Dullest election in which an incumbent lost, 1912-present

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

I feel as though all of these would be in the top 15 or so if all presidential elections were ranked in terms of their levels of interestingness.

[mjba257]

1912 - absolutely not. A bitter primary where a former president challenged the incumbent before going third party and finishing second, ahead of said incumbent. Did i also mention he got shot at a campaign rally and shrugged it off and continued his stump speech?

1932 - held in the middle of the Great Depression, saw the rise of FDR and the birth of the New Deal coalition that would last for almost 4 decades. I wouldn't call that dull.

1976 - the first election post-Watergate. Ford had appointment VP and then became POTUS following Nixon resignation. He was quite a boring personality but his rise to power was something unlike anything else in history. Carter was a little known figure who emerged from a crowded Dem field full of big names and ended up the nominee. He wasn't a particularly exciting individual but his rise was a sight to behold. The ultimate outcome was expected, the surprise being how close it actually ended up being.

1992 - this was a three way race, something uncommon in American politics. Bush was once an overwhelming favorite for re-election but was bested by a charismatic Southern governor that emerged from a crowded primary and quickly became the favorite to win. So the outcome was not a surprise, but it was still an interesting election.

2020 - really? do you need me to explain?

[Sir Mohamed]

1992. The economy was perceived poor and the incumbent ran for a 4th term of his party with inner party opposition to his candidacy.

[Orser67]

None of these strike as particularly dull, but 1976 and 1992 seem a little less exciting than the others. Both in some ways represented the end of an era of the previous president (Nixon and Reagan, respectively), and both involved fairly dull (not intelligence-wise but just not being as dynamic/charismatic as some) presidents losing. I'll say 1976 since Carter was a bit less interesting than Clinton imho.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

1976. Nothing dramatic or special about it other than Ford making a partial comeback

[Mr. Smith]

Lean 2020 in retrospect.

Two old, tired people in the running, one of whom barely campaigned at all.

[Pericles]

We don't know much about the campaign in 1932 but it looks dull, though what came after wasn't. 2020 was also not that exciting as a general election, no matter what happened the polls stayed the same. The real drama was in the results and then the lame duck period.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1932 given primaries were not a thing then and pretty much everyone knew whoever the dem nominee was would win a landslide.

[Schiff for Senate]

'76, no question.

[TDAS04]

Lean 2020 in retrospect.

Two old, tired people in the running, one of whom barely campaigned at all.

Um, no. Not at all. Not only were the stakes excruciatingly high (they are even higher this time), but also—regardless of polls consistently showing Biden comfortably in the lead—it turned out to be frighteningly close on election night, and the outcome looked uncertain.

[dw93]

1932. The expected outcome happened and from what I understand there wasn't anything special about the primaries. 1976 ended up being much closer than initially expected and, with Ford as a sitting President almost losing the nomination and Carter coming out of nowhere to win the nomination, even with "A.B.C" as a factor, 76 was far from boring.

[pbrower2a]

1932. Few people thought that Hoover had any chance, and nothing suggested otherwise.

[Vosem]

Yeah, 1932 is the most boring election result. FDR was the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination going in, dispatched his challengers (Smith and Garner) quite easily by the standards of the time, and then won a giant landslide just as everyone predicted. The result did feature a final hurrah for the Socialist Party in Wisconsin, and some independent won a local strong result in Washington, but mostly it was pretty boring.

[oldtimer]

1932. Few people thought that Hoover had any chance, and nothing suggested otherwise.

There was fear of Civil War and Revolution in 1932 and early 1933.
 
Hoover had ordered the army to shoot it's own veterans , contemporary accounts from FDR's inaugural address where really gloomy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

'76, no question.

How was 1976 dull . The Democratic Party had a massive 17 person primary which resulted in a complete outsider winning while the Republican primary saw the Incumbent President go 1 on 1 vs a Former Governor of the largest state in the union and that primary lasted all the way until the convention.

Then in the general not only did you have a close election but you had 18 states literally decided by 5 points or less which included the 6 largest states at the time (and the 9 largest states were all decided by 6 points or less).

[Schiff for Senate]

'76, no question.

How was 1976 dull . The Democratic Party had a massive 17 person primary which resulted in a complete outsider winning while the Republican primary saw the Incumbent President go 1 on 1 vs a Former Governor of the largest state in the union and that primary lasted all the way until the convention.

Then in the general not only did you have a close election but you had 18 states literally decided by 5 points or less which included the 6 largest states at the time (and the 9 largest states were all decided by 6 points or less).

a.) 1976 wasn't necessarily dull, but it was the dullest. All the races are interesting enough (at least from the pov of an elections nerd, lol), but if you have to pick one as the least interesting, I'd say 1976 by process of elimination...other options on here have there own merits. 1912 was an insane threesome; 1980 was an extremely unpopular "change" incumbent running against another "change" candidate, a former Hollywood actor who embodied conservatism; 1992 had the strongest third-party candidacy since 1912; 2020 had record turnout for a reason. I COULD consider 1932 if only because the election itself was a wash for Hoover from the very beginning, but the circumstances surrounding the election were far tenser than 1976.

c.) To address your second paragraph, closeness of final result doesn't necessarily equate to an interesting race. Truth be told, 2000 would have been an absolute bore had it not been so damn close and if not for the debacle in Florida. Both primaries were decided early on, neither candidate was exciting to their respective bases the way Obama was in '08 or Trump was in 2016, no iconic contrast of ideological visions as in future elections (2004 - Iraq, 2008 - Great Recession, 2012 - Obamacare, 2016/2020 - just everything, tbh).

[Independents for Nihilism]

As an aside: In 1949, John Foster Dulles was appointed Senator but lost the special election for the full term, which means there was in fact a Dulles election in which an incumbent lost after 1912.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I voted 1976, but i should've voted 1932. To be fair i think neither of these are dull. The election itself and campaign in '32 perhaps was dull but the era and time period really wasn't, i suppose. '76 wasn't dull for reasons explained. Maybe 2020 could've been but 2020 was close (closer than expected) and post-2020 election certainly wasn't dull, the opposite even. And Trump elections are never dull.

1984, 1996, 2004, 2012 were all duller.

[President Johnson]

1992 of these, I'd say.

I don't think 1976 was dull at all. On the Democratic side, Carter virtually came out of nowhere and won the nomination. On the Republican side, an unelected president sought election to a full term and went to a brokered convention after a hotly contested primary. It was also the first election after a president resigned from office in the term before. 1976 actually was an interesting contest. It's also quite interesting after this Ford still nearly won. I guess without the "no Soviet domination" and one more week of campaigning, Ford would have pulled it off.

[ClassicElectionEnthusiast]

I went with 2020 but honestly, I'd have a hard time calling any of those years dull (three-way battles in 1912, 1980 and 1992; COVID in 2020; sputtering economy in 1932, 1980 and 2020; an incumbent wounded by strong primary challenges in 1912, 1976, 1980 and to a degree 1992)