riots, white flight, hippies, anti-war protests, assasinations, hysteria about the world coming to an end, etc.

Imagine 1968 or even 2004 with social media .

[BlueDogDemocrat]

1968. Race riots, white flight, hippies, anti-war protests, assasinations, hysteria about the world coming to an end, etc.

Imagine 1968 or even 2004 with social media .

I think 2016 just barely was more polarizing due to the mass media, if 1968 had all the social media we have today it would absolutely would have won.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2016 probably isn't even top 3.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2016 probably isn't even top 3.

Other then 1968 and 2004 I don't even think there is another election what can be considered more polarizing

[SingingAnalyst]

Very interesting question! I would rank them as (1) 2016; (2) 1968; (3) 2004-- though I also think a good case could be made for reversing the order of the top two.

I looked mainly at data visible on this site:

(1) County percentages:

In 1968, Nixon only received 80.04% or more in 5 counties: his top county was Hooker NE 87.94% and his 5th best Sioux IA 80.04%-- and Nixon's top 5 county percentages came from 5 different states (4 in the Midwest Plains and 1 in Appalachia).

In 1968, Humphrey received 75.62% or more in 5 counties: his top county was Duval TX 88.74% and his 5th best Suffolk MA 75.62%. 3 of Humphrey's 5 best counties were in TX.

In 1968, Wallace received over 90% in two counties: Geneva AL and George MS. Neither Nixon nor Humphrey reached 90% in any county.

Looking beyond the county percentages, however, Black precincts went overwhelmingly for Humphrey, though few if any matched county delineations.

In 2016, Trump received 91.62% or more in 5 counties (4 in TX) and Clinton received 86.80% or more in 5 counties (in 5 different "states"). Johnson's highest percentage was 13.89% in Los Alamos NM and Stein's top was Sioux ND 10.39%, so clearly Johnson's and Stein's percentages do not show a clear geographic pattern as did Wallace's in 1968.

Based on county percentages, I call 2016 and 1968 a tie.

2. County totals:

In 1968, Nixon's top 5 counties gave him 3,178,000 votes (10% of Nixon's total) and Humphrey's top 5 gave him 4,073,000 votes (13% of Humphrey's total)-- indicating a pro-Humphrey bias among the largest counties. Wallace's top 5 counties only gave him 636,000 (6.4% of Wallace's total)-- an indication his strength lied elsewhere.

In 2016, Clinton's top 5 counties gave her 6,237,000 votes, or nearly 10% of her total-- while Trump's 5 largest counties gave him just 3,048,000-- or less than 5% of his total. This shows a very strong pro-Clinton bias among the largest counties.

Based on county totals, I call 2016 more divisive.

Overall, I would rank 2016 slightly more divisive than 1968. Much of 1968's division lied outside the partisan political sphere: 1968 anti-Humphrey protesters at the DNC; the belief of many on the left that no candidate was really worth voting for (a sentiment that, while present in 2016, was much weaker).

2004 I would rank 3rd. Unlike 1968 and 2016, it is harder to find subgroups of the population of which it can be said, "almost every [X] voted for ..."

[OSR stands with Israel]

Very interesting question! I would rank them as (1) 2016; (2) 1968; (3) 2004-- though I also think a good case could be made for reversing the order of the top two.

I looked mainly at data visible on this site:

(1) County percentages:

In 1968, Nixon only received 80.04% or more in 5 counties: his top county was Hooker NE 87.94% and his 5th best Sioux IA 80.04%-- and Nixon's top 5 county percentages came from 5 different states (4 in the Midwest Plains and 1 in Appalachia).

In 1968, Humphrey received 75.62% or more in 5 counties: his top county was Duval TX 88.74% and his 5th best Suffolk MA 75.62%. 3 of Humphrey's 5 best counties were in TX.

In 1968, Wallace received over 90% in two counties: Geneva AL and George MS. Neither Nixon nor Humphrey reached 90% in any county.

Looking beyond the county percentages, however, Black precincts went overwhelmingly for Humphrey, though few if any matched county delineations.

In 2016, Trump received 91.62% or more in 5 counties (4 in TX) and Clinton received 86.80% or more in 5 counties (in 5 different "states"). Johnson's highest percentage was 13.89% in Los Alamos NM and Stein's top was Sioux ND 10.39%, so clearly Johnson's and Stein's percentages do not show a clear geographic pattern as did Wallace's in 1968.

Based on county percentages, I call 2016 and 1968 a tie.

2. County totals:

In 1968, Nixon's top 5 counties gave him 3,178,000 votes (10% of Nixon's total) and Humphrey's top 5 gave him 4,073,000 votes (13% of Humphrey's total)-- indicating a pro-Humphrey bias among the largest counties. Wallace's top 5 counties only gave him 636,000 (6.4% of Wallace's total)-- an indication his strength lied elsewhere.

