Did Al Gore have the most heartbreaking loss in US political history?

[Cyrusman]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

[President Johnson]

Definitely. Especially by considering Al Gore very likely won Florida.

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968. The Bush presidency was a complete disaster both domestically and abroad. It destabilized a whole region for decades and we're still paying the price of these foreign blunders to this day. And with we, I mean not just the US, I mean the entire Middle East and last but not least, Europe. Thousands of lives lost, trillions of dollars wasted that could be spent at home instead and millions of refugees. At the same time, the financial recession of 2008/09 caused lasting damage and, combined with the refugee crisis, heavily contributed the rise of populism in the mid 2010s on both sides of the Atlantic.

If Al Gore became president instead, he would have continued to invest in renewable energy, innovation, kept the federal deficit under control and would not have made such massive errors in foreign policy, also causing the US to lose a lot prestige around the globe. Heck, his administration may have been more competent in the first months of 2001, perhaps preventing 9/11 from happening.

All in all, Dubya being inaugurated instead of Al Gore in 2001 following this disastrous decision, caused so many problems, we're still paying the price 20 years later. Not to mention the Supreme Court decision overruled the Florida Supreme Court and allowing a full recount to happen.

[SingingAnalyst]

I'd say yes, though there are some strong contenders. (I voted for Bush in 2000).

1876: The Book of Lists claims that Samuel Tilden would have made a better president that Rutherford B. Hayes. Whether or not that is true, I recall learning in AP US History class (yes, that was during Reagan's first term) that Hayes won only after a deal to end radical reconstruction. Just think if it had continued, how far we'd be today instead of letting civil rights go for 3 generations (I don't think it was until 1948 that the Democratic Party introduced even a modest civil rights platform).

1876, 1888 and 2016: Anytime you lose while winning the popular vote it's heartbreaking.

1968: Humphrey's 96.2% in Detroit's District 22 gives an indication of how Blacks would have voted in the South had they had full suffrage. While 1968 was by far the best year until that time for Black suffrage, I wonder if, say, Missouri would have flipped with the level of Black voting even in 1984. Even in Mississippi, Black voters might have held Wallace to a bare majority, counteracting the 85-90% of whites that voted for Wallace in some rural parts of that state. Not to mention, Humphrey might have won the PV had the election been held over the weekend of Nov. 1-3, before people learned of Saigon's rejection of a peace deal after intervention by a Nixon operative.

1980: Carter, as a Republican family member of mine put it, tried; I honestly believe he always had the best interests of the American people at heart. He lost several states by very close margins; giving him every state he lost by less than 2% gives him 125 EVs, not 49. He did not deserve fewer EVs than Goldwater.

As for 2000, a scatterplot of Buchanan votes on the y-axis vs. Gore votes on the x-axis for each of Florida's 67 counties shows that Buchanan got more than 2,600 more votes than expected in Palm Beach County, which alone would have made the difference in the election, giving Gore a 292-246 EC victory-- close, but not as close as either Bush 43 win. Add that to all points made above.

Plus we would have had a Jewish Vice President, which would have been historic. Instead, Joe Lieberman is an also-ran.

As for the role of the Catholic Church in Bush's Presidency IRL, Pope John Paul II pleaded with W not to invade Iraq, but W didn't listen.

[SingingAnalyst]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

Good point as those with "Clinton fatigue" didn't vote for Gore anyway. In addition to Florida, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and even West Virginia might have been within reach for Gore. Worst case, he loses Oregon due to an increased Nader vote, but under most scenarios he still wins if he lets Clinton campaign for him.

[Alben Barkley]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

[Cyrusman]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

Didn’t carter pretty much know he was going to lose a week prior to the election?

[SingingAnalyst]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

Didn’t carter pretty much know he was going to lose a week prior to the election?

