Opposition Research on Candidates of One's Own Party?

[MineralMan]

It's priceless. It's incredibly stupid, too. And yet, as it becomes more and more clear who the Democratic nominee will be, we're seeing more and more of it every day. Some soi-disant supporters of the primary candidate who almost certainly will not be the nominee are desperately seeking stories, sourced anonymously or even from right wing research from the last election or the first Clinton presidency, and posting them here, there and everywhere.

To what end? Will that opposition research and questionable "information" help the primary candidate who is losing? No. That path has been closed by a landslide, it seems. Will those spurious opposition "facts" cause supporters of the candidate being attacked to not vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party? Absolutely not. Why would Democrats not vote to keep the bully, Trump, out of the White House?

So, what could the point be of digging up negative talking points about the candidate who is almost certain to be the nominee and spreading them in places where Democrats congregate? Who would do that? Who would search far and wide for anything negative and spread the manure that is found to hurt the apparent Democratic nominee-to-be? Who might benefit from such negative postings about a political candidate?

Who, indeed? Any thinking person can suss that out for him or herself, I believe.

This post is my opinion. Thanks for reading it.

[NurseJackie]

1. Why it's permitted puzzles me.

[MineralMan]

2. When nothing is prohibited, everything is permitted, apparently.

More's the pity.

[sufrommich]

3. It's the internet where anybody can claim to

be anything.Therein lies the rub.

[MineralMan]

4. Anything or Anyone.

Anonymity disguises much, or so the anonymous believe. Their words betray them, though, again and again.

[BootinUp]

5. It susses out the same every election cycle as far as I can tell. lol. nt

[Orsino]

6. Why, it's almost as though the Democratic nominee...

...could go on to a position on which lives, livelihoods and happiness might one day depend. It's almost as though citizenry feel they have some sort of right or even duty to vet their politicians before voting for them.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, one of the nominees will go on to that position, it's true.

"Did you ever have to make up your mind?"

[tularetom]

8. Party, schmarty

I could not care less about "party". After 54 years as a registered Democrat, I'm now a DTS (Declined to State). And I'm finally convinced that "both sides" indeed "do it". And after voting for the lesser of two presidential evils in 1964, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2012, in some cases to my personal detriment, I have no intention of doing so again.

I don't believe any candidate is as good as his supporters claim, nor do I believe any candidate is as bad as his detractors claim. But I have my own personal opinions about them and I will vote henceforth for the candidate whom I perceive as doing the most for me and my family.

In summary, I don't care who posts what about any candidate.

[brooklynite]

9. "I'm now a DTS (Declined to State)"

Well you sure taught US a lesson...

I guess the rest of us still in the Party will just have to keep up the hard work of pushing policy reforms and candidate selection without your help and wisdom.

See you in November.

[frylock]

11. Yeah, all 30% of you.

[frylock]

10. It's called vetting.

[MineralMan]

12. No, actually, it's not.

Vetting is finding and disclosing factual, relevant background information, based on reliable sources. The shit I'm talking about is neither of those things. But, thanks for the reply.

[frylock]

13. Do you have any, I dunno, specific examples?

[whatchamacallit]

14. The problem with this kinda bullshit is

phrases like "most likely" and "will almost certainly be"... Granted, her victory is much more likely now, but you guys have been using inevitability-language to shut down negative Clinton stories since day one. People aren't going to stop looking into the truth just because it offends MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

15. Having to choose is always difficult.

So difficult to make the best choice, isn't it?

http://www.perezfox.com/2009/06/07/whatchamacallit-and-thingamajig/