Do you believe CampaignDollars = ElectionVictory ??

[pat_k]

If you do, this message is for you.

There's an elephant in the closet that makes the factors prognosticators usually rely on irrelevant. -- Impeachment.

Candidates are bending over backwards to keep the closet door closed, but polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters across the nation would prefer candidates who were out there fighting for Impeachment. Under these conditions, there are NO long-shots. It doesn't matter where a candidate stands on fundraising in relation to opponents, things can turn around on a dime.
WRONG:
Dollars = Voters

RIGHT:
Time + Demand for Candidate Attributes + Contributor Base + Word of Mouth + Viral Marketing + Citizen Evangelism + Dollars = Voters

Right now, public demand for candidates who are fighting for impeachment is high, and the supply is low -- a condition that completely upsets the Money=Voters relationship. In fact, that equation is NEVER right.

It is NOT about the number of dollars a candidate has early in the campaign.

It is about the number of voters that go to the polls to vote for a candidate on election day.

Campaign money provides a means to influence voter decisions, but it is not the only means.

1. Money is a means to buy marketing services that seek to influence people to "buy the product" (actively support the campaign; vote for the candidate).
   
   But the best marketing is free. People are FAR more effective at influencing each other than strategists or advertisers. Word of mouth and viral marketing often require little or no monetary investment. The higher the inherent demand for the product, the less money required to kick off a "viral" spread through person to person and internet-based communication.


2. Money can be a measure of demand and "customer" (voter/supporter) commitment-- i.e., a measure of the number of "buyers" (contributors) and the price they willing to pay.
   
   But there are other ways to determine demand for candidate attributes. The nationwide demand for candidates who are demanding Impeachment is VERY high. (Some stats can be found at AfterDowningStreet.org).
   
   Right now, there are VERY few candidates who are demanding Impeachment. The is unfortunate for the voters, but because such candidates are scarce, and because the nationwide demand for such candidates is VERY high, each and every one has a potential supporter ("citizen evangelist") and contributor base that extends FAR beyond their voter base.


3. Money is an attractive candidate attribute. Voters and supporters are more likely to align themselves with perceived winners. Given the widespread, erroneous, belief that money is the only predictor of outcome, having more money than your rivals is an attractive attribute.
   
   But money raised two months before Election Day is just as attractive as money raised six months before Election Day. (And in fact, it can be more attractive later. People LOVE come from behind long shots).


4. Candidates perceived to be the most viable get the most coverage. Given the widespread, erroneous belief that dollars = viability, a candidate with more dollars will get more coverage from the news media (free advertising).
   
   But perceptions of viability can change at anytime. A candidate gets a boost in news coverage whether they raise serious money two months before Election Day or six months before Election Day, when it is raised, the candidate gets the boost. (The media also LOVES come from behind candidates, so the boost can be enormous for a candidate who comes on strong as the end nears.

Discussion

TV, radio, print, billboard -- may be the most familiar, but they are not necessarily the most effective ways to influence voters.

Word of Mouth and Viral marketing can be far more effective and often require little or no upfront investment -- particularly if the "product" has an inherent potential to attract a large number of "citizen evangelists." (For example, a candidate who is demanding Impeachment, something voters nationwide are looking for.)

Word of mouth is just people talking to each other. It has always been with us. Every marketing campaign aims to create get happy customers and potential customers talking, but now more direct WOM marketing methods are getting the attention of professionals.

Word of Mouth marketing is a more personal approach that seeks to find ways for product enthusiasts to get out there and connect with others -- and create more product enthusiasts (aka "citizen evangelists"). For example,

• Citizen promoters calling into talk radio, c-span, and so on when the topic is relevent (and even when it is not, can call to complain that no one is talking about where candidates stand on Impeachment, which is far more important than any stand they take on any specific "issue" -- if you doubt this, I would ask you to see this post)


• Events and activities that serve the public and make the "brand" visible (think Dean Corps).


• Create fan clubs and motivate them to spread the word (e.g., Meetups).


• Encourage supporters to hold neighborhood events (e.g., conference call with candidate.

Viral Marketing. Virals can be anything that is strategically “seeded” on websites, blogs and mailing lists around the Internet. Can be just about any Web content.

• Articles, Email, Slogans


• Graphics (e.g., image of a fantastic billboard).


