I don't care about negative attacks on candidates, I only care how they respond

[marylandblue]

Everyone of our candidates is going to be attacked for something sooner or later. If there is nothing to attack, they'll make something up, and the media will run with it. It's a given. I don't care. At all.

That sounds pretty callous and immoral, but it's the only way in our post-fact Trump world. Facts don't matter when Trump's lies are treated as truth. If the facts don't matter anymore (and obviously they don't), then I at least want someone who shares my values. Which means ignoring their real or imagined faults so we don't have another great candidate taken down by a trivial non-scandal scandal.

But their response to whatever "scandal" gets cooked up does matter. Because that's how Trump did it. He manipulated the media and shamelessly turned it around to make Clinton look like the crook. And he'll do that again. Countering that attack is worth everything.

AOC is the Democrat who responds best to attacks. She always has a snappy comeback to whatever they say about her. Unfortunately, she is too young. But I hope the older generation is learning from her. I'll be watching them when the attacks come, and whoever gives a good answer or turns it all back on their accuser is the candidate to beat Trump.

Please think about this when choosing a candidate. Whatever their other merits, they must be able to parry the inevitable attack. Shrug off whatever stupid nickname Trump comes up with. Defang the Russian troll farms. That's how we will win.

Edited to add: Think about this way. Take whatever negative information you have already heard about a candidate, put it into a Trump tweet then imagine the news covering it for days and saying it's really damaging information. How will that candidate respond and how effective will that response be.

[samnsara]

1. i wont support anyone who goes negative or nasty

[marylandblue]

2. The nasty will come from all over, not necessarily from other Democrats

People will plant stories and the media will amplify it. The candidate will need to respond. Can they squelch it and move on? That's key.

[WeekiWater]

3. You should read about some of our earliest campaigns.

Talk about nasty and dishonest. Lies were disseminated all over by local papers. It was dependent on who owned the paper or who a majority of the town liked(selling papers). Back in the day it was even worse as debunking the lies was almost impossible.

There really is little difference in how nasty campaigns are. This is all pretty weak compared to Adams v Jackson. That was some nasty stuff.

[Blue_true]

4. Remember Bill Clinton's "war room"?

The function of people in that group was to not let a lie told about the campaign go unchallenged. President Obama had a similar group in 2008.

[Awsi Dooger]

5. Defense is everything in 2020

I'm worried that the situational influence is being misunderstood and essentially butchered. If we nominate a barker that person will be shut down and nullified. It has to be someone calm and clever on counterattack. Hillary may have had likability baggage but she was incredibly stout. If our nominee flunks the early tests on defense then the opposition will savor the glass jaw weakness and flurry from all angles.

Of all the cycles I have been old enough to follow, this one has greatest potential to get the nominee brutally wrong by failing to understand how formidable an incumbent can be, and the qualities it takes to defeat that incumbent.