When someone trashes & bashes a Democratic candidate...

[Sapphire Blue]

[William769]

1. "I think they have nothing good to say about THEIR candidate."

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Bashing? Or Stating Their Voting Record?

Bashing is bad. Reporting a candidate's voting record is educational.

[iamjoy]

7. Questioning A Voting Record Is Fine

questioning motivation (and assuming the worst) is questionable.

I think its wrong for Democrats to use insulting names for other Democrats.

[MADem]

15. Don't forget insulting physical characteristics, or suggesting that because of wealth,

house size, or who they're related to they aren't "deserving" to run.

I wish I could have clicked more than one response, but my overriding impression is that when they trash an opponent, they first, disgrace their OWN candidate, and second, they got nuttin' good to say about their own favorite (out of stupidity or ignorance, take yer pick!).

[The Magistrate]

3. When Someone Trashes And Bashes A Democratic Candidate, Ma'am

God kills a cute little kitten. Every time.

[Missy Vixen]

8. Sir!

It's good to see you!

>God kills a cute little kitten. Every time.<

Reminds me of something my sainted mother used to say: "If you can't say anything nice, why not use the excess energy to work even harder on behalf of your candidate," or something like that. :woohoo:

Julie

[The Magistrate]

17. Good To See You, Too, Ma'am

It has always seemed to me that stressing your favorite's good points is the best way to proceed, particularly in a primary, where it is important everyone be friends at the end of the road.

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Democrat."

[BlooInBloo]

4. It has nothing to do with "their candidate". It just means they *themselves* are jackasses.

[mmonk]

5. One person's bash is another person's truth.

[bobbolink]

6. Do need to know what constitutes "bashing". Some don't like *any* talk about their record

For me, "bashing" means silly talk about silly issues: i.e. Kucinich looks like a lawn ornament. Silly, derogatory, personal attack and just plain mean (and seen often in 2004!)

Bringing attention to the fact that Richardson was on the wrong side of the Wen Ho Lee case, angering many in Los ALamos, is *NOT* bashing: It's factual, it's an important fact to know if you're considering voting for him, it isn't personal attack.

[iamjoy]

11. Indeed....

And there is the difference.

If you want to question Richardson's judgement in the Wen Ho Lee case or Clinton's having sat on the BOD for Wal-Mart, that is legitimate.

BUT, I don't feel it is right to make insulting judgements about Richardson that are based more on Fox talking points than the facts of the case.

AND you can question Hillary's record of standing up for the worker without calling her names or painting her as in league with Satan as many - yes, Democrats do.

[bobbolink]

16. I can't truthfully report Hillary in league with SATAN?????

well, shit.

:rofl:

:hi:

[mitchtv]

9. Bashing= I know it when I read it

[MGKrebs]

10. If it's B.S., it often motivates me to defend whoever they are bashing.

[Warpy]

12. If it's non factual, I correct it

Otherwise, I just roll my eyes, groan, and wish campaigns would stop sending trolls out to message boards to trash the other guys. That includes campaigns in both parties.

I mean, after all, we on DU aren't looking for superheroes or Daddies, are we? We're grown up enough to know no candidate is going to be all things to any of us, aren't we? We know enough to read each candidate's sites, statements and voting records for ourselves, don't we?

I know negative advertising makes me loathe the advertiser and the horse's ass he rode in on. I have to think it's lost its punch on a lot of people out there. The only thing it ever does is suppress the vote on both sides.

[MADem]

21. If some of these asswipes are campaign operatives/trolls, those campaigns are ILL served.

Some of the shit I've seen, particularly about the top three candidates, is egregious, blatant and disgraceful. It's horseshit, it's stupid, and it reflects poorly on the candidate they favor.

It actually doesn't supress my vote, though. It makes me more motivated to vote.

Of course, I haven't picked a favorite yet--I'm rooting for all of them at this point. I'm hoping a few more debates and televised appearances will help me narrow the field.

[Warpy]

25. My own enthusiasm at this point is tepid

and yes, I get angry at the trashmouths every time they pop off about a candidate that isn't their knight on a white horse.

I'm sick of it.

And yes, some of them are associated with campaigns. Their trashing is a little more subtle, but it's still snide and nasty.

[MADem]

26. I dunno if mine could be called tepid; I just think there's much to like about

pretty much all of the field, and I wouldn't get annoyed if the one I end up choosing isn't the final candidate--so far, anyway. Virtually every candidate on our team has some quality to recommend them...at any rate they're a helluva lot better than the GOP pack of toads!

