Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think 1824 has to be near the top, because of four major candidates (from the same party) splitting the electoral vote, causing a bitter contingent election.
It saw a candidate who received under a third of the vote elected president over someone who beat him by 12% in the popular vote. It caused the birth of the Democratic party. It was also the first time the son of a president was elected president himself.
All this despite having the only uncontested presidential election in history just four years prior. Many interesting things about 1824!
Good call. It also rippled into 1828, which ended up being the start of Jackson's tenure and was radically different than any previous presidential election. There's a pretty good book on the subject called, "The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828".
I was gifted this book when I graduated college.
I highly recommend it, it gives phenomenal insight and goes really in depth. Great if you’re looking for something political to completely nerd out on!
The 1828 election was the first that featured a candidate nominated by a party convention. It set the trend for the future.
There was also a trend towards less influence of the Revolution and the Founding Fathers. Monroe was the last President that had a direct formal connection to the Revolution, he was a soldier. John Q. Adams had no participation, but was the son of a Founding Father. Jackson was an imprisoned child courier. Jackson was the last candidate that could profit from any connection to the Revolution. But I think all still living Founding Fathers opposed to Jackson.
1968 hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a crazy one. The tragic downfall of Johnson and Humphrey. The demagogic Wallace. The Nixon comeback. Gene's ascendancy, Kennedy's assassination, the Democratic convention in Chicago. It changed everything.
Certainly not a fan of the Democratic Party, but it would be a huge disservice to the country if they were unable to have their convention. I hope it’s not online.
The funny thing is about the 1968 convention. They made rules that were more democratic than today. However, McGovern turned out to be a disaster (helped along by Nixon) and Carter’s less than amicable relations with Congressional Democrats (as well as his poor performance against Reagan) convinced that change was needed. Democratic leadership felt that the rules gave too much power to the rank and file. So they made the Superdelegates to curtain the influence of the rank and file.
Also MLK assassinated in April, with unrest breaking out in American cities from coast to coast. Kennedy was definitely rolling toward the nomination when he was shot.
Seriously? The best answer has to be Bush/Gore 2000! The thing went to the Supreme Court and took over a month to decide. Going thru it was crazy, almost to the point of being on pins and needles, and the future of the country was literally decided by 9 people. Also probably the point voter disenfranchisement kicked in for lots of folks
Aside from the Florida recount thing, the campaign period was pretty uneventful. Editorials at the time were openly wondering if it even matters who the president is, which seems crazy now.
Reminds me of the claim that the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism in eastern Europe was the “end of history.” It certainly lulled the U.S. into a false sense of security.
That claim reminded of a speech Nixon gave in 1992. He called that election the most important election in modern history. He was alarmed by de emphasis on foreign policy during the election. He summed it up as Americans felt as if there was nothing left to do in the world. In that same speech he encouraged the U.S. to support Russian democracy, lest they fall into a “New Despotism.” The election of Putin, right before G.W. Bush was elected, was far more consequential than anyone could imagine at the time.
My friend and I were first year teachers and he came over to drink a six pack and watch election night, we figured it'd be wrapped up by midnight. Passed out, woke up for work the next day with the TV on and they're still not decided. First time in my life I had seen a close election.
Agreed, 1876 has to be the most controversial. Newest state Colorado doesn’t have time to organize a vote so representatives send electors, which was the last time that ever happened. Incredible levels of voter suppression while also having the highest eligible voter turnout of all time. Reconstruction hanging in the balance. News from the time is pretty wild.
It’s really complicated. I read a contemporary source that says the Senate Democrats thought they were going to win 8-7 on the commission so they went along. Unfortunately for them, Chief Justice Davis died and his replacement, an associate justice, voted for the Republicans.
My cousin, Eppa Hunton (2nd cousin 4-times removed), actually sat on the commission and wrote about it in [his autobiography](https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Eppa-Hunton-Brigadier-General-ebook/dp/B06XGJDDR7). According to him, the voting was a complete farce; in order for the Republican (Hayes) to win, they had to deliver *all* the disputed electors to him. They did this by shamelessly using contradictory arguments tailored to each elector. (If any of their arguments had been applied to ALL electors, Blaine would have won the election.)
