Which presidential election most represented a redux from another?

[Sir Mohamed]

Which election represented a redux from a previous one the most? What would be your takes?

My answer would be 1852 as redux from 1844. These elections had a lot of parallels:

- The Whig Party won the previous election with a war hero who died in office. Said prez had little political experience and was replaced by an experienced VP who was at odds with his predecessor's agenda.
- The incumbent prez attempted to seek reelection, but was rejected by his party.
- The Whig Party went on to lose the election to a Democrat, who served only one term in office.
- Throughout the previous admin, Daniel Webster was SoS.

[darklordoftech]

1876 and 2000, 1992 and 2008, 1996 and 2012, and 1988 and 2004 come to mind.

[H. Ross Peron]

1952 and 1956 is the most obvious one. Also 1900 and 1908.

[Catalyst138]

1964 and 1972 feel like flipped versions of the same election.

[buritobr]

1988 and 2004
Bush vs a liberal from Massachusetts

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

No one’s mentioned 1992 and 1996....

-Clinton was the Democratic nominee both times
-Perot ran both times and while he didn’t do nearly as well the second time, he still did way better than most third-party candidates (and better than all the ones who came after him)
-Pat Buchanan ran in the Republican primaries both times
-Republican nominee in both cases was a WWII veteran with lots of political experience who had previously been the party’s vice presidential nominee, ran and lost in the 1980 primaries, ran in the 1988 primaries, and had previously been critics of supply-side economics.
-45 states plus DC voted the same in both elections
-Clinton got comfortable wins but failed to clear 50% both times

[dw93]

1960 and 2000:

Charismatic political lightweight from an affluent political family wins a close, controversial election over bland, though politically seasoned VP of a popular, term limited President.

[Orser67]

My answer would be 1852 as redux from 1844. These elections had a lot of parallels:

This is a good one. Also imo worth noting that Polk and Pierce were the first two dark horse presidential nominees in U.S. history.

[Orser67]

1812-1872: the out-party unsuccessfully attempts to capitalize on a divide in the governing party by nominating a dissatisfied member of the governing party

1828-2016: The out-party candidate capitalizes on populist anger to defeat a highly-qualified candidate lacking in charisma and (in the eyes of their detractors) tainted by scandal

1832-1984: A key official from the administration defeated last election totally fails to gain traction against a popular incumbent

1840-1848: Whigs win by nominating a war hero with little connection to the party's platform or beliefs

1844-1880: a former president attempts a comeback, but the party instead nominates a dark horse candidate who goes on to win a narrow victory

1860-1912: These are two of the more unusual elections in U.S. history and the parallel certainly isn't perfect, but they both share the fact that dominant party loses power duet to a major party split

Also, I'm not the first to point it out, but 1980 sure looks like it could be a strong parallel for 2020.

[StateBoiler]

1840-1848: Whigs win by nominating a war hero with little connection to the party's platform or beliefs

...that dies mid-term

[President Johnson]

I agree on all named so far. I would add 1912 and 1992: In both cases, an incumbent Republican president who sought reelection was defeated, in part due to lack of support within his own party (though Roosevelt cost Taft more votes than Perot cost Bush). Both sitting presidents were chosen successors by their popular predecessors (Roosevelt and Reagan), under whom they served before. In both elections, the Democratic candidate just won with 42%/43% of the popular vote, but a major landslide in the Electoral College. Before the election, Democrats were out of power for over a decade.

At least one parallel between Wilson and Clinton is that both were reelected with exactly (!) 49.24% of the popular vote (per Wikipedia), though I wouldn't describe 1996 a redux of 1916.


2000 and 2016 also have similarities: Republican candidate loses the popular vote to succeed a term-limited Democratic president with high approvals over a member of his administration.

2020 could be a 1980 redux if Joe Biden wins big.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What about 2004 and 2012:


- Both President Bush and Obama seemed really vulnerable going into election year

- The Democratic party and Republican party really were only united by one thing and that was their fervent opposition to President Bush/Obama which led to a Massachusetts Establishment figure being nominated

- Despite seemingly looking like they were strong candidates, President Bush and Obama ran extremely aggressive campaigns painting their opponents as flip flopping elitists who were out of touch with average Americans

- In September both President Bush and President Obama seemed to be ahead by a lot but then everything changed at the first debate which made the race competitive again

- The VP debate stopped the momentum of the Kerry/Romney camp which they never got back

- In the end both Bush and Obama got reelected with 51% of the vote

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

1976 and 2016?

Washington outsider that changes his image to downplay his wealth in favor of appealing to regular Americans faces someone from the previous administration who is connected to many sandals (not as direct in Ford's case). Both winners presided over a time of disjunction in the home front and managed to get an Islamic nation to be nicer to Israel.

