100% negative politics

Has anyone else noted that even on this forum, 95%+ of messages are not in support of the person's candidate, but rather attacks on the other candidate?

Do you agree that politics should basically be debating only over which candidate to oppose?

Only? No, certainly not. However, negative attacks need to be a key component. You just have to convince the other person that your negative perspective isn't negative, but a necessary warning.

My observation is that the democrats spend far more time attacking Romney without asserting facts than the conservatives do Obama. Perhaps it is because there are more fertile factual resources for the conservatives than there are for the liberals since Obama's record is more widely available. I still do not know what new programs Obama may support other than the new teachers he supported last time and did not deliver as of yet. This is the most unspecific election in terms of programs and policies by both sides that I have ever seen, but Mitt co-opting the Ryan plan at least saved him some trouble in coming up with a starting point on his own.

The Democratic campaign, which singularly was "destroy Romney" is failing. Romney's "I have a 5 point plan" is playing well. The pure-attack strategy failed, so Demos are now running some positive ads for Obama.

joko104 said:

The Democratic campaign, which singularly was "destroy Romney" is failing. Romney's "I have a 5 point plan" is playing well. The pure-attack strategy failed, so Demos are now running some positive ads for Obama.

Click to expand...

There is/was no "pure attack" strategy.

joko104 said:

Has anyone else noted that even on this forum, 95%+ of messages are not in support of the person's candidate, but rather attacks on the other candidate?

Do you agree that politics should basically be debating only over which candidate to oppose?

Click to expand...

We have lots of partisan hacks on this forum. "Their guy can do nothing wrong. The other guy can't do anything right." That's how I can tell, anyhow. Since they don't really want to do the homework that comes with actually understanding the issues? They take the easy way -- debate media talking points. And many, if not most, of those talking points are pointing out a candidate's negatives rather than their positives. "Man bites dog is news."

Your last sentence, I'd have to disagree with, but I understand where you're coming from. Sometimes the best way we can support our candidate on a debate forum is to disprove the lies and misrepresentation. It also strengthens our own support. But rarely, as in never, is it going to change anyone's mind.

joko104 said:

The Democratic campaign, which singularly was "destroy Romney" is failing. Romney's "I have a 5 point plan" is playing well. The pure-attack strategy failed, so Demos are now running some positive ads for Obama.

Click to expand...

Probably because when it was a 59 point plan, it was too complicated for most people.

On most days you can just review the titles of the most recent threads commented on here and decide for yourself with whom the most frequent partisan churners align themselves.

This thread about not attacking got to about three posts before someone took a shot at the other guy. Does that answer your question. And look who one of them was.