Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns Hardcover – Illustrated, October 27, 2015

This book gives us a quick overview of the nastier pieces of the political scene. Although it is an easy read the events of the near past should be looked at more closely. The author does show bias as he looks at politics in the modern era.

I can't say much about this book because there isn't much here to really comment on. The author gives us a thumbnail report on all the presidential campaigns from Washington to Obama v Romney. It reads like an editor assigned a reporter to do story on the sleaziness of presidential campaigns of the past and this is what he came up with. The story is somewhat informative if you have read much about presidential politics and very informative if you haven't. There are some interesting bits of trivia to be picked up and some insider gossip on the behavior and character of various candidates across time. The only conclusion to be reached is that it seems that the more "educated", "informed", and "civilized", the electorate and the candidates have become the sleazier the process of selecting our leadership became. This is probably a good beach read for a history or poli sci nerd but not something I can honestly recommend.

If you feel that we are living in the worst of times, this book will relieve that stress as it shows examples of just how brutal politicians have been since George Washington.

I thought I was purchasing a new book but the edition I received seems like it has been sitting on a shelf for a while. The pages seem slightly off color or cheaper paper.

I loved this book. While you could read it in snippets - search out on one or two elections that were high on the sleaze-o-meter (the author gives nearly every election a rating for its dirty tricks quotient) I found it both enlighting and enjoyable to read it all the way through. Cummins has a clever, relaxed style and a real eye for quirky details. He also has no political agenda which means every party has to face up to their dirty past -Democrats, Republicans, and Democratic Republicans. After delving into several decades worth of elections I began to feel a bit better about our era, if only because dirty tricks and cheating seems to go in cycles. The public can be snowed for awhile but they always come to their senses, and there's something reassuring about learning that. And while 2000 was awful, between the hanging chads and the Supremes deciding the election, at least not too many dead people voted, as in previous elections, and we no longer have drunks being paid in whisky to vote a few dozen times.Every page has another colorful tidbit. For example, my old TV hero Davy Crocket was actually a Whig attack dog, accusing Martin Van Buren of dressing in corsetts. And I loved finding out about the men who ran for President and lost, and what happened to them afterwards (poor Horace Greeley died within months of losing.)Also, there were some colorful Vice Presidential candidates over the years. And I had my eyes opened about several of our chief executives. Talk about anything for a vote...Finally there were many relevant comparisons you could make to the present election season. For example, Taft made no apologies for his religion. "If the American public is so narrow as not to elect a Unitarian, well and good, I can stand it." I wish Mitt Romney were so direct. Al Smith's struggles also offer a perspective on this topic.This book was a delight - my wife thought so as well, and I've just handed it off to my 16 year old who I'm sure is going to love it as well. Be sure to check out Andrew Jackson, Rutherford Hayes, and Herbert Hoover and LBJ. Unbelievable!!

Everything arrived on time and as advertised

Good, brief overview of every political campaign since George Washington, with emphasis on the political maneuvering and tricks. Only faults I found go back 150 years; he failed to mention how the Democratic party splintered in 1860, resulting in 3 candidates who were originally in that party. In other elections he did mention third and fourth parties, so this omission is curious. Lincoln won with approximately 38% of the popular vote; he wasn't even on the ballot in many southern states. Stephen Douglas, who came in second on the popular vote, only took 1 state (Missouri) and part of another (NJ, electoral votes split between Lincoln and Douglas). Even if the Democrats hadn't split and all the votes had gone to Douglas, Lincoln still would have won the electoral college, possibly with slightly smaller number of votes.Cummins also refers to Grant's drinking, with no proof of claim. Contemporaries during Grant's presidency say he wasn't drinking, and even during the Civil War the claim was presented without proof. Grant did suffer from migraines, which the uninformed might have mistaken for the result of drinking.

Dirty tricks, lies, abuse of the truth, and voter fraud in presidential elections are nothing new to the United States! Cummings gives copious examples of the mean-spirited, often ridiculous, and sometimes even funny attacks of one opponent against another, going back to America's earliest elections. I like the clearly delineated, short chapters - one for each national election. And while it is obviously subjective, I was fascinated by the author's "Sleazometer," by which he rates each election's campaign for just how sleazy it was! Besides providing an off-beat level of entertainment, this book gives me hope that America may yet survive the current election - since it has survived political circuses in its past!

The book is a good read when you are waiting for something and know you will have some time. It also cheers one up, because many details are very amusing, expecially some accusations thrown against candidates, which are utter nonsense and even sound childish - just like the one that he doesn't drink enough - alcohol of course. Disappointing is only the chapter of the election 1860, because John C. Breckinridge and John Bell are not even mentioned and this is a major blunder, because Stephen Douglas, who is mentioned, only won two, while Bell won three and Breckinridge even 11. This was a very complex election - maybe the most complex of all - and it should be presented in much more detail.