Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:53:29 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)
  Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Least interesting U.S. Presidential elections  (Read 4556 times)
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 28, 2011, 11:48:51 PM »

Yes, I'm aware of the interesting number paradox nature of the question here Tongue

I think there's a great deal of overlap between this category and "non-close, non-landslide elections." If the election is never really in doubt but doesn't break any records, that makes it boring.

I nominate 1996 as the most uninteresting recent election. 1792 and 1820 as uncontested elections already did what 1789 did, so I'd nominate them jointly as the all time most uninteresting. (Though you could make a case that "the first re-election" and "the last uncontested re-election" are interesting enough).
Logged
RodPresident
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,157
Brazil


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2011, 12:00:23 AM »

In 20th Century, 1956 can be a good choice of a boring election. 1920, 1936 and 1996 are another choices. 1904 could have been more interesting if Hanna lived to the Convention against Teddy Roosevelt. 1984 was saved by first female in major-party ticket. Although safe contests from beginning, 1964 was the beginning of Southern realignment towards GOP and Goldwater was a great person, like 1972, that McGovern was also a great person fighting like a Quixote.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2011, 12:58:32 AM »

I don't think 2004 will be considered all that interesting in the grand scheme of things.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2011, 01:28:33 AM »

1996
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2011, 01:35:49 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2011, 01:39:32 AM by Nichlemn »

In 20th Century, 1956 can be a good choice of a boring election.

Forgot about that one. I'd rank it above 1996 because it even had the same major candidates. As a general rule, incumbent elections are less interesting than open seats because there's usually only one major nomination battle, the race is less likely to be close, the states tend to vote similarly and when the incumbent wins the status quo is preserved. The one thing going for them is the widespread knowledge of the incumbent could potentially make the horse race more exciting (by having a true Hero/Villain to root for/against).

2012 will probably be pretty boring too. Of course, like every election it will be spun as "one of the most important elections of our lifetimes". (That was largely the motivation for starting this thread, my distaste at this "above average" effect).

Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2011, 01:42:08 AM »

I don't think 2004 will be considered all that interesting in the grand scheme of things.

Agree. Then and probably now, people think it was ("What about Iraq? What about Swiftboating? What about the election irregularities?") But historically, those are pretty tame compared to some oft-forgotten 19th century campaigns.
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: January 29, 2011, 02:21:02 AM »

1996, 1956
Logged
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,803
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -9.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2011, 06:54:20 AM »

1984
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2011, 08:53:33 AM »

I'd say any election where the incumbent didn't have any good challenger. Also, 1908.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2011, 10:43:35 AM »

1788, 1792 and 1820 naturally hold the title.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2011, 10:44:21 AM »

I'd say any election where the incumbent didn't have any good challenger. Also, 1908.

You mean the election in which people elected Taft 4 Prez ? Grin
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2011, 11:59:02 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2011, 12:05:43 PM by Liberally Conservative »

Some guy did a least important election list several years back:

15.1792
14. 1940
13. 1804
12. 1812
11. 1996
10. 1924
9. 1832
8. 1900
7. 1956
6. 1944
5. 1984
4. 1848
3. 1852
2. 1872
1. 1820
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2011, 02:01:00 PM »

My two cents
Unlike some people I have a pretty strict definition of an "uninteresting election".  For me an election has to:

a) have low turnout
b) be considered a foregone conclusion
c) nobody cared
d) nobody still cares
e) lack of precedent (besides low turnout or vote totals)
f) the extreme lack of hype (emphasis on extreme)

