Just a serving suggestion ...

[NanceGreggs]

Given who (and what) we’re up against in 2020, I’d like to see a completely united front among all Democratic candidates. That means debating each other on policy on a go-forward basis, not dredging up what anyone has done in the past for the sole purpose of taking pot-shots.

It’s simple. If any candidate says or does something that people find unhelpful, hurtful, or downright offensive, that candidate will pay the price with a downtick in support. No other candidate has to point it out. No one has to make a mountain out of every molehill – especially molehills that are literally decades old.

I was very disappointed by Kamala Harris’ comments to Biden at the debate – certainly not enough to be completely turned off her. She’s a fantastic candidate – but for me, her star lost a bit of its shine. As for Cory Booker, who I once admired a great deal, he’s lost me completely.

That’s just my take – your mileage may vary. The point is that no candidate has led a perfect life, and they are all vulnerable to having one unpleasant action, statement, or position taken in the past that can be dug up and waved around like a red flag.

Debate, argue, fight tooth-and-nail with your competitors on the issues that we are facing as a nation now. Voters need to know where we’re headed, not where we’ve been.

As they say, snuffing out someone else’s candle doesn’t make yours shine any brighter. If your campaign strategy is “vote for me, because I’ve shown you how bad my opponent is”, you’re going to lose to the one who says “vote for me, because I’ll show you how much good I can do for the country.”

We have an incredible group of candidates to choose from. They are intelligent, articulate, passionate, and well-informed. I’d like the voters to choose the best of the best as our nominee – not the last man/woman standing after the smoke of battle between them clears.

[still_one]

1. I agree, but I don't see it happening

[CentralMass]

2. How about telling candidates to stop drudging things up themselves and stop blaming those who react

[NanceGreggs]

6. I'm talking about the candidates. n/t

[CentralMass]

9. Did you expect that the other candidate's were going to applaud that statement ?

Is that reasonable?

[UniteFightBack]

14. Well they sure as fuck don't need to purposely misinterpret and then exploit it. nt

[True Dough]

3. You're okay with the NRA, Nance?

They're not the enemy? It's worth trying to court a percentage of their membership (and their votes in the 2020 election) even though it will outrage or even alienate some Dem voters who hold the NRA in absolute contempt?

This isn't an issue from 40 years ago. This is an issue sparked by Joe Biden's statement during last week's debate and a similar post on his official Twitter account.

It's rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

For a candidate to express that they support the Second Amendment or to assure that they won't seize Americans' guns is one thing. To make friendly with the NRA is bad politics.

[NanceGreggs]

8. And the people who ...

... it "rubs the wrong way" won't be supporting him. See how that works?

[True Dough]

11. Fair enough

And I'm sure it will show in future polls. Many undecideds will park their support with someone else.

[Hoyt]

10. As far as NRA, manufacturers, gun profiteers, NRA, and gunners, are same. So, no foul by Biden, IMO.

Can't say that about his working with segregationists to thwart needed attempts at desegregation and/or ensuring equality of schools. No one wanted busing, except that it was the only alternative if local white controlled governments weren't going to take other steps to desegregate schools and ensure equality of education. Unfortunately, all but a few local governments dragged their feet and probably would have done nothing ever, without busing. Point is, opposition to busing was pretty much the same as opposition to quality schools for minorities. YMMV, as they say.

[UniteFightBack]

15. Except Joe Biden said that he was for equal schooling but busing was not the way to achieve that.

They have him on tape from the 70's saying this.

[Hoyt]

17. All segregationists and "states' rights" folks called for "Separate -- but equal -- schools." BUT

But, they never did a dang thing to ensure that. Easy words to say.

Did Biden sponsor a Bill that demanded equal schools and measurable efforts to desegregate schools immediately (with no chance of dragging feet to get it done)? I honestly don't know, so maybe someone has a link to such legislation.

[UniteFightBack]

32. You know what...segregation and it's continuance is all Biden's fault !!!

[Hoyt]

34. Never said anything like that. I fact, no one person is responsible.

[emmaverybo]

35. Are black voters not well-informed? Why is it that Joe Biden has the highest black support according

to polls, mostly among people who LIVED through that era in the civil rights movement, and before, who well know the segregationists he has worked with, and his own civil rights record.

You think black leaders, like the mayor of Atlanta, have not researched him?

