如果2024年教会了我们什么，那就是没有一次总统选举是一样的。今年的竞争是第一次主要政党提名前总统唐纳德·特朗普自从民主党支持格罗弗·克利夫兰在1892年的选举中。上周末，乔·拜登总统成为自2004年以来第一个放弃竞选连任的推定提名人现代总统初选程序在20世纪70年代成形。

　　这些陌生的环境让它变得简单对于观察者来说到处乱扔“史无前例”一词来描述正在发生的事情，在某些方面，这个词绝对击中要害。然而，通常情况下，从更长远的角度来看美国政治史，会发现当前政治形势比人们想象的更有共性。下面是一些过去的比较，其中许多与我们今天看到的相呼应。

　　几位总统没有赢得(或寻求)再次提名

　　拜登是(46位总统中)第13位担任不到两届首席执行官的总统，但没有在随后的总统选举中成为本党的提名人。*这个群体包括五位赢得白宫选举的总统(包括拜登)和八位因前任去世而成为总统的副总统。四位由副总统转为总统的人确实凭借自己的能力赢得了一个任期，但在那之后的四年里，他们选择了不再寻求连任。总体而言，拜登是这份名单上第四个放弃某种竞选连任努力的现任者，另外四人在党内大会上失去了再次提名，其余五人退休而不是再次竞选。

　　这份名单上最近的两个例子涉及现任者，他们在初选中表现不佳，退出竞选前积极寻求第二个任期。1968年，民主党总统林登·约翰逊似乎已经开始竞选连任，但是他震惊了全国由于在新罕布什尔州初选中表现不佳，他宣布不接受民主党的提名。(幕后，约翰逊保留他的选择重新参加竞选，但没有成功。)1952年，民主党总统哈里·杜鲁门同样地宣布他不会再参加竞选在新罕布什尔州初选失败后，尽管他在大会上获得了一些选票。

　　当然，与他的民主党前任相反，拜登在春季过后很久就公开寻求再次提名(尽管这两次竞选都在我们今天所知的现代初选过程之前)。但与约翰逊和杜鲁门相似，拜登的工作表现也面临着低评级——他的支持率只有38%在538的追踪器里而约翰逊在1968年3月时是35岁左右，杜鲁门在1952年3月时是20多岁。有趣的是，约翰逊的支持率急剧上升在他退出竞选后，所以我们将关注拜登是否会因为放弃候选人资格而受到影响。

　　上一次总统退出实际上是在现代两党制之前。像约翰逊和楚门一样，副总统约翰·泰勒1841年就任总统在总统死后，这里指的是威廉·亨利·哈里森。泰勒(男子名)被选为辉格党人，但他是前民主党人他们的观点截然不同这使他很快成为不受欢迎的人。在没有任何一个主要政党支持的情况下保住赢得1844年选举的希望，泰勒强烈要求吞并德克萨斯州提高第三方出价。但是民主党候选人詹姆斯·波尔克，采用了泰勒的大部分平台关于德克萨斯州导致泰勒辍学并在1844年8月支持波尔克。波尔克以微弱优势击败辉格党的旗手亨利·克莱。

　　表中其他两位由副总统转为总统的人更多的是按照自己的意愿走出来的，赢得了连任，服务了四年多，但退休了，而不是寻求下一个任期。罗斯福于1901年就职共和党总统威廉·麦金利遇刺后。男性在1904年赢得了压倒性的胜利但在获胜后，他说他不会参加1908年的竞选——这是一个决定他后来后悔了(罗斯福有句名言1912年又跑了一次).近二十年后，共和党总统沃伦·哈丁去世后，卡尔文·柯立芝于1923年接管白宫轻松赢得了1924年的选举。那就“无声卡尔”吧告诉媒体1927年，以他著名的简洁风格，在1928年说“我不选择竞选总统”。

　　现在，我们必须走很远的路才能找到另一个选举这位总统在第一个任期内任职，但最终没有在一次重要的政党大会上寻求本党的重新提名。将近one hundred and fifty年前，共和党总统卢瑟福·海斯已经明确表示获胜后他不会寻求连任有争议的1876年选举，所以他没有在1880年参选。在此之前，民主党总统詹姆斯·布坎南没有寻求连任在1860年内战前夕，波尔克也退休了在1848年大选之前。与拜登不同，海耶斯和波尔克在总统任期结束时都是50多岁，但布坎南是69岁，与安德鲁·杰克逊(Andrew Jackson)持平，是当时最老的离职总统。更广泛地说，围绕美墨战争的艰难环境、内战的到来和充满争议的选举无疑分别打消了波尔克、布坎南和海斯再次竞选的念头。

