Any more debates like last night and Trump will be re-elected.

[Trumpocalypse]

Dems attacking Dems will only damage the eventual nominee, whomever that is. That will only help Trump in the long run. We saw this 4 years ago and should not let it happen again.

[Thekaspervote]

1. A voice of sanity!!! Thank you

[Goodheart]

3. Heh. I'm sure a Biden supporter would feel that way. :)

[redstateblues]

4. That's the truth

[Goodheart]

2. The DNC needs to pare the field.

[Baclava]

15. Absolutely, but its a long race, so everyone should get used to it now

This is survivor, everyone else gets kicked off the island, not some dinner party debates.

[LovingA2andMI]

77. This is survivor, everyone else gets kicked off the island, not some dinner party debates.

[Mme. Defarge]

83. By all means let's knock off all the

good candidates, that is the front runners, first.

[True Dough]

5. There's always a "recency" effect during the debates

People feel wounded when their candidate is attacked. It's natural. There was plenty of sniping between Obama and Clinton and yet Obama went on to become POTUS.

This primary process is long and gruelling. There will be plenty more punches to come but the last person standing will be the strongest. That's the whole purpose.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. Sniping yes

But not the nastiness that we saw last night.

[True Dough]

9. Again, the recency effect. You're forgetting

Here's one example:

[Trumpocalypse]

12. Actually, they stayed fairly civil

and did not get as nasty as they did last night.

[True Dough]

16. That's a subjective observation, obviously

Some will agree, some will disagree.

You'd say the same about these exchanges? What Bernie is saying here is extremely accusatory and damaging

[Trumpocalypse]

25. Yes but

last night seemed more personal.

[MontanaFarmer]

124. I didn't see it that way.

This was a point of political disagreement between people who generally like and respect each other. Kamala said today again that she likes and respects Joe Biden. She also wants to be president, and I'm sure she thinks she'd be a better one than he would. Thus, you've got to debate an issue that differentiates the two. Nothing more than that. The fact that Biden handled the exchange so poorly doesn't mean it was a nasty personal attack, IMO.

[floppyboo]

39. no it wasn't. You've got to make your differences clear to the voter

And this was a major difference that needed to be pointed out. Bernie is still running on getting rid of, or at the very least holding accountable, special interest groups like Wall Street. This is why some people love him.
Hillary ran on keeping everything the same as Obama. Same as Joe is doing now.
I really hope we don't see a repeat.

[Kaleva]

18. The 2008 primary was very tough but Obama went on to win the general.

[Trumpocalypse]

26. True

but it never seemed to get as nasty.

[Kaleva]

27. The archived threads from that time period make for interesting reading.

It was nasty.

[Trumpocalypse]

36. It was nasty here

but it always is.

[crazytown]

58. "it will difficult for another black to win"

A black? Not a black man or a black woman, but A Black?

[LovingA2andMI]

78. PUMA...

but it never seemed to get as nasty.

Our response....PUMA.

Also, who are you calling nasty, exactly?

[Trumpocalypse]

96. Which was a small fringe group

that didn’t matter.

[LovingA2andMI]

100. You Think?

They most certainly mattered to the African-Americans that supported Barack Obama and have NEVER been forgotten and NEVER will be -- especially if Harris or Booker in the end -- and in the process itself - looks like they are on the path to nomination.

Our memories are quite long. #FYI

[Trumpocalypse]

103. Oh I didn't realize McCain won

the 08 election.

[LovingA2andMI]

105. Is this a Horrible Lame Pearled Attempt Snark....

No worries --- we know what to do.

Nice Not Knowing ya.

[Trumpocalypse]

108. The is in the end the PUMAs didn't matter nt

[DesertRat]

73. Nasty is subjective

and that term is typically used when the confrontation involves a woman. Btw, Trump has twice called Harris nasty.

[Trumpocalypse]

91. I never accused any one person

so don’t play that game.

[thesquanderer]

10. Agreed. So far, nothing as nasty as the Dems in 2008 OR the Repubs in 2016

both of whom went on to win, despite more division on their side than on their opponents'. Hillary vs. Bernie was nothing compared to the way practically the entire Republican establishment treated Trump.

[asiliveandbreathe]

11. Very well stated...I can't help but remember karl rove running around like a chicken with his head

cut off..when President Obama was elected ...he thought they had all the machinations covered...the numbers, who came out to vote were too much for them..their calculations were off...high voter turn out...key!!!!!

[floppyboo]

40. Yes, yes and yes!!!

I remember Rove being apoplectic about Ohio. It was a thing of beauty!
So, where is this higher turn-out going to come from? Which demographics were under-represented? #1: The youth vote.
Who is winning the youth vote? The generation that is going to carry the torch?
BERNIE!
You want to win?

[emmaverybo]

123. We do not have an Obama in the bunch. NT

[marylandblue]

19. Also the winner effect.

If we win, all the sniping doesn't matter. If we lose, it's because we had too much sniping. Since we don't know if we will win or lose, we don't agree if we should be upset or not.

[Sneederbunk]

7. Only 11 debates to go.

[peggysue2]

50. O.M.G.

Only eleven more attempts at scalping one another. Can't wait.

Elections are not for sissies!

[asiliveandbreathe]

8. Right now - WE MUST UNITE - not fight, WHO in our field is the BEST to beat the pos?

We are up against a Russian meddling in our elections, as well, we have a senate majority we are up against, and we have a Federalist society hell bent on destroying our Democracy.. if they have found a way to skim votes...we must vote in numbers like never before...

Visualize the BEST DEM candidate..to beat the beast..we know how vile, and evil this beast is....

[emmaverybo]

125. They don't care about winning. They want the full gladiator spectacle. And they want hands-on

participation. They sneered at unity when Biden made that his theme.

[UniteFightBack]

134. It's like folks can't think strategically. nt

[UniteFightBack]

133. That's right #UniteFightBack it's the only way. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

144. Calls for unity at this stage of the process are pointless

we're months out from the first primaries. Things will clarify some after Iowa and New Hampshire; after Super Tuesday it's very likely we'll have a de facto nominee. That's the time to call for unity.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Too bad, That's just how it works

If the Dems don’t put forth criticisms and point out weak spots of all candidates during the primaries, then the eventual nominee will be unvetted and unprepared for the attacks that are sure to come in the general.

