Do candidates have a lot of support on DU based on flame wars?

[mot78]

I'm wondering if there is any correlation between a candidate's level
of support on DU, and how often flame wars go on if they're being trashed. For example, Dean, Clark, and the Greens produce flame threads with over 100 posts in them, while if you said something insulting about any other of the candidates, you'd hardly get any responses.

[Scott Lee]

1. They are irrelevent.

I think it was Will Pitt who admonished DU participants awhile ago not to mistake DU for the rest of the country. How right he was.

Howard Dean takes 90% of the negativity on DU, yet he is the frontrunner.

I have yet to see a single DUer swayed from one campaign to another based on negative threads against their original preference.

John Kerry has a diligent, numerous group on DU defending him, yet he can't seem to get into the double digits in almost any poll conducted as to his popularity.

In a nutshell, what you see on DU is reality for DU. I acknowledge that this place can be thought of a as a think-tank of sorts, but it's true impact on American politics is so limited as to be regarded as inconsequential.

[Democrats unite]

2. I defend all candidates being attacked...

except one.

[xchrom]

3. the dumbest flame wars

have been the ''i hate your candidate'' threads.
there's no real clear vision to gleaned from them -- everybody drags skeletons out, parades them around -- and really who cares.
i have no dog in the candidate fight -- right from the beginning when the candidates were talking about bush and repukes i loved the debates. now with bashing each other on the agenda -- i don't care to watch.
now mind you i'll bash the dem establishment ad naseum -- to me it's a different take -- i want a left turn. it's about policy.