　　剩下的四位总统都在一届或更少的任期后失去了党内提名，这表明他们如何努力获得和保持党内支持，其程度远不如拜登。副总统米勒德·菲尔莫就任总统扎卡里·泰勒总统于1850年去世后，但菲尔莫尔失去了1852年，经过53次大会投票，辉格党获得提名。民主党总统富兰克林·皮尔斯轻松赢得了1852年的选举，但他的行动在日益增长的部门冲突让他不受欢迎，所以他的党选择了布坎南而不是他在1856年的会议上。

　　随着内战的结束，副总统安德鲁·约翰逊在共和党总统亚伯拉罕·林肯遇刺后接任他与共和党领导的国会发生了冲突—他曾是反分裂的“战争民主党人”谁在1864年成为了林肯的竞选伙伴——然后继续投标失败为了民主的1868年提名。1881年，副总统切斯特·亚瑟接替被暗杀的共和党总统詹姆斯·加菲尔德，但是亚瑟未能获得共和党提名在党的1884年代表大会上在与肾病斗争的同时.

　　拜登并不是第一个面临下台呼声的人

　　也许令人惊讶的是，拜登也不是第一个在党内初选中获得提名后面临党内呼吁放弃连任的在任总统。1992年，共和党总统乔治H.W布什已经回头了一个主要的挑战来自他的右翼古保守的评论员帕特·布坎南，并把自己定位为共和党的推定提名人。但是在对经济的不满中，改变的心情似乎反对布什。到7月下旬，他落后了民主党提名人比尔·克林顿以两位数的差距在独立候选人罗斯·佩罗之后辍学了的比赛。

　　这时一些共和党人的声音开始呼吁布什让位给其他人，让他们在八月的民主党全国代表大会上赢得提名。像《橘子郡纪事报》这样的著名报纸上的社论加州共和主义的长期堡垒—布什问道“退下”共和党筹款人理查德·维格里，谁帮助开发了“直接邮寄政治通讯”在CNN上呼吁布什“以杜鲁门和约翰逊为榜样”，维盖里说这将“保持他在历史上的地位”，并“为他的政党和国家做一件大好事”(我们听到类似的说法来自当选的民主党人关于拜登。)除此之外，副总统詹姆斯·丹·奎尔也引来了类似的呼声他的低支持率促使许多共和党人将他视为候选人的累赘:前佛罗里达州共和党主席甚至拿出了整版广告促使奎尔退出竞选。

　　对这些请求的报道足以迫使政府做出回应。尽管布什在竞选中忽略了一些问题，他的竞选团队和盟友进行了反击布什甚至会考虑让位。现在，没有国会议员公开呼吁布什退出竞选—与拜登形成鲜明对比——但就在共和党大会召开两周前，纽约众议员比尔·格林(Bill Green)确实告诉记者，布什应该用参谋长联席会议主席科林·鲍威尔(后来成为乔治·w·布什总统的国务卿)这样的人来取代奎尔。

　　然而，与今年推动拜登退出竞选不同，一场鼓励布什退出的协同运动从未启动，部分原因是压力主要来自党内右翼从来没有喜欢过首先是布什。那年11月，布什最终输给了克林顿大约6个百分点在全国范围内，而不是在夏季公布的两位数的民调差距(部分原因是佩罗秋天重新参加了比赛).

　　党决定?选民的意愿?还是两者都有?

　　随着拜登的离开，民主党人准备提名一名没有参加总统初选投票的候选人——该党的这一举动被一些人视为与大众民主相悖。不仅党的领导人在把拜登推出去的过程中扮演了一个角色，但他们也很快融合在一起副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯可能是该党的接班人。可能很少”烟雾弥漫的房间“这一次，鉴于民主党迫使拜登离职的努力的公开性质，以及用现任副总统取代他的相对直接的行动。但是美国政治有一个政党领袖把他们的拇指放在秤上以获得他们更喜欢的选择的悠久历史。

　　上一次一个政党选择一个没有真正在初选前走的旗手是在1968年。副总统休伯特·汉弗莱宣布他参赛在现任总统约翰逊宣布不参加竞选大约一个月后，他于4月下旬加入了民主党竞选。汉弗莱的主要竞争对手罗伯特·F·肯尼迪和尤金·麦卡锡，一决雌雄在当时几场主要的初选中证明他们的勇气但是汉弗莱作为当权派的选择赢得了他们的支持。总的来说，汉弗莱只赢得了2%的初选选票——大部分是推荐票——但是他轻而易举地赢得了大多数代表在一个初选不像今天这样举足轻重的时代，这是大会的第一次投票。

