even before the presidential campaign turned so bizarre, one truth should have been abundantly evident to both donald trump and hillary clinton : the one who finishes in second place on tuesday night won<u+2019>t be his or her party<u+2019>s nominee for the presidency in 2020. it is predestined<u+2014>or at least it is what recent american political history irrefutably teaches us. more than half a century has passed since a defeated presidential candidate later went on to be nominated again by his party. in 1960 richard nixon lost to john f. kennedy ; the republicans turned to him again in 1968, when he defeated hubert humphrey, and again in 1972, when he defeated george mcgovern. since then the unwritten rule has been, once you<u+2019>re out, you<u+2019>re out. it doesn<u+2019>t matter how highly regarded you may be among your fellow republicans or democrats on the evening they nominate you: if they have made you their standard-bearer and then you lose, no matter how narrowly, your prospects for being given another opportunity are zero. in the land of second chances, vanquished presidential nominees need not apply. this is a relatively new phenomenon. earlier in the nation<u+2019>s history it was quite common for a presidential candidate to lose and then to be given one (or more) opportunities to head his party<u+2019>s ticket. the person was presumed to possess the same qualities, principles and talents that made him good enough to be a nominee in the first place. grover cleveland, a democrat, was elected president in 1884, but lost his re-election bid to benjamin harrison in 1888. the democrats turned right back to him in 1892, when he defeated harrison. the democrats liked william jennings bryan enough to nominate him in 1896; he lost to william mckinley, but the democrats had him lead their party against mckinley again in 1900. bryan lost that time, too, but by 1908 his party was having him lead the ticket once more. he lost to william howard taft. republican thomas e. dewey lost to franklin d. roosevelt in the election of 1944, but that didn<u+2019>t stop his party from running him against harry truman in 1948. adlai stevenson was the democrats<u+2019> nominee against dwight d. eisenhower in 1952; ike won in a landslide, but when 1956 rolled around, the democrats went with stevenson anew. since nixon, though, every election-night candidate who has come in second, regardless of how experienced or gifted, has been considered as disposable as a grocery-shelf item whose sell-by date has passed. no <u+201c>we<u+2019>ll get <u+2019>em next time, pal.<u+201d> do modern-era presidents who have served a term and then lost an election have an honest hope of being asked to lead their party<u+2019>s ticket one more time? gerald ford, jimmy carter and george h.w. bush discovered the answer to that. in today<u+2019>s america the measure of public devotion is calculated in social media fans. in the world of popular culture, kim kardashian west has 48.8 million twitter followers; her husband, kanye west, has 26.4 million. singer britney spears has 48.6 million; actor leonardo dicaprio has 16.4 million; basketball star lebron james has 33.4 million. very impressive numbers. marketers swoon over them. but consider this: more than 50 million americans voted for al gore in 2000. more than 59 million voted for john kerry in 2004. more than 59 million voted for john mccain in 2008. more than 60 million voted for mitt romney in 2012. and those tens of millions of voters who put their faith in their candidates had to do more than touch a <u+201c>follow<u+201d> button on a smartphone screen. they had to leave the house, many of them in brutal november weather; they had to get up early so they could vote before work, or get home late so they could vote after the factory whistle blew. they had to stand in long lines. they had to make a genuine effort to show their loyalty. yet for each of the rejected candidates with the huge followings, people who had risen over the years to the highest echelons of their respective parties, who had built up the good will of all those voters, the morning-after presumption was: you<u+2019>re done. they each now carried the most insurmountable, indelible label a presidential candidate can bear: runner-up. it will soon happen to either mr. trump or mrs. clinton. the one who fails to prevail won<u+2019>t be back in 2020. the strange game of leading a major-party ticket has become a single-elimination tournament. it has turned into the political-world version of the promotional catchphrase heard on television every year during the national basketball association playoffs: win or go home. mr. greene<u+2019>s books include <u+201c> chevrolet summers, dairy queen nights<u+201d> (harper perennial, 2001).
hillary clinton and donald trump, this is your one shot at the presidency - wsj
noauthor