Does a candidate's supporters affect your opinion of the candidate?

[Catch22Dem]

Should it?

This is not the DU I joined nearly 6 years ago.

[Adelante]

1. No

I am sorry to say I find myself becoming hateful on days like today. But that has to do with supporters, not candidates.

[Debi]

2. They sure are getting there! n/t

[hayu_lol]

5. There are posters who use intelligence, logic, and good manners to...

make their point about their candidate. These posters are appreciated by most of us. There are the others who constantly hammer other candidates without offering positive posts of any kind.

These latter posters do affect how others do think of their candidates. FreeRepublic attitudes are not really welcome here at DU.
One of the reasons for the low standing of Dennis for example, is the overall behavior of some of his followers. Extend that to any candidate and it holds true.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. It depends.

Some people are just very exuberant about their candidates and may get a little carried away in promoting or defending them. There are others, however, who are clearly operatives and provocateurs. I suspect there are a few of them on this board, for various candidates, but most are in the former category. So no, I'm not affected either way. My order of preference has not changed since August and I'm on DU all the time.

[ileus]

4. Yes...

[2rth2pwr]

6. No, one or two idiots on a political forum have no

ability to affect my research and preferences. Pro or Con.

If someone would change their mind about a candidate based on some goofball on the internets, they should just stay home.

[Kurovski]

7. No. (nt)

[bigwillq]

8. Nope (nt)

[ElizabethDC]

9. Nope. n/t

[annie1]

10. the mods should probably boot a few people. i'm an outsider and new here...

but there are a handful of people that constantly start threads that are locked, or just constant blatant flame bait.

[killbotfactory]

11. No.

[MadBadger]

12. Nope.

[sniffa]

13. big time

but then again, it's only moved from either ambivalence/kinda-not-liking to all out war. it's on!!!1!!

[LaurenG]

14. Well there are some supporters of one of the candidates

(that I don't want to win) who are decent people. I respect them and respect their choice so they actually make the thought of their candidate winning, not so terrifying.

Otherwise I mostly just skim past the real "meanies". I already know when they pop up that there won't be anything comforting in their words.

[MadBadger]

15. Well, supporters on DU no, but surrogates, Yes.

If somebody is speaking on behalf of the candidate and says something I think is awful (Penn, Kerrey, Sheehan) than it does affect my view of them.

[pgh_dem]

40. I agree with a distinction between surrogates and net supporters

I don't think it's fair to judge a candidate by what people anonymously post about them on DU (or any other forums). I'm never even sure if some posters could be deliberately trying to make a given candidate look like an ass-by-association, or pretending to support one candidate while attacking another to throw off 'negative-campaign' stink from their actual candidate. Even if they're genuine in their support, just being a jerk doesn't make their preferred candidate a jerk.

But when Evan Bayh made that 'entertainer-in-chief' crack, it not only zeroed out my opinion of him, it absolutely negatively affected my opinion of Sen Clinton. While I agreed with the substance of Axelrod's answer to leading 'how much do you think Bhutto's death will help Sen Clinton?'-type questions, I thought both campaigns should have shut up for a day or two. I thought Richardson was right-on, echoed precisely what Bhutto herself believed about Musharraf's deliberate obstruction of proper security (and obstruction of democracy in general). He showed respect for the tragedy of her assassination, but also a strong and informed foreign policy position ... and most importantly, he didn't do it through surrogates.

Anyway, I think the whole surrogate idea, saying the things campaigns want (anthropomorphism like what 'smart money' wants, like there's not a human ultimately responsible for the 'message'), just sucks all around. Seems like a good couple rules for candidates: If you've got something to say, say it. If you'd be too embarrassed to say it yourself, then keep it to yourself.

(While we're at it....fire all spokespeople.)

And trying to score a cheap political shot like 'entertainer-in-chief' just deserves a generous mailbox full of boxes of heated dog crap and chum. Evan Bayh just joined the GOP as far as I'm concerned, I sure hope he doesn't show up as a VP candidate.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Yes

That's why I stop reading threads where a rabid supporter starts talking.

[asdjrocky]

17. Yes, more and more of late.

[Yael]

18. Yes. If it is a candidate that I don't want to see get the nomination

their hate mongering just motivates me to work harder against her.

;)

[LWolf]

19. Yes.

They aren't the biggest factor, by any means. My opinion of a candidate is formed by the following factors, in this order:

1. a) Platform
b) Record overall, and specifically in reference to current platform

2. Donors and groups behind the campaign, and the way the campaign is run

3. Supporters of that candidate, and how (and why) they act to support.

While I don't assume that supporters are speaking for their candidate, I do believe that there is a reason when a candidate attracts too many people whose integrity and social skills are in question.

