Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary has a lot of negative history, what's wrong with bringing it up? [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)8. Do you think...
Do you think trashing your opponents and calling his or her supporters stupid is an effective political strategy?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary has a lot of negative history, what's wrong with bringing it up? [View all]
whereisjustice
May 2015
OP
Where there are legitimate concerns with a candidate, it's our DUTY to bring them up.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#1
I did, and was hidden by scads of members. So many that now my posts get crickets.
silvershadow
May 2015
#39
Exactly. Like Bernie Sanders, for example. Great guy, but impossible for him to win the GE.
DanTex
May 2015
#49
Of course Obama had a chance. At this time in 2007, he was maybe 10-20 points behind in the polls,
DanTex
May 2015
#57
Hillary is already sinking, Bernie rising, and he's a stronger force than Obama.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#58
Hillary is hardly a better candidate this time around. Hillary is a distinctly poor candidate.
Enthusiast
May 2015
#88
People like you, continually repeating this nonsense is fueling that meme more than anything.
Enthusiast
May 2015
#87
People seem to forget she failed to win last time. I don't know where they expect her to pick up
grahamhgreen
May 2015
#74
As a matter of fact, some of us do. Her legacy as SoS is nothing to brag about.
leveymg
May 2015
#46
Some of her biggest successes were inadvertent, if you want to look at it that way.
leveymg
May 2015
#79
It's the inadvertent effects that occur after her nomination that really worry me.
leveymg
May 2015
#82
Yes, you trade your influence for donations to the family foundations and high price speaking gigs.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#59
"The blessing of the LORD makes a person rich, and he adds no sorrow with it." - Proverbs 10:22
Cheese Sandwich
May 2015
#65
Part of a campaign is convincing others that one candidate is better than another.[n/t]
Maedhros
May 2015
#16
Which can be handily done by building up the candidate of your choice instead of doing oppo ....
Hekate
May 2015
#34
Voters are supposed to scrutinize the candidates they're asked to vote for.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2015
#23
I don't believe it's neither prudent nor effective to tear down your opponents...
DemocratSinceBirth
May 2015
#51
The problem is, you are mixing exaggerations with outright lies, and presenting a totally one-sided
DanTex
May 2015
#55
Yes, he said that about how she conducted the 2008 campaign, which has nothing to do with
DanTex
May 2015
#72
Being what some would call an almost "professional liberal" I am aware of factual differences.
gordianot
May 2015
#78
I don't see this as "trashing"...could those who do kindly respond if they think it nonfactual?
libdem4life
May 2015
#83