Déjà Vu: A Look Into The American Tradition Of Presidential Rematches
Though the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is still nearly one and a half years away, the race is beginning to get heated after several new candidates threw their hats into the ring over the past few weeks. On the Democratic side, Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and self-help author Marianne Williamson have both declared their intentions to challenge President Biden. Though Biden currently maintains a winning lead in the polls at 60% of the voter share, Kennedy is sitting at a surprisingly large 20% – a number that even left-leaning Slate referred to as “alarming.”
On the Republican side, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, media personality Larry Elder, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis joined the already-declared Governor Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, and – last but not least – former President Donald Trump. But despite the large slate of candidates, Trump, like Biden, commands a strong lead over the field (precise numbers will be avoided in this piece at the risk of being called “milktoast”).
In other words, there is a very strong possibility that 2024 will be a rematch between Biden and Trump. While a rematch may seem odd, it actually isn’t particularly unusual in American politics. Moreover, the previous cases tend to show some surprising patterns.
Re-Matches Throughout History
The first presidential rematch happened back in 1800, when then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson defeated sitting President John Adams; Adams had previously won when the two men battled each other in 1796.
Ironically, the second rematch would be just 28 years later, when Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams, was up against Andrew Jackson. Like his father, the younger Adams won the first time the two men faced each other in 1824 – though the election is considered one of the most contentious in American history, with Jackson himself accusing Adams of winning the position through a “corrupt bargain.” Jackson would prove victorious in 1828.
The next rematch would come right after Jackson, in the 1836 election. Martin Van Buren, the Democratic nominee, had the strong backing of Jackson, who had effectively designated Van Buren as his political heir. Van Buren had served as both Secretary of State and Vice President under Jackson, and won the Presidency over William Henry Harrison in large part due to Jackson’s residual popularity (though other candidates in the opposing Whig field also played a role).
The rematch in 1840 was a different story, heavily influenced by the intervening economic crisis known as the Panic of 1837. This financial crisis and subsequent depression severely damaged Van Buren's popularity, and he was viewed by many as ineffective in handling the economic downturn.
Harrison's campaign in 1840 is considered a masterclass in what would become modern campaign techniques. The Whigs portrayed Harrison as a man of the people, creating a log cabin and hard cider campaign image that belied his actual wealthy background. This populist approach resonated with many voters, who felt the effects of the economic depression and were disenchanted with Van Buren's perceived elitism.
Furthermore, the Whigs capitalized on the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too," referencing Harrison's military victory at the Battle of Tippecanoe and his running mate, John Tyler. This catchy slogan, coupled with the highly publicized log cabin campaign, boosted Harrison's appeal to the American public and launched him into the presidency.
Though no comparison is perfect, It is hard not to see some parallels between the campaign strategies and issues facing Biden and Trump. Trump has created his own brand of populism despite his wealthy background, spurred by things like his love of social media, his weakness for fast food, and non-PC rhetoric. Moreover, Trump has a campaign that will go down in the history books – “MAGA” – just like “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Lastly, Biden, though not generally considered elitist, is plagued with accusations that he is part of the Washington swamp thanks to multiple corruption scandals targeting both himself and his son, Hunter. Moreover, the American economy is on decidedly shaky ground, with many economists forecasting that things will only get worse by the election.
However, the difference between Van Buren/Harrison and Trump/Biden is that Harrison had not been President before. Trump, of course, was the previous commander-in-chief, and has both the laurels and baggage that his record entails. This makes the next comparison arguably the most apt.
Blaine v. Cleveland v. Harrison
The presidential election of 1884 between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine was a pivotal contest in American history and stands as an early example of an election heavily influenced by personal scandal and character attacks – cue echoes of 2016.
