Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Dear Biden and Sanders supporters [View all]PandoraAwakened
(905 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 30, 2020, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I have, of late, been pondering the nature of the "hissy-fit soundbites" that some posters feel compelled to regurgitate---not only when unflattering information is presented about their chosen candidate, but also when positive information on any other candidate is presented.
Seeing this and comparing it to commentary coming from supporters of other candidates, here's the question I decided to investigate:
Is there something to be learned about a candidate's own intrinsic qualities based on how his/her supporters react to simple presentations of fact?
After perusing thousands of comments posted over the past two months in response to OPs in the Democratic Primaries Forum that featured information from news sources, here's what I've found:
The "Soundbite" Patrol
Noticing that DISMISSIVENESS and DEFLECTION seemed to be predominant traits in the comments of one candidate's supporters, I looked deeper into the record of that candidate and came to realize how often his own dismissiveness (sometimes of facts, sometimes of certain groups) ended up having real-world, devastating consequences for so many. I also found he was very skilled in deflection, thus taking quite a long time to own up to decisions made and actions taken that were harmful to others. Fear of Trump seems to be the main argument presented in his defense by his supporters.
With another candidate, supporter commentary showed a strong thread of INDIGNANCY and SKEPTICISM in their responses. When looking deeper into their candidate of choice, I found that he is, indeed, downright indignant about a number of issues, which seems to have a uniting effect on some, but a divisive effect on others. His record does, in fact, have notable moments of healthy skepticism, such as opposition to the Iraq occupation. His supporters are fervent and seem mission-oriented, kind of like crusaders out to right societal injustices, which explains the indignancy.
The above two candidates have the largesse of "soundbite" commentary going on. While there certainly are examples of more cogent arguments from their supporters, these are by and large greatly overshadowed by the non-substantive comments.
Just the Facts, Please
On the other hand, the bulk of the commentary from supporters of three other specific candidates tended to be REFLECTIVE, NUANCED, and DETAILED. When I researched the backgrounds of those candidates, I found that, once again, this correlated with the candidates' own records and decision-making skills. Their supporters seem to be more issue- and policy-oriented, particularly on healthcare, women's rights, and other kitchen table issues. They also don't seem to be particularly swayed by fear-based or crusader-based appeals.
I also noted a marked decrease in commentary by the above supporters as the "soundbite" commentary increases. Based on more than a few remarks I read, it appears such discourse reminds them of Trump, authoritarianism, and cult-like behavior that seeks to silence and mock voices failing to exhibit blind, unquestioning loyalty. It also turns them off to the candidates whose supporters engage in such.
Conclusion
In all, it was a fascinating exercise to complete and a real eye-opener. There does, indeed, appear to be a direct correlation between how supporters react to being presented with facts and their chosen candidate's own intrinsic qualities.
If you are indeed still undecided and truly want to get the measure of a candidate, I highly recommend you set aside a few hours and backtrack through supporter commentary in this forum. Then ask yourself, which of these groups respond more closely to your own heart, because that's how their candidate of choice is most likely to respond to your own concerns.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden