Which Presidential Election was the Least Important in American history?

[Bo]

1960.

No. The first election where looks made the winner, in addition to said winner being incredibly popular and the most beloved president of the past 50 years (except mabye Ronald Reagan) is important.

I think Dallasfan is talking about changes in policies, rather than changes in campaigning. Ideologically, JFK and Nixon were pretty similar.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

One of the Gilded Age/early 20th Century pre-Wilson non-Bryan elections. 1880 probably or perhaps 1904.

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

... not to mention JFK is only loved so much because of his image.

People only care so much about JFK because he was assassinated.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

... not to mention JFK is only loved so much because of his image.

People only care so much about JFK because he was assassinated.

Then why was he popular throught his entire presidency?

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

... not to mention JFK is only loved so much because of his image.

People only care so much about JFK because he was assassinated.

Then why was he popular throught his entire presidency?

Because he was a "star" but now most people only know him as the one who was killed.

[Bo]

... not to mention JFK is only loved so much because of his image.

People only care so much about JFK because he was assassinated.

Then why was he popular throught his entire presidency?

Because he was a "star" but now most people only know him as the one who was killed.

Also, the good economy probably helped JFK and politics back then was somewhat less partisan than now.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

True.

Just saying, to me, unimportant means "We're only doing this because we have to". That description fits 1820, 1956, 1944, 1872, and 1984.

[feeblepizza]

Pretty much every time a president has been reelected except for a few small exceptions (1864 comes to mind)

[tpfkaw]

Top 3:

2008, 2004, 2000.

The further away you get, the more butterflies you get.

Which would have resulted in the fewest changes until the next election 4 years later?

1976, 1968, 1948, 1932(!), 1864(!)

[Bo]

Top 3:

2008, 2004, 2000.

The further away you get, the more butterflies you get.

Which would have resulted in the fewest changes until the next election 4 years later?

1976, 1968, 1948, 1932(!), 1864(!)

In 1968, Humphrey would have probably passed universal healthcare (and some other social programs) and would not have established relations with China. The Great Depression might have become much worse after 1932 if Hoover was reelected. If McClellan won in 1864, then we would have established peace with the Confederacy and slavery would have remained in the South.

[tpfkaw]

Top 3:

2008, 2004, 2000.

The further away you get, the more butterflies you get.

Which would have resulted in the fewest changes until the next election 4 years later?

1976, 1968, 1948, 1932(!), 1864(!)

In 1968, Humphrey would have probably passed universal healthcare (and some other social programs) and would not have established relations with China. The Great Depression might have become much worse after 1932 if Hoover was reelected. If McClellan won in 1864, then we would have established peace with the Confederacy and slavery would have remained in the South.

If Nixon couldn't pass UHC, neither could Humphrey. Relations with China are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Hoover's economic policies were nearly identical to Roosevelt's. McClellan ran as a War Democrat and would have been sworn in on March 4, 1865, a month before the fall of Richmond. McClellan's presidency would be nearly identical to the real life situation, since all but a month of Lincoln's second term was served by Andrew Johnson.

[Хahar 🤔]

Any of Cleveland's three elections. In the era after Reconstruction and before Bryan, there was really nothing at stake.

[Bo]

Top 3:

2008, 2004, 2000.

The further away you get, the more butterflies you get.

Which would have resulted in the fewest changes until the next election 4 years later?

1976, 1968, 1948, 1932(!), 1864(!)

In 1968, Humphrey would have probably passed universal healthcare (and some other social programs) and would not have established relations with China. The Great Depression might have become much worse after 1932 if Hoover was reelected. If McClellan won in 1864, then we would have established peace with the Confederacy and slavery would have remained in the South.

If Nixon couldn't pass UHC, neither could Humphrey. Relations with China are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Hoover's economic policies were nearly identical to Roosevelt's. McClellan ran as a War Democrat and would have been sworn in on March 4, 1865, a month before the fall of Richmond. McClellan's presidency would be nearly identical to the real life situation, since all but a month of Lincoln's second term was served by Andrew Johnson.