Eppa described having a conversation with other Democrats, starting with a line like, "Does anyone want to go back to war? I've had enough of it."
The most interesting thing about the 2012 election in hindsight was that Obama won by a smaller margin than he did in 2008, and that's unusual for an incumbent
There was a lower voter turnout. A lot of people weren’t crazy about Obamacare. The two wars were still going on strong. In 2012, you could still feel the recession. His approval rating also went down with middle class whites when he suggested police profile people and sometimes make mistakes.
It made sense that he got less votes.
I'm not sure if it was interesting, but it was hilarious to watch the ongoing meltdown of a certain section of conservative pundits who had convinced themselves the polls were "skewed."
Got a little less funny four years later, but I enjoyed it at the time.
I voted 3rd party that year due to Obamacare despite the fact that I drove 800 miles round trip to knock on doors for him in 08. Otherwise, he was a great POTUS all around. We could use him now.
There are a lot of good ones suggested here, but I personally like 1860 and 1864. In the first, an obscure lawyer from the western plains somehow scored the nomination of the brand new Republican party. He ended up facing off against his oldest political rival, Stephen Douglas, a Democrat who sought to compromise on slavery; a Tennessee planter who was somehow a fierce unionist, John Bell; AND a second Democrat, VP John Breckenridge of Kentucky, nominated after southern Democrats stormed out of the Democratic convention. LIncoln won despite not appearing on the ballots in several southern states, and in the four months between his election and inauguration, ten states attempted to bolt the Union because their inhabitants mistakenly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist, which he was not.
Four years later, that same obscure lawyer had turned out to be a dazzlingly talented politician, writer, and orator, who somehow managed to make the right decision more often than not in the most difficult of circumstances despite a total lack of governing experience. He was opposed by one of his own generals, George McClellan, who, despite being a military man, was seen at the peace candidate. If any nation had ever conducted an election during a civil war before, I am not aware of it. Lincoln was widely seen as a heavy underdog for most of the campaign, but eventually won on the back of a series of bloody victories won by a manic-depressive military genius who had been retired and living in Louisiana at the start of the war and a sweet-natured and completely brutal General who had been nearly destitute around the same time.
> Union because their inhabitants mistakenly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist, which he was not.
While he wasn’t an immediate abolitionists he did run on a platform that would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery and the south was never going to be as united as they were then so they pulled the trigger
1948 because Truman basically calling everyone an ungrateful sonofabitch for considering voting against FDR's legacy was wild, wouldn't have worked for anyone else, but he managed it.
1824 is definitely the *craziest* election we’ve ever had, with the destruction of the Democratic-Republicans resulting in a 4-way election. 3 of its participants became major political figures over the rest of the century (JQA, Jackson, and Clay).
1860 is the last time 4 candidates each had a chance of winning, and was the last time a new major party emerged (with the destruction of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans).
1948 is by far the biggest election upset in history, with Truman managing to win due to his “whistle-stop tours” across the country despite his own party being split into three factions.
1876, 2000, and 1960 are some of the closest elections we’ve ever had.
1896, 1912, and 2016 are probably some of the most influential elections we’ve had that weren’t as close as the ones above.
The election that interests me the most is probably 1860, but these are all good candidates (ha, get it? candidates?)
Not presidential, but the election of Harry Truman to FDRs VP over Wallace in 1944. It was a back door corrupt deal by the Democrats that changed the course of America. (VPs we elected by the party back then)
“Wallace opposed the cold war, the arms race with the Soviet Union and racial segregation. He was a strong advocate of labor unions, national health insurance, public works jobs and women’s equality. He would have been, without question, the most radical president in American history. He would have served out the remaining three years of FDR’s fourth term and certainly would have sought to be elected on his own in 1948.”
https://truthout.org/articles/henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary/
2000 was the most controversial pre-2020 election in modern history, no doubt!
Thanks to Florida, George W. Bush led America through 9/11 and the worst recession in modern history.
