Rick Hampson

USA TODAY

They’re the unsanctioned shock troops of Bernie Sanders’ vaunted online army, digital rogues who've plagued Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and embarrassed Sanders' campaign.

“Bernie Bros’’ are the frequently misogynist and occasionally obscene Internet denizens who in posts and tweets have relentlessly derided Clinton (“Shillary’’) as too old, too compromised and/or too much of a card-carrying female to be president.

Her supporters claim to have been bullied and harassed (“their vaginas are making terrible choices,” read one online comment from a Sanders supporter on a photo of Clinton and New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen) for expressing themselves on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.

But now, with Clinton headed toward a showdown with the GOP’s master of the Internet insult, there arises a new, and ironic, concern: Where will Bernie Bros — and, more importantly, the general digital passion and energy that they represent — go?

The stakes are high in what Nicholas Mirzoeff, an NYU professor of media, culture and communication, calls “the first social media presidential campaign. … People are making their minds up on the Internet, instead of because of what they see on television.’’

The Bernie Bro, as the type has emerged during the campaign, is a young white man passionately committed to Sanders, but not Sanders' stated belief in political civility and gender equality.

He is, by all accounts, a small minority of Sanders’ estimated online force of 9 million, which populates hundreds of sites on Facebook, Reddit and other platforms.

Sanders says 'there are many areas' where he could've attacked Clinton

The Bro lurks in Internet chat rooms, posts on Facebook and tweets abundantly, often anonymously or behind a fake profile.

At least, that’s what most people assume. Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald has tried to debunk what he regards as the myth of the Bernie Bro, pointing out that 1) some appear to be other than whom they claim to be (and thus could be right-wing or Republican agent provocateurs); 2) that some are women; and 3) that many who complain about them are thin-skinned Clinton partisans.

Last month, Clinton herself said the Internet provides a place for bullies to say "the most vile, harassing, incredibly mean spirited things" that "they would never say it to somebody's face."

Former president Bill Clinton, stumping in New Hampshire last winter, blasted “vicious trolling and attacks’’ by Sanders’ online supporters “that are literally too profane — often, not to mention, sexist — to repeat.”

Joan Walsh, a liberal columnist, has written that since she disclosed that her daughter works for Clinton, “we've both come in for trolling so vile,’’ much of it from the left.

Earlier this year the Sanders campaign appealed to its online soldiers to keep it clean, and the candidate himself called some comments “disgusting. … We don’t want that crap. … We will do everything we can, and I think we have tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is — we don’t want them.’’

But the ante was raised last month, when a pro-Clinton super PAC, Correct the Record, unveiled a campaign called “Barrier Breakers’’ designed to level the online battlefield.

It’s a $1 million effort to confront anyone on social media who attacks Clinton or her supporters. Elizabeth Shappell, speaking for Correct the Record, said the initiative posts “exclusively positive content.’’

Unlike Sanders’ online enthusiasts — Bros and non-Bros — Barrier Breakers are paid staffers of the PAC, including “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers ...’’

A campaign with a bureaucratic reputation and comparatively weak online support is resorting to a bureaucratic solution to buttress its digital presence. Although thousands of online attackers have been engaged, the initiative “seems late to the game,’’ says Stefan Becket, director of editorial policy for Mic.com, which focuses on news for Millennials.

He adds: “The online landscape is so vast and has so many places. … A centralized effort is probably not going to succeed.’’

Shappell said the effort actually is focused on the general election, “taking lessons learned from the primary.’’

Sanders supporters, whose goodwill is vital, don’t all see it that way.

Some blamed the sudden, if brief, disappearance of some popular Sanders Facebook discussion groups last month as the work of the Clinton campaign. (Facebook attributed it to a technical glitch.)

Elections 2016 | USA TODAY Network

Charles Chamberlain, director of Democracy for America, a pro-Sanders group, says there’s been a net increase in online harassment since the beginning of the Clinton battlefield-leveling attempt: “Now both campaigns are going at it.’’

Chamberlain says he’s been harassed by Clinton supporters, including “someone who looked a nice grandmother. ... I’ve been called naïve, sexist, condescending. I don’t understand that ‘big ideas don’t work, that change is incremental.’ It’s all very schoolyardish.’’

Now, with Clinton’s nomination virtually assured, she faces a race against the most skilled online political campaigner of the digital age.

Donald Trump, unlike Sanders, seems unlikely to tamp down his supporters’ over-exuberance. And he has 8 million readers hanging on every tweet, including occupants of every news assignment desk in the land.

Will those who flamed her turn their fire on Trump, or sit on their hands?

No one will know until Sanders decides when and how to concede. If he enthusiastically endorses Clinton and energetically campaigns for her, some of his online passion will follow.

Bernie Sanders will be well-equipped to upend Democratic convention

Becket, of Mic, says that what he characterizes as “these online spats’’ between Clinton and Sanders forces “are a natural split that will probably heal when the party comes together."

He doesn’t think Clinton will be able to co-opt Sanders’ entire online franchise — there are down-ballot races with progressives more appealing than Clinton — but asks, “Who else is there for them to funnel their energy into?’’

Mirzoeff estimates that between a third and a half of Sanders’ online “energy’’ — a function of individual support and collective passion — will go to Clinton, mostly because her opponent is the feared and loathed Trump.

But that comes with a caveat: that Sanders online army doesn’t conclude in the next month that Clinton’s “Barrier Breakers’’ are breaking theirs.

Chamberlain says the army will come around: “We want to make sure that we beat Donald Trump, and the vast majority will work hard to do so.’’

Those who see the year’s heated online political exchanges as less than apocalyptic make two points.

First, this is politics. Dating back to Jefferson and Hamilton, “politics have always elicited strong emotions, and digital media often makes those ruptures more public,‘’ says Benjamin Burroughs, a UNLV professor of emerging media.

Second, this is the Internet. “People don’t behave the same way online as they do in person,'' says Chamberlain. "They’re way more vicious, whether it’s a presidential election or an Amazon review.’’

Jennifer Lawless, who directs the Women & Politics Institute at American University, cautions against attributing too much significance to online comments: “If it’s just heated or vitriolic dialogue, it’s not bullying or harassment. Politics has always allowed people to behave badly, and now anyone with a keyboard can display how poorly they were raised.’’

Those concerned about the level of online discourse are not optimistic about what lies ahead.

“If you’re writing quickly and anonymously without a filter, it’s easy to be insulting,’’ Chamberlain says. “As we grow into the Internet age, we’ll see some advances in online maturity. But as for now, people, this is just reality.’’