Edited to add:

Please note what is NOT a factor in my choice, or opinion, of a candidate:

The corrupt "electability" factor doesn't appear in my calculations.

[Lucinda]

20. No, and no it shouldn't.

But it does effect my blood pressure occasionally. :) I think things will return to normal-ish once we have a nominee.

[madmom]

21. YES!!! The kind of people attracted to them makes me set up and take notice

[Catch22Dem]

26. I think maybe you hit it right there!

I've been trying to put my finger on what bothers me so much about looking inward to see if I really support this candidate. I think what you said has shed some light on my problem. This candidate's supporters make me not want to be associated with them, thus their candidate. Why are so many people who I'd never associate with on a social level, such rabid supporters of this person? Why does this candidate attract them?

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

[LittleClarkie]

22. It ain't helping, let's put it that way

If I was firmly in someone's camp, or firmly not, they wouldn't make much difference. But if I was ambivalent about a candidate, then someone's attitude could sway me to at least take a look.

The maturity of the Biden people inspired me to give him a second look. The lack of maturity of some of the others does not encourage me to give their candidates (Clinton, Obama) a second look.

And in the case of some Hillary supporters, I didn't appreciate the "she's inevitable, give in" hard sell earlier on. I will not be assimilated, resistance is not futile.

Are you saying this is worse than the 2004 primary season?

[politicasista]

25. I am in the same boat with you

:hi:

[Catch22Dem]

27. Yes, I think this is definitely worse than 2003-2004 on DU

Don't you? You've been around for quite a while, I remember you. I was a BIG Clark supporter (and still am). I truly think it's much nastier around here. I also think there are FAR more "campaigners" here than there were back then. People who exist on DU for the sole purpose of pushing their candidate, and tearing the others down.

I will also not be assimilated. My respect and support for Wes goes only as far as Wes. Not to those he has endorsed. ;)

[LittleClarkie]

32. I came in during 2004 but after the primary battle was over

Kerry was already our candidate. So this is my first time. So that's why I have nothing to compare it to. Worse, eh? Lovely.

[Adelante]

28. I do think it's worse than 2004

That was bad, but I don't remember it as this constant, never ending barrage of negative nattering and lying. A lot of it was very bad, yes, but there were certain conventions that helped a little ways with civility. The personal insults and name-calling was not permitted, for one thing, and lies about candidates were not permitted. So there could be back and forth discussion, agree or disagree, to a greater extent than is now possible. You couldn't post an outright lie or smear and expect to get away it. Somebody, a lot of somebodies, would be calling you out to back it up or take it back. If you continued doing the same, you wouldn't be taken seriously. It's more likely this time that a baseless smear just gets spammed from thread to thread and left to sit for readers to come across and take in. It's a rather hopeless feeling knowing it, but impossible to keep up with. Now it seems nobody cares that much and the DU archives, which used to be worth reading, are in sad shape. I have half of GDP on Ignore, (way, way more than in 2004), because they have nothing to contribute but nastiness, and I'm not wasting my time with them. Enough already.

But it could be that I am finding this season so extremely painful and hate-filled, that anything, even the fabled 2004 primary bloodletting, looks good.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. It's definitely weighing heavily on it. nt

[Perry Logan]

24. Not too much. I still like Obama, though I'm obviously no fan of his fans.

[michaelwb]

29. Indirectly

I've been here a long while and this is pretty bad this primary season. It may in fact be worse than '04.

I've had to build my ignore file larger than I ever have had to before. Basically anyone who consistently posts false innuendo about rival candidates and/or regularly uses terms like hilbot, obamaton, etc. is there until the primaries are over. I didn't have to do that in '04.

Since I live in a state where the candidate is decided for all practical purposes by the time we get to vote, I don't support anyone since it is usually just an exercise in heartbreak. I focus on the general election and local elections instead.

It is doubtful the Dems will put forward a candidate I love but they won't give me one that I can't vote for either. I may just require more or less alcohol to stiffen my resolve. No matter what it will be better than whatever the Repubs offer and what we have had the past 8 years.

[ToeBot]

30. No, but it's amazing how my opinion is validated by their supporters, positive and negative. nt

[wyldwolf]

31. it did in 2004. Not this go 'round.

[MethuenProgressive]

33. No. DU has only a tiny subset of any candidate's supporters.

If I judged the whole Democratic Party just on what posts get the most recs on DU I'd go register as an Independent.

[rucky]

34. It shouldn't, but it does.

It also makes a difference to Iowans as to the person who's caucusing for the candidate.

