IF I had a favorite candidate.

basis of policies or psyops. I chose him on the basis of what we need right now. Seasoned leadership (character), competence (8 years as VP) and capacity (ability to recruit and RETAIN a highly skilled and ethical executive team).

And even then, someone described all Democratic misbehaviors as "pilllow fights" compared to the Republicans, noting their 2016 dark-circus primary. That's because Democrats, strongly dominated by liberals who believe in the democratic process, won't tolerate that kind of thing. We really DO require much, much higher standards from our candidates, and all but one "Independent/current Democrat" also believe in and adhere to them.

As for your question, no difference. I know what Sanders is and would only vote for him as an only choice, and then try not to worry myself sick. So he can attack everyone and anyone, and it won't make the slightest difference in my choices.

the more corrupt the better.

It isn't about personality for me - it is first, about principles and ideas - then about beating trump.

I make up my own mind, and couldn’t care less about attacks.

I spend less and less time in this forum because it appears to be two main contingents posting attack after attack about the other’s candidate.

Boring and predictable. Can’t believe it changes anyone’s mind.

I’m always amazed by people who say they’re supporting or not supporting a candidate based on random internet comments. It makes no sense. I like Biden and Warren best and no comments from supporters or detractors would affect my opinion of them.

sure I’m voting for ‘whomever’.”

I always kind of expect a “nanny-nanny boo-boo” type thing to follow, lol.

If it is something FACTUAL, of which I was not previously aware, and makes the candidate appear to be a hypocrite and/or antithetical to what I consider to be Democratic Party Values, then yes; John Edwards and his lying/infidelity, I like Bernie, but his refusal to disavow some of the people on his campaign who are slimeballs, Hillary and her speeches to Wall Street entities when the details of such became known. These are the kinds of things that make me less likely to support someone in the primaries.

If it's just someone saying shit like 'They don't have enough experience', 'they don't have enough {group X} support, 'they used to be a Republican, 'they worked with former segregationists' or some such well known stuff, then the fact some troll is blathering about it makes me more sympathetic to the candidate. Vetting is fine, let's get the dirty laundry out NOW, everyone has some and it's is a factor (but not the only one, plus definitions vary).

Just my .02

Warren more. I wasn't leaning toward either, as I felt their ideas are too progressive for the general electorate. But something about the way this played out made me feel sympathy toward Warren, and having given her a second look, I now consider her one of my top choices.

It a wise world, he would be taken seriously, but serious people are rarely taken seriously - at least until it's too late.

are being relentless and dirty. The buck stops with the candidate. No excuses. If the buck doesn't stop at the candidate while running for office.... where or when will it? I have always hated dirty politics and now some people think it is a game.

Gotta hand it to Joe, his campaign has always been above board.

...depending on the legitimacy of the attack.

Depends on who is attacking, why, and how truthful the attack is.