Which past Presidential Election wins deserve an asterisk *

[Agonized-Statism]

1788*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1792*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1820*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1824*: Thrown to the House.
1876*: Resolved by informal agreement of Congressmen.
1960*: Election tampering in Illinois.
1972*: Fair election, but illegal interference in opposition primaries.
2000*: Recount cut short by Supreme Court.

Excluding those with election tampering by urban party machines and organized crime. If we count smoke-filled room primaries, nearly every election is an asterisk. Hard to say how much white primaries and disenfranchised minorities after the 15th amendment changed the outcome of some elections.

[darklordoftech]

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

[Dac10]

I honestly think the only reason more people aren’t mention 1888 is because the Hayes to Cleveland era of internal American politics (1877 - 1897) is so boring nobody actually knows about it lmao.

[Agonized-Statism]

I honestly think the only reason more people aren’t mention 1888 is because the Hayes to Cleveland era of internal American politics (1877 - 1897) is so boring nobody actually knows about it lmao.

Yeah, I'll admit I really don't care about that era, but I don't count it because the cheater lost.

[Dac10]

I honestly think the only reason more people aren’t mention 1888 is because the Hayes to Cleveland era of internal American politics (1877 - 1897) is so boring nobody actually knows about it lmao.

Yeah, I'll admit I really don't care about that era, but I don't count it because the cheater lost.

Not the only cheater lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocks_of_Five

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

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

Republicans also said Black Panthers were standing outside polling places in 2008 intimidating Republicans.

[Dac10]

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

Republicans also said Black Panthers were standing outside polling places in 2008 intimidating Republicans.

I really really wish America was legitimately this cool lol.

[BaldEagle1991]

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

How can anyone believe something like that can go undetected?

[Alben Barkley]

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

Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush. Studies have shown this. It’s also obvious from the fact that when Perot re-entered the race, it was Clinton whose poll numbers went down more. His lead shrank, it didn’t grow. As well as the fact that in ‘96 Clinton tended to do much better in places where Perot plummeted from his ‘92 numbers.

The idea that Perot cost Bush the election is a Republican myth designed from the get-go to delegitimize Clinton’s presidency. It has always been total bulls—t. It doesn’t even make sense — Perot was a populist campaigning on an eclectic mix of both left and right social and fiscal stances. Socially he was pro-choice and pro-gun control. Hardly appealing to the typical would-be Bush voter. His big issue was opposition to NAFTA, which neither of the major party candidates shared. But at that time that message was more likely to appeal to Democrats than Republicans, and it makes sense that most would have broken for Clinton without Perot in the picture. Which is, again, supported by data.

Plus, the very fact that Perot did as well as he did shows you how many voters were fed up after 12 years of Bush and the GOP (especially after the recession) and were desperate for change. It was most definitely a change year, so it makes sense that with Perot not in the picture, voters looking for change would have turned to Clinton. I have no doubt Clinton would have won no matter what.

[Alben Barkley]

1788*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1792*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1820*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1824*: Thrown to the House.
1876*: Resolved by informal agreement of Congressmen.
1960*: Election tampering in Illinois.
1972*: Fair election, but illegal interference in opposition primaries.
2000*: Recount cut short by Supreme Court.

Excluding those with election tampering by urban party machines and organized crime. If we count smoke-filled room primaries, nearly every election is an asterisk. Hard to say how much white primaries and disenfranchised minorities after the 15th amendment changed the outcome of some elections.

1. There is no evidence that election tampering changed the outcome in Illinois. Later investigations found some evidence there may have been some tampering in favor of Kennedy in Chicago, BUT the same investigations found tampering in other parts of the state in favor of Nixon. There is no evidence either was systematic or widespread enough to alter the outcome. Oh, and Kennedy would have won without Illinois anyway. Some say “But not without Texas!” But there is no evidence at all that the Texas vote was tampered with. Conspiracy theorists just like to vaguely point at LBJ and say “He was like, totally corrupt or something, and he was from Texas, therefore he rigged the election in Texas!” But again there is no evidence of this at all.

