Elections that came closest to a rematch between 1956 and 2024?

[Alben Barkley]

Off the top of my head, 1972 sticks out as the most obvious. Humphrey actually beat McGovern in the popular vote in the primaries, and very well could have been nominated again after his narrow loss to Nixon in 1968.

Any other elections that could have turned into a rematch? 2004 maybe?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1980 could've been if 1976's primary had gone differently, but if Reagan lost the general election in 1976 he may not have been nominated in 1980.

[dw93]

Ford supposedly considered running again in 1980 but came to the conclusion that he couldn't beat Reagan again. Keep Reagan from running and a Ford vs. Carter rematch in 1980 is a real possibility.

Didn't Al Gore also consider running again in 2004?

[Mr. Smith]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

[Alben Barkley]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

TR was only even an option for the Progressive ticket, and declined it out of fear Wilson would win again (which, of course, happened anyway). Republicans would never have taken him back, because the party was a complete joke post-1876 and only one time ever nominated a great candidate again (1904), and even that was purely by accident (TR unexpectedly assuming the presidency from the vice presidency where he had been condemned to die). If the Republicans actually wanted to be a good party and/or do good things, the obvious thing to do would have been to nominate Teddy in both 1912 and 1916, but the fact of the matter is TR was in the wrong party all along. He had admirable goals, but he was never going to get anywhere very far for very long if he insisted on sticking to a party that was antithetical to those goals. The right man for the right time won in those years instead. So be it.

And no, I'm not really counting third party candidates anyway, otherwise you could even say the likes of Nader and Stein were "rematches."

[OSR stands with Israel]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

TR was only even an option for the Progressive ticket, and declined it out of fear Wilson would win again (which, of course, happened anyway). Republicans would never have taken him back, because the party was a complete joke post-1876 and only one time ever nominated a great candidate again (1904), and even that was purely by accident (TR unexpectedly assuming the presidency from the vice presidency where he had been condemned to die). If the Republicans actually wanted to be a good party and/or do good things, the obvious thing to do would have been to nominate Teddy in both 1912 and 1916, but the fact of the matter is TR was in the wrong party all along. He had admirable goals, but he was never going to get anywhere very far for very long if he insisted on sticking to a party that was antithetical to those goals. The right man for the right time won in those years instead. So be it.

And no, I'm not really counting third party candidates anyway, otherwise you could even say the likes of Nader and Stein were "rematches."

I mean the progressive wing of the Democratic party was led by two people TR probably despised:

- First with WJB whose foreign policy beliefs were completely antithetical to his own and someone whose economic beliefs were beyond radical too. WJB was arguably the AOC of the time

- Then with Wilson whose style of governing was 180 degrees different and their core FP belief was very different as well.

[Vice President Christian Man]

1980 could've been possible and given the state of the economy Ford may have won (although by less than Reagan).

[Alben Barkley]

The reality in which Ford rather than Reagan wins 1980 is probably a lot better, even if I would prefer Carter win over either.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

1992 and 1996 may as well have been. Boomer Clinton vs. Greatest Generation Republican who was met with some skepticism by the base for supporting tax increases and who had beaten Pat Buchanan in the primary vs. Silent Generation Perot.

[Orser67]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

TR was only even an option for the Progressive ticket, and declined it out of fear Wilson would win again (which, of course, happened anyway). Republicans would never have taken him back, because the party was a complete joke post-1876 and only one time ever nominated a great candidate again (1904), and even that was purely by accident (TR unexpectedly assuming the presidency from the vice presidency where he had been condemned to die). If the Republicans actually wanted to be a good party and/or do good things, the obvious thing to do would have been to nominate Teddy in both 1912 and 1916, but the fact of the matter is TR was in the wrong party all along. He had admirable goals, but he was never going to get anywhere very far for very long if he insisted on sticking to a party that was antithetical to those goals. The right man for the right time won in those years instead. So be it.

I don't fully disagree with some of the things you're saying, but Roosevelt had a real chance of winning the nomination in 1920 had he lived long enough; many regarded him as the front-runner at the time of his death in early 1919.

[TDAS04]

I wish 2004 was a rematch.

[E-Dawg]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

TR was only even an option for the Progressive ticket, and declined it out of fear Wilson would win again (which, of course, happened anyway). Republicans would never have taken him back, because the party was a complete joke post-1876 and only one time ever nominated a great candidate again (1904), and even that was purely by accident (TR unexpectedly assuming the presidency from the vice presidency where he had been condemned to die). If the Republicans actually wanted to be a good party and/or do good things, the obvious thing to do would have been to nominate Teddy in both 1912 and 1916, but the fact of the matter is TR was in the wrong party all along. He had admirable goals, but he was never going to get anywhere very far for very long if he insisted on sticking to a party that was antithetical to those goals. The right man for the right time won in those years instead. So be it.

And no, I'm not really counting third party candidates anyway, otherwise you could even say the likes of Nader and Stein were "rematches."

If Teddy Roosevelt was simply in the "wrong party", then why in your view was he in that party? Because for how progressive he was in many ways, he still supported McKinley and Taft over Bryan, and opposed Woodrow Wilson both times. What issues aligned Roosevelt (and other progressive Republicans in the 1900-1920s) with the Republican party over the Democratic Party?

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

Teddy Roosevelt probably rematches and defeats Wilson in 1916, but like Ford in 1980, he declined to run.

And if the binary is no longer assumed, 1996 is a rematch of 1992 with both Clinton and Perot.

TR was only even an option for the Progressive ticket, and declined it out of fear Wilson would win again (which, of course, happened anyway). Republicans would never have taken him back, because the party was a complete joke post-1876 and only one time ever nominated a great candidate again (1904), and even that was purely by accident (TR unexpectedly assuming the presidency from the vice presidency where he had been condemned to die). If the Republicans actually wanted to be a good party and/or do good things, the obvious thing to do would have been to nominate Teddy in both 1912 and 1916, but the fact of the matter is TR was in the wrong party all along. He had admirable goals, but he was never going to get anywhere very far for very long if he insisted on sticking to a party that was antithetical to those goals. The right man for the right time won in those years instead. So be it.

And no, I'm not really counting third party candidates anyway, otherwise you could even say the likes of Nader and Stein were "rematches."

If Teddy Roosevelt was simply in the "wrong party", then why in your view was he in that party? Because for how progressive he was in many ways, he still supported McKinley and Taft over Bryan, and opposed Woodrow Wilson both times. What issues aligned Roosevelt (and other progressive Republicans in the 1900-1920s) with the Republican party over the Democratic Party?

Tariffs, multiculturalism, prohibition and foreign policy, I suppose.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I’m honestly surprised Gore didn’t run again in 2004. He was pretty outspoken against Bush on Iraq and I think would have been a more unifying candidate for anti-war voters to rally around then Howard Dean.

2008 is a possibility also, Kerry considered running again though I honestly think he would have been overshadowed by Hillary, Obama and Edwards alike and probably would have dropped out after finishing fourth in Iowa.