Would you avoid voting for a candidate based on how a supporter acts on DU?

[LoZoccolo]

On edit: Ooops, I had two "yes" answers, though they were still different in the rest of the wording (would avoid/would not avoid). It was fixed after only one vote was cast, and I assume they know the difference.

[thoughtcrime1984]

1. All candidates have some annoying followers

I know what I am looking for in a candidate, and nobody will convince me either to vote for or against a candidate, no matter what they say, or how obnoxious they are. The candidates stand on their own merits.

[Wetzelbill]

17. Disco!

hit it right on the head.

[Berry Cool]

2. Exactly.

Neither can a candidate be expected to "control" or "have responsibility for" everyone to whom he or she happens to appeal. It would be like judging celebrities according to the fans they attract. Anyone in the public eye is likely to end up drawing the attention of some people whose affection for them borders on the obnoxious. That's no reflection on them, though. Unless they encourage it. Which most don't.

[polichick]

3. I voted no, of course...

...and I'd add that it's much more helpful to a candidate for supporters to post positive information about them, than for supporters to attack the other candidates. The first is time well spent, and may open a few eyes about policies, record, passions, etc.

[Jed Dilligan]

4. The question should simply be

"Are you a concern troll"?

[polichick]

5. What's a concern troll? nt

[Jed Dilligan]

9. A person who comes on DU

saying they are "very concerned" about some of the "radical things" that get said here and "how that makes us look."

That's my version, some others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1382185

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll

[polichick]

16. Ohhhhhhhh...

Thanks!

[bunkerbuster1]

43. woo-hoo! I'm famous!

So glad I started that thread.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. Google "concern troll"

and there you are. Good job bb1.

[LoZoccolo]

11. This phenomenon is actually broader than that.

During the last presidential primary, people would respond to other people like, "well, now I'm not voting for _____ because of you!" There wasn't a whole lot of demoralizing things stated about the candidate other than that in a lot of cases.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Just sounds like hot-headed crap...

That will seem ridiculous when you're actually facing that ballot (or voting machine).

I never get into "my candidate is better than yours" because, frankly, I'm a bit displeased with all of them. I'm stuck here because of Bush and a lack of realistic alternatives. I guess it's helped me miss some of the ugliest interpersonal action on DU.

[sam sarrha]

6. let this be a lesson to all the Trolls out there.. it doesnt work, l

[durrrty libby]

7. The fools only further my resolve.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. the candidates have no control over who posts here at DU

and who knows if a poster who is obnoxiously "supporting" a particular candidate isn't a troll?

The candidates speak enough for themselves for me to figure out what they stand for and therefore for whom to vote.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. Just one little troll?

Where are you? We're getting lonely.

[LoZoccolo]

12. If you don't mind, please stop.

I'd like this survey to last, and get a lot of respondents. And I've always found public troll-hunting annoying and manipulative.

[Jed Dilligan]

15. Commenting on the vote

not the poster.

[BootinUp]

13. lol. n/t

[patrice]

14. Issues should be the primary determiner.

There are many varieties of trolls out there. They're definitely annoying, but letting bullshit artists affect you too much is their victory, not your own.

[madfloridian]

18. How soon you forgot.

People did not vote for Dean because of us....and they came here in droves to tell us everyday. :evilgrin:

I believe the main words were idolatry, kool-aid drinking, and hero worship.

Of course now there are many who are becoming cultish now about their candidate.

They will be hearing from others soon. :evilgrin:

[polichick]

20. There really is a sort of cult thing going here...

That struck me right away ~ not sure what the point is, since we'll all have to pull together to beat the Reps.

[AlCzervik]

19. no, candidates don't have quality control over their supporters.

[bunnies]

21. ONE supporter? No. But MANY supporters? Maybe.

I'll admit it. Say I'm undecided which, as it happens, I am... and between a few candidates who are similar on the issues... (I'm not, but bear with me for arguments sake). Now if the majority of people who support candidate X act like a bunch of jerks, then Im much less likely to support candidate x simply because I dont want to be associated with the bunch of jerks.

If I were set on a candidate... the supporters would have no effect on my decision. But if I were on the fence... liking several equally... the supporters would make a difference. Yes.

[Berry Cool]

22. But why?

Why should you care what other people do? Why not make up your own mind? You're not necessarily a jerk just because some other people who support your candidate are jerks.