In 2016, Clinton's top 5 counties gave her 6,237,000 votes, or nearly 10% of her total-- while Trump's 5 largest counties gave him just 3,048,000-- or less than 5% of his total. This shows a very strong pro-Clinton bias among the largest counties.

Based on county totals, I call 2016 more divisive.

Overall, I would rank 2016 slightly more divisive than 1968. Much of 1968's division lied outside the partisan political sphere: 1968 anti-Humphrey protesters at the DNC; the belief of many on the left that no candidate was really worth voting for (a sentiment that, while present in 2016, was much weaker).

2004 I would rank 3rd. Unlike 1968 and 2016, it is harder to find subgroups of the population of which it can be said, "almost every [X] voted for ..."

2004 was more partisan polzarized then 2016

Bush won 7 percent of dem vote
Trump won 9 percent of dem vote


Kerry won 5 percent of GOP vote
Hillary won 7 percent of GOP vote

This with the fact that the 3rd party vote was bigger in 2016 than 2004


This why I say 2016 was more polarizing in rethoric and how much both sides moved away from the center

1968 was most polarizing in environment

2004 was most in partisan sense

[Pericles]

2016. Both candidates and parties were so negative about each other. The statements made about Trump, how 'unfit' for the presidency he was, weren't normal, and in fact Obama and Clinton mentioned this admitting they were rougher on him than Romney and McCain. 'Lock her up' or a chant like that was not seen in previous elections. The election played on America's deep societal and racial divisions. It is very revealing that in the exit poll 85% of voters said they 'just want it to be over.' 2016 was unprecedented in so many ways, and the wounds it inflicted on America are still now only beginning to be felt.

[SingingAnalyst]

One factor that I think takes the polarization of the 1968 election (arguably the most polarized of the 3) down a notch, is that it was won by the candidate who was perceived at the time to be the most centrist: Richard Nixon.

Unlike Humphrey and Wallace, it is hard to find a subgroup of the population in which nearly everyone voted Nixon (86% of Republicans voted for him). It is easy to find places where almost no one voted Nixon: Detroit's 22nd District (96.2% Humphrey); Homles County, MS (52% Humphrey, 41% Wallace, 7% Nixon); and Geneva County, AL (4.4% Humphrey, 3.3% Nixon, 91.7% Wallace). But other than his lack of appeal to Blacks and Jewish voters, Nixon's support was fairly broad (by 1960s standards).

Trump, on the other hand, is viewed as a unifier by almost no one, including probably most of his supporters.

[Bidenworth2020]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

[Bidenworth2020]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

[peter88]

2016 was the most outspoken I guess. Social media have taken it to a new level (doubled by Trump's outstanding personality)

[twenty42]

1988 was a pretty rough election by the standards of its day. Neither candidate was very inspiring, or nearly as popular as the sitting president. There was a lot of negativism on both sides as well...not so much perpetuated by the candidates themselves, but by their respective bases. It was definitely a "Glad it's over" election.

If Hillary had won in 2016, it would have been a perfect parallel to 1988.

[VPH]

Absolutely 1968, considering the racial climate around the country at the same time. Far more divided than right now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

Lmao the left hated Bush extremely intensely (the things they say about Trump now ,they said about Bush then) and Republicans loved Bush like he was some Demi God .

Look at Bush and Kerry share of the opposite party vote ,and you will see it's less than what Hillary and Trump received.


2016 is only more polarizing than 2004(and that only slightly ) because of social media.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

Lmao the left hated Bush extremely intensely (the things they say about Trump now ,they said about Bush then) and Republicans loved Bush like he was some Demi God .

Look at Bush and Kerry share of the opposite party vote ,and you will see it's less than what Hillary and Trump received.


2016 is only more polarizing than 2004(and that only slightly ) because of social media.

2004 wasn't even near 2016 levels lol.

The left hates Trump like I've never seen before. Hell, many leftists are now saying Bush was a great guy. Bill Maher was basically apologizing to Bush and Romney for his treatment of them because they "cried wolf."

No one remembers anything about the 2004 election besides being upset Kerry lost. The 2016 campaign however will go down as historical. From Trump's declaration that Mexico sends illegals who are rapists and drug dealers to Comey's letter, 2016 was crazy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

Lmao the left hated Bush extremely intensely (the things they say about Trump now ,they said about Bush then) and Republicans loved Bush like he was some Demi God .

Look at Bush and Kerry share of the opposite party vote ,and you will see it's less than what Hillary and Trump received.


2016 is only more polarizing than 2004(and that only slightly ) because of social media.

2004 wasn't even near 2016 levels lol.

