Scan barcode
cpalisa's review against another edition
4.0
Great little overview of all of the US presidential elections from the beginning, through the 2012 election. Didn't seem skewed to any particular party, most were equal opportunity train wrecks! Easy and fun read.
davehershey's review against another edition
3.0
Are political campaigns too mean today? Want to go back to the "good old days" when people were civil?
This book tackles such questions and answers: presidential campaigns have never been civil and there were no good old days. Well, maybe the first election when Washington ran unopposed. But that's about it.
This book is an interesting read. It is good for a skim as after a while it gets redundant, reading about election after election. Skimming it gives you the gist: people have always been vicious in campaigns.
So as the 2012 election heats up and you wish people were nicer...know elections have kind of always been this way.
This book tackles such questions and answers: presidential campaigns have never been civil and there were no good old days. Well, maybe the first election when Washington ran unopposed. But that's about it.
This book is an interesting read. It is good for a skim as after a while it gets redundant, reading about election after election. Skimming it gives you the gist: people have always been vicious in campaigns.
So as the 2012 election heats up and you wish people were nicer...know elections have kind of always been this way.
hslk0111's review against another edition
3.0
A quick read with lots of interesting political facts.
rozeyh's review against another edition
4.0
Considering that the past is so influential on the present and future, reflecting on previous presidential elections is critical to predicting and understanding those trends that will shape 2020. Thus, this book, which details every presidential election hilariously, is very informative.
In this book, there is deep analysis of each presidential election, covering those mudslinging means and tactics that were used, and still, are by presidential candidates and staffers to win elections. Such tactics are revealed in this novel to have roots in elections long ago. Some examples that I learned from Anything for a Vote would be the claim that particular candidates are far too intellectual and above the nation's constituency to be elected. An election that always comes to mind when I hear this are the elections of 1952 and 1956, with Adlai Stevenson running against Dwight Eisenhower. Stevenson, it was proclaimed, spoke far above the layman and simply couldn't relate, with his 30-minute television advertisements when he dug deeply into policy. Eisenhower, on the other hand, spoke to the masses simply with terms and definitions as opposed to long explanations. That disparaging "egg-head" took on a new meaning when hurled at Stevenson who, admittedly, did truly look like an egg. This claim can also be seen more recently in 2000, with the election of Al Gore running against George Bush. Again, Gore was seen as privileged with his words far above the lexile of the common American and his image wasn't aided by his rolling his eyes at Bush's words at their debates, making it seem as he thought himself too sagacious for the mere Bush. These two displays of the "too intellectual" claim have roots in the election of 1800, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, as I only found out through reading this novel. One pamphlet circulated at the time told that as opposed to running for the presidency, Jefferson would fair much better as a university professor, a stab at that supposed intellectualism.
Juxtaposing that intellectualism claim, there has been always been a claim of a candidate's supposed ineptness. For many who have immersed themselves in the political realm, the foremost candidate thought of is George W. Bush with his countless "Bushisms", as even this book recollects. His "misunderestimations" cost him the appearance of being an Al Gore when it concerned knowledge. He was not alone: In 1932, it was also believed that Herbert Hoover lacked sharpness as his responses to the Great Depression weren't based in any intellect brought to him by staffers and he wasn't the most eloquent. Four years later, another FDR opponent, Alf Landon, was also thought to be not to most adept.
My favorite "dirty trick" would have to be one plainly on the cover--"Van Buren Wears Women's Clothing" used in the election of 1840 between William Henry Harrison and Martin Van Buren. Imagine this "shot" being dispelled in this upcoming election! Besides this humor covered in this book, Anything for a Vote does introduce a number of traditional party intricacies, like the nominating convention and the emergence of Vice Presidential candidates being on the same ticket, and also the political parties. This historical digging is why I state this book is very informative.
