What's Your Least Favorite Election Ever?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

2000, a so-so at best candidate vs a horrible candidate and the stupid Electoral College gave Bush the win.  Let's face it without the EC, all of the hanging chads in the world wouldn't have gotten Bush elected

Honorable mention 1912, 1924, 1876

Who was "so-so" and who was "horrible"?

Gore was so-so, sorry for not making that clearer

No problem, welcome.  I actually thought the opposite was true by the way......Gore lost it...Bush didn't win it.  IMO

Which is just showing us what is sick in U.S. electoral system.

The fact that George W. Bush and Al Gore were the only real candidates to choose from was what was "sick in the U.S. electoral system".

Actually I have to agree on this one, as I'm no way a fan of just two major parties system.

But I reffered to a situation when a "winner" lost a popular vote

[tpfkaw]

Both candidates were extremely horrible:

2008, 2000, 1968, 1932, 1912.

Clearly better candidate lost:

1996, 1964, all of FDR's elections, 1928, 1916, 1904.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Since I've been following elections I've had two good ones (2006, 2008) and two bad ones (2002, 2004). 2004 was a huge kick to the gut for obvious reasons (it was so bad I called in sick to work the next day because I actually DID feel sick.), but considering how much of an epic story it was and how much I liked Kerry at the time, I can't call it a total waste, considering how useless Bush turned out to be in his second term anyway. 2002 was not only a huge blow but it had the whole Norm Coleman thing, which was worst of all. The only reason why it wasn't much worse was because I wasn't seriously involved and had just moved to college and was starting a different lifestyle which was a big distraction. Still the worst I've been in. New Hampshire Dem Primary 2008 was also pretty brutal, but it didn't really amount to anything in the end so I can't complain about that one.

In past years I might say 1994, but now I can see that I probably wouldn't have cared at the time, the House Dems were pretty worthless and a good chunk weren't any less conservative than the Republicans. I think I'd say 1980 now overall.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Both candidates were extremely horrible:

2008, 2000, 1968, 1932, 1912.

Clearly better candidate lost:

1996, 1964, all of FDR's elections, 1928, 1916, 1904.

Which Two?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Both candidates were extremely horrible:

2008, 2000, 1968, 1932, 1912.

Clearly better candidate lost:

1996, 1964, all of FDR's elections, 1928, 1916, 1904.

Which Two?

From a conservative/libertarian stand point, all three of them were bad, though Taft was probably the lesser of three evils.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ontario 1995 & BC 2001 in Canada. In the US, both 2000 and 2004 pissed me off, and I would've hated 1980, 1984 and 1988 as well.

[Хahar 🤔]

All of them

[Eraserhead]

2004 disturbs me to this day. There was something amazing about the atmosphere surrounding it though. It was sort of bittersweet. It's hard to explain.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

2010 Republican State Rep Primary

[Hash]

Earl's right, I totally forgot Ontario 1995 and 1999. The years of infamy, as my bio teacher called them. I roll my eyes every time someone mentions Mike Harris. That dude was a real asshole.

[minionofmidas]

Hesse 2003.

[minionofmidas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997

1997 UK election.  Major may have deserved to go, but not that badly.

He made the tactical mistake of being associated with a party as popular as the smallpox... and not deserving even that bit of popularity.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997

1997 UK election.  Major may have deserved to go, but not that badly.

He made the tactical mistake of being associated with a party as popular as the smallpox... and not deserving even that bit of popularity.

I think it's kind of odd that the Tories were taken down so hard for being blamed for a recession considering what the economy was like in the 90s. Did the UK just not benefit as much from that as the US did?

[k-onmmunist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1979

This x1,000

Thatcher was a nasty, misguided and immoral woman who pretty much ruined this country and caused 90% of the problems we have now.

[Vepres]

2004 disturbs me to this day. There was something amazing about the atmosphere surrounding it though. It was sort of bittersweet. It's hard to explain.

Well, when your ticket has a rich, out of touch New Englander who married into wealth with zero charisma with a VP who (as we know now) is an overly ambitious sociopath, I could see why it was somewhat sweet

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

2004 disturbs me to this day. There was something amazing about the atmosphere surrounding it though. It was sort of bittersweet. It's hard to explain.

Well, when your ticket has a rich, out of touch New Englander who married into wealth with zero charisma with a VP who (as we know now) is an overly ambitious sociopath, I could see why it was somewhat sweet

Yeah, quite a shame the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than that to go up against one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

[opebo]

1980 = the cause of our current woes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

1980 = the cause of our current woes.

I thought you voted for Reagan?

[opebo]

1980 = the cause of our current woes.

I thought you voted for Reagan?

I think I was a small child at the time.  Its hard to remember, but I think I was wearing Granimals when I heard about our doom.

[Dancing with Myself]

1940- Willkie was the better candidate that year and should have won, but Roosevelt refused to get his ass out of the spotlight. Imagine Clinton, Reagan, and any other president with a third term since Roosevelt did not win in 1940, if only that happened.

[opebo]

1940- Willkie was the better candidate that year and should have won, but Roosevelt refused to get his ass out of the spotlight. Imagine Clinton, Reagan, and any other president with a third term since Roosevelt did not win in 1940, if only that happened.

Well a Clinton third term would have helped us a lot, and a senile Reagan third term would've been better than the first Bush-monster.

[Mechaman]

1928.

I mean if only a big name egoist like Herbert Hoover wasn't the only name recognizable Republican at the National Convention.  Also, the GOP throwing African Americans under the bus just to gain the votes of anti-Catholic white southern protestant bigots is just disgusting (you don't win 60% of the popular vote in friggin Oklahoma in the year 1928 because of your sexy abs).  Not to mention the inevitable Great Depression that would result which would lead to four elections of FDR versus his best friend (aka the "moderate" Republican candidate).  The only good thing to result from this election is that Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff ultimately ended up proving just how retarded the "protective tariff" really is.

Yes I really did just take this time to bash everybody from nativists to liberals to me-toos to protectionists.  Sue me.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah - 1928 is probably the saddest election, given its consequences and the fact that Al Smith would have made a great president.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I thought of 1928 as well, but Herbert Hoover was in reality nowhere near as bad as Richard M. Nixon.

[tpfkaw]

Nixon was worse than Hoover, but Hoover was able to do far more damage than Nixon due to the place and time in which he served.