Least divisive of the last 5 Presidential elections?

[SingingAnalyst]

I would argue 2004. The nation was still somewhat unified after the 9/11 attacks, neither Kerry nor Bush made major inroads into groups they had not already done well with in 2000, and not much was different from 2000.

Compared to 2000, Bush improved marginally among Blacks (11% vs. 8%) and Jews (22% vs. 16%). Kerry did pick up most of Nader's support, but that was perhaps the only counterargument, the famous "United States of Canada" and "Jesusland" map notwithstanding.

[Sumner 1868]

2008 was the clearest win so in a sense it was the least divisive. If you mean had the least hysterical rhetoric than the answer is (oddly enough) actually 2000.

[Tekken_Guy]

2008. It was a clear victory for the Democrats. No way was McCain winning with the baggage of Bush on him.

[Figueira]

2008, because McCain and Obama were both popular.

[MIKESOWELL]

I would say 2000. The actual general election campaign was slightly boring. The main controversy and divisiveness of the election was mostly due to the disputed results of Election Day and the after effects which are still felt today.

[Kingpoleon]

1. 2004
2. 2012
3. 2008

[Beet]

I would say 2000. The actual general election campaign was slightly boring. The main controversy and divisiveness of the election was mostly due to the disputed results of Election Day and the after effects which are still felt today.

This. 2000 was the last "20th century election" where politics in general was pretty boring.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2004 was extremely divisive, Bush was hated fervently by every group in the democratic party while viewed as a hero by Republicans . Voter turnout hit it's highest levels since the 1968 election since Democrats went to the polls in droves to defeat Bush, and Republicans went in polls in droves to reelect Bush. Every state(except IA , NH,NM) not only voted the same way as they did in 2000 , they went even more  Red/Blue. I mean Bush still won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote , only won the 2004 election by 1 state despite winning the election by over 3 million votes.


If you want to see how divisive 2004 was, here's how 2004 would have gone on a purely PVI basis(the country swung 3 points GOP in 2004)

Bush 318
Kerry 220


Instead Bush lost NH, lost Maine 2nd by 6 points, lost Wisconsin, lost Minnesota by 3.5%, lost Oregon by 4 points.  

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would say 2000. The actual general election campaign was slightly boring. The main controversy and divisiveness of the election was mostly due to the disputed results of Election Day and the after effects which are still felt today.

This. 2000 was the last "20th century election" where politics in general was pretty boring.

how was 1976,1980,1992 boring .

[Arbitrage1980]

2004 was extremely divisive, Bush was hated fervently by every group in the democratic party while viewed as a hero by Republicans . Voter turnout hit it's highest levels since the 1968 election since Democrats went to the polls in droves to defeat Bush, and Republicans went in polls in droves to reelect Bush. Every state(except IA , NH,NM) not only voted the same way as they did in 2000 , they went even more  Red/Blue. I mean Bush still won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote , only won the 2004 election by 1 state despite winning the election by over 3 million votes.


If you want to see how divisive 2004 was, here's how 2004 would have gone on a purely PVI basis(the country swung 3 points GOP in 2004)

Bush 318
Kerry 220


Instead Bush lost NH, lost Maine 2nd by 6 points, lost Wisconsin, lost Minnesota by 3.5%, lost Oregon by 4 points.  

This is correct. 2004 was in my opinion the 3rd most divisive election in the post-WWII era, behind 2016 and 1968. Bush was LOATHED by the Democrats, who saw him as a fascistic warmonger and an imbecile while the GOP saw him as a man of strength and character who led us in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

What was amazing about this election was that despite winning the national popular vote by 2.5%, Bush only converted 2 Gore states: New Mexico and Iowa and by margins of less than 1%. Given that he was an incumbent President after the worst attack on U.S. soil and a recovering economy, he should have won by margins similar to Clinton 1996 or Obama 2008. His PV margin was due to losing CA by just 10 points, improving on northeastern blue states such as PA, NJ, NY, and crushing it in red states such as TX, GA, FL, NC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

3 people voted 2004? Come on, there were actually ads saying "10 out of 10 terrorists vote Democrat."

[SingingAnalyst]

It seems to me most of the loathing of Bush on the Left came after Katrina.

I don't doubt 2004 was divisive, but it broke little new ground, electorally (except in pockets where Nader had gotten a large share of the 2000 vote, like Cambridge, MA and Austin, TX).

2000 on the other hand saw the first clear red/blue county/state demarcation; 2008 saw growing GOP strongholds like AR-TN-KY-WV swing even more GOP; 2012 continued that trend (I'd say 2012 was the 2nd least divisive); and 2016 speaks for itself.

