the Republicans will. Hold it all up to the light -- the good, the bad and the ugly. Let us examine all the possible flaws and pitfalls. We need to know that our candidate is as close to bullet proof as possible when the presidential race is on.

After 2016, this lesson was learned after what the hell we have been dealing with since January 20, 2017.

Guess not....

You learned to be afraid of attacks. I learned to be strong for the inevitable attacks that will come. I think that's a better lesson. We don't use the word campaign for both politics and war for nothing.

We expect a lively debate and in a lively debate, folks feelings are hurt. So be it if they are prepared to enter the challenge of their lives. Beat the one either in the White House or their Opposition.

In 2016, we did not open the field. We limited it which was not the right strategy.

This version of Democratic Primary Debate Royal Rumble will PREPARE the Winner for the fight of their lives and to take back our Democracy against the Racist POS in the White House.

If they cannot handle the attacks that will come from Him and his Cult and WIN AT ALL COSTS - we choose the wrong candidate -- and we cannot afford to do this this time.

The Candidate MUST BE STRONG, must CAN TAKE A HIT -- get BACK UP FIGHTING and KNOCK OUT TRUMP. This person must be our nominee and anything less will not due.

Let them debate. PERIOD.

They will absolutely not bring up 1970s busing policies to achieve integration.

They are all for segregation and racial discrimination.

Attacking our candidates from the politically correct (in 2019) left will only lower Democratic turnout in 2020 should the person (and I don't care who it is..) being attacked still be the nominee.

you're probably right. The ReThugs might not make hay with it.

But Biden's vote in favor of the Iraq war. That's coming. It will be a point of attack by his fellow Dem candidates and by Trump (if Biden makes it that far).

So is this:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/26/1853394/-Warren-Biden-Sided-with-Credit-Card-Companies-in-passing-the-2005-Bankruptcy-Bill-He-Sponsored


Be prepared.

They were all for it.

He likes to chirp about how he was opposed to the Iraq war as a civilian businessman. And even if he was advocating for that conflict with Iraq, you've surely noticed that he's not above being a complete hypocrite on any issue.

and his disciples will eat it up. Rinse and repeat.

Many "kill all the Muslim" types.

Those swing voters we need start saying they don’t find the person likable. Depresses turnout. We don’t have another Obama. Some things are once in a lifetime.

A lot of these so- called flaws are made up or exaggerated anyway.

Are candidates allowed to disagree?

This Democratic Primary season will be interesting. Grab a bag....

If supporters and candidates cannot speak of differences, cannot speak about other candidate's positions negatively or positively, there is no point in posting about politics.

You won't get a disagreement here. This is what politics is about and politics is not flag football --- for a lack of a better analogy.

It’s actually pretty simple.

Ad hominem? Yes.

But disagreement based on issues is not ad hominem.

You equate disagreement and attacking the other candidate personally?

How else would you point out the differences in policies other than to compare and contrast with your opponent? This is a primary election.

Also, do you think the Republicans will play all nice? Primaries can often toughen you up for the main event the General. If you have a scandal in your background you didn't want to be exposed, perhaps public life isn't the best option for a job career.

I never mentioned any candidate in my post.

I was speaking generally. Before one seriously runs for any office, one should inventory ones positions taken publicly or serious "secret/scandal." Normally called vetting.

I don't think anything cannot be explained, ie. you change your position on marriage equality; abortion, etc. I used to think scandals serious enough could derail you - saying "grabbing a women by the p****;" or having extra-marital affairs with a hooker. But Trump has shown it doesn't really matter in today's political scene. I think murder might still derail you, but won't know until it comes up.

I really don't hate many people personally, but I can strongly oppose their policies and ideas.

I know we're beginning a new presidential campaign, but people really need to chill. We are a community of Democrats dedicated to defeating Trump, shouldn't we treat each other with more respect.

Can you handle your candidate's scandals? (Reverse the question, look in the mirror).

