None of the Democratic Primary Candidates Are Our Enemies.

[MineralMan]

There is only one enemy, and that is Donald John Trump. Yes, I like one candidate better than the rest, because I think he stands the best chance of defeating the actual enemy. But none of our Democratic candidates for the nomination are enemies of the Democratic Party.

We need to stop acting as though the battle is against other Democrats. It is not. It's just a primary campaign, designed to find out which candidate can get the most votes and convention delegates to become the nominee. Different Democratic candidates have different ideas, to some degree, but they're all on the same side, in the end.

More importantly, they're all running to be President of the United States, who has to have the cooperation of Congress to do anything at all. really. I think some of the current candidates are promising more than they can possibly deliver. I see that as a weakness. But the voters in all 50 states will make their choice and there it will be.

And I'll honor that choice by voting this November for the nominee the people select. I assume everyone will do that who has even a particle of sense. There isn't another option that doesn't leave a Republican in power, so...

Please get over the "all or nothing at all" attitude, if you have such a thing. It's counterproductive. It's dangerous.

[msongs]

1. how many senate seats will we lose depending on "who" is the nominee nt

[MineralMan]

3. That might well be true.

So, pick a candidate you think will help elect more Senators and support that one. It is support that gains votes, not bickering or condemning another candidate.

For pete's sake!

[MineralMan]

4. You know, here's the thing: You won't change anyone's vote

by attacking the candidate that person supports. You might, however, convince that person that your favorite will do a better job.

Attacks always fail to change minds. Convincing arguments FOR someone sometimes do, though.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, most people's votes are made on emotional grounds, rather than

on careful consideration. If that were not so, Donald John Trump would not be President.

Most people react to attacks on things they hold dear by becoming even more convinced of their choice. That's a normal human reaction. Attacking a candidate of your own party is a waste of time, really. It will accomplish nothing. If you want to convince someone to follow your lead, argue the positive points of what you support. That's much more effective in convincing those who are undecided.

You're absolutely right that you won't change the mind of someone whose posts are full of animated smilies and who type only in CAPS about their favorite. However, arguing with that person does not help your favorite candidate. It just encourages more of the same fan activity.

[jberryhill]

8. What you are probably missing

Is the very distinct possibility that some online "supporters" of a candidate behave in a repellent and rude manner precisely for an actual purpose which is at odds with their apparent affiliation to that candidate, or indeed to Democratic candidates in general.

[MineralMan]

9. Oh, no, I'm not missing that.

Not at all. It's just that I have no way to combat such things, other than ignoring the posts of people who do that.

[Salviati]

10. I think the best way to think about "arguing" on the internet...

... is to realize that the audience you're trying to convince isn't the one person that you are engaging with, but rather the 100 people who are reading the exchange but not participating. Your goal isn't to convince the person with whom you're interacting, but instead present the best argument to the larger audience of observers.