I have written quite a few posts about the marketing campaigns the DNC uses, and how marketing, like brainwashing and propagandizing, is based on science. The only defense against it is critical examination. If we are not allowed to critically examine the reasoning behind nominating Biden instead of Sanders, then I contend it is those who criticize the examination rather than the question who are actually casting their votes for Trump.After taking a short break from directly criticizing Biden to consider what a trusted friend said, I concluded that the breaking of criticism only led to the emboldening of the establishment supporters who 'vote blue no matter who' (VBNMW) to allege that supporting Sanders is the same as voting for Trump. It isn't. It never was. It is propaganda and marketing.
To the contrary, I have been quite consistent in my support of the progressive ideas, and, in fact, would push them even further to the left. For example, Is health care a right? If so, only two candidates for the nomination supported that as a massive change in the way health care is paid for: Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.
When pressed by donors for what they mean, even Elizabeth Warren backed off on both "supporting" and "health care as a right." She was easily the closest candidate to progressive, but she is not seen as progressive by people who support Sanders and/or Gabbard.
Anyone who supports any candidate other than Sanders or Gabbard have to make adjustments in their mind if they also think health care is a right. Those other candidates don't want to give up the donations they get from health care lobbyists, or the potential for big paydays speaking to them behind closed doors.
If the party were to nominate a ticket of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, they would draw the votes needed to win the White House in November. The only way it wouldn't is if the VBNMW would not vote for them, and then who would they vote for? Would they mount a third-party run for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren? Would they coalesce enough to mount a write-in campaign for one of them? Would some of them, perhaps, even vote for Trump?
Anybody who claims to be VBNMW, and who would opt to do one of these options, is not really VBNMW. They are hypocrites. Hypocrites do that which they criticize others for doing.
Some people are happiest being hypocrites. There is plenty of company, and there are hypocrites that are diametrically opposed, so there are natural enemies. If you are okay with the position of the DNC that the nominee must be someone other than Sanders, then just own up to being a hypocrite.
However, even if there is enjoyment in being a hypocrite because of the refreshments provided by the sponsors, spouting the marketing slogans of the DNC, upon critical examination, will also establish that someone is an idiot for believing the slogans. Depending on whether it is the company that is important, or the argument that is learned by rote, the person is either a idiotic hypocrite or a hypocritical idiot. Those are the only combinations that can be derived from both factors, and it is based on density.
Some people won't understand what I just said. They will rebut the claim with something hypocritical, something idiotic, or some combination of the two. Those who do understand the science behind density and weight, and who understand math sufficiently to know how combinations work, will get it.
Here are some marketing slogans I get hit with that are easily dispelled:
Sanders and Gabbard are not electable.
This is only true if those who identify as VBNMW are lying. Most of the people who support Sanders will vote blue. However, a significant percentage (half, or so) have declared themselves to be "Bernie or bust." Sanders will get those votes. No one else will, with the possible exception of Gabbard. She is able to draw votes from people for whom integrity is the most important trait.
I notice Hillary Clinton is still keeping her mouth shut about Gabbard. Many in the VBNMW are not. They fell for the marketing rather than just noticing what a $50 million defamation suit has done to quiet her main critic.
Sanders would not be able to get his agenda passed.
That may be true, but that is only one possibility.
Another possibility is that a Sanders candidacy could result in a progressive landslide. It would draw out the people who are more likely to vote for Amy McGrath in Kentucky, which would rid the Senate of McConnell. It would draw out the people who are more likely to vote for Jaime Harrison in South Carolina, which would rid the Senate of Graham. With Mark Kelly the favorite already in Arizona, the party would only need to grab one more seat to replace the president to have a majority.
If his election is seen as a mandate, he could be like a combination of the Roosevelts: progressive and economically revolutionary. That is a second possibility.
However, since Biden's position is that he wouldn't fundamentally change things, but he is not Trump, there is no difference between electing Sanders or Biden, since both are not Trump and Biden promotes no fundamental changes. In my opinion, it's worth trying to make the changes and failing rather than not trying.
Not trying is a concession to the status quo, and the status quo is Trump.
Even Sanders says it is irresponsible to not vote for Biden.
You can also expect that Bernie will back that up with his vote. He will also support the Democratic nominee because of the agreement required to run within the party. He will continue to encourage people who listened to him in the past to keep listening to him.
About half of his supporters likely will agree and vote blue; about half will bail on the party because it bailed on them. That is not my fault. We have all seen the differences in the rallies. You can believe your eyes, or you can try to find some confirmation for your bias. However, you will not convince many of the people that voting for one person whose name is not Trump is a better idea than voting for another person whose name is not Trump and who is fighting for causes in which they believe.
It isn't the same, and we all know it.
Sanders' supporters should have learned from 2016.
We did. We yelled louder and earlier about voter suppression and the party's manipulation of the results in the various primaries and caucuses. More than anything else, we demanded a fair nomination process. We still do, and, since it wasn't delivered, anyone who accepted the results without raising their voices has no credibility with us on the topic of party unity. If we could not unify behind a fair nominating process, we certainly are not going to unify behind the results of the fixed process.
It seems the VBNMW people did not learn these things:
- Obama's endorsement is meaningless.
- Being close to Obama in the past is meaningless.
- Being the lesser of two evils is meaningless.
Here is the truth: the people who claim to be VBNMW, but who oppose Sanders, are essentially casting their votes for Donald Trump.
The election will not be won with overwhelming majorities in New York City and Los Angeles. If it is won by Wyoming's three electoral votes, it really will have been the combination of wins and losses in the swing states that made it that close. It is not the number of votes that matters; it is the support of voters in key swing states that wins the elections.
If you think Biden cannot win without the support of all of the people who would vote for Sanders, then you are thinking that Biden cannot win. If you think it will take all of Sanders' supporters to win the election in November, then you are thinking Sanders is the only person who can beat Trump. If you think it is important that everyone get behind someone most people want if the process were fair, then you think Sanders should be the nominee.
If you deny those logical connections with your thoughts, then you are not critically examining the marketing (or propaganda) that you are choosing to believe because you are a hypocrite, an idiot, or some combination of the two. That's not my fault; it's the way that math works when you fall for the marketing or propaganda that they are using to brainwash you into accepting illogical conclusions.