• Web pages -- product or campaign Web sites; fundraising drive (e.g., an "Impeach Bush" billboard fundraising drive)


• Videos -- MPEG "commercials" and silly, funny, or informational clips


• Sound -- MP3 interviews, music, radio clips

As soon as Internet users start forwarding the link or the clip to their friends, it’s gone viral and it will continue to spread across the Web, potentially reaching audiences of millions.

References

Church of the Customer Blog
All about word of mouth, customer evangelism and citizen marketers.
http://customerevangelists.typepad.com

Word of Mouth Marketing Association
http://womma.org

WOMMA's WOMBAT (Word of Mouth Basic Training) Podcasts:
http://feeds.womma.org/womma-wombat-podcast

For example, an interview with Tom Eiland -- evolution of word-of-mouth in both consumer and business marketing, and in political campaigns. Detail about an actual campaign run at the community level, and about the method behind successful word-of-mouth campaigns. http://www.conferencecallsunlimited.com/podcast/hearthis/WOMMA_WOMBAT_Interview_TomEiland_20051130.mp3

Book Excerpt: "According to Kotler: World's Foremost Authority on Marketing Answers Your Questions ("Television losing its effectiveness")
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/050705dmn.htm

[Telly Savalas]

1. Somebody give this bad boy another vote to put it on the great page.

Great post!

[RazzleDazzle]

2. yowza

[pat_k]

5. Thanks for the vote of confidence! (nt)

[AndyTiedye]

3. Dollars To Buy Ads Mean Nothing -- They Have the $$ to Buy Entire Networks

We are ridiculously, hopelessly, irretrievably out of our league when it comes to money.

In 2004, we raised more campaign money for Kerry than for any other Democrat in history.
It was all for nothing, because the Repubs OWN the networks. All of them.
Got them all stumping for Repub candidates 24x7, and it didn't even count towards their spending limits!
If that's not enough, they can always loot the Treasury for more.

They have, in effect, unlimited funds at their disposal.

They also own many of the voting machines, enabling them to steal any election that is not a landslide Democratic win.
In states like Ohio, Georgia, and Florida, their control of the vote count is complete. They can steal any election in
those states, even if they are losing by a 2-1 margin.

However much of a long shot a grass-roots campaign might be, it is our only option,
and it needs to be focused on states where our votes are still counted.

[pat_k]

6. People are the power-brokers -- 100 citizen lobbyists can be FAR more . .

. . . effective than a couple million in professional lobbying muscle. And 100 enthusiastic, hopeful citizens can do more to engage countless others in solving our common problems than a couple million campaign dollars.

Money is spent to advertise and to hire "professionals" to influence public opinion. Persistent citizens who enlist others to take some small action are worth more than their weight in gold when it comes to advancing our common interests.

It is time to challenge the immobilizing notion that "they" have all the power. That is an idea that does nothing but feed the downward spiral of hopelessness and apathy. When cynicism sustains and spreads the belief that there is "nothing I can do" about our common problems, we should not be surprised when they seem willfully ignorant about those problems. Why look at problems if you believe you can do nothing about them?

We can create (and are already creating) the conditions that support a virtuous cycle of increasing hope and ever more effective action. See http://thedeanpeople.com/files/herding_cats.html

[AndyTiedye]

14. We Are In Agreement About the Grass-Roots Part

You view the political situation with ever increasing hope (please, can I get some of what you are smoking?).
I view it with ever-increasing despair as our country careens into yet another mad Crusade,
while every administration scandal seems to fade from the news faster than the last one.

Your path and mine -- in fact all roads -- lead to the grass roots, because every other way is closed to us.

The Bush Family owns Florida. The Blackwell machine is likely to control Ohio for many years to come.
Not much we can do about that for the next few years, at least. The reform initiatives in Ohio
merely served as fodder for a demonstration of how many votes Blackwell can really steal.

The rest of the country cannot wait. Our nation cannot survive any more Republican pResidents.
We have to find some electoral votes somewhere else. We've gotta win New Mexico and Iowa.
It should be possible to win Colorado. Then we need just one more. (A tie isn't good enough,
even if we take back the House, because they count by states).

Your hope and my despair seem to lead us to similar opinions of what needs to be done.