[darklordoftech]

1904 and 1996 both involved a challenger failing to distinguish their platform from the incumbent.

[Hope For A New Era]

Also, I'm not the first to point it out, but 1980 sure looks like it could be a strong parallel for 2020.

There is both a 1980-2020 parallel and a 1976-2016 parallel.

An "outsider" who nobody saw coming appears out of nowhere and gains a shocking amount of support by running a populist campaign and making a lot of big, dramatic promises. Their opponent is the "safe" choice, but they are also basically the living embodiment of "the establishment," and anti-establishment sentiment is running very high.

The outsider is a bit of a weird fit for their party, and only narrowly wins the election, with an unusual electoral map. The unusual map is the result of bringing two coalitions that are moving in opposite directions together for just a mere moment, by accelerating the movement of one and briefly stopping the movement of the other.

The ensuing administration becomes defined by its incompetence. Four years later, the country is facing several simultaneous crises, and the current president is seen as weak and "in over his head." The country is finally convinced that the current reigning ideology can no longer provide what the country needs. A landslide realignment election is on the way.

[catographer]

2008 and 2020 have some superficial parallels: (though are by no means a redux).
- Early in the year, election looks more competitive. But a severe national crisis tanks the incumbent party’s prospects, and the Democratic candidate builds a significant lead in the fall as the crisis consumes ever more news coverage.
- Democrats won the House two years prior in the middle of an unpopular Republican President’s term (Bush’s 2nd, Trump’s 1st).
- Democratic ticket has first Black candidate (Obama for Prez, Harris for Veep).

[TheTide]

As pairs, 1896/1900 and 1952/1956. Repeated candidates, and the first election in each of them was infinitely more interesting than the second.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

1928 and 1988...

Republican wins a third straight term for the party after eight years of relative peace and prosperity. Nominee is a high-ranking official in the administration. Democratic nominee is governor of a northeastern state. The economy is bad for most of their term, and a Democratic governor wins the next election. Afterwards, Republicans have a hard time winning presidential elections.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

1956 and 1996: Bland establishment candidate who has run for president before is the nominee in an election they have virtually no chance of winning in a time of peace and prosperity against a fairly popular incumbent who has basically adopted a more moderate version of their parties agenda leaving them with little to campaign on.

1948 and 2012: Incumbent Democratic president from the midwest goes into reelection bid looking weak but runs a strong populist campaign targeted heavily at a do nothing Republican congress and far exceeds expectations against a very corporate opponent who comes across as hollow. Both take a surprisingly bold stance on a major civil rights issue of the day in the midst of the campaign which seems risky at the time but ends up paying off.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

1952 and 2016: A celebrity with no previous political experience or consistent party allegiance rockets to the top of the Republican field despite being distrusted by a vocal minority of ideological conservatives who try unsuccessfully to thwart their nomination at the convention. Meanwhile Democrats nominate a candidate widely viewed as elitist who is unable to hold the previous president's winning coalition together and particularly struggles with working class voters.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

1928 and 1988...

Republican wins a third straight term for the party after eight years of relative peace and prosperity. Nominee is a high-ranking official in the administration. Democratic nominee is governor of a northeastern state. The economy is bad for most of their term, and a Democratic governor wins the next election. Afterwards, Republicans have a hard time winning presidential elections.

I've had this thought before also. I think that Dukakis like Smith in 28 was hurt in large sections of the country because he seemed too "ethnic."

[Orser67]

1800-1828: Despite dominating in New England, President Adams loses to a Southern challenger whom Adams had defeated in the previous election.

1840-1992: Running for a fourth-consecutive term for their party, a former VP who was never quite as popular with his party's base as his predecessor loses in large part due to economic dissatisfaction. 1932 has some parallels here, too.

[darklordoftech]

1948 and 1996: A Democratic incumbent gets re-elected by running against an obstructionist Republican Congress.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

1948 and 1996: A Democratic incumbent gets re-elected by running against an obstructionist Republican Congress.

2012 works even better, see above. Unlike Obama and Truman I don't think there was ever any doubt that Clinton was the favorite going in.

[Agonized-Statism]

Before I get dogpiled, I'm not necessarily talking about the outcome of the election. I wouldn't connect 2000 to 1876, for instance, because 2000 was low turnout and not many people believed the parties to be that different while everything was on the line in 1876, at least for Southerners who wanted an end to Reconstruction.

2016 and 1976: Outsider comes out of nowhere late in his party's dominant era running a campaign against what his party stood for at the start and narrowly defeats a candidate who is framed as sketchy or tied to a sketchy administration, squanders his gains until the midterms, and faces a foreign policy crisis in Iran. Ultimately, he chooses not to invade.
2020 and 1996: Incumbent attacked as corrupt faces very old opposition with a running mate described as a future leader in the party years before.