Rooney's Presidential Election Rankings

[Rooney]

Elections are what bring us all together at this site. We love the hand shaking, back slapping, ass-ahem-baby kissing that makes an election the greatest show on earth. There is no denying that of all elections the quadrennial calumny of the United States Presidential contest is the gaudiest and grandest of all elections in this Land of the Free.

However, which elections were the best and which were critical and commercial flops? The United States has experiences fifty-seven national contests. Some are historic battles of ideologies, others a game of Trivial Pursuit while some were nothing more than flops.

In this list I will count down all fifty-seven of these elections from the most mundane to the most exciting. In this list I will not take the ideology or politics of the winner into account. For example, in a comparison of the 1836 election and the 1912 election I much prefer the victor in 1836. However, there is no denying that 1912 has many more intriguing, unique and entertaining factors. Thus, even though the victor of 1912 is not to my ideological liking the election is an excellent one that will attain a high ranking.

Now I am off to analyze the campaign trail. After all, while elections may very well make history and alter the policy of a nation we all know what they are supposed to do: entertain us.

[Rooney]

#57: The Election of 1820
 

This crazy train starts out with a leisurely caboose ride. In 1820 the nation was riding high on a time of unchecked pork barrel politics and internal “improvement” spending spearheaded by the mild-mannered President James Monroe of Virginia. Leading the nation in a time known as “The Era of Good Feelings” Declaring that political parties were “incompatible with free government” Monroe had sought in his first term to coopt members of the defunct Federalist Party into the Republican fold. Known to some as the “Young Washington”, Monroe’s one-party rule produced a lull in election action but not in political troubles.

The main reason why the election of 1820 is such a bore is that it could have been an incredible contest if there had been any formal opposition to Monroe and Vice-President Daniel Tompkins. In 1819 the heavy borrowing and inflationary monetary policies of the U.S. government brought about a specie strain that led to the Panic of 1819. This first great economic struggle could very well have caused an issue for Monroe’s reelection had he faced an opponent willing to run against the Second Bank of the United States and the lose money policies of the Madison and Monroe governments. Additionally, the sectional trouble caused by the Missouri Compromise could also have led to an anti-slavery candidacy from a Northern or Western candidate to oppose Monroe. Alas, there was no vessel and so Monroe, a former wily politico turned pacific executive, was reelected by the margin of 227 to 1.

The reason why this election is the most boring in American history is the lack of good drama. This is not to say that there was no drama in the election. There simply was no memorable drama. There was the surprise vote for John Quincy Adams from Baptist lay preacher William Plummer of New Hampshire. While it would be nice to believe the story that he voted for Adams in 1820 in order to ensure that only Washington was unanimously elected close scrutiny has shown this dramatic response is quite tepid. It appears that Plummer voted for Adams because he thought Monroe to be a “mediocrity” and Tompkins to be “negligent” of his duties as vice-president. These are very logical conclusions and while logic is nice it is hardly dramatic.

There was also a brief struggle over whether or not Missouri’s electoral votes would be counted. This came down to the technicality that Missouri was not actually a state when it cast its electoral votes for Monroe. New Hampshire proved itself to once again be the only state that wanted to make this election interesting when Congressman Arthur Livermore of the Granite State raised his voice in protest of the Show Me State’s electoral votes. The Senate, however, destroyed all drama by passing a resolution allowing for the state’s electoral votes to count provided they did not change the outcome of the election. This could have been a great controversy had the election been so close that the state’s three electoral votes been the linchpin for a presidential victory. However, this was not the case and is merely a legal footnote in the history of elections.

Monroe’s near unanimous reelection was a major personal victory for him and for his one-party state. If the election of 1820 is to teach us anything we should take from it two lessons. The first is that one-party states are either boring or tyrannical. Sometimes they are both! The second lesson we should take is that while political parties can be annoying they make elections a heck of a lot more fun.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not much to comment on, but I do intend on following this series until its conclusion.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Will Definantly continue reading this.

[PPT Spiral]

This is wonderful. Count me as another person who will closely follow.

[Rooney]

#56: The Election of 1804

Thomas Jefferson’s reelection campaign was hardly a dramatic or interesting election. His first term as president is fascinating, no doubt. In his first term he had slashed taxes, reduced Adam’s bloated navy, destroyed the Additional Army, purchased Louisiana, increased free trade on the Atlantic and managed to sever the close alliance of the Barbary States. While the constitutionality of Louisiana and the mission to Tunisia, as well as the later Lewis and Clark Expedition, stands on shaky ground the American people always seem to love constitutional violations. In 1804 President Jefferson was highly popular and looked forward to a sunny second term.