All-in-all, my favorite presidential elections, whether because of this book or deepened by this book, are:
· 1800: Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams
· 1828: Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams
· 1860: Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas
· 1876: Rutherford Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden
· 1896: William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan
· 1928: Al Smith vs. Warren Harding
· 1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Wendell Wilkie
· 1948: Harry Truman vs. Thomas Dewey vs. Strom Thurmond vs Henry Wallace
· 1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater
· 1972: Richard M. Nixon vs. George McGovern
· 1988: George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis
· 2000: Al Gore vs. George W. Bush
In this book, there is deep analysis of each presidential election, covering those mudslinging means and tactics that were used, and still, are by presidential candidates and staffers to win elections. Such tactics are revealed in this novel to have roots in elections long ago. Some examples that I learned from Anything for a Vote would be the claim that particular candidates are far too intellectual and above the nation's constituency to be elected. An election that always comes to mind when I hear this are the elections of 1952 and 1956, with Adlai Stevenson running against Dwight Eisenhower. Stevenson, it was proclaimed, spoke far above the layman and simply couldn't relate, with his 30-minute television advertisements when he dug deeply into policy. Eisenhower, on the other hand, spoke to the masses simply with terms and definitions as opposed to long explanations. That disparaging "egg-head" took on a new meaning when hurled at Stevenson who, admittedly, did truly look like an egg. This claim can also be seen more recently in 2000, with the election of Al Gore running against George Bush. Again, Gore was seen as privileged with his words far above the lexile of the common American and his image wasn't aided by his rolling his eyes at Bush's words at their debates, making it seem as he thought himself too sagacious for the mere Bush. These two displays of the "too intellectual" claim have roots in the election of 1800, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, as I only found out through reading this novel. One pamphlet circulated at the time told that as opposed to running for the presidency, Jefferson would fair much better as a university professor, a stab at that supposed intellectualism.
Juxtaposing that intellectualism claim, there has been always been a claim of a candidate's supposed ineptness. For many who have immersed themselves in the political realm, the foremost candidate thought of is George W. Bush with his countless "Bushisms", as even this book recollects. His "misunderestimations" cost him the appearance of being an Al Gore when it concerned knowledge. He was not alone: In 1932, it was also believed that Herbert Hoover lacked sharpness as his responses to the Great Depression weren't based in any intellect brought to him by staffers and he wasn't the most eloquent. Four years later, another FDR opponent, Alf Landon, was also thought to be not to most adept.
My favorite "dirty trick" would have to be one plainly on the cover--"Van Buren Wears Women's Clothing" used in the election of 1840 between William Henry Harrison and Martin Van Buren. Imagine this "shot" being dispelled in this upcoming election! Besides this humor covered in this book, Anything for a Vote does introduce a number of traditional party intricacies, like the nominating convention and the emergence of Vice Presidential candidates being on the same ticket, and also the political parties. This historical digging is why I state this book is very informative.
All-in-all, my favorite presidential elections, whether because of this book or deepened by this book, are:
· 1800: Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams
· 1828: Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams
· 1860: Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas
· 1876: Rutherford Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden
· 1896: William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan
· 1928: Al Smith vs. Warren Harding
· 1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. Wendell Wilkie
· 1948: Harry Truman vs. Thomas Dewey vs. Strom Thurmond vs Henry Wallace
· 1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater
· 1972: Richard M. Nixon vs. George McGovern
· 1988: George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis
· 2000: Al Gore vs. George W. Bush
aloyokon's review against another edition
4.0
Amusing and sarcastic book of trivia on the dirty (bleep) presidential candidates have pulled to get into high office. I read the updated version, which includes the elections of 2008 and 2012.
natep's review against another edition
1.0
Filled with errors both factual and editing. Random punctuation errors including a random new line in bibliography with some publisher's name only. Claims that Jimmy Carter was the first president since before the civil war to be elected from the South, which is wrong because LBJ was from Texas. I skimmed the last 4 elections as they are too recent for anyone to be truly objective about them. Had an error stating that the one vote Monroe didn't get in 1820 was because the elector wanted Washington to be the only one elected unanimously; in reality, the guy just did not like Monroe and thought he was a bad president.