Carter's post-election expression of disappointment is hardly surprising. The 1970s, after all, is the decade that gave us the "Free to Be You and Me" album and show by Marlo Thomas and Friends, featuring Rosie Greer singing "It's All Right to Cry / Crying Gets the Sad Out of You"; if anything, the public reaction to Carter's behavior in this regard was perhaps kinder than toward Edmund Muskie's reaction to a Nixonite "dirty trick" in 1972. Mondale reportedly also shed tears after his concession speech in 1984 (though he kept his composure during the speech). Whatever you think their performance was, or would have been, as Presidents, they genuinely believed that Reagan would harm / was harming the country.

The last Gallup poll before the election showed Reagan up on Carter only by 3 points, 47-44, with 8% going to Anderson. Given that Carter undoubtedly hoped Anderson's voters would "come home" to Carter, he probably thought he had a chance until the returns started rolling in from PA, OH, MI, IL, etc. and eventually NY (thought to be a Carter state, according to the 1981 World Almanac).

The trouble with 1980, of course, is that a lot of votes (a few million) would have had to change to make Carter win in 1980. In alternate histories, anything is possible, but it's something to consider. I prefer my butterflies to have tiny wings. : - )

[The Houstonian]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

Were the two preceding elections not "recent"?

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

I agree with this, although 1988 was also a disaster, because it gave the Democrats the idea that neoliberalism was the path forward. Hopefully, they will change paths sooner than later.

[Cyrusman]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

Were the two preceding elections not "recent"?

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

I agree with this, although 1988 was also a disaster, because it gave the Democrats the idea that neoliberalism was the path forward. Hopefully, they will change paths sooner than later.

Oops I meant to say “ strong Green Party candidate”

[The Houstonian]

Honestly I think anyone who is ever upset or devastated about a loss should just think of Gore because it doesn’t get any worse.

- loses the election by 537 votes
- had Ralph Nadar run which is the only recent election with a strong known 3rd party candidate ( I think it’s safe to assume Nadar cost him NH and Florida.)
- would’ve most likely won had Clinton not been impeached
- would’ve most likely won had he just let Clinton campaign for him ( he wins Arkansas he wins the election)
- the economy was great in 2000

Literally so many think went against him

Were the two preceding elections not "recent"?

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

I agree with this, although 1988 was also a disaster, because it gave the Democrats the idea that neoliberalism was the path forward. Hopefully, they will change paths sooner than later.

Oops I meant to say “ strong Green Party candidate”

Eh, it happens

[OSR stands with Israel]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

The Conservative Movement ascendancy even it didnt happen in 1980 it could have happened in 1984 with Jack Kemp as Democrats would have lost both houses of congress by 1982 and Kemp would narrowly defeat Mondale in 1984 and give the Conservatives even more power then they had in 1980 even if Kemp's win wouldnt be nearly as large as Reagan's.


Remember Reagan's tax cut he signed in 1981 was called Kemp/Roth and Kemp was even to the right of Reagan on both economics and foreign policy except unlike Reagan he wouldnt have a Democratic Congress there to put a check on him .

[Nightcore Nationalist]

The 1876 election was brazen theft.


I'd like to point out that, although the recount should have been allowed to finish, CNN erroneously calling Florida for Gore at closing depressed turnout in the Floridian panhandle and cost Bush far more votes than his official margin of victory.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd say yes, though there are some strong contenders. (I voted for Bush in 2000).

1876: The Book of Lists claims that Samuel Tilden would have made a better president that Rutherford B. Hayes. Whether or not that is true, I recall learning in AP US History class (yes, that was during Reagan's first term) that Hayes won only after a deal to end radical reconstruction. Just think if it had continued, how far we'd be today instead of letting civil rights go for 3 generations (I don't think it was until 1948 that the Democratic Party introduced even a modest civil rights platform).

1876, 1888 and 2016: Anytime you lose while winning the popular vote it's heartbreaking.

