Most consequential post-cold war presidential election

[President Johnson]

Poll inspired by this OSR post:

snip

Ironically the one election that people did not consider that important was 2000 and that was the election that ended up being the most consequential since the end of the cold war.

I somewhat agree on 2000, although there are arguments for 2016 and 2020 as well. However, Trump - and therefore Biden - wouldn't most likely not have happened if not for Dubya.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

I agree with 2000. It was also the election when Red and Blue became "official" party colors.

[Vosem]

1992, 2004, and 2016 were the three really important ones for judicial nominees. The first two had hold-the-line outcomes; the latter had a push-forward outcome. (I've occasionally said that, since the polarization of the American judiciary in the mid-20th century, the three most important elections have been 1968, the 1986 midterm, and 2016. Something like that remains true, though a Republican win in 1992 may have made 1986 irrelevant -- tough to say -- and a large enough Democratic victory in 2004 would've definitely been an addition to this list. Had he won comfortably Kerry might've had the opportunity to be a truly transform the judiciary in a way that Obama never did -- but he would also have been blamed for the 2005-2009 disasters. Interesting timeline.)

2000 actually strikes me as singularly unimportant; it feels unlikely that Gore would've pursued a meaningfully different foreign policy given the atmosphere of the time (...even if not the specific invasion of Iraq that we got, there would've been a similar militarized culture), and most of the first-term GWB domestic accomplishments, like NCLB and Part D, were things that could easily have come from a Democratic Presidency.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2000 actually strikes me as singularly unimportant; it feels unlikely that Gore would've pursued a meaningfully different foreign policy given the atmosphere of the time (...even if not the specific invasion of Iraq that we got, there would've been a similar militarized culture), and most of the first-term GWB domestic accomplishments, like NCLB and Part D, were things that could easily have come from a Democratic Presidency.

Maybe but what Gore would have or would not have done is speculation. What we do know is Bush’s first term was extremely consequential from not only a FP perspective where his FP was a pretty big break from our post WW2 FP in general but from a legislative perspective it got a good amount of stuff done too . So Bush’s policies in his first term was extremely consequential and they had long term effects too so I’d have to say it’s consequential from that way .

Add into the fact that many of the divides we have today stem from 2000:

- The huge urban vs rural divide really started to show in 2000. In fact Bush won in a pretty similar way as Trump did in 2016 which was despite losing states that prior republicans had to win to take the presidency (NJ) he made it up by making huge gains with prior WWC dem stronghold (Appalachia).

- The environment/energy issues became polarized between the parties beginning in 2000

- The parties became pretty polarized on social and cultural issues that you didn’t even see in the 80s and 90s

[OSR stands with Israel]

Poll inspired by this OSR post:

snip

Ironically the one election that people did not consider that important was 2000 and that was the election that ended up being the most consequential since the end of the cold war.

I somewhat agree on 2000, although there are arguments for 2016 and 2020 as well. However, Trump - and therefore Biden - wouldn't most likely not have happened if not for Dubya.

Don’t forget that Obama never becomes president in 2008 if not for Bush either . Anyway I’m not sure how consequential 2020 was yet given that stuff like Dobbs/Change in trade policies were baked in before 2020 itself.  Those two things then happen either way since they were baked in prior to 2020 , so we really have to see how consequential the legislation Biden passed are and it’s too early to say .

[Sumner 1868]

2000 was a poisoned chalice in the extreme. Whoever wins oversees the dotcom crash and successful terrorism on American soil. And it's even worse if you get reelected in 2004- Katrina, the 2008 crash, etc. Talking about losing through winning.

[darklordoftech]

2000, with 1996 being the least important.

[Mr. Smith]

1992 totally flipped the map, allowed the Gingrich's rise and the consequences of his style, the Lewinsky affair indirectly paved the way for Bush [Gore would've picked someone competent and not Loserman] AND came back big for 2016, Hillary Clinton's rise, Welfare got murdered, Bush ended up running for Governor of Texas almost specifically because Pappy lost... also the first election in which Boomers became truly dominant.

EDIT: Also the judicial nominees.

[johndavid2372]

2000, with 1996 being the least important.

And can I ask why you think 96 was the least important one?

[dw93]

Most Consequential to Least:

1. 2000
2. 2016
3. 2004
4. 1992
5. 2020
6. 2012
7. 2008
8. 1996

2000 is obviously the answer for me. Gore would've stayed out of Iraq and likely got Bin Laden before Jan. of 2005 and on top of that, without Bush's anti intellectual "guy you'd have a beer with" nonsense, the bar for the Presidency wouldn't have been so lowered and someone like Trump wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the Presidency. Not to mention a third consecutive loss   might've forced Republicans to moderate somewhat going into 2004.

