Top Ten Nastiest Elections in U.S History

[BritishDixie]

So what were they. In my Opinion.....

1. 1968
2. 1964
3. 1800
4. 1860
5. 1828
6. 1876
7. 1928
8. 1988
9. 2004
10. 2012 (shaping up to be)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

According to Kerwin Swint's book Mudslingers the top ten nastiest presidential elections thus far were:

1. 1828 (Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams--the rematch)
2. 1884 (Cleveland vs. Blaine)
3. 1864 (Lincoln vs. McClellan)
4. 1800 (Jefferson vs. John Adams--the rematch)
5. 1872 (Grant vs. Greeley)
6. 1988 (Bush I vs. Dukakis)
7. 1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern)
8. 1876 (Hayes vs. Tilden)
9. 1964 (Johnson vs. Goldwater)
10. 2004 (Bush vs. Kerry)

I agree with the elections he chose, but I would order them a bit differently myself.

[Senator Snowstalker]

10. 1864
9. 2004
8. 1824
7. 1884
6. 1988
5. 1972
4. 1876
3. 1828
2. 1800
1. 1928

2012 hasn't been nearly as bad as 2008, 2004, or 2000 so far; in fact, other than 1976, 1984, and 1996, it may be the least nasty election in the past half-century.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You don't think 1964 deserves a spot?  And are you sure that your #1 is 1928 and not 1828?

[Senator Snowstalker]

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5073/

Last paragraph. There were serious accusations that Al Smith was a puppet of a pope who would claim America for Rome, and priests warned their congregations that they would go straight to hell if they voted for Al Smith. In addition, in order to help take the South (due to anti-Catholic sentiment there), Republicans purged the remaining blacks from the state parties.

And yeah, I forgot '64. I'll push it in later.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5073/

Last paragraph. There were serious accusations that Al Smith was a puppet of a pope who would claim America for Rome, and priests warned their congregations that they would go straight to hell if they voted for Al Smith. In addition, in order to help take the South (due to anti-Catholic sentiment there), Republicans purged the remaining blacks from the state parties.

And yeah, I forgot '64. I'll push it in later.

Really?  They got rid of the blacks from the state parties?  I knew there were controversies over Al Smith as a candidate because he was Catholic, but the same was true of Kennedy in 1960.  I think 1932 deserves an honorable mention because FDR and the Democrats three everything, including the kitchen sink, at Herbert Hoover in an attempt to destroy his reputation and portray him as greedy and unconcerned about the suffering of ordinary Americans.  The smears and attacks worked so well that most Americans carry this perception of Republicans to this day.  And it lasted long aftr the election was decided.  In fact, at FDR's first inauguration, the new president removed Hoover's security detail from the Secret Service.  A few years later, in 1936, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes removed Hoover's name from the Hoover Dam, instead opting for "Boulder Dam."  It was not until Truman became president that the name reverted back to Hoover Dam.  Even today, Herbert Hoover's name is associated with failure and the worst of our presidents, such as "the worst president since Herbert Hoover" or "the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover."  Hoover is now considered, no matter how accurately or fairly, as a villain of American history, especially the Great Depression.  I wouldn't put 1932 in the top 10 nastiest presidential campaigns in history, but I would place it at #11, with 1928 at #12.  But 1932 probably is closer to #1 in terms of lasting impact.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Why isn't 2008 on anyone's list?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why isn't 2008 on anyone's list?

I don't think 2008 was particularly dirty in comparison to many recent campaigns, including 2004.  I was surprised that 1828 was missing from some lists, and that was arguably the dirtiest ever.

[technical support]

yr 2000

[Communists For McCain]

Consider this, gentlemen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

[Oldiesfreak1854]

yr 2000

2000 got personal at times, but it was far from being especially dirty even by today's standards.

[CathKhan]

Consider this, gentlemen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Hehe. I was thinking 1800 myself. Those things got personal.