1968: Humphrey's 96.2% in Detroit's District 22 gives an indication of how Blacks would have voted in the South had they had full suffrage. While 1968 was by far the best year until that time for Black suffrage, I wonder if, say, Missouri would have flipped with the level of Black voting even in 1984. Even in Mississippi, Black voters might have held Wallace to a bare majority, counteracting the 85-90% of whites that voted for Wallace in some rural parts of that state. Not to mention, Humphrey might have won the PV had the election been held over the weekend of Nov. 1-3, before people learned of Saigon's rejection of a peace deal after intervention by a Nixon operative.

1980: Carter, as a Republican family member of mine put it, tried; I honestly believe he always had the best interests of the American people at heart. He lost several states by very close margins; giving him every state he lost by less than 2% gives him 125 EVs, not 49. He did not deserve fewer EVs than Goldwater.

As for 2000, a scatterplot of Buchanan votes on the y-axis vs. Gore votes on the x-axis for each of Florida's 67 counties shows that Buchanan got more than 2,600 more votes than expected in Palm Beach County, which alone would have made the difference in the election, giving Gore a 292-246 EC victory-- close, but not as close as either Bush 43 win. Add that to all points made above.

Plus we would have had a Jewish Vice President, which would have been historic. Instead, Joe Lieberman is an also-ran.

As for the role of the Catholic Church in Bush's Presidency IRL, Pope John Paul II pleaded with W not to invade Iraq, but W didn't listen.

Of the closest/most disputed elections:

1876: Potentially very consequential.  Tilden winning and making the end of Reconstruction a purely Dem program might have been better in the long run because it could have lead to the next Republican administration using the backlash to pass more civil rights legislation rather than both parties dropping the issue by 1896 and not touching it again until 1948.  Keep in mind that several % of the nationwide vote was fake in 1876 so we have little idea who legitimately won.

1884:  Proved that Democrats could still compete nationally after the Civil War, but otherwise not that consequential in US history.

1888: Not that consequential.  Harrison had big ideas (including a proto-VRA that passed the House but stalled in the Senate) and was way ahead of his time.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to accomplish what he hoped

1892: Not as close as the last 2, but possibly much more consequential.  This was basically the last chance for progress on black voting rights and opposition to segregation in the South until after WWII.  Unfortunately, Harrison lost and the Republican congressional majority went out with him. 

1916: Not that consequential because Wilson turned around and did what he campaigned against (entering WWI) anyway less than a year later.

1948: Extremely consequential, plausible turning point in US history on par with 1876.  An outright Dewey win takes down parts of the New Deal as temporary measures before they become entrenched.  Sending it to the House rips out the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform just when it was starting to blossom.

1960: Not that consequential.  The party platforms heavily overlapped by this time, the economy was booming, and social changes were being driven by the courts, not from the White House

1968: Very consequential, but not that close in the EC.  The Supreme Court becomes a major issue in presidential elections for the first time in a generation.

1976: Not that consequential.  Carter had few long term accomplishments and both he and Ford were moderates

2000: Depends entirely on whether you think a Republican at least as hawkish as Bush beats Gore in 2004.  If yes, then it wasn't very consequential.  If no, it was enormously consequential. 

2004:  Very consequential.  IDK if you would rather win or lose.  Is appointing the new Chief Justice worth taking the brunt of 2008?

2016: Pretty consequential because of the 3 SCOTUS vacancies, and they were 1 conservative, 1 liberal and 1 moderate at that. 

2020: Probably not that consequential pending the Georgia senate seats. 

[Mr.Phips]

I'd say yes, though there are some strong contenders. (I voted for Bush in 2000).

1876: The Book of Lists claims that Samuel Tilden would have made a better president that Rutherford B. Hayes. Whether or not that is true, I recall learning in AP US History class (yes, that was during Reagan's first term) that Hayes won only after a deal to end radical reconstruction. Just think if it had continued, how far we'd be today instead of letting civil rights go for 3 generations (I don't think it was until 1948 that the Democratic Party introduced even a modest civil rights platform).

