Reply #377: Since I resemble that remark, I'll respond.

[Qutzupalotl]

We have to draw a distinction between candidates doing these things and some sort of stealth opposition. We need a stealth opposition.

What I have opposed is candidates using underhanded tactics to win, such as lying or cheating. That does mean they don't deserve to win, and that's exactly how the voters will see them. (I understand that deserving and winning are two different things.) Having two crooked candidates or too much mudslinging just turns people off of politics altogether, which can depress voter turnout — and low turnout typically helps Republicans. But an organized disinfo operation, completely separate from candidate and party, isn't running and therefore it doesn't matter if they deserve to win or not.

What I have advocated for candidates is what I see as the strategy of a winner: telling the truth about the opposition, clearly and succinctly. Use their plans and record against them. In this cycle, that would be to ask, "Why did you vote to end Medicare?" That puts them on the defensive and draws people to you.

Candidates would do well to tell the truth at all times. Everyone else is free to say what they want for their own reasons.