Jefferson had also spent his first term dedicated to coopting Federalists into the Republican Party. “We are all Federalists, we are all Republicans” he waxed eloquent in his first inaugural address, one of only two public speeches he would make as chief executive. If only the current occupant of the White House was so economical with his words. Jefferson rejected highly partisan judicial appointments and broadly interpreted the constitutional powers of his office in order to appeal to those Federalists excluded by the High Federalists and the Essex Clique. Thus, the Federalist Party was a weak shadow of its former self when it nominated former Minister to France Charles Cotesworth Pinckney for president and former Senator Rufus King for vice-president. Pinckney, who was once mocked in a sermon by the mercurial Reverend Timothy Dwight, never stood a chance outside of Connecticut.    

This scenario makes for one boring election. Landslides are usually boring. They are like when the Miami Heat plays the Detroit Pistons. It is fun to watch a beat down for a little while but pretty soon you turn off the TV and open up a book on moral philosophy. This is not to say that there were not some exciting and dramatic moments in this election but none of them had anything to do with the ultimate outcome.

One amazing moment of 1804 was, of course, the field of honor at Weehawken. The Burr-Hamilton Duel was attached to an election in 1804, just not the presidential campaign. President Jefferson had already dropped Burr (“The American Cataline”) for the jovial, doddering Governor George Clinton of New York. As all students of history know, Burr shot Hamilton over Hamilton’s machinations against him in his ill-fated quest for the New York governor’s post. The story of the duel and Burr’s later dreams of an American Empire stretching from Mobile Bay to Monterrey is one of the epics of American History. However, it plays very little to no role in the reelection of Jefferson. In fact, it played no role at all. Thus, this grand drama has nothing to do with Mr. Jefferson’s reelection.

There is also the story of Jefferson’s gunboats. The Federalists mocked Jefferson for his gunboat fleet. Gunboats were far cheaper to maintain than any ship-of-the-line so Jefferson, a penny pincher in public and a spendthrift if private, obviously fell in love with them. Fifteen gunboats floated across the Eastern seaboard to defend the nation from piracy. In September 1804, a terrible hurricane off the coast of Savannah, Georgia, picked up Gunboat Number One and tossed it into a cornfield. The proprietor of the cornfield actually tried to sue the government for damages! The Federalist campaign mocked Jefferson by stating that he had finally found a good use for his gunboat: as a scarecrow. While these gibes made victory starved Federalists smirk and giggle they are merely fun historical trivia. They added nothing to the campaign itself and added no drama to the final outcome.

A third interesting story that came from the election was the scurrilous charges that Jefferson had sired children from one of his female slaves. In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disaffected former ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally," Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had "several children" by her. Jefferson never commented on these accusations and Sally, who could not write, never recorded any letters or documentation to back up the story. Callender, who was found drowned in less than three inches of water in 1803, was a well-known political crank and scandal monger. While the faltering Federalist campaign tried to make “Black Sal” a campaign issue it never gained traction. This was not the first time that base rumor mongering would be used in an election but many times such dark tactics can dramatically effect an election. In 1804 this was not the case.

The main reason why the election of 1804 is the second most boring presidential election is that there was no drama. While Jefferson and Pinckney are “big names” in American history neither ran an active campaign. Unlike in 1796 and 1800 both parties were docile and tame. There was no incredible politicking for control of state legislatures or wonderfully juicy accusations of atheism and monarchism. The campaign was bland and calm. That makes for a nice tea party but a downright dull presidential campaign.            

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It may have been pointless, but it was the first election under the new rules.

[Rooney]

It may have been pointless, but it was the first election under the new rules.

The rule change made absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election. While the addition of the 12th Amendment made a difference in other races it is not really all that consequential to the election of 1804. Thus, 1804 ranks as #56 on the list. 

[Rooney]

#55: The Election of 1816

1816 ends up at the number fifty-five spot for more or less the same reason that 1820 and 1804 are ranked low: it was a one-party show. James Monroe’s first election to the presidency boasted more struggle than the previous two elections, no doubt. However, the struggle was primarily in the Democratic-Republican caucus. This makes for one important episode but when compared to elections to come this one blip of excitement does not even register on the scales.

The end of the Madison Administration ushered in a civil, silent election. The War of 1812 was over without victory, the Second Bank of the United States was in full swing and the nation was slowly recovering from the economic disaster of the war. One would think that in such an environment a strong Federalist challenge may well have arisen against Little Jemmie’s government. The great trouble was that the Federalist’s opposition to “Mr. Madison’s War” and the meeting of secessionist High Federalists at the Hartford Convention had made the party as dead as their founder, Hamilton. Federalism was no longer even relevant in Massachusetts or Connecticut. “Our two great parties have crossed over the valley and have taken possession of each other’s mountain,” former Federalist President John Adams wrote. Yes, the Federalists were no longer a legitimate threat to anyone, not even to themselves.