1876, 1888 and 2016: Anytime you lose while winning the popular vote it's heartbreaking.

1968: Humphrey's 96.2% in Detroit's District 22 gives an indication of how Blacks would have voted in the South had they had full suffrage. While 1968 was by far the best year until that time for Black suffrage, I wonder if, say, Missouri would have flipped with the level of Black voting even in 1984. Even in Mississippi, Black voters might have held Wallace to a bare majority, counteracting the 85-90% of whites that voted for Wallace in some rural parts of that state. Not to mention, Humphrey might have won the PV had the election been held over the weekend of Nov. 1-3, before people learned of Saigon's rejection of a peace deal after intervention by a Nixon operative.

1980: Carter, as a Republican family member of mine put it, tried; I honestly believe he always had the best interests of the American people at heart. He lost several states by very close margins; giving him every state he lost by less than 2% gives him 125 EVs, not 49. He did not deserve fewer EVs than Goldwater.

As for 2000, a scatterplot of Buchanan votes on the y-axis vs. Gore votes on the x-axis for each of Florida's 67 counties shows that Buchanan got more than 2,600 more votes than expected in Palm Beach County, which alone would have made the difference in the election, giving Gore a 292-246 EC victory-- close, but not as close as either Bush 43 win. Add that to all points made above.

Plus we would have had a Jewish Vice President, which would have been historic. Instead, Joe Lieberman is an also-ran.

As for the role of the Catholic Church in Bush's Presidency IRL, Pope John Paul II pleaded with W not to invade Iraq, but W didn't listen.

Of the closest/most disputed elections:

1876: Potentially very consequential.  Tilden winning and making the end of Reconstruction a purely Dem program might have been better in the long run because it could have lead to the next Republican administration using the backlash to pass more civil rights legislation rather than both parties dropping the issue by 1896 and not touching it again until 1948.  Keep in mind that several % of the nationwide vote was fake in 1876 so we have little idea who legitimately won.

1884:  Proved that Democrats could still compete nationally after the Civil War, but otherwise not that consequential in US history.

1888: Not that consequential.  Harrison had big ideas (including a proto-VRA that passed the House but stalled in the Senate) and was way ahead of his time.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to accomplish what he hoped

1892: Not as close as the last 2, but possibly much more consequential.  This was basically the last chance for progress on black voting rights and opposition to segregation in the South until after WWII.  Unfortunately, Harrison lost and the Republican congressional majority went out with him. 

1916: Not that consequential because Wilson turned around and did what he campaigned against (entering WWI) anyway less than a year later.

1948: Extremely consequential, plausible turning point in US history on par with 1876.  An outright Dewey win takes down parts of the New Deal as temporary measures before they become entrenched.  Sending it to the House rips out the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform just when it was starting to blossom.

1960: Not that consequential.  The party platforms heavily overlapped by this time, the economy was booming, and social changes were being driven by the courts, not from the White House

1968: Very consequential, but not that close in the EC.  The Supreme Court becomes a major issue in presidential elections for the first time in a generation.

1976: Not that consequential.  Carter had few long term accomplishments and both he and Ford were moderates

2000: Depends entirely on whether you think a Republican at least as hawkish as Bush beats Gore in 2004.  If yes, then it wasn't very consequential.  If no, it was enormously consequential. 

2004:  Very consequential.  IDK if you would rather win or lose.  Is appointing the new Chief Justice worth taking the brunt of 2008?

2016: Pretty consequential because of the 3 SCOTUS vacancies, and they were 1 conservative, 1 liberal and 1 moderate at that. 

2020: Probably not that consequential pending the Georgia senate seats. 

Do you believe McConnell would have allowed Hillary to appoint any justices (assuming Republicans controlled the Senate)?

[Skill and Chance]

I'd say yes, though there are some strong contenders. (I voted for Bush in 2000).

