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 donīt 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.