I'd say 2004 - 2012 - 2000 - 2008 - 2016.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Bush's unpopularity was going to sink any Republican running in 2008, plus Obama and McCain were both relatively well-liked (Republican hatred of Obama really didn't start until after he became president) so I would say that's the easy answer. 2016 and 2000 were both very close with the popular vote and electoral vote diverging, and the county-by-county maps reinforced the urban vs. rural narrative. 2004 and 2012 were both relatively close reelections of divisive presidents who probably would've won by more in less polarizing times.

[Arbitrage1980]

Bush's unpopularity was going to sink any Republican running in 2008, plus Obama and McCain were both relatively well-liked (Republican hatred of Obama really didn't start until after he became president) so I would say that's the easy answer. 2016 and 2000 were both very close with the popular vote and electoral vote diverging, and the county-by-county maps reinforced the urban vs. rural narrative. 2004 and 2012 were both relatively close reelections of divisive presidents who probably would've won by more in less polarizing times.

2012 was not close by any means. Obama won the national popular vote by 3.9% and won 332 electoral votes. He won every swing state except NC, which he lost by 2%. Aside from Florida, which he won by 0.9%, he won every other swing state by 3%+.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Bush's unpopularity was going to sink any Republican running in 2008, plus Obama and McCain were both relatively well-liked (Republican hatred of Obama really didn't start until after he became president) so I would say that's the easy answer. 2016 and 2000 were both very close with the popular vote and electoral vote diverging, and the county-by-county maps reinforced the urban vs. rural narrative. 2004 and 2012 were both relatively close reelections of divisive presidents who probably would've won by more in less polarizing times.

2012 was not close by any means. Obama won the national popular vote by 3.9% and won 332 electoral votes. He won every swing state except NC, which he lost by 2%. Aside from Florida, which he won by 0.9%, he won every other swing state by 3%+.

I said relatively, and it was still the closest reelection of an incumbent president in modern times besides Bush in '04. Obama was a lot less popular in 2012 than in 2008 or the early months of 2009 so to me, that leaves 2008 as the definitive answer to this question.

[uti2]

2004 was extremely divisive, Bush was hated fervently by every group in the democratic party while viewed as a hero by Republicans . Voter turnout hit it's highest levels since the 1968 election since Democrats went to the polls in droves to defeat Bush, and Republicans went in polls in droves to reelect Bush. Every state(except IA , NH,NM) not only voted the same way as they did in 2000 , they went even more  Red/Blue. I mean Bush still won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote , only won the 2004 election by 1 state despite winning the election by over 3 million votes.


If you want to see how divisive 2004 was, here's how 2004 would have gone on a purely PVI basis(the country swung 3 points GOP in 2004)

Bush 318
Kerry 220


Instead Bush lost NH, lost Maine 2nd by 6 points, lost Wisconsin, lost Minnesota by 3.5%, lost Oregon by 4 points.  

This is correct. 2004 was in my opinion the 3rd most divisive election in the post-WWII era, behind 2016 and 1968. Bush was LOATHED by the Democrats, who saw him as a fascistic warmonger and an imbecile while the GOP saw him as a man of strength and character who led us in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

What was amazing about this election was that despite winning the national popular vote by 2.5%, Bush only converted 2 Gore states: New Mexico and Iowa and by margins of less than 1%. Given that he was an incumbent President after the worst attack on U.S. soil and a recovering economy, he should have won by margins similar to Clinton 1996 or Obama 2008. His PV margin was due to losing CA by just 10 points, improving on northeastern blue states such as PA, NJ, NY, and crushing it in red states such as TX, GA, FL, NC.

Maybe it is due to the fact that neoconservatism is simply loathed as an ideology? Is that so difficult to accept? Bush ran as a sort of Bush Sr. style realist in 2000 (with a slightly stronger religious bent), but became a radical neoconservative only after 9/11. There is a striking coincidence in this thread in that all the people who act shocked about the 2004 results are the same ones saying that a generic neocon nominated in 2016 would've won by a landslide. If they couldn't do it in 2004 with an incumbent president, why should they have been able to do it in 2016?

Remember, Obama won 2008 by running as a radical anti-neoconservative, he was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement.

[uti2]

It's entertaining that the people who think that 2004 was a given for the GOP and are shocked by how close it was, are the same ones who are shocked by Romney's weak performance in 2012, and are also the same ones who claim that a generic neocon would've done better in 2016.

The common refrain they also have is that Obama 2008 was inevitable, do you people not see the logical contradiction?

Obama '08 ran as a total repudiation of neo-conservatism, if you believe that Obama '08 was inevitable, you shouldn't be shocked by what happened in '04, and '12, and you shouldn't be overconfident about alternate 2016 scenarios.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's entertaining that the people who think that 2004 was a given for the GOP and are shocked by how close it was, are the same ones who are shocked by Romney's weak performance in 2012, and are also the same ones who claim that a generic neocon would've done better in 2016.

