General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan we try talking up Democratic candidates without tearing down others?
I have who I am voting for in the primary, but whether my candidate wins the nomination or not, I am voting for the Democratic nominee. I hope we are all in that same boat.
Mike Nelson
(9,990 posts)...good idea!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)....one defines as "tearing down, " doesn't it?
I don't support precensoring political conversations.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Issues that indicate a candidate's suitability fir the job and their potential for acting upon the ideas and policies the promote in the election race should be worthy of discussion though.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,485 posts)But so far such has not been the case.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... of criticism? Is it because their flaws are so serious as to be disqualifiers for many voters?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It would really suck to have a candidate sail through the primary only to go down in flames in the general because they didn't get 'torn down' for the flaws they have earlier on.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)Of course, there is the example of John Edwards, who as of January 2008 was running 3rd after Clinton and Obama, but was still a viable candidate. But he withdrew abruptly at the end of January, to the great surprise of many. The National Enquirer had previously published rumors that he was having an affair with Reille Hunter, a campaign videographer, but the rumors were not widely believed because of their source. However, the rumors kept circulating and a few months after Edwards dropped out he admitted the affair but denied he was the father of Hunter's baby (which he later was forced to admit). As it turned out, Edwards turned out to have been a rather awful person, not only for cheating on his wife (who was dying of cancer) and fathering an illegitimate child, but for doing it during his campaign for the nomination. What if he'd been nominated or selected as the winner's running mate, and then the affair had been discovered? The election would have gone down in flames and McCain probably would have won. So, yes, the big ugly stuff does need to be known. But not the stupid crap about articles written 40 years ago or the actions of somebody's spouse or whatever.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The pushing and elbowing that's required to demonstrate there actually is room at the table is going to be seen as negative and rude.
But, then the "supporter spreading" that attempts to preclude all other candidates from having a chanceto be at the table is also rude.
Come the general election, we will have the option that survives the process. I expect near universal acceptance of that. But I really doubt if as a result the partisans will like each other any better.
It's pretty clear that this season picked up with much of the animosity from 2008. If ill-sentiment survives 7 years it can probably follow some partisans to their PPR dates.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)impoverishment of the country in order to cement corporate rule, we're supposed to point all that out politely, then
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that the Koch Bro has spent several million hiring people to impersonate left wing users on internet message boards; etc.... you know from what I have seen here lately ,,, Im starting to think their may be some truth to this rumor