　　然而，1968年民主党竞选仓促的改革这带来了现代小学系统。民主党人希望一个更开放、更具代表性的过程，更好地反映党内忠诚者的愿望，他们在1972年选举前的变化最终对两党如何选择提名人产生了长期影响。这种方法不一定要涉及更多的初选—这实际上不是改革者的意图—但这就是结果:一个更受选民驱动的过程，虽然不完全是，减少了党的领导人的影响。

　　考虑到这一点，一些观察家—包括一些拜登的盟友和许多共和党人——指责民主党人鼓励拜登离开，无视初选选民的意愿。毕竟，拜登在2024年的45场民主党初选中赢得了约87%的选票。这一标志使拜登接近最近赢得连任的民主党在任者，如1996年的比尔·克林顿(88%)和2012年的巴拉克·奥巴马(91%)。

　　但是像大多数在任者一样，拜登没有遇到有意义的反对在初选中，让这场竞争的结果成为一个不太有用的指标，表明民主党人真正喜欢什么。虽然民主党人对拜登有积极的看法，但他们对他再次竞选的热情是不冷不热。在他糟糕的辩论表演后，许多调查发现那一个大多数民主党人想要拜登靠边站。这可能意味着派对是响应(如果迟到了)通过鼓励拜登退出竞选来满足选民的愿望——尽管这仍然不能保证哈里斯会赢得公开的初选。

　　尽管如此，拜登的退出至少表明了民主党内部的一些残余力量。我们当前的政治时代已被定义为弱势政党一直在努力组织和管理我们的政治，尽管强大的党派偏见使事情变得更加两极化和部落化。然而，民主党人迫使拜登退出竞选，然后在他退出后迅速转向哈里斯。这是一个突出的例子”党决定，“有点类似于2020年，当民主党人团结在拜登身后时在超级星期二之前。在这两种情况下，击败川普的愿望和对提名一位可能无法提名的候选人——2020年的参议员伯尼·桑德斯和2024年的拜登——的日益担忧，促使党内领导人采取了行动。

　　脚注

　　*的第22修正案宪法，1951年批准，限制任何人当选总统两次以上，并禁止任何担任总统两年以上的人寻求连任一次以上。然而，在任总统哈里·杜鲁门仍然可以在1952年再次竞选，因为该修正案不适用于现任公职人员。乔治·华盛顿开创先例关于任职不超过两届的，但没有法律禁止，直到这个修正案被沉淀了富兰克林·罗斯福总统连续四次赢得选举。

　　Biden isn't the first president to drop a reelection bid

　　If 2024 has taught us anything, it's that no presidential election is ever the same. This year's contest featured the first major-party nomination of a former president — Donald Trump —since Democrats backedGrover Cleveland in the 1892 election. And this past weekend, President Joe Biden became the first presumptive nominee to abandon a reelection bid sincethe modern presidential primary processtook shape in the 1970s.

　　These unfamiliar circumstancesmake it easyfor observersto throw aroundthe term "unprecedented"to describe what's happening, and in some respects, that word absolutely hits the mark. However, as is often the case, a longer view of American political history offers more commonalities with the current political situation than one might expect. Here then is a look at some of those past comparisons, many of which echo what we're seeing today.

　　Several presidents didn't win (or seek) renomination

　　Biden is the 13th president (of 46) to have served fewer than two terms as chief executive but not end up as his party's nominee in the ensuing presidential election.* That group consists of five presidents who won election to the White House (including Biden) and eight vice presidents who became president due to the death of their predecessor. Four of the vice presidents-turned-president did win a term in their own right but opted against seeking another four years after that. Overall, Biden is the fourth incumbent on this list to abandon some sort of reelection effort, while four others lost renomination at their party conventions, and the remaining five retired rather than run again.

　　The two most recent examples on this list involve incumbents who actively sought a second term before exiting the race following poor performances in early primaries. In 1968, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson had seemingly begun his reelection bid, buthe surprised the countryby announcing that he would not accept his party's nomination following a weak performance as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire primary. (Behind the scenes, Johnsonkept his options openabout reentering the race, but that didn't pan out.) In 1952, Democratic President Harry Truman similarlyannounced that he wouldn't run againafter losing the New Hampshire primary, although he received a handful of votes at the convention.

　　Of course, contrary to his Democratic predecessors, Biden publicly sought renomination well beyond the spring (although both those races predate the modern primary process as we know it today). But similar to Johnson and Truman, Biden has faced low ratings for his job performance — his approval rating is only 38 percentin 538's tracker, while Johnson's stood in the mid-30s in March 1968 and Truman's the low 20s in March 1952. Interestingly, Johnson's approval ratingrose sharplyafter his departure from the race, so we'll be watching to see if Biden gets any bump for abandoning his candidacy.