The common refrain they also have is that Obama 2008 was inevitable, do you people not see the logical contradiction?

Obama '08 ran as a total repudiation of neo-conservatism, if you believe that Obama '08 was inevitable, you shouldn't be shocked by what happened in '04, and '12, and you shouldn't be overconfident about alternate 2016 scenarios.

Bush was leading by 7 points before the debate , and if it wasn't for the economic crash the 2008 election would have been very close

[Arbitrage1980]

It's entertaining that the people who think that 2004 was a given for the GOP and are shocked by how close it was, are the same ones who are shocked by Romney's weak performance in 2012, and are also the same ones who claim that a generic neocon would've done better in 2016.

The common refrain they also have is that Obama 2008 was inevitable, do you people not see the logical contradiction?

Obama '08 ran as a total repudiation of neo-conservatism, if you believe that Obama '08 was inevitable, you shouldn't be shocked by what happened in '04, and '12, and you shouldn't be overconfident about alternate 2016 scenarios.

Nope. I don't see a contradiction at all. Each election has different fundamentals and circumstances. Obama's victory in 2008 was inevitable due to Bush being at 25% approval ratings, unpopularity of the Iraq War, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And of course, the entire media was his cheerleader, as they badly wanted to see a black man become President.

[uti2]

It's entertaining that the people who think that 2004 was a given for the GOP and are shocked by how close it was, are the same ones who are shocked by Romney's weak performance in 2012, and are also the same ones who claim that a generic neocon would've done better in 2016.

The common refrain they also have is that Obama 2008 was inevitable, do you people not see the logical contradiction?

Obama '08 ran as a total repudiation of neo-conservatism, if you believe that Obama '08 was inevitable, you shouldn't be shocked by what happened in '04, and '12, and you shouldn't be overconfident about alternate 2016 scenarios.

Nope. I don't see a contradiction at all. Each election has different fundamentals and circumstances. Obama's victory in 2008 was inevitable due to Bush being at 25% approval ratings, unpopularity of the Iraq War, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And of course, the entire media was his cheerleader, as they badly wanted to see a black man become President.

The media cheered for all the Democratic candidates in all the years from 2000-2016. Obama also had high approval ratings in both 2012 and 2016. Doesn't make sense why you would have such dramatically different views for the incumbencies of Bush and Obama. It also doesn't make sense why you'd extend a parallel of 2008 to 2016, when 2016 had no financial crisis and Obama had a positive approval rating.

[Sumner 1868]

The media cheered for all the Democratic candidates in all the years from 2000-2016.

No, it's pretty well-established the media had a significant bias towards Bush in 2000 at least.

[uti2]

The media cheered for all the Democratic candidates in all the years from 2000-2016.

No, it's pretty well-established the media had a significant bias towards Bush in 2000 at least.

At worst, you can say, they were treated equally, 'These two candidates are basically the same'. Bush campaigned as a moderate 'compassionate conservative' who wanted to expand Medicare, they thought they would getting another term of Bush Sr. Little did they know what would happen.

Gore also ran as a bigger interventionist than Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

[OSR stands with Israel]

In some ways 2004 was even more devise then 2016, as in 2004 neither Bush or Kerry even tried to win the support of any group in the other side while in 2016 Hillary tried to win the support of many moderate and never trump republicans while Trump went after Blue Collar Democrats . In 2004 Bush and Kerry just ran a base only campaign and it worked for Bush .

[The Mikado]

Were some of you too young for 2004 or something?

The answer is clearly 2008, simply by virtue of McCain not seriously being in the running to win for the last two months of the election.

[uti2]

In some ways 2004 was even more devise then 2016, as in 2004 neither Bush or Kerry even tried to win the support of any group in the other side while in 2016 Hillary tried to win the support of many moderate and never trump republicans while Trump went after Blue Collar Democrats . In 2004 Bush and Kerry just ran a base only campaign and it worked for Bush .

Bush doubled down on evangelicals, while Kerry doubled down on Rockefeller Republicans. As a consequence, the democrats bled more southern voters, while the republicans bled more northern/western voters. What happened in 2000/2004 set the stage for Obama. Dems felt that they no longer needed southern/evangelical voters, so they didn't bother trying to court them.

What happened in 2012, was Romney trying to get back Rockefeller Republicans without actually offering any policies to win them back. People like Bloomberg didn't like Romney's social policies, and Romney was more moderate than a sizable number of the 2016 contenders. The same goes for most candidates who ran in 2016, perhaps Kasich might've won some of them back. Trump went all in on crossover democrats.