WI: Nixon loses in 1968... but wins in 1972.

I’ve wondered about this for a while. Would there be any way that Nixon would lose in 1968, but come back to win the 1972 election? Surely there must be some way.
 
The issue I think you will have is the Republican party machinery, there was wariness in the Republican ranks over Nixon, in 1968, as they saw his loss the 1960 Presidential election and then his loss the 1962 California gubernatorial election as a problem. Some hoped a more "electable" candidate would emerge, putting a third loss under his belt, Nixon isn't coming back swinging in 1972.

Having had loads of backing in the last election and still being an incumbent California Governor Ronald Reagan, the leader of the Republican Party's conservative wing, would be the likely candidate in 1972.

The only way I could imagine this being an option is if Nixon became the first Republican to win the most Popular vote but not the Electoral Votes.
 
I’ve wondered about this for a while. Would there be any way that Nixon would lose in 1968, but come back to win the 1972 election? Surely there must be some way.

No. Nobody in US history has gone from losing two general elections to winning on their third try. Henry Clay came close in 1844, but even he couldn't pull it off. If Nixon loses in 1968, it would be an upset that ruins his political career for good. He'd already been left for dead in 1962 after he lost not only the Presidency but the Governorship of his own state. Nixon would be a possible choice for Secretary of State in the next Republican Administration, but by then his days of running for public office would be over.
 
You would either need some kind of crazy split between the electoral college and popular vote or have the election go the house and Wallace throw it to Humphrey (which enables Nixon to denounce the whole thing as illegitimate).

Let's say Wallace manages to secure Happy Chandler as VP. Wallace proceeds to win Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. But, Nixon manages to win Washington and Connecticut. The final score is 264 Nixon, 169 Humphrey, 107 Wallace.

Nixon is the clear leader in terms of popular vote and electoral vote but Humphrey takes the presidency after cutting a deal with Wallace. The Nation proceeds to go absolutely ape and Nixon rides the hysteria to the nomination and to victory two years later.
 
You would either need some kind of crazy split between the electoral college and popular vote or have the election go the house and Wallace throw it to Humphrey (which enables Nixon to denounce the whole thing as illegitimate).

Let's say Wallace manages to secure Happy Chandler as VP. Wallace proceeds to win Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. But, Nixon manages to win Washington and Connecticut. The final score is 264 Nixon, 169 Humphrey, 107 Wallace.

Nixon is the clear leader in terms of popular vote and electoral vote but Humphrey takes the presidency after cutting a deal with Wallace. The Nation proceeds to go absolutely ape and Nixon rides the hysteria to the nomination and to victory two years later.

However, there is something that could get in Nixon's way if he wasn't President: the revelation that he sabotaged Johnson's peace efforts in Vietnam.
 
What if instead he’s forced to drop out for, I don’t know, health reasons? Then he comes back in 72 and is stronger than ever?

But why would he be stronger than ever? It'd be almost 12 years since he last held elective office, and if President Humphrey ends the war by the 1970 midterms then economic issues will be prioritized in 1972. Nixon's strong suit was always foreign policy. If he doesn't run in 1968 then his moment will have likely passed and fresher voices will emerge to fill the void by 1972. He could win the nomination if the opposition is weak, but Nixon wouldn't be as politically strong as he was in 1960 when he was the outgoing VP to a popular President.
 
Have Nixon sit 68 out and have Rocky or Reagan (the latter being the one most likely to lose) lose to Humphrey and have Nixon run in 1972.
 
I’ve wondered about this for a while. Would there be any way that Nixon would lose in 1968, but come back to win the 1972 election? Surely there must be some way.

To lose two presidential elections and then go on to be nominated again is not impossible--if your name is William Jennings Bryan. But Bryan had a huge devoted following who, as the saying goes, would rather lose with Bryan than win with someone else. (And even he after his 1900 defeat had to wait until 1908 to be nominated again.) To a lesser extent Adlai Stevenson had the same sort of following, which is why I think it conceivable though unlikely that he would be nominated again in 1960. (Especially since there was a plausible argument that nobody could have beaten Ike in 1952 or 1956.) But Nixon? Very unlikely. He would be seen as not just losing but blowing two presidential elections (since the GOP expected to win in both 1960 and 1968). He would be like Dewey after 1948--just too discredited.
 
Top