highplainsdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-01-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message |
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread