Talk:Corrupt bargain

Ford & Nixon

One of my university friends who was a great fan of Henry Kissinger & read all his books said that Kissinger recorded that Nixon chose Ford despite thinking him the least qualified candidate because his advisors thought he was the only one who would give him a pardon afterwards. Has anyone else read this? Do they know whether Kissinger said there was actually collusion or not?

--Jaibe 12:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Article needs editing.

This article needs to be edited.

• Comments on 1824 bargain and game theory seem to be too slanted toward a particular POV. Suggest editing POV out of this section in order to reflect varying viewpoints. Jackson being characterized as "graceless" in defeat appears over the top.--RexRex84 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While you are editing the page, note in the second paragraph says "with absolute majority". You may want this to read "with NO absolute majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.167.159 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This might be good.

I was reading in my history book that Henry Clay offered Jackson the corrupt bargain. When he was turned down, he took it to John Quincy Adams. Jackson referred to Adams as "The Judas of the West," and remarked that his end will be the same. I would add it, but I'm not a historian and my only source may be biased. I'll let you professionals decide. ~Regulus.

In Samuel Flagg Bemis biography, he seems to indicate that this was one of the few things that Adams ever felt guilty about, but that it was an unpoken gentlemen's agreement rather than a bargain. But the interesting thing that Bemis notes is that Adams also offered Jackson a Cabinet post in order to represent all factions in his Administration. Adams Jackson promptly rejected this offer, finding it politically more useful to use the charges against Adams to build an opposition party. Fishal 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Jackson promptly rejected this offer?" Paul 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Fishal 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2008?

There's been a lot of talk about a similarly shady deal happening to secure the Democratic nomination for Sen. Clinton. Should that be addressed as a possibility? Or do we need to wait until/if it happens? Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the outcome of the primaries, this suggestion seems moot. I also note that the comment above provides no specifics at all. On the other hand, there was a pro-Clinton group that raised a whole series of questions about the methods used by Obama supporters in winning caucuses. Any discussion of "corruption" during the Democratic nomination process of 2008 would need to consider that argument as well. But, in any case, I cannot see how these events in any way rise to the level of the major national events discussed in this article. --BruceJohnson (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reagan

Wasn't the term "Corrupt Bargain" also used in reference to accusations that Reagan made secret arrangements with the Iranian government to not release the American hostages until after he'd beaten Carter and taken office? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

game theory

While the use of game theory may well support the thesis that the outcome of the Election of 1824 was the result of "sincere voting" it does not in any way preclude the existence of a Corrupt Bargain. One might even argue that the game theory outcomes support the existence of just such a bargain on the grounds that it would have been more palatable to those inclined to vote against Jackson than those not. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

game theory 2 - neutrality in question

I would like to invite editors to discuss whether this section is neutral in how it handles the Jacksonians claim of a corrupt bargain.

Adding the first sentence is presumably uncontroversial, assuming the source checks out. It's the bit after the reference that I would like to ask y'all if it is just an honest explanation of the point the game theorists were trying to make? Or if it is POV, OR or CRYSTAL or all of them.

Especially the final claim "The persistence of the "corrupt bargain" charge appears, therefore, to be the subject of serious dispute" seems out of order. One game theory thesis does not make a serious dispute. Does the thesis even dispute anything? CapnZapp (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the article in question, it raises the question about whether corruption was necessary for the outcome. It does not raise a serious dispute in the sense that it does not dispute that corruption occurred. At best a sentence would be sufficient to note the finding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.88.84 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have made the adjustment. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Kennedy

Many people believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where his running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine.These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also thought that vote fraud "played a role in the election", and that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states. Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate "played a role" in Kennedy's victory in Illinois. Payback Executive Order 10988, recognized the right of federal employees to collective bargaining.

References

Proper noun?

Is there any reason this is capitalized? The only time it seems to have been printed as "Corrupt Bargain" was 1886, but this may well result from the non-standard capitalization conventions of the time. All other appearances, since its inception in 1824, seem to use "corrupt bargain". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corrupt bargain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807173410/http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/111700/Election2000/Election_2000_much_li.shtml to http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/111700/Election2000/Election_2000_much_li.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

2020 Democratic Primary

I would argue the mass dropout and subsequent endorsement of Joe Biden by several candidatates prior to super tuesday could be classified as a corptain bargain as many of them recieved cabenet offices thereafter. SamSendejas (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)