It is not impossible for us to win, just very, very difficult. It is easy for us to become complacent
when Bush** is at 34% in the polls,but we all know that the Gallup Poll will magically have the Republican
nominee at 50.0000001% a few weeks before Election Day and pronounce him the certain winner.
We will have to find some way to overcome that, plus whatever "Terra Alerts" they throw at us, plus
swiftboating of our candidate 24x7 on TV, plus everything the RW churches can get away with.

We need to build a grassroots organization that can overcome all this.

Their influence over the churches is particularly problematical for us in certain parts of the country.
The concessions we would have to make to win them over would be completely unacceptable (total capitulation on reproductive freedom, gay rights and what is taught in public school, just for a start). The ascendency of the
neocon Pope Maledict has already been an unmitigated disaster for us and will continue to be for years to come.

We cannot get these voters, but we might be able to get some of the ones that they have alienated --
like all the ones who have had to change churches because their old church got taken over by RW loonies.

We know they will steal millions of votes. They have more DRE (Diebold Republican Electing) MACHINEZ than ever before.
We need to get so many votes, in places where we KNOW they will count, that they cannot steal it.
They have 2 freshly-minted Supreme Court justices to ensure a favorable outcome to any electoral disputes.
We have to make sure that our victory is beyond any possibility of dispute.

All of these things are possible, so it is still possible for us to win.
That is as hopeful as I am able to get.

[pat_k]

21. Hope and confidence can be elusive . . .

. . . and there are times that I find myself falling into despair. But hope is the key to action (and action the key to hope), so when I feel hopeful I try to spread it around a bit.

These days my hope is rooted in the progress I've seen in the past three years. I know that that probably sound nuts to you, but if you had plucked me up in February 2003 and plunked me down today, I would be thrilled with the changes.

By February 2003, I felt like I had finally been beaten into permanent silence by a world that had seemingly gone stark, raving, mad. After more than a year of seeking sanity somewhere, I had stopped reading newspapers, talking politics, watching TV, listening to the radio.

Today, a search in Google for Impeach Bush gets hits -- the only hits that came up at the end of 2002 were somehow related to Nixon or their failed attempt to impeach Clinton. In today's New Yorker, Jane Mayer's "The Memo" demonstrates the very best in journalism -- something that seemed to have completely disappeared by the end of 2002. This issue of Harpers has a fantastic article on the Case for Impeachment. Back at the beginning of 2003 it seemed like the groups I had connected with in the fight against the theft of the 2000 election had completely packed it in. Today, I have tickets to Harpers "Case for Impeachment" event in NYC on Thursday.

We are forward looking creatures. We are wired to be on the lookout for the next challenge; we aren't so hot at keeping track of the progress we make over time. When I do look back, I see some pretty great things.

Sen. Boxer stood with Rep. Tubbs-Jones on January 6th, 2005 and objected to the Ohio electors. In 2001, we had 100 Senators complicit with the theft of that election. Having one Senator shed the bonds of complicity in 2005 was an incredible victory that EVERYONE told us would NEVER happen. Throughout the past three years, John Conyers has been a beacon of light and hope in the fight against fraudulent elections, voter suppression, Bush Syndicate War Crimes, and on and on. Harry Reid has done some gutsy things too, like shutting down the Senate, a move that seemed out of the realm of possibility not long ago. (That great photo of him is pinned up in my office).

The incredible increase in citizen participation in the various 2004 campaigns has left a great legacy. Countless neighborhood, regional, and national groups that came together then have survived and grown. People are turning their complaints into concrete action.

Every time I hear someone at a meeting or event say some variation of "I've never done anything like this, but I just had to do something," my hope grows because ultimately, taking our country back means driving decisions from the bottom up. When people on the "bottom" who have never been prompted to act before start making noise and standing up "because I had to do something," that's when things start turning around.

As hard as it is to witness the level apathy that persists, I'm not frustrated with the Americans who remain alienated and apathetic. Most have internalized the immobilizing belief that solving our common problems is not something they can participate in -- or they believe that nothing they can do would make a difference. Given their beliefs, I don't expect them to be anything but willfully ignorant. People always avoid looking at problems they believe they are powerless to solve.

Their apathy doesn't undermine my hope because I know that people can shift overnight. People have a basic need to contribute and be effective. Belief in powerlessness can block that drive, but the belief that there is "nothing I can do" can disappear in an instant and completely change the dynamics.

