Was 2004 the most polarizing US Prez election since 1860?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I say 2004

[J. J.]

Not even close to the period from 1884-1900.  Good Lord!  Texas Democrat Buck Kilgore kicked open the locked House doors in order to try to break a quorum.

[??????????]

1960-1968 was closer to 1860.

[minionofmidas]

Not even close to the period from 1884-1900.  Good Lord!  Texas Democrat Buck Kilgore kicked open the locked House doors in order to try to break a quorum.

Cool name.

[J. J.]

Not even close to the period from 1884-1900.  Good Lord!  Texas Democrat Buck Kilgore kicked open the locked House doors in order to try to break a quorum.

Cool name.

His full name was Constantine Buckley Kilgore; he was a former Conferate officer.  He later became a Federal Judge under Cleveland.

"Kilgore's Kick" became widely known in the 1890's.

The late 1800's produced some the most divided period since the Civil War.

[minionofmidas]

I voted "no, 2000 was" in the poll, but on reflection I think 1896 was.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's a lot of votes for 1960-1968.
Which one in particular?
1968?

[J. J.]

That's a lot of votes for 1960-1968.
Which one in particular?
1968?

1968:

Well, the incumbent president couldn't get re-nominated because numerous youth supporters were mobilized to defeat him.  They refered to him as a "murderer." 

The top candidate for the nomination was assassinated.

The nomination convention was disrupted by riots.

Ah, that's just one of the major parties.

1960:

"Character" issues plagued both candidates.  There were rumors about Nixon favoring segregation.  The anti-Catholic stuff circulated about Kennedy was appalling.  It wasn't regional; I've heard about some terrible stuff circulated in Bucks County, PA.

[True Democrat]

Yes

However, the most polarizing election in American history is by far 1828.  Look at this:

[A18]

Err, how is that polarizing?

[True Democrat]

Look how much each region voted for its own candidate.

[A18]

You must have skipped over 1904.

[European]

I voted for 2004. I have two friends one in MO (which is why I picked that state for FP) and one from calafornia. My friend from MO was flying to ireland after she had voted and when she landed in london she rang me as she didn't get alot of information and when I had told her what had happened she started to cry on the phone and the only confort was that her home state stayed democrat.

My friend from calafornia is joing the calafornia independance party (or what ever it's called) because of this election.

also on the other hand the rest of the planet woke up and found out what way the vote had gone and just went "F^&K!"

I think that's polarizing.......

[??????????]

Bush won Missouri.

[agcatter]

...by 7 percent.

Boohoo for the "rest of the planet".

[A18]

That friend of yours is such an idiot. Who cries because they lost a presidential election? "Oh no! Now the tax code won't be thousands of page long! And we can't even raise taxes on the rich!!"

[bgwah]

I don't think 2004 is, not if you go by who won each state and the % of the vote they got. MAYBE an urban vs rural poralization, I suppose...But still, probably late 1800s or 1960s IMO.

[J. J.]

I don't think 2004 is, not if you go by who won each state and the % of the vote they got. MAYBE an urban vs rural poralization, I suppose...But still, probably late 1800s or 1960s IMO.

I'm in agreement, but I'd say the late 1800's were far worse.

[TomC]

As far as results and the aftermath, I'd say 2000, but the divisions caused by the 2000 election were played out in 2004- but the results of 2004 were not as divisive as the "results" of the 2000.

[nclib]

And there was a bigger urban/rural split in 2000 than in 2004.

[Beet]

I'd still say 1896 beats it, if not by much

[Beet]

By the sheer level of confrontation and controversy, 2000 was pretty polarizing for the whole country.

Cases were dragged through vaious levels of courts.  Even the supreme court got involved.

The length of time it took to have a winner declared contributed to the situation.

Yes, 2000 was very polarizing. 

I'd say the 2000 election was far more important than 2004.

[Erc]

By Erc's Polarization Index:

(Standard Deviation of the deviations from average * 1000)

2004: 105
2000: 109
1976: 77
1968: 85
1964: 116
1960: 58
1944: 128
1904: 204

2004 was pretty bad for the post-WWII era, but it's been worse in the past.

Note that my Index, unfortunately, reflects only regional polarization and probably gives far too much weight to small states--which gives the Solid South probably far too much importance.

Erc's 404-Index (% of the vote over 50% it would take to win 3/4 of the electoral vote)--again, not the best index, but it gives less importance to outliers (e.g. MS in 1964).

2004: 6.19
2000: 6.09
1996: 4.84
1992: 4.85
1988: 3.58
1984: 3.09
1980: 3.79
1976: 1.84 (!)
1964: 4.62
1960: 2.69
1904: 12.60

[minionofmidas]

One thing I just noticed...the Democratic vote percentages in the last three presidential elections were within less than a point of each other (49.23%, 48.38%, 48.27%). Last time that happened you ask? 1880-1888. Last time it was true of the Republicans? Also 1880-1888. If stability is an element of polarization, and I think it is, then yeah, these are merely the most polarized times since the Populists first arrived.

[Storebought]

1992, b/c it started the equipoise that has lasted ever since