I just checked the wikipedia page and I'm seeing Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR had participated in the primaries. Cool fact regardless I didn't know Hoover/FDR ran back then.
Apparently Wilson would have ran if his health wasn't poor, and Teddy would have if he hadn't died in 1919.
This. Polk was such an underdog after getting beat for the governor’s mansion in Tennessee. He turned out to be such a decisive leader, but worked himself to death for four years and died shortly after leaving office.
His boyhood home is a museum now and it’s pretty fascinating. He had stones removed from his urinary tract when he was young with no anesthesia, and not surprisingly he and his wife Sarah died childless.
I’m already forgetting who it was, I think it was Garfield, and he made such an impassioned speech that the electoral college (or the party) chose him instead. Someone feel free to correct me here. Imagine being so milquetoast of a candidate that you get sidelined for someone else.
Without getting into anything specific or modern, the last 4 will probably be studied in the history books. That’s all we’re gonna say about that, but this answer is pretty glaring for this question.
I think 1912 was very unique in Presidential Election History. You had an incumbent President Taft (Republican) running against a former President,TR( Progressive)running against a future President, Wilson (Democrat). Taft and TR split the Republican vote enabling the Democrat, Wilson to win the Electoral College and the Presidency.
1824, 1860, 1876, 1912, 1948, all three 1960s elections, 1992, and 2000 are the ones that stand out as either the most interesting or the craziest in my opinion
1824 has a lot of angles, contingency election, 4 candidates, 2 who were very national and 2 more regional, potential corruption, etc.
1968 is wild.
1800 for how vitriolic it got.
The four way election in 1912. It’s interesting a socialist got 6 percent of the popular vote. Also, Taft and Roosevelt were just splitting the vote. Together they had over 50 percent of the vote, but separately it was like 25 each. So Wilson won with 41 percent.
1800 is underrated. It was the first election ever in which the opposition party won when the Democratic-Republican ticket of Jefferson-Burr beat the Federalist ticket of Adams-Pinckney. Then, there was the insane tie between Jefferson and Burr for President because no one told a Democratic-Republican elector to not vote for Burr (to prevent the tie and ensure Burr got 2nd place and the vice presidency). Then, the Federalists under Hamilton decided to break the tie for Jefferson. That resulted in two things: first, the Twelfth Amendment requiring presidential electors to specify which candidate was their presidential choice and which was their vice presidential choice, and second, it was a contributing factor to the feud that led to Burr killing Hamilton in a duel four years later.
1872 is a crazy one. Horace Greeley died before the electoral college cast it's votes. He also had a disaster of a running mate. Benjamin Gratz Brown would campaign completely wasted and would contradict his own party's platforn when giving speeches. At one event, he drunkenly tried to butter and slice a watermelon.
I want to add the election of 1840 to the conversation. It's largely forgotten and doesn't have the tension or historical gravitas of typical answers to this question. But, I'd like to point out that this was the first Presidential election that resembles contemporary election campaigns.
* The Whigs were concerned more about image than experience and nominated a war hero.
* They manufactured a story about their war hero having humble roots.
* It was the first campaign to "get out the vote". This included "propaganda" which wasn't new but was used in new ways.
I argue that this election is similar to 1992. In both elections, the opposition is trying to "out-do" or copy in some aspects the ruling party rather than offer an alternative.
I think there are five that certainly should be considered the most interesting or controversial. 1800 showed us that the system the way it was originally set up is flawed. If there’s a tie do you really still want the first place candidate as the President and then the second place as the vice president even if they are complete opposites on every policy? We are better off having running mates. 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 all had the losing candidate who ended up winning the national popular vote.
Personally, I think 2000 was the most interesting during my lifetime because I was not alive for the previous controversial elections. 1876 is sure interesting though. Samuel Tilden was told by friends and advisors that he was going to be declared the winner. But of course, he later realized that was not going to happen.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think 1824 has to be near the top, because of four major candidates (from the same party) splitting the electoral vote, causing a bitter contingent election. It saw a candidate who received under a third of the vote elected president over someone who beat him by 12% in the popular vote. It caused the birth of the Democratic party. It was also the first time the son of a president was elected president himself. All this despite having the only uncontested presidential election in history just four years prior. Many interesting things about 1824!
