Most forgotten post-WWII presidential election
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:59:37 AM
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)
  Most forgotten post-WWII presidential election
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Most forgotten post-WWII presidential election  (Read 4620 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2014, 03:03:36 PM »

1956?
1996?
2012 after some years?
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2014, 03:09:28 PM »
« Edited: April 23, 2014, 03:20:46 PM by Supersonic »

Probably '56, I mean, who gives a crap?

1996 at least had Perot. 2012 was dull, but got somewhat exciting after the first debate.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2014, 03:20:07 PM »

56 and 96
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2014, 03:22:16 PM »

'56. Eisenhower wins in a walk against the same opponent he had 4 years earlier. Yawn.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2014, 10:00:15 PM »

The one thing I find interesting about the 1956 election was the strong swing to Stevenson in most of the states west of the Mississippi River.

The 1968 and 1972 elections are also boring.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2014, 10:45:36 PM »

You kidding? '68 and '72 are the elections of the post-war period.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2014, 12:06:45 AM »

Republicans today talk about nothing but Reagan 24/7. When was the last time you heard one of them say anything about Nixon? They have completely disowned him because he resigned in disgrace.

At the time, yes these were transformative elections, but today they are (mostly) forgotten. The '68 Dem Convention is remembered for various reasons (The riots, the Daley/Ribicoff fight, the Vidal/Buckley fight, etc.) but the actual election results were pretty boring aside from George Wallace.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2014, 12:14:06 AM »

That they're ignored doesn't mean they're irrelevent. I'd argue that the way Nixon won - marrying socially conservative populism and racial anger to class resentments - shaped the framework of the neoliberal victory that was only cashed out by Reagan in 1980. I think Nixon actually had a far greater influence on shaping our contemporary world  than Reagan.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2014, 03:03:32 AM »

1956 without a doubt.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2014, 06:37:28 AM »

1968 was actually much closer than it should've been.
Logged
Heimdal
HenryH
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2014, 08:30:37 AM »

Republicans today talk about nothing but Reagan 24/7. When was the last time you heard one of them say anything about Nixon? They have completely disowned him because he resigned in disgrace.

At the time, yes these were transformative elections, but today they are (mostly) forgotten. The '68 Dem Convention is remembered for various reasons (The riots, the Daley/Ribicoff fight, the Vidal/Buckley fight, etc.) but the actual election results were pretty boring aside from George Wallace.

I don’t think it is just because of Watergate.

It is likely because Nixon was considered a political disappointment by the Movement Conservatives.  He didn’t lower any taxes, he continued the Great Society programs of LBJ, presided over bussing and affirmative action programs and failed to “win” in Vietnam.
The only reason for why they stuck by him in 1972 was because they were terrified by the Democrats.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2014, 10:46:12 AM »

1956 takes the cake, but 1996 and 1984 get honorable mentions.
Logged
Sasquatch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,077


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -8.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2014, 01:06:16 PM »

1956 and 1996 are obvious choices. In a few more years, I think one could add 2004 and 2012 to the list.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2014, 02:01:21 PM »

Definitely 1956 Possibly even Adlai Stevenson himself.
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2014, 09:42:02 PM »

1956 and 1996 are obvious choices. In a few more years, I think one could add 2004 and 2012 to the list.

Comparing only 1956, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004, 2012: I think 2004 was the most interesting and the most diferent in this family. Reelections are usually boring. But 2004 was not. The turnout was high. Much bigger than 1996. It was the first presidential election after the 9/11, so the international media and international public opinion was much more interested in the 2004 election than they were in 2000 (there was big interest in the 2000 election by international media and international public opinion only after the polls were closed, not during the campaign). Usually, the public outside the US is divided. In 2004, it was the first time when almost all the international media and the international public opinion supported the same candidate. This situation repeated in 2008 and 2012. Other innovation brought by 2004 was internet campaigning, the use of social networks.
1972 was also somehow interesting because of the looser, and not because of the winner.
1984, I don´t know why, it very remembered in this forum.

About 1956 and 1996, I don't know what to say. And I don't know what people will talk in 2030 about 2012.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2014, 10:39:03 PM »

1956 and 1996 are obvious choices. In a few more years, I think one could add 2004 and 2012 to the list.

Comparing only 1956, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004, 2012: I think 2004 was the most interesting and the most diferent in this family. Reelections are usually boring. But 2004 was not. The turnout was high. Much bigger than 1996. It was the first presidential election after the 9/11, so the international media and international public opinion was much more interested in the 2004 election than they were in 2000 (there was big interest in the 2000 election by international media and international public opinion only after the polls were closed, not during the campaign). Usually, the public outside the US is divided. In 2004, it was the first time when almost all the international media and the international public opinion supported the same candidate. This situation repeated in 2008 and 2012. Other innovation brought by 2004 was internet campaigning, the use of social networks.
1972 was also somehow interesting because of the looser, and not because of the winner.
1984, I don´t know why, it very remembered in this forum.

About 1956 and 1996, I don't know what to say. And I don't know what people will talk in 2030 about 2012.

1956 was literally just a preservation of the status quo. No major issues, same candidate as 1952, similar popular/electoral vote margins.
1996 is essentially a less interesting 1992. It had Perot, but he wasn't even included in the debates and ran 10% behind his 1992 total. Clinton's PV total increased significantly but that's entirely due to Perot's reduced presence.
1984 wasn't a very interesting election, it's just widely known for being so much of a landslide (Reagan's 525 EVs and 49 states).

I think 2012 will end up as one of the least interesting elections in modern history. Like 1956 and 1996, there was basically a preservation of the status quo. Only two states flipped, even less than 1956 and 1996. Within 20 years it will probably be forgotten, just as 1996 is today.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2014, 01:21:40 AM »

The 2012 general election might not be that highly remembered, but the Republican primary will be  as a reminder to parties across the world to not give nutjob's the attention they think they deserve.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2014, 08:49:47 AM »

1956.
Logged
Heimdal
HenryH
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2014, 09:18:28 AM »

I think the 1956 Election is far more interesting than people give it credit for. In this election you can see that the South is finally starting to slip for the Democrats. The Republican ticket wins Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Texas and Tennessee. Ike is even able to pick off Louisiana from the Democratic coalition. In this respect the 1956 Election says something about the changing political coalitions.

As for uninteresting elections my main candidates are 2004 and 2012.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2014, 04:25:50 PM »

I think the 1956 Election is far more interesting than people give it credit for. In this election you can see that the South is finally starting to slip for the Democrats. The Republican ticket wins Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Texas and Tennessee. Ike is even able to pick off Louisiana from the Democratic coalition. In this respect the 1956 Election says something about the changing political coalitions.

As for uninteresting elections my main candidates are 2004 and 2012.


Both parties were able to get their president reelected while losing independents and those whose #1 issue was the economy.  A first for the modern era.  That's what makes 2004 and 2012 interesting.  I would say 1932/1980/2008 were actually the most boring, because it was so obvious to everyone that the incumbent party had no chance.
Logged
The Free North
CTRattlesnake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2014, 05:45:12 PM »

1956, but not for lack of fantastic election commercials

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9PsMDjc8g
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2014, 06:01:28 PM »

Give it a few more years, and 2004 will be a possible answer.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2014, 08:09:26 AM »

1988.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2014, 01:30:39 PM »

Logged
nolesfan2011
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,411
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.68, S: -7.48

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2014, 09:18:16 PM »

56, 84, 88, 96.

1956 was a walk in the park with repeat candidates and no interesting third party candidates, 84 and 88 were landslides and the Dems had weak candidates, 96 had a weak GOP candidate and was pretty boring.
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 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.