Why start negative threads about a candidate?

[MonkeyFunk]

I see people who seem to scour the web looking for articles, blog entries, etc. that are attacks on one of the candidates. Some seem to little else BUT that.

It makes no sense to me, as one of three people is 99.9% sure to be our nominee, so why go out of your way to tear them down?

[Texasgal]

1. Because people are assholes. n/t

[dorkulon]

2. This poll is RACIST

Just kidding.

[HughMoran]

3. Other:

I don't do it.

[Bonobo]

4. Why start polls that you know people will intentionally screw around with to make false results?

You know they will.

Oh, by the way, I have not. Yet.

[JeffR]

6. I hate to admit it

but I love messin' with DU polls. Not sure yet about whether I'll answer this one honestly or not.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Maybe I'm naive

but I'm actually curious as to why people do it. It strikes me as a stupendously dumb thing to do.

[Inspired]

16. Have you ever started one?

Just curious.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. I don't believe I have, no

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Politicians have negatives??? I am shocked!!

[MonkeyFunk]

9. That, of course, is not the issue

the issue I'm addressing is finding obscure blog posts or articles that slam a candidate, usually unfairly, and then dragging that shit back here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The candidates do a fine job themselves of digging up dirt.

This campaign is no different than the ones at the beginning of the republic.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. again

I'm not talking about candidates doing it. I'm talking people HERE dragging back the most spurious, hateful attacks they can find.

There seem to be people who devote hours a day to doing so - it seems like such an unproductive pursuit.

[hfojvt]

20. isn't that campaigning though?

especially if one is ABC, ABO or ABE. To me, although I am an Edwards supporter, it is more important for Clinton to lose than it is for Edwards to win. It's like having a choice between three plans - paint the house, put siding on the house, or blow the house up. I prefer siding to paint, but the most important thing is - don't blow the house up!

Secondly, if I find an article that slams a candidate, I might not think it is unfair. Maybe Michael Moore, Ted Rall or Joe or Josephine blogger has written a rant titled "why I oppose X" and said things far better than I could (granted, that may not be very difficult).

Thirdly, if there is a dog that's gonna hunt, isn't it better to find out now? If using Barack's middle name is gonna make people vote against him, then it's better that they do so now while the alternatives are still Edwards and Clinton rather than in November when the alternative is Giuliani.

[frogcycle]

8. why do people paint graffiti

shoot at stop signs, kick over anthills, otherwise tear down whatever they can?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

12. Valid observation MonkeyFunk ...

They sure have been burnin up the Google. The same posters, over and over, trolling the internets and dragging all that shit in here. If you thought they had ANY objectivity left, you might read it ... but you already know what it's all about by who posted it.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Yep

there are some names I just skip right by altogether, because I know it'll be some blog attack that's usually a lie. I just don't understand the motivation for doing that - is it fun? Is it rewarding? It seems like the ultimate expression of being a lonely, bitter, troll.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Haven't done it, don't care enough

about any of the frontrunners. I watch the different camps, though, and as far as I can tell, yours is the loudest and nastiest. Why not ask some of your friends?

[Telly Savalas]

31. It's only a handful of Hillary supporters who are loud and nasty.

I only had to put about four or five of them on ignore to cut the amount of bullshit coming from that corner by 500%.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. And a handful of Obama supporters

and a handful of Edwards supporters.

Why single out Clinton supporters?

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Sorry, but from the outside

I see the nastiest people/attacks coming from Hillary supporters. It may just be a cultural/age-based perception thing?

[radfringe]

15. have nothing positive to say about their candidate

crab bucket syndrome. where the only way to get to the top of the bucket is to pull down the crab in front of you, this then means the crab behind you is tugging at your butt to pull you down

[mmonk]

17. Depends on which threads you are talking about.

[rjones2818]

18. Because we like to see the funny monkey picture.

:evilgrin:

[elaineb]

19. Did you recently get religion or somethin'?

I'm not sure I've seen you as often on any of the recent Kucinich-bashing threads, but I used to see you over and over posting negative comments about Kucinich only a few months ago. Did something change, or did your actions finally catch up with your words when you realized the inordinate amount of time you were wasting, posting about a candidate who is supposedly nonviable, unelectable, and whose supporters only number in the low single digits?

Not trying to be snarky here in reply to a poll whose basis I agree with (WAY too much negativity here on DU), but I can't help pointing out how ironic it is that YOU are the originator of this poll. Hey, maybe you really have changed, what do I know? If so, welcome to the club of non-negative DU'ers and those who spend more time promoting and defending their candidate than they do posting negatively about other candidates!

P.S. I won't be on DU again until this evening, so just in case you offer me some cake and a goodie bag in the meantime, I'll just say in advance, THANKS!!

[MonkeyFunk]

27. I've never gone and found a negative article

about Kucinich and posted it here. But yes, I have criticized him repeatedly.

But this thread isn't about mere criticism of a candidate - it's about going out of one's way to find some blog piece or article that's nothing but a slam on a candidate, and then bringing it back here.

And I think you overestimate my contribution in the Kucinich threads. Mostly I've responded to complaints about him being excluded from debates with the argument that candidates are ALWAYS excluded from debates, we just disagree over where to draw the line.

[B Calm]

21. When I see republican lites, I like to point them out. Obama praising

Reagan for an example!

[Perry Logan]

22. Negative threads suggest the poster's candidate isn't really so hot. I cite the Obamites as proof.

[Tyler Durden]

23. Ever see the monkies in the zoo throw feces...

...And practice "self abuse" to the delight of the crowd?

Same thing.

[bigtree]

24. because they goddamned feel like it

why do people post polls with their own narrow, biased opinion masquerading as questions?

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Why do people

respond to polls with their own narrow, biased opinion masquerading as a reasoned reply?

[bigtree]

29. reasoned reply? Pfft.

Where do you think you are?

[MonkeyFunk]

30. so true

:D

[RC]

25. You forgot 'Facts'

The front runners do not represent the average american and really have no plans to help the average citizen or to repair the damage bu$h and his neocons have done to us, US.
That little item seems to get lost in the mud, mis-statements and the meaningless sound bites.