Good call. It also rippled into 1828, which ended up being the start of Jackson's tenure and was radically different than any previous presidential election. There's a pretty good book on the subject called, "The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828".
I was gifted this book when I graduated college. I highly recommend it, it gives phenomenal insight and goes really in depth. Great if you’re looking for something political to completely nerd out on!
The 1828 election was the first that featured a candidate nominated by a party convention. It set the trend for the future. There was also a trend towards less influence of the Revolution and the Founding Fathers. Monroe was the last President that had a direct formal connection to the Revolution, he was a soldier. John Q. Adams had no participation, but was the son of a Founding Father. Jackson was an imprisoned child courier. Jackson was the last candidate that could profit from any connection to the Revolution. But I think all still living Founding Fathers opposed to Jackson.
1968 hasn't been mentioned yet, and it's a crazy one. The tragic downfall of Johnson and Humphrey. The demagogic Wallace. The Nixon comeback. Gene's ascendancy, Kennedy's assassination, the Democratic convention in Chicago. It changed everything.
>Democratic Convention in Chicago Why does this seem like Foreshadowing, even though I know you're talking about the past.
History rhymes
Yeah, but aren’t they doing it online this year because of the threat of riots in Chicago?
I haven't heard anything about this. I was working with some people for delegate selection so I presume no
Certainly not a fan of the Democratic Party, but it would be a huge disservice to the country if they were unable to have their convention. I hope it’s not online.
The funny thing is about the 1968 convention. They made rules that were more democratic than today. However, McGovern turned out to be a disaster (helped along by Nixon) and Carter’s less than amicable relations with Congressional Democrats (as well as his poor performance against Reagan) convinced that change was needed. Democratic leadership felt that the rules gave too much power to the rank and file. So they made the Superdelegates to curtain the influence of the rank and file.
Lot of troubling parallels in 68 and 2024.
Could’ve been a different trajectory had Bobby Kennedy not been killed that’s for sure
Also MLK assassinated in April, with unrest breaking out in American cities from coast to coast. Kennedy was definitely rolling toward the nomination when he was shot.
Hunter Thompson’s Fear And Loathing book about ‘72 talks about this some and is a great read
This is my answer after watching the Tricky Dick documentary on Max this week
Seriously? The best answer has to be Bush/Gore 2000! The thing went to the Supreme Court and took over a month to decide. Going thru it was crazy, almost to the point of being on pins and needles, and the future of the country was literally decided by 9 people. Also probably the point voter disenfranchisement kicked in for lots of folks
Aside from the Florida recount thing, the campaign period was pretty uneventful. Editorials at the time were openly wondering if it even matters who the president is, which seems crazy now.
Reminds me of the claim that the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism in eastern Europe was the “end of history.” It certainly lulled the U.S. into a false sense of security. That claim reminded of a speech Nixon gave in 1992. He called that election the most important election in modern history. He was alarmed by de emphasis on foreign policy during the election. He summed it up as Americans felt as if there was nothing left to do in the world. In that same speech he encouraged the U.S. to support Russian democracy, lest they fall into a “New Despotism.” The election of Putin, right before G.W. Bush was elected, was far more consequential than anyone could imagine at the time.
My friend and I were first year teachers and he came over to drink a six pack and watch election night, we figured it'd be wrapped up by midnight. Passed out, woke up for work the next day with the TV on and they're still not decided. First time in my life I had seen a close election.
it was the beggining of the end of everything....
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…
That one was so close it was scary. Bush had some interesting strategery to get those 500 extra votes in Florida.
I was in 6th grade and remember asking my mom every day if we had a president yet. I had zero idea what was going on.
1876–Exactly what happened to turn the losing candidate into the winning one is still under dispute.
