We must all expect a contentious Democratic Primary.

[JoeOtterbein]

Which means that sometimes things may get "tough" on the candidates. All of them, not just your favorite now, because that is what elections are for.

Elections are not a time "to come together" as Democrats. They are the only time we have to debate the most important issues of our time. Not time for agreement because we think our candidate is the only one who can defeat Trump.

Healthcare like all other developed nations? Hitting Trump so hard he'll never get up again? Climate Change? Defeating as many Repugs as we can in the next election? Voter rights? Nancy to remain SOTH after 2020? Impeachment now? Defeating Trump in 2020, instead of impeachment?

These are all issues we may disagree on now, and respect at the same time for their individual importance. But while we may disagree on those issues now, most likely, we will all support our Dem position after the Primaries over.

So let the candidates point out flaws in each other and disagreement on the issues. This is why we have elections. To decide who best will represent our interests. Not to play nice.

Now, make your case!

[Indygram]

1. Which candidates have faced an extremely volatile, nasty race in blood red country?

Which have been thoroughly vetted and aggressively smeared and still broke records? Which candidate has excellent Plans on the most important issues? Which candidate has proven they can raise a massive amount of money? Which candidate can appeal to the progressive wing without scaring off the moderates? Which one includes a powerful message about unifying the country? Which one has released a bold plan for a new Voting Rights Act?

One candidate couldn't be more perfect if they were created in a lab.

[JoeOtterbein]

2. I love Beto's plan for voter rights!

Thanks!

[Indygram]

3. You're very welcome!

[George II]

4. No, let's not let the candidates point out flaws in each other. Why not point out strengths....

....in themselves?

We don't have elections to shoot arrows at the opponents, we have elections to choose candidates/office holders base on what THEY can do, not what the other guy can't do.

[JoeOtterbein]

6. Too ambiguous for the Trump era...

..We need to be ready for the "flaws" to be issue number one. Just like 2016.

[emmaverybo]

10. I agree. Hilary-Obama fight, on her side, was ugly. He was always, from the top

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2019, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

down, reigning in supporters from making the low and personal blows. Great control over the lowliest grassroots volunteer, an ethical style and grace many candidates today could use as a model.
I don’t mind candidates’ engaging in true debate with each other about issues. What I see here
is sometimes transparent and yet manipulative bashing that does nothing to promote one’s
preference. Usually the tactic is to post from an op-Ed and say so what do y’all think, coyly.
I also hate the we-ing, when it comes with an assumption that we all do, or worse, should, think
the same way.
I don’t think politics needs be a blood sport.

[democratisphere]

5. Well that should be beneficial.

Jeebus H.

[JoeOtterbein]

7. Why? The strongest candidate will win.

Just like in 2016.

[democratisphere]

8. Yeah. drumpf!

[JoeOtterbein]

9. Uh? nt