In early June 1880, he came within 75 votes of receiving the nomination at the longest ever Republican convention in Chicago. Although his two terms had been lackluster, the 'stalwart' faction backed Grant, probably because they sought a prominent standard bearer/figurehead. OTL many of the larger state delegations split rather than endorsing him en bloc, but had they given unanimous support he could have approached the requisite 379 delegates. If he came very close,the powers that be might have swung the modicum of votes his way after a few more ballots.
The Democratic convention was due in two weeks and I doubt they would nominate Winfield Scott Hancock as per OTL.
In view of the close, bitterly-contested nature of Gilded-age US presidential elections (particularly 1876), and Grant's poor record in office, would he have won if nominated in 1880?
Yes. I do believe that Grant would have won. Also, a good PoD for this is during the 1880 Republican National Convention.
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_Republican_National_Convention
The next morning, Conkling then submitted a resolution that bound every delegate in the hall to support the party's nominee. Conkling said that "no man should hold his seat here who is not ready so to agree."
[62] A voice vote was called, and the resolution received nearly unanimous delegate support. However, about a dozen or so delegates answered "no". Conkling was shocked. He asked, "[who] at a Republican convention would vote 'no' on such a resolution?"
[62] He then demanded a roll call to identify the dissenters. Most of the dissenters chose not to declare their disagreement in front of the thousands of spectators at the "Glass Palace". Only three delegates, all from
West Virginia, voted "no" to the resolution, and were showered with a "storm of hisses."
[63] Conkling then issued another resolution to strip the three West Virginians of their votes and squash their voices at the convention. The West Virginians revolted against Conkling's resolution, and heavily criticized him for his motion.
[63] James Garfield, who was sitting at the Ohio delegation, stood up and tried to settle the matter. He stated that the convention would be making a big mistake if they approved Conkling's motion, and he asked the delegates for their time in order to state his case. Garfield argued that the three West Virginians should not "be disenfranchised because they thought it was not the time to make such an expression [about a candidate]."
[64] He stated that "there never can be a convention...that shall bind my vote against my will on any question whatever."
[64] Garfield had won the crowd over with his speech. Conkling did not particularly enjoy the situation. He scribbled a note to Garfield which read, "New York requests that Ohio's real candidate and dark horse come forward...R.C."
[65] Conkling
subsequently withdrew the resolution.
[66]
END QUOTE
This is the point where James Garfield went on his way to becoming the compromise candidate for the nomination. Simply have him not stand up and speak, and he would have just been another Ohio delegate. With no suitable compromise candidate for Blaine and Sherman, Grant would have eventually won on a later ballot and secured the Republican nomination for a third time.
EDIT: As a matter of fact... this is an interesting idea. I think I might write about this.