That goes for the ridiculous bot smears too- better to get them out in the open now, and neutralize them.

[sop]

37. That's exactly how it's supposed to work

Any one of these candidates who can't survive what happened these past two nights won't make it through the general election. If the eventual nominee can't vigorously defend his/her votes, positions and plans when attacked by FOX, RW talkers, the POS and all his Russian trolls, and fight back effectively (I'm looking at you, Joe), better to find out early.

[floppyboo]

43. Warren would eat Trump alive! I can see the cookbook. Pairie Oysters move over!

His little mushroom thingy will be eviscerated!

Edit: but she won't do that. No red blooded Trumpian would vote for her. She's got the goods, but it will be a real tight-rope walk to take down a man and win in the current climate. This is going to be interesting. If you thought there was a problem with Hillary being a woman, buckle up. On my FB feed I have already reported one bogus 'Warren is a lesbian' post.

And having said that - remember over 50% of voters are women. And the younger generation generally doesn't give a rat's ass about your sexuality, and these kind of attacks will back fire.

[Chemisse]

112. That's exactly right.

This is not the time for coddling. It's a time to narrow the field to the strongest and most capable candidates.

They may not be the ones we have expected them to be!

[treestar]

193. Now you don't need that

Go on the internet and find the right wing trolls and you've got all the expected attacks.

It actually makes people tired of politics and unlikely to vote.

[octoberlib]

14. Oh , ffs, this is tame compared to past primaries.

It’s early in the game. When a clear front runner emerges they’ll get behind that person.

[mtnsnake]

17. + 1000

[Andy823]

22. Exactly

And if the candidates can't take the hits in the debates with other Democrats, how are they going to be able to take on trump?

[octoberlib]

24. Exactly. It's good practice.

[sop]

42. And any candidate who isn't capable of being meaner and nastier than Trump will get rolled

[KPN]

79. +1001!

The front runner always takes heat. Your dreaming if you think that is going to change ... or, imo, that we are going to lose. We have lots of capable and attractive candidates — more than I have ever seen in my almost 50 years as a voter. Chill out.

[SouthernProgressive]

20. Not going to happen with that many people on the stage.

It shouldn't happen with that many people on the stage.

[Voltaire2]

21. Did you watch the repub debates in 15-16?

They were using chainsaw on each other.
Didn’t hurt Trump at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

28. Yes but Trump was appealing to

the dumb and to the mean.

[marylandblue]

59. I am not dumb, but I am mean. I enjoy a smart takedown.

[Trumpocalypse]

64. Even if it damages the eventual nominee

and helps Trump win a second term?

[marylandblue]

75. No, because if a candidate can be taken down so easily in the primary

he or she will never survive against an attack 10X worse in the general.

[Trumpocalypse]

94. BS

That is just an excuse. Issues can be discussed without personal attacks. Personal attacks now only alienates parts of the base. We need to be unified if we want to win.

[marylandblue]

109. It's not an excuse, it's how I picked my candidate, and

why I am probably going to abandon him at some point with a hope for the future. He's good at responding to personal attacks, but his name is mud in the AA community, and his skills won't be able to recover.

I decided how I was going to pick my candidate three years ago, before anyone announced, knowing this would be a crowded and nasty primary followed by a general election that's even worse.

Did you really expect 24 ambitious competitive people, to all play King of the Mountain without throwing a single punch? I knew this would be nasty and I welcomed it, because it will tell me the one thing I really want to know- when Trump throws his most unfair lying wacko punch, who will have the best answer? If Biden can't handle the mild "your words were hurtful," from Harris, how is he going to handle it when Trump blames him for every civil rights failure for the last 40 years and takes credit for being the best President for blacks ever? What's he going to tell the half of the country that actually believes that.

[Trumpocalypse]

113. Well if everyone thought like you

Trump wouldn’t be President. But unfortunately everyone thinks differently.

[marylandblue]

117. I don't understand that comment. I didn't say or imply everyone thought like me.

I'm just looking at factors in my control that I can use to influence an election. All I can do is support the candidate I think best.

I can't control what any candidate says or does and I can't shut down the Internet. So I don't try to do those things.

[Trumpocalypse]

139. Actually you did

Which is why you can’t see that personal attacks that damage the eventual nominee only helps Trump.

[marylandblue]

155. Can you provide a quote where I said that? because I don't see it,

and I certainly don't think it.

My main point is mostly that attacks in the primary aren't going to hurt nearly as much as the bigger more sustained attacks in the general.

My second point is that we can't stop any of it.

My third point is that if we can't stop it, we better learn to deal with it.

[Trumpocalypse]

158. If the nominee is already damaged in the primary

that makes attacks from Trump and the GOP far more effective. Which is what happened in 16. It’s a shame you’re blind to that reality.

[marylandblue]

161. So I didn't say or imply that everyone thinks like me.

Which means you didn't understand a word I said. Which is a shame in itself.

[Trumpocalypse]

164. Stop trying to change the subject

The fact that you’re trying to shows you can’t refute my point that personal attacks among the primary candidates only serves to help Trump.

[UniteFightBack]

135. When the punches get personal and go to a person's character is where the problem lies. And

that is exactly what Harris did. I don't think you are racist.........but. That will damage a candidate in the general.

And like LOL you think rump is gonna rifle off Biden's 'failures'..(didn't he just get a civil rights award?) like he has the capacity to do that...I mean really. No he is going to be calling names and being outrageous and I don't think Harris has any capacity to deal with that.

[marylandblue]

166. Trump is going to do exactly that, just like he attacked the Clinton Foundation

as being corrupt while running his own corrupt foundation.

[KPN]

82. That was my immediate thought on reading the OP.

[BannonsLiver]

23. Nonsense

You must have been asleep during the 2016 GOP debates. And yet, that circus eventually produced a winning presidential candidate to the horror and dismay of us all. Relax.

[Trumpocalypse]

30. Different voters

The GOP’s base is the dumb and the mean.

[BannonsLiver]

31. Doesn't matter.

Chaos is a ladder.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Actually it does matter

if we want to win elections.

