Cycles where a former president was considered more viable than the sitting president?

[Tekken_Guy]

What presidential cycles in the past was a previous president was considered more likely to return to the White House than the sitting president was to be re-elected?

[Mr. Smith]

1980...then Ford said no.

[pikachu]

1892 obv

[Vosem]

1912 is the particularly obvious one, I think. After Teddy, the only Presidents who are known to have considered comeback bids were Hoover and Ford, though neither ever pulled the trigger. 1980 might count, though Carter's popularity went through peaks and valleys; Hoover was never more viable than any sitting President after his term.

(An odd twentieth-century answer might be 1920, since Teddy was considering another comeback bid and Wilson was known to want a third term in spite of his unpopularity. But ultimately Wilson didn't seek a third term and Teddy died before the cycle really got going).

1892 is indeed an obvious one. 1880 might also qualify, though -- I don't get the sense that Hayes was well-liked in office, and Grant was probably a likelier contender for a third term than Hayes for a second. 1856 is a possible one (was Fillmore likelier to win the general than Pierce to get renominated? This was certainly the case by the time the general got going, I guess).

Van Buren is a really obvious one for 1844, when Tyler had no chance and he was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. After Polk bowed out in 1848 but Van Buren still ran I guess 1848 might count too, though Van Buren's third party bid was obviously never going anywhere.

I don't think there are any examples of this from before the 1840s; Van Buren was the first defeated President to continue to covet the Presidency. Adams Sr. left politics and Adams Jr. never ran for POTUS again and just stayed in the House instead.

[Independents for Nihilism]

1980...then Ford said no.

Would ford have beaten Reagan in the primary in '80, without incumbency on his side?

[Schiff for Senate]

1892 obv

[Orser67]

Vosem's list was pretty good. 1912, 1892, and 1844 are the clear answers, and 1848, 1856, 1880, and 1980 are at least arguable.

I'll go a little farther and say that Roosevelt was very clearly more likely to win in 1920 than Wilson if you don't take Roosevelt's death at the age of 60 as an inevitability; Roosevelt was probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination prior to his death, and Wilson had essentially no chance of re-nomination, much less re-election, because of both his unpopularity and his health. One other arguable case is 1932, where there were some legitimate discussions about drafting Coolidge to replace Hoover.

To engage in a paragraph of baseless speculation and alternate history, I wonder if Fillmore or even Pierce might have had a more realistic path than Buchanan in 1860 (mostly because Buchanan was completely non-viable). Similarly, I don't think Benjamin Harrison was ever considered a serious candidate in 1896, but he might still have a had better chance than Cleveland. 1812 and 1840 also come to mind as examples where a living former president still eligible for another term were more popular than the incumbent. Another alternate history scenario that I wonder about is whether Washington would have run in 1800 (he would have been 68) if he had still been alive. Also from the category of presidents who didn't die in office, Polk might have been a strong candidate in 1852, 1856, and 1860 if he had still been alive (and he was a few years younger than Buchanan).