Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

If You Could Undo/Reverse Any Election Result...


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:31 PM

Sort of a weird question, but could potentially create some interesting discussion/debate...

If you could go back in time somehow and undo/change/reverse any one election result in order to change our present day situation for the better, which election would it be?

There are a few options I'd look at:

1968: Nixon/Humphrey
Nixon was, perhaps, the absolute worst man to lead an incredibly divided country in the late 60's/early 70's. Even before watergate, but obviously avoiding that clusterfug would be a good thing.

2000: Bush/Gore
Easily the most obvious recent election that could provide a different result for today. Nobody saw 9/11 coming, and it's hard to really say just how Gore would have reacted differently, but it's clear for one that he would have never sent troops into Iraq and would never have given the rich tax breaks that helped blow the deficit up and would have kept more regulations in place, though to be fair that process was long started before Bush was "elected."

But, when I really think about it, there's one election that, IMO, signifies where we really started to go off on a bad track:

1980: Reagan/Carter
Sure, Jimmy Carter was in over his head. He was not a very effective POTUS (despite being a good man who tried), so I can understand completely why Reagan won in a landslide the way he did. Hell, who knows, I may have voted for him myself if I had been alive/old enough in '80. Still, Reagan ushered in the modern era of tax cuts for the rich, giving corporations a free pass to do whatever they please no matter the cost to the working class, and launched an all-out assault on organized labor that is still being felt today. His short-sighted economics ran up huge deficits and likely cost George Bush his re-election in '92 for simply doing the responsible thing by raising taxes.

This was also the point at which the GOP began to drift toward becoming the party of the extreme right. Sure, it didn't happen completely for another decade or so, but Reagan took a party that was center-right and moved it much further to the fringe, which also resulted in the democrats moving to the center - at least economically - compared to the new deal coalition and ideas that had helped to create the thriving middle class. Some people look back at the 80's and have fond memories, but it reminds me of the 20's - an era where the rich got richer and the gap between rich and poor grew, which is never good for the country. I almost wish George Bush would've won the nomination in '80; if a republican had to win over Carter, an early Bush administration would have done far less harm, IMO, than the legacy left behind by Reaganomics.

#2 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,642 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:41 PM

goldwater-johnson forever put us down the dark path, especially from a foreign policy perspective. We've been a different country ever since.

#3 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,426 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:44 PM

Lincoln/Breckinridge. I have to pay my maid way too much.

#4 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:49 PM

goldwater-johnson forever put us down the dark path, especially from a foreign policy perspective. We've been a different country ever since.


I think Goldwater would have been a terrible President, but there is some truth to this.

#5 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,642 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:00 AM

Goldwater would have been a lot like Hoover I think. An ineffective, weak leader.

But Johnson did absolutely everything wrong.

#6 Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:02 AM

Sort of a weird question, but could potentially create some interesting discussion/debate...

If you could go back in time somehow and undo/change/reverse any one election result in order to change our present day situation for the better, which election would it be?

There are a few options I'd look at:

1968: Nixon/Humphrey
Nixon was, perhaps, the absolute worst man to lead an incredibly divided country in the late 60's/early 70's. Even before watergate, but obviously avoiding that clusterfug would be a good thing.

2000: Bush/Gore
Easily the most obvious recent election that could provide a different result for today. Nobody saw 9/11 coming, and it's hard to really say just how Gore would have reacted differently, but it's clear for one that he would have never sent troops into Iraq and would never have given the rich tax breaks that helped blow the deficit up and would have kept more regulations in place, though to be fair that process was long started before Bush was "elected."

How is it clear he wouldn't have sent a military response post 9/11?
The explosions might have accelerated global warming?

But, when I really think about it, there's one election that, IMO, signifies where we really started to go off on a bad track:

1980: Reagan/Carter
Sure, Jimmy Carter was in over his head. He was not a very effective POTUS (despite being a good man who tried), so I can understand completely why Reagan won in a landslide the way he did. Hell, who knows, I may have voted for him myself if I had been alive/old enough in '80. Still, Reagan ushered in the modern era of tax cuts for the rich, giving corporations a free pass to do whatever they please no matter the cost to the working class, and launched an all-out assault on organized labor that is still being felt today. His short-sighted economics ran up huge deficits and likely cost George Bush his re-election in '92 for simply doing the responsible thing by raising taxes.