[onetexan]

32. agree - K&R

It was spirited, but for the most part civil. I wanted to see the feistiness to know that when any one of them go against the Idiot in the general, they have the gumption to stand up against his bullying. He is a bully, and the only way to stand up to a bully is to call out his insecurities and reveal the fool that he is.

[shanny]

29. Lol.

[empedocles]

33. New York Post covers

June 27 10 LEFT FEET
June 28 WHO WANT TO LOSE THIS ELECTION [all Dem candidates]

[guillaumeb]

34. I disagree. eom

[MarcA]

38. Sounds like a talking point from the campaign of a candidate who

didn't do well in a debate and is losing ground to other contenders.

[Cousin Dupree]

41. Not true. These debates will be mostly forgotten in a week

[empedocles]

46. Not on rw media, not before 17 months have passed

[treestar]

196. Over time all the negativity will add up

People didn't even know why they didn't like Hillary. They just knew she was corrupt, because so many accusations had been made. A lot of people don't vote because they hate politics, as they think of the negativity and ignore it. It doesn't get out the vote. It depresses it.

[titaniumsalute]

44. With all due respect...

That's BS. A primary is a primary. Many candidates have very different views. There will be some strong words, powerful tweets, maybe even hurt feelings. But that is what a primary is going to be. I don't think strong ideas being covered daily by the Dems in this country is a bad thing at all. Matter of fact it can help take Trump out of the news much more than if there wasn't a primary.

Now I will agree that the childish talking over each other was 100% ridiculous. They sounded like scorned middle school students sometimes. That doesn't serve a purpose.

[Trumpocalypse]

48. Yes because damaging the eventual nominee

during the primary worked so well in 2016.

[UniteFightBack]

136. Clearly people aren't getting that Senator Harris got personal there and that is the problem...

that is damaging. It's one thing to disagree about policy etc..but to say I know you are not a racist........but....is attacking the character of a person in a backdoor way and I think it should be avoided for all candidates. Especially when the line of attack (you are against busing the horror) is bullshit. Saying he coddled the reputation of these skank Senators he was forced to work with is attacking his character. She definitely didn't stay high, she went low.

[Trumpocalypse]

145. Thanks for getting it

And for the record that is not the only exchange over the two debates I found concerning.

[treestar]

195. Busing isn't even an issue now

And working across the aisle with segregationists was a reality in the 1970s and claiming to be hurt by that happening when you are born around them is disingenuous. That attack was completely unnecessary. And the argument that it strengthens Biden to weather the attack is also disingenuous. The Republicans are not going to attack him on that ground.

Listen to Limbaugh and Co. and we can essentially find out what the attacks will be and prepare for them.

If Harris is the nominee there are going to be some very ugly attacks, as I've seen them already from right-wingers. How is she getting prepared for them? Biden didn't indulge in them. I do not believe any Democratic candidate would do that.

[33taw]

45. Can they pare the debates to the top eight?

Too many debaters looks silly. It caused half the problems with interruptions.

[Politicub]

47. FFS - it was the first of 12

The field will get winnowed down.

[inwiththenew]

49. What do you want them to do sit around and only talk about how bad Trump is?

We all agree he is horrible but why are you better than the other candidates to take him on? That is going to have to fought out among the candidates as they prove their case for why they are a better match for Trump than the other Democratic candidates. Plus as others have pointed out the Republican primary and debates made last night look like a game of patty cake vs no holds barred cage match fight to the death and the party still rallied around Trump.

[Trumpocalypse]

55. Better than attacking each other.

[marylandblue]

60. I'd rather they.attack each other. Let the strongest survive.

That's the one to take on Trump. Last night is nothing compared to what's coming for whoever wins. Are we going to lament about meanness then when we have a candidate who brings a wet noodle to a gun fight.

[Trumpocalypse]

65. Yeah that worked so well for us in 16

[marylandblue]

74. When we had like 5 candidates, only 2 of who mattered, and

the winner turned out to have a glass jaw? How is that comparable, unless we pick another candidate with a glass jaw again?

[Trumpocalypse]

93. The point is our nominee was damaged

Let’s not be stupid enough to make that mistake again.

[marylandblue]

95. Our nominee was damaged 30 years and never figured out how to undo the damage.

Let's not pick a nominee like that again.

Disclaimer: This is not Clinton bashing. This is just an analysis of what went right or wrong.

[Trumpocalypse]

97. Sounds like Clinton bashing to me nt

[marylandblue]

116. Yes I know because we can't say anything mildly critical about Hillary or Obama on this site.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2019, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Even when it is simply to note she's been a punching bag for the right since the day she got to Washington and that maybe we ought to have thought about that a little more before we nominated her. I know I did think about it, but I didn't think about it enough and what it would mean against someone like Trump.

People have a lot of trouble looking honestly at people they admire. Clinton is admirable in many ways. But she isn't perfect and we need to grow up about that. Now.

I'm not making that mistake again. You can if you want.

[BlueWI]

122. No kidding.

We're on a discussion board with hardcore political junkies, and we're not expected to discuss the flaws in a campaign that lost to Trump? Good luck with that.

[Trumpocalypse]

138. Never said she was perfect but

denying that she was damaged in the primary is denying reality.

[marylandblue]

156. The accept the criticism that we would have done better

with a candidate who could deal with it better. I thought Hillary.was that candidate because of her long experience with such attacks, but she wasn't. I thought she knew what was coming but she didn't.

[Trumpocalypse]

160. You're feeding a false narrative

and blaming the victim. It wasn’t the candidate, it was the fact she was ultimately damaged in the primary.

[marylandblue]

162. Like I said, Hillary can't even be mildly criticized on this site.

She can only be treated as a victim, and any criticism is "blame." You are being a snowflake it's going to kill us.

[Trumpocalypse]

165. Snowflake is a RW term

Explains a lot.

[marylandblue]

167. What it explains is that, if somebody uses a term to disparage you, own it.

How do you think the word "queer" came to be acceptable?

[Trumpocalypse]

168. It's a RW term

Interesting that you used it.

[marylandblue]

173. Did you read what I said about "queer?"

But if you are more concerned about where terms come from than how.they can be used, that explains a lot too.

