If you could reverse the outcome of ONE presidential election in US history

[ruggerson]

which would it be?

My choice is probably 1980.

[tabatha]

1. 2000

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

25. 1968

No Nixon

[PAMod]

53. +1

[Emillereid]

104. Totally 1968! President Humphrey would have changed the course of history!

and we wouldn't have had Reagan or the Bushes.

[lunamagica]

32. 2000. That one will hurt forever....nt

[XemaSab]

45. No contest

:(

[DonkeyHoTay]

62. Agreed - 2000 indeed!

A TRAVESTY BEYOND BELIEF!

[livetohike]

2. Another vote for 1980

and the rise of the right :-(.

[BootinUp]

3. Sure I can't have two?

well ok... dammit. 1980 then.

[onehandle]

4. Gut says 2000, but reason says 1980. No Reagan, no Bush. nt

[tinrobot]

58. Plus 4 more years of Carter would have done a lot

We'd probably would have passed healthcare and got s sane energy policy for starters.

[ZombieHorde]

84. +1 nt

[Jackpine Radical]

5. That was my first thought.

But then the thought occurred--how much change are we allowed to make in this hypothetical? Can I un-assassinate Bobby Kennedy in '68 and let him win that year instead of watching Hubert go down in flames against Nixon? Or maybe Gene McCarthy winning against Nixon?

Or maybe just let George McGovern win in '72.

In any case, it seems to me that we missed some kind of critical moment in the years around 1970. The civil rights movement was reinvigorated, hippies were in bloom, the winds of change were blowing. Then the flame got snuffed. Reagan may have destroyed the New Deal spirit, but it was already badly wounded by then.

Then another thought comes intruding: Do electoral politics really matter? Isn't the CIA, abetted by the international corporations, just going to run things their way anyhow?

[kath]

28. I was thinkingthe same thing - RFK in the White House instead of frikkin' Tricky Dick.

But the end of your post resonates w/ me too -- just the illusion of democracy, with the strings pulled from behind the scenes. :-(

[Jackpine Radical]

35. This thought seems to be spreading among a whole lot of people.

I'm still involved in electoral politics, mostly because social liberalism is better than social conservatism, but I don't see either party really coming to grips with the problems with which we must wrestle in order to--well, save the biosphere. Nothing much matters in the long run if there is no air to breathe, no water to drink, and no shelter (except perhaps caves) safe from the hurricane winds howling across the planet.

[bemildred]

6. Yeah, 1980. nt

[Alexander]

7. I'd say 1952, because the CIA really started going crazy when Eisenhower became president.

Plus, I think an intellectual like Adlai Stevenson would've made a great president, and had Eisenhower lost, we would've never seen a Nixon presidency.

[Bitwit1234]

16. Ike wasn't that bad he was the last reasonable republican

One thing he did do and nobody listened was to warn this country about making this country a military country. We did and see what happened. He was a good military and he saw what becoming too militarized would do to this and any country.

[Alexander]

19. However, he appointed Allen Dulles as CIA director.

That's when the CIA turned from the intelligence-gathering organization that Truman created to an agency answerable to no one, participating in coups, assassinations and brainwashing.

They overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. They started a coup in Guatemala a year later, and kept at it.

MK-ULTRA also began under the Eisenhower administration.

That, in my opinion, overshadows nearly everything Eisenhower did - ever since his presidency, the CIA has been completely out of control.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Thanks for that brief analysis.

I would have placed the turning point at about 1948 when Truman created the CIA, but you may well be right that it didn't really turn malignant until Dulles and the Eisenhower years.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

34. 1952 is the correct answer

Because it was Prescott Bush who introduced Ike to Nixon and launched the political careers of both. Ike himself was a decent guy, but the "power behind the throne" was the Bush Crime Family. As it has been in every Republican administration since then. If Ike & Dick had not been elected, it's possible that Prescott wouldn't have had as much to pass on to Poppy and his China sellout enabling other son, Prescott Jr.

[Onlooker]

8. Reagan v. Carter 1980

Reagan legitimized racism. In fact, his whole campaign for president was based on appealing to southern racists. He launched the campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as the home to 2 civil rights murders. There he basically talked about states rights at a time when the phrase referred to segregation. When he got elected, he cut taxes and increased spending to record levels, but was so incompetent that it took 24 months for unemployment to drop from a high of 10.8%. (Compare that to Obama's record, in only 10 months unemployment started dropping from a high of 10.1%.) In addition, Reagan was among the last to defend Apartheid and did nothing about AIDS. In fact, Mother Theresa put him to shame when she came to the US and visited AIDS victims while Reagan was doing nothing. Reagan was the start of evil in the US.

