For history buffs: has any past presidential election been that murky?

[Albertoo]

Let's assume the final contenders will be Hillary vs Trump:
- Trump is openly disavowed by the two past GOP candidates, Romney and McCain
- Hillary ,under a FBI probe over her e-mails, has been reviled by part of Bernie voters

Hence my question: has there ever been an American presidential election where both contenders were so contested within their own ranks?

And if not, is it a reflection of deeply troubled and uncertain times?
(2008 crisis still underway, Europe debt and refugee crises, world jihad,..)

[rurallib]

1. you may want to think about throwing Bloomberg into the mix

[RKP5637]

3. Bloomberg would offer quite the twist to the entire affair. n/t

[Albertoo]

4. Which kind of makes the whole mess worse

[RKP5637]

2. To me, it's a reflection of the instability and faulty thinking in the US and the world. Logic and

rational thinking seem to have flown the coop. Certainly the democrats are not as bad as the republicans, but the devouring of candidates is deplorable.

[Albertoo]

5. Is the faulty thinking due to a lag in adjustement in a troubled world

My guess is yes. In un-academic terms, everywhere I look, I see countries up shit creek.

[RKP5637]

15. It really is ... like the old saying/observation of drop a rock in the middle of a pond

and the ripples cover the pond. Exactly as you say, countries up shit creek.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. the brokered democratic convention after LBJ was no cakewalk

the 1980 carter-kennedy fight was not much fun either

there has been much turbulence in this process before, and chances are most of bernie supporters will turn out for HRC. or vice versa (though the math looks highly unlikely)

[femmocrat]

8. The 1968 convention and election was a fiasco.

And we ended up with Tricky Dick.

[Albertoo]

11. True, there is historical-size dissenssion only on the R. side

But the FBI probe on Hillary adds to the weird, heavy atmosphere

[monmouth4]

7. I often like to travel back to the Truman vs. Dewey race. That was quite exciting, even though

I was only five years old at the time. Dewey was convinced and so were the press that he had it sewn up. Oh my

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. My folks told me about 1948.

They told me they and their friends Bill & Gracie were standing in long lines to vote in 1948, and they were saying, "We know Harry Truman, isn't gonna win, but we're voting for him anyway!"

He won.

[csziggy]

9. The election of 1912 could be comparable

There had been a schism in the Republican Party in 1908 which weakened the Republicans and created the National Progressive Republican League though that didn't past. Then in 1912 Taft got the nomination from the Republicans, Roosevelt split to form the Bull Moose Party, Woodrow Wilson was nominated as the Democratic candidate and Eugene Debs was the nominee of the Socialist Party. Wilson won 42% of the popular vote, while Roosevelt won 27%, Taft 23% and Debs 6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

[Albertoo]

10. True. Interesting to note it was in troubled times too

(WWI was brewing)

[charlie and algernon]

12. How about the Election of 1860

Four different people won electoral votes. And sadly, we may be heading to Civil War II if Trump gets in and even attempts to do the stuff he's proposing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

[Albertoo]

14. 1860, 1912, troubled times at each problematic election

Thanks anyway, 1860 and 1912 both fit the bill

[longship]

13. 1968 Democratic Party!

It was literally a bloodbath in Chicago, while Mayor Daley sat smugly in his seat on the convention floor and ignored it all.

I remember Dan Rather that night.

And yup, that's anchor Walter Cronkite who gets cut off saying, "We've got a bunch of thugs here..."

"The whole world's watching! THE WHOLE WORLD'S WATCHING! THE WHOLE WORLD'S WATCHING!" being chanted outside the convention by thousands while the Chicago Police thugs pummeled them with night sticks. Here's some of that, if you can take it: (I think this is the right one)

I would say that qualifies, don't you?

[Angel Martin]

16. Going back further, 1828 election

Andrew Jackson won the presidency leading a breakaway faction of the Democratic Republicans to form the Democratic Party.

During the campaign, Jackson was attacked for bigamy, mistreatment of slaves, execution of deserters, duelling, and indian massacres.

Jackson was also denounced as a vulgar, drunken demagogue, and his followers as an uncivilized rabble.

Quincy Adams led what remained of the Democratic Republicans. He was was derided as a silk stocking elitist, a tool of bankers, a Protectionist, a supporter of wasteful gov't spending, and a pimp who procured American women for foreign monarchs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1828

Intra party divisions and nasty campaigns are nothing new.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. "They're both the same"

I saw how you did that, make an equivalency between Trump and Clinton.

Nice work.

I really wish you'd just go away. We have enough trouble without this sort of bullshit.

And to be clear, I am NEITHER a Clinton nor Sanders supporter. Either one is fine by me.

[Albertoo]

19. Uh? No.

My point was emphatically NOT an equivalency between Clinton and Trump. It's so obviously not true I hardly need to elaborate. The "they're all the same" is the usual mantra of far right populists (not very far from what Trump says, actually).

No. I was merely noting that both candidacies are troubled, Trump's more markedly so than Hillary's. My thread was merely echoing/generalizing the title of one of yesterday's BBC articles asking if the Brexit conundrum and the Trump candidacy were signs of volatile times. And the answers I got (1912, 1860) tend to confirm my hunch.

In short, I think we are in pre-upheaval times, dwarfing regular R/Dem differences.