　　The last presidential dropout actually predates the modern two-party system. Like Johnson and Truman, Vice President John Tyleracceded to the presidency in 1841after the president's death, in this case William Henry Harrison. Tylerhad been elected as a Whig, but he was a former Democratwhose views stood sharply at oddswith those of his adopted party, which quickly made him persona non grata. To retain any hope of winning the 1844 election without support from either major party, Tylerpressed the issue of annexing Texasto boost a third-party bid. But James Polk, running as the Democratic nominee,adopted much of Tyler's platformregarding Texas, whichled Tyler to drop outand endorse Polk in August 1844. Polkwent on to narrowly defeatHenry Clay, the Whig standard-bearer.

　　Two of the other vice presidents-turned-president in this table went out more on their own terms, winning and serving four more years but retiring as opposed to seeking another term. Theodore Roosevelttook office in 1901following the assassination of Republican President William McKinley. Hewon a landslide victory in 1904, but said following his win that he wouldn't run in 1908 — a decisionhe later came to regret(Roosevelt famouslyran again in 1912). Almost two decades later, Calvin Coolidge took over the White House in 1923 after Republican President Warren Harding's death andhandily won the 1924 election. "Silent Cal" thentold the pressin 1927, in his famously laconic style, that "I do not choose to run for president" in 1928.

　　Now, we have to go back quite a ways to find anotherelectedpresident who was serving in their first term but didn't end up seeking their party's renomination at a major party convention. Nearly 150 years ago, Republican President Rutherford Hayeshad made it clearthat he would not seek a second term after winningthe controversial 1876 election, so he didn't run in 1880. Prior to that, Democratic President James Buchanandidn't seek reelectionin 1860 in the lead up to the Civil War, and Polkalso retiredahead of the 1848 election. Unlike Biden, Hayes and Polk were both in their 50s at the end of their presidencies, but Buchanan was 69, about tied with Andrew Jackson as the oldest president to leave the office at that time. More broadly, exhaustion from difficult circumstances surrounding the Mexican-American War, the coming of the Civil War and a fraught contested election surely discouraged Polk, Buchanan and Hayes, respectively, from running again.

　　The four remaining presidents each lost out on their party's nomination at the convention after one term or less, indicative of how they struggled to garner and maintain intraparty support to a far worse extent than Biden did. Vice President Millard Fillmoreacceded to the presidencyafter the death of President Zachary Taylor in 1850, but Fillmorelost out onthe 1852 Whig Party nomination after 53 convention ballots. Democratic President Franklin Pierceeasily won the 1852 election, but his actions amid growing sectional strifeleft him unpopular, so his partychose Buchanan over himat the 1856 convention.

　　As the Civil War ended, Vice President Andrew Johnson took over after the assassination of Republican President Abraham Lincoln, buthe clashed with the GOP-led Congress— he'd been an anti-secession "War Democrat"who'd become Lincoln's running mate in 1864— and went on tolose a bidfor theDemocraticnomination in 1868. In 1881, Vice President Chester Arthursucceeded the assassinated Republican President James Garfield, but Arthurfell short of the GOP nominationat the party's 1884 conventionwhile battling kidney disease.

　　Biden wasn't the first to face calls to step aside

　　Perhaps surprisingly, Biden also isn't the first incumbent president who faced appeals from within his own party to abandon a reelection bid after clinching renomination in a party primary. In 1992, Republican President George H.W. Bushhad turned backa primary challenge from his right flank bypaleoconservativecommentator Pat Buchanan and positioned himself as the GOP's presumptive nominee. Butamid dissatisfaction with the economy, the mood for changeseemed set against Bush. By late July,he'd fallen behindDemocratic nominee Bill Clintonby double-digit marginsafter independent contender Ross Perotdropped outof the race.

　　That's when some Republican voicesstarted calling for Bushto step aside and let someone else earn the nomination at the party's national convention in August. Editorials in notable outlets like The Orange County Register — paper of record in thelong-time citadel of California Republicanism—asked Bushto "stand down." GOP fundraiser Richard Viguerie,who helped developdirect mail political communication, went on CNN to call for Bush to "follow the example" of Truman and Johnson, which Viguerie said would "preserve his place in history" and "do his party and his country a great service." (Weheard similar statementsfrom elected Democratsabout Biden.) Beyond this, Vice President Dan Quaylealso attracted similar calls, as his low approval prompted many Republicans to see him as a liability to the ticket: A former Florida state GOP chaireven took out a full-page adin The Washington Post that urged Quayle to quit the race.

