Which past Presidential Election wins deserve an asterisk *

[BaldEagle1991]

Well from my lifetime, 2000* - Supreme Court. 2016* -Russian Interference. 1992* - Strong Third Party

[darklordoftech]

1996: Perot was a factor again.

2004: There were claims of voting machines switching Kerry votes to Bush votes.

2008: Republicans claimed Obama won because of illegal immigrants voting.

2012: Same as 2008.

[brucejoel99]

None of them. Regardless of whether it's a landslide or neck-&-neck, the winner is the winner.

[BaldEagle1991]

1996: Perot was a factor again.

2004: There were claims of voting machines switching Kerry votes to Bush votes.

2008: Republicans claimed Obama won because of illegal immigrants voting.

2012: Same as 2008.

The last 3 were not proven concerns, that would taint the wins.

None of them. Regardless of whether it's a landslide or neck-&-neck, the winner is the winner.

Sure but you have to admit there have been wins in history that might have been aided by certain circumstances.

[Intell]

2000.

[BaldEagle1991]

2000.

That one probably deserves a big fat asterisk

[catographer]

Certainly 1876 was a clearly stolen election in order to end reconstruction.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

1824 (EV/PV split, Q. probably became president after making a bargin with Clay. Both men denied it for the rest of their lives, howerver)

1876  (This one was outright stolen by backroom deals. Hayes was forced to end reconstruction. Depending on who you ask, reconstruction was either a corrupt mess that deserved to end or a good policy that never realized its full potential, but it didn't deserve to go out like that.)

1888 (While Celveland and Harrison played clean, the individual states didn't.)

1960 (Dead people and cows were suddenly allowed to vote in Illinois and Texas, respectivley. Nixon wasn't entirely innocent, though.)

2000 (Bush and Gore took it to the Supreme Court. At least one justice regreted giving it to Bush. A few thousand votes in Florida were made up.)

[bagelman]

1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000.

[BaldEagle1991]

1960 (Deead people and cows were suddenly allowed to vote in Illinois and Texas, respectivley. Nixon wasn't entirely innocent, though.)

I had to research this one. I was shocked to learn that.

Now I could argue based on Nixon's Watergate scandal, the 1972 election probably deserves one too. Although this one is a little hard to put on compared to the rest mentioned.

[Mr. Smith]

Only 2000 for sure.

Although 1824 and 1876 are quite suspect.

[BaldEagle1991]

I'm surprised I'm the only one putting 2016 with an asterisk. Considering the Russian interference.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

1968 you had Nixon committing treason by colluding with the North Vietnamese promising a better peace deal.

[Orwell]

1968 you had Nixon committing treason by colluding with the North Vietnamese promising a better peace deal.

[voice_of_resistance]

1876 - obviously
1960 - JFK fraud in Illinois
1968 - Nixon colluding with Vietnam
1980 - Reagan and the Iran collusion
2000 - we all know what happened here
2016 - Russian interference

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Any good articles about 1960?

Definitely 1876, although both sides committed fraud/suppression Tilden was cheated.

I heard that GOP turnout was depressed in the panhandle because CNN erroneously called Florida for Gore at closing, but I never confirmed it.


As far as 2016, I'm simply unconvinced that 100K in facebook ads would come close to altering the outcome.  And you can argue about Comey, but Clinton was foolish to remain so close with Huma for so long, as Wiener was a ticking timebomb.

[brucejoel99]

None of them. Regardless of whether it's a landslide or neck-&-neck, the winner is the winner.

Sure but you have to admit there have been wins in history that might have been aided by certain circumstances.

Sure but that doesn't mean the election deserves an asterisk. Giving an election an asterisk might feel good but it doesn't change who (& the impact of who) was inaugurated on January 20th (or March 4th if we go back far enough).