Other than Reagan, I probably would have wanted anyone over Andrew Jackson, whose crimes against Native Americans are without parallel in US history.

[DaveinMD]

9. 1968

That is when the move to the right in this country really began. And we could have won the War on Poverty. If RFK didn't get killed, this country would be such a different place.

[napi21]

10. Reagan without question! Without him & his damn trickle down

sh*t and all gov't is BAD, the US would be a MUCH BETTER place to live!

[enough already 2]

11. 1980

Ray-gun took a dump on this country and we're still trying to clear the smell from the room 30 years later.

[leveymg]

12. 1980. Carter could have won the election one of several ways:

1) Fired Energy Sec. James Schlessinger who allowed the major oil companies to shift refinery output from gasoline to fuel oil production in 1978 and 1979, creating an artificial gas shortage.
2) Refused the bad advice given by Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller to allow the deposed Shah of Iran entry into the United States, provoking the Embassy takeover.
3) Ordered close electronic and human surveillance of George W. Bush and William Casey, and threatened their arrest, after receiving information that these rogue intelligence operatives were involved in the "October Surprise", an illegal deal with figures in Iran to thwart official U.S. diplomacy by continuing to hold the hostages until after the elections.
4) Prosecuted George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger for their roles in facilitating the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier in Washington, DC.

These are historical lessons one hopes President Obama is familiar with and has learned from. One can hope, anyway.

[crikkett]

13. 1980

[S_E_Fudd]

14. 1968...

Humphrey over Nixon...

[depakid]

42. There really isn't any question about it

1968 radically altered the Supreme Court and changed the entire trajectory of the nation.

Had Nixon not been elected, America would have continued to develop on the same course as Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Health care would have been a right (and universal) education would have been a right (and remained funded and "free" or affordable to many deserving students) Capital punishment would have been outlawed, corporate influence would have been curbed- the list goes on.

Most people don't appreciate how much influence Nixon's 4 quickly appointed justices had on the nature of American society. What happened was nothing short of tragic and set the stage for the long decline that followed.

[Codeine]

15. I'll join the 1980 bandwagon. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. My first reaction was 2000, but I think you're right.

No "Reagan Revolution", no Bush, no Bush senior, no Bush Jr.

[Bitwit1234]

18. I also believe 1980 I was sure he would win

the people around in my area were disgusted when he won.We were stunned. But one of the reasons was the Iran affair. It just showed how dirty the republicans were. Carter made an all out effort to get those hostages released and it was working. But Reagan to bolster his numbers to get elected, convinced them surreptitiously to hold them until he got elected. He promised them arms and aid and that is one of the reasons they have nuclear weapons today. Hard to tell they might have even given them some help with the nuclear weapons. His was one of the dirtiest administrations we ever had with some of the dirtiest politicians to come out of it...Rumsfeld, Cheney etc It seems every time a republican gets in they do stuff like this.

[Nancy Waterman]

20. 2000 for sure

The world would be a different place in so many ways had Gore won.
We would be using a third or more less oil, so less money would be going to terrorists
and Middle Eastern governments that don't like us. We would not be in either of the current wars,
so we would likely not have the ridiculous deficit we have. We would not have the Bush tax cuts,
so the imbalance between rich and poor would not be so extreme, and again, the deficit would not
be an issue. We would not have Roberts or Alito on the bench. We would have a progressive
majority instead. We would have an amazing alternative energy industry leading the world.

[lunamagica]

33. and meybe, just maybe, no 9/11 eom

[Ter]

77. Roberts and Alito came in Bush's second term

If Gore won in 2000, are you certain he would have been re-elected? 2004 could have possibly been a rematch.

[sally cat]

21. 1980 and 2000 for sure, but also 2004.

[Laughing Mirror]

22. Yes, my choice is the same as yours

It seems that 1980 was the beginning of the end for a lot of us who lived through it, and I think we are living through the end of the end of it now.

What will we replace it with? That's what keeps me curious.

[Odin2005]

23. 1968 or 1980

[NoPasaran]

24. .