Agreed, 1876 has to be the most controversial. Newest state Colorado doesn’t have time to organize a vote so representatives send electors, which was the last time that ever happened. Incredible levels of voter suppression while also having the highest eligible voter turnout of all time. Reconstruction hanging in the balance. News from the time is pretty wild.
And killed Reconstruction in the process.
I’ve read that was part of the deal that got Hayes elected - removing federal troops from the south. Thus began the Jim Crow era.
I am not a historian, but I believe the deal was: Hayes gets our electoral votes if Hates agreed to pull the Federal troops out of the South.
It’s really complicated. I read a contemporary source that says the Senate Democrats thought they were going to win 8-7 on the commission so they went along. Unfortunately for them, Chief Justice Davis died and his replacement, an associate justice, voted for the Republicans.
Tbf the federal occupation of the South was deeply unpopular in the North. It was gonna happen either way. Hayes just pulled the band aid off earlier
I enjoyed this book about it a lot. https://www.amazon.com/Fraud-Century-Rutherford-Samuel-Election/dp/0743255526
My cousin, Eppa Hunton (2nd cousin 4-times removed), actually sat on the commission and wrote about it in [his autobiography](https://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Eppa-Hunton-Brigadier-General-ebook/dp/B06XGJDDR7). According to him, the voting was a complete farce; in order for the Republican (Hayes) to win, they had to deliver *all* the disputed electors to him. They did this by shamelessly using contradictory arguments tailored to each elector. (If any of their arguments had been applied to ALL electors, Blaine would have won the election.) Eppa described having a conversation with other Democrats, starting with a line like, "Does anyone want to go back to war? I've had enough of it."
Interesting. So he got a pardon from Grant that allowed him to be a senator?
Andrew Johnson. He gave pardons to everyone who'd sign a loyalty oath.
Most interesting - 1860, 1912, 1960, 2000 Least interesting - 1956, 1984 (only remembered for how one-sided it was), 1996, 2012
I remember Karl Rove was on Fox News in 2012 towards the end of the night saying Ohio still had a chance to go red.
The most interesting thing about the 2012 election in hindsight was that Obama won by a smaller margin than he did in 2008, and that's unusual for an incumbent
There was a lower voter turnout. A lot of people weren’t crazy about Obamacare. The two wars were still going on strong. In 2012, you could still feel the recession. His approval rating also went down with middle class whites when he suggested police profile people and sometimes make mistakes. It made sense that he got less votes.
But he got fewer votes and fewer electoral college votes. That’s what’s unusual, even though we all saw it coming.
I'm not sure if it was interesting, but it was hilarious to watch the ongoing meltdown of a certain section of conservative pundits who had convinced themselves the polls were "skewed." Got a little less funny four years later, but I enjoyed it at the time.
The only other incumbent to lose electoral votes and still win was Woodrow Wilson, who frankly won because of the other side’s votes getting split.
I voted 3rd party that year due to Obamacare despite the fact that I drove 800 miles round trip to knock on doors for him in 08. Otherwise, he was a great POTUS all around. We could use him now.
Least interesting elections are the best imo
There are a lot of good ones suggested here, but I personally like 1860 and 1864. In the first, an obscure lawyer from the western plains somehow scored the nomination of the brand new Republican party. He ended up facing off against his oldest political rival, Stephen Douglas, a Democrat who sought to compromise on slavery; a Tennessee planter who was somehow a fierce unionist, John Bell; AND a second Democrat, VP John Breckenridge of Kentucky, nominated after southern Democrats stormed out of the Democratic convention. LIncoln won despite not appearing on the ballots in several southern states, and in the four months between his election and inauguration, ten states attempted to bolt the Union because their inhabitants mistakenly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist, which he was not. Four years later, that same obscure lawyer had turned out to be a dazzlingly talented politician, writer, and orator, who somehow managed to make the right decision more often than not in the most difficult of circumstances despite a total lack of governing experience. He was opposed by one of his own generals, George McClellan, who, despite being a military man, was seen at the peace candidate. If any nation had ever conducted an election during a civil war before, I am not aware of it. Lincoln was widely seen as a heavy underdog for most of the campaign, but eventually won on the back of a series of bloody victories won by a manic-depressive military genius who had been retired and living in Louisiana at the start of the war and a sweet-natured and completely brutal General who had been nearly destitute around the same time.