So I'll just cut to the chase for you. I try to be polite on this site, but I'm not really a nice person. I can be nasty IRL. If I need to, I can do it on demand, to get my way. I also don't think like everybody else. I know this for certain because I am not "normal," I make no attempt to be, and I don't think "normality," exists.

Which is why I back Buttigieg who "uncivilly" attacked Pence for not being a real Christian, which is an extremely deep insult in the Christian community. And hasn't lived a "normal" life.

And it's why my second choice is Warren, who uncivilly persisted in the Senate and is engaging in class warfare. And started out life as a special ed teacher, someone who deals with "abnormal" children.

And my third choice is now Harris, who can plan and carry out an "uncivil" nasty attack. Rather like the prosecutor she is, whose job is to be mean to criminals.

And why I think Biden is the wrong person for our times, who confuses niceness with goodness. They are two totally different things.

Like I said, I am not a nice person. I do think I am a good person. But how many of us think we are bad people? I do know I am who I am and there is not some other person who knows better struggling to get out.

You can't defeat Trump by playing nice, following the rules, or refusing to use every weapon you can to your advantage. You need a plan and you need to go for the throat. And I want our candidate to prove they can do it before I vote for them. The last thing I want is another victim. Or someone who thinks they are.

When Clinton called the right wing deplorables, they owned it proudly and her attack fell flat. I suggest you own snowflake proudly. It's not an insult if you don't let it be. But that's your choice.

[Trumpocalypse]

175. Snowflake is a RW term to disbarage

liberal and progressives. I think it is interesting that you used it while also defending personal attacks which will ultimately benefit Trump and the GOP.

[marylandblue]

184. That's how it started, but some people now use it to suggest

that people on either the left or the right are being overly sensitive. That's how I use it.

After calling myself nasty and abnormal, I have no idea why you are hung up my use of "snowflake." I wrote a some pretty long responses and you apparently read none of it. Other people responded in various ways and you didn't seem to read those either.

All you keep doing is committing a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. There's a word for people who do that, but that would be nastier than I'm willing to go.

I think we are done here

[Trumpocalypse]

186. Some people??

The only people I've ever heard use it are right wingers to attack liberals/progressives.

[redstateblues]

85. If it goes like this there will be unpalatable candidates that

have high negatives like our 16 nominee

[marylandblue]

89. They will attempt to drive up our candidates negatives by any means necessary.

It has happened forever and it will be worse than ever this time. Some candidates are more vulnerable than others to negative attacks. We can pick a less vulnerable candidate, but we can't prevent the attacks. It's foolish to even try.

[emmaverybo]

126. Therein lies the madness that will lead to four more years of hell for all the people not

enjoying the blood sport and witch testing.
Bet you the divisive games keep on—since that seems to excite the appetites of many on this thread—until there is no candidate left standing who didn’t use dirty, divisive politics to mow down the others. Now those reveling in this style could not possibly want that outcome, or could you?

[marylandblue]

131. No I don't enjoy the blood sport, but we live at a dangerous time.

I think we know that, but some of us don't seem to realize quite how dangerous it is. We see children in cages and think, those are not "American values." We flatter ourselves. This is the land of genocide slavery and lynching as much as it is democracy and freedom.

If you are like me, you thought things were left behind in the past, but 2016 woke me up. We did not leave them behind, they were in remission, and now they are coming back.

It isn't pleasant to see ourselves for who we really are, but it's necessary if we are to make it through this. I don't actually know that we will make it through. But I do know that we must confront the dark demons of the American soul if we are to have any chance. Demons fight dirty, and our candidate better fight dirty too. You don't defeat Trump, and then McConnell after him, by being civil.

[emmaverybo]

132. Will come down to voters in states. As I have said, it will not be primarily a matter of who is a

master debater, and that is always about perception. Trump is no pro. I have seen a sloppy and senile, literally, debater up against a deft, skilled, intellectually superior opponent and win, win by perception, by optics, because the opponent seemed too confident next to the bumbler.

It is early but at some point it will all come down to the electoral college, not a particular debating or public speaking skill set, though these can help.

[UniteFightBack]

137. Yeah well they should not attack each others character and Senator Harris did just that. nt

[marylandblue]

159. She didn't attack his character she said "your words were hurtful,"

which is actually how you attack someone's statements without making it personal. But Biden took it personally anyway. Which was a mistake.

[UniteFightBack]

171. Well golly gee if she was 'hurt' by those purposely misconstrued words than rump is gonna

gut her. And saying I know you're not racist BUT ...........is most certainly going to someone's character and muddying it up. This is why we lose.

[marylandblue]

177. I don't think she was actually hurt by those words. I think it was a planned attack,

and good for her. Biden should have had a planned response because he should have known it was coming.

And I don't agree that "I know you are not racist but...." is calling somebody racist. And whether it is or it isn't he should have had a response for that too, because it's been a topic for a week, and "how dare you call me a racist," is a really weak response.

I am the same age as Harris. There was a bussing controversy at my school too, and it was a nasty failure. You better believe it was about racism and politicians like Biden knew it. Which I don't fault him for at all, because he could not have survived without acceding the realities of 1973.

What I want to know is what he will do about racism today. We've learned a lot since 1973, and even since 2016. So where do we go from here? I think Biden actually does have some answers for this, and next time he better be able to tell us what they are in 30 seconds, the attention span of an American in the Twitter age.

[gtar100]

51. Exactly. Democrats should never disagree or actually debate each other.

We just couldn't survive such underhanded tactics like people speaking their mind or criticizing ideas they disagree with and pointing out past actions that support the argument. I mean, we should all be as united as republicans who are taught to think along party lines. They have it so much better than us, being the lemmings that they are. If only we democrats could do the same and never, ever speak ill of a fellow party loyalist. How much better life would be.

In other words, what do you expect out of debates? Especially Democratic debates. If a candidate can't stand up to the heat in the primaries, better to find another who can. tRump is going to use everything against the eventual Democratic nominee so may as well get used to saying things like, "Bullshit", or, "What a load of nonsense" every time tRump bleats (if you're not used to it already). It doesn't matter who we nominate, we need to get ready for truck loads of manure out of the right wing blasted daily to millions across the vast wasteland known as right-wing radio and most tv news stations.