Nixon was about to be impeached before he could pass UHC, though. Humphrey could have passed UHC since he wouldn't have done anything illegal and because he was very devoted on the issue and could have probably gotten most Democrats and some GOPers to support the idea. Hoover and FDR did have some similar policies, but FDR spent much more than Hoover and thus his policies were much more effective. If McClellan would have won, then Lincoln would have probably scaled back the war effort to avoid further casualties and even with the Union close to victory, McClellan would have probably still upheld his campaign promise and signed a peace treaty with the Confederacy.

[Bo]

Any of Cleveland's three elections. In the era after Reconstruction and before Bryan, there was really nothing at stake.

If Cleveland would have been reelected in 1888, there would probably not have been a Panic of 1893.

[The Mikado]

Any of Cleveland's three elections. In the era after Reconstruction and before Bryan, there was really nothing at stake.

If Cleveland would have been reelected in 1888, there would probably not have been a Panic of 1893.

What.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Any of Cleveland's three elections. In the era after Reconstruction and before Bryan, there was really nothing at stake.

If Cleveland would have been reelected in 1888, there would probably not have been a Panic of 1893.

What.

The severity of the Panic of 1893 to a large extent was due to the speculative bubble the Silver Republicans fed during Harrison's term as President.  While there likely still would have been a Panic of 1893 anyway, since it was caused in part by foreign factors, with no Sherman Silver Purchase Act, the bubble would not have been as severe, and foreign bond holders wouldn't have been worried that we might decide to end bimetallism by adopting a silver standard instead of a gold standard.

The Panic of 1893 has a lot of eerie parallels to what is happening now.  A speculative bubble bursts, leaving a lot of people unemployed and causing quite a few people to walk away from their homes because they can afford them.

[Bo]

Any of Cleveland's three elections. In the era after Reconstruction and before Bryan, there was really nothing at stake.

If Cleveland would have been reelected in 1888, there would probably not have been a Panic of 1893.

What.

The severity of the Panic of 1893 to a large extent was due to the speculative bubble the Silver Republicans fed during Harrison's term as President.  While there likely still would have been a Panic of 1893 anyway, since it was caused in part by foreign factors, with no Sherman Silver Purchase Act, the bubble would not have been as severe, and foreign bond holders wouldn't have been worried that we might decide to end bimetallism by adopting a silver standard instead of a gold standard.

The Panic of 1893 has a lot of eerie parallels to what is happening now.  A speculative bubble bursts, leaving a lot of people unemployed and causing quite a few people to walk away from their homes because they can afford them.

Out of curiosity, what foreign factors helped cause the Panic of 1893?

And this just proves my point that there was something at stake in the 1888 election, and thus it was not the least important election in American history. Had Cleveland been reelected in 1888, unemployment might have been 10% or even less instead of the 18% that it actually was in RL. That's a pretty significant difference.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Out of curiosity, what foreign factors helped cause the Panic of 1893?

Europe had for several years been in a recession/depression of its own.  That caused European holders of American securities to sell them and repatriate the hard currency (i.e., gold as Europe had abandoned bimetallism -- for them gold and silver were not equivalent) back home.  That put pressure on on the U.S. dollar as we inflated the currency with silver dollars even as gold dollars were leaving the system.  Eventually the U.S. Treasury reached the minimum gold reserves it was requires to maintain and was unable to exchange silver certificates with gold specie at the official 16:1 ratio.  While not the sole factor in the Panic of 1893, the effort to maintain bimetallism at a ratio that benefited silver miners certainly made it worse.

[Bo]

I'd still say 1908. Taft's and Bryan's policies were almost identical and thus there really wasn't much of a choice for the American voters. More recently, I'd probably say 1956.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd still say 1908. Taft's and Bryan's policies were almost identical and thus there really wasn't much of a choice for the American voters. More recently, I'd probably say 1956.

There were more differences between Taft and Bryan than there were between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, etc..

[Bo]

I'd still say 1908. Taft's and Bryan's policies were almost identical and thus there really wasn't much of a choice for the American voters. More recently, I'd probably say 1956.

There were more differences between Taft and Bryan than there were between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, etc..

Like what? Bryan abandoned the silver standard by 1908.

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

1996 really, in recent times. Almost every election up until after the civil war mattered. While the nation was growing up until '45 almost every election could have changed the country significantly had the results gone the other way. I guess you could say the same for the cold war, however, both parties wanted to fight communism.