The great drama of the campaign was the Democratic-Republican Congressional Caucus. This could very well have been an incredible battle of egos. Potential candidates for the Democratic-Republican nomination included Monroe, Secretary of War William H. Crawford, House Speaker Henry Clay, New York Governor Daniel D. Tompkins and former Senator and the Hero of New Orleans Andrew Jackson. Clay, Jackson and Tompkins bowed to the inevitable. While New York Republicans grumbled about the “Virginia Dynasty” all they could do was grumble. Crawford ran a spirited race in which he questioned Monroe intelligence and vision, but the well-liked Monroe was always the front-runner. The Congressional Caucus of March 1816 was close but the Monroe was the winner by a decently wide margin. The overwhelming selection of Tompkins for vice-president concluded what could have been a wild, crazy caucus.

The Federalists failed to even nominate a candidate for the general contest. Senator Rufus King was nominally selected as the candidate but he knew from the very beginning that he was a sure loser. Long before the electoral votes were counted in December 1816 King had commented: “Federalists of our age must be content with the past.” It is to be applauded that Senator King realized the fight was lost but that does not add to the joy of the campaign.

The contentious fight for the Democratic-Republican Party nod proved to be quite anti-climactic. So too did Senator King’s pathetic candidacy. Monroe, the only man to serve as both secretary of state and secretary of war at the same time, coaxed to victory without writing and letter of issuing a statement. The main reason why this election is ranked low is because it was yet another one party romp. The one party romp may well have been interesting had more legitimate candidates jockeyed for the Republican presidential nod but that did not occur. While there was a controversy over whether or not Indiana’s electoral votes would count the issue was worked out quickly and with no issue. Additionally, it is not as if the 3 electoral votes from the Hoosier States mattered for the final outcome.

I believe that the former Federalist newspaper the Boston Daily Advertiser put the election of 1816 the best: “We do not know, nor is it very material, for whom the Federalist electors will vote.” John Randolph of Virginia further commented that amongst the people there was a, ‘Unanimity of indifference if not approbation.”        

[Rooney]

#54: The Election of 1996

“The era of big government is over,” President Bill Clinton declared in his 1995 State of the Union Address. With the help of known troll Dick Morris he was able to trick the nation into actually thinking what he said was true. Yes, Clinton is one of the master politicians of our time and that is the reason why the 1996 election- his triumphant reelection- ranks as #54 on the list.

The election of 1996 could have been the Waterloo for Clinton and his curious Little Rock Crew. His wife had been temporarily silenced by her health care beat down, Clinton had fumbled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Republicans were in a post-Poppy Bush resurgence. A strong Republican presidential nominee running on eloquent conservative, free market principles could very well have evicted Bubba and his buds from the Oval Office. It was the Grand Old Party’s golden opportunity to settle the score with their most successful and hated rival. They gave the world Bob Dole.

The main reason why 1996 falls into the #54 spot is that the election was not very exciting. There were no great moments of drama, no epic arguments and no real discussion of contentious issues. Dole and Clinton agreed on many core issues: national defense, education, gay rights and welfare reform. Dole, when not talking about himself in the third person or stage diving, muttered about a 15% tax cut but never explained how he would get this tax cut done, how he would pay for it or how this loss of revenue would affect his pledge to balance the budget. In the 53rd quadrennial contest Dole more or less proved that he was a relic of the 1960s. He referenced the Brooklyn Dodgers as a baseball team and appeared sleepy at the debates. Clinton rarely fell below 50% in the public opinion polls and led Dole in different tracking polls by margins ranging from nine to fifteen points. At no point was the election’s results in doubt and Bob Dole did little to fight back.

Massive landslide reelection victories do not naturally deem an election boring. In 1972 and 1964, for example, upstart senators were able to manipulate party rules in order to surpass establishment candidates. Even though their nominations led to the incumbent winning by a wide margin the election is still thrilling because one was able to witness the meteoric rise and noble decline of the upstart underdog. In 1996, Pat Buchanan was the underdog who had managed to beat Dole in the New Hampshire Primary. Beaten in New Hampshire in all three of his quests for the presidency, Dole commented that he realized how the Granite State got its name: “It’s tough to crack.” Buchanan, like Ron Paul in 2012, attempted to use the machinations of party to attain the nomination but was stopped time and time again by establishment party attorneys and bigwigs. A Pat Buchanan vs. Bill Clinton race would have showcased real differences between candidates and made the election of 1996 a memorable race. Buchanan would have won 39% of the popular vote and 60 electoral votes but the race would have been a real difference. It would have offered the American people a choice, not an echo.

