2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I would like to remind the more outspoken and angry of this..... [View all]Igel
(35,300 posts)Period. Doesn't matter if it's presidential or the candidate of a large city or state, or biannual congressional elections. Heck, if there was a national dog-catcher position we'd argue about that, too.
During the primaries, esp. early in the primaries, it's not just a bunch of pollyannas each saying, "My candidate is good because of this" or "My candidate's good because of that." And it shouldn't be.
It's "my candidate's best"--and that's an implicit bashing of the other candidates, who must be inferior. After that, it's a question of why that candidate's best, which inevitably shows the lack of charms of the other candidates. Or their flaws.
Hyperbole is part of the paradigm. "If _________ wins the primaries, there's no way I'm going to vote for ___________." Well, that's well and good, but that's a year away and people change their mind. Passion is a good thing, even if it leads to rash speech. People typically aren't bound by rash speech, esp. rash anonymous speech this far before the event. Some flaws are deal killers for some voters, but far fewer than say so.
However, in some ways it's worse because one of the more recent and more inflammatory threads dealt with bashing the President. Notice, this provision simply doesn't hold because the current president is a lame duck. He's not a candidate for anything, but in some ways a Symbol. To bash the president is to bash ... the DUer. No matter how wrong the president is argued to be. But I digress.
Negative campaigning is crucial in a democracy. It exposes flaws and problems. Negative ads are often more informative than the warm and fuzzy sound bites that candidates want us to hear. We understand this when it suits us. It's true either way, we just don't want the electorate informed if it means they side against us, the obviously correct obvious majority.
Negative campaigning and this kind of criticism is even more crucial and appropriate *early* in the primary season. It points out what flaws a candidate has, and allows them to engage in damage and image repair before the primary season starts in earnest. It enables damage control and media management. It lets the advisors on both sides know where fractures are in the base. It encourages transparency. Yes, it can give ammo to the opposition. But this early nobody's much listening, and if it shows something that our candidates have to fix it gives them lots of time ... Before people start to "much listen."
Unless deeply held issues of gender-bias and racial justice are invoked, when there's a clear candidate heading into the generals you'll find most of this vanishes. Most people put on their filters and, if need be, their blinders. Many will just shut up if they're not in agreement. Some others will simply get their pizza delivered hot. Some snark and snideness will be tolerated because, well, it will be. Perfection is an unattainable goal, most snark isn't "working for the opposition," and by then most of the criticisms will be old hat and utterly ignored by all but the thinnest skinned of thin-skinned DUers.
I personally have found that 99% of candidate discussions on DU aren't worth my time to read or think about. I ignore the primaries for the most part until it's primary season in my state, simply because they don't matter to me. "So-and-so's the front runner" ... And that's supposed to change my vote? Or maybe I should make up my mind now and go to the mat for "my candidate" and if more information comes along in 6 months ... Ignore it? Apologize for my hard-headed ignorance?
And what about all the inane discussions on matters that the president has absolutely no control over? Some of those are the most heated and the most vapid. Clicking on a thread is a choice.