What is the most forgettable U.S. Presidential Election?

[Frodo]

In addition to those listed: 1988.

Hard disagree. 1988 shaped the talking points and tone of both parties and the policies of Democrats for a generation. 1988 was the beginning of perpetual culture wars and established the GOP’s anti-intellectualism, attacks on “liberal elites”, and began the red state/blue state divide.

That is all true, however, more people remember the following election in 1992 than 1988. 

[Vosem]

Landslides which confirmed some prior result and didn't themselves reveal anything interesting*. I think this would cover 1792, 1804, 1820, (big gap here where every election is interesting because of frequent close elections and high-stakes political reform, foreign policy, and abolitionism questions; I will say both of the Whig victories, 1840 and 1848, ended up really not mattering though), 1900, 1904, 1908, 1936, 1956, 1972, 1984, 1996.

*Ie, some landslides seem very consequential: 1832 confirmed Jackson's crusade against the Bank and saw the first political conventions, 1928 foreshadowed much later politics, 1940 confirmed a hawkish foreign policy and saw the first third-term, the 1944 vice-presidential selection was arguably the most important US election ever, 1964 confirmed civil rights, and so forth. But landslides which just confirmed "yep, we're still on what we were on last time around" are not interesting. The 1900s seem like the least interesting decade politically in US history; the 1840s has weirdly forgettable elections because of the persistent avoidance of the main issue, even if the general aura of 1840s politics is extremely distinct; it might have had the most unique cleavage of any decade, in fact.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In the modern era ... probably some of the FDR landslides and 1988. Bush Sr ... Zzzzzzz. Dukakis ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bentsen and Quayle? Okay, they were pretty funny.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In the modern era ... probably some of the FDR landslides and 1988. Bush Sr ... Zzzzzzz. Dukakis ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bentsen and Quayle? Okay, they were pretty funny.

The Federalists were a viable party long after Jefferson was inagurated for the first time. They even came decently close to winning outright in 1812.
You oversell a good argument.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In the modern era ... probably some of the FDR landslides and 1988. Bush Sr ... Zzzzzzz. Dukakis ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bentsen and Quayle? Okay, they were pretty funny.

The Federalists were a viable party long after Jefferson was inagurated for the first time. They even came decently close to winning outright in 1812.
You oversell a good argument.

True 1812 is pretty interesting and largely neglected war election, and DeWitt (not a federalist, technically) did make a decent case against James Manlet. But in general, the federalist record was being constantly absorbed into the DR party, leaving a small nub of High Federalists repeatedly running Charles Pinckney and Rufus King; even in years when the DRs were not hugely popular (e.g. post Embargo Act).

Even earlier, you can see how weak the Federalists are from the 1792 election, when George Clinton pulled a decent 50 electoral votes for VP against Adams, despite Washington being a universally beloved god and Clinton not making a concerted effort to run.

[brucejoel99]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In regards to the bolded, the former sentence's contention isn't actually true, while the latter's is merely just a myth. Regarding VP-based dissent, there were actually a few Federalist electors who - while nevertheless still pledged to vote for Monroe for President - still opted to vote for a Federalist VP rather than VP Tompkins: some in the MA delegation voted for NJ congressman Richard Stockton; the entire DE delegation voted for their former Governor, Daniel Rodney; & a MD elector also cast their VP vote for a favorite-son, former Sen. Robert Goodloe Harper (though obviously, of course, none of these electors even came close to stopping Tompkins from still being easily re-elected in a landslide). As for the JQA elector, he actually was "faithless" in that he just thought that Monroe was mediocre as President whereas JQA would make a better one; likewise, he detested Tompkins' tenure in the vice presidency, & so voted for the Ambassador to Britain, Richard Rush.

[Samof94]

2012 wasn’t all that memorable either outside the GOP primary.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2004, obviously, we were so close and we lost in the morning in the next day of the Election

If Kerry would have been Prez we would now have a D  CJ on SCOTUS, but obviously terrorism and 911  had something to do with it

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In the modern era ... probably some of the FDR landslides and 1988. Bush Sr ... Zzzzzzz. Dukakis ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bentsen and Quayle? Okay, they were pretty funny.