1876: The Book of Lists claims that Samuel Tilden would have made a better president that Rutherford B. Hayes. Whether or not that is true, I recall learning in AP US History class (yes, that was during Reagan's first term) that Hayes won only after a deal to end radical reconstruction. Just think if it had continued, how far we'd be today instead of letting civil rights go for 3 generations (I don't think it was until 1948 that the Democratic Party introduced even a modest civil rights platform).

1876, 1888 and 2016: Anytime you lose while winning the popular vote it's heartbreaking.

1968: Humphrey's 96.2% in Detroit's District 22 gives an indication of how Blacks would have voted in the South had they had full suffrage. While 1968 was by far the best year until that time for Black suffrage, I wonder if, say, Missouri would have flipped with the level of Black voting even in 1984. Even in Mississippi, Black voters might have held Wallace to a bare majority, counteracting the 85-90% of whites that voted for Wallace in some rural parts of that state. Not to mention, Humphrey might have won the PV had the election been held over the weekend of Nov. 1-3, before people learned of Saigon's rejection of a peace deal after intervention by a Nixon operative.

1980: Carter, as a Republican family member of mine put it, tried; I honestly believe he always had the best interests of the American people at heart. He lost several states by very close margins; giving him every state he lost by less than 2% gives him 125 EVs, not 49. He did not deserve fewer EVs than Goldwater.

As for 2000, a scatterplot of Buchanan votes on the y-axis vs. Gore votes on the x-axis for each of Florida's 67 counties shows that Buchanan got more than 2,600 more votes than expected in Palm Beach County, which alone would have made the difference in the election, giving Gore a 292-246 EC victory-- close, but not as close as either Bush 43 win. Add that to all points made above.

Plus we would have had a Jewish Vice President, which would have been historic. Instead, Joe Lieberman is an also-ran.

As for the role of the Catholic Church in Bush's Presidency IRL, Pope John Paul II pleaded with W not to invade Iraq, but W didn't listen.

Of the closest/most disputed elections:

1876: Potentially very consequential.  Tilden winning and making the end of Reconstruction a purely Dem program might have been better in the long run because it could have lead to the next Republican administration using the backlash to pass more civil rights legislation rather than both parties dropping the issue by 1896 and not touching it again until 1948.  Keep in mind that several % of the nationwide vote was fake in 1876 so we have little idea who legitimately won.

1884:  Proved that Democrats could still compete nationally after the Civil War, but otherwise not that consequential in US history.

1888: Not that consequential.  Harrison had big ideas (including a proto-VRA that passed the House but stalled in the Senate) and was way ahead of his time.  Unfortunately, he wasn't able to accomplish what he hoped

1892: Not as close as the last 2, but possibly much more consequential.  This was basically the last chance for progress on black voting rights and opposition to segregation in the South until after WWII.  Unfortunately, Harrison lost and the Republican congressional majority went out with him. 

1916: Not that consequential because Wilson turned around and did what he campaigned against (entering WWI) anyway less than a year later.

1948: Extremely consequential, plausible turning point in US history on par with 1876.  An outright Dewey win takes down parts of the New Deal as temporary measures before they become entrenched.  Sending it to the House rips out the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform just when it was starting to blossom.

1960: Not that consequential.  The party platforms heavily overlapped by this time, the economy was booming, and social changes were being driven by the courts, not from the White House

1968: Very consequential, but not that close in the EC.  The Supreme Court becomes a major issue in presidential elections for the first time in a generation.

1976: Not that consequential.  Carter had few long term accomplishments and both he and Ford were moderates

2000: Depends entirely on whether you think a Republican at least as hawkish as Bush beats Gore in 2004.  If yes, then it wasn't very consequential.  If no, it was enormously consequential. 

2004:  Very consequential.  IDK if you would rather win or lose.  Is appointing the new Chief Justice worth taking the brunt of 2008?

2016: Pretty consequential because of the 3 SCOTUS vacancies, and they were 1 conservative, 1 liberal and 1 moderate at that. 

