[EDIT: I'm not the poster, but this is a real enough consideration these days I thought I'd provide an answer.]

Because in today's "cheerleader" style of politics... where it's more important what team you're on than anything else of substance... there is an assumption that if you say something that could be considered favorable to one "team" that you must be a member of that "team". The assumption that you're just being thoughtful, reflective and just considering the deeper questions seems to be off the table these days.

I felt it would add context to the fact that while my vote aligned with the broader opinion of the LA Times editorial board, insofar as not voting for Trump, this was in no way based on their endorsement and I found it somewhat off-putting that the author would assume that their endorsement would make much of a difference to me.

Clearly to attempt to limit the aggressive ad hominem that passes for discourse on the internet amongst the marketing-sensitive.

If you want to criticize Apple, say you're an Apple fan even if you're not, if you want to criticize the Cubs, say you're a Cub fan even if you're not, same if you want to criticize a Christopher Nolan movie or a policy of the current government of Spain. Some people get so steeped in a particular marketing environment that any hint of a contradiction of one of its axioms gets treated like a blasphemy that is sinful to acknowledge or listen to, and is responded to by marketing-dictated rote, not with thought.

Trump person: "I think it's good that Trump wants to get us out of TPP - why do people call them "free" trade agreements anyway when they add so many protectionist regulations on consumers, and only free capital and finance?"

Clinton person: "Why are you a racist?"

We currently live in a political climate where having the "wrong" opinion means that you are a bad person.