As has often been noted, only three sitting senators have gone *directly* to the White House--Warren Harding in 1920, John F. Kennedy in 1960, and Barack Obama in 2008.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_became_president.htm (Of course, many other presidents had *past* senatorial experience. And Garfield was a senator-elect, not a senator.) And in fact 2008 was the *only* presidential election race between two sitting US senators of dfferent parties (Obama vs. McCain--though it would still have been a race between two sitting senators of different parties if it was HRC vs. McCain).
Challenge: Find another plausible past presidential race where the two major parties both nominate sitting senators:
(1) The most obvious case would have been if the Democrats had nominated a senator (rather than Governor James Cox of Ohio) to oppose Harding in 1920. The problem is that none of Cox's main opponents--William G. McAdoo, A. Mitchell Palmer, Al Smith--was a senator (though McAdoo would later become one). The names of a few senators were put in nomination at the Democratic convention--Carter Glass of Virginia, Gilbert M. Hitchcock of Nebraska, Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma--but none stood much of a chance, though theoretically anything could happen in case of a deadlock.
(2) If McKinley had not been assassinated in 1901, it is conceivable that the Republicans might have nominated Indiana Senator Charles Fairbanks of Indiana (said to be McKinley's own preference for his successor) in 1904 and that the Democrats (in a conservative mood, after the failure of Bryan "radicalism" in 1896 and 1900) would nominate Senator Arthur Pue Gorman of Maryland. (In OTL, what destroyed Gorman's candidacy was his opposition to the Panama Canal treaty; he failed to recognize the enormous popularity of the canal in the South, and his opposition ruined his prospects in that section. In this ATL, it is possible that McKinley might have acted more cautiously than TR with respect to a canal, and therefore Gorman might never come out in opposition to him on this issue.)
(3) Stalin dies early and the Korean War is over by the time the 1952 election season starts. With attention diverted from foreign affairs to domestic problems like crime, Estes Kefauver wins the Democratic presidential nomination. The Republicans nominate Robert Taft to oppose him, General Eisenhower deciding he does not need to run in a year when there seems much less danger of a world war than in OTL.
Any other ideas, whether pre- or post-1900? (Of course in 2016 there was the possibility of Rubio or Cruz vs. Sanders or--had she chosen to run--Warren. But I don't want to get too much into recent politics. Also, 1824 doesn't count even if Senator Andrew Jackson was running against another senator, because there was no *party* competition in 1824, all the candidates considering themselves Democratic-Republicans.)
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_became_president.htm (Of course, many other presidents had *past* senatorial experience. And Garfield was a senator-elect, not a senator.) And in fact 2008 was the *only* presidential election race between two sitting US senators of dfferent parties (Obama vs. McCain--though it would still have been a race between two sitting senators of different parties if it was HRC vs. McCain).
Challenge: Find another plausible past presidential race where the two major parties both nominate sitting senators:
(1) The most obvious case would have been if the Democrats had nominated a senator (rather than Governor James Cox of Ohio) to oppose Harding in 1920. The problem is that none of Cox's main opponents--William G. McAdoo, A. Mitchell Palmer, Al Smith--was a senator (though McAdoo would later become one). The names of a few senators were put in nomination at the Democratic convention--Carter Glass of Virginia, Gilbert M. Hitchcock of Nebraska, Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma--but none stood much of a chance, though theoretically anything could happen in case of a deadlock.
(2) If McKinley had not been assassinated in 1901, it is conceivable that the Republicans might have nominated Indiana Senator Charles Fairbanks of Indiana (said to be McKinley's own preference for his successor) in 1904 and that the Democrats (in a conservative mood, after the failure of Bryan "radicalism" in 1896 and 1900) would nominate Senator Arthur Pue Gorman of Maryland. (In OTL, what destroyed Gorman's candidacy was his opposition to the Panama Canal treaty; he failed to recognize the enormous popularity of the canal in the South, and his opposition ruined his prospects in that section. In this ATL, it is possible that McKinley might have acted more cautiously than TR with respect to a canal, and therefore Gorman might never come out in opposition to him on this issue.)
(3) Stalin dies early and the Korean War is over by the time the 1952 election season starts. With attention diverted from foreign affairs to domestic problems like crime, Estes Kefauver wins the Democratic presidential nomination. The Republicans nominate Robert Taft to oppose him, General Eisenhower deciding he does not need to run in a year when there seems much less danger of a world war than in OTL.
Any other ideas, whether pre- or post-1900? (Of course in 2016 there was the possibility of Rubio or Cruz vs. Sanders or--had she chosen to run--Warren. But I don't want to get too much into recent politics. Also, 1824 doesn't count even if Senator Andrew Jackson was running against another senator, because there was no *party* competition in 1824, all the candidates considering themselves Democratic-Republicans.)