Which Presidential election proved to have the worst consequences?

[El Supremo]

Poll question: Which Presidential election proved to have the worst consequences?

I'm trying to put the Shrub's disastrous pResidency in the perspective of historical opinion.

So now that we know Dubya's agenda, I've included 2004 in the poll. But you might want to judge 2004 just on the last 4 years.

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. bush had to wait til 9/11/01 to start wreaking war and havoch all around

now he gets to do it from day 1

[Pirate Smile]

2. It is hard to say right now if 2004 will be worse then 2000. Who would

of know exactly how terrible 2000 was going to be? I knew it would be bad, but I had no idea how bad.

edit to add: I went with 2000 because without Bush getting in in 2000, we wouldn't have had him in 2004.

[LisaM]

3. I can't vote unless you call it the 2000 election

because I don't think Bush beat Gore.

[Catch22Dem]

4. Possibly Reagan vs. Carter

Kinda set the stage, ya know?

[blm]

16. Yep. That really set EVERYTHING in motion. We're stuck with the BLOWBACK

for decades.

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. My God, I'm agreeing with BLM. The apocolypse MUST be here!!

It's true though. If Poppy had not rigged the Iranian hostage thing and got Reagan in as the empty headed front for his agenda, his own term and Junior's would have been unthinkable.

1980 was the beginning of the end of American democracy :(

[blm]

26. Sh...you've done it a few other times, but, I promise not to tell.....

;)

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Agreed there, we'd still have the south if it weren't for that...

I voted for Bush beating Gore as far as IMMEDIATE effects go, but if Raygun hadn't taken the south, Republicans today would have a much harder time getting any candidate elected prez and the coup de Newt probably would've never happened either.

[me b zola]

34. That was my thought as well

eom

[msgadget]

47. I agree. n/t

[DrGonzoLives]

5. Buchanan beating Fremont

Buchanan fiddled while the South prepared to secede; we're still dealing with the consequences of that moron's inaction. No wonder his own party dumped his ass in 1860.

[Zynx]

8. The South threatened to secede if Fremont won.

The Civil War would have happened regardless in that election.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. Yeah, but it's fun piling on Buchanan

The man was an idiot.

[Zynx]

6. None. Carter beating Ford.

Let me explain this one. The economic and world mess that happened in the years 1977-1981 was going to happen regardless of who was president and what policies were persued at that time. This mess put the Republicans on the road to majority party status and having a Democrat in the White House in that time was just as bad for the Democratic Party as having a Republican in the White House during the Great Depression for the Republican Party. If Ford had won, we would have had no Reagan or Bush II and the Democrats would still be the majority party. Therefor, it was our own victory in 1976 that has put us on this miserable track.

[DrGonzoLives]

11. Interesting theory...

The same thing basically happened when Hoover won - if Smith had won, FDR would have had no shot in 1932, and we might very well have had fascism in the 1930's.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. You may be right but Carter STILL ROCKS

Perhaps he should've run in 1980 instead.

[prodigal_green]

7. I think Bush 2004 is worse

because this time it looks like we CHOSE him. We, as a population, have no credibility in the world.

[sakabatou]

9. If Gore was president

Would he let his presidential memos slip past the radar? Would he not have meetings immediately if someone on the cabinent said there was going to be an attack? Would he read "the Pet Goat"?

[LisaM]

14. Would Gore have read the Gore Commission Report on Airline Security

which, if enacted, might have helped prevent the attacks?

Oh, yeah, that's right. HE WROTE IT.

[ComerPerro]

10. 9/11 happened because Bush "won", so, without a doubt

that is your worst consequence.

[lapfog_1]

13. You left out the most important election

Which, I believe, has led to many of the other elections in
your list.

Carter defeats Ford in 1976.

At the time it happened, I predicted that Reagan would be
President in 4 years... all of my friends laughed at me, many
saying things like "I'll move to Canada if that happens" and
"There's no way such a nut job would ever be elected".

If Carter doesn't defeat Ford... then we have an open race in
1980, and I don't think Reagan even wins the Repub nomination.
Without Reagan, I think the moderates retain control of the
Republican party.

[latteromden]

15. Reagan vs. Carter, I think.

We'll NEVER get out of the hole he put us in, or at least it doesn't look like we will any time soon.

[Dr Ron]

24. Clinton did a good job of digging out

The worst thing about Reagan vs. Carter is that it brought George Bush Senior into the Vice Presidency, leading to him becoming President, helping his son move to a position where he could ultimately become President.

