When will America have a presidential election...

[Phony Moderate]

...that isn't hyped up as being more historically important than the two world wars, the Norman conquest, the Cultural Revolution, 9/11, the Crucifixion, Red October and the Black Death combined? Granted it's somewhat more justified than usual this time but ugh. If anything it suppresses turnout rather than enhancing it.

But I'm sure we're all looking forward to the HISTORICALLY VITAL Kaine vs. Gardner 2024 race.

[freefair]

Wasnt 2000 considered the last "nothing at stake" election?

[parochial boy]

Wasnt 2000 considered the last "nothing at stake" election?

Which is pretty ironic, with hindsight.

[Kleine Scheiße]

I can only think of a few elections that were pretty much inconsiquential. The big one that sticks out in my mind is 1924. Maybe 1988, but much less so.

[HisGrace]

I seem to remember 2000 not being that big of a deal while the campaign was actually going on, but I was just a kid. It's hard to imagine anyone being fired up about 96 either.

It's not hard to see why the last four elections were a big deal. 04 we were in the middle of a war, in 08 Obama ran to the left of where he's governed and the financial crisis happened, and this year we have the biggest difference between two candidates since at least Johnson/Goldwater and Trump saying stuff that a major party nominee hasn't said any time in recent memory. 2012 is really the only one where I'd attribute the importance people assigned to it to media hype.

[Kingpoleon]

I seem to remember 2000 not being that big of a deal while the campaign was actually going on, but I was just a kid. It's hard to imagine anyone being fired up about 96 either.

It's not hard to see why the last four elections were a big deal. 04 we were in the middle of a war, in 08 Obama ran to the left of where he's governed and the financial crisis happened, and this year we have the biggest difference between two candidates since at least Johnson/Goldwater and Trump saying stuff that a major party nominee hasn't said any time in recent memory. 2012 is really the only one where I'd attribute the importance people assigned to it to media hype.

I'd say Reagan v. Mondale had a much bigger difference. Kerry v. Bush was also a bigger difference when you take into account the fact that Trump has taken every generic center-right position.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I seem to remember 2000 not being that big of a deal while the campaign was actually going on, but I was just a kid. It's hard to imagine anyone being fired up about 96 either.

It's not hard to see why the last four elections were a big deal. 04 we were in the middle of a war, in 08 Obama ran to the left of where he's governed and the financial crisis happened, and this year we have the biggest difference between two candidates since at least Johnson/Goldwater and Trump saying stuff that a major party nominee hasn't said any time in recent memory. 2012 is really the only one where I'd attribute the importance people assigned to it to media hype.

Although if Romney had won we would probably see it as very consequential.

[All Along The Watchtower]

When the Republican Party stops being a dangerously misanthropic and nihilistic party of demagogues and returns to being a functional party that has even a sliver of respect for human life* - even if they and the Democrats passionately disagree with each other on many policy issues, as I'm sure they will continue to do so indefinitely.


_{*As opposed to their current sanctimonious posturing about being "pro-life" even though they have repeatedly demonstrated that they range from being rather indifferent to the suffering of members of the socially disenfranchised and marginalized to actually actively wanting people to suffer out of some perverse desire for "punishment' that easily crosses into the sadistic.}

[HisGrace]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump takes such vague positions on conventional policy issues that it's admittedly hard to place him on any strict ideological chart, but we haven't seen anything like his nuclear comments from a major party nominee since Goldwater, and his views on immigration, free speech, and trade (as well as other things) haven't been seen from a major party candidate in any modern election.

Although if Romney had won we would probably see it as very consequential.

Maybe just as a "barometer of the national mood" thing (the way that the Reagan elections are "consequential") with Romney's win being a rejection of Obama era "change", but in terms of actual policy over the past four years, changes would be slight, especially when you consider that the Republicans probably don't take the Senate if Romney wins.

[Kingpoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/goldwater-attacks-johnsons-vietnam-policy


It's shocking just how many people think Goldwater advocated nuclear warfare rather than extremely minor nuclear strikes.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I haven't heard of any election being hyped up that way.

[Enduro]

As long as people want it, they're going to hype it up.

[Torie]

Never is the correct answer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, this one is pretty damn important.