Mere emotional allegiance and extreme candidate partisanship

[Umbram]

This thread applies to you if you honestly believe:

1.) your candidate is running a friendly campaign while the other candidate is mean and attack oriented.

2.) the majority of your candidate’s supporters here on DU are rational and positive while the majority of the opposing candidate’s supporters are irrational and negative.

3.) you can find a policy difference between these to candidates severe enough that you could justify refusing to vote for the other candidate in the GE.

4.) it is reasonable to attribute to the opposing candidate the stupidity of the opposing candidates supporters here at DU.

Now, ask yourself – why have you taken this path? Is it because:

1.) You believe that this mentality will be conducive to helping your candidate prevail? You recognize (possibly) that you have abandoned reason and often post hypocritically, yet the ends justify the lack of integrity you show?

2.) Your bias and lack of emotional intelligence has caused you to be unable to objectively consider the: a.) flaws of your candidate and/or b.) merits of the opposite candidate.

3.) You just enjoy being in the “fray” and don’t mean half of what you say, but figure contributing to the negativity is a suitably entertaining sport.

4.) Some other reason?

Here, in my mind, is a case in point:

The reoccurring issue of whether delegates in states that have moved their primaries forward should be seated. Did you make your decision purely based on what would benefit your candidate, or did you think ALL of the policies through? Here are some of the policies:

1.) We have a strong public policy for allowing the voters to have a say.

2.) We have a strong public policy for legitimate elections that follow rules that are set out in
advance.

3.) We have a strong public policy for not allowing states to continue to play hopscotch to the front of the line, thereby creeping the primary season further and further forward.

4.) We have a strong public policy for maintaining the legitimacy of the election process.

Did you consider all of the possible policies involved and find a solution that tries to balance them, or did you focus only on those that supported your candidate? Is it worth it?

Realize, you are not changing minds (as I realize I am also not changing any with this thread.) By abandoning reason you are merely:

1.) Entrenching your opponent’s supporters in their position.

2.) Reducing your opponent’s supporters enthusiasm for helping your candidate, should they prevail.

3.) Encouraging your opponent’s supporters to post similar junk.

4.) Mortgaging your credibility, reducing your persuasiveness in future matters.

5.) Wasting effort that could be placed in highlighting your candidate’s positive traits.

[Umbram]

1. Oh - and an exercise:

Yes, I'm replying to myself - I am a very sad panda.

Read posts, those you agree with and those you disagree with on a base emotional level. Would you agree with the post if all of the names were reversed? Does that mean anything?

[vedalia]

2. Have you ever noticed

that people who support Barack Obama say lots of cheerful, uplifting things in support of their candidate? It does seem that they are, by and large, hypnotized.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton supporters tend to pontificate, loading their criticisms of the opposition with pseudo-substance in an effort to emulate their candidate's singularly notable quality. They too are hypnotized.
I support Barack Obama.
I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the democratic nominee.
It is that simple.
It should be that simple.

[Umbram]

4. Interesting

You think this is an attempt by the supporters to emulate their given candidate then?

Could it possibly be explained also by the current perception that B.O has the momentum, causing his supporters to be optimistic and vague, where the H.C. supporters perceive their candidate as needing to regain the momentum - necessitating more specific criticisms?

[housewolf]

3. Quote I heard last night "Once a person commits to an idea...

the evidence supporting the idea shows up"

Meaning that most of us make choices based more on emotion than reason, and once we've made that choice, the supporting evidence becomes apparent, giving us a rational basis for the choice we have made. Or said another way, we find rational reasons to support the emotional choices we have made.

Personally, I think there's a lot of truth to this. I think the person who is utterly non-biased towards candidate is pretty rare. Virtually every choice we make in our lives - from which color shirt we choose to which house and car we choose to which brand of toothpaste we buy - is primarily an emotional choice even if we think we've used a rational process to make the choice.

[Umbram]

5. I agree.

But isn't there utility in recognizing one's bias and at least making an effort to consider issues both WITH one's bias and then reconsider the issue after compensating for that bias?

Admittedly, compensating for the bias can be difficult, as it requires one to give good faith consideration of those policies in opposition to one's own preferred conclusion.

