Most polarizing election in the past 70 years

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Trump got 9 percent of dem vote bush got 7 percent

Not that much big of a difference. Also, Trump lost a ton of Romney/suburban GOP voters.

And about DU, the DU literally shut down due to intense panic on election night. They tried to claim a Trump troll "hacked them" but I doubt that because right after this "hack" they said you could go on the forums if you were a premium member - but who the hell would give their credit card info to a website that was just hacked?

Trump's performance on election night put the DU in total shock.

As mentioned, 2004 was a lot closer (Bush led most of the polls in both swing states and PV) and Democrats were demoralized, but not outright shook.

2016 put them into total shock of incredible portions. 2004 was them seeing their pet die; 2016 was seeing a parent die.

[HisGrace]

If you mean polarizing as in the difference between the candidates, than 64 and 2016 are pretty much tied.

Some people are using the term as an intensity thing. I would say 2004 was slightly more bitter/divisive than 2016. At the time I heard a lot of people say that 2004 was the most intense campaign since 68, so it may have been worse, but I wasn't around then so I can't say.

[Xing]

As tempting as it is to say 2016, I think this has to go to 1968.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

As tempting as it is to say 2016, I think this has to go to 1968.

2016 wins because an outsider won the Presidency.

In 1968 the Establishment was in full control. Wallace would get the whiners' votes, but he had no real chance to win.

[AN63093]

A lot of you don't seem to understand what the definition of "polarization" is.

Polarization is not a synonym for "intense," "hostile environment," "divisive atmosphere," "bitterly fought," and so on.  You can have a calm, boring election that is very polarized.  You can also have an intensely fought election in a hostile atmosphere that is not polarized.

Polarization measures the degree to which people are drawn into partisan camps and associate strongly with that partisan identification.

A polarized state would be one with few swing voters and an inelastic electorate.  An example of that might be NC or VA.  A non-polarized state would be one with an elastic electorate with large numbers of swing voters, crossover votes, etc.  An example of that might be OH.

A polarized election would be one in which there was little cross-over voting and both candidates are winning their base states by higher than normal percentages.  There would also be relatively few swing states.  A non-polarized election would have lots of swing states and few states that were won by a candidate by outrageous margins.

How bitter the comments are on social media, stuff like that... that is not measuring polarization.  If that is what you are describing, then you should be more precise with your language and choose another word.  Like "most intense" election.

[twenty42]

A lot of you don't seem to understand what the definition of "polarization" is.

Polarization is not a synonym for "intense," "hostile environment," "divisive atmosphere," "bitterly fought," and so on.  You can have a calm, boring election that is very polarized.  You can also have an intensely fought election in a hostile atmosphere that is not polarized.

Agreed, and I'd say 2012 and 1980 would be respective examples.

The former was a pretty boring election, but there were relatively few swing states and the path to 270 was narrow for both candidates. Obama happened to sweep the swing states minus NC, and his EC margin made his victory look more comfortable than it was in reality.

The latter was a very heated, emotional election which was thought to be a dead heat going into the evening, but Reagan had enough crossover appeal in the end to secure a blowout in the PV and the EV.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

How bitter the comments are on social media, stuff like that... that is not measuring polarization.  If that is what you are describing, then you should be more precise with your language and choose another word.  Like "most intense" election.

The OP didn't say "polarization."

He said "polarizing."

" :  to break up into opposing factions or groupings a campaign that polarized the electorate"

So I thought he just met what caused it to be polarizing and so heated. Thus is why he brought up rhetoric, atmosphere, etc. etc. That's why he specifically brought up 68, 04, and 16 as well.

2016 is definitely polarizing because of how extremists (from the right and left) came out due to the rhetoric. On the left you had SJWs and Socialists, and on the right you had the Alt-Right.

[libertpaulian]

'04 was polarizing in a partisan sense

'16 was polarizing in a cultural and societal sense (for example, people lost family relationships, friendships, etc. over the election)

'68 was polarizing in both senses

[OSR stands with Israel]

'04 was polarizing in a partisan sense

'16 was polarizing in a cultural and societal sense (for example, people lost family relationships, friendships, etc. over the election)

'68 was polarizing in both senses

I wouldn't say 68 was that partisan (seeing how Nixon won much of the South )

[gottsu]

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 .

What do I have to imagine about these elections? America still haven't dealt with her large problems relatively unknown to Europeans.

