will inevitably have voted for bills or said or done other things that they probably would not do now, and might even regret having done. They might have changed their minds about some issues over the years; they might have decided it was necessary to compromise on some aspect of a bill in order to get another part of it passed; they might have written or said things that don't cast them in a very good light; they might have disreputable relatives; they might have engaged in financial transactions that seem inconsistent with their professed political or ethical positions, and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, if whatever is being complained about didn't happen in the recent past and didn't involve a felony or some grotesquely awful personal behavior, I'm not interested.

I have evolved. We all have. The decades past have passed.

In my opinion, the Republicans will do more than enough looking back into the past. We don't need to do that, I think, during the primary campaign. At least not too much of it. Once we have a nominee, we'll be seeing tons of opposition research trotted out by the GOP. We'll need to defend our nominee from it. How can we do that if we used the same arguments and negative ancient history during the primary campaign?

It's a flaw in our primary debates, really. We might have a favorite. Actually, most of us have a favorite. We would like to see our favorite candidate become the nominee. In every case, though, someone else might end up as that nominee. It's difficult to support a nominee if you have attacked that candidate during the primaries in a public way.

It will be embarrassing to see the Republicans use the same attacks you used against the person who becomes the nominee. In fact, you'll probably see every one of them again after the convention.

Attacks are not vetting. Attacks are simply attacks. They do nobody any good when November rolls around.

I've brought this up numerous times, that if one's candidate choice doesn't get the nomination, it is quite an adjustment to go from attacking a candidate to supporting him/her enthusiastically. After an extremely contentious primary, some people just can't make that transition, as we saw in 2016. There are Bernie supporters out who still are holding the grudges from 3 or 4 years ago, so apparently six months or so isn't always enough time to adapt to a new candidate.

Once we have a nominee, republicans will go after that person with no restraints whatsoever. Many Democratic supporters are helping to build their opposition research playbook.

It certainly won't be off limits in the general election. I'm OK with candidates evolving over the years but they all must be prepared to address their histories. Both Biden and Warren are much more liberal than they used to be. It won't hurt them to explain why and it would probably benefit them.

There will only be one winner and until the winner is chosen unity must await the conclusion.

Not everyone, though.

then it is relevant that the attitude has persisted for decades.

And, the past behavior of our nominee WILL be brought up in the GE campaign, in any way that the opposition thinks will be helpful to their goal.

Minny post so much food for thought . Like you,I to have made many changes in attitude over the decades.

So fortune to have known many of those People whom have been Change Agents whom Matriculated from the Great State of Minnesota over the decades. And yes ,they too evolved over time as Mayors,Council Members,State Legislator's and Governor's,to become extremely effective Federal Legislator's advocating the Rights of those left behind.

lead that society. Without evolution of ideas, nothing changes.

Revolution is not the only mechanism of change, although it sometimes seems attractive to some.

do recall from a Ploy Sci Prof from Norway who became a advisor to Hubert Humphrey's in his run against Kennedy.