Omar Bennett
Political campaigns have long been associated with negative and nasty tactics, with a rich history of mud-slinging and personal attacks. The infamous 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is often regarded as the nastiest in American history, with supporters of both candidates spreading false rumours and accusations. This tradition of negative campaigning has persisted, with modern elections like the 2016 presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump mirroring the divisive nature of early campaigns. While some argue that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, others believe it mobilizes voters by providing critical information. Despite the concerns it raises, negative campaigning remains a prevalent strategy, with candidates focusing on problems and issues to avoid rather than positive offerings.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Nastiest election campaign | 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams |
| Negative campaigning | Here to stay |
| First negative campaigning | 1789, George Washington's election |
| Negative campaigning impact | Mixed results: depresses voter turnout or mobilizes voters |
| Negative campaigning outcomes | Diminished support for the target, backlash against the attacker, or benefit for other candidates |
| Negative campaigning in 2016 | Considered the "most negative, ugly, nasty presidential campaign in modern U.S. history" |
| 2016 negative campaigning examples | Hillary Clinton is too frail to serve as president |
| 2018 midterm elections | Similar negative messaging tactics as 2016 |
| 2020 election | Dirty politics and negative ads |
| 2004 election | Dirty politics between George W. Bush and John Kerry |
| 1828 election | Andrew Jackson was called a "murderer" |
| 1876 election | Rutherford B. Hayes was accused of shooting his mother |
| 1884 election | Democrats jeered at the GOP candidate |
| 1888 election | Grover Cleveland's front-porch talks were published in newspapers |
| 1896 election | McKinley's poster showed him as the champion of American capitalism |
| 1964 election | Lyndon Johnson's campaign suggested that Barry Goldwater couldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons |
| 1988 election | George H.W. Bush sanctioned a racist commercial tying a convict to Michael Dukakis |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
The election was also notable for the emergence of political parties as a significant force. The Federalists, led by Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson, fought fiercely for control of the young nation. The Democratic-Republicans swept most of the South, while Adams performed strongly in the Northeast. The election was so contentious that it resulted in a tie, with both Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, receiving the same number of electoral votes. The outcome was decided by the House of Representatives, which voted in Jefferson's favour, marking the first time in American history that political parties played a role in choosing the president.
The nastiness of the 1800 election was not an anomaly in American political history. Negative campaigning has a long tradition, with personal attacks and mudslinging being a common feature of many elections. For example, in 1828, Andrew Jackson was called a "murderer", and his mother a "prostitute". Similarly, in 1884, Democrats jeered at the GOP candidate with the chant, "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine."
The 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson stands as a reminder that while negative campaigning may be unpleasant, it is a longstanding feature of American politics, and one that voters have come to expect.
Steve Jobs' Political Leanings: Campaign Support and Beyond
You may want to see also
The 1884 election and the Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine chant
The 1884 United States presidential election was held on November 4, 1884, and saw Democratic Governor Grover Cleveland of New York narrowly defeat Republican James G. Blaine of Maine. Cleveland's victory ended a streak of six consecutive Republican victories, making him the first Democrat to win a presidential election since 1856.
The election was marked by bitter mudslinging and scandalous accusations, with personal character taking centre stage. James G. Blaine had been prevented from getting the Republican nomination in the previous two elections due to the "Mulligan letters", which revealed that he had sold his influence in Congress to various businesses. This led to the popular chant by Democrats: "Burn, burn, burn this letter!". In just one deal, Blaine received over $1.5 million in 2010 dollars from the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad for securing a federal land grant.
Grover Cleveland was also not free from scandal. He had fathered a child with a widow, Maria Halpin, and refused to marry her. This revelation came to light in 1884, damaging his image as a decent and honest figure.
The negative campaigning by both sides resulted in chants such as "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine!" by Democrats, and "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" by Republicans, to which Cleveland supporters responded, "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!".
Exploring the Economics of Political Surrogacy: Do They Get Paid?
You may want to see also
The 1964 Daisy commercial
Political campaigns in the United States have a long history of negative and nasty advertising, with the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams often considered the nastiest in American history. However, the infamous "Daisy" commercial, which aired during Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign, set a new precedent for negative political advertising.
The "Daisy" ad, sometimes referred to as "Daisy Girl" or "Peace, Little Girl", was a 60-second television commercial that played on fears of nuclear war. It aired only once, on September 7, 1964, during NBC's "Monday Night at the Movies." The ad featured three-year-old Monique Corzilius standing in a meadow, innocently counting the petals of a daisy as she plucked them one by one. As she counts, the camera zooms in on her eye, and a nuclear explosion erupts in the background. An LBJ voiceover declares: "These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die."