H. Ross Perot was not even able to add flavor to the campaign’s stoic soup. His Reform Party was plagued by intraparty rivalries and laws which set up obstacles for third parties. Perot was unable to attend the debates because the League of Women Voters had had their power over the debates snatched from them by the cold, iron grasp of a major party amalgamation known as the Commission on Presidential Debates. Despite lawsuits, the CPD set the bar so high that Perot was not allowed to talk straight to the American people as he had in 1992. Plagued by ill health and a party that was not totally united behind the Lilliputian leader, Perot was a nonentity in the 1996 race.

In the end the main reason why 1996 is ranked as #54 on the list is because it offered no surprises and took no chances. The establishment Republican ran a lackluster campaign against a popular incumbent. The economy was decent and the nation was not embroiled in any unpopular wars so the incumbent won by a large margin. It was a “nice” little election. Yawn.      

[Del Tachi]

Sure 1996 is boring, but number 54?

1936, 1956, 1924, and a few other national elections are infinitely worse.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure 1996 is boring, but number 54?

1936, 1956, 1924, and a few other national elections are infinitely worse.

I would hardly call 1924 and the Klanbake a boring election, even if most of the excitement was at the DNC.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Of all the re-match elections, this is your pick? 1832, 1900, 1944, 1940, 1956, and 1984 are all worse/ more boring.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Of all the re-match elections, this is your pick? 1832, 1900, 1944, 1940, 1956, and 1984 are all worse/ more boring.

1832 had Henry Clay losing, something that never gets old. If you mean 1828, where-in Jackson came back to beat Adams after the election four years earlier, that was pretty epic. 1900 is a McKinley victory, which is never boring. 1940 saw the British sabotage of an American political party's convention and its sequel took place with the backdrop of one of the most epic conquests of human history. 1956 and 1984 at least had good results, and the 1984 Dem primaries would've been pretty cool to see play out.

[Mechaman]

Of all the re-match elections, this is your pick? 1832, 1900, 1944, 1940, 1956, and 1984 are all worse/ more boring.

What is this?  I don't even.  . . . . .

1832 was pretty much a showcase of the then new political alignment in America.  THe narrative was entirely about Jackson vs. "OMG EVIL BANKERS!", something that isn't really boring at all.

1900 had the return of William J. Crazyman Bryan and was basically a AMERICA RULES! campaign on the GOP side.  While it might've been a cakewalk, both sides were out in style, something that can't be said about 1996.

1944. . .. . are you f***ing high?  Did you forget World War II existed?

1940. . . . okay, a little dull compared to 1944, but the backdrop of the election is certainly notable.

1956. . .. . okay, I actually might agree with you on this one.  In fact, 1956 and 1996 could be twins.

1984. . . . Reagan's re-election.  The campaign was hardly "boring".

I don't remember the 1996 election campaign.  That's how "boring" it was.

[Rooney]

I will get two updates in tonight. Thank you for your patience. I teach special education and have had a huge amount of IEP paperwork for the start of the month. You guys are awesome for waiting.

[Rooney]

#53: The Election of 1792

George Washington’s triumphant reelection in 1792 is ranked as #53 because it was a great deal of humdrum with only one major moment of dramatic suspense. This in itself is a disappointment because the emergence of the First Party System in the United States promised far better than what the people were given.

Haunted and depressed by divisions in his government, President George Washington had intended to refuse to seek reelection. The emergence of Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Republicans had caused Washington much torment. While he leaned strongly toward Hamilton and the Federalists, the general hoped that the emergence of factions could be nipped in the bud. This was not to be and Washington’s own strong support for the National Bank, tariffs, whiskey taxes, debt consolidation and other Hamiltonian centralization plans did little to heal the divisions.

The race for president in 1792 was never in doubt. Washington’s popularity was no longer at its height as it was in 1789, but he was still the hero of the Revolution. His reelection was never in doubt. The reason why 1792 could have been a great race lies in the vice-presidential contest. With Washington assured one vote from every elector the second electoral vote was the one to fight over. Vice-President John Adams assumed that he would be the easy choice for vice-president. In a system with no parties this very well would have been the case. However, anti-Hamiltonians put forward three opposition candidates to the stout vice-president. Governor George Clinton of New York was the principal anti-Hamiltonian vice-presidential candidate but five votes were given to Thomas Jefferson and Senator Aaron Burr. Anti-Federalists vice-presidential candidates managed to win 55 electoral votes to Adam’s 70. Upon reading the results Adams later commented to his wife Abigail, “Damn them, damn them, damn them.” The race for vice-president was far closer than the crotchety Adams had expected or wanted.

The vice-presidential contest is a testament to the fact that there was obvious resistance to the Washington-Hamilton system. The fact that George Clinton, with no campaigning or even a letter stating he would accept electoral votes, managed to win 50 electoral votes shows that the Federalist system was propped up strongly on the shoulders of Washington Rex. Washington chose to run for reelection in 1792 out of fear that a partisan campaign for the top office would weaken the new republic and toss the system into civil war. It is in the opinion of this writer that Washington truly feared that the Federalist system that Hamilton had built would collapse if he was not there to be the face on the billboard of the unpopular programs. The general and the president was to be proven correct when Adams became president.

