Republicans/Right-leaning voters only: Which of these elections would you reverse the results of?

[dw93]

Based on darklordoftech's thread from a little over a week ago asking Democrats/left leaners the same question about the 68,72,and 76 elections, if you had to pick one, which of these elections would you reverse the results of?

[Vice President Christian Man]

2000

[Rat]

2000 easily. The Bush administration was a total disaster, and Gore would've been a much better president. I really think this was the turning point election for the US, despite how mundane it seemed at the time. And we took the wrong turn.

[UlmerFudd]

1992

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Tempted to say 2000 since the Iraq War was a travesty, but there's a good chance that McCain is elected president in 2004 in this scenario...so 1992 I guess.

[OSR stands with Israel]

With The Russia situation I’m tempted to go 1992 even though I like Bill Clinton . In an ideal world we’d have HW beat Cuomo in 1992 and get Clinton in 1996

[dw93]

A surprising amount of Republicans that would reverse 2000 here.

[Suburbia]

A surprising amount of Republicans that would reverse 2000 here.

I'm surprised it's not '92.

No Clinton, no Lewinsky, no 9/11.

[Vosem]

Dark-horse answer: I might reverse 2004, so the 2008 landslide would favor the GOP. Also, certainly not 1976 or 2020 -- I think those are both significantly worse worlds, even though I have very low opinions of Carter and Biden.

2000 just feels useless; first-term Bush pursued policies that actually wouldn't have been very different under Gore. I am unpersuaded that the Iraq War, or some debacle like it, wasn't inevitable regardless of which party was in power. It's not like Medicare Part D or NCLB were some kind of great triumphs.

So I guess 2016; I think in a tiny Hillary victory replacing the Scalia seat wouldn't have been possible, and if 2018 is an even slightly greater Republican victory than it was a Democratic one (R+9 instead of D+8), you could see the successful impeachment of Hillary and Kaine and their replacement with President Paul Ryan. Regardless of how 2020 goes in this world, 2019 sees a huge suite of conservative policy priorities enacted.

1992 is also a fascinating one; this one carries the possibility of a much-earlier conservative Supreme Court (GHWB was unreliable on this question, but nor was he totally useless) and possibly pushing the Democratic party rightwards, since Bill Clinton -- the most left-wing candidate in the context of 1992 -- would've lost, towards something like Tsongas/Perot-ism. The 1990s economy was also good enough that it's conceivable you see the Republicans holding on to power for a lengthy period of time in this world, though you're also putting off the Gingrich Revolution.

Voted 2016, though.

[Ferguson97]

Dark-horse answer: I might reverse 2004, so the 2008 landslide would favor the GOP.

2004 is basically the only election where I agree that, in hindsight, both parties would have been better off losing.

I also think there's a very good chance that we have like four one-term presidents in a row if Kerry wins in '04. McCain beats Kerry in '08, and then Hillary beats McCain in '12.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dark-horse answer: I might reverse 2004, so the 2008 landslide would favor the GOP.

2004 is basically the only election where I agree that, in hindsight, both parties would have been better off losing.

I also think there's a very good chance that we have like four one-term presidents in a row if Kerry wins in '04. McCain beats Kerry in '08, and then Hillary beats McCain in '12.

2004 is also a very easy answer here so taking it out makes this question more difficult.

[Pericles]

Tempted to say 2000 since the Iraq War was a travesty, but there's a good chance that McCain is elected president in 2004 in this scenario...so 1992 I guess.

Even so, the post-9/11 hysteria would have faded so it would be much less likely that he could drag the US into a war.

[dw93]

Dark-horse answer: I might reverse 2004, so the 2008 landslide would favor the GOP.

2004 is basically the only election where I agree that, in hindsight, both parties would have been better off losing.

I also think there's a very good chance that we have like four one-term presidents in a row if Kerry wins in '04. McCain beats Kerry in '08, and then Hillary beats McCain in '12.

2004 is also a very easy answer here so taking it out makes this question more difficult.

Hence why I kept 2004 out. It would've been too much of a cop out.

[Del Tachi]

1992 is a fascinating possibility, for the reasons Vosem stated.