[housewolf]

16. Hmmm... I'm not sure

I fear you are asking for the near-impossible. I think we're emotional animals first and foremost. We have a capacity to base decisions based on a set of priorities that we each have. I'm thinking of circumstances where one chooses one car or another based on a set of financial realities where the head might be pointing one way and the heart another way and one can place a higher priority on one over the other. But it's it still basically an emotional decision - will you feel better about yourself if you choose the more finacially-responsible path or the more exciting path? Which one of the competing self-interests are served? We call it more "rational" to make the more "responsible" choice, but I think that we make that choice because it has more emotional juice for folks who give traits such as responsibility, self-sacrifice, short-term-pain-for-long-term-gain, etc. a higher priority (value) than those who value the heart-excitement path more highly.

I understand what you are saying, and I can see the moral up-righness of it. And I think what bears examination is the emotional juice behind being a person who operates from "recognizing one's bias and at least making an effort to consider issues both WITH one's bias and then reconsider the issue after compensating for that bias?" If you are a person who is intereted in self-reflection and self-knowledge, there is an opportunity here for some self-examination. What does it mean to you that you are such a person? What would you think about yourself if you led with your heart and not with your head?

I'm not saying that you are wrong, because you're not. Only that there's some sort of emotioinal driver to your preposition too, just as there is to those who are more overtly led by their hearts. In other words, I kinds think we're fooling ourselves when we think we operate from a rational, reasoned basis.

Interesting post, thanks for it.




:toast:

[Umbram]

17. I couldn't agree more.

I am an INTP (if you are into the psych stuff) and used to have a very condescending attitude to all things emotional. You know the type - I was a Vulcan! This caused me to become incredibly introverted and my biases ran wild.

It has taken a lot of work for me to come to the point of realizing that emotion and reason are both of equal value and are integral components to wellness and both are valid methods of interacting with others and experiencing the world around us.

I'm not asking for an emotional exorcism. Far from it. I believe that our core political and religious views are entirely emotional, and logic is merely an infrastructure built upon that. All I am asking for is a TINY amount of introspection - just enough to dispense with some of the wilder forms of partisanship.

After all, GD: P would be boring without some of the craziness - but - the foolishness is at a pretty advanced stage at this point.

Thanks for the feedback.

:toast:

[housewolf]

20. From one IN'P to another IN'P...

can't remember if I'm an INTP or an INFP but no matter...

I'm with ya! Especially on the introspection thing.

I agree, it HAS been pretty wild around here and it takes real senses of both humor and empathy to maintain sanity.

DU can be a wild 'n' wolly place on all kinds off issues, most particularly at election time. There is a real diversity here amongst folks with a basic common world-view. AND there is a wealth of opportunity for self-psychologizing here for anyone who wants to do that - multitudinous opportinies to look at one's own projections, shadow-sides, biases, judgments, values, etc - this place is a real treasure-trove for that.

Glad you decided to "come out" and talk today, I've enjoyed talkin' with you.



:hug:

[Umbram]

24. Cheers.

It's been great talking with you - I hope we can find things to agree on (or even learn from each other in disagreement) in the future.

:hug:

[Umbram]

6. Unsuprisingly, no input from the hacks.

Perhaps they are only capable of reading a few sentences and if they haven't found anything to give a knee jerk reaction to by that point, they give up?

[Umbram]

7. I need to learn how to better title posts.

This one should have been - "Why Hillary is racist and Obama is sexist." Apparently you need something shiny to catch the attention of the hacks!

[cornermouse]

8. Kick

[vedalia]

9. You are just trying to provoke an argument

so that you can justify your positions when I or someone else launches into a tirade against your candidate. It is people such as yourself that perpetuate the MYTH of Hillary being such a vicious, power-hungry candidate. When a candidate's supporters begin with ad hominem attacks ( the 'hacks' statement) you are seen as a representative of that candidate.

"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!" Nietzsche

I've taken a very good look at how I feel and why. Have you?

[Umbram]

10. This is sarcasm, right?

Please tell me it is...

[Donnachaidh]

22. nope. The poster doesn't GET it

Many on both sides are so heavily entrenched into *attack mode* (both fending and attacking) they either fail to see or refuse to see any attempt at discussion of their mindsets.

