candidates vs. paid staff vs. volunteers vs. DU posters

I'm relatively new to DU so maybe this question is naive.

I'm perplexed by people posting comments like, that's it, I will never vote for candidate Smith based on the postings by its supporters here.

Shouldn't we be evaluating the candidates based primarily on their own stated positions, record and behavior; to a lesser degree the comments and tactics of their paid campaign staff; to an even lesser degree the actions of volunteers; and to a much lesser extent the anonymous comments of people on blogs such as this?

That said, it does give me pause when campaign staff do something awful because that reflects on the candidates choice of staff and managerial skills - which might indicate how they'd run the executive branch. And I do think candidates need to step in sometimes and fire/apologize for/criticize/etc. their staff and volunteers when they get out of hand.

Am I missing something here - are most DU folks very active volunteers, local staff, etc.? Or are most of us passionate, educated folks who care but are not really affiliated with campaigns?

I think you just have a more objective perspective. People tend to get so involved in politics that they often can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes the passion involved is a positive sign that people really do care, but unfortunately it can turn personal. The atmosphere on this board can become so toxic that the more reasonable people tend to become less vocal.

I look forward to the day when we have a nominee and we can focus all that energy on the republicans again. Meanwhile, I find most of the posts here nonproductive.

I'd say the percentage of DUers who are paid staff for any candidate is very low. Many are volunteers, but it's difficult if not impossible for a candidate to control public statements from volunteers. Paid staff is another story...there are many layers of paid staff, from phone bankers to senior policy people. The senior people are accountable, but again, if they don't identify themselves on DU, they're just another DUer as far as credibility.

So, you're right. Regardless of whether or not a poster on DU is paid staff or a volunteer, if they don't identify themselves as such, take their opinions about any candidate with a large grain of salt. That said, I think people do their candidate a disservice by some of their posts. Note that I'm not singling out any candidate's supporters.

SOME of us are "passionate, educated folks who care but are not really affiliated with campaigns"; maybe even "most" of us. No one is obligated to announce their affiliation with a campaign. Again, given that we don't know unless they self-identify, I treat all postings about a candidate, pro or con, as individual opinions and analyze them accordingly. I may agree or disagree with them, but my choice of candidate doesn't depend on their opinion. I know it's tempting sometimes to be put off a candidate because of the vitrol spewed by some supporters, but that's something a candidate can't possibly control.