Recently there was a diary posted that said that Bernie Sanders should not get the Democratic nomination because he will not form a Political Action Committee and refuses to accept millions and billions from corporations, and therefore will not be able to counter the millions that will be spent on advertising against him.
My response is too long to go in their comment section, so it is posted here.
In this diary, Tortmaster claims that since advertising works to elect candidates, and that major money forces are lined up to spend fortunes more than he can raise, then we cannot afford the risk of nominating Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Candidate for President.
I disagree.
Tortmaster cited research of political advertising versus effectiveness -- but in that analysis, there is an inherent assumption: the analysis assumes that the candidates are identical, interchangeable. Like Coke and Pepsi, for example. Personally, I like Pepsi. I could stand the original Coke, even New Coke, but the Classic Coke, and its current formulation is, to me, exceedingly nasty. No billions of advertising dollars is going to change my opinion on that. Even if they started sending me free bottles of Coke, I would use it to clean my copper bottom pans, then go buy a Pepsi.
Here's an analogy: In the movie Demolition Man, due to the chain restaurant wars, "all restaurants are Taco Bell," which served very little food, at (presumeably) exceedingly high prices. If, in that society, a new restaurant opened up on the edge of town, remarkably similar to the Taco Bell of the time, to get people to go to that restaurant, it would take huge amounts of advertising to get people in the door once, and even more for twice.
However, if a restaurant opened on the OTHER side of town, a remarkably different restaurant... one which sold good, solid, decent food, and lots of it, for a price as good as or even better than the Taco Bell prices, all that would be needed is a few people checking it out, and word of mouth would do the rest.
And no amount of Taco Bell advertising would keep them away.
Basically, Hillary Clinton would be the different Taco Bell: a standard politician, with differences between the Republican politician. Differences enough that a large percentage of the population will choose her over the Republican, but close enough that a large percentage of the population will choose the Republican over her. Those in the middle who have trouble deciding between the two, those people can be persuaded by advertising. And if Hillary is the nominee, she's going to face the same onslaught of advertising that, according to Tortmaster, Bernie cannot counter.
(Side note: There has also been bandied about on kos the idea that Hillary has withstood all the attacks of the Republicans for decades. And she has. But in that is the implication that the Republicans have thrown everything that they've got; that they have used everything in their arsenal. I disagree. They have merely used necessary force to prevent her from being a Candidate. She (and we) have not yet seen what they will bring about against Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton. C'mon,... have none of you seen an episode of Power Rangers?)
Bernie, however is different. And in that difference is power. His is the good, solid food we need after decades of Taco Bell. With a Hillary nomination, the line will be drawn between half of the Powers That Be and the other half of the Powers That Be... the line that we've been shown for decades. Bernie's drawing a new line, a line at 90 degrees from the old one, a line between the Powers and the People. And if enough of the People can be shown that line, we the People can make a difference.
So, Bernie supporters: find somebody and take them to dinner. Show them how things can be different. Let them get a taste of what good, solid, decent food can be. And definitely, definitely... don't take them to Taco Bell.