Now that I mentioned it, the left / right paradigm just doesn't work anymore. It's really more like top / bottom, or head /ass, considering the orifices being used at each end to put things out in the world. Democrats speak and share ideas with eyes to see, ears to listen and a brain to process the. Republicans just dump shit on this world and walk away.

[Trumpocalypse]

54. Please don't mischaracterize what I posted

Ideas and issues can be debated without the personal attacks.

[marybourg]

87. Really? That doesn't even work here on DU.

Where we know nothing about each other ‘s past and range of views. I was on two juries in the past 24 hours where disagreements about an issue became a completely baseless personal attack.

[Trumpocalypse]

98. So you're saying

that candidates on the debate stage should act as unruly as anonymous people on the internet.

[marybourg]

102. I said what I said.

Not what you said I said.

[Trumpocalypse]

104. I'm asking you to clarify what you said

You’re the one who brought anonymous internet posters into it.

[Kahuna7]

52. Dems and the left wing media are giving the gop all

the ammunition he'll need to win as the, 'devil they know.'

[marylandblue]

61. Nothing happened last night that they didn't already know about.

[ValidateThis]

53. Lol no

[Vegas Roller]

56. K&R n/t

[tulipsandroses]

62. All the crying about Dems attacking Dems

Talk about fragility!! Geez!

I am more concerned about how they frame their messaging!!!

I think that has more to do with DU members not being able to handle criticism of their favorite candidates!

More concerning than the criticism of their favorite candidate - is how they plan to package their messaging to the public - I have seen more crying about attacking Biden than the messaging

I think people will have concerns about how we explain Medicare for All, are they going to lose their healthcare from their jobs. Some people have pretty good healthcare - Not all - but some do. If insurance companies go away, where do those jobs go?

Some people are not liking that undocumented immigrants get healthcare - how do we package those messages.

Lets quit crying about criticisms about candidates and worry about how they plan to get make some of those messages appealing because they are not appealing to all.

[Trumpocalypse]

66. Yes Dems attacking work so well for us in 16

[tulipsandroses]

67. Not having a clear message worked against us

What were we offering? There is a world outside of DU and the inter webs

What did we have to offer the public other than Donald Trump is unfit? Meanwhile he was the master at messaging??

We are sending out confusing messages again.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Don't disagree with having a clear message

But candidates damaging each other will only help Trump regardless of the message.

[tulipsandroses]

69. The first thing Trump was tweeting about last night was their immigration/healthcare policies

He thinks he can win with that. If he starts framing their policy before they can clarify it- then it becomes a much harder fight.

He tweeted. GAME OVER. Regarding their immigration healthcare policies - while we are so focused on the Biden/Harris debate

I don't think it is. But we can't let him message our message. Like they did with the Mueller report.

Anyone who gets the Nomination has a shot - Trump is a weak president. You are not going to win his core base. But the people who are Trump triers are fair game - I don't think they are going to throw their hands up because of Dems going at it. But we have to be clear in our messaging so they are not confused by things like I might be losing my insurance or losing my job if I vote for a democrat.

[Turin_C3PO]

71. We got to win back the twice a Obama voters

who turned around and voted for Trump. I think that was about 8% of the electorate.

I agree, we have to get our messaging tighter.

[Trumpocalypse]

92. Still if the nominee is damaged

It won’t matter what the message is.

[LiberalLovinLug]

81. +10000

Geez Louise

But the primaries are waaaaaaay too long. It should be no more than a 3 or 4 month process at the most.

[R B Garr]

63. Gotta agree for the most part. Morning Joe actually

has a realistic take on it. The format was a horrible introduction to the multitude of candidates, all shouting. Busing...?! We’re really talking about busing?! Socialism? What a shame.

[tulipsandroses]

127. I hope you feel the same way when they start going after Kamala's Record

I'm going to see threads on DU really soon re: her career as Atty Gen and prosecutor

I predict long threads about Truancy on DU.

[Generic Brad]

70. Pwning a fellow Democrat is not presidential

It is self serving behavior and repels me.

[Blue_true]

72. I disagree.

We should have a vigorous debate. But once the nominee is selected by voters, we must form a united front.

[gldstwmn]

76. Should we just let the front runner cruise to victory without first vetting them?

[Thomas Hurt]

80. If they are going to snipe at each other they should at least work together to counter...

Trump's narratives. Trump is an amoral con artist. He doesn't differentiate between truth and lies. He says and does what he needs to make himself look good and anyone who opposes him look bad.

In that regard he is the consummate politician.

If those he is attacking are going stand around, ignore it, those people on the fence or who did not really care might come to his side of start to care.

[techne7319]

84. It's a debate...

That’s how they work. You argue your positions on the issues and attack the positions of your opponents. What did you expect.

[Trumpocalypse]

101. Not the personal attacks

[techne7319]

118. Personal attacks...?

OP has no mention of “personal attacks” so perhaps you should be more clear as to your point. About which personal attacks do you speak? But with 20+ candidates, it’s clear that there are huge gaps and differences within the Democratic Party. A little embarrassing frankly and worrisome as the nomination process unfolds.

[Trumpocalypse]

142. You're denying that there were personal attacks

during the debates?

[techne7319]

157. It's a campaign...

It’s a campaign with a lot of candidates. There are attacks. No one is calling out Swalwell for his attack on Buttigieg’s handling of the South Bend police shooting. Why? Because Buttigieg dealt with question stood up for himself and had a clear and concise answer. Nope, but don’t dare question of have anything negative to say about Biden or you’ve crossed a line. It’s bullshit. He is no more qualified than many of the other candidates. He’s supporters are coming to his defense because he failed to fully and satisfactorily answer. Not uncommon for Joe. His past political positions are questioned because they are highly suspect on some issues, like busing. If he had dealt with Kamala’s attack well, nobody would be saying anything about him being attacked. Instead it would be about how Joe set her straight. But that didn’t happen because Joe has a political history which he struggles to reconcile with. He jumbles words sometimes, making it unclear what he means. He flip-flops on issues. He entered this campaign knowing full well that campaigns can get ugly and there are going to be attacks by other candidates, the press, etc... he knew about this busing issue and Kamala’s story. He wasn’t prepared to answer and failed to provide an answer. That’s on HIM, not her. Any attack in politics is personal because it involves people.
And this little “remember what happened in 2016” jingle that you keep repeating makes no sense and has no relevance today. If candidates can’t be tough they need to get out of the race.

