At this point in the primary race, I'm supporting Joe Biden.

[MineralMan]

If he wins the nomination at the Democratic Nominating Convention, through the primary and caucus system, I'll be supporting him next November, too.

Other people have other candidates they are supporting at this point in the campaign. Given the nature of politics, it's entirely possible that one of those candidates might become the nominee, instead of the one I currently support.

Here's the thing: I will be supporting whoever becomes the Democratic nominee for President next November, and with the same level of support I would give my current favorite candidate. I'm a Democrat, so I support democrats in elections. Always.

That's why you will not see me looking for or posting dirt on any of the viable candidates here or anywhere else. I might point out their positions if those positions differ from those of the candidate I currently support. I might say why I think my favorite candidate has a better chance of winning next November, but I'm not going to post about any sort of scandal or ancient history for any candidate.

Nor will I be applying demeaning or insulting nicknames to candidates. I won't be posting any materials from other sources that do that, either, nor materials that exaggerate conflicts between candidates or treat common positions taken by Democrats in the past as scandalous now.

Why? Because how could I eagerly support and vote for a candidate who became the Democratic nominee for President if I had regularly demeaned, insulted, belittled or otherwise attacked that candidate earlier?

Now, I will say that there are certain candidates in this particular primary campaign who will, due to their oddness or stances, not come anywhere near winning the nomination. Mostly, I won't mention those candidates at all, but if I do, I might dismiss their chances due to that oddness or stance on something. They will not become the nominee, so I won't face the dilemma described above.

Now, everyone will do as they please during this campaign, of course.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. And I would add to this very sensible approach one more point:

I was listening to one of the usual MSNBC guest talking heads the other night - it might have been Clint Watts - who pointed out that the Russian trolls will be doubling down this time, and that their goal is to sow as much division and animosity as possible in order to make us hate all of our candidates so much that we don't vote at all. This is what they tried to do in 2016, and they were largely successful. Yes, I know Hillary got a lot more popular votes, but not in the states that could win the electoral college. They were able to create or amplify so many lies about her through social media that in the swing states people who normally voted Democratic either didn't vote or voted for Trump instead. I'm not about to relitigate 2016 - there were other factors at play as well - but it's been pretty well established that Russian trolling designed to harm Clinton had an impact.

They will be doing it again, and it will probably be even worse because it seemed to have worked last time - and Trump's government obviously has no incentive to try to stop them. So, when you see one of our candidates being harshly criticized, especially for something that happened years ago or that is negative but isn't especially relevant to current matters, don't just swallow it whole, and don't propagate it on social media without looking closely at the source and the motive for the information. Yes, vet the candidate, but also vet the source of the information and their motives for providing it. Not all that glitters is gold; sometimes it's just shiny bullshit.

[MineralMan]

2. I agree. Fomenting dislike or even hatred of one or more Democratic

presidential candidates during the primary race is a long-term strategy that was developed in 2015-2016. Back then, it was sometimes crudely done. In 2019 and 2020, there will be less crudeness and more finesse in that tactic.

While some if it might be aimed at forums like DU, we're not really the target, simply because we are such a small group of voters. Instead, the efforts will be made in key states, directly targeting voters.

You're right. Looking closely at sources of negative information on our Democratic candidates is important. If a source is unfamiliar, it might just be a trolling source of misinformation. If it is somehow connected to Russia, it's very likely to be publishing misinformation. Here, someone will point those things out when they occur. Elsewhere, not so much, I'm afraid.

Watch, too, for efforts to shut down discussion that points all of that out. That was used to good effect previously, and adversely affected some people's ability to post in various places.

I know of no way to stop such trolling and feeding of flames, other than to point it out when it occurs.

[still_one]

3. and some yesterday criticized him for that, attributing some type of sinister ulterior motive,

ignoring the fact that this is what he has been saying since he first entered the race

[Gothmog]

4. Joe has the best chance of beating trump

Link to tweet

[oasis]

5. I have complete confidence in Joe's ability to put together an

effective administration in short order.

[Gothmog]

6. Biden is out polling the other Democrats

Link to tweet