If not for the Supreme Court literally being on the line in 2016 and 2004, I'd be inclined to put both 1992 and 2020 above them. The election of Bill Clinton led to a generational shift in politics that we're still living with over 30 years later not to mention, it kicked polarization into hyperdrive.  As for 2020, Russia would've likely take Ukraine by now as Trump would've done little about it, in fact he might've pulled out of NATO, making it even easier for Russia, I doubt the vaccine roll out would've been as smooth and you'd likely see just as much of an ant vax sentiment on the left as you do on the right with Trump at the helm of both the production and distribution of the vaccine. There are plenty of other consequential differences of a second Trump term that would take me hours/days to list too.

As for the bottom three, the further we get from them the less consequential they become.

[kyc0705]

Many of our modern understandings of presidential elections and American partisan politics in general, right down to red states and blue states (as pointed out multiple times in this thread), were wholly or partially products of the 2000 recount. Not to get too Foucault in here about History and whatnot, but it pretty drastically rewrote our collective understanding of how elections are supposed to work in this country and erased much of what came before.

[darklordoftech]

2000, with 1996 being the least important.

And can I ask why you think 96 was the least important one?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/23/the-least-important-election-of-our-lives-400075

Also, there were no issues of the day and the election didn’t change the direction that America or either party was headed in.

[Inverted Things]

1992: I'm not quite sure how much things would have been different if Bush were re-elected over Clinton.  A Perot presidency probably would have been quite different from our current timeline.  Can you imagine Perot filling two Supreme Court vacancies?

1996: Least consequential.  Though Dole wouldn't have been impeached, which is something.  No SC vacancies.

2000: I've got to think that Gore would've responded to 9/11 altogether different than Bush. No SC vacancies.

(Current rank: 2000 > 1992 > 1996)

2004: My gosh, this felt so consequential at the time.  Bush had his share of self-inflicted wounds this term, with Harriet Miers and the Hurricane Katrina response.  I don't think the great recession goes much differently with Kerry in office.  2 Supreme Court vacancies.

(Current rank: 2000 > 2004 > 1992 > 1996)

2008: Yeah, this was pretty consequential.  Not so much for policy, McCain probably would have done the same sorts of things to deal with the great recession that Obama did.  Though we wouldn't have PPACA.  Two Supreme Court vacancies.  This election, with the Democrats using their supermajority to ram through the PPACA, is where the Fox News crowd really lost their minds.  That is a pretty important consequence.

(Current rank: 2000 > 2008 > 2004 > 1992 > 1996)

2012: I guess Romney would have cut taxes and spending a bit more?  1 unfilled Supreme Court vacancy.

(Current rank: 2000 > 2008 > 2004 > 1992 > 2012 > 1996)

2016: The election where the CNN crowd lost their minds.  3 SC vacancies filled.

2020: Unable to assess; term still in progress.

(Final rank: 2000 > 2016 > 2008 > 2004 > 1992 > 2012 > 1996)

[Agonized-Statism]

2016. I fall decisively into the determinist camp of history most of the time- no man is an island, and it's usually the hacks we all know and apparently love on this forum who disagree and wishcast- but occasionally some eccentrics use their power and influence in unique ways and really do alter the course of things. Trump is one of those people and it'll be interesting to evaluate the extent of his impact looking back as a historian some day. The Bush administration was no doubt impactful in the worst way, but anyone in the Oval Office at the time would have done about the same. A rampage in the Middle East following 9/11 was inevitable with the shift in power to the military-industrial faction of the bourgeoise from those tied to American supremacy in the monopoly of high value-added production.

[Sumner 1868]

Thinking it over, a good case can be made for 2012. It finally ended Reaganism as a force in American politics once and for all and the bad exit poll crosstabs caused the ongoing demography obsession in the DNC. Obama's mediocre second term caused the left-revolt building since Nader's campaign to finally break out, while the GOP conflict between the old guard and the Tea Party ended with both getting humiliated by Trump.

[Del Tachi]

Just think about how dominant Bill and Hillary Clinton have been over the last 30 years and there's no way it isn't 1992.   

[SnowLabrador]

2016 due not only to how it's shaped the judiciary, but also how it's fundamentally lowered the political discourse in this country in a way I'm not sure we can come back from.

[pbrower2a]

OK... Dubya was awful, and he created lots of problems from which America never recovered, and pushed a debasement of education (narrowing K-12 education to bare literacy suitable to getting and holding dead-end jobs). That created part of the mass culture that Trump exploited: people of low information who could fall for a rabble-rouser.

I voted "2020" because that election is the difference between freedom (if we can keep it) and fascism. This said, if Dubya made Trump possible as President, then "2000" is even more relevant. We have never had a President like Trump, but we are not out of risk of finding more like him -- especially in the event of an economic, military, or diplomatic calamity.