High polling numbers do not warrant digging up dirt on a candidate.

[MineralMan]

They're simply evidence that a candidate has a considerable amount of support by voters. Polls are not always accurate, but they do reflect the results obtained by a particular polling company that is using a particular sampling strategy.

They shouldn't be a signal that searching for negative articles published somewhere to detract from a candidate is a good idea. It's almost always not a good idea. Typically, it's pretty easy to find negative articles about any candidate. The problem is that most such articles come from very biased sources and are easily debunked.

Poll percentages vary from pollster to pollster and over time. Probably, it's a better idea to find articles that support another candidate than to look for articles that attack a candidate. That will tend to help the candidate you support.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[redgreenandblue]

2. I would prefer that all "dirt" is already baked in on election day.

What we don't need is additional dirt surfacing before the general election which wasn't previously "dug up".

If there is dirt to be found on a candidate that is "damaging" then perhaps the person should not be the nominee.

[MineralMan]

4. The problem with "dirt" is that much of it is wrong

or misstated. Biases sources are, well, biased. They slant stories to make things appear to be what they want.

One person's "dirt" can be manufactured by applying different language to describe something that happened, or by omitting parts of a story that tend to show what happened in a different light.

[zipplewrath]

3. Unfortunately the professionals don't agree

Predominately, the campaign consultants will tell you that "going negative" works. We all wish it didn't, but apparently it does, which is why HRC paid for the Steele Dossier.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, negative campaigning works - sometimes.

It also has the potential to backfire. I'm not a big fan of negative campaigning, particularly when it is based on questionable sources or interpretations of something that happened.

[zipplewrath]

6. It works best "early"

It's what happened to Romney. If you get the idea out there that someone will "say anything" to get elected, it makes it easy for people to get "confirmation bias" when considering that candidate. They'll hear what they were suggested to hear. Oppo research has the intent of trying to figure out the "weakness" in a candidate, and exploiting that. Early on those weaknesses might be identified through a series of effectively "trial balloons" where various ideas are thrown out and see which ones tend to work. We're going to see alot of that between now and October. The lesser known candidates are going to be particularly targeted because they are basically "blank slates" in national politics.

[MineralMan]

7. Sure. It's politics as usual, all the way down the line.

It's just that I dislike that aspect of politics. A lot. Especially on an intra-party basis.

We have a very crowded primary in 2019. Pretty much anyone can see a bunch of the candidates who can be written off as non-starters. I've already done that, in my own mind. I pay no attention to more that six of the Democratic candidates. The rest can do as they please, but will not rise far enough to actually play a role.

However, there are several with a couple of percent of current polling, or even just 1 percent. Their fans will eventually shift to someone else. I can't predict who they'll switch to, though, so I still don't pay attention to them.

There's also probably a VP nominee in the current group of candidates. I do care about that quite a bit.

Really, I'm not that concerned about negative campaigning as it might affect who ends up as the nominee. My concern is about polarization within the party that might cause problems next year as we approach general election. The last election demonstrated the danger of that, I think. At least that's my interpretation of what happened.

My fears were realized on election day in 2016. I was worried that we'd end up with all three branches of government firmly in Republican hands. And that's exactly what happened. We've regained control of the House, which is promising, but things are still very tenuous, and I see that as the biggest issue for 2020.

I'm less concerned with candidates than I am with control of the federal government. Individual issues don't matter if we continue on the path that was blazed in 2016. That's the real risk, in my opinion.

[beachbum bob]

8. it warrants doing it if you want to damage the candidate, worked well enough in 2016 on hillary

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, it did, and the polarization within the Democratic Party

cost us control of all three branches of government. That was my concern in 2016, and it remains my concern going forward.

We could regain control of the Executive and Legislative branches in 2020, but only if we can finally unify the Democratic Party, in terms of voting next November.

If we fragment again, as we did in 2016, we could lose once again, and that would create a massive disaster that we might not overcome for decades.

My worst fear was realized in 2016. I hope my fears aren't realized again in 2020.