Most likely to have actually happened?

[RightBehind]

Out of some of the people elected/defeated for president by a wide margin, which would have been most likely to happen in an alternate scenario?

Before any of you say none of the above, it's hard to picture any of these playing out, but if possible, which do you think would've been most likely compared to the others?

[Higgs]

All very unlikely, but I guess Hoover being reelected in 1932 is the most likely. If FDR wasn't such a great speaker and Hoover made people think he cared more, then maybe he would have stood a chance.

[Sir Mohamed]

Nixon loses 1972, after his illegal activities in the 1968 peace talks are exposed.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan was in a huge rut beginning '84 and the economy was literally just starting to pick up.  With a more charismatic Democrat (as opposed to Mondale), Reagan could very well have never had the opportunity for dubious claims about "Morning in America" because he'd need to go on the attack.

[bagelman]

For the four 1920 voters, have you forgotten that the very unremarkable Harding got the greatest Republican landslide in history as a result of Wilson backlash?

[Kingpoleon]

For the four 1920 voters, have you forgotten that the very unremarkable Harding got the greatest Republican landslide in history as a result of Wilson backlash?

Yes, but a more active campaigner like Cox, FDR, or Charles Bryan as his running-mate would have been able to campaign. Of these, it was also the only election where the other party had a fairly strong base and support structure.

[HisGrace]

Definitely Wilson. People wanted a "Return to Normalcy", but he was charismatic and still would have gotten a "rally around the flag" bump from WWI having recently ended, and probably would have won more northeastern states than the Midwestern Cox. Not saying it was probable, but it is the most likely choice here.

The economy surged at just the right time for Reagan, McGovern was too extreme and Nixon came off like a "great statesman" with the China thing and the SALT treaty. FDR just wasn't going to lose in either 32 or 36. So that leaves Wilson in 1920. The only way one of these happens is if Nixon's scandals come out right before the 72 election, but I'm interpreting the question as who would be most likely to win if history stays mostly the same.

[Spark]

Wilson third term

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

'72 or '84 certainly "could have" happened, but they require a point of divergence sometime within the term--1970 for Nixon and 1981 for Reagan, methinks. It was noted that there was a huge fall in stocks in Nixon's first or second year. If he had refused to counter-act the slowdown through Keynesian methods (thereby artificially inflating the flagging 70's economy for a few more years), he could have been *very* weak for re-election.

[Lincoln Republican]

Wilson third term

1920, Wilson was seriously ill, physically immobile, and in seclusion.

He wanted to be re-nominated, but under the circumstances, there is no way the party would pick him again.

[Lincoln Republican]

It is possible that had scandal engulfed his administration in 1971 and 1972 instead of in 1973 and 1974 that Nixon could have lost.