Obama? He would have suffered a guy just pretending to have supported civil rights for decades?

[Hoyt]

37. We'll see how support sticks after these revelations. If it does, and he remains

best bet to beat trump, I’ll likely vote for him in my state’s March primary. Not convinced, at this point, it’ll shake out like that.

[emmaverybo]

38. These "revelations" are not revelations to older black voters or those who have endorsed him.

He may, however, given the pile on and the fall-out lose future endorsements and Harris may gain
from her debate performance.

[customerserviceguy]

43. Back when people

viewed the other side as their opposition, we could get things done on a bipartisan basis. Since more and more people are viewing the other side as the enemy, who is not even worthy of a discussion, we get into the kind of scorched-earth tactics that brought us Donald Trump.

I know that Joe Biden remembers those days and longs for them, after seeing Pete Buttigieg's calm demeanor, I suspect that he will try to get there himself should he occupy the White House in 2021. That's why those two candidates are my top picks.

If we do not get back to a form of compromise that our nation was literally built on, then we will zig-zag from one extreme to another every time the presidency flips to the other party, until this country tears itself in two again.

[True Dough]

47. There are many people "in the middle" that we can court

Gun owners? Fine. There are varying stats on gun ownership in America but Pew Research, which is generally reliable, puts it at 3 in 10 or approximately 32 million people.

The 5 million NRA members? What price would we pay to try to lure them into the Democratic tent? Not worth the effort.

Of the remaining 27 million gun owners, some may already be Dems. It may be worthwhile to appeal to some of the rest, who are reasonable people. The vast majority of NRA types are not.

Let's just face the fact that some folks are not ever going to be part of our base. We don't need to extend an invitation to any white supremacists carrying tiki torches. They're not Dems.

Westboro Baptitst Church members aren't going to vote for our candidate.

The National Right to Life and Pro-Life Action League aren't coming over to our side.

We can win without those people anyway. And we can win without the NRA.

[customerserviceguy]

48. They don't have to be part of our base

All they have to do is see themselves in the courtable middle, as you put it so well.

As to what we'd have to give up, it might not be as much as you think. For the last few decades, NRA leadership has hammered on both its members and its sympathizers that there is a slippery slope, first they get your AR-15, then they'll come for your target practice rifle, your hunting shotgun, or a handgun that you keep in your home as a last line of defense when the county sheriff is at least a half-hour away.

The NRA leadership has told them that they MUST have a right-wing president, and they MUST have a GOP Senate to confirm the kinds of future Justices that will interpret the Second Amendment "correctly". The language of it is both archaic and non-specific. It relates to a time when many Americans hunted some of the food they ate, and there were no squad cars to quickly get police resources to a bad situation. We didn't have radar or satellites to warn us of impending attack from beyond our borders, hence, a "militia" was necessary to defend the country from an attack that wouldn't be known about by the Federal government for several days, if not a few weeks.

What if we reworked the Second Amendment to not only prohibit the worst of the weapons, and establish that the government has a limited set of actions it could take to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those not mentally well-adjusted, but made clear that there is an individual right for law-abiding sane people to possess firearms?

There are those on the progressive side who would make their displeasure with such a compromise known with a great ferocity, and if they have their way, there would be no compromise, we will be at the whims of the makeup of the SCOTUS at various times.

When Joe Biden worked things out with segregationists, he did not become one himself. He was just hewing to the maxim that politics is the art of the possible.

[Kath2]

4. Well said.

We all win if they don't ruin each other.

[mobeau69]

5. The problem with this approach is that the rethuglicans won't abide by it in the GE.

We need to fully vet all of our candidates now in preparation for the GE. That's what primaries are for.

[NanceGreggs]

12. Of course they won't.

But we're not in the GE yet, and won't be for a while. And there's a difference between 'vetting' and trying to garner support for yourself by bloodying your competitors.

[emmaverybo]

39. Bravo! NT

[Cha]

42. A Vast Difference!

Mahalo for your OP, Nance.. I really Appreciate It!

It's only our Country, Planet, and in many cases Lives we Fighting For!

[saidsimplesimon]

7. Thank you for all the great suggestions in every diary.

As they say, snuffing out someone else’s candle doesn’t make yours shine any brighter. If your campaign strategy is “vote for me, because I’ve shown you how bad my opponent is”, you’re going to lose to the one who says “vote for me, because I’ll show you how much good I can do for the country.”

