U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2012, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,189 posts, read 15,355,588 times
Reputation: 11851

Advertisements

No, it was not the nastiest. 2004 was worse. 1988 was pretty bad too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:06 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,497,570 times
Reputation: 4125
I don't think so.

I think the Kerry / Bush election of 2004 was much more divisive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
19,528 posts, read 13,163,464 times
Reputation: 14237
I think 1974 was worse. But his one was nastier than 2008.
I thought the divisions would start to heal after 2008, but they got stronger and worse with each passing year. I never imagined that the Republican party would nearly split in half back then; in fact, I thought they would immediately start working on getting their act together. Boy, was I wrong!

The thing the Democrats learned in 2004 was they had to let no charges left unchallenged after Kerry's swift boating. Obama's team knew who the most likely candidate would emerge from the Republican primaries before the Repubs did, and they had ads all ready to go and air time already booked in all the target states. But nobody back in March and April knew the impact of the Super Pacs and the Dark groups yet.

This is the first election I've seen where the candidates' and party messages were overwhelmed by special interest ads on all sides. Neither candidate approved of many that were aired on his behalf. And by the end, the overload may have dampened voter turnout instead of motivating it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 06:15 PM
 
10,115 posts, read 6,770,925 times
Reputation: 3408
I think the GOP primary was horrible this round, but I think the general election in 08 was nastier than this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
11,834 posts, read 9,789,318 times
Reputation: 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Was this THE nastiest, most polarizing Presidential race you've seen in your life


No. Though I was unable to vote in 1964, I remember the Johnson-Goldwater race as very nasty. That nuclear bomb commercial of LBJ's was only aired once, but it lives on in infamy.

I was able to vote in 1972. That year, it was the Democrats who nominated someone considered a "radical", George McGovern, to run against a sitting president, Nixon. Even with the advantage of incumbency and an opponent who was considered too far left for most people, Nixon's henchmen pulled off an amateur raid of the DNC headquarters.

Ironically, both Goldwater and McGovern are now considered fairly "mainstream", which they always were, of course. It was just that their opponents portrayed them as radicals.
Interesting. Of course I know all about Watergate (even though I wasn't alive then), but haven't heard anything about the '64 election. 2004 was the nastiest I've seen in my lifetime (yes, thanks to Rove).
I believe politics was even worse in the old days. Here's an interesting essay on the election of 1800:
The Nastiest Presidential Campaigns in American History | The Election of 1800 - American History - Thomas Jefferson, John Adams | Learnist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 09:53 PM
 
6,926 posts, read 9,096,192 times
Reputation: 2866
The nastiest and most polarizing president that I know of but did not live to see is Lincoln and maybe Davis, though Lincoln takes bigger responsibility for the polarization. The country fought a civil war during their terms. The Irish rioted in NYC. Another is McKinley. Many Americans opposed his expansion of American presence overseas and correctly predicted that it would drag the U.S. into war. Yet another is Lyndon Johnson. BTW, some of the most polarizing presidents were also among the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,118 posts, read 99,260,084 times
Reputation: 31584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
Interesting. Of course I know all about Watergate (even though I wasn't alive then), but haven't heard anything about the '64 election. 2004 was the nastiest I've seen in my lifetime (yes, thanks to Rove).
I believe politics was even worse in the old days. Here's an interesting essay on the election of 1800:
The Nastiest Presidential Campaigns in American History | The Election of 1800 - American History - Thomas Jefferson, John Adams | Learnist
Here's the commercial:


Lyndon Johnson - Daisy - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,504 posts, read 24,335,016 times
Reputation: 7682
I didn't think the campaigns were particularly nasty, but the Romney supporters/Obama haters certainly were. Glad to see that their hatred and vitriol lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 02:15 AM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,497,570 times
Reputation: 4125
You know it's interesting that everyone thinks that today's politics are bad, divisive, etc.

No they aren't. They're no worse or better than they ever were.

Remember the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s? I don't I wasn't alive then, but those were bad. And if you thought neo-cons were bad in the late 90s / early 00s get a load of them then; they were so powerful they actually changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include "Under God" ... before the 1950s, that phrase was never in the Pledge. I actually omit that phrase because it is attempting to place theocratic beliefs on an otherwise secular establishment (in theory).

I actually remember hearing one presidential candidate in the 1800s call his opponent the son of a "dog and a ***** born of a white woman and a black man."

Not even the most red of crimson neo-con gun-loving fascist (Republican) will stoop to those levels today.

So no. Our politics aren't any more dysfunctional today than they ever were. The "guilded age" of reason never existed. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 02:19 AM
 
47,314 posts, read 24,857,419 times
Reputation: 14472
I thought that both Bill Clinton elections were much nastier.

Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top