DaveinMD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message |
|
That is when the move to the right in this country really began. And we could have won the War on Poverty. If RFK didn't get killed, this country would be such a different place.
|
| -If you could reverse the outcome of ONE presidential election in US history |
ruggerson |
Oct-30-10 10:32 AM |
#0 |
-
2000 |
tabatha |
Oct-30-10 10:34 AM |
#1 |
 -
1968 |
Ghost of Tom Joad |
Oct-30-10 01:29 PM |
#25 |
  -
+1 |
PAMod |
Oct-30-10 10:02 PM |
#53 |
  -
Totally 1968! President Humphrey would have changed the course of history! |
Emillereid |
Nov-01-10 05:41 PM |
#104 |
 -
2000. That one will hurt forever....nt |
lunamagica |
Oct-30-10 03:21 PM |
#32 |
 -
No contest |
XemaSab |
Oct-30-10 07:42 PM |
#45 |
 -
Agreed - 2000 indeed! |
DonkeyHoTay |
Oct-31-10 12:37 AM |
#62 |
-
Another vote for 1980 |
livetohike |
Oct-30-10 10:36 AM |
#2 |
-
Sure I can't have two? |
BootinUp |
Oct-30-10 10:37 AM |
#3 |
-
Gut says 2000, but reason says 1980. No Reagan, no Bush. nt |
onehandle |
Oct-30-10 10:39 AM |
#4 |
 -
Plus 4 more years of Carter would have done a lot |
tinrobot |
Oct-30-10 11:40 PM |
#58 |
 -
+1 nt |
ZombieHorde |
Oct-31-10 02:17 PM |
#84 |
-
That was my first thought. |
Jackpine Radical |
Oct-30-10 10:43 AM |
#5 |
 -
I was thinkingthe same thing - RFK in the White House instead of frikkin' Tricky Dick. |
kath |
Oct-30-10 02:31 PM |
#28 |
-
This thought seems to be spreading among a whole lot of people. |
Jackpine Radical |
Oct-30-10 03:56 PM |
#35 |
-
Yeah, 1980. nt |
bemildred |
Oct-30-10 10:49 AM |
#6 |
-
I'd say 1952, because the CIA really started going crazy when Eisenhower became president. |
Alexander |
Oct-30-10 10:50 AM |
#7 |
 -
Ike wasn't that bad he was the last reasonable republican |
Bitwit1234 |
Oct-30-10 11:41 AM |
#16 |
  -
However, he appointed Allen Dulles as CIA director. |
Alexander |
Oct-30-10 11:47 AM |
#19 |
 -
Thanks for that brief analysis. |
Jackpine Radical |
Oct-30-10 03:59 PM |
#36 |
 -
1952 is the correct answer |
Yeshuah Ben Joseph |
Oct-30-10 03:36 PM |
#34 |
-
Reagan v. Carter 1980 |
Onlooker |
Oct-30-10 10:50 AM |
#8 |
-
1968 |
DaveinMD |
Oct-30-10 10:57 AM |
#9 |
-
Reagan without question! Without him & his damn trickle down |
napi21 |
Oct-30-10 11:01 AM |
#10 |
-
1980 |
enough already 2 |
Oct-30-10 11:04 AM |
#11 |
-
1980. Carter could have won the election one of several ways: |
leveymg |
Oct-30-10 11:05 AM |
#12 |
-
1980 |
crikkett |
Oct-30-10 11:10 AM |
#13 |
-
1968... |
S_E_Fudd |
Oct-30-10 11:11 AM |
#14 |
 -
There really isn't any question about it |
depakid |
Oct-30-10 06:37 PM |
#42 |
-
I'll join the 1980 bandwagon. nt |
Codeine |
Oct-30-10 11:19 AM |
#15 |
-
My first reaction was 2000, but I think you're right. |