Another suggestion, cut the number of primary candidates, asap.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. I think this reduction in the number of primary candidates will take off soon.

Most likely after the next set of debates at the end of July.

[saidsimplesimon]

23. You made my day.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

36. I'm glad! Thanks for letting me know.

[stonecutter357]

13. K&R

[UniteFightBack]

16. I've been saying the same thing so I'm with you. I think it's a pipe dream though. nt

[hlthe2b]

18. Yes.. we are on an identical page...

[dalton99a]

19. No shit. Visualize THIS as your president in 2024:

[Hoyt]

20. Makes me shudder; but, why does that mean we shouldn't discuss Biden's baggage, or anybody else's?

For the Record: If Biden still has best odds of winning when my primary comes in March, I'll likely vote for him.

[dalton99a]

21. Biden has to earn his nomination.

I want him to explain some of his positions, among them his touted bankruptcy 'reform' and the patriotism of rich people

[pink]

24. Nance, hello from downunder, its great to see your posts again

I'm still in mourning following the results of the last election we had in Australia. 6 years of consistent positive polls only to be beaten at the election. We've seen it all before eg Brexit and Trump. Murdoch excelled himself this time.

I belong to the Labor party and when it comes to preselections (similar to primaries), we keep it all internal. If anyone has anything negative to say about their opponent in the party, it is said behind closed doors. Never ever give the other team ammunition. I agree with you that what Harris did to Biden wasn't fair.

With so many candidates, it may have been a better proposition to have 4 debates with 5 candidates in each one. Everyone would have had a fairer go.

My personal choice so far is Buttigeig. I have become addicted to catching up on all his interviews for about the last 5 months and find him to be perfect. To me, it seems like you decide on everything you want in a candidate, feed it into a computer, and out pops Buttigeig. I'm sure most of his life he's been putting up with insults because of his sexuality, so nothing Trump would say could effect him. The fact that he can speak so many languages and is so intelligent shows the contrast so clearly with Trump.

There are probably about 14 candidates that I would be happy with to challenge Trump. This has probably been the best field of candidates for the primaries since I've been following American Politics, and I've been following it since John Kennedy.

Look forward to reading more of your posts

[JoeOtterbein]

25. Personally, I like to see someone stand up for what is right. Why were you disappointed...

...in a candidate that might become the next Dem POTUS?

I say go Kamala!

[NanceGreggs]

27. If Kamala is the nominee ...

... I will support her very enthusiastically. She is impressive on every level - and I happen to be particularly fond of women candidates who are well-informed on the issues, and don't shy away from speaking their mind - which is why I was a strong Hillary supporter in 2016.

But that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed in some of her statements or actions - and her potentially being the nominee doesn't preclude me from feeling as I do, or expressing it.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. Great! And of course, I would never say or imply you should not be disappointed.

I just think that Kamala aced it in the debate.

[George II]

26. That's a big part of how Obama campaigned in 2008 and 2012: "Yes we can" not "No they can't"!!!

[JoeOtterbein]

29. 2020 will be about who fights the best fight. As any USA election should always remain.

I hope!

[Cha]

45. A Winning Strategy!

[maddiemom]

30. My reactions to Harris and Booker, as well. Your suggestion is very, very valid.

[emmaverybo]

31. A great post. NT

[aikoaiko]

33. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[LibFarmer]

41. That works for animals - not most humans

Humans evolve, adjust, change their minds etc.

[LibFarmer]

40. What you are saying used to be the norm during primaries

until one candidate changed it the last time. Now the primaries are resembling shooting galleries.

[NYMinute]

44. K&R nt

[democratisphere]

46. I am hoping the candidates that are living in the past will soon be eliminated

because voters don't want to hear THIS kind of sh't and voters will no longer support them financially or in the polls and primaries.

[Cha]

49. K

[Gothmog]

50. Beating trump is the only thing that matters

[True Blue American]

51. Nance Asked Everyone

To quit drudging up old things, yet this whole thread has been fighting among supporters

.

Do any of you read the posts you make? Who is going to get the last word in this argument all of you have drug out for days!

Read to what Nance Gregg posted and simply quit!

Now, all of you can get angry with me! I have broad shoulders, well not really they are pretty smal but mighty strong so give it your best shot.

[True Blue American]

52. Thank you!