[Alexander]

26. Reconstruction was aborted to appease Tilden supporters...

Tilden was not in favor of Reconstruction.

The only outcome that would've kept Reconstruction in place would have been a convincing Hayes victory.

[treestar]

27. 2000

Would have made a huge difference for today.

[tilsammans]

29. Agree. Reagan. 1980.

The beginning of the end of life as we knew it. :cry:

I tried to warn people, but no one would listen. And guess what, many are still not listening. :rant:

[RepublicanElephant]

30. 1972.

a mcgovern win may have thrown cold water on nixon's racist southern strategy, ended vietnam sooner, enacted countless progressive laws and programs.

but then again, there would be no watergate and subsequent crushing of the gop in '74.

not really sure which event would have proven the best for america in the end.

[LiberalFighter]

31. 1980 because then Reagan is done. Bush I is unlikely. Bush II never becomes Governor.

[JustAnotherGen]

37. 2004

I think we would have been out Iraq and Afghanistan before my three 'baby' cousins were out of West Point. Now - 1 still sitting in Iraq with 49,999 other soldies, and two in Afghanistan. The continued occupation of Iraq and the ongoing 'war' in Afghanistan are very personal for me. . .

[Kaleva]

38. 1920

"Stone rated Cox as superior in every way over Warren Harding, claiming the former would have made a much better President. Stone argued there was never a stronger case in the history of American presidential elections for the proposition that the better man lost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Cox

[boppers]

39. 1828.

It birthed the Democratic party as a party of white supremacy, and ethnic cleansing dominated by a militaristic theme... it took almost 150 years to change that.

[book_worm]

40. 1976--Ford over Carter--it would have meant that the GOP would have been blamed for

the energy crisis, OPEC oil shortages and high inflation and interest rates that accompanyed them--and yes, the Iran Hostage Crisis, which still in all probability would have happened. The GOP would not have won in 1980 and probably Ted Kennedy would have run and been elected.

[ruggerson]

74. Interestingi analysis

I agree that it would probably have resulted in a 1980 victory for the Dems.

[Arkana]

41. 2000. Absolutely.

With Gore we don't get Iraq and maybe not even Afghanistan. We don't get the PATRIOT Act, and we don't have the financial situation we have now.

[LynneSin]

43. I know alot want to say 2000 but seriously - go with 1980. No Reagan, no Bush

nuff said.

Reagan started the fearmongering and the warfare between rural and urban parts of the country. If Reagan was never elected I highly doubt George HW Bush would have been elected. The combination of those 2 presidents helped line up the Supreme Court to allow Junior to be picked by 5 conservative judges.

[mvd]

44. 2000, because it was stolen and Bush did..

even more damage than Reagan.

[rug]

46. 1856.

Buchanan dithered about provoking the slave owners and Fillmore ranted against immigrants. Fremont attacked the slaveocracy directly. And almost won.

[lunatica]

47. 2000. Al Gore would have jump started us off into the 21st Century

instead of taken us back to 1950. He would have taken the terrorist memos quite seriously and would have paid attention to the CIA agents who claimed there were people taking flight lessons without any interest in learning how to land the planes. We certainly wouldn't have gone to war with countries that didn't attack us.

We would have millions of green jobs rebuilding the infrastructure and lessening our dependence on oil by creating sustainable jobs in alternate energy.

sigh. It's such a crying shame.

[mikekohr]

48. 1980, No Reagan, No Bush, No Bush ='s No National Debt

?

?

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[Skittles]

49. 1980

reagan made idiocy and greed fashionable and America has yet to recover

[Fire1]

50. Absolutely 1980. n/t

[jaysunb]

51. DAMN IT !

This is at least the second time this week I've agreed w/ something you said ! :rofl:

Seriously, I've been alive for 13 Presidents and NONE were more ruinous than Reagan. There have been worse maybe, but any progress this country and by extension, the World might have made was stopped in it's tracks. :evilfrown:

[WinkyDink]

52. 2000.

