If you could reverse the result of 1 of these elections, which would you choose?

[darklordoftech]

You have to pick from the last 8 Presidential elections.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Undoubtedly 2012

[S019]

2008

To get rid of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare

[TPIG]

2012 - we would have stopped the failed Obama Presidency in its tracks, elected one of the most decent and competent men around, and also eliminated a Trump candidacy (at least until 2020).

[Gass3268]

As awful as Trump has been, you can avoid a lot of this by changing 2000 or 2004. Too bad you can go back and change 1980 or 1976.

2012 - we would have stopped the failed Obama Presidency in its tracks, elected one of the most decent and competent men around, and also eliminated a Trump candidacy (at least until 2020).

Lol, failed. Lol, decent. Lol, competent.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Definitely 1992 so we never have to hear about the Clinton's ever.

[_]

92', cause a deadlock in the EC by having Perot win a good number of states. 

[OctoCube]

1992 If by "reverse" I can make Perot the winner

2000 If I can only reverse the top 2

[UlmerFudd]

2012

[Xing]

Easily 2000.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

2008 if I can make Ron Paul the nominee
or
1992 if I can make Perot win
 
If not, 2000 to prevent rampant neoconservatism of the early 2000s and hopefully 9/11 would not happen or Gore would have a more intelligent response.

[President Johnson]

As much as I dislike Trump, but I would undo 2000. Not even close. Al Gore not becoming president is such a great chance missed. America was doing very well when Bill Clinton left office, and Dubya ruined the economy, the nation's treasury and started the disastrous Iraq war, whose consequences we still feel today.

[Lechasseur]

2012

[Kingpoleon]

1992 or 2012.

[Storebought]

2000 is the only correct answer, but only if Gore foiled 9/11.

[Sestak]

Probably 2000.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

1992 or 2000 but leaning 1992. I don't even care whether Bush or Perot wins it, as long Bill Clinton never got elected.

Changing 1980 would even be better i believe so (or 1976 because it would be better to never have Carter, and thus never Reagan). Or maybe 1968 by having RFK as the winner also.

But out of the options 1992.

[HillGoose]

1992 for sure.

[here2view]

As much as I dislike Trump, but I would undo 2000. Not even close. Al Gore not becoming president is such a great chance missed. America was doing very well when Bill Clinton left office, and Dubya ruined the economy, the nation's treasury and started the disastrous Iraq war, whose consequences we still feel today.

These are my thoughts exactly. I initially thought 2016, but 2000 would have prevented or lessened many more issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, the recession, etc.)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1988

[Mr. Smith]

As much as I dislike Trump, but I would undo 2000. Not even close. Al Gore not becoming president is such a great chance missed. America was doing very well when Bill Clinton left office, and Dubya ruined the economy, the nation's treasury and started the disastrous Iraq war, whose consequences we still feel today.

These are my thoughts exactly. I initially thought 2016, but 2000 would have prevented or lessened many more issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, the recession, etc.)

By that logic, the answer is 1988. But I wouldn't change that one unless it were Jesse Jackson or Al Gore that lost.

[Intell]

1988.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1988.

why 1988 over 2000

[thumb21]

1992 in favour of Ross Perot.

[dw93]

1992 with 2000 at a close second. Bush 41 winning a second term means no Republican Revolution, a better end to Somalia,  a better handling of Russia, and a more (well slightly) moderate face on the GOP through the 1990s. 2000 is for obvious reasons.