There are only two parallels to Donald Trump’s presidential nomination in U.S. history – Andrew Jackson and Wendell Willkie.

The closest match is Willkie, the lifelong Democrat New York businessman who never held public office, then shockingly captured the Republican presidential nomination in 1940. But Willkie lost. Polls are fluid, but more than a few seem to indicate Trump has a chance to win, polling within the margin of error in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and close in other states. Thus, Jackson might be the better comparison to follow, at least with regards to a path to victory.

Jackson, though not a billionaire void of political experience, was an outsider who came along at the right time, or almost the right time. He lost the first election but got a plurality of votes – popular and electoral. Oddly enough, losing the 1824 election to John Quincy Adams only buttressed his argument in the public’s mind about the out-of-touch Washington elite cheating the will of the people to maintain its grip on government.

Much like Trump, Jackson didn’t hesitate to use foul language in lashing out at the political establishment. The political class spoke of Jackson as many speak of Trump today. For example, Speaker of the House Henry Clay thought Jackson was a demagogue who might become a dictator if he were president, and wrote, “I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult and complicated duties of the First Magistracy.”

As I wrote about Jackson in my book, Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections:

Andrew Jackson, “the friend of the common man” by contrast, was the first true populist-style politician to rise to the presidency through an insurgent candidacy, or as historian Paul Johnson referred to him in A History of the American People, Jackson was “the first case, in fact, of presidential charisma in American history.”

He was almost the Donald Trump of his day, though not as wealthy. He could also be compared to a class-oriented populist such as Bernie Sanders. Jackson excited the electorate with plain talk. He knew how to channel anger, anger that was largely justifiable toward an out of touch, unproductive elite in Washington. While in those days, surrogates would generally sling mud in presidential campaigns, the candidates themselves would—gentlemanly—avoid mixing it up, Jackson had no such constraints and “called the banks, the War Department and Washington in general, “The Great Whore of Babylon.”

Willard Randall, an award winning journalist and historian, who is the author of 14 books on U.S. history and a professor emeritus at Champlain College, said: “Andrew Jackson would be a very strong candidate today. He would deliver ripping speeches about the 2008 recessions, how the big banks were bailed out, but how the working people lost their homes. It’s the kind of thing Bernie Sanders would also say. Jackson called the National Bank the ‘hydro-headed monster.’ It’s the kind of thing Trump would say.”

***

The New York Statesman newspaper bemoaned the “scandalous defalcation in our public pecuniary agents, gross misapplications of public money, and an unprecedented laxity in official responsibilities.”

All of this presented an opportune time for a charismatic outsider to enter the fray, as Jackson called for a “general cleansing” of the nation’s capital.

Jackson perhaps had an easy target in Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Not corrupt, but still the son of a president, the embodiment of entitlement—part of a legacy of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, all former Secretaries of State who became president as if it was the natural stepping stone.

In fact, Jackson, by contrast, was the only major candidate with no vast administrative experience in the federal bureaucracy. Whereas the other three candidates were multi-lingual, Jackson only spoke English, and not the King’s English. He didn’t even write English that well. Post-George Washington, every president had held a cabinet post. But like Washington, Jackson was revered by the public for his time as a heroic general on the battlefield.

Adams even wanted Jackson to be his vice president, which would have altered history considerably. Adams thought Jackson’s large personality would liven up the office of the vice presidency, and “would afford an easy and dignified retirement for his old age.” He also added that the vice presidency was “a station from which the General could hang no one.” Supporters of an Adams-Jackson ‘24 ticket came up with a slogan: “John Quincy Adams who can write; Andrew Jackson who can fight.”

For the 1824 election, there was an undercurrent of that reoccurring “time for a change” theme that surfaces in every few presidential elections to the current day. To put this in modern perspective, the old Republican guard continued to say throughout 2015 that the 2016 campaigns of outsiders Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or even Sen. Ted Cruz were doomed to fail. That’s what history tells us, since insurgent candidates on the Republican side always eventually succumb to the frontrunner. Unlike the Democrats, who historically nominates surprises. But the rules completely changed in 2015 leading up to the first primaries.

Likewise, the rules completely changed in 1824. Adams was the heir apparent to the presidency less because his father held the job, than because he was the Secretary of State, the instant springboard. That was the political rule for the last three presidents. It would be called a kick-the-bums-out voter mood today.

*** 

The public was willing to forgive much from Jackson. He was known for a temper, engaged in brawls and killed a man in a duel for slurring his beloved Rachel.

While Madison and Monroe were mostly in the Jefferson tradition of standing for the common man, they were not of the common class. Neither was Jackson. But, he knew how to speak their language and came along at just the right time when the electorate was expanding. He was the outsider who didn’t serve his country by sitting in a comfortable office in Washington, but by risking his life in battle for the United States, very appealing at the time.

Experienced politicians and writers of the day did not believe Jackson could be president. For one, it seemed unlikely he would draw cross regional appeal in New England, the South and western states.

His assertion of an outsider status was based more in attitude than on resume, as Jackson held a very enviable string of public offices. In 1796, he attended a convention where the state of Tennessee is established, and served in Tennessee’s House of Representatives from 1796 to 1797 before he was elevated to the U.S. Senate, serving there for another year. Not particularly fond of working in Washington, he returned home to serve as a Justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 through 1804.

***

Eric Patterson, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University also saw the parallels between the Jackson candidacy and that of Donald Trump, as well as Ross Perot and other outsiders: “They were appealing candidates because they knew how to tap into frustrations across the electorate in a way other candidates had not caught on to yet because other candidates were slow to realize the country had changed.”

Certainly there were plenty of difference, considering Jackson’s political and military resume. Jackson was a wealthy, though he wasn’t born into wealth as Trump was. But both could understand the basic frustrations of the public better than most politicians. Both were written off by the press early on. The public was willing to forgive much of both as an “anything is better” attitude toward the political class. It would be true of both to say conservatives could appreciate some things and abhor others about Jackson and Trump.

There have been presidential candidates who had a great run channeling some variation of angry sentiment – William Jennings Bryan, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan to name a few. None of them ever won. Only Jackson provides a template for Trump as to whether a candidate can ride frustration to the White House.

Fred Lucas is the author of Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections (Stairway Press, 2016). He is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal.