Year with the best group of candidates

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, in your opinion, what election had the best group of candidates running for President?  You can define that by the primaries, the convention (pre 1972), or by the general election.  I'm inclined to say 1976, based on the great Democratic field.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I would say 2008.  Every election cycle it seems as if we have to pick the lesser of two evils.  Last year (2008) was better, but still not great.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     1789

[Raoul]

1912! Epic showdown.

[Nixon in '80]

1980 had an all-star field for both parties:

Sitting President
vs.
The Liberal Lion
vs.
Moonbeam

The Great Communicator
vs.
Crazy Gov't Experience
vs.
Most Respected Man in Senate
vs.
Genuine War Hero
vs.
Conservative Firebrand
vs.
Mr. Independent
vs.
More Crazy Gov't Experience

I'll leave it to you to label all of those.

[Nym90]

     1789

1792 wasn't bad either.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

     1789

1792 wasn't bad either.

No election until 1836 was

[phk]

In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     1789

1792 wasn't bad either.

     1792 was indeed another good one.

[Keystone Phil]

I think I would have absolutely loved 1980 and even 1976. 1976 would have been hard for me though since I have a great appreciation for both Reagan and Ford.

[Lief 🗽]

1912 of course.

[aaaa2222]

I'm going to have to go with 1992. Perot and Clinton in one year sounds pretty good to me.

[Erc]

In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992.

The general election candidates in '96 were fine, certainly...but the primary candidates?  Apart from Dole, the Republican primary field was simply pathetic.

[Nixon in '80]

In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992.

The general election candidates in '96 were fine, certainly...but the primary candidates?  Apart from Dole, the Republican primary field was simply pathetic.

It was certainly a diverse and interesting field... kind of a celebrity showcase of Republicans who had no business running for President (apart from Dole, of course). It may not have been a great field, but it was fun.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1940-1956 weren't bad

[pbrower2a]

1912 and 1992; there were three candidates in each election, including an incumbent President who lost.

1912 was the ultimate, including a fairly-good incumbent President who created no problems, a great ex-President (TR) who still had much to offer, and the winner Woodrow Wilson.

1968? If only Wallace hadn't been a racist.

Perot wasn't TR, but there is no question that had he won he would have left his mark. Perot won more popular votes than any 3rd Party candidate ever, and proportionally more than any since TR (but no electoral votes -- very different from racists Thurmond and Wallace who had their support concentrated in "Kukluxistan". That's a smear of the South then -- not now). 

[Antonio the Sixth]

1896 ( with two very modern candidates ), 1912 ( with the clash of progressivisms : Wilson vs Roosevelt ), 1960 ( A passionating and hardly-fought campaign ), 1976 ( two honest and moderate candidates ), 2000 ( if you put McCain at the place of Bush ).

[Psychic Octopus]

1912, 1972, 2008.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

2008.

I actually think 2008 was a bad year.  None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general.

[Psychic Octopus]

2008.

I actually think 2008 was a bad year.  None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general.

Really? that's kind of why I liked it. And if you look at all the major republican candidates, none of them were true conservatives (minus Thompson) so it was kind of funny to watch them pander to the base massivly.

For the Democrats, It was boring and lasted too long. I only enjoyed it in the beginning, and was hoping this struggle would go all the way to the convention.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

2008.

I actually think 2008 was a bad year.  None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general.

Really? that's kind of why I liked it. And if you look at all the major republican candidates, none of them were true conservatives (minus Thompson) so it was kind of funny to watch them pander to the base massivly.

For the Democrats, It was boring and lasted too long. I only enjoyed it in the beginning, and was hoping this struggle would go all the way to the convention.

It was certainly an interesting primary season, but the candidates weren't all that good.  Some years, like 1976, saw a collection of great candidates run for President; that was lacking in 2008, I thought.

[pogo stick]

1980.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I would say 2008.  Every election cycle it seems as if we have to pick the lesser of two evils.  Last year (2008) was better, but still not great.

2008 had the best selection of candidates in any election since at least 1956, and probably the best we're likely to have in any election while I'm alive.

[Alexander Hamilton]

1948 and 1960, I guess. I don't think I could be undecided in any election. Too many concrete differences between the candidates.

[hcallega]

For me 1988 has got to be a good one, at least on the Democratic side. While the candidates weren't great, you really saw all the different parts of the Democratic Party in one race:
Dukakis/Simon: Liberals
Hart/Biden: Yuppies
Gephardt: Labor
Jackson: Minorities
Gore/Babbit: Moderates (if Clinton had run it would have been interesting to see what would have happened)

This is a big reason why there was no one frontrunner, whereas if Cuomo or Kennedy had run you would have seen a much more united field (Liberals, Labor, Minorities at the very least).

1976 was good, but the campaigns of a lot of Democrats sort of died (Bayh, Humphrey, Jackson, Udall)