2. Nothing in the Constitution requires political parties, which are private entities, to hold primaries to decide their nominee for an election to be legitimate. To this day they could not hold primaries and choose their nominee however they wanted, and it would be perfectly legal. Until 1968 no one really had a problem with the “smoke filled rooms.” Honestly we might have been better off with them...

3. I don't think elections that went unopposed should be given an asterisk. In all those elections, the winner was only unopposed because he was so popular any challenge would have been futile. That should just be a plus for him if anything.

4. Because going to the House if there is no electoral majority is the Constitutional procedure, I don't think it's necessarily fair to say an election is illegitimate just because it went to the House. 1800 went to the House as well, and was closer to being illegitimate because if Burr had "won," it very obviously would have gone against the intent of the voters and electors. 1824 was a much messier election, and there's a case to be made that Jackson "should" have won because he had the plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. But fair or not, that's not how it works. If there really was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, however, that would be another story. But it's never been proven there was.

5. Later unofficial recounts and studies showed that, had the 2000 recount proceeded as planned before SCOTUS intervened, Bush still would have won Florida narrowly. However, the same studies showed that had everyone's vote been counted as intended (i.e. if they weren't confused by the terrible Florida ballot and/or accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan), Gore would have won. I actually blame Florida more than the court for this one, but obviously the motives of the conservative justices were corrupt.

6. Nixon did indeed attempt to ratf--k the 1972 election, and succeeded at ratf--king Muskie and effectively eliminating him as a potential opponent. But he won by such a huge margin it probably wouldn't have mattered no matter what. That's the real irony of Watergate: Nixon didn't need to cheat to win big. His own paranoia and insecurity destroyed him.

Only the election of 1876 I think was incontrovertibly stolen. As in, the outcome was clearly and tangibly altered to defy the will of the voters beyond any real doubt and without any legal justification. It's no coincidence it's the only election in which the "loser" won a MAJORITY of the popular vote.

[Pericles]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

[Jamison5]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

[Jamison5]

1788*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1792*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1820*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1824*: Thrown to the House.
1876*: Resolved by informal agreement of Congressmen.
1960*: Election tampering in Illinois.
1972*: Fair election, but illegal interference in opposition primaries.
2000*: Recount cut short by Supreme Court.

Excluding those with election tampering by urban party machines and organized crime. If we count smoke-filled room primaries, nearly every election is an asterisk. Hard to say how much white primaries and disenfranchised minorities after the 15th amendment changed the outcome of some elections.

1. There is no evidence that election tampering changed the outcome in Illinois. Later investigations found some evidence there may have been some tampering in favor of Kennedy in Chicago, BUT the same investigations found tampering in other parts of the state in favor of Nixon. There is no evidence either was systematic or widespread enough to alter the outcome. Oh, and Kennedy would have won without Illinois anyway. Some say “But not without Texas!” But there is no evidence at all that the Texas vote was tampered with. Conspiracy theorists just like to vaguely point at LBJ and say “He was like, totally corrupt or something, and he was from Texas, therefore he rigged the election in Texas!” But again there is no evidence of this at all.

2. Nothing in the Constitution requires political parties, which are private entities, to hold primaries to decide their nominee for an election to be legitimate. To this day they could not hold primaries and choose their nominee however they wanted, and it would be perfectly legal. Until 1968 no one really had a problem with the “smoke filled rooms.” Honestly we might have been better off with them...

3. I don't think elections that went unopposed should be given an asterisk. In all those elections, the winner was only unopposed because he was so popular any challenge would have been futile. That should just be a plus for him if anything.

4. Because going to the House if there is no electoral majority is the Constitutional procedure, I don't think it's necessarily fair to say an election is illegitimate just because it went to the House. 1800 went to the House as well, and was closer to being illegitimate because if Burr had "won," it very obviously would have gone against the intent of the voters and electors. 1824 was a much messier election, and there's a case to be made that Jackson "should" have won because he had the plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. But fair or not, that's not how it works. If there really was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, however, that would be another story. But it's never been proven there was.