2020: Probably not that consequential pending the Georgia senate seats. 

Do you believe McConnell would have allowed Hillary to appoint any justices (assuming Republicans controlled the Senate)?

Garland definitely gets through in 2017 with Murkowski, Collins, and Flake.  Of course the left leaning majority is ephemeral unless Ginsburg and Breyer also get replaced during 2017-18 and I see that process eventually breaking down with an R controlled senate.  Whoever gets through for Ginsburg's seat would be clearly to the right of RBG and more of a Garland/Breyer type.  I have a feeling a 3rd Clinton justice would be outright blocked, whether that's for Breyer's seat or Kennedy's seat. 

Now, if Democrats take the senate, they immediately fill Scalia's seat and then both Ginsburg and Breyer would surely retire by the end of 2018.  Kennedy almost surely holds out for a possible Republican win in 2020, so I doubt they ever get to 6/3 liberal.  Roberts probably drifts back right for the same institutionalist reasons he drifted left during the Trump presidency. 

 

[President Johnson]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

If not 2000, I'd say 1976, not 1980. Gerald Ford winning reelection means a lot of positive outcomes, especially for Democrats. First of all, I believe that he was much better prepared and more competent than Jimmy Carter to deal with the numerous struggles of the late 1970s, both economically and abroad. No offense at Jimmy Carter, he's a massive FF as person (like Ford himself), but I feel the world would have been better off with Ford serving another term, who also deserved an own mandate. He restored honor to the White House, knew how to work with people both at home and abroad and the economy was expanding again by the fall of 1976 while America was at peace. With Ford winning 1976, Ronald Reagan's presidency would never have occurred. In 1980, the Democrats would have taken the White House back with a more experienced candidate after the experiment of Carter's nomination failed. Carter's term really sunk the Democratic brand longterm, even though it wasn't all his fault. And Ford staying in power would have kept the moderate wing in charge of the Republican Party, at least for a few more years.

If he only didn't make the "no Soviet domination" gaffe and kept Rockefeller on the ticket, I'm sure he would have delivered enough votes to change the overall outcome.

[MargieCat]

The saddest thing about that was that his home state of Tennessee, where he served as senator, didn't even vote for him.

They voted for the Yankee transplanted non-native Texan.

[President Johnson]

The saddest thing about that was that his home state of Tennessee, where he served as senator, didn't even vote for him.

They voted for the Yankee transplanted non-native Texan.

Well, the whole South flipped to Republican. I think New Hampshire is even more annoying. Four electoral votes that would have given him 271 electoral votes, even without Florida. Even John Kerry won New Hampshire in 2004, despite losing the popular vote and receiving less electoral votes than Al Gore.

Al Gore should have picked Jeanne Shaheen or Bob Graham as vice presidential candidate. Lieberman was a poor choice.

[Cassandra]

Since Nixon in 1960 lmao

[SingingAnalyst]

If I could change the outcome of one presidential election it would be 2000. Not 2016, not 1968.

I think I'd go with 1980. That would most likely butterfly away the Bush and Trump presidencies, stop the Republican "revolution" in its tracks, and it was most heartbreaking because Carter reportedly literally cried when he realized how badly he lost. I will never forgive America for making Jimmy Carter cry.

1968 is also up there because Nixon basically committed treason to win it, and butterflying away Watergate would do a lot of good for the country.

If not 2000, I'd say 1976, not 1980. Gerald Ford winning reelection means a lot of positive outcomes, especially for Democrats. First of all, I believe that he was much better prepared and more competent than Jimmy Carter to deal with the numerous struggles of the late 1970s, both economically and abroad. No offense at Jimmy Carter, he's a massive FF as person (like Ford himself), but I feel the world would have been better off with Ford serving another term, who also deserved an own mandate. He restored honor to the White House, knew how to work with people both at home and abroad and the economy was expanding again by the fall of 1976 while America was at peace. With Ford winning 1976, Ronald Reagan's presidency would never have occurred. In 1980, the Democrats would have taken the White House back with a more experienced candidate after the experiment of Carter's nomination failed. Carter's term really sunk the Democratic brand longterm, even though it wasn't all his fault. And Ford staying in power would have kept the moderate wing in charge of the Republican Party, at least for a few more years.