I know whatcha mean, though...I'm sick of the trash talk too. There's just no need for it. It certainly offends my sense of justice. And it doesn't help us learn anything constructive about the candidates...

[MethuenProgressive]

13. I think they have nothing good to say about THEIR candidate.

I've see several DU regs who post nothing except anti________ posts. Never do we see "hooray for guy" posts from them. It's almost like clockwork, morning, afternoon, and night - and the same few are always among the first to respond to each other's hitjobs with "k&r!"

[waiting for hope]

28. That's my beef too...

I never see any positive things either. I choose to post only positive things and then refrain from reply or participating in the negative ones. The IGNORE feature is a wonderful tool! ;)

BTW: HI SB!!!! A little :kick:

[WillyT]

14. Depends On What You Mean By Trashing And Bashing I Suppose...

Although I prefer constructive criticism over impassioned venting, I must remind myself that just like our government officials in general work for US, likewise Democratic candidates are supposed to represent Democratic ideals. Or at least be savvy enough to offer up and lead us to new ideals.

And just as it is as an American, I get to criticize America when I thing it is doing something stupid, or wrong, so it is with members of my party; especially those seeking office.

:shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

18. I always wonder why people think bashing another candidate makes their favorite look good...

It is always the same.

Eventually a lot of people are disappointed that their particular candidate does not get the Democratic Nomination, but they eventually line up behind the Democratic Nominee in the General Election --and then the Repubs use the Democrats' attacks on each other during the primary season to attack our Nominee.

It would be better if we promoted the fine qualities of the candidate we prefer and reduce the negative comments about our other candidates.

If you constantly attack one of the other Democratic candidates, and that candidate ends up the nominee, under even the worst circumstances they are better than the Repub Nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Since what is "trashing/Bashing" has yet to be understood by

many here at DU, it's hard to say what you are refering to.


Some Trash & Bash, while others Whine & Cry. At the end of the day, seems like it pretty much evens itself out.

[Clark2008]

20. What if someone's bashing - or questioning - and they don't

HAVE a candidate?

:shrug:

Just wondering.

[Blackhatjack]

29. What if they repeat innuendo that they know creates a false impression about another candidate?

And what if they know the truth, because it has been provided to them in the form of documentary evidence, and they continue to repeat the the same allegations they know create a false impression about the other candidate?

I would call that bashing --not questioning, since they already know the answer.

[1932]

30. Then she might be a Republican.

[Monkeyman]

22. Sometimes these personal attacks make you look like a Republican

The DU is better then that

[Matsubara]

23. It makes me want to verify whether the charges are true.

I don't base my vote on just an attack.


If someone says "Barack went to a Madrassa", I start searching and find out that he went to a school abroad that happened to have a lot of muslim kids, was not an Islamic school or a madrassa. Subject closed for me

If someone says "Edwards got a pricey haircut and charged it to the campaign", and it turns out to be true, I applaud him for paying it back and acknowledging the mistake. Case closed.

If someone says "Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war despite all the intelligence that said there were no WMDs and against the wishes of the majority of New Yorkers, who protested in droves" I say, damn, Hillary better make a REALLY good case for herself if I'm going to get behind her.

The first attack is an outright lie and RW talking point, the second may have originated with the RW, but it had validity, and luckily Edwards handled it swiftly and correctly.

The third is more likely to come from the centrists of the democratic party who opposed the war (as opposed the the right-wing hawks who supported it). It's a fair point considering the majority of democrats opposed the war, and casts doubts on her judgment. Either she was cynical in voting for a war she didn't believe in to fall in line with what she thought was the zeitgeist, or she was naive, ignorant and foolish to have been fooled by Bushco WMD lies that not one of us believed in at the time.

So in answer to your question - it really depends on the charges, where they came from, and their veracity.

[David__77]

24. It shouldn't matter.

If the argument is compelling, I might consider it; otherwise, I won't hold it against anyone.

[The Inquisitive]

27. interesting study

Schultz, Cindy, Mark S. Pancer. 1997. “Character Attacks and Their Effects on
Perceptions of Male and Female Political Candidates.” Political Psychology 18(1):93-102.

I don't know if any of you can access Jstor, Ebsco, etc but if you can look up the study.

edit: hehe ASPA citing format emoticon, why the hell is that in there?