I also don't tend to be disillusioned with elected officials and candidates who fail us, because I don't see them helping us increase our power and influence with them. For that, I look to my fellow citizens. As we connect with each other to lobby for Impeachment or to support candidates who believe in "people power," I firmly believe that we will create powerful associations that endure beyond any specific campaign.

We don't need a movement, we just need to move -- and I am seeing more people join the ranks of the "moving" everyday.

For what it's worth, that's what I'm smokin' -- if anything in here helps to fan your spark of hope, let me know. Perhaps it will help others.

[pat_k]

7. BTW, It was not for nothing. We know Kerry Won. And it probably wasn't .

. . .even close!

All we have to do to stop future stolen elections is reject their fascist view of the law.

See ++++ Reject suspect results & go after officials PERSONALLY +++++

[pat_k]

16. Sorry for multiple responses, but

If I understand what you are saying, I think you are absolutely right -- that whatever power they have amassed and whatever they throw at us, hopelessness is not an option; that we need keep figuring out ways to engage our fellow citizens and support the best candidates we can find (or the best candidates we can create by pressuing them to stand up).

But, I don't necessarily agree with your premise, that:
>We are ridiculously, hopelessly,
>irretrievably out of our league
>when it comes to money.

Citizens can accomplish things that any fascist with big money would give his or her right arms for. They live in dire fear of the day that the "public" starts to break through the hopelessness and alienation that has been so carefully cultivated. To do them in, we don't even need a very big increase in the number of people willing to act in their sovereign capacity and take some sort of citizen action.

As I noted in the other post, people influence each other in powerful ways that cost absolutely nothing. But even on the money front, we have them beat.

The math speaks for itself. If 1 in 10 of the 60 million who voted for Kerry contributed $25 dollars it would total 150 million. If another 1 in 10 contributed just 5 dollars, you're looking at another 30 million.

You can raise a billion if half the people who voted for Kerry contribute an average of $35.

And once people give and see an effect -- even if that effect is just a demonstration of the vast amounts they can collectively raise -- they tend to give again. In terms of money, we literally have a base that they cannot hope to compete with.

I don't see motivating citizen action as the incremental, long, tough, slog, that most believe it is. In my view, it is more like flipping a switch. The transformation -- or switch -- is moving from a state in which action is out of the realm of possibility ("people like me don't do politics;" "anything I could do would be futile") to a state in which action is in the realm of the possible.

As more people get involved (and more are with each line the fascists cross) they provide models for others -- models that challenge the beliefs that politics is "not for me" or that there is "nothing I can do." Once a person gets through that barrier, a virtuous cycle of hope and action opens the floodgates every fascist regime fears.

[AndyTiedye]

17. We Are Not Going to Beat them With Money

>I don't necessarily agree with your premise, that:
>>We are ridiculously, hopelessly,
>>irretrievably out of our league
>>when it comes to money.

...

> As I noted in the other post, people influence each other in powerful ways that cost absolutely nothing.

We are going to have to rely on those.

> But even on the money front, we have them beat.

Not a chance of that. King Midas has nothing on them. They have unlimited access to the Federal Treasury,
and every media corporation in the US eats out of their hand.

>The math speaks for itself. If 1 in 10 of the 60 million who voted for Kerry contributed $25 dollars it would total 150
>million. If another 1 in 10 contributed just 5 dollars, you're looking at another 30 million.

Yes, Kerry raised that kind of money and then some as I recall. It all got lost in the sea of fawning Bushbots and Swiftboaters on TV.

> You can raise a billion if half the people who voted for Kerry contribute an average of $35.

And all the free advertising that the Repubs got from the networks was probably worth ten billion.

[pat_k]

22. They moved no one with their money.. . .

. . .At best, they hung onto the 25-30% that will always vote for fascists and another 15-20% who have been voting for fascists for the past 2 decades. They moved no one else.

We know that hundreds of thousands more voters went to the polls to vote for Kerry. What we don't know is true magnitude of Kerry's victory, but it was probably a few million.

It is easy to show that far more votes were stolen in the big blue states to push up his popular vote total than were stolen in the swing states. It would have been impossible to steal swing states if he had lost the popular vote again and little fascist election officials across the nation knew that and did whatever they could to boost his numbers in their little fiefdoms. With nobody looking, California, NY, NJ, and other big "blue states" are great place to move big numbers.

The premise, that Kerry lost, is not one I will ever buy. They did not take the WH by influencing people with their money. They cheated. They employed corrupt courts and corrupt justice department to keep in place -- and put in place -- unlawful conditions (like Delay's redistricting scheme) that would allow them to hang onto power.