SemiCharmedQuark |
Oct-30-10 11:46 AM |
#17 |
-
I also believe 1980 I was sure he would win |
Bitwit1234 |
Oct-30-10 11:47 AM |
#18 |
 -
2000 for sure |
Nancy Waterman |
Oct-30-10 11:55 AM |
#20 |
-
and meybe, just maybe, no 9/11 eom |
lunamagica |
Oct-30-10 03:25 PM |
#33 |
-
Roberts and Alito came in Bush's second term |
Ter |
Oct-31-10 11:43 AM |
#77 |
-
1980 and 2000 for sure, but also 2004. |
sally cat |
Oct-30-10 12:12 PM |
#21 |
-
Yes, my choice is the same as yours |
Laughing Mirror |
Oct-30-10 12:17 PM |
#22 |
-
1968 or 1980 |
Odin2005 |
Oct-30-10 12:27 PM |
#23 |
-
. |
NoPasaran |
Oct-30-10 01:11 PM |
#24 |
 -
Reconstruction was aborted to appease Tilden supporters... |
Alexander |
Oct-30-10 01:41 PM |
#26 |
-
2000 |
treestar |
Oct-30-10 01:44 PM |
#27 |
-
Agree. Reagan. 1980. |
tilsammans |
Oct-30-10 02:52 PM |
#29 |
-
1972. |
RepublicanElephant |
Oct-30-10 02:57 PM |
#30 |
-
1980 because then Reagan is done. Bush I is unlikely. Bush II never becomes Governor. |
LiberalFighter |
Oct-30-10 03:03 PM |
#31 |
-
2004 |
JustAnotherGen |
Oct-30-10 05:04 PM |
#37 |
-
1920 |
Kaleva |
Oct-30-10 05:11 PM |
#38 |
-
1828. |
boppers |
Oct-30-10 05:21 PM |
#39 |
-
1976--Ford over Carter--it would have meant that the GOP would have been blamed for |
book_worm |
Oct-30-10 05:34 PM |
#40 |
 -
Interestingi analysis |
ruggerson |
Oct-31-10 10:11 AM |
#74 |
-
2000. Absolutely. |
Arkana |
Oct-30-10 06:02 PM |
#41 |
-
I know alot want to say 2000 but seriously - go with 1980. No Reagan, no Bush |
LynneSin |
Oct-30-10 06:40 PM |
#43 |
-
2000, because it was stolen and Bush did.. |
mvd |
Oct-30-10 06:44 PM |
#44 |
-
1856. |
rug |
Oct-30-10 07:46 PM |
#46 |
-
2000. Al Gore would have jump started us off into the 21st Century |
lunatica |
Oct-30-10 07:47 PM |
#47 |
-
1980, No Reagan, No Bush, No Bush ='s No National Debt |
mikekohr |
Oct-30-10 07:55 PM |
#48 |
-
1980 |
Skittles |
Oct-30-10 08:05 PM |
#49 |
-
Absolutely 1980. n/t |
Fire1 |
Oct-30-10 08:11 PM |
#50 |
-
DAMN IT ! |
jaysunb |
Oct-30-10 08:22 PM |
#51 |
-
2000. |
WinkyDink |
Oct-30-10 09:52 PM |
#52 |
 -
Here is why I agree |
mvd |
Oct-30-10 10:42 PM |
#56 |
-
No Citizens United ruling, either. |
tinrobot |
Oct-30-10 11:42 PM |
#59 |
-
1920 |
ellisonz |
Oct-30-10 10:28 PM |
#54 |
-
reagan |
marlakay |
Oct-30-10 10:38 PM |
#55 |
-
1860 |
Ter |
Oct-30-10 11:01 PM |
#57 |
 -
also means one million Americans are not DEAD. |
GSLevel9 |
Nov-01-10 11:43 AM |
#97 |
-
Not 2000. I don't want Bush to have won |
Marsala |
Oct-30-10 11:44 PM |
#60 |
-
Pretty sure 1980 wins hands down |
Ramulux |
Oct-31-10 12:27 AM |
#61 |
-
1980 Raygun |
Raine |
Oct-31-10 03:22 AM |
#63 |
-
1980 when it all began..... |
mr1956 |
Oct-31-10 03:28 AM |
#64 |
-
not to be a copy-cat -- but 1980 has got to be it |
