“So the obvious is to attack present management

“So the obvious is to attack present management and past decisions claiming they can do better. But that theroretically tends to damage the stock price and the product and the company, so what share holders would vote for them?”

I think you have it backwards. Damaging the stock price is part of a two-prong strategy: they hammer the claim that management has failed, and they point to the share price as evidence of this failure.

It is absolutely in their interest to see the share price collapse. A buoyant stock is a sign of market confidence and support, which undermines their narrative.