[Trumpocalypse]

163. BS

I’m referring to all the attacks including the one you mentioned. Primary candidates attacking one another makes it look like the Democratic Party is in disarray. That only helps Trump. And there nothing wrong with looking back on the mistakes of 16, to ensure they’re not repeated.

[techne7319]

169. Not true

Her points were factually based. He didn’t sufficiently respond. Biden supporters got their feelings hurt.
That’s how campaigns work. That’s how debates work. Attacks are part of it. Biden wasn’t prepared, she was.
With so many candidates, one has to suspect that the Dem party IS in disarray. Hopefully Dems unite behind the eventual nominee.

[Trumpocalypse]

170. You're focusing on one incident

There were several across both nights. Personal attacks need not be part of it. And the more there are the harder it will be for all Dems to unite behind the eventual nominee.

[techne7319]

180. It's the reality

Attacks on candidates’ positions and records are the reality of the political process and always has been. A fact that you seem unwilling to accept. I don’t see it changing anytime soon. Candidates defend themselves or they fall short. Anyone running for a public office should expect those type of exchanges and be prepared to defend their candidacy.

[Trumpocalypse]

182. It need not be the reality

This is not Survivor or some other reality TV show where the contestants back stab each other in order to win. This is the future of our country at stake. Differences on issues can and should be discussed without indulging in personal attacks. The anything goes attitude about it cheapens the whole process and makes us just as bad as right wingers.

[techne7319]

188. Backstabbing?

All arguments or “attacks” have been about the positions, records, and actions of candidates. Where is there backstabbing? Candidates have a duty and a right to expose weaknesses of their opponents. I appreciate your idealism, but the reality of politics is different. It is much more like Survivor than you may want to admit

[Trumpocalypse]

189. They can do that without

indulging in personal attacks. Discuss issues, not the person. That will only benefit Trump and the GOP.

[techne7319]

190. I propose

I propose that you and I just need to agree to disagree on these points:
1. The nature of political campaigns
2. What constitutes a personal attack vs legitimate questioning of a candidate’s positions, record, or character

Perhaps we actually agree on the fractured state of the Democratic Party and the strong possibility that Trump wins 2020 because of it

[Trumpocalypse]

192. I agree about the fractured nature of the party

I just want to do something about it.

[techne7319]

121. Dear Trumppcalypse

In all your posts on this thread including OP you have yet to give an example or a single fact of what occurred during the debate that you would characterize as a “personal attack.” I watched the debate and didn’t find anyone personally attacking another. The candidates are all earnestly vying for the nomination. Either make an argument with facts and examples or don’t post anything.

[Trumpocalypse]

143. Dear techne7319

I don’t need to adhere to your criteria to post my opinion. And if you didn’t see any personal attacks during the debates, you weren’t paying attention.

[techne7319]

151. Oh, I was

I was paying attention. Just not a little softie, gonna get my feeling hurt, like you or the rest of the Joe Biden cult members. How’s that for personal?
Joe has got to go!

[Trumpocalypse]

152. This was the same attitude

some had in 16. How did that work out?

Dems attacking Dems only helps Trump.

[NoMoreRepugs]

86. Compare the Democratic debates to the Repug

debates of 2016 and tell me again what was wrong with the last 2 nights.

[Trumpocalypse]

106. The GOP appeals to the dumb and the mean.

So that works for them. Doesn’t work for Dems.

[democrank]

88. Are we really this fragile?

Do you remember some of the things said on this very site during the Bush years? Like the criticism of Republicans because they expected everyone to march in lock step?

Do you really think the only way anyone notices a flaw in a Democratic candidate is when another Democrat mentions it? Chances are, one of these candidates will eventually be on the international stage standing face to face with a dictator. I want someone tough in that position, not someone who gets all shook up over a negative comment.

We’re supposed to be a Big Tent Party. That means there is going to be more than one way of doing things, more than one solution to a problem, and more than one favorite candidate. This is the time for us to look around, dig around, ask questions, test answers, see who we want to support. You pick your candidate and I’ll pick mine. There is no rule here or anywhere saying we all have to pick Candidate A, then pledge to never say anything negative....no matter what.

[Trumpocalypse]

110. Yes we are

The next election is too important to take foolish chances.

[Autumn]

90. Nonsense. This primary is mild compared to some.

[fishwax]

99. Last night might have hurt Biden in the primary, but it won't have hurt him in the general

If people keep attacking the nominee after the primaries are over, that will hurt our chances. If people keep attaching the runner up or other strong contenders after the primaries are over, that will hurt our chances. But last night won't matter much come the general election, as long as we can find a nominee to rally around, and do so.

[Chemisse]

107. Biden needs to do a whole lot better than he did last night if he is going to survive debates

and win in the general.

It's far better to know now than later if he can't handle it.

[dawg day]

111. He will NOT be re-elected! That said, I fear these huge debates are counter-productive

But I guess if I were Michael Bennett or John Delaney, I'd want the exposure. It's just that it gets contentious.

I don't know how to design it better, though. What I think might be more illuminating might be more "introductory" -- letting each candidate give an introductory 2-minute speech about something important in their platform, or why they're running, and then asking questions of each, but no one is allowed to answer but that one candidate. Everyone gets time, everyone gets questioned-- but they don't interact. I know it sounds processed and boring. But "debates" with 10 people brings, as they used to say, "more heat than light."

I just want everyone to get along and destroy the Orange Slug.

[TheFarseer]

114. For the thousandth time

Trump went through a vicious primary and then after he won the nomination, many mainstream people in his own party called on him to step aside and he still won. I maintain that a rough primary does not affect the general, the exception being if someone goes third party and can I point out that Reagan even won in that scenario in 1980. Do not set up a narrative that will alow them to plausibly steal the election.

[Trumpocalypse]

115. He won a Republican primary

where they appeal to the dumb and the mean. That doesn’t work for Democrats and never has.

[TheFarseer]

120. Republicans also appeal to

Greedy buttholes that want tax cuts no matter what else is happening. But back to my point, if you want Democratic examples, Obama won an extremely contentious primary and won the general. Al Gore was almost unopposed in the primary and lost. Bill Clinton had a hard time in the primary but won the presidency, so I really don't see a big correlation.