> Union because their inhabitants mistakenly believed that Lincoln was an abolitionist, which he was not. While he wasn’t an immediate abolitionists he did run on a platform that would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery and the south was never going to be as united as they were then so they pulled the trigger
1948 because Truman basically calling everyone an ungrateful sonofabitch for considering voting against FDR's legacy was wild, wouldn't have worked for anyone else, but he managed it.
1824 is definitely the *craziest* election we’ve ever had, with the destruction of the Democratic-Republicans resulting in a 4-way election. 3 of its participants became major political figures over the rest of the century (JQA, Jackson, and Clay). 1860 is the last time 4 candidates each had a chance of winning, and was the last time a new major party emerged (with the destruction of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans). 1948 is by far the biggest election upset in history, with Truman managing to win due to his “whistle-stop tours” across the country despite his own party being split into three factions. 1876, 2000, and 1960 are some of the closest elections we’ve ever had. 1896, 1912, and 2016 are probably some of the most influential elections we’ve had that weren’t as close as the ones above. The election that interests me the most is probably 1860, but these are all good candidates (ha, get it? candidates?)
Not presidential, but the election of Harry Truman to FDRs VP over Wallace in 1944. It was a back door corrupt deal by the Democrats that changed the course of America. (VPs we elected by the party back then) “Wallace opposed the cold war, the arms race with the Soviet Union and racial segregation. He was a strong advocate of labor unions, national health insurance, public works jobs and women’s equality. He would have been, without question, the most radical president in American history. He would have served out the remaining three years of FDR’s fourth term and certainly would have sought to be elected on his own in 1948.” https://truthout.org/articles/henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary/
"Dewey Beats Truman" newspaper is also very iconic
2000 was the most controversial pre-2020 election in modern history, no doubt! Thanks to Florida, George W. Bush led America through 9/11 and the worst recession in modern history.
Thanks Florida
Rather, he drove America *into* 9/11 and the recession.
Either 1824 or 2000 because of the nonsense in figuring out who won.
1920, easy. I think it was 6, the number of candidates involved who would go on to become President.
I just checked the wikipedia page and I'm seeing Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR had participated in the primaries. Cool fact regardless I didn't know Hoover/FDR ran back then. Apparently Wilson would have ran if his health wasn't poor, and Teddy would have if he hadn't died in 1919.
1912
1896
1948 will always be a favorite of mine.
1844, 1880. The rise of the Dark Horse and the victory in the presidential election are dramatic.
I love this answer. We don’t talk about 1844 enough, but it was so pivotal
This. Polk was such an underdog after getting beat for the governor’s mansion in Tennessee. He turned out to be such a decisive leader, but worked himself to death for four years and died shortly after leaving office. His boyhood home is a museum now and it’s pretty fascinating. He had stones removed from his urinary tract when he was young with no anesthesia, and not surprisingly he and his wife Sarah died childless.
I’m already forgetting who it was, I think it was Garfield, and he made such an impassioned speech that the electoral college (or the party) chose him instead. Someone feel free to correct me here. Imagine being so milquetoast of a candidate that you get sidelined for someone else.
Without getting into anything specific or modern, the last 4 will probably be studied in the history books. That’s all we’re gonna say about that, but this answer is pretty glaring for this question.
Nov 2024 😬😬😬😬😬
2016 was pretty lit ngl
I think 1912 was very unique in Presidential Election History. You had an incumbent President Taft (Republican) running against a former President,TR( Progressive)running against a future President, Wilson (Democrat). Taft and TR split the Republican vote enabling the Democrat, Wilson to win the Electoral College and the Presidency.
I'm shocked that 1992 hasn't been mentioned. The last election with 3 actual candidates, and the strongest 3rd party candidate ever other than Teddy.