If he only didn't make the "no Soviet domination" gaffe and kept Rockefeller on the ticket, I'm sure he would have delivered enough votes to change the overall outcome.

All good points. 1980 would take a lot to change, but 1976 could be changed by 5,600 Ohio vote switches and a few thousand in any one of Hawaii, Mississippi, or Wisconsin.

Ford recovers effectively from his gaffe, and he narrowly wins Ohio and Wisconsin, both states with lots of Polish-Americans. As a result, in addition to all of the above:

1. Ford wins while losing the PV, in a relatively friendly (by today's standards) election: perhaps the EC is modified or abolished with relatively bipartisan support: the strongest support for keeping the EC came from Southern Democrats back then, and it would have "screwed" them in 1976.

2. The religious right never takes hold, at least not to the extent it did IRL and not in such a one-party fashion: people are actually able to have civil discussions about abortion, contraception, maybe even same-sex civil unions. (Acceptance of homosexuality was growing under Ford, then backtracked under Carter and especially under Reagan).

3. While there were clear differences on domestic and foreign policy in 1976, the coalitions that would form may differ from today: there might never be much of a gender gap, for instance. First Lady Betty Ford was something of a role model for women of the 1970s, talking openly about her health struggles; the GOP probably would not be seen as "hostile to women" as IRL.

I'm sure there are many other "butterfly effects".

[darklordoftech]

not 1968

If Humphrey won in 1968, I doubt Cheney or Rumsfeld would have ever amounted to anything.

[Orwell]

I’d say Hughes in 1916 may have been more heartbreaking. Especially for the events that transpired over the next four years.

[kcguy]

I'd like to point out that, although the recount should have been allowed to finish, CNN erroneously calling Florida for Gore at closing depressed turnout in the Floridian panhandle and cost Bush far more votes than his official margin of victory.

I keep hearing this meme, and it's not exactly true.  No network called Florida in the first 48 minutes after the Eastern time zone polls closed.

You are correct that the state was called before polls closed in the last 6% of the state.  If you assume that people voted uniformly throughout the day and if you assume that voting came to a dead stop at 6:49 CST, then voting in the panhandle was depressed by about 1.5%.

If my math is right, the lost voters number about 9 times Bush's margin of victory.  If you assume that Bush carried these voters by 55 points, then Bush's margin of victory would have been increased about six-fold.

These numbers are true if you make the following assumptions:
1.  People in line heard the rumor that the state had been called by the networks.
2.  People in line believed that the state had been called.  Remember that this was the days before smart phones, so it would have been much harder to check.
3.  Every single voter at a polling station stopped and went home.
4.  Every single person on their way to the polling station was listening to the radio, and every single one of these was tuned to a station that was broadcasting live news (and not just top-of-the-hour news).
5.  Every single person who heard the presidential call on their car radio turned around and went home.  (They apparently cared enough about politics to listen to news radio, but not enough to vote in the senate race.)
6.  There were huge numbers of people who planned to vote but were somehow still at home watching TV with 11 minutes left before the deadline.

For every one of my assumptions that isn't true, Bush's theoretical margin of victory goes down.

(And to put what-ifs in perspective, Ralph Nader's vote count was more than 100 times the margin of victory.)

[Chips]

Nah.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Yes, objectively it was... I wish it would have been different.

2016 not so much, Hillary deserved to lose.

1968 was painful, as was the 2016 D primary. 1972-2004 are elections I wish I could forget.

The 1960's is the greatest decade in American politics. Had they only never waged war against Vietnam...