|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PIRAO chief November 3 2004
MIM did not run anyone for office, but we can learn something from the sidelines looking at the 2004 elections.
MIM expenses vs. Democrat expenses
It looks like the Democrats outspent the Republicans for the first time in recent history. The total campaign spending of the races for Congress and the presidency was $1.8 billion.(1) Democrats spent $250 million themselves and friendly organizations spent another $70 million on radio and TV ads just for the presidency.(2)
That's about $6 per voter that Kerry had voting for him. In reality, the figure is much higher, because only 17 states really had any competition and ad buys. Even within those 17 states, the ads can only target a certain minority of "persuadable" voters. The true cost per voter persuaded is probably more than $50 per voter, maybe much more.
MIM estimates that delivering MIM Notes to five people for two years costs less than $6. We believe we could deliver MIM Notes to the entire public for two years for less than what Democrats just spent on Kerry.
The difference is that MIM engages people on the issues and builds an offensive in a certain direction, which lasts whether or not individuals fail or succeed in their bids for office. Ads for a Kerry detract or do little to contribute to political consciousness and if the candidate loses, the wastage is even greater.
The other difference is that MIM Notes is connected to what the campaigns call a "ground game." Radio and television commercials aim at a fleeting impact. In contrast, MIM efforts can focus 100% on driving up the truth quotient in politics--with no watering down. For all these reasons, we think there is no comparison in the effectiveness of MIM on the one hand and Move-on.org or the like. If the people can be moved politically, the politicians will follow.
There are many people in MIM circles who work more cost effectively than any shoe-string operation of the Democratic Party. One reason is that we have no professionals. The proletariat has this relative advantage in the majority-exploiter countries in being able to fight desperately but without stodginess and pampering.
Money talks
In Congress in 2004, the turnover rate compares unfavorably with Politburos in any era of the Soviet Union. "The winners of a handful of congressional races are still unknown [as of November 2], but one thing is certain: Money won big in the 2004 elections.
"In 96 percent of House races and 91 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day today, the candidate who spent the most money won, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on figures reported Oct. 13 to the Federal Election Commission."(3)
Demographics and polls
The embodiment of another lesson we need to learn is Karl Rove. He is in charge of Bush's political intelligence and ultimately he is the one who made Bush president in both 2000 and 2004. Today, candidates do not put their energies into learning to debate better. Kerry won all three debates according to polls, but he lost the election, because the Republicans are the equals of the Democrats in having basic appeal to small exploiters.
It is a beginner's mistake in politics to assume that the more rational-appearing candidate will win. People like Karl Rove can predict how large groups of voters are going to vote, no matter what those individual voters may think of their "free will." By knowing just race, marital status and religion--Republicans can easily find places where 75% or more of voters will vote for them. In fact, Karl Rove studies much more than that, the same way Stalin studied the demographics of each district the Nazis invaded or that the Soviets claimed for themselves. In fact, within their own logic, the imperialists are catching up with Marxism on the study of demographics.
Bush's margin of victory would be expected for an incumbent president. Nonetheless, there was both a youth vote and first-time voter effect that threatened to wipe the president out. Karl Rove countered with Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, who literally parked himself down in Orlando, Florida.
The enemy studies reams and reams of polling data, being careful never to show their candidate doing it. This study at the county and precinct level has given the enemy some knowledge. In each state and county, they know how their candidates have done in the past and they can even determine what might have changed. For example, Karl Rove attributed Al Gore's victory in 9 Iowa counties to his riverboat tour in those counties.
Self-defeating goals
There is a minority of progressive Democrats which needs to think hard about whether MIM is right that they are currently supporting a white nationalist "left." Perhaps this is the real reason for their fundamental frustration with Amerikan politics--not accounting for Amerikan politics in comparison with nations globally.
For Kerry's part, winning the debates did not matter. And for Bu$h, he was not able to capitalize on the unity produced in the oppressor nation by the World Trade Center collapse. People fell back into their social groups and this tells us something about Amerika as a collection of settler individuals. It's wrong to think that there is anything fundamentally rational in Amerikan choices other than white nation exploiter self-interest.
Many poured out their hearts and pocketbooks for Kerry and when Kerry lost, it all looked like a gigantic tactical maneuver to support the Iraq War. In his concession speech November 3rd Kerry said we must all unite as Americans to "succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror." So the net effect and appearance of the Kerry campaign is that 113+ million Amerikans voted for the Iraq War and even linked them in the same breath the same way all anti-Arab racists do. That's exactly how the white nationalists are the trojan horse in the anti-war movement. They must be defeated before the war-mongering nuts can be defeated. In other words, we have to know what is what and make judgements about others that some are not used to making in an effort to be "nice."
The "X factor" in the Amerikan elections is not the "security moms," the "white Catholics" or the youth vote. Progress simply cannot win within the limited logic of Amerikan elections. We have to think globally or we are going to give up fighting and we are going to fight in the wrong direction. When we think internationally in terms of what has to happen for the Amerikan population to get along with other nations, we realize that there is a big job to do and that MIM is the right choice for effective action.
Notes:
1. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3705593
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4587807,00.html
3. http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/04results.asp
The source for this is funded by the Ford Foundation among other corporate giants.