Both 1940 and 1944 were pretty easy victories for FDR, and it was very obvious he was going to win in both years. Wilkie and Dewey did better than Landon, but there wasn't much of a challenge between the two elections. Besides, who would, as Lincoln put it, switch horses in the middle of the stream?
1832 had Jackson win easily against someone who made a deal to keep Jackson out of office, if anything the previous election was the re-alignment.
1900 was another failed attempt by William J. Bryan. I guess this should be a little higher for Theodore Roosevelt, though.
1956 of course is 1996 in 40 years; a peacetime election with a popular president.
Jesus couldn't beat Reagan in 1984. Reagan was at the height of his popularity at that point. The Democrats couldn't get anyone good enough to oppose Reagan.
Also, since Rooney posted again, 1792 has got to be one of the least important too.
Again, I'll re-quote my post:
Of all the re-match elections, this is your pick? 1832, 1900, 1944, 1940, 1956, and 1984 are all worse/ more boring.
What is this? I don't even. . . . . .
1832 was pretty much a showcase of the then new political alignment in America. THe narrative was entirely about Jackson vs. "OMG EVIL BANKERS!", something that isn't really boring at all.
1900 had the return of William J. Crazyman Bryan and was basically a AMERICA RULES! campaign on the GOP side. While it might've been a cakewalk, both sides were out in style, something that can't be said about 1996.
1944. . .. . are you f***ing high? Did you forget World War II existed?
1940. . . . okay, a little dull compared to 1944, but the backdrop of the election is certainly notable.
1956. . .. . okay, I actually might agree with you on this one. In fact, 1956 and 1996 could be twins.
1984. . . . Reagan's re-election. The campaign was hardly "boring".
I don't remember the 1996 election campaign. That's how "boring" it was.
I'm not contending these are Oscar nominations here,
just that they don't fall into 1996 territory. An argument that is extremely easy to make if you aren't blind/deaf.
On 1832 I was referring more to the explosion of media involvement in the race compared to the previous ones. THere was a lot more money and a lot more inventive politicking in the 1832 race than in 1828. THe realignment began in 1828, obviously, but the usage of open ad politics exploded in 1832 when Jackson ran for re-election.
1940 and 1944, just because a race is easy doesn't mean it is boring. The FDR campaign commercials, like the "HEll Bent Till Election" cartoon are classics. Whatever you may say about how easy these were, there was still a lot of interests in the races and there was still a lot of innovation (something you seem to be missing in justifying that these somehow belong in the same category as 1996).
1984 is memorable not because of any competition between Mondale and Reagan (there wasn't) but because it was a landmark election that showed the success of conservatism. It is the Republican 1936, full stop. And the media run up to election day was pretty interesting compared to say . . . . 1996. Don't forget the Democratic Primaries, that brought memorable appearances by Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and crew.
Again, your reasonings, which seem to only involve analysis of electoral results and not the actual history behind the races, are flawed if you seriously think any of these (besides 1956) were as bad/boring as 1996. 1996 brought nothing, NOTHING, of interest. If you think it did you either don't remember it (like everyone else), come from a town where the local student races generate a load of publicity, or thought Gigli should've won an Oscar.