You're just a big bad meanie and a poopiehead, dude. :sarcasm:

Personally, I think you've posted quite a bit for all sides to chew on. That is if they put some effort into it.

[Umbram]

35. Yea

I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. It can be easy to forget the sarcasm emote.

Heh, oh well.

[vedalia]

11. Now I am going out for lunch.

So this 'hack' won't be able to respond.

[Umbram]

12. Thank you for self-identifying.

Where you get the impression that my post was only aimed at Hillary-hacks is beyond me. I'm pretty positive it is completely hack-neutral.

For the record:

Hillary-hack percentage at DU: 50%
Obama-hack percentage at DU: 50%

This post - dedicated to all of the above lovely hacks.

Thanks for pretty much demonstrating what I mean by emotional allegiance, though. You assume anything that is generally negative towards all hacks is specifically pointed at your particular breed of hacks.

For clarification, this post is directed at both posts #9 and #11.

[Umbram]

15. When you get back from lunch...

please, enlighten me as to what caused you to read my original post and decide that my objection was only to H.C. supporters.

[LWolf]

13. I'm an extreme candidate partisan.

I believe that my candidate is worth ten of both HRC and Obama. Not because of emotional allegiance, but because of his positions and record on the key issues facing our nation. I'm an issues voter, pure and simple.

I believe that my candidate is running a desperate campaign, because tptb have sent in outside money and candidates to punish him for standing up for us on the House floor, and working for the very things that earned my support for his aborted primary campaign.

I believe that the majority of partisans for HRC and Obama posting here have to use any ammunition they can, because they don't have enough of positive substance about their candidate to promote.

I believe that because, until the field was narrowed by voters and caucus goers in a very few states, HRC and Obama ranked a low 3rd and 4th; they didn't have that many supporters at DU. As a matter of fact, you could have added their supporters together, and still come up short against the # 1 and # 2 candidates, as evidenced by many polls over many months.

So now, a majority of DUers are left with the lesser of two bad candidates, and are determined not to end up with the one they see as the WORST of the two.

I understand that. I don't blame them. I don't blame HRC supporters for rightly noting Obama's many flaws. I don't blame some Obama supporters for being caught up in the emotional energy his campaign has demonstrated, regardless of what lies underneath the surface. I don't blame them for rightly noting HRC's flaws.

I don't agree with any of them, but I don't blame them.

I can find enough policy differences between myself and these two candidates severe enough that I can justify refusing to vote for either of them in the GE.

Of course, once there is a nominee, I won't be saying that here at DU. I won't decide what to do in the GE until the convention is over. Meanwhile, I'd planned to write in a better candidate at my late primary on May 20th. I may do that. Or I may cast a vote for whichever candidate is behind, hoping to help close the gap enough to force a brokered convention, where maybe we could end up with a better candidate than either.

[Umbram]

14. Sounds like you are a reasonable supporter.

I was using the following definition for partisan and used the modifier 'extreme' to emphasize that:

(from www.dictionary.com)

1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

I think the operative part of that definition is "biased, emotional allegiance."

In my estimation, the individuals who meet the criteria in my post have reached a level of partisanship that qualifies them as unreasonable.

I do agree that Hillary and Obama are shades of gray. I caucused for D.K. during the last POTUS election season and was planning on doing so again this time, alas.... I do NOT however agree that abandoning reason and beginning a circular firing squad is the best way to handle two candidates that can barely be differentiated from one another. I'd think people should positively support their chosen candidate while being excited that the policy characteristics that they are supporting are likely to be ultimately implemented regardless.

The angry ones should be those of us that both of these candidates are far too moderate to accomplish our objectives. I don't think that those of us that feel that way should resort to flipping a coin (which any distinction between them really is) and entering the fray as if we were honestly so rabid in our support for our randomly chosen candidate and in our opposition to the other candidate.

I'm sure many would disagree with my conclusion that the candidates are shades of gray apart - but that is a matter of scope. Compare H.C. or O.B. to D.K. and I think you'll agree that those two are closely aligned. My view is tied to my bias for a more liberal approach (ie. I recognize my bias.)