[mvd]

56. Here is why I agree

With Gore in office:

- There probably wouldn't have been a 9/11. I strongly think it was at least LIHOP, but Gore would have been on the threat either way
- There wouldn't have been an Iraq war, and probably not a war in Afghanistan
- Worst economy since the 1930s would have been avoided
- Supreme Court would have better makeup
- No Patriot Act, unitary executive, and all the other extreme things that happened on Bush's watch

[tinrobot]

59. No Citizens United ruling, either.

[ellisonz]

54. 1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Cox

President James M. Cox and Vice President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Like his Fifth Cousin before him, the popular and energetic Vice President Roosevelt quickly becomes influential and the Cox administration makes progress at home and in world affairs toward freedom and justice. The modern Republican Party fades into isolationist oblivion like the Whigs before them, increasingly progressive Democrats lead the county forward in election after election as the American Century unfolds.

[marlakay]

55. reagan

he destroyed the unions and stopped the eco movement that carter started...and gave all the power to the corporations...

[Ter]

57. 1860

No Lincoln, means no Republican Party.

[GSLevel9]

97. also means one million Americans are not DEAD.

but the slavery issue would have been delayed for another generation... :(

[Marsala]

60. Not 2000. I don't want Bush to have won

Reversing who actually got into office, on the other hand...

[Ramulux]

61. Pretty sure 1980 wins hands down

[Raine]

63. 1980 Raygun

that's when incivility and greed took over this country.

[mr1956]

64. 1980 when it all began.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. not to be a copy-cat -- but 1980 has got to be it

[jzodda]

66. 2000!

that one is easy for me. It feels like yesterday the pain of 2000 and always will.

[political_Dem]

67. Most definitely 1980 and 2000.

Those elections did much to bring America down to the nadir of its influence in the world. The negativity emitted from Reagan and the Bush crime family has caused this country irreparable harm in terms of economics, diplomacy, ecology, multiculturalism as well as politics. The disaster we face now sprung from the minds of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. The finances of the corporations catapulted their ideas into an American nightmare.

We, as a country suffer, because of the disturbed minds that put these Presidents in office.

[Hekate]

68. 2000, without question.

[Jakes Progress]

69. Excellent post. Couple of good choices but

I think age seems to be the most telling here. My first reaction was 1980. Strangle the neo-cons in their infancy.

But it was really 1968. California put the lock in for its favorite son and the whole mess got started. I remember staying up for the returns that Fall. I couldn't believe that the country was so stupid, so dim that it would fall for Nixon's lies. It really started me on my road to political cynicism.

I could go with '52 if I could be sure that that would have finished off Nixon. Einsenhower was the president on the wall of all of my elementary school classrooms, but I learned later what crap we did in Africa and the Middle East under his reign. That stuff set us up for what we have today. My dad always said that was the election that soured him on politics. He worked his ass off for Stevenson in '48 and again in '52. He decided that if the country was going to do that to itself despite all the evidence, there was nothing he could do about it. He contributed and voted in all elections, but he never had the volunteer fever that he had before that.

Yep. 1968. Reverse that one and we have a chance to keep our country.

[cordelia]

70. 1980

[auburngrad82]

71. I agree, 1980. Without Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 probably wouldn't have happened. nt

[Kltpzyxm]

72. 2012

The second Clinton Presidency is too much for me to bear.

:silly:

[Bluenorthwest]

73. 1980 without a doubt

Worst President of all time, the dithering creature who drove this nation into a ditch and left it there. Ronald Reagan.

[saltpoint]

75. The 1980 election was one that needed reversing,

no question, but good lord look at the landslide numbers for that idiot Reagan.

Carter deserved far better than he got but the wave of voters sweeping him from office was vast and deep. "Reagan Democrats" lined up in the rain to vote against a good man in favor of an embicilic monster.

As long as I'm in the historical editing room, I think the Nixon-Humphrey race should be reversed as well, ditto the Gore-Bush 2000 race.

It would have made for an interesting turn of history had Teddy's Bull Moose effort won.

[donco6]

76. Definitely Reagan. n/t

[niceypoo]

78. Had Gore won we would have been in surplus til at least 2007

If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to die we will be in surplus by 2012. It is all so obviously simple.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

79. 1980 nt

[LWolf]

80. 1980. nt

[Brickbat]

81. Oh hell, 1968. And if it had been held one week later, Humphrey would have won.

[Blue_In_AK]

82. I agree with you.

1980. If Ronald Reagan hadn't risen to power, we might have saved ourselves.

[seafoamrider]

83. 1968

I worked on RFK's 1964 senate race and again for his presidential race in 1968. We lost a great man when he was shot. The country was still reeling from MLK's assassination two months before. I'll always remember how Bobby went into black neighborhoods the night the Martin Luther King was killed, joined his grief with theirs (''I lost a brother...'') and asked for calm. The country was a powder keg in 1968. I'm tearing thinking of all we lost.