1792 is an election that could have been a great one but in the end was tame and calm. That is to be expected when George Washington was a candidate but that does nothing to further its place in campaign history or, more importantly for me, the ratings.

[Rooney]

#52: The Election of 1808

The election of 1808 winds up at the number fifty-two on the list. This marked the last campaign of Jefferson’s America and the old First Party System. The Federalist Party was given a major shot in the arm by Thomas Jefferson’s unpopular Embargo Act. Throughout his presidency Jefferson had made it a habit to ignore his classical liberal roots. The Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the First Barbary War were all highly unconstitutional. However, they all pale in comparison to the Embargo Acts. Known as the Damnbargo in Federalist New England, the embargo betrayed all of Jefferson’s work in his first term to encourage free trade and instead forced recession and trade war onto the United States. The arrests of innocent merchants trying to make a living only reminded Americans of the Federalist regime of John Adams and his arrest of innocent printers. The Federalist Party, which was on the ropes in 1804, was given a boost by the unpopular new law.

The fact that the Federalists had an unpopular law in their favor is one of the reason why the election of 1808 places at fifty-two on the list. The Federalists, in theory, could have made a triumphant return to the White House on the back of Jefferson’s economic fumble. However, this was not to be the case because the Federalists were old hat by 1808. The candidate they produced was a nationally famous also-ran. Former American Ambassador to France Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (of XYZ Scandal fame back in the year 1798!) was informally selected as the Federalist Party presidential nominee and former New York Senator Rufus King was selected as his running-mate for the second time in a row. The same uninspired ticket from 1804 was hardly enough to energize Federalist candidates for state assembly in New York or state voters in Pennsylvania. The party of Hamilton was a as dead as its founder.

1808, however, was not a completely anti-climactic contest. The 1808 Democratic-Republican Caucus was a bitter affair that would spill over into the general election and the electoral vote canvass in December 1808. Secretary of State James Madison, Jefferson’s long-time protégé and acolyte, was the front-runner for the party’s presidential nod but faced opposition from sitting Vice-President George Clinton and popular former Virginia Governor James Monroe. The aging Clinton, who secretly yearned for retirement, was put forward as the candidate in opposition to the “Virginia Dynasty.” Clinton did not actively seek the nomination and would not be given it. Monroe actively wrote letters to congressmen stating his interest in the presidential nomination but this small time campaigning also proved to be useless. Madison had spent the better part of a year convincing Republicans in Congress that he was the choice of Jefferson, who was still the idle of the Democratic-Republican brass. The final tally for the presidential nod at the caucus was hardly close: Madison 83, Monroe 3, Clinton 3.

On the day in December when the electoral votes were cast Madison won an easy victory over his hapless Federalist challengers. Pinckney’s ability to win almost all of New England, Delaware and three electors from North Carolina are a testament to an election battle that might have been. Had Chief Justice John Marshall tossed his hat into the presidential ring perhaps a stronger race would have happened in 1808? It is to be noted also that there were some divisions in the Democratic-Republican fold. George Clinton attained 6 electoral votes from his native New York while Monroe won over 4,000 popular votes from his native Virginia. While these defections did not manage to make a difference in the overall election these defections are to be noted as factors that may have caused trouble to Jefferson’s party had the Federalist Party had a stronger ticket.

In the end the reason why the election of 1808 is ranked at number fifty-two is because it fell at the end of the First Party system. The Damnbargo and the anger from New England gave it some drama as did the opposition to Madison at the convention but in the end it had to fall in the bottom part of the list. The election offered much promise but in the end delivered very little action.     
           

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Both 1940 and 1944 were pretty easy victories for FDR, and it was very obvious he was going to win in both years. Wilkie and Dewey did better than Landon, but there wasn't much of a challenge between the two elections. Besides, who would, as Lincoln put it, switch horses in the middle of the stream?

1832 had Jackson win easily against someone who made a deal to keep Jackson out of office, if anything the previous election was the re-alignment.

1900 was another failed attempt by William J. Bryan. I guess this should be a little higher for Theodore Roosevelt, though.

1956 of course is 1996 in 40 years; a peacetime election with a popular president.

Jesus couldn't beat Reagan in 1984. Reagan was at the height of his popularity at that point. The Democrats couldn't get anyone good enough to oppose Reagan.

Also, since Rooney posted again, 1792 has got to be one of the least important too.

[Mechaman]

Both 1940 and 1944 were pretty easy victories for FDR, and it was very obvious he was going to win in both years. Wilkie and Dewey did better than Landon, but there wasn't much of a challenge between the two elections. Besides, who would, as Lincoln put it, switch horses in the middle of the stream?

