If Hillary does go all the way...

[Angel of Death]

...and wins both the nomination and election comfortably, when was the last time a Presidential election with no incumbent had been so anticlimactic throughout?

[Hamster]

Does anyone here remember '88? I don't, but maybe that?

[Mister Mets]

Not sure.

Dole put up a fight in 1988, and there were periods when Dukakis led in the polls.

1968 had the assassination of a top-tier candidate, and the final result was close.

1960 had a win by a fresh face who redefined the modern presidential campaign, and it was close.

Taft put up a fight in the 1952 primaries.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

1928? Hoover largely sailed through the primaries and the general was a cakewalk.

[Del Tachi]

Hillary is not winning 2016 in a cakewalk. 

[IceSpear]

Depends what you mean by anticlimactic throughout. Even in wave years, there were periods where the other party led in the polls (ex: Dukakis led in 1988, McCain led in 2008...)

[NewYorkExpress]

Depends what you mean by anticlimactic throughout. Even in wave years, there were periods where the other party led in the polls (ex: Dukakis led in 1988, McCain led in 2008...)

I would say either 1932 or 1936... Pretty much everyone and their mother knew that  Hoover/Landon would lose, the question was probably by how much.

[Mr. Smith]

Either '88, 2000 until election night, or '56 where anti-climax is concerned.

[Maxwell]

A good amount of 2000, Bush was expected to win by a healthy margin.

[IceSpear]

A good amount of 2000, Bush was expected to win by a healthy margin.

This was pretty funny to read in retrospect. It was written the day before the election at RCP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A good amount of 2000, Bush was expected to win by a healthy margin.

It was obviously not much of a margin at the time, but there must have been about half an hour election night where as far as I could tell I was the only person on the planet with doubts about Bush's victory. Bush was leading Florida by 50,000 votes, but most of the uncounted votes were heavily Democratic counties. It kept getting closer and closer. Once it got down to maybe a 5k-10k gap, Gore decided to retract his concession.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Does anyone here remember '88? I don't, but maybe that?

Dukakis was actually ahead until late summer 1988 my friend, he was even ahead of Bush by 17 points. Bush won by 7 in the end, but it was no sure thing early on.

[DS0816]

A good amount of 2000, Bush was expected to win by a healthy margin.

This was pretty funny to read in retrospect. It was written the day before the election at RCP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Real Clear Politics was wrong, with Election 2000, by a swing of 350 electoral votes. (175 less for Bush; 175 more for Gore, keeping in mind mathematical regardless "faithless elector.")

Good work, RCP!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't think she's biologically capable of going all the way anymore.

[jaichind]

I would say either 1932 or 1936... Pretty much everyone and their mother knew that  Hoover/Landon would lose, the question was probably by how much.

Was that true ?  1936 was one of those infamous cases of a poll that went bad.  The Literary Digest was one of the most respected magazines of the time and had a history of accurately predicting the winners of presidential elections that dated back to 1916. For the 1936 election, the Literary Digest prediction was that Landon would get 57% of the vote against Roosevelt's 43%.   Of course the issue was sampling bias.  But given that Literary Digest came out with this poll and it was well respected with a good track record, including 1932, it seems not at all clear that everyone and their mother knew that Landon would lose. 

[The Other Castro]

I don't think she's biologically capable of going all the way anymore.

ewwww