What Biden's Primary Win Means

Who knows?

It seems to lack the certainty one might get flinging a strand of spaghetti at the ceiling to see if it sticks. That certainly means the pasta is done.

I have been warning people for several posts now about falling for the marketing campaigns that are going to be used. My posts have reached such popularity that my followers and fans can be measured in the quarter-dozens! Two-thirds of one of those several quarter-dozens are Bryan and Ken.

I know Bryan and Ken in the ways that I know them, but I don't really know either of them too well. Certainly, I don't know either of them well enough to speak for them. Also, neither of them has given me permission to speak for them. We just all know each other as we know each other, but there is something special about my relationship with them that I covet: we talk about things.

If I were to characterize them for their general political beliefs, Bryan has been a long-time Democrat, and Ken has been a conservative but not so much that he was a devout Republican. Ken's beliefs on human rights falls in line more with the Libertarians' beliefs about human rights, but I don't recall him ever saying he aligned with them. As I recall, he has described himself as "conservative" and "leaned toward Republicans." I, of course, would be classified as a Bernie Bro in such general classifications.

All of us despise Trump, but our different perspectives make for interesting discussions about what the strategy should be to get him out of office. Bryan and I provide the different views, generally, between the establishment and progressive wings. Once he understood the differences, he actually realizes that he likes a lot about the progressive ideology. He, like many people who are Democrats, ultimately want what is best for the people. He wants people to have health care and such. He is having to deal with some people he has supported for a long time are opposed to these more progressive ideals. I think Bryan really will vote blue no matter who, but he is now more supportive of that blue nominee to be the progressive candidate. 

Ken, obviously, has evolved his thinking regarding political parties the most. However, what has not had to evolve so much in Ken is that he is purposeful in doing that which he does. Ken is a man of integrity who does not rely upon proving his argument with the best marketing slogan. He makes his points and supports them. He and I don't agree on everything, but he is absolutely the one-third of one of the several quarter-dozen people who read what I write who I most interact with regarding my political posts.

You may be confused about all those facts. Assimilating them into logical order can be confusing and even conflicting on some things. Let me bring it back to who we each are identified as, and then you decide whose side you are on:

• I am Bernie or bust.
• Bryan is vote blue no matter who.
• Ken is a conservative against Trump.

Did something just click?

No two people within any group are identical unless they are identical twins. Even with identical DNA, they are two people as much as they are identical, and they will lead two different lives, unless the identical twin part is complicated by incomplete detachment from one another. We can pick bones down to the marrow, but the point is that no two people are the same.

It is still likely that when the choice is to sort through a complicated relationship in which no disclosure of our favorite candidate is made, that the simpler "identities" we have for marketing purposes means that you can presume things about our different positions regarding the candidates.

To some degree, the labels will apply. I don't know for certain, but, just as I presume Bryan will vote blue no matter who, I think Ken might consider Romney if he were to run as the Libertarian candidate. With both Ryan and Kasich also having distanced themselves from their ties to Trump, it would be a formidable ticket with one or the other as the VP. However, unless something like those manifests, Ken has migrated the furthest from his conservative views. 

Once you get past a scenario that is obviously set up to appeal to "conservatives against Trump," it all gets a lot muddier.

We were talking together on social media as the first news came in from the South Carolina primary. About two minutes after the polls closed the first headlines appeared reporting Biden's win. There was nothing to explain the headline. That was NBC, so I checked MSN. There was the headline, but it took me to a video page that was running a ten-minute advertisement. It also was not MSN, but CBS when the link was clicked.

The only source I could find that did not have a headline declaring Biden's win was Fox, of course. However, Fox was reporting that CBS was reporting Biden was the winner. That took me to the same page the MSN link took me.

Since I am suspicious of marketing, I, of course, question this.

Now, I don't want to suggest that marketing people are the source of all evil in the universe when I can just outright say it. People who use science to promote something unethical rather than honest discussion are like the people who think about adding the neuro-virus to the head of the cluster bomb for added effect. At a certain point, they lose their credibility for being right that a neuro-virus would add to the devastating impact of destructive devices and are better described simply as assholes.

I can understand NBC and CBS vying to be the first to report the news in a market that can measure micro-seconds, but I didn't understand either of them putting so much as a paragraph behind the link. However, I know who thinks of doing things like that. The people who think of doing that are the assholes I described above.

While kindly friends wanted to put my mind to ease that it was based on exit polling, I questioned why NBC and CBS also didn't want to put my mind to ease. Of course, my friends are absolutely correct about their assessments. In fact, when the results started coming in, and the talking heads started appearing, the win was decisive, and the initial reports were based on exit polling.