On the money. Whatever they can funnel into campaigns and influence peddling can be met many times over by an engaged citizenry through a combination of monetary and people power. I did not say that we have a sufficiently engaged citizenry today, but that they are terrified that we are heading that way. And are right to be terrified. We are heading that way.

It is NEVER just about people, or just about money. Engaged people influence each other and raise money. When you have a growing base of support, the people and the money tend to grow together. The more engaged, the less the racketeers can get away with, because people are actually watching.

The Republican noise machine is talking to itself. They are not actually moving anybody. We need to stop believing the propaganda that they are winning over people. We can and should completely ignore them and train our leaders to ignore their noise by showing them what REAL backlash is when they fail us.

Right now, our leaders are so busy listening to "them" and worrying about what "they" will say that they have completely lost touch with the voice of the nation. They need us to inject reality into their insular beltway world.

Our challenge is to get our anti-fascist leaders to give up their lunatic notion that they are fighting for some 2% in the middle. They are not. Our job is to pressure anti-fascist leaders to WAKE UP and SPEAK UP. The biggest problem the Democratic Party faces has very little to do with the Republicans. Their biggest problem is the perception that they are weak. The only way to fight that problem is to demonstrate strength. (in case you're interested, more on that here).

[mtnester]

4. Used to - now I believe

he who controls the voting machines, wins...period...no exceptions...you could spend a gazillion dollars and if you were not the chosen one, you lose.

[pat_k]

25. We can stop the election thieves in their tracks RIGHT NOW

Of course election officials can corrupt our elections through systematic voter suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, or Un-American secret vote counting. Citizens are fighting to ban secret vote counting and to institute a host of other changes in the conduct of our election, but whether or not these efforts succeed, we can stop them in their tracks RIGHT NOW.

They cannot steal our elections if enough Americans refuse to fold when they invoke "legal authority" to deceive us and violate our will. They cannot succeed if enough of us reject their fascist view of the law (where legalistic technicality and cynical misuse of the courts trumps reality).

All we need to do to stop them is to internalize -- and help others to internalize -- a few simple truths and moral positions that cut through the pervasive and pernicious assumptions and rationalizations that make it possible for them to steal election after election.

When it comes to folding in the face of perverse legal authority, many on "our side" (who firmly believe they are anti-fascists) are the most damaging offenders. They tell us we are trapped and limited by the "letter of the law" (e.g., the margin of victory puts the election "outside the zone of litigation" or "they have all the judges"). They tell us we must find and correct enough "glitches" to change the result.

It is far more damaging when "one of us" invokes such poisonous assumptions and rationalizations.

--------------------------------------------------
Notion to Challenge

The burden of proof is on us. When there is evidence of corruption it is up to members of the public to prove the precise impact of the "glitch" in relation to the vote totals reported by the state. Unless the precise number of votes affected is proven to the satisfaction of the state, the state can ignore the evidence of corruption.

Simple Truth; Moral Position

The voting systems and practices used in the conduct of our elections are so clearly flawed that the results in every state are wide open to corruption by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and consequently, willful fraud. More tragically, the systems and processes implemented by "experts" now make it impossible for us to rule out corruption without comprehensive investigation and audit.

When demonstrable errors and anomalous patterns of result render official (o-fishy) tallies suspect, it is NOT up to us to prove the results to be sound. The burden of proof is on the state. Just as we employ the presumption in innocence to minimize the chance of locking up innocent Americans; we must employ a presumption of bad results to minimize the chance of putting a person who does not have the consent of the governed into office (Burden of Proof in an Election)

--------------------------------------------------
Notion to Challenge

If the results declare a winner by a large enough margin, discrimination and other problems are "outside the zone of litigation."

Simple Truth; Moral Position

The right to vote is the right to cast a vote in a free, fair, and open election and have that vote accurately counted.

The notion that the margin of victory is an election can be of sufficient magnitude that it forces us to dismiss violations of the right to vote is Un-American and morally repugnant. Claims that insufficient numbers were disenfranchised to change the outcome must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle.

