Win the battle lose the war. Keep exposing negatives about candidates

[Prosper]

and that gives voters more reasons to not vote or vote for Trump. Promote the positives and give people reasons to vote. I have said the wars in the East can be won by giving people reasons to live instead of die. Same with our political system. Don’t present a campaign wounded candidate exposing reasons for republicans and undecided to vote against or not vote at all. Present a candidate that represents a Democratic Party working for good and a candidate that represents their self for working for good. Michelle presented that idea with her don’t go low, go high.
When the winning candidate is up against Trump that would be the winning strategy also. Promise to finish the good things Trump promised. Health care, veterans, good paying jobs. We can say that historically the Democratic Party has had success in all those areas and the Democratic Party is best equipped to do that. Go high and sustain the ridicule that will come no matter what we do. We win that strategy because Trump’s own party prevented him from doing it. Trump had high Republican approval but no support from his party. e.g. While he promised health care with no exceptions his party worked to limit all and any kind of healthcare.

Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. That applies to giving the Republicans four more years to fulfill Trump’s promises.
The same also applies to attacking Trump. It didn’t work against him in his first campaign and it won’t work against him this time. Promising to carry out what his party wouldn’t let him do puts Trump in opposition to his own party.

Democratics go high offering opportunity. Let Republicans go low and that will expose their opposition to all the good Trump promised.

[Scotch-Irish]

1. THANK YOU!!!

It's definitely not a good idea to be bashing any of the progressive candidates. We need to change the entire climate....literally.

[squirecam]

3. How do you

Propose that happens?

[FBaggins]

2. Sorry... I can't agree

Do we really think that Trump won’t find and exploit those same negatives? Far better to address them now so they’re “old news” in the general (and yes... so that we can reject options before the larger rejection in November does more damage)

[dem4decades]

4. Sorry. I don't want Trump's choice to be our choice.

[Prosper]

10. What is Trump's choice ? Are you saying you are against everything he promised?

He pretty much covered everything .

[RandySF]

5. .

[LanternWaste]

6. It's only bashing when my candidate is the target.

It's vetting, valid criticism and sincere questions when I target other candidates.



That's pretty much how each one of these posts, advertising such a sincere-sounding yet melodramatic concern for our ethics, comes across. And plays on DU to the exact same tune, beat, melody and harmony as it did in 2016 and 2004.


"Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity..."
Louie Armstrong called that 'practice' and it resulted in his getting better and better each time he did it.

[squirecam]

7. Also true

Nt

[Prosper]

9. Wrong. Louie didn't expect different results by doing the same thing over and over.

[redqueen]

8. Like herding cats.

Last time should have been a lesson. Seems far too many didn't get it and are still enthusiastically pointing fingers.