A difference between candidate's supporters posting style to ponder.

[Ed Suspicious]

I've noticed going back quite some time that there is something of a difference in posts for Bernie vs posts for Hillary. It could just be my perception but I think it's a real phenomenon. When posts are made by the pro-Hillary camp (maybe Hillary pros or just pro-Hillary posters) they are quite often made with the most presidential photo of Clinton they can find. They seem to have so many photos and all just perfectly flattering. It feels so much like a marketing gimmick that it's really starting to rub me the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong, we do it too to some degree, but it seems our posts are mostly built of text talking about policy and hope. Theirs are about nationwide poll numbers and how inevitable she is.

Do you think this is a thing or is it a product of my own bias? If it is a thing, why do you suppose they do it and why do we do it differently?

[Rebkeh]

1. I can't be sure but

Sometimes it seems like they want to shape perception rather than let the truth speak for itself.

But I am biased myself so...

[senz]

3. I've noticed it too, Ed.

I've interpreted it as concern with appearances. Often the photos chosen are very flattering or even several years old. I've also noticed that, generally speaking, the supporters prefer to discuss the national polls, the candidate's super delegates, and favorable reactions of others -- but rarely delve into issues or mention the American people. There have been times I've wondered if our basic outlooks are so divergent that there really isn't sufficient overlap for understanding or even useful conversation. It's possible that we're simply different kinds of people with different values and thinking styles.

[sonofspy777]

4. Clinton is not an issues candidate

She's a stolen issues candidate!

[Enthusiast]

5. Oh, it's a thing alright.