[Trumpocalypse]

141. The 08 primary never got nasty on a personal level

and the Republicans had a tough primary as well. Bill Clinton had a tough primary in 92 but it didn’t get nasty on a personal level. However, in 2000 Bill Bradley did get very nasty with Gore and damaged him despite being eliminated after the early primaries.

[Kentonio]

153. Never got nasty on a personal level? Are you joking?

[Trumpocalypse]

154. No nt

[Kentonio]

172. Did you miss Mark Penn's campaign memo from that time about how they should treat Obama?

“His roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values ... Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century ... Let's explicitly own 'American' in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't.“

[Trumpocalypse]

174. A internal campaign memo

is not the same as public attacks on the debate stage.

[Kentonio]

179. How about Hillary's 60 Minutes interview?

The one where she was directly asked about the rumors of Obama being a Muslim (that it was strongly rumored her own campaign had been spreading) where she refused to hit out at the rumors and just said he wasn’t ‘as far as I know’ when pressed on the subject.

Or one of her surrogates implying that Kenya was ‘his country’?

Or refusing to criticize the distribution of a photo of Obama in tribal costume (that again her own campaign were heavily rumored to have been spreading around)?

Seriously, if you don’t think 2008 was vicious on a personal level, then either you weren’t following politics in 2008, or else you were a die hard Hillary supporter who managed to somehow blank out what was going on.

Let’s just finish with this little gem from Hillary which she came out with after it was clear that Obama was winning the nomination..

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me … I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

[Trumpocalypse]

181. "As far as I know" LOL

As you said, pressed on the subject. When first asked the question she said no. It was only after the interviewer re-asked the question several times, that she said 'as far as I know' which is what most would say if asked the same question several times.

And it still doesn't compare to personal attacks on a debate stage.

Plus you forget that the GOP was having a contentious primary as well in 08.

Now we are facing a unified GOP and have to be as unified. Primary candidates personally attacking each other will damage our eventual nominee to the benefit of Trump.

[Kentonio]

183. She didn't say no.

That’s why she was pressed on it. At first she said something like ‘I take him at his word’ which is wonderfully non-committal.

[Trumpocalypse]

187. How is that non-commital?

And the main point it is not the same as personal attacks on the debate stage. Especially since it wasn't in anyway a personal attack.

[Kentonio]

191. If you think Kamala questioning Biden about his past actions is a 'personal attack'

..but Hillary and her campaign questioning Obama’s American-ness, religious beliefs and nationality aren’t a personal attack, then your sense of perspective is a truly remarkable thing.

[Trumpocalypse]

194. Your accusation is not true

Which is confirmed by every fact checking site.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

And it’s not just one exchange that I’m referring too. There were several across both nights.

[Kentonio]

203. You should actually read links before posting them

Your very first link, the Snopes one, talks about how Clinton’s campaign did indeed spread those rumors, the False rating is that they didn’t start the birther movement like Trump claimed. Others had started that crap previously.

So sorry, but you’ve actually just reinforced my argument for me here.

[Trumpocalypse]

204. And when did Clinton make those accusations from the debate stage

And even if she did it would have been wrong and in no way should we approve of such personal attacks now. In the end they only help Trump.

[democratisphere]

119. Those that choose to attack should be the first to go.

Removing drumpf from the oval office is the only priority.

[emmaverybo]

128. They should not be rewarded, but some of us want to crown the most cutthroat and least

decent, least concerned about party unity, the crown.

[democratisphere]

129. I believe that type will be identified and weeded out.

[stopbush]

130. Leave it to DU to have a few *the sky is falling* posts

on the same day that the media for once is giving the Ds props for a good debate.

[emmaverybo]

140. You snark and dry sarcasm good!

[Trumpocalypse]

146. The media thrives on conflict

They would have loved it if a fist fight had broken out.

[betsuni]

147. But at least the criticisms were reality-based.

What's really damaging are personal attacks, candidates accused of being morally corrupt, corrupt because they take donations to fund their campaigns or gave a speech, their entire histories as public servants wiped out and replaced with conspiracy theories that Russian troll farms promote. Manipulating people because of their ignorance, fear and anger. That's the worst.

[Trumpocalypse]

150. No they weren't

At least not all. This post says it better than I can: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=178066

[pnwmom]

148. Then, if you think Biden's the only one, he better up his game.

People argue during debates. That's the whole point.

[Trumpocalypse]

149. Not just Biden

I was really talking about both debates. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Firestorm49]

176. It's just the process of culling. We have a long way to go before the big game starts.

[karynnj]

178. It is questionable whether primary debates hurt the candidates

If there are issues that could negatively resonate in a general election, in most cases they will be found by the media or the opposition party in the general election. In general, primaries are often intense arguments on minutia. (Consider the heated arguments on health care between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. All had a policy very close to Kerrys 2004 policy - the differences were relatively minor compared to the big picture AND no matter who won, they would end up with what could pass the Senate and House.) This makes the choice less about issues and more about personalities.

Not to mention, each team identifies THEIR advantages. A governor or mayor, will speak of executive experience when opposing legislators. Those with Congressional or Senate experience, note the lack of foreign policy of state officials. However, one thing that has been big this time is that older candidates point to their long record of accomplishments. Younger candidates identify positions older candidates took decades ago - often when the country was in a very different position than now and downplay, or even make a negative, changes in positions as they, along with the country progressed.

There have long been two opposite views of the impact of tough primary debates. In 2008, as Clinton was losing the primary, many on her team spoke of how those tough primaries had toughened Obama for the general election. (Remember that she even had comments from her and Bill and an ad suggesting that where she and McCain were ready day one for the "3 o'clock call", but Obama wasn't. Note that Sanders never remotely suggested that Trump was anything but awful.) The other view is that tough primaries lead to attacks repeated in the general election. One often referenced is Gore being the first to bring up Willie Horton against Dukakis. However, this bit of opposition research was out there and would have been used - and weaponized as it was - even if Gore had opted never to mention that program.