The ad was designed to highlight Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions and contrast them with those of his opponent, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had voted against the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and suggested the use of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War if necessary. The Johnson campaign used Goldwater's speeches and extreme political positions to imply that he was willing to wage nuclear war. The ad never mentioned Goldwater by name, but the implication was clear: a vote for Goldwater was a vote for nuclear war.
The "Daisy" commercial was highly controversial and met with criticism, including from the Goldwater campaign. It is considered one of the most important factors in Johnson's landslide victory and a turning point in political and advertising history. It ushered in an era of negative political advertising and cemented the importance of television to political campaigns. The ad's innovative approach to negative messaging and its use of striking imagery and sudden visual changes to evoke an emotional response from viewers set a new standard for political advertising.
Campaign Field Advantage: Political Strategy and Location
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 1988 George H.W. Bush racist commercial
Negative campaigning has been a feature of American politics since the country's first election in 1789. The 1988 George H.W. Bush racist commercial is a notable example of this.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush ran a presidential campaign that was marked by racially charged politics and attacks on his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis. The campaign is infamous for stoking racial fears and using crime as a central issue.
One of the most controversial aspects of the campaign was the "Willie" Horton episode and the political advertising that came to epitomize it. Willie Horton was an African-American prisoner in Massachusetts who, while on a furlough program, committed additional violent crimes, including rape and assault. The furlough program had been implemented by Dukakis, and the Bush campaign seized on this issue to discredit their opponent.
The Bush campaign ran an attack ad that associated Dukakis with Horton's actions. The ad featured photos of Horton, including his mug shot, alongside photos of Dukakis. It criticized Dukakis' furlough program and portrayed him as weak on crime. The ad played into racist stereotypes linking crime and black men, and critics argue that it encouraged race-based politics.
The Bush campaign denied direct involvement in the ad, but later aired a similar one. The impact of this political tactic lived on, influencing criminal justice policy and campaign strategies for decades. It also contributed to the increased incarceration of African-American men and women under tougher sentencing laws.
Early Political Campaigns
The 1988 Bush campaign is just one example of negative and nasty political campaigns in American history. The award for the nastiest election campaign, however, goes to the very first election in 1789, or 1800, depending on the source. This was the first election in which political parties were important, and it was marked by venom and mud-slinging. Thomas Jefferson's supporters called John Adams a monarchist, and Adams' supporters called Jefferson an atheist.
Negative campaigning has evolved over time, with the introduction of television and modern advertising techniques. It continues to be a feature of modern political campaigns, with commentators noting that the 2016 election may have been the "most negative, ugly, nasty presidential campaign in modern U.S. history."
A Simple Guide to Removing Your Number from Democratic Party Lists
You may want to see also
The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
The election saw a departure from traditional campaigning, with a focus on problems and issues rather than positive offerings. This strategy was employed by both candidates, who ran negative campaigns against their competition, highlighting their rival's negative qualities and stances. The extent of Americans' distaste for the two candidates was evident in the extraordinarily high percentages viewing them highly unfavorably, with Trump scoring 42% and Clinton 39% on the unfavorability scale.
The negative tone of the 2016 election was not unique in American history. Early political campaigns were often just as nasty, with mud-slinging and personal invectives. For example, in 1828, Andrew Jackson was called a "murderer", and his mother a "prostitute". Similarly, in 1964, a Lyndon Johnson campaign ad suggested that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, could not be trusted with nuclear weapons.
The 2016 election stood out, however, due to the intense polarization and divisiveness between the two major parties, which made it difficult for Americans to set aside their partisan differences. The election was also notable for the high number of negative campaign ads, which may have contributed to the poor public perception of both candidates.
Trump's Four-Letter Insult: Decoding Harris Slur
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, political campaigns have been negative and nasty since the dawn of American politics. The 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is considered the nastiest election in American history.
In 1800, supporters of Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a monarchist, and Adams supporters called Jefferson an atheist. In 1828, Andrew Jackson was called a "murderer", his mother a "prostitute", and his wife an "adulteress". In 1876, Democrats claimed Rutherford B. Hayes shot his own mother while drunk.
Negative campaigning is effective because voters are more focused on problems to be dealt with and issues to be avoided (the negative) rather than goals or achievements (the positive). Negative campaigning can also supply information critical for voter participation.
Early political campaigns set a precedent for mud-slinging and negative advertising that continues today. For example, the 2016 US presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was considered by many commentators to be the "most negative, ugly, nasty presidential campaign in modern US history".
