Do you think this is the most important U.S. Presidential election ever?

[Eraserhead]

LOL, I'm arguing with some guy on facebook who believes this to be the case.

[pbrower2a]

1932. Bigger stakes.

[You kip if you want to...]

When is an election ever not dubbed "the most important election ever"?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

[Vosem]

This statement can first be decisively made by historians perhaps a century after the demise of the U.S. I personally rather doubt 2012 will be it, but history can sometimes take surprising turns.

[Eraserhead]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

Those were my two choices for the most important U.S. presidential elections ever. Great minds think alike, gentleman. Although 1968 is also up there and remains the most interesting election to me personally.

The thing is, I wouldn't even put this election ahead of 2008, 2004 or 2000 in terms of importance. It's maybe ahead of 1996.

[old timey villain]

Funny you should ask this. I was listening to some guy subbing for Michael Savage last night who said that this was 'without a doubt the most important election of our lifetime.' He said it could even be as monumental as 1980!!! lol

But no, it's not that important. I do think it's significant because it shows a pretty stark contrast in ideologies on things like gay marriage, taxes, immigration, healthcare (to an extent). So it will be significant as a referendum on those important issues. But the most important election ever?? Please.

[King]

I think it's even less important than 1996. Republicans in Congress back then actually had a coherent strategy and platform for governing if Dole somehow won. It's going to be gridlock city for the next four years.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

I've heard that both the Confederacy and slavery were pretty much unrecoverable by the end of Lincoln's first term.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, that would be either 1860 or the very first one.

[Niemeyerite]

Every election is important. We won't know if 2012 was the most important election ever at least until 2016. Imagine, maybe Obama really is the AntiChrist, or maybe Romney wants to make the poor poorer and invade the entire World. Let's wait till 2016.

[RJ]

I said no, although this saying could apply: The most important election is the next one.

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

Those were my two choices for the most important U.S. presidential elections ever. Great minds think alike, gentleman. Although 1968 is also up there and remains the most interesting election to me personally.

Funny about 1968: it was hotly contested but I don't think there was an appreciation for how much that election changed things then as opposed to 20 years after it happened or even today.

[Comrade Funk]

Lol no. 2004 and especially 2008 were much more important. Not to mention 1860, 1864, 1916, 1932, 1968, 1980...

[anvi]

I think it's even less important than 1996. Republicans in Congress back then actually had a coherent strategy and platform for governing if Dole somehow won. It's going to be gridlock city for the next four years.

^^^^^^^^^^^  This.
My only qualification is that the gridlock will be very costly.

[Franzl]

Isn't this claim made every election?

[memphis]

Isn't this claim made every election?

It's what you tell your base to get them motivated enough to get off their butts and go vote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

I've heard that both the Confederacy and slavery were pretty much unrecoverable by the end of Lincoln's first term.

The election of 1864 was largely determined by the events on the battlefield.  With Atlanta in Confederate hands, it is likely that McClellan would have won that election, and the Confederacy would have survived.  That said, I disagree with those who think Johnson could have held the city until Election Day.  Placing Hood in command only hastened Atlanta's fall. However, Johnson might have been able to force Sherman to retreat after briefly taking Atlanta.  In a very real sense Sherman retreated from Atlanta after taking the city, since even after Hood had butchered the Army of Tennessee he was able was still able to put a pinch on Sherman, but in our timeline Sherman retreated from Atlanta by marching to the sea instead of back to Chattanooga.

[WhyteRain]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1932:  Rightwing Dem vs. Leftwing Repub.

Nothing changed except FDR put Hoover's big spending economic plan on steroids.

[WhyteRain]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

McClellan would've won easily, at least the popular vote, if the Republicans hadn't suppressed the Southern vote.

McClellan would've won with difficulty if the Republicans hadn't changed the law dating from the start of the Republic to allow soldiers to vote.

[Supersonic]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1932:  Rightwing Dem vs. Leftwing Repub.

Nothing changed except FDR put Hoover's big spending economic plan on steroids.

Didn't FDR campaign in 32' on a platform of 'balancing the budget'?
Quite amusing.

[WhyteRain]

I think it's even less important than 1996. Republicans in Congress back then actually had a coherent strategy and platform for governing if Dole somehow won. It's going to be gridlock city for the next four years.

You don't make sense.

In 1996, Congress had a GOP speaker who called Dole (accurately) "the tax collector for the welfare state".  There wasn't a lot of love for Dole in the GOP.

If, as expected, Romney wins, the Repubs look at least as ready to govern with him as they would've been with Dole in 1997.

I hope D.C.'s going to "be gridlock city for the next four years".  That looks like the best possible outcome for now.

[WhyteRain]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1932:  Rightwing Dem vs. Leftwing Repub.

Nothing changed except FDR put Hoover's big spending economic plan on steroids.

Didn't FDR campaign in 32' on a platform of 'balancing the budget'?
Quite amusing.

Yep.  The ol' "bait and switch". 

In the 1932 campaign, FDR's running mate told the country that Hoover was "putting us on the road to socialism!"

Although, to his credit, FDR did slash the crazy-spending-Hoover deficit in his first year.  The the international bankers got ahold of him.

[WhyteRain]

1932. Bigger stakes.

1864: Even bigger stakes.

I've heard that both the Confederacy and slavery were pretty much unrecoverable by the end of Lincoln's first term.

I agree.  At least with the part about slavery.  Slavery was actually a capital-intensive system.  By about the Fall of 1863 the South had suffered so much capital loss that it could no longer afford the slaves.

[fezzyfestoon]

What's the big deal when your choices are a 2 and a 3 on a scale of 1-10? We're not being offered any real options, just the illusion of involvement. Though I don't know why anyone would want to be involved at this point anyway

[WhyteRain]

Let's limit this to, say, the last 100 years or at least the post-Civil War elections.  Otherwise, I'd pick a bunch of the earliest elections as "the most important".

Heck, even the 1844 election:  It was the first election where an "anti-slavery" candidate got a significant number of votes -- about 5% in each of the Northern states he ran in.  If not for him, then the Whigs would have won New York and Michigan (and only needed NY) to win the whole election.  No Polk, no Mexican War, no union with Texas.  Texas would probably have ended up with about half of the white space in the map below.