1832 had Jackson win easily against someone who made a deal to keep Jackson out of office, if anything the previous election was the re-alignment.

1900 was another failed attempt by William J. Bryan. I guess this should be a little higher for Theodore Roosevelt, though.

1956 of course is 1996 in 40 years; a peacetime election with a popular president.

Jesus couldn't beat Reagan in 1984. Reagan was at the height of his popularity at that point. The Democrats couldn't get anyone good enough to oppose Reagan.

Also, since Rooney posted again, 1792 has got to be one of the least important too.

Again, I'll re-quote my post:

Of all the re-match elections, this is your pick? 1832, 1900, 1944, 1940, 1956, and 1984 are all worse/ more boring.

What is this?  I don't even.  . . . . .

1832 was pretty much a showcase of the then new political alignment in America.  THe narrative was entirely about Jackson vs. "OMG EVIL BANKERS!", something that isn't really boring at all.

1900 had the return of William J. Crazyman Bryan and was basically a AMERICA RULES! campaign on the GOP side.  While it might've been a cakewalk, both sides were out in style, something that can't be said about 1996.

1944. . .. . are you f***ing high?  Did you forget World War II existed?

1940. . . . okay, a little dull compared to 1944, but the backdrop of the election is certainly notable.

1956. . .. . okay, I actually might agree with you on this one.  In fact, 1956 and 1996 could be twins.

1984. . . . Reagan's re-election.  The campaign was hardly "boring".

I don't remember the 1996 election campaign.  That's how "boring" it was.

I'm not contending these are Oscar nominations here, just that they don't fall into 1996 territory. An argument that is extremely easy to make if you aren't blind/deaf.

On 1832 I was referring more to the explosion of media involvement in the race compared to the previous ones.  THere was a lot more money and a lot more inventive politicking in the 1832 race than in 1828.  THe realignment began in 1828, obviously, but the usage of open ad politics exploded in 1832 when Jackson ran for re-election.

1940 and 1944, just because a race is easy doesn't mean it is boring.  The FDR campaign commercials, like the "HEll Bent Till Election" cartoon are classics.  Whatever you may say about how easy these were, there was still a lot of interests in the races and there was still a lot of innovation (something you seem to be missing in justifying that these somehow belong in the same category as 1996).

1984 is memorable not because of any competition between Mondale and Reagan (there wasn't) but because it was a landmark election that showed the success of conservatism.  It is the Republican 1936, full stop.  And the media run up to election day was pretty interesting compared to say . . . . 1996.  Don't forget the Democratic Primaries, that brought memorable appearances by Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and crew.

Again, your reasonings, which seem to only involve analysis of electoral results and not the actual history behind the races, are flawed if you seriously think any of these (besides 1956) were as bad/boring as 1996.  1996 brought nothing, NOTHING, of interest.  If you think it did you either don't remember it (like everyone else), come from a town where the local student races generate a load of publicity, or thought Gigli should've won an Oscar.

[Rooney]

#51: The Election of 1988

Coming in at number fifty-one is the last election of the Reagan Years. In 1988 the United States was given an uninspiring choice between a career resume builder and a liberal Northeastern governor. The election was one in which it appeared that it would emerge as a climactic struggle between Reagan’s America and the days of Roosevelt and Johnson. In the end it turned into a trivial pursuit.

By 1988 President Reagan was a great deal like Thomas Jefferson in 1808: personally popular but dogged by policy failures and political scandal. While Reagan’s inflationary spending and tax policies continued to prop up the economy the Republicans could continue to claim that it was “morning in America.” Vice-President George H.W. Bush, the son of a senator and a walking resume in a suit, scrambled to claim the mantle of the Reagan Revolution. Conservatives at the National Review sighed at the thought of the man who called Reagan’s economic program “voodoo economics” leading the crusade to vindicate supply side theories. Senator Bob Dole, Congressman Jack Kemp, former acting president Al Haig and the Reverend Marion “Pat” Robertson (as well as Du Pont of Delaware and some others) attempted to steal the Gipper’s crown from his nerdy veep, but in the end the GOP Primary was fairly tame. Following Dole’s win in Iowa, which is hardly that important to winning the nomination in retrospect, Bush steamrolled his neophyte opponents and won the nomination in New Orleans. It is to be applauded that Bush selected Senator Dan Quayle as his running-mate and in doing so introduced a little anarchy to what was a fairly even headed Republican primary. This adds a little spice to the campaign soup. One also needs to applaud Bush’s “Mr. Rogers” like reading of the Peggy Noonan speech he was given. The “read my lips line” is a classic no matter how silly it sounds.

