The "Yawn" crowd

[BzaDem]

Whenever there is a post bringing up information that could hurt Obama in the GE, the most popular response seems to be "yawn." Somewhat less popular (but still used) is calling the poster a fear-monger, or a right-winger, spouting the drivel of the right-wing attack machine.

Why is everyone so hostile to these types of posts bringing out negative information, about Obama or Clinton? After the politics of swift-boating and personal destruction have succeeded time and time again against Democrats, shouldn't we be trying to figure out which candidate will be least affected by swift-boating, and which candidate can best respond to it? It's not like posters who post negative background information on the candidates are trying to spread fear. People on this board know better, and they aren't going to believe the right-wing lies. That's not the point. The point is that right-wing lies ARE used against Democrats in elections, and in the past, they have been effective.

Why should we ignore this history, that has replicated itself over and over again? Dukakis ahead by 12-18 points in the Feb-Mar 1988 polls. As soon as he clinches the nomination (and not before), the Republicans (independent 527 groups at first) go after him with the Willie Horton attacks. He loses in November.

Kerry ahead by 10 points in the Feb-Mar 2004 polls. Then 527-group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launches a massive attack on Kerry's military service. Kerry loses in November.

Max Cleland lost to Saxby Chambliss in 2002 after he was in the same ad as pictures of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.



And yet now, whenever a poster wants to bring up this type of information for analysis before the nomination is clinched, they are accused of republican-fear-mongering-hatred? Is the solution to this big problem in American politics to simply pretend it doesn't exist? That 527-groups that have NO spending limits won't once again have a huge influence on our presidential election? That swift-boating won't happen in the GE, or that it magically won't be effective in the GE this time?

I would love to hear rational arguments as to why it won't be effective. Seriously, maybe it won't be for some reason. Maybe this election will be different. I certainly hope so; we can't afford 20 years of an arch-conservative Supreme Court. But whenever I see "Yawn" or "You are a Republican fear monger" as the only responses to these types of posts, I worry that we are doomed to repeat history again and again and again, by ignoring all this information (with regards to electability) when deciding to back a candidate.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Yawn.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Beat me to it.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

2. Welcome to DU, best of luck with that :)

[ErnestoG]

3. Because the YAWN crowd tends to be the one with the HILLARY buttons.

[babylonsister]

4. To me, a yawn indicates that it's old, tired news that has been

rehashed on DU ad nauseum. That's why.

[Tatiana]

5. Feel free to sling as many mud-pies as you wish.

But why bother responding until we have a confirmed nominee?

And honestly, some of the arguments are pretty weak.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

7. LOL you make me laugh!

:boring:

In my own defense I only post a yawn when I'm replying to some obvious piece of progaganda, or some op that has twisted facts, when something is rrelaly well written and fair and balanced I usually give it rec. There's just not a lot of those on here.

If someone could get rid of the spammers there'd be a lot less yawns from me!

[smalll]

8. It'll be TOTALLY effective - just take the Muslim slur for one thing --

Sure it's not true. But what does the real-story response boil down to??? --
No, he's not a Muslim: in fact, both his parents were atheists! (That'll help us break into the red states. :eyes: ) Plus, Barack himself has been an active communicant at a Christian church for many years now! (A black supremacist Christian church ...)
:yoiks:
... Maybe we should just let people keep thinking he's Muslim.

[cooolandrew]

9. We shouldn't be doing the right wings investigations for them, is my theory. I feel half the time...

..our side has given them their best ideas for attack, I don't understand that part. I'm not specifically talkng Obama but in policy and fear in general. Some go they might do this to us and they might do that to us. They read this and go ooo what a good idea, we might try that.

[BzaDem]

14. I completely agree that we should not be doing their research for them.

We definately shouldn't go through private archives doing original research for these possible types of attacks. But when something is printed in the MSM or in other types of media, you can bet that many RW smear teams have already seen it, analyzed it, and fit it in to a comprehensive strategy to defeat our candidate in November. Whether or not it is discussed here beyond that point is irrelevant. We are always two steps behind them, instead of one step in front of them. We should know what they are going to throw at us in advance, and be able to defend ourselves with it (either outright or by picking a candidate who will least likely be affected). The other side fundamentally does not play fair (to say the least), and we need to realize this.

[WillyT]

10. Because People Here Have Pretty Much Made Up Their Minds...

And it's doubtful anybody's opinion here is gonna change it.

Events outside of here might change some minds, but here... not so much.

My theory at least.

:shrug:

[InsultComicDog]

11. asdf

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. ;lkj

[InsultComicDog]

13. zxcv

[grantcart]

15. I think that the OP has made several good points. Also he has done

some good work on establishing good historical (stifle)context. Have we really considered the impact that the crazy republicans and their (urrrrrgh) big money men are going to have - oh shit yaaaaaaaaaaawn. God they are contagious.

[InsultComicDog]

16. qwertyu

[Jim Sagle]

17. The yawn crowd is hopeless. Don't talk to 'em, fuck 'em.

[mdmc]

18. welcome to DU

things will calm down here once it becomes us vs them. hang tight my friend

[rodeodance]

19. Welcome and AMEN

[LadyVT]

20. In many (not all) cases, posters were 11 or 12 on 9/11...

they weren't around, or were too young to be paying attention, during the Republican attacks on Democratic candidates in the 80s and 90s, and in the early 00s.

I actually had someone send me an email about how Obama reminded him so much of JFK. That was truly hilarious, since the sender wasn't born until 1986!!!