If you could change three presidential elections

[Kingpoleon]

1944: Dewey/Bricker
1976: Ford/Rockefeller
2004: Dean/Harold Ford, Jr.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

have you fools never heard of the butterfly effect? Aside from Torie who predates the Revolution, none of us would be born if you change these old election results

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1968, RFK
2000 Gore
2004 Kerry

[pho]

2000: John McCain would have executed the War on Terror much better than GWB. The GOP also probably remains a hospitable place for moderates for at least another decade.

1992: George HW Bush was a great foreign policy President and Clinton was a skeeze in both personal and political affairs. "Blah blah surplus"...I get it, still would rather have had Bush reelected.

1960: No JFK, no LBJ. No LBJ, no Vietnam War. Plus, in spite of all of his paranoia's and "ratf**king", Nixon was a very good President on multiple fronts.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

2000, 1888, and 1876.

Except with the last one make Hayes win fairly instead of giving it to Tilden.

[NeverAgain]

2000: Letting the real man win.

1972: McGovern would have saved this country a whole lotta' heartache and $.

1924: With Fightin' Bob LaFollette I believe we would have been able to help prevent or at least help stabilize The Great Depression

[This account no longer in use.]

have you fools never heard of the butterfly effect? Aside from Torie who predates the Revolution, none of us would be born if you change these old election results

It would be worth it in some cases.

[Maxwell]

1976 - Re-elect Jerry Ford.

1988 - Defeat George HW Bush for god sakes.

2012 - Nominate Rick Perry for the Republicans, only to still have Obama beat him.

[mencken]

1788

Assuming this is not a permissible answer, I would go with 1964 (both to get Goldwater and eliminate Johnson), 1932 (mostly to eliminate Roosevelt), and 1888 (to save the Democratic Party).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Come to think of it, I might choose 1928 and/or 1932, simply so the GOP could be in the position that Democrats are in now (and have been since the Depression).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Come to think of it, I might choose 1928 and/or 1932, simply so the GOP could be in the position that Democrats are in now (and have been since the Depression).

Let it be known that, given the opportunity to change American history for the better, Oldiesfreak's first priority would be to improve the standing of the Republican Party.

()

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

1912: WWI would have been prosecuted more effectively and brought to an end sooner under a Roosevelt administration. A generation of naive Wilsonian internationalism might have been avoided.
1964: The last chance to smother the Great Society in its cradle.
2004: A Kerry administration would have been a disaster for the country but a Bush defeat would have represented the much-needed popular rebuke of neoconservatism that never came.

[Lechasseur]

Sticking to the last 100 years:

1964- I don't love Goldwater (he's too liberal for me especially as he got older), but he was a lot better than LBJ

1992- Republican leadership was working so well- it was a shame to see it end

2012- Not 2008 because I like Romney better than McCain, and I want to preserve the 2010 midterms.

Yep, I would have picked the same three elections in the last century

[Lechasseur]

1992: No Clinton realignment means the GOP would be much stronger today.

Agreed

[Goldwater]

2016: Seems like the safest bet to not butterfly things away and ruin everything.
2012: Also pretty safe, along with the added bonus of most likely no Trump 2016.
2004: The most modern one I can do without breaking the one presidency rule, plus then Kerry gets blamed for the rescission, which I'm fine with. 

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

2016- Do I need a reason?
2000- Al Gore could have won more than just Florida if he focused on the successes of the Clinton Administration.
1912- Teddy Roosevelt deserved another term instead of Woodrow "RACIST" Wilson setting back race relations for 20 years.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

1860

1928

1964

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

1912: WWI would have been prosecuted more effectively and brought to an end sooner under a Roosevelt administration. A generation of naive Wilsonian internationalism might have been avoided.
1964: The last chance to smother the Great Society in its cradle.
2004: A Kerry administration would have been a disaster for the country but a Bush defeat would have represented the much-needed popular rebuke of neoconservatism that never came.

-It came in the 2016 Republican primaries. John McCain might have risen to power in 2008 had Kerry become President. And the SCOTUS consequences would have been a bloodbath.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1916- Wilson 2nd term was horrible and it could have been avoided
1964- LBJ 2nd term was a total disaster and it could have been avoided
2000- John McCain would have been so much better then Bush
2012- Have Romney win (ISIS would have been destroyed by 2013, doesnt push such radical SJW agenda, NO Trump, and we would be in a 2nd term of mitt now)

[Goldwater]

1860

lol

[mencken]

1860

lol

[Grumpier Than Thou]

1912, 2000, 2016

[Maxwell]

Elect Reagan in 1976 (so he could be crushed in 1980)

Jerry Brown is the Dem Nominee in 1992

William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

[The_Doctor]

Realistically, 1992. There's no reason George Bush shouldn't have won another term.

That said I don't think I'm too unhappy with how the country turned out since 1788.

[Mr. Smith]

1896, 1980, and 1920

For now: I revise this to kick out 1920 for the current election...but if Trump fails enough to lose re-election, then I put it back to 1920.