canada_matt's review against another edition
4.0
Looking for some lighter reading fare and pairing it with a buddy read, this book seemed the perfect mix. Joseph Cummins has compiled this wonderfully educational and entertaining piece that seeks to examine each of the presidential elections in US history (up to 2008, around the time of publication). By exploring these elections, Cummins seeks to determine just how dirty and ruthless the campaigns turned out to be. His hypothesis: campaigns have long been dirty affairs and while the sleaze factor may change, mud-slinging and backstabbing has always been an active part of the election cycle. While George Washington seemed fairly free of any attacks by his foes, the whirlwind of issues started soon thereafter. Cummins shows that early elections utilized a more “blatant” approach to attacks on candidates: mocking men for being drunkards, philanderers, and willing to buy votes. All forms of publication were blunt in their approach, vilifying anyone who opposed the writer’s perspective. As the years progressed, there were times that actual political issues served to tar and feather presidential candidates, but the move turned to personal mockery, where the weight of one’s wife or the genealogy of a certain child became active fodder. Cummins shows that candidates had to defend their honour or toss exponentially more mud to deflect some of these accusations. Personal foibles and missteps seemed to be more the 20th century approach to campaign attacks, turning to more subtle advertisements that treated the electorate as an intelligent being, filling the airwaves and printed leaflets with nuanced references. Perhaps it was the more litigious nature of America, but the straightforward “Candidate X has a fat wife!” was no longer permitted, leaving parties to spin stories and sometimes ride out complete fabrications. In an era when candidates could not always dodge the accusations, Cummins shows just how forgiving the voter could be, or how well the spin factor worked when the Democrats and Republicans were working at their hardest. A wonderful compilation of short vignettes related to each presidential election, sandwiching history and political context between the actual candidates and final vote count. Wonderful for history and political buffs looking for something light to digest.
Cummins does a fabulous job in this collection, which came to fruition because he saw much mud-slinging and so many attack ads coming out of Bush-Kerry in 2004. What came to print was a great primer for the curious reader, allowing the development of the basics of a scandalous campaign approach. With the additional layers of history and some of the key issues found between the presidential candidates permitted this foundational piece to hold its own. This is sure to fuel a fire for any reader who wants to know more, though some of the information found herein is more or less ‘general knowledge’. It is when the reader gets to some of the more obscure presidents (and I say this, knowing full well my Canadian education would make far more of these men obscure than my American counterparts) that Cummins offers some humorous anecdotes that may have the reader rushing to Wikipedia or the library to substantiate these comments. Most electoral campaigns are summarised in 5-10 brief pages, though there are others that seem less controversial and can be tied off in under four. Cummins also adds his own “sleaze-o-meter”, allowing the reader to better understand how scandalous things turned out to be. Light and surely entertaining, the reader can learn a great deal. Perhaps its only downside (surely not Cummins’ fault) is that the 2016 campaign could not be included. Wouldn’t reading all about the backstabbing and bribery and cheating be tweet… I mean, sweet!
Kudos, Mr. Cummins for this wonderful collection. I will check to see if you have other presidential pieces out there to entertain me between deeper books.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
Cummins does a fabulous job in this collection, which came to fruition because he saw much mud-slinging and so many attack ads coming out of Bush-Kerry in 2004. What came to print was a great primer for the curious reader, allowing the development of the basics of a scandalous campaign approach. With the additional layers of history and some of the key issues found between the presidential candidates permitted this foundational piece to hold its own. This is sure to fuel a fire for any reader who wants to know more, though some of the information found herein is more or less ‘general knowledge’. It is when the reader gets to some of the more obscure presidents (and I say this, knowing full well my Canadian education would make far more of these men obscure than my American counterparts) that Cummins offers some humorous anecdotes that may have the reader rushing to Wikipedia or the library to substantiate these comments. Most electoral campaigns are summarised in 5-10 brief pages, though there are others that seem less controversial and can be tied off in under four. Cummins also adds his own “sleaze-o-meter”, allowing the reader to better understand how scandalous things turned out to be. Light and surely entertaining, the reader can learn a great deal. Perhaps its only downside (surely not Cummins’ fault) is that the 2016 campaign could not be included. Wouldn’t reading all about the backstabbing and bribery and cheating be tweet… I mean, sweet!
Kudos, Mr. Cummins for this wonderful collection. I will check to see if you have other presidential pieces out there to entertain me between deeper books.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
More...