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

[King]

I'd think the most important election was in the 20th century.  19th century Presidents really didn't have much power compared to the Congress, plus federal laws were much easier to violate back then.

[t_host1]

ah...yeah, it's 50/50 that this is the last one. I suppose there is a reasonable chance of a TEA sweep, giving everybody that taxless breath of fresh air.

[WhyteRain]

I'd think the most important election was in the 20th century.  19th century Presidents really didn't have much power compared to the Congress, plus federal laws were much easier to violate back then.

OK, then I would say the 1912 election, where a fluke division of the GOP handed the election to the Democrats.  In 1913 they gave us the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Direct Election of senators.  That's a sea change.

[pbrower2a]

The 2008 election was far more important than this one.

[WhyteRain]

The 2008 election was far more important than this one.

It is, although if all the changes that Obama has wrought do not long survive, then even the 2008 election may in the future be regarded as not much different than the 1976 one or 1992 one.

[Zarn]

The primary or the general?

Right now, it looks like neither, although I would consider the primary much more important. Odds are in favor of the general not meaning much of anything to me.

[Sasquatch]

The media says this every presidential election.

I can remember in 2008 when I heard this and was like "WTF? I thought you said 2004 was?"

[Green State]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

[Zarn]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

How?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd think the most important election was in the 20th century.  19th century Presidents really didn't have much power compared to the Congress, plus federal laws were much easier to violate back then.

OK, then I would say the 1912 election, where a fluke division of the GOP handed the election to the Democrats.  In 1913 they gave us the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Direct Election of senators.  That's a sea change.

Except that is not the case. While amateur "historians" like to blame or praise Wilson for those three things, his election was not the cause of any of them.

Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson all campaigned in favor of a central bank.

All three campaigned in favor of the Sixteenth Amendment which had been sent to the states in 1909. Thirty-three states had ratified it before the nominating conventions had been held, and the needed thirty-sixth state, (Delaware, New Mexico, or Wyoming), ratified after the election, but while Taft was still in office

Direct election of Senators is even less due to Wilson, since at least with the central bank and the income tax he had a role in shaping the enabling legislation.  The Senate reluctantly agreed in 1912 to send the Seventeenth Amendment to the States to forestall a Second Constitutional Convention from being called.  Twenty-seven states (four short of what was needed then) had formally called for a convention to be held to propose such an amendment because of Congressional inaction, and it was widely expected that if the Senate had not caved, a Convention would have been called.  Again, all three major Candidates campaigned in favor of the amendment, and while it was not ratified until Wilson had been in office a month, Wilson played only a role as one of numerous cheerleaders for its passage.

[The Mikado]

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.

The annexation of Texas happened during Tyler's lame duck period, not during Polk?  And Tyler was pretty damned determined to annex Texas and (for obvious reasons) didn't much care about politicians in either party.

The Republic of Texas was well on its way to failed state status in 1845 anyway.  A continuing independent ROT would be losing, not gaining, territory (Mexico might well have been able to force an effective border of the Nueces River and put the Texas/Mexico border just south of San Antonio).

[WhyteRain]

I'd think the most important election was in the 20th century.  19th century Presidents really didn't have much power compared to the Congress, plus federal laws were much easier to violate back then.

OK, then I would say the 1912 election, where a fluke division of the GOP handed the election to the Democrats.  In 1913 they gave us the Federal Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Direct Election of senators.  That's a sea change.

Except that is not the case. While amateur "historians" like to blame or praise Wilson for those three things, his election was not the cause of any of them.

Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson all campaigned in favor of a central bank.

All three campaigned in favor of the Sixteenth Amendment which had been sent to the states in 1909. Thirty-three states had ratified it before the nominating conventions had been held, and the needed thirty-sixth state, (Delaware, New Mexico, or Wyoming), ratified after the election, but while Taft was still in office

Direct election of Senators is even less due to Wilson, since at least with the central bank and the income tax he had a role in shaping the enabling legislation.  The Senate reluctantly agreed in 1912 to send the Seventeenth Amendment to the States to forestall a Second Constitutional Convention from being called.  Twenty-seven states (four short of what was needed then) had formally called for a convention to be held to propose such an amendment because of Congressional inaction, and it was widely expected that if the Senate had not caved, a Convention would have been called.  Again, all three major Candidates campaigned in favor of the amendment, and while it was not ratified until Wilson had been in office a month, Wilson played only a role as one of numerous cheerleaders for its passage.

Thanks for straightening me out on that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since I really don't like Wilson, I do tend to take a good look at what he tend to get credit for.

[Lincoln Republican]

Yes, because Romney's running. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, because Romney's running. 

No, because Obama's winning.

[Green State]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

How?

Think about it?

The defeat of America's first black President. What message is that going to send?

[Franzl]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

How?

Think about it?

The defeat of America's first black President. What message is that going to send?

But it wouldn't be racism anymore if it were the 2nd black President?

[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.

The annexation of Texas happened during Tyler's lame duck period, not during Polk?  And Tyler was pretty damned determined to annex Texas and (for obvious reasons) didn't much care about politicians in either party.

The Republic of Texas was well on its way to failed state status in 1845 anyway.  A continuing independent ROT would be losing, not gaining, territory (Mexico might well have been able to force an effective border of the Nueces River and put the Texas/Mexico border just south of San Antonio).

IIRC, the annexation bill was voted up in Dec., 1845.  It was accepted by the Texas Congress in February, 1846, which is when Texas views the union occurred.  Both of those dates were under the Polk administration.

[Mechaman]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

How?

Think about it?

The defeat of America's first black President. What message is that going to send?

Also, let's overturn that Amendment about having Presidents only serving two terms.  After all, only allowing Obama two terms in office would be a huge setback for racial equality!
God forbid somebody votes against a non-white, only Ku Klux Klan people do that!  Obama should stay in office forever, otherwise we are taking a huge step back in racial equality and segregation will become legal once more.

[Zarn]

No it is not the most important election, but it will be a huge setback for racial equality if Obama loses.

How?

Think about it?

The defeat of America's first black President. What message is that going to send?

That 'race' doesn't matter