This was also the point at which the GOP began to drift toward becoming the party of the extreme right. Sure, it didn't happen completely for another decade or so, but Reagan took a party that was center-right and moved it much further to the fringe, which also resulted in the democrats moving to the center - at least economically - compared to the new deal coalition and ideas that had helped to create the thriving middle class. Some people look back at the 80's and have fond memories, but it reminds me of the 20's - an era where the rich got richer and the gap between rich and poor grew, which is never good for the country. I almost wish George Bush would've won the nomination in '80; if a republican had to win over Carter, an early Bush administration would have done far less harm, IMO, than the legacy left behind by Reaganomics.



Let's see, 18% mortgage rates under Carter, Country at an all time low and a laughing stock worldwide.
Reagan? In 8 years while avoiding wars and loss of American lives utilizing peace through strength, ended the Cold War, East Germany etc etc. National Debt? Went up about 1.5 trillion over an 8 year span, acceptable perhaps when a country as large as Russia was held at bay and along with East Germany ultimately defeated. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" .

Posted Image

Obama, on the other hand has continued wars and started new campaigns, all while Americans die and raised the debt 3 trillion dollars in 3 years with much, much more debt to come.


#7 SamTheRam

SamTheRam

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:12 AM

The most recent one. Obama is in waaaay over his head, and McCain could have brought the two bickering sides together. As long as he didn't die, we would be much better off.

Our main problem as a country is the ever widening gulf between the left and the right. The left blames all our problems on the rich and the right blames them all on the poor. Truth is it's both. 9/11 brought this country together in a way I had never seen before, and just like that the Bush administration blew it. They just blew it. We need a leader strong AND intelligent enough to seek out the compromises necessary to bring us all back together. Because this country is fracturing quickly.

#8 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,426 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:41 AM

McCain could have brought the two bickering sides together.

no

#9 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:43 AM

Let's see, 18% mortgage rates under Carter, Country at an all time low and a laughing stock worldwide.
Reagan? In 8 years while avoiding wars and loss of American lives utilizing peace through strength, ended the Cold War, East Germany etc etc. National Debt? Went up about 1.5 trillion over an 8 year span, acceptable perhaps when a country as large as Russia was held at bay and along with East Germany ultimately defeated. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" .

Obama, on the other hand has continued wars and started new campaigns, all while Americans die and raised the debt 3 trillion dollars in 3 years with much, much more debt to come.
[/B]


Reagan didn't end the cold war anymore than FDR ended the depression.

#10 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 02:04 AM

GWB declared worldwide war on an idea and tanked the economy so yes the obvious decision would be to reverse the 2008 election because mccain and palin would have made all of that disappear

#11 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:20 AM

McCarthy-McMurray

#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,927 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:29 AM

the July 1932 elections in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia....25.E2.80.931933

Interestingly:

part of Hitler's appeal to a frightened and demoralised middle class was his promise to restore law and order. Overt antisemitism was played down in official Nazi rhetoric, but was never far from the surface. Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means), to restore German greatness and overturn the Treaty of Versailles, and to save Germany from communism.



#13 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:33 AM

goldwater-johnson forever put us down the dark path, especially from a foreign policy perspective. We've been a different country ever since.


would be very interesting to see what the political landscape would look like if this one had gone the other way.

#14 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:35 AM

the July 1932 elections in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia....25.E2.80.931933

Interestingly:



*slaps forehead*

Can't believe I forgot that one.

#15 beach

beach

    |~~~~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,873 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:30 PM

Kerry/Bush but not because of ant-Bush sentiment.

I think the Republican reaction to Kerry wouldn't have been as drastic and all crazy as it was with Obama. They would look somewhat sane still because we would have a Vice-President with all the controversy on the other side. It would have less fringed the political landscape than enduring 4 more years of Bush and the political boom of the Obama. Its made this country batsh*t crazy.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.