Most boring presidential election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:08:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Most boring presidential election?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Most boring presidential election?  (Read 13455 times)
Saxwsylvania
Van Der Blub
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,534


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 08, 2008, 06:40:17 PM »

What's your pick for the most boring presidential election in history?

My pick is 1908. zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzz
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2008, 06:47:50 PM »

Probably 1928.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2008, 06:50:20 PM »

1820
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,129
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2008, 06:54:24 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2008, 07:00:49 PM by Rockefeller Republican »

Logged
AltWorlder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,828


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2008, 07:07:05 PM »

Everything after Grant and before McKinley.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2008, 07:19:57 PM »

In my lifetime, 1996 because it was already a foregone conclusion. Retrospectively, I'd probably say 1956.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2008, 07:22:35 PM »

In my lifetime, 1996 because it was already a foregone conclusion. Retrospectively, I'd probably say 1956.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2008, 08:01:56 PM »

What about 1984?
Logged
GPORTER
gporter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2008, 10:12:13 PM »

1964.
Logged
Iosif is a COTHO
Mango
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 470
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2008, 10:57:48 PM »

1996. It meant nothing.



Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2008, 12:46:21 AM »

1996 was uninspiring. I was young then, but I remember hearing on the radio at like 9pm that "As expected, Clinton wins reelection in a landslide over Bob Dole."
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2008, 01:10:00 AM »

1996 for recent ones. Any election involving FDR historically (except maybe 1932 for the initial landslide being interesting).
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2008, 01:31:52 AM »

1996: boring candidates and a foregone conclusion. The record low voter turnout speaks to that.
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2008, 02:10:44 AM »

88 was pretty boring, but I agree, 96 was even more so...
come on Bob Dole makes Al Gore look like Mr. Excitement
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2008, 02:27:47 AM »

I think they were all interesting in their own way.

Probably 1956 since it was uncompetitive and had the same two nominees as the previous election. 1972 certainly was pretty awful, too, especially when you consider how unsuspenseful election night itself was. Not just because of the Nixon landslide, but there wasn't even a single state in the entire country decided by less than 5 percent in either direction.

 In my lifetime, I'd say 1996 since both the primaries and the general were pretty boring. 1984 at least had a good Democratic primary race.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2008, 03:01:14 AM »

I will go with

1996 (Dole didn't even pretend to campaign)

1936 (no bigger foregone conclusion in American politics -- 1932 was more interesting)

Elections involving "also-rans" (1908, 1956) and "never-weres" (1904, 1924)

The elections of Madison and Monroe. Why not just call them Thomas Jefferson's re-re-re-reelections?

Borderline elections include 1988 (George Bush ran a dull campaign; Mike Dukakis had an interesting campaign inflicted upon him) and those of the 1880s.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2008, 01:52:04 PM »

1996 for recent ones. Any election involving FDR historically (except maybe 1932 for the initial landslide being interesting).

In 1936 people thought FDR was going to lose, because of the Digest poll.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2008, 02:16:59 PM »
« Edited: March 12, 2008, 07:40:46 PM by Vice-Chairman Xahar »

1789 and 1820.

Grin

If we want to look at more recent elections, how about 1956? Stevenson had already lost in a landslide once to Eisenhower.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2008, 10:39:07 PM »

1789 and 1824.

Grin

If we want to look at more recent elections, how about 1956? Stevenson had already lost in a landslide once to Eisenhower.

Are you sure you don't mean 1820? 1824 went to the House.....seems pretty interesting.

1792 didn't have a ton of drama, either.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2008, 07:38:31 PM »

In recent memory, 1996, without a doubt.

Wasn't there the hope in '56 that Eisenhower's health problems might make it competitive?  (Bit of a stretch, I know, but...)

Even the landslides are interesting.  1964, 1972, and 1984 are each very interesting elections, in their own ways.

1944 has to go up there in some sense--the campaigning had to be pretty subdued due to other events, and the conclusion had to be known far ahead of time.  Though, as one of only 3 true 'wartime elections' in the US (along with 1812 and 1864), it's in a class of its own, at least.

1904 and 1908 are about as bland as you can get.

1852 never gets any comment whatsoever (apart from "We Polked 'em in '44, and we'll Pierce 'em in '52").

1804, 1808, 1816, and 1820 are dry as dust for obvious reasons.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2008, 06:24:56 PM »


1904 and 1908 are about as bland as you can get.

1904 was the first modern landslide, the first landslide since the 1820s and the first endorsement of Progressivism.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1852 was the last election in U.S. history to mark the death of one of the two major parties.

1996 is generally seen a pretty boring, but it was also the first (and only) time since 1964 that party that won the Presidency saw its support increase in the north over the south as compared to the previous election.
Logged
specific_name
generic_name
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2008, 01:55:36 AM »

in my own lifetime: 96 immediately popped into my head when I read boring election

in general: most of the gilded age elections
Logged
The Hack Hater
AloneinOregon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 371
Virgin Islands, British


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2008, 01:07:32 PM »

Both of Monroe's elections and the 1936 and 1940 reelctions of FDR.

Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2008, 01:15:28 PM »

Both of Monroe's elections and the 1936 and 1940 reelctions of FDR.



I disagree; in '36 people thought FDR was going to lose, and in '40 there was a big deal over WWII and a 3rd term for FDR.
Logged
The Hack Hater
AloneinOregon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 371
Virgin Islands, British


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2008, 01:41:36 PM »

Both of Monroe's elections and the 1936 and 1940 reelctions of FDR.



I disagree; in '36 people thought FDR was going to lose, and in '40 there was a big deal over WWII and a 3rd term for FDR.

You mean that crappy telephone poll that said Landon would win in a landslide? Please. I'm not sure who else "a lot of people could be" besides rich Republicans.

'40 may not have been so boring, but the outcome had been pretty much predetermined by time people knew he was going to run again.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 11 queries.