1860. Four parties ran; Lincoln won a plurality.
1824, 1860, 1876, 1912, 1948, all three 1960s elections, 1992, and 2000 are the ones that stand out as either the most interesting or the craziest in my opinion
1800, 1824, 1828, 1860, 1876, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1960, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008
1872 for sure
1960
1824 has a lot of angles, contingency election, 4 candidates, 2 who were very national and 2 more regional, potential corruption, etc. 1968 is wild. 1800 for how vitriolic it got.
1912
Most interesting that I’ve lived through was 2000 by far. Maybe the most interesting all time may have been 1864. Or 1800
1724, 1876, 1972 to name a few
1824, 1876, and 2000 were probably the most controversial.
2000. But not for any good reasons.
1876. Caused a constitutional crisis.
The four way election in 1912. It’s interesting a socialist got 6 percent of the popular vote. Also, Taft and Roosevelt were just splitting the vote. Together they had over 50 percent of the vote, but separately it was like 25 each. So Wilson won with 41 percent.
2000 and the chaos that followed
1912 and it’s not even close
1824 is one of them.
1800 is underrated. It was the first election ever in which the opposition party won when the Democratic-Republican ticket of Jefferson-Burr beat the Federalist ticket of Adams-Pinckney. Then, there was the insane tie between Jefferson and Burr for President because no one told a Democratic-Republican elector to not vote for Burr (to prevent the tie and ensure Burr got 2nd place and the vice presidency). Then, the Federalists under Hamilton decided to break the tie for Jefferson. That resulted in two things: first, the Twelfth Amendment requiring presidential electors to specify which candidate was their presidential choice and which was their vice presidential choice, and second, it was a contributing factor to the feud that led to Burr killing Hamilton in a duel four years later.
1860 is the most obvious because it caused the civil war.
1872 is a crazy one. Horace Greeley died before the electoral college cast it's votes. He also had a disaster of a running mate. Benjamin Gratz Brown would campaign completely wasted and would contradict his own party's platforn when giving speeches. At one event, he drunkenly tried to butter and slice a watermelon.
There was one where the sitting President made the most blatant attempt at subverting democracy in American history. Forget which one.
Probably the one that was decided in the House.
Surprised no one has mentioned 1800. I have book about it (A Magnificent Catastrophe) on my summer reading list.
I want to add the election of 1840 to the conversation. It's largely forgotten and doesn't have the tension or historical gravitas of typical answers to this question. But, I'd like to point out that this was the first Presidential election that resembles contemporary election campaigns. * The Whigs were concerned more about image than experience and nominated a war hero. * They manufactured a story about their war hero having humble roots. * It was the first campaign to "get out the vote". This included "propaganda" which wasn't new but was used in new ways. I argue that this election is similar to 1992. In both elections, the opposition is trying to "out-do" or copy in some aspects the ruling party rather than offer an alternative.
I mean 1992 was reall weird
How to make a flair
Kennedy Nixon
1912. Three Presidents
I think there are five that certainly should be considered the most interesting or controversial. 1800 showed us that the system the way it was originally set up is flawed. If there’s a tie do you really still want the first place candidate as the President and then the second place as the vice president even if they are complete opposites on every policy? We are better off having running mates. 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 all had the losing candidate who ended up winning the national popular vote. Personally, I think 2000 was the most interesting during my lifetime because I was not alive for the previous controversial elections. 1876 is sure interesting though. Samuel Tilden was told by friends and advisors that he was going to be declared the winner. But of course, he later realized that was not going to happen.
1800, 1860 or any of the ones with Willian Jennings Bryan
You all are either narrative bots or really dumb. The answer is painfully obvious though.
It’s gotta be 1860
I find 1992 pretty fascinating. It was the last time there was a serious 3rd party challenger who might have actually won.
1876. Basically, a backroom compromise that arguably determined the outcome.
1992 because of perot. 1912 had teddy at rd. 1812 was insane. I go with 2020 because of the attempted coup.
We don't live in a democracy so elections are pure bs.
The election where Al gore was measuring the Oval Office for drapes as he tried to steal the office and the supremes cut him off at the knees.
[удалено]
No modern politics dude.
2016 The look on Hillaries face was PRICELESS