1968 were the most polarizing elections. I am currently reading a ton of books about US in these times. Big, big mess, there was a real rebellion against all of it (Vietnam, universities, racism, MLK and RFK killings, lack of faith in Congress and presidency etc.). And now? There is no rebellion at all. Some small parts of people do riot, but they do it purely on principle, they know that this will not gonna change anything important, they even know that their mutiny will haven't be mentioned, they do it purely as an act of personal desperation, it is all so "passive-agressive".

[Progressive Pessimist]

2016 easily. A lot of the shock and grief from Trump winning is that a significant portion of the country's voters now had to contend with the fact that their fellow countrymen elected the worst person for the job and one of the worst people on Earth in general to make decisions on behalf of the whole country. It's going to be very difficult to come back from this even if prior elections and events set it all in motion.

[Bidenworth2020]

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)

umm... just no, that is clearly an uninformed statement. Bush won 11% of Dems, a very good percentage. Kerry also won 7% of Republicans.

[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)

umm... just no, that is clearly an uninformed statement. Bush won 11% of Dems, a very good percentage. Kerry also won 7% of Republicans.

I saw an exit poll which showed Bush only winning 7 percent of Democrats and Kerry winning 5 percent

http://news.gallup.com/poll/9469/election-polls-vote-groups-20002004.aspx

[mianfei]

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.

Another thing is that the media available to rural vis-à-vis urban populations – critically over the entire lifespan of most living at the time – was much more polarising in 2016 than it had been before the late 1970s.

During the Carter and Reagan eras, entertainment and music playlists (and perhaps opinions??) of the limited media available to rural people became much narrower than beforehand, and I have often felt that this difference may be a factor in increasing differentiation between urban and rural voters’ preferences, especially on social and racial issues. Lack of contact between the two had much deeper and long-term effects in 2016 than it could have in 1968, when a substantial number of poor white rural counties still powerfully backed Humphrey (and these would no doubt have gone more strongly still for a genuine peace candidate). I am not sure that expanding social media will solve the problem, because rural and urban people are unlikely to seek out media giving the other side’s viewpoint and most people have been shaped by the division in availability of entertainment (and likely opinions) since the Carter and Reagan Eras.

[One Term Floridian]

I’d say 1860 was pretty polarizing lol... but in the past 70 years, 1968 > 2016 > 2004

[Sumner 1868]

Elections in the late 1800s were more polarizing than anything in living memory.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’d say 1860 was pretty polarizing lol... but in the past 70 years, 1968 > 2016 > 2004

Look a the turnout increase in 2004 , Kerry got 9 more million votes than Gore did and still lost and thats cause Bush got 12 million more votes than he did in 2000. So in 2004 turnout increased by 21 Million Votes !!!! and in one cycle turnout went from being one of the 3 lowest since 1968(and the one before that was the lowest) to the highest since 1968.


So 2004 was more intense than 2016

[Podgy the Bear]

Absolutely 1968.  We were fighting a war on several fronts. 

At the present time, we're not at 1968 levels--yet.

[Flyersfan232]

1860 started a civil war imaged that with social media and 4chan

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

1968:
Nixon-Democratic Senator
Alaska (Mike Gravel 45.1%)
California (Alan Cranston 51.8%)
Idaho (Frank Church 60.3%)
Indiana (Birch Bayh 51.7%)
Iowa (Harold Hughes 50.25%)
Missouri (Thomas F. Eagleton 51.0%)
Nevada (Alan Bible 54.8%)
North Carolina (Sam Ervin 60.6%)
South Carolina (Ernest Hollings 61.9%)
South Dakota (George McGovern 56.8%)
Wisconsin (Gaylord Nelson 61.7%)

Humphrey-Republican Senator
Maryland (Charles Mathias 47.8%)
New York (Jacob Javits 49.7%)
Pennsylvania (Richard Schweiker 51.9%)

Wallace-Democratic Senator
Alabama (James Allen 69.7%)
Arkansas (J. William Fulbright 59.2%)
Georgia (Herman Talmadge 77.5%)
Louisiana (Russell B. Long 100%)

2004:
Bush-Democratic Senator
Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln 55.9%)
Colorado (Ken Salazar 51.3%)
Indiana (Evan Bayh 61.7%)
Nevada (Harry Reid 61.0%)
North Dakota (Byron Dorgan 68.3%)

Kerry-Republican Senator
New Hampshire (Judd Gregg 66.2%)
Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter 52.6%)

2016:
Trump-Democratic Senator
...

Clinton-Republican Senator
...

The answer is 2016.

[History505]

I think 1968 with the riots at Dem convention and assasinations, but 2016 is a close second.