Anoraks answered
1952 is the answer if one is talking simply about the Presidential general election - ie. once the parties have picked their candidates - but my question referred to the "presidential race". In 1952 President Truman actually contested the New Hampshire primary and announced his retirement after losing badly to Estes Kefauver (though Adlai Stevenson was eventually the Democrat nominee that year).
(Incidentally, the 1952 Democrat nomination was also contested by Jeffrey Archer's half-brother-in-law, the Connecticut senator Brien McMahon, but that's another, quite fascinating, story.)
The real answer is 1928 - 80 years ago - when neither the sitting President, Calvin Coolidge, nor his Vice President Charles Dawes, contested any part of the election.
For record, President Hoover was beaten in 1932, President Roosevelt won in 1936, 1940 and 1944, and Truman won in 1948.
After 1952, President Eisenhower fought in 1956; Vice President Nixon in 1960; President Johnson in 1964; Vice President Humphrey in 1968; President Nixon in 1972; President Ford in 1976; President Carter in 1980; President Reagan in 1984; Vice President Bush in 1988; President Bush in 1992; President Clinton in 1996; Vice President Gore in 2000 and President George W Bush in 2004.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 22nd Oct 2008, thelovelyJET88 wrote:The recent departure of Barack Obama from his party campaign is very similar to the non existing Coolidge.
The problem with being in the lime light is that if you cant take what the Private eye has to say about you then your never strong enough to lead a nation. I suppose its about balancing the two.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 22nd Oct 2008, thelovelyJET88 wrote:sorry unaware that his grandmother is seriously ill..either way he is out of the preying eyes for a bit.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 23rd Oct 2008, JunkkMale wrote:Much more importantly, to me in the UK and concerned with the BIG issues...
When are you going to be addressing (here's hoping) the vastly important, topical issue of... Mrs Palin's wardrobe. Everyone else is doing it!
Now, I have to say that I have in my wardrobe the same suit I had a decade ago for smart stuff, while the missus is on La Redoute's frequent buyer programme, so there is an 'issue' here.
As it wasn't mentioned on 91Èȱ¬ Breakfast News, I still wonder who is paying, but if not the taxpayer whose business it is and hence who cares. Maybe Mr. Obama's helicopter has seats made from whale foreskins?
Maybe some are just still smarting over the expose over their bubbly bill... which is paid for by the licence fee and hence, in part...me.
When it comes to the 91Èȱ¬, might there be a danger of skirting (sorry) dodgy ground here, considering, how to say, more 'favourable', uncritical 'reporting' of the fashions sported by oh so many others 'approved' of (from Princess D through WAGS to Mrs. Brown), and from ladies who also don't seem to lob up each day in the same one-piece.
I merely note in passing a few of Newsnight's very own being involved, irony-free, with a progamme that is currently quite active in getting knickers in a twist over 'inappropriate' relationships.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 23rd Oct 2008, nomorefakenews wrote:COMING SOON...
THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION...
CANADA...USA..AND MEXICO JOIN TOGETHER WITH A NEW CURRENCY THE AMERO...
THIS SCRIPTED AGENDA IS SOOOOO BORING
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 23rd Oct 2008, thelovelyJET88 wrote:Its like what people say:
"Theres only two things that are certain in life... Death and Taxes."
Apperently 60p of tax goes to the monarchy each year, to be honest i dont care. I think thats quite cheap really. If it means upholding what England stands for then i would pay a tenner! I'm not sure anyone would understand what its like to be a king or queen unless you know one.
Im more concerned about how taxes could be used in a benefical way..like helping disabled people around the country.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 25th Oct 2008, barriesingleton wrote:MAKE THAT THREE (#5)
Ah yes, be that as it may, but you can mitigate against death and taxes. The only 'certainty' you have no control over is your own conception (birth if you like).
The FUNDAMENTAL right of every individual is not to be conceived. Once this right is violated - usually without thought and rarely with compassion - all other indignities pale.
Time to get me coat again . . .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)