Now on ScienceBlogs: Where Were You When...?
"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience, history, and pseudohistory (and anything else that interests him)
Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)
Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.
« Dr. Rashid Buttar wants you to ask him a question | Main | Best Doctor Who adventure ever? »
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 25, 2008 10:04 AM, by Orac
Think this election is bad? Think it's really negative? Think it's really vicious and nasty?
Negative campaigning and vicious attacks by candidates on each other have been with us since at least the election of 1800. If anything, these days elections are probably tamer. The difference is the media. Between robocalls, television, radio, the Internet, the blogosphere, and all the outlets that attacks can find, our campaigns just seem nastier.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Uncertain Principles 11.08.2009
Neurotopia 11.09.2009
The Primate Diaries 11.09.2009
Stoat 11.07.2009
Tomorrow's Table 11.07.2009
Comments
Interesting article. It demonstrates one great advantage that the electorate of the early 19th century had over we of the present day: political pamphlets didn't have comments sections.
Posted by: Ktesibios | October 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Yeah, and the last entry was especially sad. It took a freaking thunderstorm for a decent guy to win. People just can't help it, but buy into those emotional crap, can't they?
Posted by: IBY | October 25, 2008 12:46 PM
Ah, but what election has all five of these elements?
But seriously, interesting link, thanks.
Posted by: Beowulff | October 25, 2008 12:55 PM
If we have more outlets for vicious attacks, and if all the idiocies combine to form a perfect storm of general outright stupidity, doesn't that make modern campaigns nastier?
(Nastiness being a function of what one can see, after all.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 25, 2008 1:15 PM
At least during that election, the American people could not lose. With this one, regardless who wins, we lose.
I'm a firm subscriber to the joke:
Obama, Biden, McCain & Palin are in a boat in the middle of a large lake. A storm capsizes the boat, who was saved?
A: The American electorate.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | October 25, 2008 3:01 PM
The article on the link neglects the election of 1884 in which it was alleged that Democrat Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock. The opposition liked to recite the following ditty: Mz, ma, where's my pa, gone to White House, ha, ha.
Posted by: SLC | October 25, 2008 4:42 PM
The hubbie just came back from the mall and said he saw a man, carrying a small child, with a "F**k Palin" t-shirt on. A busy Saturday at the mall with kids all around. Nice. No matter who you're voting for. Don't think they had that in 1800.
Posted by: Stupid Burns | October 25, 2008 5:30 PM
It demonstrates one great advantage that the electorate of the early 19th century had over we of the present day:
I agree with J K Galbraith on this one. The modern dearth of rotten vegetables and horse poo in the street has severly limited the public's participation in the political discourse.
Posted by: Graculus | October 25, 2008 8:27 PM
Posted by: llewelly | October 26, 2008 6:02 PM