[shawcomm]

17. Bush stealing it from Gore, definitely

Had Gore been in office, we wouldn't have been attacked and the economy wouldn't have tanked. GAWD, can you imagine! We could be sitting here right now singing the praises of our wonderful country, working hard to promote peace and end suffering. Instead we're in a toilet, killing every brown person we meet.

I think I'm going to throw up now...

[Sequoia]

18. I'd say Lincoln; he was shot shortly thereafter

and Johnson became Prez, and he was no friend of the freed slaves.

[El Supremo]

22. If I'd included earlier elections I would vote for 1860.

Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell.

There would not have been a civil war costing far more lives than Iraq or Vietnam. It would not have taken a century for the South to recover and now be the bastion of the Republican Party.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. But we'd still have slavery

Sorry but I'll take Lincoln over any of those pro-slavery assholes any day.

[El Supremo]

27. I don't think so.

Slavery would have died soon enough. Did we really such a bloody war to cleanse the nation of this so-called "original sin?"

You must remember that I am a pacifist.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Slavery would still have existed as a way of keeping black people inferior

Sure, eventually the practical need for slaves would've died down because of modern farming equipment. But practical need for slaves was only part of the reason that the institution remained. Only about 2% of southerners actually owned slaves, coincidentally they happened to be the people in power. However, these people were kept in power because of the crackers, who needed slavery because they wanted to feel superior to black people. Simply put, the crackers would've fought tooth and nail against slavery even if there was no ecoonomic need for it. Frankly they're still fighting tooth and nail against civil rights by voting for the Republicans despite the fact that it's against their own economic interests.

[El Supremo]

29. I'm just talking about slavery not discrimination.

You said yourself that discrimination still exists. Did the end of slavery ease today's discrimination? In the mind of an Unreconstructed Southerner it probably made it worse.

I think that there were enough people in the south that wanted to end slavery. There were many who knew it was wrong. And many had or planned to free their slaves. The only trouble was how to replace the economic system. It would have taken some time. But the whites were so pissed off at the abolitionists that they were intransigent. And Lincoln represented the greatest evil. His election caused the South to secede.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I just think that the crackers would've never let it happen

And it's not Lincoln's fault that the south seceeded, it's their own fault and to a lesser extent the fault of the politicians of the past 50 years who tried to brush the north vs. south tensions aside and never really deal with them. In addition, a Lincoln presidency without the civil war would not have been the end to slavery and I think that the south knew this very well. The same SCOTUS that voted for the Dred Scott decission was still in office and the US Senate was still very much evenly divided between the north and south. So I definately don't fault Lincoln for merely being an anti-slavery candidate being elected to the oval office.

NOW... If you were to argue that his decission to use force on the south was wrong and that the confederacy wouldn've eventually failed to function as a powerful nation, especially compared to the union, and would've eventually wound up rejoining the union peacefully, that is something that I would be very interested in discussing.

[El Supremo]

38. I think there were lots of "crackers" in the North too that didn't ...

want to fight to end slavery. Also the history that I've read says that Lincoln initially did not want to end slavery, the South just thought he would. Yes, it wasn't his fault that the South seceded, but they used his election as their final reason.

And Lord yes, I agree about his raising of 75,000 troops to invade was wrong on his part. But the bigger issue is was it really his responsibility to "save the Union" in that manner? I just wish he hadn't done that. It would have saved a lot of lives and property (not human).

Anyway, my premise is that Lincoln's election brought about the Civil War (War between the States or War of Southern Independence or what have you). It was the darkest time in American History. It did bring about the freedom of all Blacks, which was necessary. But at what horrendous cost? Was all diplomacy dead? It might not have been if Douglas (the Northern Democrat) had been elected.

[Yupster]

40. Diplomacy was dead because Lincoln

declared it dead.

Upon Lincoln's election, only South Carolina seceeded.

That crisis brought men of good will together to avoid other states seceeding.

The most famous example would be the Senate committee chaired by John Crittenden of Kentucky. Crittenden managed to convince the most respected southern senators to not go home, but stay in Washington and try to reach a compromise to avert a Civil War. At great risk to their reputations Senator Davis of Mississippi, Benjamin of Louisiana and Toombs of Georgia. From the north, William Seward was the best known Republican, and Stephen Douglas, though he just lost to Lincoln agreed to work toward keeping the union together. It was an amazing feat for Crittenden to get all sides together.

