The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 09:13:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented  (Read 2716 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,810


« on: September 24, 2016, 09:06:02 PM »

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

So did many, including some in the media, in 1980 with Reagan. He even picked up the nickname "the mad bomber" by some of his detractors.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,810


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2016, 05:18:06 PM »

Looking back in American history, I can only think of 2 presidential elections where one of the major party nominees was this reviled and feared.

1. 1860:  obvious choice. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern states because not enough electors would publicly pledge themselves to Lincoln. His election was the catalyst for secession.

2. 1896: less obvious but a highly underrated election. The 36 year old William Jennings Bryan seized the Democratic Party nomination with his electric oratory and populist stance on free silver, trade, agragrian policies, anti-wall street. The incumbent Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, was a strong free-market proponent who supported the gold standard. He was so repulsed by Bryan that he refused to even endorse him. The east coast business establishment was so terrified of Bryan that adjusted for inflation, more money was spent to defeat him than any other nominee in history. Banks and other employers openly told their workers that if Bryan wins the election, there will be no job to come to. The northeast was so terrified of Bryan that McKinley even won NYC (one of only 3 republicans to do so). If Bryan had won, the United States would be a very different country now.



You totally forgot the obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Thank you. The 1800's were full of campaigns where negativity, fear, and distrust were the order of the day. How about 1824 where the "corrupt bargain" kept Jackson from the WH. Then there's the incivility of the opponents of "Rutherfraud" Hayes after the "stolen" election of 1876. My thesis is that today's fragmented niche media has fostered a return to what was once commonplace in the US when information was fragmented before the broadcast networks dominated news.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,810


« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2016, 11:14:02 AM »

Looking back in American history, I can only think of 2 presidential elections where one of the major party nominees was this reviled and feared.

1. 1860:  obvious choice. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern states because not enough electors would publicly pledge themselves to Lincoln. His election was the catalyst for secession.

2. 1896: less obvious but a highly underrated election. The 36 year old William Jennings Bryan seized the Democratic Party nomination with his electric oratory and populist stance on free silver, trade, agragrian policies, anti-wall street. The incumbent Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, was a strong free-market proponent who supported the gold standard. He was so repulsed by Bryan that he refused to even endorse him. The east coast business establishment was so terrified of Bryan that adjusted for inflation, more money was spent to defeat him than any other nominee in history. Banks and other employers openly told their workers that if Bryan wins the election, there will be no job to come to. The northeast was so terrified of Bryan that McKinley even won NYC (one of only 3 republicans to do so). If Bryan had won, the United States would be a very different country now.



You totally forgot the obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Thank you. The 1800's were full of campaigns where negativity, fear, and distrust were the order of the day. How about 1824 where the "corrupt bargain" kept Jackson from the WH. Then there's the incivility of the opponents of "Rutherfraud" Hayes after the "stolen" election of 1876. My thesis is that today's fragmented niche media has fostered a return to what was once commonplace in the US when information was fragmented before the broadcast networks dominated news.

Honestly, most of these attacks pale in comparison to ones in this current campaign. Trump literally called Hillary Satan.

Calling someone the son of a half breed was a greater insult in the 1800's than calling someone Satan today. Racial slurs and sexual innuendo were insults to duel over.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.