[MIKESOWELL]

1824, 1876, 2000

[Skill and Chance]

1876 (though I am in the camp that it was stolen for Tilden and then appropriately taken back)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1916 (Wilson clearly loses without Jim Crow in the South)
.
.
.
.
1884 (see 1916, but Jim Crow was less entrenched and Cleveland had a big EV lead from winning NY)
.
.
.
.
JFK's recorded popular vote win in 1960

[Mr. Smith]

1876 (though I am in the camp that it was stolen for Tilden and then appropriately taken back)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1916 (Wilson clearly loses without Jim Crow in the South)
.
.
.
.
1884 (see 1916, but Jim Crow was less entrenched and Cleveland had a big EV lead from winning NY)
.
.
.
.
JFK's recorded popular vote win in 1960

The problem with 1876 isn't The South, it's Colorado. They used random electors with no popular vote backing. It was there that determined the 1 vote that stopped Tilden.

[BaldEagle1991]

1916 (Wilson clearly loses without Jim Crow in the South)

You gotta prove that one.

[Dac10]

Ones I agree with

1876 - Straight up stolen from Tilden obviously. Giving all the contested states to Haye sto make him win by one elector. It’s just straight up ludicrous, and the deal with the Siuth was the only reason he was ever elected

1888- Block of Five scandal, even by the (low) standards of the times, should obviously make the results totally illegitimate in any seriously democratic country.

2000 - Supreme Court obviously gave it to Bush. Also Jeb Bush straight up removing minority votes from the count as Governor that would almost certainly have flipped Florida to Gore.

Ones here I disagree with

1824 - The bargain obviously happened, and any attempt to deny it is just Adams and Clay saving their political careers, and later saving face. But it was still a legitimate win within the confines of American political system. If anything this type of negotiation between candidates is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. (Whether or not the system itself is ridiculous is another issue. That idea I’d agree with. But then every election should have some degree of qualification on it (which I’d also agree with, but that’s not what the post it talking about lol)).

1884 - Obviously the results from the South were illegitimate, and Republicans would peel away some Southern states without Jim Crow. But that was the political game that all parties were aware of. It was true for every election, from the end of Reconstruction to 1965 and the Voting Rights Act (1880 - 1968). This is more a general disclaimer over that entire period of American history, instead of a particular election.

1916 - Same as above.

1960 - Kennedy obviously cheated. But just like with 1968, the idea of Nixon “acknowledging Kennedy’s win for the good of the of country” and to “preserve the sanctity of the electoral process” are completely fake. Nixon didn’t contest it because he didn’t want to reveal the Republican been doing the same, just less effectively as Kennedy.

1968 - Obviously Nixon should be in prison for sabotaging the negotiations like he did (alongside many many other thing lol). And he only won because Johnson kept it secret. But like I said above, the idea of LBJ keeping it secret to preserve the “sanctity of the electoral process” and keep “the faith in America’s democractic parties” is just a lie. He didn’t realize it because he knew that the Republicans would air all of his and the Democrats deity dealing if he did. And while they’d have won 1968 probably, they’d tank themselves. The public would turn on the traditional parties and at the absolute least, call for a purge of both and entirely new leadership.

1980 - While I’m sure they would have if they could, Reagan’s campaign didn’t have the capacity to negotiate with Iran. Iran just released the hostages on Inauguration Day as a parting “screw you” to Carter.

2008 - Those “reports” of illegal immigrants voters are totally unsubstantiated by any biased source, and are very clearly Republican partisans trying to lie to themselves, or (more likely) gritting by appealing to the Republican base. IpEven the large majority of Republicans don’t legitimately believe this.

2012 - Same as above.

2016 - Russia certainly did try to interfere, but 1. this is nothing new. This has been going on for every world power to any other world power for decades. It’s just social media made it slightly more effective in 2016 2. It’s really not as impactful as many people would like to say it was. The largest impact it’s had has legitimately just been to increases Russia and the FSB’s reputation when it comes to international intrigue, without actually having to do much. This is obviously just a way for partisan liberals and American establishment figures to explain to themselves how they were completely blindsided by Trump. Every American neoliberal establishment entity expected Hillary to win. If there wasn’t an outside forced responsible, then they’d have to look inward and acknowledge their own ideology is legitimately that undesirable to the average American. Average Democratic Party loyal liberals don’t want to do that, and establishment figures can do it fine, but are paid to pretend they haven’t.

[morgankingsley]

Honestly only 2000 for sure and maybe 1876

[538Electoral]

None.

[Catalyst138]

Anyone who claims a 7-point victory was entirely caused by illegal immigrants is stupid.