Do you want candidates to be critical of their primary opponents?

[True Dough]

When candidates are asked questions about their primary opponents by the media or by members of the public, do you want them to answer honestly with criticism, when warranted, or do you prefer their pull their punches?

It's a very crowded field. Candidates are vying to set themselves apart and many of them are doing so via policy, personality and promises, but should they bring down their opponents a notch or two when given the opportunity?

[msongs]

1. fine to discuss policy differences nt

[MH1]

18. Policy differences, yes, but always add that the other Dem candidate is still far better than Rump

except of course, in the unusual circumstance that there is no daylight between Rump's stated position and the other Dem candidate's position. (keeping in mind that Rump talks out of both sides of his mouth and doesn't do what he says he's going to do, in most cases)

If the issue is one of Rump's stopped clock moments (e.g., H-1B), discuss the policy differences perhaps, but change the subject to where there is a contrast between all Dems' positions and Rump's. The problem with H-1B (for example) is that most Dems think they need campaign support from Big Tech, so tiptoe around the issue at best, or turn a completely blind eye to it. I doubt that they are all as stupid as they pretend on this issue. Although no doubt some of them are.

[yaesu]

2. no personal attacks but they should state in plain language their policy differences with other

candidates. The MSM will be doing their best at concern trolling, baiting our candidates & I hope non fall for it.

[LakeArenal]

3. No allegations. Stay focused on beating Trump

[The Mouth]

4. Yes, as to POLICIES

there are issues that I do *NOT* agree with that some of our candidates have, I want to see those issues aired out and the candidates POSITION on these issues attacked. There are a couple of candidates I would LOVE to support, but for their positions on particular issues, I want to see them forced to defend or retract their positions, but I don't respect and think we should rebuke attacks on the reputation, character, or personality of any of the Democrats seeking the nomination.

NOT the candidates, themselves; that merely provides fodder for the Republicans.

We need to get the best candidate. We need to select the toughest fighter. They should enter the ring in shape, ready to punch, having sparred a lot with tough competitors, they shouldn't enter the ring with knifewounds in the back!

[doompatrol39]

5. Of course I do.

Otherwise what is the point?

I don't want them to engage in baseless smears, but I think pointing out factual information about the other candidates and things that they have done and said is important.

[Thomas Hurt]

6. I expect them to differentiate themselves and be united in getting rid of sitting fascist.

sniping at each other just gives the GOP fodder for new narratives.

If you can't say something nice about the fellow candidates STFU

[ancianita]

7. They can disagree without being disagreeable about policies and spending priorities.

So, yes. I won't mind them airing their differences publicly. It will show the public how good argument is more like an explanation than a win-lose clash.

[northoftheborder]

8. Yes - as long as their differences with other candidates are absolutely FACTUAL....

no exaggerations, or falsehoods. Each should emphasize their own strengths and policies. Save the digs for Republicans and Trump.

[karynnj]

9. Neither - the choices are not black or white

On almost all issues, there is a relatively narrow range of positions that all Democratic candidates will take. The differences may be emphasis of the issue and whether they have a long term commitment to it.

I think the best response is not to attack the others, but to explain how your position differs and why you think it would be more successful or easier to implement.The more excitement you can show for your solutions, the better. It may be just me, but seeing a candidate actually engage on an issue passionately, making me see that we can work for solutions, is what makes me serious want that person as a leader. ( An example - John Kerry speaking on the environment and climate change in 2004 ... on CSPAN .. which may have been the only media covering that speech - or the excepts included in most stump speeches all year!)

A second thing, if true, is to speak of your long term commitment on the issue or a sincere explanation of why it is important to the country, the world and to the candidate.

Note that the winner is almost always the one who stays positive and enthusiastic. We have the majority of issues on our side. If we can get a nominee who is seen as honest, ethical, concerned about what people are concerned with and who can make people trust that he/she is and will do what he says.

That is NOT compatible with attacking others. Candidates thinking that could rise their chances might want to look at how Gephardt and Dean utterly destroyed each other in Iowa 2004.

[elleng]

10. No, discuss ISSUES instead.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. I would much prefer that they say something like,

"That's a good idea as far as it goes, but my idea will work better because..." And then get really specific about why their idea is better without slagging the other candidate.

[leftofcool]

12. Yes, thank you

[corbettkroehler]

13. Agreed - Well Said! (n/t)

[ehrnst]

14. And not things like "Where the other candidate gets it wrong is...." as though by definition

the politician speaking has a corner on "the right answer to everything," often preceded by "where the other candidate gets it right is (insert words that demonstrate the opponent has agreed with the speaker).

That's very arrogant sounding and off-putting.

[Indygram]

15. No, because it gets them off message

That's why I love Beto. Reporters try to get him to be critical of other candidates all the time and he doesn't do it.

[corbettkroehler]

16. Decorously Drawing Contrasts

Given the high number of former or incumbent members of Congress, which has strict rules regarding decorum, they should be well equipped to differ with their friends politely while providing minimal ammunition to the right-wing hate machine.

Thus far, when asked about similarities with proposals from opponents such as Senator Warren, Bernie has used a soft touch. I realize that many on this board are upset with what some of his surrogates have done. In terms of Sanders himself, though, he could be our guide to elucidating distinctions between the candidates.

[True Dough]

17. I have no quarrels with Bernie words per se

but those surrogates you mention, they were chosen by Bernie himself. Why do you think he allows them to be so aggressive? He seems to let them do the "dirty work." You think he has no involvement at all in the messages they disseminate publicly? Do you think he ever castigates them or tries to reel them in? They have a number of incidents on their records, so there's no mistaking their preferred tactics. Seems awfully hard to give Bernie a pass on that.