Our election is nothing new. Okay, so for many, the two choices aren't the most desirable, one candidate is constantly labeled a racist and sexist, and the other candidate is constantly labeled a flat-out liar. Said racist and said liar are constantly yelling into a microphone and yelling at one another and slinging more mud about the other candidate than thought humanly possible, but this craziness is nothing new. While the 2016 presidential election is a whole bunch of crazy wrapped up in one package, Americans can't forget the craziness of their past. The weird speeches, the mud slinging and the political scandal? They've happened before.
The weird speeches? Just take a few of the following candidates' (who just so happen to also be winners) wise words as examples:
"Well, I learned a lot...I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries." - Ronald Reagan, 1982
"It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton, 1998
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Nixon, 1977
The mud slinging?
Going back a little to the election of 1828, the lies and insults reached new heights with candidates John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. While Adams was accused of pimping out an American girl to a Russian czar, Jackson's wife was dubbed a "convicted adulteress."
Fast forward to the election of 1884 between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine. Prior to his candidacy, bachelor Cleveland had fathered a child to widow Maria Halpin. With this information, Blaine's supporters coined the chant, "Ma! Ma! Where's pa?" in mockery of Cleveland.
And the political scandal?
Going back to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, the two candidates' 1824 run ended in a tie. When Speaker of the House Henry Clay cast the a tie-breaking vote in favor of Adams, Jackson called the incident a "corrupt bargain," accusing Clay and Adams of secret dealings behind closed doors.
As recently as 2000, in the grid-locked election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Gore was narrowly named the winner based on popular vote, while Bush was deemed the winner based on the electoral vote. In the greatest electoral upset of the past decades, Bush's electoral votes were chosen over Gore's popular votes.
What's my point? My point is this: no matter how bad this election may be, no matter how bad individuals may deem the two candidates, there has been craziness to happen in the past and there will be craziness to come. That's pretty much American politics in a nutshell.