When an election is plagued by discriminatory practices, it is impossible to know how many voters have been discouraged from voting. Extrapolating from past elections to uphold the results obtained in an unfair and unfree election not only fails to address intolerable crimes against our principle of consent, such extrapolation is a useless endeavor because we have no evidence that the conduct of past elections guaranteed fairness. To tolerate disparate treatment in an election is to be complicit with the perpetrators of the condition.

Accepting the "margin of victory" rationalization means that a state with a history of untrustworthy elections that strongly favor one party is completely free to discriminate to any level with no risk of consequence. This is an absurd argument on its face.

If poll-tax-lines and other barriers to voting are correlated with racial, socio-economic, or partisan status, they are discriminatory. It doesn't matter why the discrimination occurred. Only the findings of unacceptable barriers, disparately applied, matter. The results of a discriminatory election are unacceptable. Period. Assertions that "we'll fix it next time" are not acceptable.

We demand they be free and fair for a reason. When we allow the results of unfair and unfree elections to stand, we destroy our constitutional democracy.

Some problems that corrupt results do not require the invalidation of an election (e.g., miscounted or discarded votes that can be recovered and properly counted in a way that instills voter confidence), but when an election is plagued by the destruction of votes or by systematic barriers that prevent voters from casting their votes at all, we have no choice but to invalidate the election and give the voters the opportunity to vote in a new, lawfully conducted, election.

--------------------------------------------------
Notion to Challenge

Election fraud will always be with us. There is nothing we can do. All election systems are vulnerable.

Simple Truth; Moral Position

Of course we can eliminate corruption of our elections. Systems and processes do not conduct elections, PEOPLE do. If election fraud is a capital crime -- and if election fraud includes obstructing efforts to remedy problems before, during, or after an election -- fraud would be a rare thing indeed.

We need to shift our focus from the details of the conduct to the inputs and outputs. Processes are dictated by input and output demands. The most critical "output" of an election is confidence in the results:

The electorate has an absolute right to have confidence that they are being afforded free and fair elections that reflect their will. The electorate can only have confidence if the processes for qualifying to vote, registering, casting votes, tabulating votes, reporting results and verifying results are open, understandable, and accessible to every citizen.

That is, The guy down the street who dropped out of high school must be able to make sense of the how every aspect of our elections are conducted. He may or may not bother to find out, but if he does, he needs to be able to make sense of it all. No device that secretly counts votes can meet these requirments. No device that requires citizens to trust "experts" on things they cannot know or see, meets these requirments.

When the results of an election come into question, the burden is on the state to restore public confidence. If the systems, processes, or conduct of the election makes is impossible for the state to restore public confidence, the election is invalid.

--------------------------------------------------
Notion to Challenge

We are trapped and limited by the "letter of the law" (e.g., the margin of victory puts the election "outside the zone of litigation" or "they have all the judges").

Simple Truth; Moral Position

We the People, through our representatives, have defined our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. If, in any state, there is a reasonable doubt that the election results reflect the will of the voters, and application of the law fails to provide a remedy that eliminates the doubt, then We the People must unequivocally reject the results in a way that trumps all legalisms and cynical misuse of our courts.

We must go after INDIVIDUAL election officials who fail to ensure a free, fair, open, and accurate election. Sue them. Seek criminal prosecution. Call them names. Go after their jobs. Unequivocal rejection means employing every means at our disposal.

Fascist thieves only respond to force and threats of force -- e.g., accusation and threats of punishment. They could care less if we end up overturning their fraudulent results. As long as believe they face no personal risk, they will steal every vote they can. And right now they have NO FEAR for themselves because

Democrats rarely (if ever) go after wrong-doers personally. We "investigate," and pledge to "make sure it doesn't happen again." (and the Republicans chuckle, “Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.”) We limit ourselves to legal action under election contest statutes that view the candidates as the primary stakeholders, when the ONLY real stakeholders in an election are the members of the electorate.

No more. It is up to us to make sure that election officials in EVERY jurisdiction know that their neighbors are watching and that we will hold them PERSONALLY responsible if they betray our trust in 2006.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow a "technical" or "legal" argument trump reality as we did in 2000 and 2004.

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. ***SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE TO REMOVE CAPS FROM CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTIONS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x522832
thread title (2-26-06 GD): LATimes: "Supreme Court will hear TWO ELECTION LAW CASES" -big effects
Excerpt: “Tiny Vermont, a true blue state, hopes to restore small-town democracy by greatly limiting the role of money in politics. If its new spending caps win before the high court, they could change how campaigns are conducted across the nation. Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states, is defending its right to redraw its electoral districts to give its GOP majority more seats in Congress. If its extraordinary mid-decade shift wins in the high court, other states have signaled they will do the same.”