This campaign was greatly helped by the adorable efforts of the Democrats. In 1984 the Reverend Jesse Jackson had run a spirited campaign for the presidential nomination and was an early leader for the party’s presidential nod. Former Senator Gary Hart could easily have made the Democratic Primary as boring as the GOP contest had he been able to control his libido. Thank God that most politicians have no self-control. The meltdown which Hart was kind enough to show the nation from 1987 to 1988 entertained the sadistic amongst us almost as much as the crying fit that Congressman Pat Schroeder volunteered to the 1988 Democratic Primary freak show. I do not know what was in the water in the Rocky Mountain State in 1988 but one can only thank the god of campaigns that it was present in the H2O. Jackson emerged as the front-runner but was not alone after Hart sunk along with his Monkey Business. The primary struggle between Jackson, technocratic Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, Senator Al Gore, Congressman Dick Gephardt, bow tie enthusiast Senator Paul Simon and Senator Joe Biden was very memorable. Biden, a well-known piece of skin with a grin stretched over it, decided that he did not want to take time to write his own speeches. Al Gore was insulted when a heckler told him he would make a really good vice-president. The 1988 Democratic Primary remains the primary in which the most candidates won states and delegates. That is exciting and it shows what a weak field of candidates can really do when they are unleashed on the nation. When Dukakis finally emerged as the bloodied primary victor at the Democratic Convention in Atlanta he held off Jackson’s delegates and then declared that the election was about “competence.” Dukakis then went on to prove he had none.

The 1988 campaign is a disappointing one because the general election was very bad. To be fair Dukakis, who started out with a huge lead in the polls, started out the race by pointing to the social and economic disparities of the Reagan years and these attacks seemed to stick. Bush was down by 20-points following the Democratic Convention. That is when the GOP had a brainstorming session and came up with a brilliant strategy that won them the race but place the 1988 campaign at number fifty-one on the list. They attacked the ACLU, spoke about the Pledge of Allegiance and scared middle class, suburban voters with a scary looking black man named Horton. One had to give a hand to Atwater and Ailes since they are the men who saved the boring Poppy Bush from himself. Steady attacks on Dukakis’s patriotism and performance as governor led to his campaign going into a steady downhill spiral of failed PR touchups. While the helmet and the tank are iconic the writer can hardly claim that they place the campaign in the upper echelon of elections.

As the Bush campaign toured American flag factories in New Jersey and Senator Symms of Idaho accused Kitty Dukakis of burning American flags the Dukakis campaign proved itself unable to respond to the attacks. One needs to remember that at this time there was a farm crisis, an ending Cold War and a saving and loan crisis. All of these issues could have been major focuses of the Dukakis campaign but he allowed Bush’s men to set the agenda. This is to the credit of Bush’s men but that does nothing to further the rankings of this campaign on the list. The debates themselves produced some memorable lines. Bush’s reference to Dukakis as “the ice man” and Bentsen’s well received, but ultimately useless, “Jack Kennedy” line are fond to remember but they did  not have any effect on raising the campaign’s rhetoric or changing the results of the race in November 1988.

In conclusion, Bush won the election of 1988 as was to be expected. He was the vice-president to a fairly popular president. He was one of only four vice-presidents to be elected directly to the top job from the second job. This was to be expected when the campaign offered so little serious discussion of issues, very few surprises and an incompetent opponent who blew a big lead. The election of 1988 was a game of pursuing the trivial and this is why it places at fifty-one on this list.            

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Will 1860 be number one or not?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Will 1860 be number one or not?

Don't be so impatient!  Altho personally I doubt it would be as Lincoln's victory in electoral college was widely expected by election day whereas in 1800, 1824, 1876, and 2000 it wasn't until well after election day we knew who would be President.  I'd think 1860 would be in the top ten, but not number one.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Will 1860 be number one or not?

Christ, boy, we're in the 50's! We've got quite a ways to go, young one, and other contenders (though some are more viable than others) would have to be 1824, 1968, 1912, are out there.

[Rooney]

#50: The Election of 1904

Landing in at number fifty on this list is an election that involved the enigmatic personality of Theodore Roosevelt. Why is it at number fifty then? It is because TR failed to show any personality during the campaign. As the sitting United States President Roosevelt stayed in the White House and did not utter a word on his behalf. While TR’s presence in the 1912 contest places that campaign in the upper echelon of contests his refusal to break tradition and campaign as the incumbent place his triumphal reelection at number fifty.

“Czolgosz, Working man, Born in the middle of Michigan, Woke with a thought And away he ran To the Pan-American Exposition In Buffalo, In Buffalo!” So goes the “Ballad of Czolgosz” in the great Stephen Sondheim’s classic musical Assassins. As soon as the anarchist Czolgosz had unleashed the bullets from beneath his handkerchief it was only a matter of time before the eccentric Renaissance man Vice-President Roosevelt became the man in the president’s chair. In his first three and a half-years in the White House Roosevelt battled J.P. Morgan, ended a coal strike, overthrew Colombia’s government in Panama and started a legal war with Standard Oil. With such an active and controversial first term one could reasonably hope for a great reelection struggle for the president who had turned the nation on its head. This, however, proved too much to be expected.

