It seems like a good idea to give everyone a safe space, but in the end, it encourages factionalism and heightens the tension between the most zealous supporters of each candidate. It isn't a net positive, especially when there are many outside forces trying to deepen divisions within the party. We should talk to each other more, not retreat to our respective silos.

I said something positive about Tulsi Gabbard and I was unceremoniously attacked by a lot of people.
I feel that I cannot speak favorably of Tulsi in the open forum without being attacked.

The thing is that I haven't chosen my candidate yet, I am sorting them out and picking out the ones who are tough as nails, because that's what it is going to take to beat Trump.

Just renaming a street MLK was a political minefield in South Bend. Pete came up with the solution and now the major East/West corridor downtown (formerly St. Joseph Street) is now Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

I have blocked all candidate post. I will vote for who ever wins, but in the mean time I have found this to be my best choice. I end up reading those that make it to Greatest Threads. They seem to always remind me of why I have blocked those.

Best of luck to everyone and who they support and if you kids don't behave, I'll turn this car around and go home.

...and block them at whim? Will the administration note divisive, particularly post-primary divisive behavior, and eradicate it?

Block at will? It sure doesn't sound like the DU site I've come to for years.

And under the new system it is impossible to accidentally post in a candidate supporter group for a candidate you do not support. So you are only in danger of being blocked out of the group for the one candidate you support.

In your case, you have Beto O'Rourke selected as your favored candidate. This means that you will only be able to post in the Beto O'Rourke group. I highly doubt that as a supporter of Beto, you will get into trouble with the host of the group and get yourself blocked.

candidates as long as they are done in a positive manner? I am fairly sure I will not pick a candidate until I go to my state primary. There are too many things that can happen between now and then.

Thanks Skinner, et al.

Don't use your candidate groups to criticize other candidates.

Even before seeing the author. Due to the nature of primaries, there has to be a certain level of constructive negativity tolerated in GD. But when that environment becomes too toxic, one can retreat to their candidate's sub-forum; a safe-space of positivity.

Calling it a safe-space alone should keep out a large percentage of would-be concern-trollers.

It's going to be a fine line to draw between comparing platforms when you are afraid to say anything faulty about a competitors platform even in comparison if it puts that competitor in a bad light.

I was under the impression that these new forums would help eliminate the rankor in other forums if folks were now allowed to "get it all out" commiserating with like minded folks when it came to expressing reasons for disagreement with other candidates. But I Guess these new forums are all about the positives. Sounds like a great idea. I will expect this rule of "if you can't say anything nice..." will be applied in regard to every competing candidate in every group.

It may just work, but I have some reservation about how it will help healthy conversation. Some open competition and false information busting is good. I think the single forum was working fairly well and I'd hate to see divisive behaviour increase. But at this point I'm not sure of the outcome. I'll hope for the best and play the game board provided.

We are hoping to avoid a repeat of 2016.

making DU the most civil site on the net.

I’ve not been aware as to how well organized the site is. Partly because I haven’t taken the necessary time to explore all of the features, and partly due to the fact that I can’t let these things run my life. So, congratulations to all of you who go above and beyond to make this an informative and well managed site.

" blocking disruptive people from the group " sounds great.

If I have a question about my candidate that may not follow the herd, will I get shut down?
I'm going to have tough questions about our candidates. This is a serious job and I'll be asking some frank questions. If the questions ruffle some feathers I suggest you simply don't answer instead of trying to silence someone who is looking for information.
If the hosts start getting bossy and decide which way the direction a forum or thread should be going, it defeats the whole purpose of a DISCUSSION BOARD.

w such an embarrassment of riches, i would like to be able to pick more than one candidate to support if it means that i am restricted by my choice.

It's greatly appreciated. Many thanks to all involved.

At this point in time, after being so disgusted that not one person in any conversation about "inappropriate" touching and Biden has yet to bring up Al Franken, I have gotten fed up. People are talking about how it is necessary to have a rational and reasonable discussion and respect the feelings of those involved and learning and etc etc etc...

Yet not one mention of how Al Franken was set up by Roger Stone, then hung out to dry by those who should have stood by him. Al Franken's actions weren't "creepy", either, they were a total set up. The man was a comedian, and also his actions were far less invasive than Biden's, but not one mention in comparison, making me wonder how programmed and set up the daily talking points and what subject has to be avoided at all costs, because Lord knows it's a pretty obvious comparison to make to me.

So for the time being because he is the man I think would be the one I would most like to see as president, even though he's not running..yet..I am supporting Al Franken.

Practically the only thing that would change my mind about just putting him in as a write in candidate would be if Stacey Abrams decides to run.

I quit Warren after I saw her comment last week that it is time to "move on" or something along those lines from the Mueller Report, and how it needs to be released..that people have other issues they are more concerned with. I can't think of a single issue at all that is more important right now than exposing and getting that scumbucket orange criminal out of the White House.

Flush Trump!

I heard these were made read-only. Still I would like to find them. Specifically John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley.

I am sorry you felt those groups needed to be closed.

I appreciate your efforts at creating a great community with the challenges brought by presidential primary season. That said, I am neutral about the new group policy. I don't have a favorite among the announced or expected candidates, and I do like to read the back and forth in the Primaries forum; because even though I will definitely vote for one of these people in the general, I want to know what I am getting - warts and all. (and so far they all have warts, IMO, but none are remotely close to as evil as the present occupant of the WH). I hope the effect of the new groups isn't to make it harder for me to gather that info, but it isn't all about me, of course.