Great question.

[craigmatic]

85. I agree. 1980 was thestart of the right wing madness we're still in today.

Carter deserved a second term and if he'd have won we'd already be energy independent by now.

[rasputin1952]

86. 1980...

Reagan made Nixon look angelic. Other than bush, Reagan was the worst president this nation had seen since Andrew Johnson.

[AndrewP]

87. I would reverse 2000

I see the argument for 1980 though as well

[mnhtnbb]

88. Tough call between 1980 and 2000. Have to go with 1980.

If there hadn't been 8 years of Reagan, with the mantra of no taxes, smaller government, firing the air traffic controllers, "welfare queens"...all the lies, distortions and general animosity toward
people in need of services vs. using the power of government to make your business buddies wealthy,
I don't think Bushie boy would have risen to prominence or ever had a chance to run for POTUS.

But, given that history, 2000 was our last chance to turn the country another direction. I fear for us.
I think we're in for very rough times. Very rough.

[sakabatou]

89. 1980 or 2000.

Probably 2000 as we were heading in the right direction at the end of the Clinton presidency.

[Posteritatis]

90. 1980 started kicking off the mindset that allowed 2000, I'd say. (nt)

[Sancho]

91. 1980...Equal Rights Amendment...

Carter would have made the US a much different place. The ERA would have passed, we would not have the energy problem, and finally - Carter never ordered an army to war.

[Phx_Dem]

92. 1968

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. I said 80 - but after some reflection it might really be 68 - but more regarding the GOP nomination

Although Richard Nixon was not a right-wing ideologue in the Goldwater/Reagan/post-Reagan tradition - his administration brought into the corridors of power the nucleus of the modern right-wing movement who did eventually with Reagan come into full fruition. Within the internal politics of the GOP, the rise of this grouping was largely at the expense of the liberal Rockefeller/Bill Scranton wing who were largely marginalized during the Nixon years. Imagine how different things would have been if Rocky had entered the race earlier and had managed to win the GOP nomination and then perhaps the presidency thus marginalizing the Reaganites.

The election of Nixon pretty much did sound the death of the Great Society and brought into acceptable discourse the narrative that "big government" does not work and that the "war on poverty" had miserably failed. After Nixon, no New Dealer was able to run as a New Dealer and win. Even the ill fated campaign of Fritz Mondale in 1984 saw a life long New Dealer largely minimize any genuine calls for sweeping changes in favor of a much watered down message.

1968 was in the long run a major paradigm changer with repercussions that are left firmly and deeply entrenched even today.

[Blasphemer]

94. After considering all candidates mentioned, I pick 2000

Strong arguments for both 1968 and 1980 but I do believe a Gore presidency would have went far in erasing a lot of what went wrong from 1968 to 2000. We'd likely have the Supreme Court back and be well on our way to joining the rest of the civilized developed world. Instead, GWB set us back decades (at least).

[kick-ass-bob]

95. I do the same - 2000. Without Bush I there is no Clinton.

But with Gore in 2000, there is no Bush, no 9/11 (because Gore actually would have listened to Clinton about the warnings).

Although who know what the current tea baggers would have put out there against Gore in '04 and whoever in '08. But not having an idiot for a leader for 8 years would have been nice.

[we can do it]

96. 2000 without a doubt

[highplainsdem]

98. 1980

[Crunchy Frog]

99. I'd still have Clark get the 2004 nomination.

:hide:

[budkin]

100. 1980 would change the outcome of all future elections

[cyr330]

101. 1968

The trouble started with that ugly fucker, Dick Nixon, when he ran against Humphrey in 1968. I remember my mother yelling at somebody across the street from our house that Humphrey was winning Minnesota. Trouble was that he didn't win anything else! We KNOW how the Nixon fiasco turned out, and the Reagan fiasco, and the Bush fiasco. . .

[David Zephyr]

102. 1980. Definitely. That would be my choice, too, ruggerson.

No doubt about it.

It would be 1980.

And hello to you, too. :hi:

[Guggenheim]

103. Gerald Ford

Becuase another President would have probably not pardoned Nixon, teaching us an example that when you break the law, you have to pay.