Cleveland, the Democratic nominee, had a reputation as a political reformer and “outsider” candidate. As Mayor of Buffalo and later Governor of New York, he had established a record of fighting political corruption, and he was respected for his honesty and straightforwardness. He was nominated on a platform calling for civil service reform and a reduction in tariffs. Blaine, on the other hand, was a leading Republican politician who had served as Speaker of the House and Secretary of State. However, his career was marred by allegations of corruption, including the infamous "Mulligan Letters" scandal in which he was accused of influencing legislation in favor of railroads in exchange for bribes.
Moreover, Blaine also suffered a significant setback when a group of reform-minded Republicans, known as "Mugwumps," defected to support Cleveland because of Blaine's scandal-ridden career. The situation worsened when, at a New York campaign event, a prominent Republican referred to the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," offending Irish Catholics—a key voting demographic in the swing state of New York.
Cleveland narrowly won the election, becoming the first Democrat elected president after the Civil War. The election was a turning point in American politics, signaling the beginning of a new era of political realignment and reform.
Though Trump’s critics would quibble that he is known for his integrity, he was certainly known for being straight-foward with his thoughts and speech and for being a political outsider who promised civil service reform himself – “drain the swamp” was one of his most famous campaign phrases.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was consistently attacked for what critics deemed repetitive corruption, including the murky workings of the Clinton Global Initiative and her use of a personal email address, and deleting a majority of said emails, during her tenure as Secretary of State under President Obama. She also had her own gaffe-ridden moment that likely cost her voters: the infamous “deplorable” incident, which Clinton herself retrospectively called a “political gift” to Trump.1
Like Cleveland, Trump narrowly won the election. The election was a similarly turning point in American politics, with a new realignment signaled by more working class voters shifting Republican while more white, college-educated voters becoming Democrats.
Cue 1888 and Cleveland was up for reelection, this time against Benjamin Harrison. Though Cleveland had no particular albatross, he was facing some unpopularity over his policies, as well as his own allegations of corruption, which later turned out to be unfounded. However, what truly catapulted Harrison to his narrow victory was his party’s commitment to outspend Cleveland and his allies, as well as creating an effective party machine to get out the vote.
Again, this has strong echoes to Biden v. Trump in 2016. Though Trump faced a hit on his popularity due certain policies during his administration, a large part of his defeat was likely due to the fact that Trump’s re-election campaign spent $474 million, while pro-Biden and pro-Democratic super PACs had a tally close to $1.1 billion.2 Moreover, Democrats took advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic by adapting their voting practices; Republicans did not.
But Harrison’s presidency was soon plagued with economic distress. Harrison's administration was also plagued by allegations of wasteful spending. Come the 1892 election, the economic distress had blossomed into what would be called the Panic of 1893; in addition, Harrison's wife was terminally ill, limiting his ability to campaign.
Though Cleveland had not changed his political stance that lost him the 1888 election, Harrison’s unpopularly propelled Cleveland to win the 1892 election, making him the first and only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
Modern Times
So can Trump pull off what Cleveland did in 1892? For starters, he can campaign on his economic record versus Biden’s; in addition, Trump enjoys the vigorous campaign process, whereas Biden does not seem to have the same stamina. However, Trump is also a more polarizing figure than Cleveland was, and many Independents have been turned off from the Trump train, particularly after the January 6th protests.
However, it was interesting to the author that in the history of presidential rematches, the incumbent almost always lost, a somewhat counterintuitive result. In fact, the incumbent has only been victorious twice out of the six rematches: one was when Eisenhower faced Adlai Stevenson twice, and Eisenhower was a well-liked figure working with a booming post-war economy. The other was President McKinley against William Bryan Jennings. While Trump is an unusually unique political operative, the pattern should give his team hope when looking forward to the general election.
The one pattern that should worry Trump? The scoreboard for rematches in the nomination process is not quite as sunny. But that is an analysis for another time.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-admits-important-blunder-swayed-2016-presidential/story?id=49740865
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-vastly-outspends-trump-in-record-shattering-presidential-cycle
 | A guest post by
|