+Todd Slater - I agree to a point. Certainly policy matters. Certainly the candidates need to demonstrate why they are the better candidate. Going back to my previous comments, it's exactly the same as when you are interviewing for a job. But they can do that by simply stating what they've done, what policies they would support, and what changes they would make for the better, and leave it at that.
Any time they bring up "My opponent advocates for policy C, which has resulted in N," there will always be spin, half-truth, and bias, which only confuses the voter, and adds more divisiveness (which further polarizes our already over-polarized country) than there needs to be.
And your comment demonstrates a common perspective problem: Why does it have to be an "opponent"? Why can't it just be a fellow candidate? Someone who is there for the same purpose, rather than someone to defeat? I want to see candidates who can work well with other people, whether they agree or not, because that's what government
must do to function properly. If they are "opponents," they then, by definition, work against each other, and that's what's brought our country's government into the sad, polarized state it's in now. It's two big bunches of opponents trying to compete for control rather than working together to improve the state of the country.
Anyway, candidates can easily get their point across without bringing the other candidates into it.
Just tell me what
you've done well. Don't tell me what the other guy's done badly. That just insults my intelligence and ability to do my own research.