[ellacott]

35. It does influence my opinion but doesn't change my mind

There are some real zealots on this board who regularly practice character assasination. This is very disappointing that it's being done to a fellow Democrat.

I'm just glad that DU is not representative of the Democratic community. If it were I would probably just not vote.

[BringBigDogBack]

36. Yes.

One poster in particular, starts with a "T", has made it virtually impossible for me to ever support Clinton.

I bet no one can guess who it is! :sarcasm:

Some should have been taken out with the garbage, MONTHS ago.

[ellacott]

37. You are absolutely correct

I agree with you. Someone tried to make me feel that I was all alone with me feelings of this person. I'm not that gullable.

[donheld]

41. "T" I know just what you are talking about

I've seen few as unpleasant. I wondered out loud if that poster is disgusting as the candidate they support.

[BringBigDogBack]

42. Ive been asking myself that exact question lately.

[Forkboy]

38. Luckily for the candidates, no.

[seasat]

39. Yes, not from their comments but it motivates me to research their candidate.

When someone starts sniping about Richardson especially in a thread where I posted the OP, I research their candidate on the issue as part of my rebuttal. That will sometimes change my view of that candidate. I want a candidate who has backed up their current positions with actions in their past. That shows me that they'll honestly pursue what they are proposing in the primary. When I see a big difference in what they are now saying and what they've supported, then I lower my opinion of that candidate.

[Marrah_G]

43. It effects my opinion of the supporter- some good, some bad

[ShadesOfGrey]

44. Ditto n/t

[ShadesOfGrey]

45. No and it should not. Too many Agents Provocateurs at work...

so it's extremely difficult to tell who really supports who. I suspect that many of the bashers here are not even democrats and probably detest the candidate that they claim to support.

[hayu_lol]

46. In the 2004 election, there were two groups of supporters who attacked ...

each other constantly and bitterly. They were not only here at DU, but also at democrats.com and smirkingchimp.com.

They were the supporters of Dean and Kucinich. Last time around, they were the most banned supporters on the three sites listed above.

Prior to that experience, what used to happen on the three sites listed above, was that a candidate would be mentioned favorably or unfavorably by a poster. At that point, the regulars would all go into research mode and see what could be found about each candidate--both good and bad. It was helpful and never did amount to the flamebaiting that we are seeing now.

Somehow, this time, we seem to have forgotten that BushCo and the Repugnants are the actual enemy.

[salin]

49. My memory is different - but limited to DU in 2004

I found hosts of attackers and nasty behavior from all of the major candidates. Can still name (but won't) some of those who were bitter and nasty from the Kerry, Edwards, and Clark camps as well as from the Dean and Kucinich camps. The only ones who got sympathy from me were the Kucinich folks, and that is because their candidate got such short shrift in media coverage, and in discussions here that I think some of their loud kvetching was out of sheer frustration from feeling like they were shut into a corner and not given a venue - even at DU - to talk and be heard. Even though I found that perspective sympathetic, the attacks were sometimes way over the top.

[salin]

47. No.

I learned that last go-round. Indeed I only check this forum for new items - and try to avoid all the x is awful smear jobs where some candidate supporters are as nasty as all get out to one another.

That chased a dear friend of mine out of DU for a long time last go-round. He was really pained by being told time and time again that he was a sheep and a kool-aid drinker for supporting Dean.

Sad that we lost six months of his presence at DU (he was a great presence) - especially given that he passed away not too many months after returning.

Because one can't stop the noise and vitriol (per different supporters), one can ignore it, not get sucked into it - and when it gets ridiculous, subject it (particular comments) to the light of day (per discussing) and/or ridicule the particular comment.

But one should not let the emotions and nastiness of individual supporters shape one's opinion of the candidates. Pretty safe to say that the candidates have never met these folks and in no way is endorsing/supporting the bad behavior.

Just my two cents.

[AlCzervik]

48. Candidate X is ugly and their mother dresses them funny.

i'm actually starting to feel bad for some of these candidates to be honest, imo the posters look like shit and not the person running.

[Little Star]

50. Yes.

I am a JRE gal. However, when I hear the Hillary bashers here on DU and on TV (Tweety especially). They make me want to vote for her just in defense of her womanhood and mine. Sorry, but thats the truth. They could actually make me move from my candidate to Hillary just because I feel there is a chance for the first woman president and I want to fight their perceivable bias against her womanhood (and don't bother trying to tell me that a great many of them are not misogynistic). I think she is just as qualified and in some areas and more so than many or all of our great field. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. JMHO