Is there a correlation between a campaign's success and attack threads?

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Is there a correlation between a campaign's success and attack threads?

I'm curious as to your thoughts: Do you think the number threads attacking a given candidate increases in direct proportion to the success of that candidate's campaign?

[meegbear]

1. If there is ...

* is gonna be re-elected.

[Padraig18]

3. Smart ass!

*smack* :hug::P

[eileen_d]

2. Maybe (explanation follows)

With Dean, definitely yes. And I would imagine that's what you were thinking about, eh? ;)

But then you have the attacks on Lieberman whenever he opens his mouth, who is definitely not feeling the "Liebermania" here on DU or anywhere else.

And the attack threads on Clark started up in droves the day he announced, so that doesn't fit the theory.

But overall I think you're right -- attacks on Dean are getting more numerous as his campaign shows more signs of success.

[Padraig18]

4. They've sprouted like mushrooms after a spring rain...

... since he got Gore's endorsement. It boggles my mind...

[eileen_d]

6. People who back other candidates

don't want to lose. If Dean wins, their candidate loses. And if Dean wins, he goes up against Bush -- and I think people are also very concerned about *any* candidate losing to Bush, so they project those concerns onto Dean. Some of the concerns are valid topics for discussion, IMO, but some are just expressions of defeat before we've even got out of the gate, as it were.

[Padraig18]

13. There's a TON of projection in it.

You're spot-on on that.

[mmonk]

5. usually

otherwise, why would people waste their time on someone who had no chance anyway?

[LuminousX]

7. Yes.

Yes. You will notice no one bothers posting attack threads about Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun. You see few about Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman. The reason why is they aren't threatening any other candidate at this time. Oh, sure, every once in awhile someone will start a negative thread, but it is mainly because they just got back from a RightWinger site and picked up a few talking points and feel an overwhelming urge to use them.

The day Clark announced, there was a flurry of negative threads started. Why? Because he was an unknown factor. He threatened everyone's campaign. So right now we see a lot of anti-Dean, anti-Clark threads because they represent the greatest threats to each other and the other campaigns.

It should be noted that this is all based on the perception of threat not actual threats. I for one, while having written him off twice, am still keeping an eye on Kucinich. He has proven quite tenacious and after his tussle with Koppel, his overall appeal has increased. People like fighters and Kucinich showed he can on national TV against one of the better known news people around.

[Zomby Woof]

8. it has nothing to do with the "success"

Some of us just don't care for the vocal contingent who behaves irritably and makes inane assertions whenever people like me refuse to wear the brown lipstick for Dean. It's not his popularity that motivates me, it's just the behavior of some of his supporters. I have seen it to some extent with other supporters, so maybe the question should be: "Does Dean's success make his supporters more intolerable than other supporters?".

[Padraig18]

9. In all fairness, I would mention...

... that Dean supporters don't exactly have a headlock on obnoxious behavior. I will be polite and not name names about others who are JUST as vicious, Zomby (though not YOUR candidate's supporters, I will add)... :)

[Rowdyboy]

10. Absolutely

How many attack threads do you see on Edwards? How about Gephart? Mosely-Braun? Sure, an occasional blast, but on DU its Dean, Clark, Kerry., Kucinich-in that order-both in sucess and in number of attacks.

[GainesT1958]

11. Don't Believe it? Just recall a Repub example...

Dub v. McCain, South Carolina Primary, 2000!

Hopefully, nothing OUR candidates will do in the upcoming primary battles will approach that one--at least in what things "Chip" Rove did to John McCain and his family personally. It was after Sen. McCain had won New Hampshire, and it came straight out of the playbook of the late S.C. mudslinger Lee Atwater--and it showed. I don't blame Sen. McCain for never forgiving Rove, or Dub, for that sleaze. Here's hoping none of our candidates will ever be in the position of the attacker, or of those receiving the mud, next year--certainly not on that level!:puke:

B-)

[bread_and_roses]

12. Probably....

...though not the only reason. People have other motivations or agendas as well, I would think. Nothing wrong with it, either, in my opinion...it's a primary, it's politics, it's democracy. People should argue and disagree, promote the candidate they support, and oppose the candidate they don't.

[JohnLocke]

14. No. Look at Lieberman or Gephart.