Douglas Carpenter |
Oct-31-10 03:58 AM |
#65 |
-
2000! |
jzodda |
Oct-31-10 04:18 AM |
#66 |
-
Most definitely 1980 and 2000. |
political_Dem |
Oct-31-10 04:30 AM |
#67 |
-
2000, without question. |
Hekate |
Oct-31-10 04:47 AM |
#68 |
-
Excellent post. Couple of good choices but |
Jakes Progress |
Oct-31-10 05:21 AM |
#69 |
-
1980 |
cordelia |
Oct-31-10 06:47 AM |
#70 |
-
I agree, 1980. Without Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 probably wouldn't have happened. nt |
auburngrad82 |
Oct-31-10 06:54 AM |
#71 |
-
2012 |
Kltpzyxm |
Oct-31-10 08:24 AM |
#72 |
-
1980 without a doubt |
Bluenorthwest |
Oct-31-10 08:44 AM |
#73 |
-
The 1980 election was one that needed reversing, |
saltpoint |
Oct-31-10 10:17 AM |
#75 |
-
Definitely Reagan. n/t |
donco6 |
Oct-31-10 10:22 AM |
#76 |
-
Had Gore won we would have been in surplus til at least 2007 |
niceypoo |
Oct-31-10 11:45 AM |
#78 |
-
1980 nt |
Guy Whitey Corngood |
Oct-31-10 11:58 AM |
#79 |
-
1980. nt |
LWolf |
Oct-31-10 11:59 AM |
#80 |
-
Oh hell, 1968. And if it had been held one week later, Humphrey would have won. |
Brickbat |
Oct-31-10 12:02 PM |
#81 |
-
I agree with you. |
Blue_In_AK |
Oct-31-10 01:31 PM |
#82 |
-
1968 |
seafoamrider |
Oct-31-10 01:32 PM |
#83 |
-
I agree. 1980 was thestart of the right wing madness we're still in today. |
craigmatic |
Oct-31-10 02:21 PM |
#85 |
-
1980... |
rasputin1952 |
Oct-31-10 02:25 PM |
#86 |
-
I would reverse 2000 |
AndrewP |
Oct-31-10 02:38 PM |
#87 |
-
Tough call between 1980 and 2000. Have to go with 1980. |
mnhtnbb |
Oct-31-10 02:50 PM |
#88 |
-
1980 or 2000. |
sakabatou |
Oct-31-10 03:40 PM |
#89 |
-
1980 started kicking off the mindset that allowed 2000, I'd say. (nt) |
Posteritatis |
Oct-31-10 05:30 PM |
#90 |
-
1980...Equal Rights Amendment... |
Sancho |
Oct-31-10 06:03 PM |
#91 |
-
1968 |
Phx_Dem |
Oct-31-10 06:11 PM |
#92 |
-
I said 80 - but after some reflection it might really be 68 - but more regarding the GOP nomination |
Douglas Carpenter |
Nov-01-10 12:03 AM |
#93 |
-
After considering all candidates mentioned, I pick 2000 |
Blasphemer |
Nov-01-10 01:09 AM |
#94 |
 -
I do the same - 2000. Without Bush I there is no Clinton. |
kick-ass-bob |
Nov-01-10 10:47 AM |
#95 |
-
2000 without a doubt |
we can do it |
Nov-01-10 11:24 AM |
#96 |
-
1980 |
highplainsdem |
Nov-01-10 04:13 PM |
#98 |
-
I'd still have Clark get the 2004 nomination. |
Crunchy Frog |
Nov-01-10 04:49 PM |
#99 |
-
1980 would change the outcome of all future elections |
budkin |
Nov-01-10 04:52 PM |
#100 |
-
1968 |
cyr330 |
Nov-01-10 05:07 PM |
#101 |
-
1980. Definitely. That would be my choice, too, ruggerson. |
David Zephyr |
Nov-01-10 05:25 PM |
#102 |
-
Gerald Ford |
Guggenheim |
Nov-01-10 05:29 PM |
#103 |