I’m afraid I’d have to part company with Ambrose on that one. I believe there was a sufficient enough appearance of chicanery in at least the two key states (IL & TX) that were enough to turn the election. There were also other states where the outcome was so close where voter fraud was rampant in some areas (NJ & NM, for two examples) that just add fuel to the fire of suspicion.
In hindsight, I still wish Nixon had contested the election, though the reasons he chose not to were #1, that he might appear to the public a sore loser which might destroy any future viability for the same office, #2, that to investigate would be costly and troublesome with likely no speedy outcome, and the biggest one, #3, that it would rip the country apart. We had a taste of that in 2000 with Gore’s refusal to concede and the visceral hate and contempt it immediately produced towards Dubya he never fully recovered from. If Nixon had been finally seated (quite probably by a similar SCOTUS decision), he would’ve faced a similar situation as Dubya did, not to mention a hostile Democrat Congress who would’ve stymied anything he’d have tried to do. Just a really nasty scenario all around.
I can’t imagine what that would do to somebody knowing that their opponent had stolen the Presidential election and having to just “grin and bare it.” Probably three examples of that in U.S. history, the 1824 election (where Jackson got more votes, but deals struck in Congress gave it to JQ Adams, for which Jackson later said he wished he could’ve shot Henry Clay for “sealing the deal”), the 1876 election (where Gov. Tilden was the likely victor, and for which the GOP sold its soul to maintain the Presidency with its deal), and 1960. Of course, at least Jackson and Nixon were vindicated with future wins, while Tilden was just content to know he’d won.
1824 was fun. The House will likely never again have to choose the President. It might have happened in 1992 if Perot hadn’t oddly left the race and returned. The result would have been the same, Clinton.
In 1876 I’d have likely voted for Hayes but it seems pretty certain that Tilden was the rightful winner. He may have won if her ran again, he surprised everyone but not doing so.
I wonder about 1916 with the closeness of the vote in the key state, California.
Can’t feel too sorry for Hughes since he lost the popular vote. Feel sorry for the country though, cause Wilson sucked, the first socialist President.
That was a weird election. One headline after the vote read “Hugues likely elected”. The proto-Dewey defeats Truman. Hughes I think underperformed and Wilson overperformed in a lot of states getting a lot of the 1912 TR vote even though TR backed Hughes. But Republicans won a plurality in the House, with the rats needing the help of the independents to keep control.
Ike.
If Nixon had the full backing of the incumbent, with all his power and lever-pulling, of course he would have challenged. But I don't think he could count on Ike to help him in any way. Think back to 2000: I can't recall any instances where Clinton really worked to help Gore in the challenge.