Why so many attacks against both candidates on pro-Democratic sites ?

[andym]

Why so many attacks against both candidates on pro-Democratic sites? (Actually pro- anything political)

It's very simple really. These sites attract people who have strong opinions about politics. Many of these people are very partisan in their outlook. At a minimum they strongly dislike the Republican party and their candidate and are here to help defeat them. So, it's very easy for people who tend to polarize to apply it in a close nomination race even where the candidates positions on the issues are almost identical. Throw in people who instigate both sides and you have a recipe for ugly conflict.

It is easy to be reminded of the Johnathon Swift's fictional war between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudians over which side to break an egg at breakfast. Lock people who want to help their candidate win into an anonymous internet discussion forum from there is "No Exit" and watch the inevitable fireworks. What is the result of this kind of war-- for some no permanent damage, for others a long-lasting resentment against both the supporters and candidate they opposed. For some, their vision of the opponent will be permanently clouded by the colored glasses they wore during the nomination. People of good will become close-minded, hard-hearted and vengeful.

Of course, a lot of the problem is that these boards just reflect the ongoing battle among the campaigns to win the nomination. And it is clear that in America from the earliest days of the republic that political mudslinging is traditional and deep-rooted. A great example is the election of 1800 and the various attacks on Thomas Jefferson (atheist, potential Jacobian murderer). Still, adding the internet's grass roots to the mainstream media and talk radio appears to create toxic environment, since each man or woman can become a propagandizing "pundit."

As a true believer in free speech and the power of grass roots, it horrifies me to see that free speech can have such very unpleasant side effects. And it appears that there really is nothing to be done as far as the internet is concerned. Strong moderation might help some on sites devoted to discussion of all of the candidates, but there will always be partisan sites that will serve to amplify the polarization.

What's needed is a cultural change that emphasizes civility, but tradition and human nature being what it is, I'm not sure that will happen.

Any suggestions to avoid this kind of thing in the future?

[AllentownJake]

1. This is Mild

Compared to the politics of the beginning of the country. I got a book on dirty campaign tricks and

1) Outright buying voters
2) A Jefferson supporter wrote an opinion piece that John Adams might be a hermaphordite. No lie claimed President Adams had both male and female parts.
3) Duels

We might be flaming each other over the internet...but we've come a long way.

[Bicoastal]

3. DU'ers should SO challenge each other to duels over Obama or Hillary.

Winner gets a victory thread on the Greatest page, loser gets tombstoned.

Now the only question remains...how do you fight a duel over the Internet?

[andym]

5. Duels!

Right,like Vice President Burr and and Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton, except everyone lives in real life, they just die on the board

An internet "duel" would be interesting. But you can't just have people vote for the winner, because they'll side with people who share similar views. Is there such a thing as a neutral party that could judge?

Of course it would increase the polarization and division and create a Roman coliseum atmosphere, so I'm afraid it would be counterproductive.

[NashVegas]

6. Then There Were The Rumors

About Aaron and Theodesia.

[melody]

7. Jefferson's campaign against Adams makes everything now seem tame

Abigail didn't speak to Jefferson again for the rest of her life because of it.

[mac2]

2. Are they getting a bit aggressive to see one or the other win?

1. Could be from campaign headquarters of any candidate.
2. Aren't Democrats at all.
3. Patriotic citizens who want you to know all there is before you vote.

[GregD]

4. I don't post much, but here's my personal take

I helped form what today is called the election integrity movement. I created the Verified Voting web site and helped recruit one of teams that formed the earliest nationwide efforts to stop paperless electronic voting. In 2003 our team worked with Clinton's office directly and extensively.

To say that everything she touched in regard to that issue was more harmful than helpful is to put it lightly. She was simply disastrous on the issue. Verified Voting looked closely at mutiple pieces of state and federal legislation on the matter. It was rare that we would not support a bill. The bills that came from her office, at least in those early days, we would not and could not support.

For whatever reason, HRC crafted legislation that created more loopholes than it closed. With her legislation, we would have a greater problem than we were trying to resolve. For whatever reason, she supported less transparency in elections than more. And if she influenced the bills crafted by others, they were worse for her involvement.

For that, I will never forgive her.

And yes, I'm drawn to DU at least as a reading source of news and views because I do have strong views on that which surrounds us, and those views have forced me to become politically active.

A solution for the future? Get better candidates. Solve the media stranglehold on how our candidates are selected.