1820: The Era of "Good Feelings" election.  I really don't need to go any further.
1852: From what I've read of the election voter turnout was at a historic low (at the time) due to perception that the platform of the Whig Party was indistinguishable from the Democratic Party and millions of Americans were disillusioned with the two party system that would lead to the destruction of the Whig Party later in the 1850's.
1908: William J. Bryan runs for the 3rd time and William "the Chosen Successor" Taft is nominated for the Republican nomination.  Nothing to see here folks.
1956: I mean really what the hell can you say about this election?  Sore loser from 1952 challenges universally popular former war hero turned president for re-election?  Did Stevenson's own mother even watch the election returns?
1988: Another election noted for really low turnout (hell even Dan Rather noted this while reporting the results) you had another case of "the Chosen Successor" versus the demotivating opponent.  This election was so boring that most people only remember two things from it: a tank and some black guy in Maryland.  Sounds pretty g**damnf***ing boring to me man.
1996: Bill Sexy Abs Clinton versus Robert DULLLLLLLLLLL.  Does the average American even remember the Republican ticket in this election?  Really guys?  How many of you remember watching this election? (cricket chirps)  Okay how many of you remember playing Wave Race 64 and getting your ass handed to you by a dolphin instead? (collective "yes")  My point exactly.

These are the elections that I consider profoundly uninteresting to the point of physical anguish.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2011, 02:50:42 PM »

The 2000 campaign wasn't particularly exciting, but of course the election night and the aftermath made up for that.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2011, 02:51:58 PM »

1996
1988
1972
1956
1944
1940
1936
1920

All of these seem dull.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2011, 03:00:54 PM »

1996
1988
1972
1956
1944
1940
1936
1920

All of these seem dull.

I wouldn't really call 1920 or 1972 dull.  I mean 1920 was the first election that women had the right to vote (a precedent) and the low voter turnout amongst urban Democrats is a great example of the power of machine politics back in the day.  And 1972 was the first election that 18 year olds had the right to vote, also another precedent.  Not to mention the whole perceived pragmatic incumbent vs. radical challenger view of the election (much like 1964).
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2011, 03:45:43 PM »

1996 takes the cake.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2011, 05:24:42 PM »


I'm not even sure Bill Clinton or Robert Dole found 1996 to be an interesting election.  Hell Robert Dole probably doesn't even remember the 1996 Presidential Election (to be fair I don't either).  My house didn't even watch the election we ordered Hideaway Pizza and watched Terminator 2: Judgement Day (hey I was raised in a pretty liberal household).
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2011, 10:13:55 PM »

1956 I would think. I was -28 years old then, so I don't remember it, but the general public seemed to have a consensus in their approval of Eisenhower. People just liked Ike. Not only that but this was the peak of the "American Dream" period and the united states was probably the least divided during this period.

The only thing interesting about that election is the surprisingly high % of counties that voted for Adlai Stevenson and also voted for John McCain.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2011, 12:55:08 AM »

Oh, one interesting thing about 1956 is that that the Missouri bellwether was broken. (Now that it has again, though, it loses some points).

I think reference points like these can make elections interesting. For instance, Wikipedia refers to 1964 in many articles as the last time a number of states voted Democratic. Of course, any election will have some milestones like this, but some are going to have more than others. This also produces a bias towards towards semi-recent elections. (1996 may well have been the last election for a long time in which the Democrats carry any of WV/KY/TN/AR/LA, but since there haven't been many elections since, it's not currently impressive). On the flip side, go too far back and it's probable that a voting streak has been broken at least once.



Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2011, 05:57:22 AM »

in fact of the 900 counties Adlai Stevenson won in 1956... only 209 of those counties voted for Obama! Its surprising that a county that would vote for a democrat who lost that badly, would then vote for a republican who lost by 7 points. Its almost like the Stevenson McCain counties are Anti-Bellwether.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 10:12:01 AM »

in fact of the 900 counties Adlai Stevenson won in 1956... only 209 of those counties voted for Obama! Its surprising that a county that would vote for a democrat who lost that badly, would then vote for a republican who lost by 7 points. Its almost like the Stevenson McCain counties are Anti-Bellwether.

Speaking of realignment, go back a bit further: of the 18 states that Lincoln won in 1860, exactly zero voted for McCain 148 years later - the first time this has ever happened for a Republican nominee (even those who lost in landslides).
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2011, 08:41:40 PM »

I'd say any election where the incumbent didn't have any good challenger. Also, 1908.

You mean the election in which people elected Taft 4 Prez ? Grin

Oh hardy har har...but yeah pretty much lawl.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2011, 10:23:15 PM »

1904
1908
1956
1984
1996
2004
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2011, 01:16:41 AM »

2004 winner was unclear until pretty late Election night.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.