Hillary has token opposition but I mean it's more than like what Al Gore got.
Bill Bradley had to be a way more formidiable opposition.
He lost NH 53-47 to Gore. Bradley was even with Gore in late 99 polls. They had like twelve debates or something absurd. IIRC, it was more than the GOP and they had a nominal field. And it lost Gore key supporters when he went hard on the offensive against Bradley over cooperating with Reagan. I imagine some of those were eventual Nader voters.
The Perfect Tie* posits that the actual primary that year was between McCain and Bradley. That had one of them been able to win what they define (through five characteristics or something) as the "reform" primary from the other, then they would have soaked up all that support and thus been able to better stand against W. Bush or Gore one-on-one both in terms of funding, campaign infrastructure, key supporters, etc. But alone in each primary they were shorn apart by factors of the individual party's primaries rather than being able to do as McCain did in places like Michigan and pull in non-Republicans or temporary Republicans.
Also, lol at writing that reminding me of how much people said "reform" that year, like in 2008 when everyone started saying "change" suddenly.
*Which is from a series of political science books based around statistical analysis of the presidential elections rather than "punditry or narratives." James Ceaser is the primary author, I think Andrew Busch stopped participating eventually, but they did like 1988-2008 or something. Definitely not like
Game Change or
Double Down in format.