I have a hard time believing that the criticisms of Bernie Sanders led to Clinton's loss. Please tell me what attack Bernie made that was both not true and something that Republicans would not have attacked with anyway. He stayed away from the email mess, which was handled poorly by Clinton and was instrumental to her declining favorability. As many have noted, Trump had an over 25 year history of RW attacks on Clinton as the platform from which to attack Clinton. If she had insured that the SD had all the work email when she left, there would have probably been no email investigation, thus no Comey report or letters. If she did not give the completely legal Goodman Sachs speeches or at least allowed the transcripts to be public, that would not have been there. The importance is both of these - fairly or not - were seen to confirm some of the negative stereotypes.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere in between. Having watched all the 2008 debates, I think the Obama of the last few debates was head and shoulders better than the Obama in the first few debates. Not to mention, four years later, his first debate with Romney was rather weak - causing him to refocus and improve immensely in the later two.

As to the other side, an unexpected attack that is poorly dealt with could hurt - but that could happen in the general election with even greater impact because more people - less aligned - watching. I hesitated writing "unexpected" because the Sanders' attacks or the Harris attack SHOULD have been unexpected.

Not to mention, many of what people saw as attacks from Sanders was just his stating his position on trade/big business/big banks - which was always the opposite of the Clintons. His decades long believes were in opposition to the more business friendly Democrats who heralded the DLC values as how they could "save" the Democratic party. Bill Clinton really did lead many deregulation efforts and he and Gore did more than just sign the Bush negotiated NAFTA. Just as in 2016, the Democratic party had both elements in 1992. (What is interesting in terms of framing is that in 1992, the pro business side was bright and shiny and the way of the future where the union led "old" Democratic party was losing. Now, the union side is branded as progressive - making it the way forward.) A primary is where the party makes their choice on the nominee, but also on where they are on issues.

However, in 2016, HRC changed her position and opposed TPP. I would argue that her shift did more to validate the view that trade deals etc were harmful than Bernie saying that - as he had for decades. It also meant that both sides had the same position -- and many did not really believe Clinton in her change. So, if this was someone's main issue, with their position reaffirmed by both parties, they may have seen Trump more likely to kill trade deals. She might have been better with the standard Democratic position over many elections - that trade deals were the only way to mitigate the impact that globalization has and that existing and just negotiated deals need to be kept, but improved. It would have been consistent with her position in the 1990s, her 2008 position, her SoS position and even the position she had in 2013/2014 in the Goldman Sachs speeches.

[Trumpocalypse]

185. But why take the risk when so much is at stake

The goal is to defeat Trump. Why help him?

[karynnj]

201. My point is that it is not clear at all that anything that happened hurt the nominee

It is hypocritical to argue that the very negative attacks in 2008 just made Obama tougher and to argue that what Harris did made Biden weaker or what Bernie spoke of made Clinton weaker in the general election.

Not to have debates over policies or over words or actions of the other candidates will not help in the general election. There are some arguments that do not translate into the general election. An example would have been ANY of the highly contested health care plan alternatives in 2008. In the general election the choice was stark - the Democrats would expand health care insurance, the Republicans wouldn't.

It was NOT Bernie raising the issues of big banks and big business and trade deals that made them an issue in the general election. Trump already in the Republican party (which was very unusual) pushed the issue and somehow ran as the champion of the people left behind. He also ran against internationalism and wars.

The really sad thing - other than the result - of 2016 is that many many people knew exactly the lack of character and the ugliness of the heart of Trump and they voted for him. He convinced them that he would help THEM. For many it was a glorification of anti-intellectualism - Trump told them that they really were better and smarter than the coastal elites. He appealed not to their better angels, but to the very worst of their thoughts - white nationalism etc - validating them and telling them that this was ok.

One key of 2016 was that the turnout was low. There were people on each sides who sat it out. For our side, the Trump years alone will create a better turnout. As to the Republican side, I hope - and polls have suggested it possible - that many Trump voters who thought Trump was the one who could create change and bring back prosperity to areas left behind now see that he not only didn't but that he is not fit to be President.

As to the attacks in the debate, give me a year where there were NOT attacks on the frontrunner for an open nomination! How they handled the attacks is important. I remember that one thing that hurt Howard Dean was in a pre Iowa debate, he responded to his opponents attacking his positions by saying he did not want to be a pin cushion. Think of the fact that Obama responded to Clinton and Edwards attacks usually with grace and wit.

I do not know if any of the attacks made Biden less likely to be the nominee, but if they did, isn't it better to know that he cannot overcome what really were some rather predictable attacks? What does surprise me is that given that the Eastland comment was questioned for the last week and a half that he did not have a prepared way to respond to it. (I have seen some better responses by him yesterday) I suspect that various competitors will bring up issues - where his past is in contrast to their issues - ie Elizabeth Warren was on record - even in 2000/2001 against the terrible bankruptcy bill (that had a few versions - including one in 2005), Gillibrand (or many other people) could raise Anita Hill.

[TreasonousBastard]

197. Oh bullshit! I have to get to work, but I read this entire thread in a major effort...

at procrastination. Good to know I'm still good at it.

I have no proof, but I have a gnawing feeling that a little heat in the debates actually perks up voter interest. Truth is, most of the population really doesn't give a rat's ass about this stuff a year and a half before the election.

Attacks? There were no attacks. There were spirited, but slightly impolite, discussions. Nothing like some of things that have happened in past elections-- or things we will see next year from the Masters of Swiftboating.

Kamala's good. Damn good. If she's half the president that she is a debater, we'll be in good shape.

[Trumpocalypse]

200. There plenty of attacks on both night

and if they continue, it will only help Trump.

[IronLionZion]

198. Are you new?

That's pretty much how it is. Trump attacked everyone to get where he is. People like it.

[Trumpocalypse]

199. No republicans like it

Democrats are different.

[Mike Nelson]

202. I don't think this is going to stop...

… candidates were challenged and had opportunities to defend or clarify... It wasn't that bad - and it gets them prepped for what's to come.. Crooked Donald and Rubio debating their penis size was much worse...

[Prosper]

205. Shouldn't even be called debates.

Debate presupposes contention over opposing viewpoints. Solution discussion or something similar would be more positive. The free press will handle disqualification. Serves no good having members attack each other. The worst Democratic is better than the best Republican .