Political emails during US presidential elections

[riddler 0]

Every US presidential election, I am besieged by emails claiming the candidates are devil-worshippers, baby-rapers, aliens from other planets, etc. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but they might as well be, considering how silly most of them are.

From my perspective, there are more emails from right-wingers than left. Also, the right-wing emails are much more ludicrous, typically. That's not to say I don't hear about both sides. But the emails that stand out are the ones that have one thing in common - complete and utter fraudulent lying. I'm not talking about someone misunderstanding something, I'm talking about people willing to lie to promote a political agenda, and do so with overstated gusto.

The popular email that I've seen or heard of a few times just this week is about how Obama is trying to influence politics in Africa (status: false). This one actually points out the perpetrators (Celeste and Loren Davis). Are they hoping that a lot of voters go to the election booths with these ideas in their heads?

So I started looking at Snopes to keep track of this. What I see today about the three candidates that are still in contention for the Presidential race are:

John McCain - 2 items, 1 true, 1 undetermined. 0% lies.
Barack Obama - 16 items, 1 true, 3 half-truths, 1 undetermined and 11 complete lies. 69% lies.
Hillary (and Bill) Clinton - 26 items, 1 true, 4 half-truths, 5 undetermined, 2 unclassifiable and 14 lies. 54% lies.

The Clintons have been in the political limelight longer, so I figured I would look at George W. Bush as well:

W - 47 items, 20 true, 4 half-truths, 2 unclassifiable, 4 undetermined, 17 lies. 36% lies.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how good of a President any of these people would make. But why more lies about Democrats than Republicans? I mean, if it's all made up anyway, why does no one write about how McCain bleaches his skin, or how Reagan was really an animatron? Are Republican die-hards more willing to sit down and craft a completely bogus email than Democratic die-hards? Are the supporters of one party less willing to check facts?

Edit to improve markup.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Are Republican die-hards more willing to sit down and craft a completely bogus email than Democratic die-hards? Are the supporters of one party less willing to check facts?

Edit to improve markup.

Based on the stuff that gets re-posted here, the answer would seem to be that the supporters of one party are less willing to check facts, so their die-hards are more likely to get a receptive audience for bogus emails.

Religious fundamentalists (who seem to favor one party) have clearly demonstrated their willingness to believe irrational things without a shred of evidence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

What irritates me is political text messages on my cell phone! Burns my butt! But the sun also does that....as demonstrated by what happened to my bum after hanging out by the pool yesterday....lol.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Are Republican die-hards more willing to sit down and craft a completely bogus email than Democratic die-hards? Are the supporters of one party less willing to check facts?

Edit to improve markup.

Based on the stuff that gets re-posted here, the answer would seem to be that the supporters of one party are less willing to check facts, so their die-hards are more likely to get a receptive audience for bogus emails.

Religious fundamentalists (who seem to favor one party) have clearly demonstrated their willingness to believe irrational things without a shred of evidence.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Of course, none of this has any bearing on how good of a President any of these people would make. But why more lies about Democrats than Republicans?

Because I continually get the impression that the right wing noise makers are more interested in winning by any means possible. Limbaugh's "Operation chaos" is a good example, as is the stuff that the Tenn Republican party is doing with Michelle Obama. I don't believe that they represent the party as a whole but they're certainly capable of steering a national dialog.

The "win by any means" strategy however brings up the question of "why" employ it? Is it a character component based on the desire for power and/or simply to win the contest? Honestly I think that Rove fits firmly into the latter category as the only ideology I ever hear from him seems to be based on beating the Democrats, not any social or economic ideology.
Or, if the desire to win is actually ideologically driven w/r/t a desire for policies that they believe are better for America then why are they afraid to have a discussion on those issues? I have a tendency to believe that those who argue extremely loudly and who use diversion tactics are generally afraid that they don't have a sound argument or know that they don't. They choose to flood the market with misinformation and noise in order to avoid an honest discussion of ideas. The mainstream media unfortunately seems to favor the fanning of fires of controversy but I suppose that's what you get when profits take priority over journalistic integrity.
$0.02