It's like oh, I don't know, being a Star Wars fan. Maybe you don't want people to assume you're a jobless virgin with no life who lives in their mother's basement just because you like Star Wars. But if you like Star Wars, don't let it bother you--by all means, like Star Wars! Don't let the "stereotype" scare you out of enjoying what you enjoy--or backing the candidate you think is the best for the job.

If you can be shamed out of supporting a candidate by the thought of someone looking at you funny and saying "Oh, you're not one of those wackos who support So-and-So, are you?," then maybe you don't really care that much about the candidate to begin with.

[bunnies]

53. Youre right. I know. It totally doesnt make sense.

Especially considering that fact that I have a tendency to be incredibly pig-headed... and generally dont give a rats ass what anybody thinks. But I thought about it for a while after reading the OP... and figured it might be possible. Obviously something I need to work on!!!

[tkmorris]

24. I voted no, but........

Some people here at DU make that a very tentative no. Some of these "advocates" are so offensive and dishonest it becomes a real chore to NOT associate my disgust with their tactics with their candidate.

It amazes me more people don't speak out against this sort of thing. Any rational attempts to evaluate and compare candidates here is utterly and thoroughly poisoned by such people. It's the same 20-40 people every time too, with about a dozen driving most of the flame wars. I know that the DU admin has decided that preventing these poo flinging contests is not practical, and I respect that, but I sure wish at least the most egregious examples could be given a time-out or something.

[karynnj]

27. I voted no, but like you I can see that there is some impact on the undecided

I think that it is not so much that I would vote against someone because I don't like his/her most aggressive supporters, but the supporters, through obnoxiousness, lose the ability to effectively provide information that might turn me to that candidate if I have them on ignore at that point.

I am undecided - but it is the candidate's record and plans that will cause me to chose one of the candidates. I will vote, because even now, I think some candidates unacceptable (in the primaries).

[gravity]

25. Only if the supporter is the candidate themselves

[Totally Committed]

26. No, absolutely not... although, I must say,

I am sometimes annoyed and put-off to the point that the thought does cross my mind, by the "drum-beaters". And, I don't mean the honest-to-goodness supporters of a candidate, but the ones who are here obviously because it is THEIR JOB to be here. Turns me off.

But, in the end, none of them could make me vote against their candidate.

TC

[karynnj]

28. I don't know how you can tell the difference

between people who have chosen to learn as much as they can about their candidate and to make sure that his/her message gets out and someone paid to be here. Some of the people I respect most for other candidates are the people good enough that it would be reasonable for a campaign to hire them. (Using the Clarkies as an example (because it is extremely inlikely that Clark is paying anyone at this point) - Tom Rinaldi and Frenchie Cat both seem - in very different styles - are great examples of people who are always well informed. (as are many other Clarkies, I thought 2 would make the point.)

[Totally Committed]

31. I totally agree with you about Tom and Frenchie...

two more informed and dedicated "Clarkies" you will never find. And, I don't believe Wes ever paid anyone to blog or post on his behalf. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

But, how do I "tell the difference between people who have chosen to learn as much as they can about their candidate and to make sure that his/her message gets out and someone paid to be here"? I have a system, and again, it's only my system, and I readily admit I could be wrong, but when I see thread after thread started by the same person on a daily basis about every aspect of a candidate's views, appearances, vote for this or that, article (positive or negative) about him/her, over and over and over ad nauseum. THAT PERSON is one I suspect is here as an operative at the direct behest of a candidate or a "cause" (read: most glaringly the DLC, or AIPAC), and is probably collecting at least a stipend for their trouble.

I could be wrong, and it's only my opinion, but there it is.

TC

[LoZoccolo]

32. Why would the DLC send operatives to DU?

I ask this because I get accused of being one all the time, and I am not even a member of the DLC and have been critical of Al From in the past. So I know from experience that just because one feels someone else to be one, doesn't mean they are one. I'm just curious about (1) why the DLC would spend money sending someone to a message board where people largely disagree with them and (2) how you would distinguish a paid supporter of the DLC with someone who has a strong view of their own, similar to "progressives" who have strong views of their own.

[Totally Committed]

33. I have never thought of you as a DLC operative, but someone who has views distinctly to the right

of my own.

The DLC is, I feel, is attempting coup -- an infiltration and take-over of the Democratic Party. They have a huge investment in seeing Mrs. Clinton get the nomination, as she is an officer of the DLC. If you don't think they are here, I feel you are mistaken, but as I have said repeatedly, it's only my opinion.