The only thing that was missing was some leadership or at least direction from the president-elect. The committee quickly passed a rule that said that no proposal would be put on the table unless it had majority Republican support. Seward asked Lincoln again and again for some direction on what he could propose. Lincoln made it clear that he would not offer any.

The committee was doomed from the start. They kept meeting until after Christmas, but without the Republicans being able to act it had no chance. Soon six other states had seceeded and Davis, Benjamin and Toombs returned south.

Davis was elected CSA president.
Benjamin was the first American Jewish cabinet-member.
Toombs was Sec. of State but became a general wounded at Sharpsburg.

Imagine if a little diplomacy had at least kept Virginia in the union. Federal armies would have been led by Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph Johnston, JEB Stuart, and Richard Ewell instead of having to fight against them again and again.

[Yupster]

39. I push quite a bit of the blame for the

Civil War onto Lincoln.

More on him than anyone else.

On whether the Confederacy could have survived long term, my opinion is that it could survive if it included two of the three states of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. Without at least two of those states I don't think the Confederacy was viable. With all three of them it was very viable.

Of course all three of them decided not to secede but then Lincoln stupidly demanded they each provide a quota of regiments for the invasion of the Confederacy. That moronic blunder forced those states to choose sides and they each chose the south.

I absolutely blame Lincoln for that.

Tennessee had just had a popular vote of the people on whether to call a secession convention. The voters narrowly voted no. Then Lincoln demanded troops and another vote was held, this one passing 80-20.

There are other things I blame Lincoln for also, but this post is well long enough.

[Yupster]

36. Slavery ended in Brazil in the 1880's

That was pretty much the last place outside of North Africa where slavery existed. I don't think we would have kept it longer than that.

[Yupster]

35. Sorry El

I just posted pretty much the same thing you did before I read yours. I should have just agreed with you.

[pointcounter]

42. and, short of civil war how would we have

1) ended slavery

2) perhaps more importantly ended the embedded fundamentalist society of the South in 1860?

[Yupster]

44. Before the Civil War

people in the south were looking at the Jamaica model. I'd guess that's how it would have ended if there were no Civil War.

[Yupster]

45. I don't know what your point # 2 means

perhaps if you could expand on it.

[Charon]

51. I would vote for 1860

It may have also meant that the Southern Democratic support for
FDR's New Deal would not have been there, hence no "New Deal"

[hughee99]

19. The 2000 S-Election...

For the other elections (with the exception of the '68 election, which was relatively close), at least there was a clear winner and democracy was served. At least in those elections, the American people (right or wrong) got who they wanted.

I didn't consider 2004 since we haven't really felt the consequences of that election yet.

[faithfulcitizen]

41. agreed, 2000, so far....

:scared:

[El Supremo]

23. Aw come on, somebody's gotta vote Hoover/Smith.

I think the Great Depression was far worse than 9/11 and Iraq. But would Al Smith have handled it better?

[DaveinMD]

30. the Reagan victory over Carter

is what set us in motion towards the politics we see today.

[Yupster]

31. Lincoln defeating

Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell.

About 600,000 bad consequences.

[Walt Starr]

32. None of the above

Because it's Clinton beating Bush in '92. Most disastrous election in Democratic Party history and lead directly to the loss of the House in '94.

[pointcounter]

43. Election of Jefferson

the elections of Jefferson and Jackson really didn't help, although Jefferson is a real challenge because he pulled a Nixon, buying the LA territory.

being the party for a strong national government, democrats have a lot more in common with Washington and Hamilton than Jefferson and Jackson

[imenja]

46. including years would help

2004 Bush-Kerry
2000 Bush-Gore etc...

Would make it more straight forward.

[davepc]

48. Woodrow Wilson beating Roosevelt/Taft

Wilson could of given Bush's 2nd inaugural and wouldn't of missed a beat.

His dragging us into World War I set the table for World War II.

He pushed for and got the income tax and direct election of senators, destroying natural limits to federal government

He believed in the 'white mans burden'. Ardent supporter of the KKK.

Espionage act of 1917, Sedition act of 1918. His rampant gunboat diplomacy in Latin America.

Hell his wife ran the country for a good chunk of his 2nd term because he had a massive stroke which left him a drooling idiot.

[liberal N proud]

49. Bush - Gore, Most of the damage has been done to our democracy

The next four will just be the crowning touches on the defeat of the people.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. The 2000 thievery.

Everything to follow is a result of that stolen election.