5. Later unofficial recounts and studies showed that, had the 2000 recount proceeded as planned before SCOTUS intervened, Bush still would have won Florida narrowly. However, the same studies showed that had everyone's vote been counted as intended (i.e. if they weren't confused by the terrible Florida ballot and/or accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan), Gore would have won. I actually blame Florida more than the court for this one, but obviously the motives of the conservative justices were corrupt.

6. Nixon did indeed attempt to ratf--k the 1972 election, and succeeded at ratf--king Muskie and effectively eliminating him as a potential opponent. But he won by such a huge margin it probably wouldn't have mattered no matter what. That's the real irony of Watergate: Nixon didn't need to cheat to win big. His own paranoia and insecurity destroyed him.

Only the election of 1876 I think was incontrovertibly stolen. As in, the outcome was clearly and tangibly altered to defy the will of the voters beyond any real doubt and without any legal justification. It's no coincidence it's the only election in which the "loser" won a MAJORITY of the popular vote.

The Supreme Court had a 6-3 liberal majority in 2000; you have that backwards. Bush would have won Florida by a bigger margin anyway if the biased media didn't call it for Gore before the central time zone polls were closed. Of course you could say that those voters shouldn't have left the lines then, but the people who accidentally voted for Buchanan also made an error.

The Democrats are the ones who tried to steal 1876. Hayes had more votes in SC, FL, and LA and yet the Democrats contested those electors. The Democrats even tried to get a Republican elector in Oregon replaced with a Democrat elector after the fact. The national popular vote is not part of any country's system that I know of; it is irrelevant for you to bring up. The Democrats ended up getting a deal to end reconstruction, allowing them to start Jim Crow.

[Redban]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Disagree. The electoral college is the rule, so the candidates follow an operation designed to take  the electoral vote.

Say the rule in 2000 was that the popular vote determined the winner. You think Bush wouldn’t have campaigned differently, visiting places like California, Texas, and New York? You think his people wouldn’t have placed money and TV ads in those places? And if he did, how can you be so sure that he would have still lost the popular vote?

Basically, they lost the popular vote because they didn’t chase the popular vote. Had they chased it, it’s possible they would have taken it.

[BaldEagle1991]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Not necessarily. Cause the EC is legitimate. As sad as that is. 

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

^^^ 1876, 1888, 2000.

[AtorBoltox]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

This is the dumbest talking point ever. The USA is a democratic republic

[Jamison5]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

This is the dumbest talking point ever. The USA is a democratic republic

Wrong. The United States are a constitutional republic. Also, the correct verb is "are" and not "is" as the states are plural.

[AtorBoltox]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

This is the dumbest talking point ever. The USA is a democratic republic

Wrong. The United States are a constitutional republic. Also, the correct verb is "are" and not "is" as the states are plural.

You are not as smart as you think you are. The USA is a republic and a democracy. Being a republic does not preclude being a democracy

[SWE]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

These two statements are not related

[morgankingsley]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Not necessarily. Cause the EC is legitimate. 

Exactly. You don't have to like it but to deny it is just wrong

[Fuzzy Bear]

All the elections in which the popular vote winner was not the Electoral College winner deserve some mind of asterisk.

Why? The national popular vote is completely irrelevant. We live in a republic, the most durable form of government.

This is the dumbest talking point ever. The USA is a democratic republic

Wrong. The United States are a constitutional republic. Also, the correct verb is "are" and not "is" as the states are plural.

You are not as smart as you think you are. The USA is a republic and a democracy. Being a republic does not preclude being a democracy

We are a constitutional republic with democratic features.  We are very much a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and that's a good thing. 

The most destructive institutions in our "republic" today are, IMO, "Recall Elections" and "Ballot Initiatives".  In the name of "democracy", those institutions have produced some of the biggest steps of ingraining the will of monied elites.