My point that you don't seem to be the type of supporter I was discussing in the original post does not stem from the fact that you support D.K., there are many, many reasonable supporters of B.O. and H.C. They just don't create as many posts in GD:P as the unreasonable ones.

[LWolf]

18. That's true.

I'm extreme in my insistence on adhering to issues as the primary focus, and am happy to support any and all who will do so.

[Umbram]

19. Keep up the good work. nt.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Beautiful. THANK YOU

There are good and bad supporters for both current candidates.

Both candidates have their plusses and minuses.

I think one reason the hate posts grow and grow is because even "reasonable" supporters have an instinctive reaction to defend their candidate and nasty begets nasty. (I've been guilty of this.)

I'd be willing to bet all I have that not one mind has been changed from a post attacking (as opposed to disagreeing with) a candidate. In fact, as the OP said in the last part of the post, it only entrenches support and encourages a reaction. So what's the point? (My bet is to get a reaction...any reaction, and watch the replies accumulate)

[Umbram]

26. I agree

I've gotten plenty nasty here too, not in regard to supporting a particular candidate, as my preferred one is long gone, but with particular posters.

It makes perfect sense to me that the need to defend our candidates makes us all a bit hypocritical. I just think it's good to take a step back every once in a while, remember what we are up against collectively (the Republicans), take a deep breath, and post something positive.

The worst threads to me are the ones that attempt to inspire people to sign in a candidate's name in the GE. I realize that some of this is posturing, but some may eventually take such positions. Can the differences between H.C. and B.O. truly be so severe? Let's hope not!

[cbayer]

23. Reason AND logic? Have you lost your mind?

Great piece, but I agree that those to whom you are speaking are not going to read this (except for that brand new person who just went to lunch).

I am not particularly worried. I think we will form a coalition once the candidate is selected. I am a strong believer in contested elections, but recognize that they bring out both the best and worst in people.

But thanks for a thoughtful, reasoning and logical piece.

[NJmaverick]

25. Number one shows a real bias

1.) your candidate is running a friendly campaign while the other candidate is mean and attack oriented.

That mis-frames the discussion. The REALITY is one side has been negative and spent most of their time attacking. Obama has not. This disingenuous first claim is a back handed way to make the false claim that Obama is just dirty politics as usual.


SHAME ON YOU!

[Umbram]

27. I was just called pro-Obama upthread.

Now I'm anti-Obama? I must be devious!

[NJmaverick]

29. I don't care what you are called, it doesn't change the fact

That you misframed the issue, by statement number one.

[Umbram]

30. Reframe it. I never claimed to be an amazing writer.

I'm sure it can be better stated, but the end result should be neutral.

[NJmaverick]

32. Just remove it

There is no way one could reasonably claim that all candidates must run a dirty campaign

[Umbram]

33. I don't think I made such a claim.

My problem is with individuals who are incapable of seeing that BOTH campaigns go negative from time to time.

Included is anyone who believes that a.) their candidate is an angel and b.) the other candidate is the devil.

Hey, I have no problem with people that claim both candidates are running a clean campaign, both candidates are running dirty campaigns, or even really believes one is slightly cleaner than the other. I'm not saying that both sides have gone negative exactly the same amount - I'm saying if one can't admit that one's own candidate has - then that person has their head in the sand.

[NJmaverick]

36. You are repeating the claim

I am sorry, but it's illogical to make the claim that all candidates must be negative or positive. So it's wrong to suggest that someone is being Emotional or not objective, if they see that one is running an attacking campaign in the other isn't. In fact, I was on the fence, with no leanings one way or the other. It was how the two candidates conducted themselves, that was my determining factor. So sorry but in my opinion you are wrong and guilty of misframing the issue. I won't venture a guess as to your motives.

[Umbram]

37. Well, if you are right

then I merely didn't think it through enough.


:dunce:

[ecdab]

31. You sly devil

you must be a HilabotObamanista!!! You can deny it, but none will believe you.

On a more serious note, good post - some people here would do well to at least think about why their emotions are running so high and their dislike of the other candidate (be it Obama or Clinton) is so strong.

[Umbram]

34. Yes.

On the upside, I haven't been accused of any 'isms in this thread yet.

[NastyRiffraff]

28. Exhibit A

'nuff said.