Which election was/is most interesting to you?

[Eraserhead]

I'm not only talking about the results but also how the campaigns played out in general.

These are all of the U.S. Presidential elections that have occurred during my lifetime.

2004 takes the cake for me... and it's not even close.

[pbrower2a]

1992 -- because it showed major change in statewide voting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably 1992, because of Perot.

[DS0816]

2008, because we became aware during primary season we would be breaking new ground in whom we would elect: the oldest candidate elected to a first term [John McCain, 72]; the first African-American elected to the presidency [Barack Obama]. There was Hillary Clinton as possibly the first female U.S. president. And, after nominations were won, Sarah Palin being selected as McCain's running mate (the first from a Republican ticket). In a way, it felt like America grew up.

[SmokingCricket]

I do not remember much from 1992, so in fairness I could not comment on that one.

2000 and 2008 are pretty close for me. Hard to decide between them.

[phk]

2000 is interesting in retrospect.

2004 is my most involved one. Probably most involved one ever. I have a feeling it might be the last classical old-school election.

[freepcrusher]

2000. What's with the mass defection of rural counties?

[Mechaman]

Oh it's definitely got to be 1996, hands down.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

2008, because, well, that was the only one I was old enough to comprehend when it happened. Most interesting to me wasn't the general. That was borgin: Obama's gonna win, and despite all my optimism, I was aware that most likely I'd have to face facts. The interesting part to me was the early Republican primaries. On a car ride home when it was dark in winter, hearing about reults coming in from NH or IA, and looking on the TV screen at home, and seeing these people I barely knew anything about. I found it interesting that people were saying Romney was in trouble, when out of MI, NH, and IA, he'd gotten 1st once and 2nd twice, giving him the best average out of the three. I also found the early Huck v Mitt battle interesting, and to me it was interesting that somehow McCain, a guy that according to my memory got like 4th place in IA, ended up beating Mitt in NH and going on to win the nomination. "Where did this guy come from?" was what I was thinking. That was when I had a much more child-like fascination with politics, which made it a lot more "wondrous" I guess, and fun to watch. Now, I'm predicting that watching primary results will be boring for me, but who knows?

[Del Tachi]

2008 didn't really do anything for me.  After the financial crisis, Obama had pretty much locked-up the election. 

I'm too young to really recall 2000.

So, for me 2004 takes the cake.  It was the first post-9/11 election, the candidates why no way "entertaining" were sometimes quite interesting.  Like mentioned earlier, it was kind of the last "old-school" elections.  The 2004 election, to me, just sums up all that America was at that time--a nation in transistion (Unraveling-->Crisis)

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

2008 for the fact that the first election I followed in politics. 1992 for twists and turns.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

2008 didn't really do anything for me.  After the financial crisis, Obama had pretty much locked-up the election. 

I'm too young to really recall 2000.

So, for me 2004 takes the cake.  It was the first post-9/11 election, the candidates why no way "entertaining" were sometimes quite interesting.  Like mentioned earlier, it was kind of the last "old-school" elections.  The 2004 election, to me, just sums up all that America was at that time--a nation in transistion (Unraveling-->Crisis)

How is it the last "old school" election? Not really sure what you mean.

[feeblepizza]

I've only lived through 2000, 2004 and 2008, but I think that either 1992 with the Perot factor or 2000 with the recounts was most interesting (not to mention historically significant).

[Del Tachi]

2008 didn't really do anything for me.  After the financial crisis, Obama had pretty much locked-up the election. 

I'm too young to really recall 2000.

So, for me 2004 takes the cake.  It was the first post-9/11 election, the candidates why no way "entertaining" were sometimes quite interesting.  Like mentioned earlier, it was kind of the last "old-school" elections.  The 2004 election, to me, just sums up all that America was at that time--a nation in transistion (Unraveling-->Crisis)

How is it the last "old school" election? Not really sure what you mean.

Between 2004 and 2008, the influence of social networking on elections increased 1,000-fold.  In 2004, you didn't need a Facebook page to win.  That cannot be said anymore.  Hell, in 2004 barely anybody had heard of "blogging".  Traditional news media played a much larger role in 2004.  Now, traditional media (and thus big money) no longer controls the stream of information available to the voter. 

[phk]

2008 didn't really do anything for me.  After the financial crisis, Obama had pretty much locked-up the election. 

I'm too young to really recall 2000.

So, for me 2004 takes the cake.  It was the first post-9/11 election, the candidates why no way "entertaining" were sometimes quite interesting.  Like mentioned earlier, it was kind of the last "old-school" elections.  The 2004 election, to me, just sums up all that America was at that time--a nation in transistion (Unraveling-->Crisis)

How is it the last "old school" election? Not really sure what you mean.

Between 2004 and 2008, the influence of social networking on elections increased 1,000-fold.  In 2004, you didn't need a Facebook page to win.  That cannot be said anymore.  Hell, in 2004 barely anybody had heard of "blogging".  Traditional news media played a much larger role in 2004.  Now, traditional media (and thus big money) no longer controls the stream of information available to the voter. 

Yes

I was talking to Xahar about this today.

1.) Social Media
2.) Obama and Palin being non-traditional in terms of Black and Female.

[Eraserhead]

Youtube wasn't even around in 2004. I still remember stuffing envelopes for hours for John Kerry!

Anyway, I'm pretty surprised that '92 is in the lead. That one would be toward the bottom of my list.

[Mechaman]

Youtube wasn't even around in 2004. I still remember stuffing envelopes for hours for John Kerry!

Anyway, I'm pretty surprised that '92 is in the lead. That one would be toward the bottom of my list.

What surprises me is the people who think 1988 was interesting.  I mean 1988 was 1908 The Sequel: Appointed Heir to Popular President runs against overhyped fail candidate.  Voter turnout was low enough for it to be mentioned on tv.....yeah.  And it's tied with 2004......really?
I mean yeah, it wasn't 1996 boring (no election, except maybe 1956, was that bad) but there was very little to be excited about.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2000 because it was a cliffhanger
2004 because it looked like it might have been a tie with NV and NM coming in late for Bush.