The Old Guard of the Republican Party could have made this election a good one at the Republican Convention. Angered by Roosevelt’s usage of government power against business conservative elements in the Grand Old Party maneuvered to contest TR’s nomination with the person of Senator Mark Hanna of Ohio; this plan never materialized. Hanna, a Northern Ohio businessman who was friendly to his own laborers but not to organized labor, would have been an effective opponent to run against TR as he was a business conservative and also an anti-imperialist. The epic struggle between Hanna and “that damned cowboy” never came to be as Hanna passed away in February 1804. The Old Guard toyed with running Speaker of the House “Foul Mouth” Joe Cannon against TR but Cannon figured he already had more than enough power as the master of the House. At a prosaic Republican Convention in the usually raucous Chicago, Illinois, all 994 delegates voted for Roosevelt for president and the bearded iceberg Senator Charles Fairbanks for vice-president.

Death would be an enemy to this election. Not only did the Grim Reaper rob election junkies of a great Republican Convention battle it also cleared away the strongest opponent Teddy Roosevelt could have faced in the general election. Former U.S. Naval Secretary and millionaire financier William C. Whitney was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 1902 and 1903. A prominent Bourbon Democrat (though he never called himself that name as it was considered odious), Whitney would have been a fine opponent to oppose Roosevelt. A gold Democrat and anti-imperialist, Whitney had the strong support of both urban and rural Democrats. Then came the nasty winter of 1904 and in February 1904 Whitney died. The remaining Democrats in the campaign were all underwhelming. Judge Alton Bruce Parker, a solid jurist on the New York Court of Appeals, emerged as the Bourbon Democrat choice and the front-runner. Former President Grover Cleveland, who had worked with a young Assemblyman Theodore Roosevelt when he was governor of the Empire State, refused to enter the contest. 1896 and 1900 nominee William Jennings Bryan, “the Boy Orator of the Platte”, also withdrew from the race leaving a free-for-all as the successor for the populist Democratic mantle. Absentee Congressman and newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst and Senator Francis Cockrell of Missouri competed with each other for populist Democratic backing. In the end, however, none of these three candidates do anything to heat up the campaign. While Hearst is an engaging and incredible figure in American history his campaign for president was disjointed and disorganized. With the sachems of Tammany Hall and Mayor George B. McClellan, Junior, opposing Hearst and supporting Parker there was no doubt whom would carry the delegates of the Empire State and with them the party’s nomination. At the St. Louis national convention Parker won an easy victory over Hearst and to add to the fun of this race the 80-year old former Senator Henry Winter Davis of New Jersey was named as vice-president. Davis is, to date, the oldest major party candidate ever nominated for national office.

Neither of the primaries offered a great deal of surprise nor did the general election. If Hearst had been the nominee it would have been unique to see the force of his personality and media empire unleashed on Roosevelt. A full court press by Hearst against TR might very well have chased Roosevelt out of the White House and led to a truly epic campaign. However, the polite and conservative Judge Parker refused to point out any differences between the incumbent and himself. When one reads the party’s opposition platforms one can understand why Parker chose not to say much: there were few differences. Big business pumped money into the Roosevelt campaign. H.C. Frick and E.H. Harriman donated a combined $400,000 to TR. When TR targeted U.S. Steel in 1905 Frick commented: “We bought the son of a bitch and he did not stay bought!” Roosevelt later denied that he had sought Harriman and Frick’s assistance. The Democrats were broke and were unable to run a national campaign.

The only drama of the general election came from Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World which accused U.S. Corporate Commissioner George Cortelyou of accepting bribes from the beef, oil, steel, sugar, coffee and paper trusts. Judge Parker gave a speech in October 1904 assaulting “Cortelyouism” and TR responded by calling Pulitzer’s attack “blackmail.” The scandal did not catch on and was quickly forgotten. This was unfortunate because in 1911 the charges would prove to be correct. Oops!

In the end the election of 1904 was a predictable curb stomp. Theodore Roosevelt won a landslide victory, taking every Northern and Western state. Roosevelt was the first Republican to carry the state of Missouri since 1868. The reason why this election is rated low while elections such as 1936, 1964 and 1984 are rated much higher is because this landslide election left very little to the imagination. Two primaries were ruined by death as was the general election. Exciting candidates either were claimed by death or failed to gain nomination. The greatest drama of the election came at the end of the campaign when Teddy Roosevelt announced that he would not seek reelection in 1908. That little address proved to be the greatest speech Roosevelt ever lived to regret. Something can be said for an election where the drama occurred after the votes were all counted and the shouting, what little there was, ended.