TC

[wyldwolf]

36. blah blah blah DLC evil blah blah blah corporatist blah blah infiltrators...

[wyldwolf]

34. ..exactly... let's look at some of the other personalities here

...those who are vehemently anti-DLC to the point they will repeatedly post anti-DLC articles (often the same ones) that are several years old, bumps their own posts back to the top to make sure everyone ingests the information, and posts every little news mention of DFA and Howard Dean. Paid Operatives? Why the hell not! The shoe fits, it's just on another foot.

[Capn Sunshine]

59. You attitude pretends that there is nothing behind the anti-DLC message

While it's their actions themselves many find objectionable. The cheerleading for the war, their main leaders as signatories on the PNAC Letter, support for privatization of Social Security, the characterization of the middle class as ignorant dolts who deserve their fate, the villification of those who would threaten Wall Street with any regulation.. those are very real , objectionable positions, and your constant attempts to portray them as reasonable and minimize them with a "Bla Bla Bla" will not make them any more palatable.

From The DLCs website :

Some Democrats would like to go further -- by withholding funding for the additional troops. For a variety of reasons, however, this is a bridge too far.

So's that attitude IMO.

[wyldwolf]

63. There isn't anything behind them except a difference in opinion. The bad thing is...

...how the left chooses to express it.

the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed... Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered.

And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party’s bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh’s show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment. The same could happen to the Democrats.

Joe Klein.

The constant cliche revolutionary language of the left in terms of the DLC - corporatist whores, infiltrators, etc. - only make them more palatable to the reasonable person.

[Capn Sunshine]

67. Joe Klein????

"leftists in pajamas with thousands of sock puppets" Joe Klein? Choose your sources carefully.

[karynnj]

38. I suspect that would misclassify many people

People who follow a candidate for a long period of time, do learn where to get information from and post it. When Kerry was likely running, if I read a good article on something he was working on, I would post it. I supported Kerry because I was impressed with who he is and what he has done - the idea being he would gain people respect, if not their support when he was seen doing good things.

I know I am motivated by respect for one of the few politicians I feel I can trust. He is not running, but I hope he will stay visible and lead in the Senate. I trust that he will be an honest voice - whether we have a Democratic or Republican voice. I am completely independent and have never been a paid operative for anyone or anything. I suspect that for Kerry and others, there are many people just like me.

[rinsd]

44. Would people who post mostly on oeneset of issues be operatives?

Your classification of being a operative seems to be the posting on a single subject or political line of thought which in fact is what many many DUers do.

And given your examples of AIPAC and the DLC, I see a possible mistake on your part

Do you believe those are not valid political beliefs to have therefore, one must be paid to advocate them?

[Totally Committed]

45. It's a guide I use for myself only...

I don't expect others to use it themselves.

And, no... I am not talking about people with valid political beliefs being paid operatives. Please read the above posts. Advocating for something is far different than wallpapering the place day after day after day.

Develop your own system, rely on your gut... whatever. No one is saying you have to use mine at all. And, for the last time, this is only MY opinion.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Thanks karyinnj

I actually posted a semi-tongue in cheek "coming out" piece about being a candidate advocate here at DU back in December, which I'll respost now to keep the record straight, lol. Although I tried to use humor in it, there are some serious points in this also.

Actually it is a good theme for discussion, the pros and cons of alligning with a specific candidate to further one's personal political ideals, all monetary considerations aside. Where should one draw the line, and why?


"Startling True Confession: I Am a Candidate Advocate.

I wasn't always like this. I still remember what life was like before this overcame me. I remember when I used to wear political buttons that NEVER had anyone's name on them - unless of course I hated them. Even now, after three years of living this way, it's not easy for me to describe how the change happened, or exactly what came over me, that turned me from being a more or less normal political activist into, well, into being a Clarkie.

There I said it. Yes I'm a Clarkie. I admit it. I, Tom Rinaldo, do advocate for General Wesley Clark. The thing is, I won't surprise anybody by admitting this. Everyone around me already knows it. If you've read any of my writings over the last few years, then most certainly you know it too. Because that's the thing about being a candidate advocate; it's not something one can really hide. Even if you think you are being quiet about it, even if you are careful how much you say, or what you reveal about your motivations for saying it, no one who encounters you is fooled by false attempts at subtlety. People know a candidate advocate when they see one. There is no point in hiding from the truth, ugly as it may appear to some.

