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

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

Good point as those with "Clinton fatigue" didn't vote for Gore anyway. In addition to Florida, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and even West Virginia might have been within reach for Gore. Worst case, he loses Oregon due to an increased Nader vote, but under most scenarios he still wins if he lets Clinton campaign for him.

[SingingAnalyst]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

Didn’t carter pretty much know he was going to lose a week prior to the election?

Carter's post-election expression of disappointment is hardly surprising. The 1970s, after all, is the decade that gave us the "Free to Be You and Me" album and show by Marlo Thomas and Friends, featuring Rosie Greer singing "It's All Right to Cry / Crying Gets the Sad Out of You"; if anything, the public reaction to Carter's behavior in this regard was perhaps kinder than toward Edmund Muskie's reaction to a Nixonite "dirty trick" in 1972. Mondale reportedly also shed tears after his concession speech in 1984 (though he kept his composure during the speech). Whatever you think their performance was, or would have been, as Presidents, they genuinely believed that Reagan would harm / was harming the country.

The last Gallup poll before the election showed Reagan up on Carter only by 3 points, 47-44, with 8% going to Anderson. Given that Carter undoubtedly hoped Anderson's voters would "come home" to Carter, he probably thought he had a chance until the returns started rolling in from PA, OH, MI, IL, etc. and eventually NY (thought to be a Carter state, according to the 1981 World Almanac).

The trouble with 1980, of course, is that a lot of votes (a few million) would have had to change to make Carter win in 1980. In alternate histories, anything is possible, but it's something to consider. I prefer my butterflies to have tiny wings. : - )

[SingingAnalyst]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

If not 2000, I'd say 1976, not 1980. Gerald Ford winning reelection means a lot of positive outcomes, especially for Democrats. First of all, I believe that he was much better prepared and more competent than Jimmy Carter to deal with the numerous struggles of the late 1970s, both economically and abroad. No offense at Jimmy Carter, he's a massive FF as person (like Ford himself), but I feel the world would have been better off with Ford serving another term, who also deserved an own mandate. He restored honor to the White House, knew how to work with people both at home and abroad and the economy was expanding again by the fall of 1976 while America was at peace. With Ford winning 1976, Ronald Reagan's presidency would never have occurred. In 1980, the Democrats would have taken the White House back with a more experienced candidate after the experiment of Carter's nomination failed. Carter's term really sunk the Democratic brand longterm, even though it wasn't all his fault. And Ford staying in power would have kept the moderate wing in charge of the Republican Party, at least for a few more years.

If he only didn't make the "no Soviet domination" gaffe and kept Rockefeller on the ticket, I'm sure he would have delivered enough votes to change the overall outcome.

All good points. 1980 would take a lot to change, but 1976 could be changed by 5,600 Ohio vote switches and a few thousand in any one of Hawaii, Mississippi, or Wisconsin.

Ford recovers effectively from his gaffe, and he narrowly wins Ohio and Wisconsin, both states with lots of Polish-Americans. As a result, in addition to all of the above:

1. Ford wins while losing the PV, in a relatively friendly (by today's standards) election: perhaps the EC is modified or abolished with relatively bipartisan support: the strongest support for keeping the EC came from Southern Democrats back then, and it would have "screwed" them in 1976.

2. The religious right never takes hold, at least not to the extent it did IRL and not in such a one-party fashion: people are actually able to have civil discussions about abortion, contraception, maybe even same-sex civil unions. (Acceptance of homosexuality was growing under Ford, then backtracked under Carter and especially under Reagan).

3. While there were clear differences on domestic and foreign policy in 1976, the coalitions that would form may differ from today: there might never be much of a gender gap, for instance. First Lady Betty Ford was something of a role model for women of the 1970s, talking openly about her health struggles; the GOP probably would not be seen as "hostile to women" as IRL.

I'm sure there are many other "butterfly effects".