If you could change just one presidential election..?

[Beet]

Not change any Presidential election. Prior to 1983, changing anything means I might not have been born.

[DanimalBr]

Like i said, I wouldn't want to change anything.  But if I absolutley had to pick one election to change it would be 1996.   That way Clinton was around just long enough to give us a Republican Congress.   But Bob Dole would have taken over in time to save us from the horrible intelligence and military cuts by the Clinton administration that we wound up paying for in the worst possible way.   Dole serves just one term like he said he was going to do if he won in 96, the GW comes in 2000. 

[DanimalBr]

1988, That way Dukakis would have won and Dole could have beat him in 1992.

But how would this man have handled Desert Storm? 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tip: when trying to get someone to take you seriously, don't post an AOL Hometown page. Also, no Geocities.

And actually, they can constitutionally change the way of appointing electors after 'election day,' provided that it's before the electoral college votes.

But that's not what happened. Florida's SC tried to invalidate Florida statute.

Great, find some other webpage to read exactly the same thing here. It appears everywhere.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=gore+exception&btnG=Google+Search

The FL Supreme Court was trying to have a statewide recount.  Plenty of counties never had any recount, they just submitted their original machine count again.

[George W. Bush]

1988, That way Dukakis would have won and Dole could have beat him in 1992.

But how would this man have handled Desert Storm? 

Good Point

[A18]

Which was against the law.

[A18]

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

LMAO! What a bunch of sh**t!

The Supreme Court ruled that they could only take into consideration the current, exact circumstance, and that therefore the case should not be used as precedent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

LMAO! What a bunch of sh**t!

The Supreme Court ruled that they could only take into consideration the current, exact circumstance, and that therefore the case should not be used as precedent.

By your logic, the Constiution should be ignored, because it's on an AOL page.

And doesn't that ruling on precedent strike you as odd?

[A18]

I didn't read the AOL page until just now. I just assumed it was some conspiracy crap before that.

And I'm ignoring it because it's a bunch of sh**t, not because it's on AOL.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you (plus, I don't want another "What would you do about global warming?" topic), but see this topic: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14409.60
The reason the Court stopped the recount is because there was the potential for irreperable harm. If Gore won that last recount, then the result was overturned by the Court, large segments of the country would have viewed the election as illegitimate (much larger than currently do). The recount would only count if the Court upheld its constitutionality, but a recount could remove legitimacy from the incoming President if it had gone forward and showed Gore with more votes.

[skybridge]

1789

[Democratic Hawk]

1988. Stopping the elder Bush also stops his son. Two birds with one stone.

Indeed

Dave

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

2000, Al Gore would've handled 9/11 carefully and wisely, unlike the cowboy approach GWB took.  The sympathy felt towards us, combined with the "sensitive" policies of Gore would have lifted our image throughout the world.  Al Queda would not be recruiting people.  The Iraq War never happens.  Our focus would be on terrorists in the already captured Afgahnistan, and Osama is caught within 2 years of 9/11.  Gore goes on to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.  Kerry succeeds him, and decades of democratic rule over all 3 branches of the gov't ensues.  In that time, gays gain the right to marry, minimum wage is raised, and the world is at one of it's most peaceful times as all civilized nations originally sympathetic to America after 9/11 cooperate in a global anti-terrorism policy due to the enhanced friendship between America and other nations. 

[YRABNNRM]

2000, Al Gore would've handled 9/11 carefully and wisely, unlike the cowboy approach GWB took.  The sympathy felt towards us, combined with the "sensitive" policies of Gore would have lifted our image throughout the world.  Al Queda would not be recruiting people.  The Iraq War never happens.  Our focus would be on terrorists in the already captured Afgahnistan, and Osama is caught within 2 years of 9/11.  Gore goes on to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.  Kerry succeeds him, and decades of democratic rule over all 3 branches of the gov't ensues.  In that time, gays gain the right to marry, minimum wage is raised, and the world is at one of it's most peaceful times as all civilized nations originally sympathetic to America after 9/11 cooperate in a global anti-terrorism policy due to the enhanced friendship between America and other nations. 

This is supposed to be fiction right?

[dazzleman]

2000, Al Gore would've handled 9/11 carefully and wisely, unlike the cowboy approach GWB took.  The sympathy felt towards us, combined with the "sensitive" policies of Gore would have lifted our image throughout the world.  Al Queda would not be recruiting people.  The Iraq War never happens.  Our focus would be on terrorists in the already captured Afgahnistan, and Osama is caught within 2 years of 9/11.  Gore goes on to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.  Kerry succeeds him, and decades of democratic rule over all 3 branches of the gov't ensues.  In that time, gays gain the right to marry, minimum wage is raised, and the world is at one of it's most peaceful times as all civilized nations originally sympathetic to America after 9/11 cooperate in a global anti-terrorism policy due to the enhanced friendship between America and other nations. 

