A History of Repeat Candidates

March 2024 Imperfect Union

Well, Super Tuesday has come and gone, and we have official candidates for both major parties. (However I will not say that we are doing a reboot because I think the circumstances are fundamentally different. Perhaps a story for another newsletter.) While there are aspects about this election that are unprecedented (age, criminal indictments, etc.), 2024 is not the first time two repeat candidates are running against each other.

There have been six other rematches. In the first four elections, the result changed, in the last two, the same candidate won. A few fun facts about each, interesting parallels to our current moment, or unique circumstances worth noting.

John Adams v. Thomas Jefferson: 1796 and 1800

Believe it or not, I did not plan this post with the idea of talking about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It just turns out that the 1790s are shockingly relevant to today. As you probably know by this point, Adams won in 1796 by 3 electoral votes. Four years later, Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr at 73 votes, and Adams came in third with 65 votes.

Because of Jefferson’s phenomenal propaganda skills (his naming of the election as “The Revolution of 1800” in particular), the election was often treated as a much bigger shift than it was. To be sure, Republicans picked up seats in both houses and the election was a repudiation of the Federalist agenda (taxes, the army, Alien and Sedition Act, etc.). But the election was actually pretty close and Adams would have won if not for the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. More on that soon! Moral of the story, the Electoral College has been skewing things from the very first competitive election.

John Quincy Adams v. Andrew Jackson: 1824 and 1828

I think this election is one of the most interesting in American history. I recently recorded an episode of the Road to Now podcast on this matchup because there is just so much to explore in this contest (party shifts, tariffs, regional differences and tension, almost-duels!). There were four major candidates, all technically Democratic-Republicans, and they split the vote:

Andrew Jackson: 99 votes, 41.3% of the popular vote

John Quincy Adams: 84 votes, 30.9% of the popular vote

William H. Crawford: 41 votes, 11.2% of the popular vote

Henry Clay: 37 votes, 13.0% of the popular vote

The election was thrown to the House, where JQA was elected. Four years later, Jackson ran as the Democratic candidate and JQA ran under the banner “National-Republican.” Jackson won 178-83 and 56.1% of the popular vote. This election is a powerful demonstration of the influence of multiple candidates and the unexpected outcomes that can emerge from the House.

Martin Van Buren v. William Henry Harrison: 1836 and 1840

In 1838, Vice President Martin Van Buren ran on a continuation of Jackson’s policies, which was not surprising for three reasons. 1) Jackson was still very popular. 2) Van Buren had been the brainchild and political organizer behind much of Jackson’s agenda. 3) MVB had been Jackson’s vice president during the second term.

A bit of party history is necessary here. After the collapse of the Federalist Party in the 1810s, the Democratic Party was the ruling power during the “Era of Good Feelings.” In 1820, President James Monroe ran unopposed. But that party unity belied several internal factions that burst onto the scene in 1824, when John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, and Henry Clay ran for president. By the end of Jackson’s presidency, the Democratic Party had coalesced around his image, but his opponents were looking to start something new—enter the Whig Party. In 1836, William Henry Harrison was the Whig candidate, but really he was the West Whig candidate. Hugh White, a senator from Tennessee, represented the South, and Daniel Webster represented the North. There was also an independent candidate. Not surprising then, that MVB won an overwhelming victory in 1836. (As a side note, until George H.W. Bush won in 1988, MVB was the last vice president to win).

However, four years later, the Whig Party had matured a bit and had the good sense to put forth a single candidate. Van Buren’s popularity had tanked due to a severe financial depression and the Harrison won 234-60 in the Electoral College. This example is worth noting because it shows how quickly new parties have emerged and gained power in the past. I’m sure in 1832, when Jackson won 210 EC votes to 49, it felt hopeless, but just two cycles later, the Whig Party had reversed that margin. It’s important to remember that parties are never permanent and constantly shifting.

Grover Cleveland v. Benjamin Harrison: 1888 and 1892

This example has gained a fair amount of attention recently, because it’s the only other time a president lost (Cleveland in 1888) and then came back and ran again (and won). What isn’t usually noted, however, is that Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888 by over 100,000 votes. Harrison won the Electoral College vote, 233-168. Four years later, Cleveland won the popular vote again, but this time won the Electoral College, 277-145. It’s useful to remember that there have been elections before the twenty-first century in which the popular vote and the EC vote didn’t match.

Also, these elections have to be among the most boring ever (although I’m sure some would disagree). I suppose the 1840s were pretty blah, when both parties tried to pick someone who was unobjectionable for the maximum number of voters. But the 1888 and 1892 elections strike me as good examples of spectacularly unenthusiastic selections. Maybe not lesser of two evils, which is a phrase voters use a lot these days, but certainly not inspiring.

William McKinley v. William Jennings Bryan: 1896 and 1900

In 1896, a 36-year-old Bryan burst into the spotlight when he delivered his “Cross of Gold” speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was the youngest major party presidential candidates ever and a phenomenal speaker. He had been building momentum for his candidacy over the past several days, but his impassioned support for free coinage of silver whipped the crowd into a frenzy. His final passage proclaimed:

“If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

He was nominated as the Democratic Party candidate on the 5th ballot, but when on to lose to Ohio Governor William McKinley. McKinley was a business-oriented conservative and enjoyed support from big business, immigrants, and industrial workers in urban areas.

In 1900, McKinley picked up more popular support and a bigger electoral college victory.

What makes this matchup interesting is that Bryan refused to go away; he also ran in 1908. To be fair, the Democratic Party was struggling a bit. The Theodore Roosevelt juggernaut was in full swing during the early years of the 20th century and perhaps not too many people wanted to run. Nonetheless, Bryan was viewed as a potential candidate for the rest of his life.

Adlai Stevenson v. Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1952 and 1956

These results were perhaps the most anticlimactic—both times Eisenhower won an overwhelming victory. In 1952, Eisenhower won 442-89 and won 6.4 million more votes in the popular vote. Four years later, he did even better. He won 457-73, 57% of the popular vote, and 10 million more votes.

However, in between the two elections, Eisenhower had a heart attack while in office. He took several months off from full duties, though he stayed in close contact and fully in control of major policy through his White House staff, Vice President Nixon, and the cabinet secretaries. Only after he fully recovered and felt up to the demands of campaigning and governing did he announce his intention to run.

Hope this primer is helpful as we head into election season! Drop any questions you have below and I’ll do my best to answer them!

Books:

Just a reminder: I haven’t read (or haven’t finished) the books below. They’ve caught my eye, but I’m not necessarily vouching for them. I share published reviews in the links below (as well as on Goodreads and in my Instagram stories - see book review highlights)

Currently Reading: Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic by Francis D. Cogliano

Up Next: Missionary Diplomacy: Religion and Nineteenth-Century American Foreign Relations by Emily Conroy-Krutz (March 15, 2024 on Amazon but I’m seeing copies in the wild!). I had the pleasure to read an early version of one chapter on John Quincy Adams and loved it.

Coming Soon: The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War by Erik Larson (April 30, 2024)

On the Horizon: Glorious Lessons: John Trumbull, Painter of the American Revolution by Richard Brookhiser (May 28, 2024)