Poisoned Chalice Elections

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

Presidential elections where it would have been better for the victor and his party if they lost the election instead of winning. I know 1976 and 2004 for sure are, what about 1948 or 1996? Could 2016 be one?

[brucejoel99]

2016 was definitely a poisoned chalice. Whichever party lost was gonna be better off in the long-term.

[darklordoftech]

1916 and 1928

[here2view]

2016

[darklordoftech]

1836

1892

[Skill and Chance]

1st tier obvious: 1856, 1892, 1916, 1928, 2004

2nd tier: 1880 (incumbent party fatigue for R's), 1948 (incumbent party fatigue for D's), 1976 (wasn't a lost cause until well into 1980), 1988 (noticeable recession in 1991-92 but unclear if it was a lost cause)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1st tier obvious: 1856, 1892, 1916, 1928, 2004

2nd tier: 1880 (incumbent party fatigue for R's), 1948 (incumbent party fatigue for D's), 1976 (wasn't a lost cause until well into 1980), 1988 (noticeable recession in 1991-92 but unclear if it was a lost cause)

what's the argument for 1856 ?

[Skill and Chance]

1st tier obvious: 1856, 1892, 1916, 1928, 2004

2nd tier: 1880 (incumbent party fatigue for R's), 1948 (incumbent party fatigue for D's), 1976 (wasn't a lost cause until well into 1980), 1988 (noticeable recession in 1991-92 but unclear if it was a lost cause)

what's the argument for 1856 ?

Dred Scott case = point of no return for Civil War. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Smith would have handled the depression much better than Hoover. Smith wouldn't have hired Meyer t the Fed, signed Smoot-Hawley or let the banks fail in the Fall of 1930

[brucejoel99]

Smith would have handled the depression much better than Hoover. Smith wouldn't have hired Meyer t the Fed, signed Smoot-Hawley or let the banks fail in the Fall of 1930

Yeah, he certainly would've been a little bit more proactive in dealing with the repercussions of the Depression, that's for sure, but it probably wouldn't have been enough to ensure he wasn't defeated by a Republican in 1932.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Smith would have handled the depression much better than Hoover. Smith wouldn't have hired Meyer t the Fed, signed Smoot-Hawley or let the banks fail in the Fall of 1930

Yeah, he certainly would've been a little bit more proactive in dealing with the repercussions of the Depression, that's for sure, but it probably wouldn't have been enough to ensure he wasn't defeated by a Republican in 1932.

Yes but Depression would be more like 2008-09(Bernanke actually said 2008 was worse than 1929 , its just the response in 2008 was far far better)

[Mr. Smith]

1856, 1892, 1948, 1976, 2004.

Possibly 2016 [would've been for sure if Biden and Bernie had bowed out and let the process play out], highly likely 2020.

[Dac10]

1836 - ‘37 Recession (actually ’36 - ‘38, but the country didn’t start to “notice” it until 1837. So the winner of 1836 will take the brunt of blame) is going to hurt anyone in 1840.

1856 - Civil War becomes almost inevitable, plus Panic of ‘57.

1872 - In terms of pure party politics, the party in charge during the ‘73 Recession will always be pretty significantly hurt.

1892 - Panics of ‘93 and ‘96 will seriously damage candidate in office. Makes it very hard to win ‘96.

Special mention - 1916 didn’t have to be if Wilson didn’t join the war. If we’re talking purely “historical outcomes”, and he will, then it becomes one.

1928 - Very obvious lol. The Depression will absolutely demolish anyone in office.

1976 - Not as bad as many of the others here, as a talented candidate could manage to win in ‘80. But the late 70s are a troubled era and will hurt anyone that’s in the office.

2004 - Another obvious one. Anyone in office during the ‘08 Crash lose big in the 2008 election.

[Morgan Kingsley]

2004
1916
1928
1948
1856

Those are the top five

[dw93]

Presidential elections where it would have been better for the victor and his party if they lost the election instead of winning. I know 1976 and 2004 for sure are, what about 1948 or 1996? Could 2016 be one?

Why would 1996 be a poisoned chalice? The economy boomed, things were relatively stable abroad, and Gore only lost the election by 537 votes and won the popular vote by over 500K votes.

[brucejoel99]

Presidential elections where it would have been better for the victor and his party if they lost the election instead of winning. I know 1976 and 2004 for sure are, what about 1948 or 1996? Could 2016 be one?

Why would 1996 be a poisoned chalice? The economy boomed, things were relatively stable abroad, and Gore only lost the election by 537 votes and won the popular vote by over 500K votes.

Yeah, this. 1996 wasn't a poisoned chalice at all. Just a 'normal' election that the incumbent party happened to lose.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1st tier obvious: 1856, 1892, 1916, 1928, 2004

2nd tier: 1880 (incumbent party fatigue for R's), 1948 (incumbent party fatigue for D's), 1976 (wasn't a lost cause until well into 1980), 1988 (noticeable recession in 1991-92 but unclear if it was a lost cause)

what's the argument for 1856 ?

Dred Scott case = point of no return for Civil War. 

I still don't see how if Republicans win in 1856 that hurts their prospects afterwards.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2008

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

2008

no

[darklordoftech]

2008

The winner got re-elected.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2008

The winner got re-elected.

But they had a truly disastrous midterm in between. Imagine if the midterm went heavily the other way.
Democrats would be in the position to easily sweep back to power in 2012, and with a strong grip on the 2010s redistricting cycle and enough Senate seats to actually enact real policy change.

[dw93]

To answer the question of the thread. Since 1900:

-1916
-1928
-1976
-2004

Elections that had potential to be Poisoned Chalices:
-1944 (Truman's win was an upset after all)
-1948 (Korea going half as bad for Dewey as it did for Truman could put the Dems back in the White House in '52)
-1988 (any other President, Rep. or Dem., likely would not have had Bush's success internationally, plus there's the recession of 1990-91)
-2008 weaker stimulus or god forbid austerity would've made the effects of the recession worse.

[darklordoftech]

Elections that had potential to be Poisoned Chalices:
-1944 (Truman's win was an upset after all)
-1948 (Korea going half as bad for Dewey as it did for Truman could put the Dems back in the White House in '52)
-1988 (any other President, Rep. or Dem., likely would not have had Bush's success internationally, plus there's the recession of 1990-91)
-2008 weaker stimulus or god forbid austerity would've made the effects of the recession worse.

2000 might have been a poisoned chalice if 9/11 didn’t happen. Nader used the likelihood that 2000 would be a poisoned chalice as an argument for voting for him.