Least divisive of the last 5 Presidential elections?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.