I was thinking about the next presidential election.
What if (and this wouldn’t happen) no one ran against Bush?
Would that be legitimate?
Has any President ever run without a opposing party rival?
How many presidents have run without any others of their party running against them in primaries?
It’s happened. Even though he didn’t exactly run either time, George Washington became president without any opposition. Also, in 1820, no one ran against Monroe for reelection. Washington got all of the electoral votes. Monroe got all of them, but one .
The system of major parties ensures that there are always at least two nominees for the presidency, usually more. Several sitting presidents have been renominated by their own party without opposition but, since the rise of national nominating conventions in the Jacksonian era, no presidential candidate has run without at least one opponent nominated by another major party.
Buy an almanac/yearbook. Any of the standard ones has a list of all the U.S. Presidential elections which includes information like who ran and how many popular and electoral votes each candidate received.
Tradition says that James Monroe received all of the electoral votes save one in his election to his second term because the electors thought that Washington should be the only President to receive all of the electoral votes. Actually, the lone elector that voted for John Quincy Adams hated Monroe’s guts and did want Adams to be President.
In 1884 Chester Alan Arthur, the sitting President, didn’t receive his parties renomination. Arthur, knowing that he was suffering from Bright’s disease and that he’d never live out his term if elected, didn’t campaign particularly vigoursly for the nomination. He died in 1886.
Franklin Pierce didn’t receive the Democrats nomination for reelection in 1856. He ostensibly wanted the job, but pretty much everybody hated him and his whole time in Washington was a disaster, starting with having one of his children killed in an accident on the way to Washington for the inauguration.
James Buchanan got the nod from the Democrats in 1856 mainly because he had been out of the country during the Kansas crisis. Buchanan took on the first ever Republican nominee for president, John C. Fremont and won fairly easily.
Buchanan wasn’t renominated by the Democrats, but there was pretty much no one in either the North or South who wanted him around by 1860. And in 1860, the Democrats had the Mother of All Party Disputes.
Another underlying reason for Pierce’s non-nomination in 1856 was his rather well-known propensity to get snockered at every opportunity. It was hard to establish a reputation as a drunk in those hard-drinking days, but Pierce managed to do it.
That citation offers one of the more sublime Presidential quotes I’ve ever seen:
Here’s to hoping such sentiments are not present in the White House today–although since I saw Shrub holding himself up on that fireman I’ve had my doubts…
Even if there is no chance at an opposition candidate being elected, they will put one out there to keep the base involved, and keep the local elections competitive. No serious, or even semi-serious party would ever not run a candidate.
More than the presidency is at stake, you know. Very recent examples of no-chance-to-win candidates who stuck it out for the sake of the local races and the party are Bob Dole in '96 and Walter Mondale in '84.
The day a major party did not run an opposition candidate would be about 40 years after said party died.