I know what some people say. They say "You can't trust him, even when he appears to be making sense, you know he's REALLY trying to help his candidate." I've been called - I might as well not mince words here, biased. People have even accused me of picking favorites. And just the other day, in a place so much like this one that it might even have been this one, I heard candidate advocates like me described as APOLOGISTS. It's enough to force some serious soul searching. After all, I proudly call myself a political activist, but have I lost my cynical edge? Can I really be an activist without it? Can I admire and respect a person who runs for high public office for my own reasons, instead of theirs? Can I advocate for someone without becoming a slave to them?

These are all serious questions, but all of them avoid dealing with the root causes of candidate advocacy, and political science has identified several possibilities, with research still ongoing. The simplest cause to identify (and the easiest to cure through cold turkey total withdrawal) is Money. Money can instantly turn an independent critical thinker into a "paid staffer" working to advance another person's political agenda. I've looked at that possibility in my own case, but my bank account is still empty. Hard as I have searched I can find no evidence of anyone paying me to advocate on their behalf.

One of the more popular theories out there is that candidate advocacy is caused by a political strain of celebrity worship. In this theory, candidate advocates live vicariously through the lives of the candidate they choose to advocate for. Their identity becomes merged with the person they advocate for. If that person is doing well, they are doing well. If that person is doing poorly, they are doing poorly. I know there are people who look at me that way. You may even be one of them. By that reasoning I could just as well quit politics for sports, throw away my Wes Clark Button, and put on a Payton Manning football jersey instead. Same difference. Intellectual functioning diverted to reptilian brain, with primal emotions ascendant over any rational thought.

One problem with that theory, at least in my own case, is that celebrity worship in all of it's many forms tends to be a disorder that emerges early in life, remaining more or less constant throughout adulthood, though the actual object of personal worship may from time to time be updated and replaced by a more current example of celebrity. For me, there was absolutely no prior indication of susceptibility to celebrity worship based candidate advocacy in my life before the approach of the 2004 Presidential contests, and the subsequent emergence of Wes Clark as a Democratic candidate for President. None the less this type of disorder can be difficult to totally disprove as the root cause for candidate advocacy, especially to an observer with a firm predisposition to already conclude that all candidate advocacy IS a political form of celebrity worship, no exceptions made. To such observers candidate advocacy is a problem to be cured, not a cause to be embraced.

There is another somewhat radical theory to explain candidate advocacy, though, that flies in the face of theories that presume the phenomenon to be at root pathological; one that says candidate advocacy in not always symptomatic of one's desire to surrender control, abdicate free will, and/or suspend critical judgment. This theory holds that candidate advocacy can be a rational response to complex frequently negative social issues that threaten to otherwise overwhelm an individual who, left to his or her own devices, can not muster sufficient power and influence to alter prevailing negative circumstances in a manner that can provide meaningful relief. In this theory the candidate in question becomes a means rather than an end in itself. In this theory a symbiosis exists between a candidate and his or her supporters, with all parties openly and sometimes even honestly using each other to achieve mutually beneficial goals. What results can be a tactical, and in some cases even strategic, alliance of shared interests.

That's the theory I use to explain how I became a candidate advocate. You may see me differently, but don't say I never told you."

[FrenchieCat]

55. " but my bank account is still empty" - Yeah Tom......mine too, and in fact, for a while

I literally "lost" money, since I was so busy posting and researching rather than doing my paid job as an accountant! Thank God I work for my Hubby, or I would have certainly been fired and out on the streets by now!

Thank Goodness this type of passion is not habitual for me! I couldn't afford it! LOL!

[blm]

47. Exactly - certain supporters BOTHERED to do the research, REAL research

of their candidate and THAT makes a difference. The greater the accomplishments the more you are wont to defend that person or educate others to the facts.

The fewer significant accomplishments of the candidates, the more vitriolic the defenders who base their support more on human faith and personality and attack those who notice.

[seasat]

29. No, but I does encourage me to research the negatives of thier candidate

I select a candidate based on several criteria. One the most important to me is their past performance on issues that I favor. When someone who clearly supports another candidate attacks one that I support, I start researching that candidate's background to see how they differ from my choice. Many times that results in a more negative view of the candidate they support and increased support for my choice.

[Forkboy]

30. That would be grossly unfair to any of the candidates.

[The_Progressive]

39. I agree

[Colobo]

35. Some Hillarites are quite annoying, but I'm liking Hillary more and more

[Tippy]

40. Nope.....

I vote for the candidate not those working for or with him....