The Federalists were a viable party long after Jefferson was inagurated for the first time. They even came decently close to winning outright in 1812.
You oversell a good argument.

True 1812 is pretty interesting and largely neglected war election, and DeWitt (not a federalist, technically) did make a decent case against James Manlet. But in general, the federalist record was being constantly absorbed into the DR party, leaving a small nub of High Federalists repeatedly running Charles Pinckney and Rufus King; even in years when the DRs were not hugely popular (e.g. post Embargo Act).

Even earlier, you can see how weak the Federalists are from the 1792 election, when George Clinton pulled a decent 50 electoral votes for VP against Adams, despite Washington being a universally beloved god and Clinton not making a concerted effort to run.

I wouldn't deny anything you said, you are right the Feds were declining for a long time. It just came from a high enough place and was gradual enough that they had a chance at winning presidential elections as late as the mid-1810s.

[TDAS04]

I'd say 1880.  Winfield Scott Hancock is the most forgettable major party nominee, after Alton Parker, since at least the beginning of the third party system, and Garfield, the winner, didn't have much of a presidency.  Also, the electoral map's rather dull.

[Sir Mohamed]

1820, 1904 and 1996.

1880 was at least a bit interesting with Garfield just being in office for a few months. 1881 and 1841 were the only calendar year the US had 3 presidents.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will say 1820 takes the biscuit. I find it that whole era very peculiar because Monroe was not some universally beloved icon like Washington, and in fact only the previous year the US faced its very first economic crisis, while the signing of the Missouri Compromise created some stirrings in the abolitionist movement so you think there would be some form of opposition, but ... no? The federalists had been completely absorbed, and apparently nobody in the DRs made a whiff of dissent, not even in the traditional way of that era, trying to oust the VP in favour of themselves. Even the faithless elector for JQA was boring: just somebody who preferred only Washington had the electoral wipeout. In general the country up till the emergence of the whigs had very boring elections, aside from the John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson war. Like, one election is literally only thought about in the context of Aaron Burr heroically killing the would-be first rapping evil dictator of the country, and the rest are just increasingly pathetic displays by the Federalists to pretend they were a viable party.

In the modern era ... probably some of the FDR landslides and 1988. Bush Sr ... Zzzzzzz. Dukakis ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Bentsen and Quayle? Okay, they were pretty funny.

The Federalists were a viable party long after Jefferson was inagurated for the first time. They even came decently close to winning outright in 1812.
You oversell a good argument.

True 1812 is pretty interesting and largely neglected war election, and DeWitt (not a federalist, technically) did make a decent case against James Manlet. But in general, the federalist record was being constantly absorbed into the DR party, leaving a small nub of High Federalists repeatedly running Charles Pinckney and Rufus King; even in years when the DRs were not hugely popular (e.g. post Embargo Act).

Even earlier, you can see how weak the Federalists are from the 1792 election, when George Clinton pulled a decent 50 electoral votes for VP against Adams, despite Washington being a universally beloved god and Clinton not making a concerted effort to run.

I wouldn't deny anything you said, you are right the Feds were declining for a long time. It just came from a high enough place and was gradual enough that they had a chance at winning presidential elections as late as the mid-1810s.

Apart from 1812, I can't think of a single election post-1800 where there was actually a chance the Federalist "candidate" would be elected. (Scare quotes because the Congressional Federalist party never held another nominating caucus after 1800.) Even Clinton did not come particularly close: he lost Pennsylvania, the tipping point state, but an absolutely enormous margin and probably would have lost New Jersey had not the legislature decided to appoint the electors themselves at the last minute. (At this point the popular election was already underway and the few returns we have indicate an overwhelming preference for Madison, though this may partly be due to Federalists sitting out the election.)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I agree with a lot of the ones discussed, but, if we want to talk about the 21st Century, the answer has to be, unquestionably, 2012.  That was probably as close to a "generic election" as you can think of.  Not a blowout, but not truly close.  Neither candidate made any sort of dramatic waves or sparked a movement (Obama of 2012 was not Obama of 2008).  Even the Congressional results were very boring, with neither chamber switching hands.