Most boring presidential election?

[StateBoiler]

I've only been old enough to pay attention to elections 1992 onwards, and for that reason I'd say 1996.

Although if I were a couple years older, I'd most likely say 1988.

The one thing I remember most about the '96 election was I was watching the debates with my parents and Clinton had responded to a question asking him for a comment. Dole came back and said, "Mr. President, you should have no comment..." and then he went off to his point about something Clinton had done. Asked for his rebuttal, Clinton responded, "No comment." Audience laughed (except Dole of course).

[minionofmidas]

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.

It was quite widely believed, apparently. Among the middle classes, anyhow.

[Torie]

1820

You get the prize.

[Mr.Phips]

Probably 1984. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

1956

[hopper]

In my lifetime probably 1988 even though I didn't vote in my first Presidential Election till 2004. I think everybody knew on Election Day 1988 that Dukakis was gonna lose.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my lifetime probably 1988 even though I didn't vote in my first Presidential Election till 2004. I think everybody knew on Election Day 1988 that Dukakis was gonna lose.

Wasn't the 1988 democratic primary very contested , in 1996 the GOP primary everyone knew dole was going to win , and by the time he won everyone knew he had no shot at beating Clinton

[MIKESOWELL]

In my lifetime, I would say 1996 followed closely by 1988. However, 1988 has become a very interesting and intriguing election over time because of the fact that it was an election that was showing the beginning of the realigning of certain states and demographics for both sides. Historically, I would say 1792, 1820, 1908, 1944, and 1956 were all very predictable and boring.

[StateBoiler]

2000 was boring until it took place. People in the runup wondered whether there was any difference between Gore and Bush.

[Comrade Funk]

2000 was boring until it took place. People in the runup wondered whether there was any difference between Gore and Bush.

Watch this Rage Against the Machine song, Testify: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias. Pretty dumb in retrospect lol.

I would say 1996 as far as I've been alive. At least the 1988 primaries were more interesting.

[hopper]

In my lifetime, I would say 1996 followed closely by 1988. However, 1988 has become a very interesting and intriguing election over time because of the fact that it was an election that was showing the beginning of the realigning of certain states and demographics for both sides. Historically, I would say 1792, 1820, 1908, 1944, and 1956 were all very predictable and boring.

Yeah Dukakis won Washington and Oregon. Vermont was more D PVI wise for that individual year at D+2.

I don;t know about the Demographics part though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1996, as reflected by low turnout.

[President Johnson]

I agree, 1996.

[The Dowager Mod]

1820, A real snooze fest.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I agree, 1996.

Yea Clinton won by 8-9 points that year which was a solid ass kicking, but not a historical landslide like 1984. Total snooze fest of an election.

[DINGO Joe]

In my lifetime, I would say 1996 followed closely by 1988. However, 1988 has become a very interesting and intriguing election over time because of the fact that it was an election that was showing the beginning of the realigning of certain states and demographics for both sides. Historically, I would say 1792, 1820, 1908, 1944, and 1956 were all very predictable and boring.

I'd argue that 1980 was the real beginning of realignment, as John Anderson voters were predominately ancestral educated Northern Republicans making their shift to the Democratic party.

[Kingpoleon]

1789-1790

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788–89

[MIKESOWELL]

In my lifetime, I would say 1996 followed closely by 1988. However, 1988 has become a very interesting and intriguing election over time because of the fact that it was an election that was showing the beginning of the realigning of certain states and demographics for both sides. Historically, I would say 1792, 1820, 1908, 1944, and 1956 were all very predictable and boring.

Yeah Dukakis won Washington and Oregon. Vermont was more D PVI wise for that individual year at D+2.

I don;t know about the Demographics part though.

Yeah, I used the wrong terminology, LOL. I was tired as hell when I posted that. I meant voting groups.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1820, A real snooze fest.

Nonsense. It must have been fascinating to speculate whether Monroe will get 228 or just 227 electoral votes. It wasn't decided until the last moment.

[Phony Moderate]

2004 probably seems boring to those who were too young to remember it but it was quite intense for those of us who were not.

[Sedona]

By default, a lot of elections before 1900 have to be at the top of the list for most boring.  All of the elections that I've lived through were fairly interesting, although I suppose 2004 would have to be the least so.  Out of the 20th century elections 1996, 1956, and 1972 all seem rather boring.

[Del Tachi]

For all you babies out there, 2012 was a lot less interesting than 2004.  2012 is about on par with 1996, which is generally considered by the Forum to be a real snoozer.

2004 is interesting for a whole host of reason.  Firstly, it was really, really close with the outcome coming down to a single state and a few thousand votes.  Compared to the real nail-bitter that was 2000, 2004 doesn't seem all that close, but looking at it objectively its one of the closest elections in American history. 

Additionally, 2004 will probably go down as the last "old school" presidential election.  Traditional media controlled the stream of information available to the American public (no Facebook or YouTube or Twitter quite yet) for probably the last time, issues surrounding Vietnam were still relevant, the Democratic nominees were two white men (a Massachusetts liberal and a Southerner, no less).  It really does seem like the end of an era.

[The Ex-Factor]

Yeah, I could see 2004 to 2008 being a huge turning point in the history books. I don't recall the Internet playing much of a role in 2004 at all, whereas in 2008 at the very least I was watching campaign videos on Youtube and chatting with others online. After 2008 campaigns will never be the same again - it's necessary to leverage social media and your Internet presence nowadays, so 2008 will be looked back upon like the 1960 election and TV are associated.

Also agree that I don't see the Democratic Party nominating two white guys for Prez and VP again for a while, so that's another big shift.

edit: I do wonder if 100 years from now, they will look at the 2000 - 2012 elections and think that these elections were boring because the map barely changed.

[buritobr]

1956 and 1996
1) Reelection
2) No big realignment
3) Predictable result

2004 and 2012
1) Reelection
2) No big realigment

1956 and 1996 were more boring

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Honestly I thought 2012 was pretty bloody boring. Compared to the other ones I can remember at least (2000, 2004, 2008, 2016).