What do you feel the most important election of US history is?

[WilliamStone1776]

discuss please.

[darklordoftech]

1860

[erſatz-york]

1800

[_]

1932

[OSR stands with Israel]

1800

[Sir Tiki]

1860

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

[morgankingsley]

I would say 1860, but since people are already saying that, I will give runner ups

1896, 1968, 2000, 1824, and 1960

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1800
1860
1864
1868
1916
1920
1932
1936
1940
1952
1964
1968
1980
1992
2004
2008
2016

these are the ones that probably had the largest roster of issues in play, and the largest roster of issues decided.

[dw93]

1800
1860
1864
1868
1876
1916
1932
1940
1944
1964
1968
1980
1992
2000
2008

Honorable Mention:
2016

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

No that's 1800. 1860 had the most important nominating convention as who the Republicans chose would have a major impact, but the South acting like spoiled brats was inevitable that year.

[Suburbia]

1992, 2000, 2008.

2000 showed that America was slowly coming apart. From Jan.-Sep. 2001, Bush II was seen as a joker, and irrelevant. From Sep. 2001 on, Rush and the conservative media laid the agenda.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I would argue that 1828 was pretty significant as well.

[SWE]

1789, as every election led to the next

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Probably 1800 as it was the first peaceful transfer of power between parties.

[MillennialModerate]

1860 is obviously the answer.

I’d say 1800 for the first peaceful transfer of power between parties and 1932 for digging the country out of the depression and setting the tone for who we’d be during Ww2, those two are tied for second, currently anyway.

I genuinely think 2020 will be second. Think about it: It will either show that 2016 was a “one off” extreme reaction the angst against the establishment or it will show that America has truly lost its way and that ‘16 was no fluke. You always hear politicians say “the stakes are so high in this election” but in 2020, they are the highest they’ve ever been except for 1860.

I also believe that 1960 would have been #2 had it not been for Dallas - spring boarding off the WW2 win, the expansion success of the 50’s; 1960 would have ushsered in an era of true greatness for America both domestically and in international affairs. 1968 could have rescued America from its disasterous chaos of Vietnam & spared it from the conflicts of watergate and a turbulent 70’s, but then the Ambassador Hotel happened.

[beaver2.0]

1800, and the setting of a precedent for a peaceful transfer of power.

1860 is definitely important, but I don't think there was much that could have been done at that point to avoid some sort of civil strife.

I'd say 1932 is important in that a competent President was elected, avoiding a fascist America.

[Karpatsky]

I think the standard should be 'how much would history have diverged had the other guy won' as well as how close it was. 1860 is an obvious answer; I'd also make a case for 1912 and 1936, given their potential impact on US involvement in the world wars, as well as long-term social and economic policy.

[Pyro]

All elections have potential to directly influence the course of history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think the standard should be 'how much would history have diverged had the other guy won' as well as how close it was. 1860 is an obvious answer; I'd also make a case for 1912 and 1936, given their potential impact on US involvement in the world wars, as well as long-term social and economic policy.

1912 didn't have that much effect. If Teddy had been President, the Lusitania incident, if it still happened, would have gotten us involved sooner, but while that would have increased Allied manpower, it wouldn't have significantly increased Allied war materiel as 1915-6 was the period we ramped up war production anyway. Maybe a year gets shaved off the length of the war and the Bolsheviks don't take power.

[Karpatsky]

I think the standard should be 'how much would history have diverged had the other guy won' as well as how close it was. 1860 is an obvious answer; I'd also make a case for 1912 and 1936, given their potential impact on US involvement in the world wars, as well as long-term social and economic policy.

1912 didn't have that much effect. If Teddy had been President, the Lusitania incident, if it still happened, would have gotten us involved sooner, but while that would have increased Allied manpower, it wouldn't have significantly increased Allied war materiel as 1915-6 was the period we ramped up war production anyway. Maybe a year gets shaved off the length of the war and the Bolsheviks don't take power.

Given that the Cold War is a solid fifth of America's history, I'd say just that last point is a significant enough turning point. But in terms of 1912 I was talking more about the Progressive platform and the potential for the Republicans being replaced wholesale, which would be a major shift.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Decent case can be made for 1876 tbh.

[The Mikado]

1800 is the obvious answer, but it's a really good answer.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

No that's 1800. 1860 had the most important nominating convention as who the Republicans chose would have a major impact, but the South acting like spoiled brats was inevitable that year.

Is not that nominating convention a part of the election? It's beyond dispute that the South was going to try and break off from the Union in 1861 no matter what. Far less certain was the Northern response to secession. A stronger showing by Douglas in the Old Northwest might well have been enough to elect Democratic state governments in Illinois and Indiana — two states whose unequivocal support for the Union during the war was decisive in the fighting on the western front. Replacing Oliver Morton with Thomas Hendricks as governor of Indiana from 1861 to 1865 absolutely changes the course, if not the outcome, of the war (Lincoln himself considered Morton so important to the Union war effort that he personally appealed to General Sherman to furlough his Indiana soldiers in time for them to return home and vote for Morton's reelection). Instead, the Northwest closed ranks with the upper North to support the Republican ticket in 1860 — a result that was anything but inevitable and everything but inconsequential.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

1789 or 1860.