It wasn't that I didn't know that a headline claiming Biden won the primary minutes after the primary ended had to be based on exit polling. It wasn't that the headlines eventually proved to be true. It was that those assholes were doing it again!

Is it insignificant that they did not put behind those links a simple paragraph? It could have been this simple: "According to exit polls of Democratic voters conducted by our news agency, Joe Biden is being declared the winner. Polls found that his win will be by a large margin."

There might still be questions, but there would not be the question why the headline was not explained to even that degree. I would think that sample polling might also warrant some attention to Tom Steyer finishing ahead of Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar. Was that not also newsworthy, or is it that they don't want us to notice that candidates in or near single-digits are still in the discussion?

So, what does Biden's primary win mean?

Who knows?

What we do know is that Buttigieg claimed an early victory in Iowa that was later a bit controversial in that Sanders actually had the most votes. There was the problem with the app, but there also were calls for Perez's resignation for his handling of it.

Perez didn't resign.

In one of the most closely watched primaries for processes, Sanders won handily in New Hampshire. It was obvious that when the process and the reports are watched closely, and with the news about the app developers being supporters of Buttigieg, that the problems in Iowa seemed more conspiratorial than believed. Again, there were calls for Perez's resignation.

Again, Perez didn't resign.

Nevada's caucuses were also fraught with problems. Most of the precinct voting was competently run and had Sanders clearly winning the state. Some of the precincts were not so competently run. It seemed the less competently a precinct was run, the more predictably it went for someone other than Sanders. In any case, Sanders clearly won the Nevada caucuses, and anywhere there was a problem with the way a precinct was run, the more likely that precinct went to Buttigieg or Warren. There were now demands for Perez's resignation.

Once again, Perez didn't resign.

We've already discussed South Carolina. So, what has changed?

It was accurate, like we looked for in Iowa. The early headlines were supported by the truth once the truth was reported, like we looked for in New Hampshire after Iowa. The primary was competently run, like we looked for in Nevada. Does that mean things have changed? Does it mean that Perez and the DNC can now be trusted?

Does Biden's win in South Carolina mean that his support of segregationists, his dismissal of Anita Hill's testimony that gave us Clarence Thomas, and his writing of the crime bill are all now in the past, forgiven, and swept under the carpet?

Of course, it doesn't.

The discussion is now "can Biden beat Trump," which implicitly suggests that if he can, then he should be the nominee. Does nobody remember why he is off the table to young, progressive voters? Does anybody take into account that Bernie's numbers cannot be added to Biden's to determine his support? Does anybody not hear when the reply is that the same thing can be said about Biden's votes to Bernie, that they are not truly voting blue if voting blue means voting for Sanders?

So, what does all this have to do with Bryan, Ken, and me talking on social media about the primary in South Carolina? It actually works out to be an interesting analysis of what is happening in the party.

After it all was said and done, all three of us talked about how suspicious it was that the headlines were not supported by any reports behind the links. Should that be important to Bryan demanding Perez's resignation? Should that be important to Ken evaluating who he will vote for if the Democrats move just a bit more to the right? Am I only pointing these things out that I have been pointing out for a long time because I am a Bernie bro?

There will be people who will comment on this post on social media based on its headline. They will not know what the post is about.

Did something else just click?

As I said earlier, my last several posts have been about marketing. It is science. Me mentioning it that I said it earlier reinforces it into your mind. You can determine whether my motive in disclosing that a second time was good or evil. If I did it to reinforce the truth for you, then my reiteration that my last several posts have been about marketing may be considered good. If, however, my reiteration does not support the truth, but rather is using the science behind the power of reiteration in human communication to have you reach an illogical conclusion, then I'm just being an asshole.

After the results showed that Biden had conclusively won the primary in South Carolina, the next wave of marketing has already begun. They are trying to pit our identities against one another. Can they get Bryan to forget that Biden was off the table a week ago and appeal to his identity of voting blue no matter who? Can they get Ken to say he would consider Biden because beating Trump is ultimately more important than who beats Trump to conservatives against Trump? They know that I'm a lost cause, so can they get everyone to dismiss me as just another Bernie Bro?

What does Biden's primary win mean?

Who knows?

Everything seems to change after each of these caucuses and primaries except one thing: Perez, again, should resign. If he and the DNC are not behind the headline rigging, they must denounce it in the most clear and demonstrative way they can: resign so there can be no suspicion about the motives and the ties.

We won't have to wonder if he will or won't for long. Super Tuesday is only a couple of days away.

We can see if anything changes after that.

It won't, but it will have new spins and Perez will still need to resign. Why is it that people in the party are not talking about that more?

The answer is assholes.

Did something just click?