So that's the Democratic view of the world?  Pretty scary stuff.  The real results of a Gore presidency would have been quite different from that, especially since the man has shown he's a stark-raving lunatic.

If I could change anything, I would have opted for more decisive leadership prior to the Civil War, which might have led to a resolution of the slavery issue without war.  That is one issue that still resonates negatively through our society.

[Keystone Phil]

Al Queda would not be recruiting people. 

Yeah, HockeyDude was obviously joking around in that post. He can't be serious.

[Ronald Reagan]

1932 - Two presidents gone (FDR and Truman) and four terms of GOP power.

[BobOMac2k2]

2000 no doubt..

[Jake]

2000, Al Gore would've handled 9/11 carefully and wisely, unlike the cowboy approach GWB took.  The sympathy felt towards us, combined with the "sensitive" policies of Gore would have lifted our image throughout the world.  Al Queda would not be recruiting people.  The Iraq War never happens.  Our focus would be on terrorists in the already captured Afgahnistan, and Osama is caught within 2 years of 9/11.  Gore goes on to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.  Kerry succeeds him, and decades of democratic rule over all 3 branches of the gov't ensues.  In that time, gays gain the right to marry, minimum wage is raised, and the world is at one of it's most peaceful times as all civilized nations originally sympathetic to America after 9/11 cooperate in a global anti-terrorism policy due to the enhanced friendship between America and other nations. 

How would Gore capture Osama quicker.  I usually hear the arguement that more troops would catch him.  Of course, those people fail to realize that you can't airlift and supply 100,000 troops in Tora Bora and any number of troops doesn't help if he is in Waziristan.  Al Qaida has shown by its actions even before Iraq, that they were still going to continue to recruit fighters and attack places around the globe.  After 9/11 extremist Muslims launched the following attacks:

Richard Reed's attempted "shoe" bombing
Bali Bombing which killed over 200
Limburg tanker attack in Yemen
Attempted bombings of the Singapore embassy, the US embassy in Paris, US Consulate in Karachi
Bombings of a Tunisian Synagogue, Kenyan Hotel, and the Moscow Theater
Beheading of Daniel Pearl RIP
All these in 2001 & 2002

Plus, the Gore/Clinton "compassionate" response to terrorism resulted in the following attacks from 1993-2001:

1993-WTC bombings-1000 injured
1995-Oklahoma City bombings
1995-Military complex attacked in Saudi Arabia
1996-Olympic Park bombings
1996-Khobar Towers bombing
1997-Terrorist gunman opens fire at Empire State Bldg
1998-US embassies in Nairobi & Dar Es Salaam attacked 225 dead, 4000 wounded
2000-USS Cole bombed

Clinton foiled ONE attack, the millenium bombings.  It can also be said he had at least an equal responsibility in not stoping the 9/11 attacks.  Why would Gore's policies be any different?

[George W. Hobbes]

1996: No impeachment and President Dole gets Osama rather than dallying in '98 a la Clinton.

[RJ]

1968 would be up there if Humphrey had really intended to get out of the war, not just avoid the subject or make some transparent statements about it, so in terms of the way things are today, I say 68'.

I started a topic similar to this and everyone kept bringing up 1980. I didn't think it was influential as I used as a prerequisite, but to me, trying to change the results of elections in which changes were inevitable only means you are postponing the inevitable. Carter winning in 1980 only means some raunchy conservative wins in 84'. Goldwater losing in 1964 proves this theory with Nixon in 68'.

Even if only 10% of what Hockeydude's predictions were accurate, particularly the ones on foreign policy, it would be head and shoulders better than dealing with this current fool in the Whitehouse. Democrats and Liberals have been accused of being delusional in the past and in many instances, rightfully so. But Dubya's reinauguration speech a couple weeks back gives them the right to be now.

[??????????]

1860

[12th Doctor]

1968. If Humphrey won the hippie revolution would have continued, and America would have gotten out of Vietnam sooner.

What?  Humphrey was not a part of the "hippie" revolution.  He would have got out of Vietnam, respectfully and then continued on with a Kennedy/"Scoop" Jackson foriegn policy.

Anyway, I would say 1968, but if RFK weren't assassinated.  SO much potential for our country was lost.

[Erc]

1964.   Goldwater was our best candidate of the century--plus his campaign brought the Republicans back to a 1930's-esque stage in Congress.

1932 comes close, but I think one miracle in '32 couldn't have saved the United States from the stupidity of its own people, which would have manifested itself again in '34 and '36.

[A18]

Dole serves just one term like he said he was going to do if he won in 96

He said that? Can I get a source?