[Sapere aude]

41. I find it turns me off of someone who is bashing another candidate. Why not sell your candidate and

leave the negativity to the repugs.

I think for myself , Sapere aude.

[flaminbats]

42. tough question..

I kept telling myself in 2004 that I wouldn't waste my vote on Dennis Kucinich. my fear, he wouldn't win a single primary delegate in Georgia!

guess what...he won my primary vote! :argh:

[last_texas_dem]

46. I won't avoid voting for a candidate based on their supporters, but

I will start making assumptions about the supporters of certain candidates if a large number of them engage in the same obnoxious tactics.

[AtomicKitten]

48. no - it works in the opposite direction

Granted I have a natural proclivity to stick up for the underdog, but some of the tag-team annihilation teams here at DU I think are having precisely the opposite effect. Their absurd attacks are so ludicrous even some of the more strident anti-candidate X folks are coming around to acknowledging it.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is in office today because of a nasty, bloody primary here in California. That is a textbook example of what not to do and why.

[Catchawave]

49. I didn't vote in your poll because

I'm an Edwards supporter, and he will be the next President. :party:

I have no #2 right now because I'm a pretty confident gal :D..........BUT

However, should he not get the Dem nod, I will be thinking of a handful/haterful of DUers who plaster themselves via DU, their avatars, their sig lines with another candidate and post *ad nauseum* hits against my guy...I'm so not on your team anymore :cry:

:hi: Go Yankees :)

[FrenchieCat]

51. It would depend more on the voracity of what is being posted

as opposed to the posters themselves. I figure that fact and sources are much more relevant during a political campaign primary than are the personalities of those who post such.

If what is being posted is garbage, that is how I will interpret it.

If what is being posted has validity, than I will react based on such.

At the end of the day, I do my own research and form an opinion based on that.

Who does the posting is of little consequences.........cause I believe that at the end of the day, it is the message articulated that is important, not who the messenger was.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. I can't give a binary answer, but I am happy to say how I feel about this ......

I don't think the actions of any particular candidate's supporters would stop me from voting for any particular candidate. That said, I get very turned off at the endless posts telling me every time Candidate A farts or every time a new poll shows Candidate B ahead of Candidate C or how Candidate D got some new (and mostly meaningless) endorsement from the National Association of Nose Pickers. As a result, I am disinclined to read these posts and therefore risk not learning something that might make me more likely to vote to A or B or C or D ..... or E, F, G, H, I, or J.

I am even more turned off when I see threads saying this one or that one called for this or that to happen or be enacted or be repealed. Talk's cheap and politically expedient talk is even cheaper.

So ..... all in all, neither supporters or detractors have much impact on me. Generally to the detriment of their candidate.

[tom_paine]

54. 12% of us are fools.

I guess that is true of most any grouping of people. Pure statistics. At least we aen't like the Freepers, who's main constituency by far are the mean and stupid, where at least 70% or higher are fools.

I guess 12% of DUers now won;t vote for Gore or Edwards because of me. :cry:

:sarcasm:

[bunnies]

56. oh then. I guess Im a fool. A STUPID fool.

Just so we're clear.... Is that what you're saying?

[tom_paine]

60. Anyoen who would allow the boorish behavior of a candidate's many supporters

to outweigh everything the candidate him- or herself says and does...is a fool, yes.

If somebody who supports Obama is a jerk to me on some message board, will I then 100% disregard Obama as a candidate?

No, for that would make me a fool. I would ignore the jerk and continue to evaluate Obama's candidacy for merit.

Clear enough?

[bunnies]

57. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Suddenly... I understand this statement perfectly.

[LoZoccolo]

58. I don't think that I can make it, cuz it took so long to bake it.

Suddenly... I understand this statement perfectly.

[mitchum]

61. Well, that would be just...stupid

[JeffR]

62. No, but it's hugely freakin' tempting sometimes n/t

[cleveramerican]

64. Crazy people vote too

and every candidate wants their vote.

[LWolf]

65. Maybe.

If a campaigner is willing to engage in lies, uses propaganda and "spin" rather than facts, avoids confronting issues head on, I might overlook it.

When the above becomes a pack mentality I will probably assume that such attitudes and campaign "strategies" are part of the organized campaign. At that point, the candidate has probably lost any chance of earning my vote.

[leftofthedial]

66. I wouldn't change my vote

I have changed my opinion on issues based on the behavior of DU advocates though.