I read this in {insert source} about {insert candidate}. I'm very concerned.

[MineralMan]

{insert selected excerpt of long article, carefully choosing the most damning four paragraphs}
{insert link to {insert source}}

This looks bad for {insert candidate}. Of course, it might be false, and {insert candidate} might have a perfectly good answer for it, but {insert source} has a long, detailed article pointing out this problem.

Now, of course, I'd vote for {insert candidate} in the General Election, but what I read in {insert source} has me worried. {Insert different candidate} has none of this kind of stuff in {insert possessive gender pronoun} record.

Does this concern you as much as it does me?

[NYMinute]

1. It is the standard MO as I see here

Most of it comes from one badly trailing candidate who thought he would be the front runner, directed at the current front runner.

[dalton99a]

2. A very useful template - saves typing and electrons

[Lochloosa]

4. Copy and paste are your friends.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, saving energy is a top goal of mine.

Since I make my living as a writer, I thought I'd share a useful template.

[Clash City Rocker]

34. It's like an evil Mad Lib

[pangaia]

3. Good one.. drives me nuts.

In fact it gets harder and harder to read ANY of the posts about candidates any more...

[mcar]

5. Some here learned nothing from previous primaries

Or perhaps they learned all too well.

[MineralMan]

13. Some things never change.

[CaptainTruth]

6. Brilliant!

[MineralMan]

12. You're far too kind!

[Demit]

7. I honestly do not understand why those posts bother you.

Not that I've seen anything like the second paragraph in any DU posting. I assume you're exaggerating for effect?

A post like that obviously wouldn't shake your own belief in {your candidate, whoever that might be}. Are you worried that other DUers will begin to have doubts about {theirs}? You apparently want to discourage DUers access to unflattering information. Why? I don't understand your motivation.

[MineralMan]

9. OK.

[Demit]

16. So you do think unflattering stories should be suppressed here. OK back at you.

[MineralMan]

19. No. I think they should be carefully thought about before posting them.

Otherwise, the poster might be seen as trying to hurt a candidate's chances. But, then, that might be the goal, of course.

[emmaverybo]

20. And contradictions to such stories should be posted as follow up or within the post as a [however]

[Demit]

24. It also might be that the information itself is why a poster doesn't like the candidate in question.

This is still a primary election season, and opinions are what this forum is for, and opinions offered with supporting arguments are valid.

I think when DUers see a post they don't like, they should respond to the substance of it, not invent dark motives for the person who posted it. It wouldn't be the poster hurting the candidate's chances, it would be the information itself. And that's only if you feel that people on DU are so highly impressionable they can't be trusted to assess information with their own brains, so they must be protected from information that is unfavorable.

[MineralMan]

27. OK.

[Demit]

28. Exactly.

[qazplm135]

32. people should post what they want

but I don't see too many I'm worried about X posts doing much in line with what the poster wants to do.

It doesn't drive away supporters of X, and it usually is a transparent attempt by supporters of Y which doesn't drive folks that way either.

[Tipperary]

8. Or: this is really not important, but...I just felt the need to post it...

then random links to right wing sources...

[MineralMan]

10. But, see, that's not necessary.

You can find negative stories from a right-wing perspective on the editorial pages of very well-respected publications. There's no need to look at right-wing sources. Every large newspaper and media outlet has conservative opinion piece writers to fill any need.

[ancianita]

14. Leave all "concerns" about candidates and the party to the opposition. We needn't be "concerned."

There is absolutely no "real" concern that compares to what's real about this president's re-election.

Our most flawed candidate is still morally better than the incumbent WH occupant.

[MineralMan]

17. Thank you. Yes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Will {alleged incident, comment or relationship} mean the end of {candidate's} campaign?

{Candidate} claims the {alleged incident, comment or relationship} {never happened, was taken out of context, was merely platonic}, but sources with connections to the campaign report that some campaign staff members are privately concerned that the {alleged incident, comment or relationship} could reveal the truth about {candidate} and destroy {his/her} carefully-cultivated image.

[MineralMan]

18. Another excellent template!

[Tipperary]

23. Perfect!

[SWBTATTReg]

21. I love it. The template method you describes seems to be the most desired method of...

bashing a candidate and I see this more often than I expected, on DU.

When I see this type of bashing, I don't even finish reading the bashing post. I suspect a hidden motive here, trying to negatively influence a candidate's standing, and ignore. I look at the poster too, to see their posting history too, for most DUers with a long history of DU, are impartial and fair (the ones that were not are already gone by now).

[guillaumeb]

22. I would suggest that this be in the humor section,

but it is far too common.

Is it divisive? No more so than having 20 candidates is divisive.

Well done.

[George II]

25. Reminds me of the story we had here on Friday about Biden crossing a non-picket picket line....

....of non-striking non-teacher teachers union workers

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, that one does come to mind.

No strike. No picketing. Just some protesters. Thank goodness people pointed that out to prevent confusion.

[Tipperary]

29. Oh yeah... I remember that one!

There was even one saying Biden said something he never actually said. I remember that one too.

[Demsrule86]

30. So good haha...you as are so right.

[Demsrule86]

31. K&R NT

[jalan48]

33. It seems to bother people more when they feel it's their candidate being attacked, not so much

when it's attacking another candidate.

[peggysue2]

35. A familiar template, MM

[Laelth]

36. Still stirring the pot. n/t

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

37. Keeps the stew from burning.

Or so I've found in 50 years of cooking.

[Laelth]

39. I will defer to your experience on this subject. 😉

Best wishes.

-Laelth

[mopinko]

38. i wish jurors would catch on to the subtleties of concern trolling.

my last alert seemed pretty clear to me, but i got shot down 0-7.
always tough calls, and too many dont get it.

good post.

[Laelth]

40. +1 Sometimes it's very subtle and sophisticated. n/t

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

41. I haven't seen any stories to that effect; do you have examples?