　　The coverage of these pleas was significant enough to force a response. Although Bush ignored questions while out on the campaign trail,his campaign and allies pushed backon the idea that Bush would even consider stepping aside. Now, no members of Congress publicly called on Bush to leave the race —a major contrast to Biden— but New York Rep. Bill Green did tell reporters just two weeks before the GOP convention that Bush should replace Quayle with someone like Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and later President George W. Bush's secretary of state).

　　Unlike this year's push for Biden to leave the race, though, a concerted campaign to encourage Bush to drop out never took off, in part because pressure came predominantly from the party's right, whichhad never likedBush much to begin with. That November, Bush ended up losing to Clinton, albeitby around 6 percentage pointsnationally instead of the double-digit poll margins released during the summer (in part because Perotreentered the race in the fall).

　　The party decides? The will of the voters? Or both?

　　With Biden's departure, Democrats areset to nominatea candidate who wasn't on the ballot in the presidential primary — a move by the party that some perceive as at odds with popular democracy. And not only did party leadersplay a part in pushing Biden out, but they alsoquickly coalesced aroundVice President Kamala Harris as the party's likely successor. There were likely few "smoke-filled rooms" this time around, given the public nature of Democrats' efforts to compel Biden's departure, and the relatively straightforward move to replace him with the sitting vice president. But American politics has a long history of party leaders putting their thumb on the scale to get their preferred choice.

　　The last time a party chose a standard-bearer who didn't really go before primary voters was in 1968. Vice President Hubert Humphreyannounced his entryinto the Democratic race in late April, about a month after the incumbent, Johnson, said he wouldn't run. Humphrey's main competitors, Sens. Robert F. Kennedy (Sr.) and Eugene McCarthy,slugged it outin the few major primaries at the timeto prove their mettleto party leaders, but Humphrey captured much of their support as the establishment choice. Overall, Humphrey won just 2 percent of the primary vote — mostly as a write-in — buthe easily captured a delegate majorityon the convention's first ballot in an era when primaries didn't hold as much weight as they do today.

　　Yet that 1968 Democratic raceprecipitated reformsthat brought about the modern primary system. Democrats wanted a more open and representative process that better reflected the desires of the party faithful, and their changes ahead of the 1972 election ended up having long-running ramifications for how both parties choose their nominees. Such an approach didn't necessarily have to involve more primaries —that actually wasn't the reformers' intention— but that was the result: A more voter-driven process that significantly,although not entirely, reduced the sway of party leaders.

　　With that in mind, some observers —including some Biden alliesandmany Republicans— have accused Democrats of ignoring the will of primary voters by encouraging Biden's departure. After all, Biden won about 87 percent of the vote across the 45 Democratic primary contests in 2024. That mark placed Biden in the vicinity of recent Democratic incumbents who went on to win reelection, like Bill Clinton in 1996 (88 percent) and Barack Obama in 2012 (91 percent).

　　But like most incumbents, Bidenfaced no meaningful oppositionin the primary, making that contest's outcome a less useful indicator of what Democrats truly preferred. While Democrats had a positive view of Biden, their enthusiasm for him running again wasnever more than lukewarm. And after his woeful debate performance,many surveys foundthat amajority of Democratswanted Bidento step aside. That might suggest that the partywasresponsive (if belatedly) to its voters' desires by encouraging Biden to leave the race — though it still doesn't guarantee that Harris would've won an open primary race.

　　Nevertheless, Biden's exit illustrates at least some remaining strength within the Democratic Party apparatus. Our current political erahas been defined byweak parties that have struggled to organize and manage our politics even as strong partisanship has made things more polarized and tribal. Yet Democrats compelled Biden to leave the race, then rapidly rallied to Harris right after he stepped aside. This was a striking example of "the party deciding," somewhat akin to 2020,when Democrats consolidated behind Bidenahead of Super Tuesday. In both cases, the desire to defeat Trump and the growing fear of nominating a candidate who might be unable to — Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2020, Biden in 2024 — prompted party leaders to act.

　　Footnotes

　　*The22nd Amendmentto the Constitution,ratified in 1951, restricts any person from being elected president more than twice and forbids any person who has acted as president for more than two years from seeking more than one additional term. However, incumbent President Harry Truman could have still run again in 1952 because the amendment did not apply to the current officeholder. George Washingtonset a precedentofserving no more than two terms, but there was no legal prohibition until this amendment, whichwas precipitatedby President Franklin Roosevelt's four consecutive electoral victories.