Which post-WWII consecutive term attempt was the most impressive?

[Suburbia]

Other than 1948 and 1988 when President Harry Truman won a full term and a fifth consecutive term for Democrats (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948) and George Bush (1980, 1984, 1988), which consecutive term attempt was the most impressive?

I would say probably 2000 and 2016, since Hillary Clinton and Al Gore won the popular vote. 1976 as well, Gerald Ford performed well despite the GOP brand being destroyed with Watergate and inflation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

1968.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

1976. Gerald Ford quickly caught momentum and turned a possible landslide into a close race.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Considering all that happened in 1968, it's kinda crazy how close Humphrey came to winning. I'd be very intrigued by the history books had he won

[Mr. Smith]

1988.

Very boring, uncharismatic guy trying to succeed a scandal-ridden and controversial President who just threw away Congress, terrible issues that were electorally advantageous to Dems, and down by 20 points...won by 8 and managed to hold almost everywhere besides New England, Midwest, and PNW.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Wild card choice: 1960.

Republicans almost won a third straight term despite Democrats still being the majority party and despite the fact that their nominee wasn't a highly regarded WWII general as in the two previous elections, and despite the fact that Eisenhower's second term was more lackluster than his first by every metric.

[Pericles]

1948 was indeed a legendary comeback. Dewey was the overwhelming favorite, it had been a rough transition out of a total war economy, the Democratic Party was split, and Truman was looked down on as a no-hoper. It was also a squeaker, the presidency was decided by less than 1% though Truman won the popular vote fairly comfortably. It is iconic for good reason.

In terms of candidates who defied such overwhelming expectations of defeat in the general and ended up winning, none of the others compare. Trump's 2016 victory is probably the closest comparison, though it is disgusting to say is Truman was a great President and he was one of the worst. However, the media clearly could not believe Trump would win and the polls had him losing the election even at the end. Though it did appear more possible with so much more polling available, and in both cases the media raced ahead of the data to overestimate how favored the frontrunner was.

[dw93]

1948 for the reasons Pericles stated:

1948 was indeed a legendary comeback. Dewey was the overwhelming favorite, it had been a rough transition out of a total war economy, the Democratic Party was split, and Truman was looked down on as a no-hoper. It was also a squeaker, the presidency was decided by less than 1% though Truman won the popular vote fairly comfortably. It is iconic for good reason.

The runner up would be 1976. The economy was in the toilet for most of Ford's term, he had the pardon around his neck, and had a strong primary challenge from Reagan. Yet despite all of this, he damn near won in the end.

2000, despite my issues with Bush vs. Gore, looks less and less impressive with the passage of time, especially in comparison to 1988. Yes Gore was down in the polls prior to the conventions, but I would argue Gore had more favorable fundamentals to run under than Bush 41 did in '88 and Dubya, while not a dud of a nominee, wasn't by any means exceptional.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Wild card choice: 1960.

Republicans almost won a third straight term despite Democrats still being the majority party and despite the fact that their nominee wasn't a highly regarded WWII general as in the two previous elections, and despite the fact that Eisenhower's second term was more lackluster than his first by every metric.

Yes, and don't forget just how razor-thin the margins were in SO MANY states, including states like Michigan and Minnesota (if you can believe that!) which would have given Nixon a stunningly comfortable victory if they had all just shifted 1-4 points to the right. The most electrifyingly close state was Hawaii (which Nixon was "supposed" to win, and where he was literally the apparent winner after the first vote count, and which only voted for Kennedy by 115 votes after a court-ordered recount).

Of course, that's all without touching the "theory" that Kennedy "stole" the election thanks to the efforts of Mayor Daley and Daddy Kennedy in Illinois combined with LBJ in Texas.

You can say what you want about that whole hypothesis, but you can't deny that it actually is a "serious" idea (almost certainly much more so than "stop the steal" in 2020) considering that mainstream authors continue to be intrigued by it to this day.

I recently had a conversation with my Grandmother - who has been a sharply devoted straight-ticket Dem (she's an unironic Hillary Clinton fangirl) since 1968 if not 1964 -  about the Cuban Missile Crisis (this was for a school project) and naturally the conversation drifted into the 1960 election for a bit. (For some more context, she was a Chicagoland resident herself in the early 60s.) Considering her overall political views, it was somewhat surprising to me when she matter-of-factly commented about how Mayor Daley was seen by everyone in the state as a corrupt fraudster, and how everyone felt that he could have, would have, and very likely did gift Kennedy the state in 1960.