I encourage the "vetting" that is taking place here on our forum. We need to cover every angle, comb through every past vote and every policy position, look for potentially damaging quotes and comments. Consider all strengths and weaknesses. While we shouldn't flog a dead horse, we do need to be aware. Eyes wide open.

Why? Because you can be damn sure the Republicans (Trump in particular) are going to exploit those things when the general election campaign kicks off. By that point, we can't be left stammering and ill prepared because we didn't turn over every stone or we glossed over a significant chink in the armor.

We have to hold all candidates up to the light. Some have very lengthy track records. That means there's much to celebrate about their political careers and much to scrutinize and debate. We have a whole lot of that ahead of us, whether it's welcomed or not.

We won the popular vote in '16 by 3 million. It was losing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that cost the Dems the election. That and Russian interference.

By the way, Pete Buttigieg wants to get rid of the electoral college.

Pete for America!

California an New York.

We want the popular vote to count!

I have said before and will say again, that the only thing that matters is beating Trump. This is not a normal election. During the 2016 primaries, things got nasty because the primary choice was also binary, and of course the only way one candidate could win was if the other was defeated. Many of us, including myself, sometimes got a bit carried away in our desire for our favored candidate to win. I won't be making that mistake again. But most people assumed Trump couldn't possibly win, so we perceived that the real purpose of the primaries was to choose the next president, not to choose our presidential candidate.

Now we know better. And all of the Democratic candidates would be better presidents by orders of magnitude. So I don't care how they fund-raise as long as all contributions are legal and accounted for; I don't care how they voted on something 20 years ago, and I especially don't care if they don't toe some line in my own mind or don't satisfy some personal desire for perfect ideological alignment. Trump is an existential threat and we have to be able to accept some level of imperfection.

I don't agree that DU is the only place where candidate-bashing is going on (see, e.g., Nina Turner), but any social media outlet one frequents can tend to magnify controversies. Discussing issues is great. Even arguing enthusiastically about them is great, and useful. But dredging up old canards or ancient voting records or how much money somebody earned writing books or somebody hugged somebody isn't useful. Neither is insisting over an over that only X can win, or that if we nominate Y we will lose. Of course everybody needs to be "vetted," but that's not the same as gratuitous tearing-down to benefit someone else.

he/she has to be as tough as nails, the policies are secondary. Trump is not a run of the mill candidate, he won on fear and lies.

I'm surprised that having such a large Democratic field that so few have taken on Trump.

I liked Biden's roll out, he has the right idea, punch Trump right in his fat face.

We ran on "Trump Bad". It was a mistake, obviously.

This is the prime directive if you will. Any, ANY Dem candidate is head and shoulders above
tRump. Who ever rises to the top of the Democratic pile I will vote for. End of story.
m

offering supporting arguments that back their opinions. I also see people repeating over and over and over and over that there is only one candidate who can win. I think the former approach would be the most informative, to any voter who tuned in to DU, and the latter one the least helpful.

What's the use of a discussion forum if it's to become an echo chamber? There must be a balance, a happy medium. But we shouldn't attempt to stifle debate.

All negative all the time. Trump will not be easy to beat despite how much we dislike him and think that everyone must agree with us because he is so obviously unfit. Trump is going for an electoral college win like last time...trying to divide us, we shouldn't let him.

It's still nine months till the first primary. There are multiple candidates and a great deal at stake.

Not every Democratic voter or DU poster supports Biden. Many of us donate to and feel passionately about other candidates, and many of us have different assessments of other candidates' electibility and preparation for office than you do. Some of us want a first woman president, or to move past Boomers and Silent Gen candidates, or a candidate who isn't as banking and financial system friendly as Biden. Primaries are the time for all to have their say and to consider our options.

Biden is probably at his peak support now until after the nomination, if he wins it - he may not. So meanwhile, you will be seeing plenty of critique of his record and his persona.

As Democrats I always thought we believed in open dialogue. I certainly do. May the strongest candidate win.

capitalists', or 'vetting' candidates, while many Dems may not catch this - significant numbers in the very important middle 40% of voters, will get those 'vettings', courtesy of 'conservative' media.

It's exactly why I sport Tulsi's pic around. She is bashed here even more than Bernie.

I was listening to Stephanie Miller, Thursday, I think. She had John Fugelsang on the radio. Stephanie made the statement that she would gladly support any one of our candidates, pause, except Tulsi. Fugelsang jumped all over her, he said that if Tulsi is our nominee, he will enthusiastically support her. He said that he comes to Tulsi's defense when she deserves it. They both then agreed that it wasn't likely that Tulsi will be our nominee.

I warned people here. It was all fun and games when it was just Bernie and Tulsi getting bashed. None of our candidates are perfect but all of them are miles better than Trump. I can bash any one of our candidates, but I figure that's what Republicans do.

Disclaimer; was it 2008 when Biden ran in the primary? I voted for him because our union endorsed him.

They'll start thinking about the primaries early next year.

Well said.

Sid

Political discussion is difficult to keep on track, that's for sure.

is going to make people cranky. Being told that your candidate is 1000% certain to lose is going to make people angry. Joe Biden for example, is well placed to pick up three states we need to win. When his advocates go on to say ‘Game Over’ is when the fur starts to fly.

Because today is April 29, 2019

People who are vocal about their opinions and like to passionately argue about them in public are outnumbered by at least 10 to 1 by people who simply show up to the polls and vote, without making any sort of fuss over it beforehand. One should always keep this in mind when trying to extrapolate from the dynamics of highly partisan online spaces to the broader public.

but activists have an important role as well in who gets nominated. They turn out voters through retail politics, and when they don't do so as effectively (2016) it makes a difference.

If I recall correctly, most people on DU were going back and forth between Dean, Edwards, Clark... Very few were pushing for Kerry. I like most of the candidates but I think I'd be annoyed by a major surprise. Then there'd be pressure to vote a certain way to avoid splitting the vote, etc.