You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #50: Absolutely 1980. n/t [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
50. Absolutely 1980. n/t
Edited on Sat Oct-30-10 08:13 PM by Fire1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -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 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC