Did Al Gore have the most heartbreaking loss in US political history?

[Mr.Phips]

I'd say yes, though there are some strong contenders. (I voted for Bush in 2000).

1876: The Book of Lists claims that Samuel Tilden would have made a better president that Rutherford B. Hayes. Whether or not that is true, I recall learning in AP US History class (yes, that was during Reagan's first term) that Hayes won only after a deal to end radical reconstruction. Just think if it had continued, how far we'd be today instead of letting civil rights go for 3 generations (I don't think it was until 1948 that the Democratic Party introduced even a modest civil rights platform).

1876, 1888 and 2016: Anytime you lose while winning the popular vote it's heartbreaking.

1968: Humphrey's 96.2% in Detroit's District 22 gives an indication of how Blacks would have voted in the South had they had full suffrage. While 1968 was by far the best year until that time for Black suffrage, I wonder if, say, Missouri would have flipped with the level of Black voting even in 1984. Even in Mississippi, Black voters might have held Wallace to a bare majority, counteracting the 85-90% of whites that voted for Wallace in some rural parts of that state. Not to mention, Humphrey might have won the PV had the election been held over the weekend of Nov. 1-3, before people learned of Saigon's rejection of a peace deal after intervention by a Nixon operative.

1980: Carter, as a Republican family member of mine put it, tried; I honestly believe he always had the best interests of the American people at heart. He lost several states by very close margins; giving him every state he lost by less than 2% gives him 125 EVs, not 49. He did not deserve fewer EVs than Goldwater.

As for 2000, a scatterplot of Buchanan votes on the y-axis vs. Gore votes on the x-axis for each of Florida's 67 counties shows that Buchanan got more than 2,600 more votes than expected in Palm Beach County, which alone would have made the difference in the election, giving Gore a 292-246 EC victory-- close, but not as close as either Bush 43 win. Add that to all points made above.

Plus we would have had a Jewish Vice President, which would have been historic. Instead, Joe Lieberman is an also-ran.

As for the role of the Catholic Church in Bush's Presidency IRL, Pope John Paul II pleaded with W not to invade Iraq, but W didn't listen.

Of the closest/most disputed elections:

1876: Potentially very consequential.  Tilden winning and making the end of Reconstruction a purely Dem program might have been better in the long run because it could have lead to the next Republican administration using the backlash to pass more civil rights legislation rather than both parties dropping the issue by 1896 and not touching it again until 1948.  Keep in mind that several % of the nationwide vote was fake in 1876 so we have little idea who legitimately won.

1884:  Proved that Democrats could still compete nationally after the Civil War, but otherwise not that consequential in US history.

1888: Not that consequential.  Harrison had big ideas (including a proto-VRA that passed the House but stalled in the Senate) and was way ahead of his time.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to accomplish what he hoped

1892: Not as close as the last 2, but possibly much more consequential.  This was basically the last chance for progress on black voting rights and opposition to segregation in the South until after WWII.  Unfortunately, Harrison lost and the Republican congressional majority went out with him. 

1916: Not that consequential because Wilson turned around and did what he campaigned against (entering WWI) anyway less than a year later.

1948: Extremely consequential, plausible turning point in US history on par with 1876.  An outright Dewey win takes down parts of the New Deal as temporary measures before they become entrenched.  Sending it to the House rips out the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform just when it was starting to blossom.

1960: Not that consequential.  The party platforms heavily overlapped by this time, the economy was booming, and social changes were being driven by the courts, not from the White House

1968: Very consequential, but not that close in the EC.  The Supreme Court becomes a major issue in presidential elections for the first time in a generation.

1976: Not that consequential.  Carter had few long term accomplishments and both he and Ford were moderates

2000: Depends entirely on whether you think a Republican at least as hawkish as Bush beats Gore in 2004.  If yes, then it wasn't very consequential.  If no, it was enormously consequential. 

2004:  Very consequential.  IDK if you would rather win or lose.  Is appointing the new Chief Justice worth taking the brunt of 2008?

2016: Pretty consequential because of the 3 SCOTUS vacancies, and they were 1 conservative, 1 liberal and 1 moderate at that. 

2020: Probably not that consequential pending the Georgia senate seats. 

Do you believe McConnell would have allowed Hillary to appoint any justices (assuming Republicans controlled the Senate)?