AHC: A Losing Presidential Candidate is Nominated Twice After 1968

Before 1968, it wasn't uncommon for presidential candidates to be nominated a second time after losing the general election: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Grover Cleveland, and Richard Nixon were all elected President after having previously failed to do so. (FDR had once lost the Vice-Presidency in 1920 before his election as President in 1932). And Charles Pinckney, Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Dewey, and Adlai Stevenson were nominated multiple times but never won the White House.

But after Nixon's comeback in 1968 this hasn't happened since. Your challenge is to have a losing presidential candidate be nominated at least once more following a loss in the general election. It's not required that they be elected President in their second attempt, but you get bonus points if you make it happen.
 
Gore in '04 is a possibility, though he seems to have been pretty burned out on politics post 2000 and announced he wouldn't run fairly early on (late 2002 OTL).

Likeliest is Hubert Humphrey, who made a credible bid in 1972 and might well have been the Democratic nominee in 1976 had his cancer not recurred.

Had Reagan won the 1976 nomination but lost a close race to Carter, I suspect he'd have been able to win the nomination again in 1980.

And Mitt Romney came quite close to running in 2016. Although Trump demolished all the establishment candidates for the GOP nomination, there is a school of thought that Romney might have been able to defeat him.
 
I assume you mean for one of the two main parties. Perot did it although technically an independent in 92 and reform party in 96
 
Humphrey: almost won the Democratic nomination in 1972, the frontrunner for 1976

Wallace: same as HHH, could have got the nomination in 1972/1968

McGovern: In 1976, a unity ticket between Humphrey and McGovern was seriously thought of. Assuming Humphrey still dies of cancer, McGovern ends up as president.

Ford: If he decided to run in 1980, he probably could have won.

Carter: Carter considered running in the 1984 election but stepped aside for Mondale.

Anderson: He considered running for the Reform Party in 2000.

Mondale: Clinton names him SoS in his administration, and the Norwegian Rocket Incident goes hot.

Dukakis: Dukakis gets appointed to Kennedy’s seat in 2009, and goes on to win in 2016 as the insurgent candidate.

Bush: Some people wanted him to run in 1996

Dole: he is given some random cabinet post by Bush and designated survivor happens

Gore: he decides to run in 2004

Nader: OTL

Kerry: Obama doesn’t run, opening up Kerry to beat Clinton in 2008.

Romney: he runs in 2016 or is the compromise candidate at a brokered convention

Clinton: she wins because everyone else split the vote
 
Al Gore is the only person since the 19th century to win the popular but not electoral vote. Maybe he could argue that, and the fact it was such a close call in Florida, means he still has promise. Either 2004, or possibly 2008 if he wants to take advantage of Bush's dropped popularity and basically saying "I told you so". If Clinton has a sex scandal in his first term(it wouldn't be out of character), Bush Sr could try to pull a Republican Cleveland. And yes, I am aware of the irony of using Grover Cleveland in this scenario, all "ma, ma where's my pa?"
 
The reason that there has never been a person renominated for President after losing the first time since 1968 is that the process is more open then it was before.
Before 1968 in order to win the nomination you had to convince the parties bosses that you were the best candidate for the party possible, primaries did not have their powers to provide enough votes to win the nomination outright until 1972, before that you could only lose your chance to be nominated it you lost in the primaries but you could not win the nomination with them.
As an example in 1960 JFK strategy was win every primary that he was entered in to show the party bosses that he could win, but if he lost just one of those primaries he would have not been considered for the nomination.
So before 1968 it was the parties bosses who determined who got the nomination, I have read that the reason that Stevenson got the nomination in 1956 was because it was determined that he would cause the least amount of damage to the down ballot Democratic candidates then any other choices.
Before Stevenson there was Thomas Dewey who got back to back Republican nominations in 1944 and 1948 because it was thought he had the best chance for the Republicans to win.
 
Ford: If he decided to run in 1980, he probably could have won.

IMO this is true only if for some reason Reagan chooses not to run. If Reagan runs, he will probably win unless all moderate candidates other than Ford (Bush, Baker, Anderson, etc.) decide not to run, and it becomes Reagan vs. Ford one-on-one. And even then, I would favor Reagan--after all, he came pretty close to beating Ford in 1976 when the latter was the incumbent president; and the GOP had moved to the right since 1976. (For one thing, some people who in 1976 really preferred Reagan but thought Ford more electable might have changed their minds because of Ford's defeat.)
 
IMO this is true only if for some reason Reagan chooses not to run. If Reagan runs, he will probably win unless all moderate candidates other than Ford (Bush, Baker, Anderson, etc.) decide not to run, and it becomes Reagan vs. Ford one-on-one. And even then, I would favor Reagan--after all, he came pretty close to beating Ford in 1976 when the latter was the incumbent president; and the GOP had moved to the right since 1976. (For one thing, some people who in 1976 really preferred Reagan but thought Ford more electable might have changed their minds because of Ford's defeat.)

In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...pull-a-grover-cleveland.463401/#post-18576964, user darklordoftech said that Reagan said that Ford was the only one who could have denied him the nomination in 1980.
Did Reagan, really, say that?
 
In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...pull-a-grover-cleveland.463401/#post-18576964, user darklordoftech said that Reagan said that Ford was the only one who could have denied him the nomination in 1980.
Did Reagan, really, say that?

I don't know if he did but even if he did, first of all he probably meant one-on-one (which was not likely to happen, other Republican politicians having ambitions of their own) and second, politicians can be quite wrong about such matters--in 1966 Pat Brown thought that Reagan would be easy to beat and therefore helped to sabotage George Christopher's primary campaign...
 
Top