The left hates Trump like I've never seen before. Hell, many leftists are now saying Bush was a great guy. Bill Maher was basically apologizing to Bush and Romney for his treatment of them because they "cried wolf."

No one remembers anything about the 2004 election besides being upset Kerry lost. The 2016 campaign however will go down as historical. From Trump's declaration that Mexico sends illegals who are rapists and drug dealers to Comey's letter, 2016 was crazy.

Are now saying , of dubya came back they would go back to hating him like they used to.


About left not hating dubya as much as trump just look at DU threads after 2004.


Yes the rethoric of 2016 was worse then 2004 but the numbers prove 2004 was more partisan than 2016.
 

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

Lmao the left hated Bush extremely intensely (the things they say about Trump now ,they said about Bush then) and Republicans loved Bush like he was some Demi God .

Look at Bush and Kerry share of the opposite party vote ,and you will see it's less than what Hillary and Trump received.


2016 is only more polarizing than 2004(and that only slightly ) because of social media.

2004 wasn't even near 2016 levels lol.

The left hates Trump like I've never seen before. Hell, many leftists are now saying Bush was a great guy. Bill Maher was basically apologizing to Bush and Romney for his treatment of them because they "cried wolf."

No one remembers anything about the 2004 election besides being upset Kerry lost. The 2016 campaign however will go down as historical. From Trump's declaration that Mexico sends illegals who are rapists and drug dealers to Comey's letter, 2016 was crazy.

Are now saying , of dubya came back they would go back to hating him like they used to.


About left not hating dubya as much as trump just look at DU threads after 2004.


Yes the rethoric of 2016 was worse then 2004 but the numbers prove 2004 was more partisan than 2016.
 

Election threads of 2016 show that many Democrats said 2004 didn't even compare to 2016. The Young Turks Cenk was like "Wow I thought Kerry losing was bad but this is the worst."

2004 was more partisan only because in 2016 we had more third party votes.

Democrats think of Trump as the devil - Hitler reincarnated. Yeah, they'd make a "Bush war criminal" reference every now and then, but did Bush ever face a backlash over one event like Trump did last weekend? Not even close.

Trump's win has put many Democrats into complete shock and many of them are becoming outright unhinged - I never felt that way about them in 2004. Many of them have a thing called Hysteria. Induced by losing what they deemed to be their rightful throne, and any reasoning behind their loss CANNOT be legal or logical as it was rightfully theirs. Therefore, it was clearly Russian interference.

It was her turn!!!

[Lord Admirale]

Why isn't 2000 here?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Why isn't 2000 here?

2000 at the night of the election was rather boring. Extremely low turnout because the 2 main candidates were beyond boring.

2000 of course became historical due to the Florida debacle and 9-11. But at the time of the election, it was really nothing special. The debates were supposed to get like 90 million viewers but ended up getting half that.

2004 got a ton more national interest because of the Iraq war of course.

[OSR stands with Israel]

dafuq,2004 is like 30th most

Lmao the left hated Bush extremely intensely (the things they say about Trump now ,they said about Bush then) and Republicans loved Bush like he was some Demi God .

Look at Bush and Kerry share of the opposite party vote ,and you will see it's less than what Hillary and Trump received.


2016 is only more polarizing than 2004(and that only slightly ) because of social media.

2004 wasn't even near 2016 levels lol.

The left hates Trump like I've never seen before. Hell, many leftists are now saying Bush was a great guy. Bill Maher was basically apologizing to Bush and Romney for his treatment of them because they "cried wolf."

No one remembers anything about the 2004 election besides being upset Kerry lost. The 2016 campaign however will go down as historical. From Trump's declaration that Mexico sends illegals who are rapists and drug dealers to Comey's letter, 2016 was crazy.

Are now saying , of dubya came back they would go back to hating him like they used to.


About left not hating dubya as much as trump just look at DU threads after 2004.


Yes the rethoric of 2016 was worse then 2004 but the numbers prove 2004 was more partisan than 2016.
 

Election threads of 2016 show that many Democrats said 2004 didn't even compare to 2016. The Young Turks Cenk was like "Wow I thought Kerry losing was bad but this is the worst."

2004 was more partisan only because in 2016 we had more third party votes.

Democrats think of Trump as the devil - Hitler reincarnated. Yeah, they'd make a "Bush war criminal" reference every now and then, but did Bush ever face a backlash over one event like Trump did last weekend? Not even close.

Trump's win has put many Democrats into complete shock and many of them are becoming outright unhinged - I never felt that way about them in 2004. Many of them have a thing called Hysteria. Induced by losing what they deemed to be their rightful throne, and any reasoning behind their loss CANNOT be legal or logical as it was rightfully theirs. Therefore, it was clearly Russian interference.

It was her turn!!!

Trump got 9 percent of dem vote bush got 7 percent