What if our large field of Democratic candidates

[MineralMan]

steals away supporters from other candidates, based on particular issues? Could that hurt otherwise popular leaders in the primary race?

If a major candidate is counting on solid, almost unanimous, support from a few particular groups to build a base, for example, what happens if a different candidate does well with the same group or groups, like gender groups, ethnic groups, age groups, specialized issue groups, etc?

I think that could reduce the clout of such a candidate considerably.

We may get to test that question as the individual campaigns flesh themselves out.

[California_Republic]

1. We will come together when we settle on the best

[MineralMan]

2. Oh, we don't always do that, I'm afraid.

That's one of our party's weaknesses. Factionalization has caused enormous problems for Democratic candidates in the past.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. I really think the debates will be great for Dems

... everyone will be pressed to give substantive answers on a myriad of issues. The debates may turn into policy conventions, getting us to coalesce around certain solutions. F the republicans. We know how to do policy. Let’s get started.

[MineralMan]

4. I'm always in favor of robust debates.

It's too bad they have to be split up into multiple sessions, though. We may have more primary candidates than is good for clear, open debate.

One thing I hope is that whoever puts the primary debates together does not group debates by poll popularity. I don't want to see the leaders debating each other, followed by debates between those who don't have as strong a showing in the polls at the time.

For example, if they put the leaders together in a debate, many would not tune in to hear the debates of those lower on the list of popularity. That would be unfair, I think. Maybe a random grouping would be best.

[MaryMagdaline]

5. I agree. Better for a random mix