Both parties are equally guilty of attacking their own members
In particular I want to talk about negative campaigning, or what I call short-sighted politics. The approach would make sense if candidates from the same party were running against each other and whoever is left standing is the ultimate winner. But when the winner of a caucus or primary election has to continue and run against an opponent from a different party in a general election, well, then the whole concept of negative campaigning makes no sense at all. When, as a party, you've condoned the public trashing of every candidate from your own party, how in the world do you expect us, the voters, to have any confidence or faith in the person who was able to scrabble their way to the top of the heap to become your torn apart, vilified, criticized, and publicly humiliated candidate?
It seems obvious the damage each party allows their candidates to inflict upon each other cannot be undone once a final candidate has been chosen. After all, candidates spend months and millions of dollars attacking each other for the world to watch as if our political process is some kind of ultimate destruction competition. *Please pass the popcorn.* As a party you've now poisoned us, or at the very least tainted our views against not just your candidates but against your party as a whole by broadcasting every weakness, real or fabricated, that can be used as a weapon so that each individual candidate has a shot at winning a caucus or primary election.
Can you imagine if businesses were run this way? If instead of advertisements touting the positives about a product, they did nothing but attack their own product line to try to help one item become their best seller?
What if Coca-Cola advertised against its own different flavor options. Can you imagine a Diet Coke commercial pointing out everything wrong with classic Coca-Cola? Would it strengthen the perception of each individual product (at the expense of the other) or would it weaken the brand as a whole? Why go there? Wake up politicians. Does this make sense to you?
All I can think is that if political parties banned negative campaigning within their own party the political process could earn back some respectability. If candidates focused on their strengths and merits, their creativity, negotiating and problem solving abilities instead of attacking their opponent's real, overblown and fabricated weaknesses, it would mean every party would have to put forth their most qualified candidates. And the voters, we would be the biggest winners. We would be able to vote people into office not because we dislike them the least, but because we believe in them the most.