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.
More like this
I am sure that you have already heard about the despicable TV ad that Elizabeth Dole aired against Kay Hagan. You probably heard about it online, perhaps on Twitter or FriendFeed or blogs. Here's a quick selection:
My godless money. Take it or leave it.
The Worst Insult of All?
Thou shalt not bear…
This I first posted on June 24, 2004 on www.jregrassroots.org, then republished on August 23, 2004 on Science And Politics. I love re-posting this one every now and then, just to check how much the world has changed. What do you think? Was I too rosy-eyed? Prophetic?
In the beginning there were…
This I first posted on June 24, 2004 on www.jregrassroots.org, then republished on August 23, 2004 on Science And Politics. What do you think? Was I too rosy-eyed? Prophetic?
In the beginning there were grunts, tom-tom drums, smoke signals, and the guy on the horse riding from village to village…
I first posted this on June 24, 2004 on the www.jregrassroots.org forums, then republished on August 23, 2004 on Science And Politics, then a couple of times on this blog.
Why did I decide to re-post it today?
Because I have been thinking and reading about the current state and potential future of…
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.
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?
Ah, but what election has all five of these elements?
But seriously, interesting link, thanks.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
blogs have replaced rotten vegetables and horse poo.