Final answer:
Andrew Jackson's 1828 campaign actively utilized a party organization focusing on the common man and his military fame, while exploiting accusations of a 'corrupt bargain' against John Quincy Adams, who was less successful in building support and was perceived as elitist. Adams' passive strategies did not resonate with the evolving electorate, leading to Jackson's decisive victory.
Step-by-step explanation:
The presidential campaign of 1828 marked a new era in political strategy and tactics. Andrew Jackson's camp employed a robust party organization that focused on the common man and painted Jackson as a hero, capitalizing on his military fame and positioning him as "a man of the people." They exploited the narrative of the "corrupt bargain" of 1824, which portrayed the election of John Quincy Adams as result of elite manipulation.
In contrast, John Quincy Adams' camp appeared more passive and less effective in garnering popular support. Despite opportunities to use federal patronage, Adams largely refrained from doing so. Supporters such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster did attempt to connect with voters through partisan outlets, yet they were largely unable to overcome the perception of Adams as an elitist disconnected from the expanding electorate.
Ultimately, Jackson's strategy of appealing to a diverse constituency of urban workers, small farmers, and both northern and southern voters delivered a convincing victory in both the popular and Electoral College votes, indicating the successful application of new democratic practices in campaign strategy and signaling a departure from the older, exclusive politicking represented by Adams.