We will answer: YES as we believe in Elizabeth Warren and she would not say anything of the sort (like Joe said last night) about Integrated Busing, EVER.

that she said or did something in the past that I probably won't like. She's a former republican, FFS. We have to accept that nobody is perfect. The next election is way too important for all these gotcha games.

Warren is my 2nd choice because if she stays on message, she can handle Trump. She oet him get under her skin once, I don't think she will do it again.

What of climate change, the border, current international situations, the economy, trade, I could go on and on about better issues applicable to this election.

Biden was talking about how you can't cooperate today, the two sides are enemies, and recalling when Congress could get things done even with the opposite side. That speaks to an issue of TODAY, how serious the partisanship has become. And that being "Hurtful?" How can anyone be tough enough to win the general when their feelings getting hurt is the "issue?"

What "scandal?" After the Dotard's election, there are none.

that's who wins. But I'm with you 100%. Normally a little rough up politics would be ok...but ya know what.

Not this time around.

Great slogan.

Can't see why any Dem candidates can justify beating each other up.

Run FOR something!!

Warren does. Bernie does. Booker does. Mayor Pete does.

Each confident in their own vision.

commemorative shirts!

And thinking this is Bookers strateg y right now. I'm talking about nitpicking over hoodie/poet laureate / gangbanger.

He's pissing me off. Go after Trump. The people I came away with the best thoughts of with the exception of Inslee - went after Trump.

good message!

Do they equally think Trump and his Cult plus his Russian bots will do such to our nominee?

It's HARDBALL TIME. In the end who comes out of this Democratic Primary will be prepared fully to beat TRUMP. If they or their supporters cannot manage a hit, then get out of the race now and let the one's who can KEEP GOING. Beating Trump at ALL COST is what matters in the end.

Deal with it as there is a REAL GOAL ---- as another four years of Trump to put forth a soft nominee, is not acceptable in our book at all.

You think Elizabeth Warren is soft?

You think Bernie is soft?

Mind boggling.

We didn't. So your point is?

It only batters them and makes the average type voter in swing states not bother to vote because they are all bad. All politicians are corrupt and dishonest. Why bother, they are all alike. That mentality. How in the world does it toughen them up? They don't need that. They wouldn't be there is they weren't tough.

This is not a difficult concept

Like if our nominee walks into the General with concrete boots on that we ignored during our primary because we did not want to rough him or her up, that the republicans are going to say "hey, you have on concrete boots. Here is a life preserver to keep you afloat".

We need to find and resolve any weakness that our eventual nominee has in the primary. If a candidate can't withstand that, that person should not be our nominee.

by me.

Go Warren!

I know other commentors think it toughens up a candidate and brings out faults but those faults take care of themselves without dems undermining dems. It's about adding not subtracting.

As far as being tough, does anyone think Harris or Swalwell were trying to toughen up other candidates last night like some kind of tough love? Ha, I sincerely doubt it. It made both candidates weaker. It also weakened the Democratic field in general because it looks and sounds petty. If that's all a candidate has, to pull down the competition, then that is a weak candidate.

I want to hear substance, character and maturity, not bickering children. We've already has 2 1/2 years of that.

They have to be bold to make a name for themselves, and knock out others, if they can. That's the name of the game.

I heard by an expert recently (or read it), that there's no evidence that in-party fighting among Democratic candidates in the primary is harmful to the nominee in the end.

I think it may be good to reveal weaknesses now, rather than the opposition reveal them later.

she'll harness love!

Because they won the nomination by besting (tearing down) other Dem candidates?

Who did you support in the 2008 primary? Do you recall the hits that Obama and Hillary landed on each other?

The economy is OK, so the Dotard deserves another term. Especially when the D candidate is so evil. That's how that type of voter thinks.

You missed the question mark. Besides, we have two choices. Trump and not Trump.

for additional perspective about “tearing down “ a candidate.

Sid

such a candidate extend to the general election? Will you stay home if, i.e., Kamala Harris is our candidate?