You might count 1968 for Reagan, which momentarily slipped my mind. He wasn’t considered a serious challenger (except for a very brief moment when Rockefeller failed to make any headway by May). However he did apparently carry CA as a “favorite son”, but the fact that he was the only one on the ballot is a poor indicator, since Nixon probably would’ve bested him.
It’s funny, though. I think many considered that Reagan would eventually become President, just not in 1968.
BTW, if Palin runs in 2016, that would technically be her first attempt. That’s why I said Reagan was an exception of a retread that worked. Had GHW Bush not been VP going into the 1988 elections, as a retread, he probably would’ve failed. Any VP of Reagan’s likely would’ve had the momentum going into that election (indeed, as many historians and pol pundits consider 1988 Reagan’s “Third Term.”). That’s why I still wish he had chosen Paul Laxalt instead. We may get a future President with that name if his grandson wins his Atty Gen race this year.
"When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."
MLK seethed those remarks, not surprisingly, at a leftist convention for union thugs (National Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace) in November 1967. That confab of commies was held in Chicago, the same city that was home to William Ayers and hussein obama.
I know, I just mentioned her because I don't want to see that nonsense again, with people pretending she's considering running, when it's clear she's not.