Opinion: Naming the acolytes

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

So, now that we’re up to our bellies in the presidential nomination battles, we’ve been wondering -- well, musing is probably more accurate -- about a key aspect of vital importance to the electorate: What do you call the candidates’ supporters?

For Barack Obama‘s people, Obamans seems a natural fit. For Hillary Clinton, it’s a toss up between Hillaryites which, frankly, doesn’t exactly roll of the tongue or the keyboard, and Clintonites, with its echoes of the stuff that could bring down Superman. John Edwards? Well, with his poverty push it seems cruel to call them Edwardians, but then, there’s the haircut and the house.

Bill Richardson? Too many syllables in the name to begin with, so adding -ites or-ists doesn’t work. Richardsonian? Like Jeffersonian? Could work, given both men’s predisposition to diplomacy. Chris Dodd doesn’t have an easy fit, either. Dodderers? We doubt the image folks would approve. And speaking of image folks, what does one do with Dennis Kucinich‘s backers? Call them the Kucini?

On the other side of the aisle, the Republicans offer a similarly mixed bag of potential. Rudy Giuliani could be backed by the Rudees, Giulianians (though that sounds like a salad), or, perhaps most fitting for the ex-federal prosecutor, G-men (if you ignore the gender-specificity). Mitt Romney offers up both the Mittites, with its echo of ancient civilizations, and Romneyans, which sound like ‘Star Trek’ figures.

The easiest fit: Fred Thompson‘s Fredheads. A tougher fit: John McCain. McCainiacs?

You get the idea. Got any suggestions, drop them in the comments section. But be warned -- suggesting an opposing candidate’s supporters are ‘self-deluded backers of a self-deluded demagogue’ probably won’t get posted.

-- Scott Martelle