If you could change the outcome of one of these elections, which would you?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

2008.

[TNF]

Definitely 1976.

I'm guessing your reason for a Ford victory in '76 would be to stop the rightward drift of both major parties?

Me? If I had to pick, probably '76. Not in the poll options:  1964

Probably not stop it. Ford was the first post-New Deal President, and both parties were moving rightward as early as the late 1940s (excepting the small aberration in the late 60s/early 70s with the Democrats, which had begun moving rightward again by 1973), so that's unfortunately inevitable post Taft-Hartley and in the Cold War environment created by the Red Scare and whatnot. Ford winning in '76 does however probably throw the blame of declining living standards solely on the Republicans, probably allows for a liberal Democrat to win in 1980 and at least slows the decline of organized labor (without an all out assault on labor that we saw under Reagan).

[RogueBeaver]

'00 or '04.

[windjammer]

'00 or '04.

You don't like George Bush Roguebeaver?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Without 1976, there is no 1980.

[Potatoe]

'00 or '04.

You don't like George Bush Roguebeaver?

It's probably because of the, y'know, reverse 2006 and 2008, hail President Allen!

[SWE]

1976, with 2008 not far behind.

I agree, anything to prevent the Reagan presidency is a good move

[Antonio the Sixth]

Definitely 1980.

[Gass3268]

1976, Ford does just as bad as Carter, liberal Democrat takes over in 1980, no Reagan, America prospers.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

1976, Ford does just as bad as Carter, liberal Democrat takes over in 1980, no Reagan, America prospers.

And the Democratic Party puts Ted Kennedy up in the pantheon.

[Sol]

flipping 2008 almost certainly leads to democratic dominance throughout the 2010s (and very possibly a 2/3 senate majority), so i'll go with that.

^Pretty much this. I'm not a fan of gerrymandering, but Dems should know that they'd get a wide variety of horrific maps that would completely incapacitate McCain/Palin in the House. Heck, TX's legislature might have even flipped to the Dems considering the 2008 results.

[Goldwater]

1964

[Meursault]

My line of thinking: something like 1980 was probably unavoidable, especially  when the Democrats themselves stopped overtly defending New Dealism in the 1970s. Changing 1980 just defers the neoliberal revolution. But changing 1972 - miraculously putting McGovern into the White House - probably alters the sociorhetorical content of that revolution for the better. It stops dead Nixon's marriage of class resentment and socially conservative populism, proving it a non-starter and preventing neoliberals from running as anti-institutional insurgents. Down the road, this helps to soften American anti-intellectualism and probably leads to an early marriage between neoliberalism and academe.

[Mordecai]

1976.

1976, with 2008 not far behind.

If Ford had won in 1976, the Democrats would have controlled the presidency for the next twenty years.

Edit: And Reagan wouldn't have been President either.

[Orser67]

If I could, I'd make Reagan win in 1976, on the hopes that he would be defeated in 1980 (due to a weak economy and the Iran hostage crisis) and become the "Republican Carter."

[Mechaman]

Definitely 1976.

I'm guessing your reason for a Ford victory in '76 would be to stop the rightward drift of both major parties?

Me? If I had to pick, probably '76. Not in the poll options:  1964

Probably not stop it. Ford was the first post-New Deal President, and both parties were moving rightward as early as the late 1940s (excepting the small aberration in the late 60s/early 70s with the Democrats, which had begun moving rightward again by 1973), so that's unfortunately inevitable post Taft-Hartley and in the Cold War environment created by the Red Scare and whatnot. Ford winning in '76 does however probably throw the blame of declining living standards solely on the Republicans, probably allows for a liberal Democrat to win in 1980 and at least slows the decline of organized labor (without an all out assault on labor that we saw under Reagan).

[Cryptic]

1976. 

Stagflation is gonna be a huge issue regardless of who's in the WH in the late 70's. With Ford there, it'll likely be a Democrat who wins 1980.  No Reagan Revolution and hopefully the rightward shift of American politics, if not stopped, will at least not go as far as it did in real life.  At the very least the Religious Right would likely never gain real prominence with neither Carter or Reagan as Presidents.

[DC Al Fine]

2004. Let Kerry take the heat for the financial crisis.

As for Canada, I would've changed the 1997 election to a Liberal minority because that would've caused a bunch of interesting side effects.

[Person Man]

Without 1976, there is no 1980.

[AggregateDemand]

1976, Ford does just as bad as Carter, liberal Democrat takes over in 1980, no Reagan, America prospers.

Our current difficulties are attributable to all of the things we've refused to do since 1980

[Maxwell]

2000, or maybe 1964.

[politicallefty]

1980. A Reagan loss that year would've been a massive setback to the conservative cause.

Of all elections, 1968 would have been my top choice. A Humphrey win had great potential, including continuation of the Great Society.