[pat_k]

9. Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states. . .

This is the one I've been waiting for . . .
. . .and waiting, and waiting.

They stonewalled throughout 2003 and 2004 to ensure conditions most conducive to their theft and fascist take over. They stonewalled through 2005 and finally, when it become clear they would be unable to stonewall through the 2006 elections, they managed to keep arguments at bay until after O'Connor was gone.

But, Delay's scheme is so egregious that they may be unable to rely on their fascist fantasies to uphold it.

Background can be found in http://thedeanpeople.com/acosta.html (see October 19, 2004 item)

[NativeTexan]

10. In primaries it does! Just look, sadly, at the Village Idiot....

....who was able to actually purchase the nomination in 2000 right out from under John McCain! And then what happened? All of the oil companies and other big businesses that gave all the big money, got HUGE RETURNS on their investments!

[pat_k]

11. The elephant in the closet -- Impeachment -- was not a factor in that race

I don't claim that money has not been used to crush candidacies. We can all cite instances in which was apparently the deciding factor.

I am saying that there are other factors that can be far more powerful than money. But as long as we hang onto the notion that is it "all about money", we undermine the ability of these other forces to take hold.

From original post:

. . .
There's an elephant in the closet that makes the factors prognosticators usually rely on irrelevant. -- Impeachment.
. . .
Right now, public demand for candidates who are fighting for impeachment is high, and the supply is low -- a condition that completely upsets the Money=Voters relationship. In fact, that equation is NEVER right. . .

We have been trained to believe we are powerless in the face of dollars, when in fact, those dollars cannot purchase the kind of marketing clout ordinary citizens have when they let go of their belief that "we're powerless" and other wrong-headed conventional wisdom.

There is incredible public demand for candidates who take strong stands and fight for principle (e.g., candidates who recognize "politics as usual" is dead and that our only option in this crisis is to fight to Impeach Bush and Cheney).

Because demand for them is so high, candidates who stand out by standing up attract supporters through powerful and self-perpetuating word of mouth and viral advocacy. When we come to see the reality of our own power, it becomes clear that the first step on the path to taking back our country is to:

• Seek out and support the candidate who ARE standing up -- no matter what "conventional wisdom" says about their chances


• Lobby elected officials and candidates who are not fighting for us to WAKE UP and SPEAK UP.

[TheBaldyMan]

12. Corporate Dollar$ = Campaign Victory

Please prove me wrong.

[pat_k]

13. What in the above do you find unconvincing?

[TheBaldyMan]

15. TV advertising can be the ONLY medium that reaches some

would be voters and corporate financing is the way that political parties can afford the extortionate price tag.

The God, Gays and Guns agenda got people that wouldn't normally vote turning out.

Your OP is right about the effectiveness of grassroots action, so I don't find it unconvincing at all but the marketing budgets are so vast that even if grassroots activists have a 90% effectiveness and the big money has a 10% effectiveness they can still reach more people if they spend an obscene amount.

Remember the panicy last minute spending sprees in the closing days of the 2000 & 2004 elections? The polls were a little too close for comfort for some republicans, mainly because of the grassroots effect that you mention.

Having said all that I do recognise that Bush stole the election twice and so I would concede that you are most probably 100% right.

[pat_k]

18. We've only begun to see the tip of the the "people-power" iceberg

They are not "winning" because they are spending. They are steamrolling over We the People because too many people are sitting out the game. That is changing and it scares the pants off them.

Much of the public hasn't been looking at what is happening to the country because they firmly believe there is nothing they can do about it. The notion that we are powerless in the face of "big money" feeds that immobilizing belief.

People have a basic drive to contribute and help, but that drive is blocked when people believe helpful action is outside the realm of possibility.

Ever feed a stray dog? It's a rewarding because when we see a problem, take action, and see a result, it meets our basic needs to contribute and be effective.

Unfortunately, when we have no idea what to do or when we don't think anything we do will make a difference, we avoid looking at the problem at all. On the other side of our need to help is a drive to avoid feeling helpless. Why look at a problem when you firmly believe there is nothing you can do anything about it?

With every line they cross and every battle citizens engage them on, more are people get involved. When contributing to solving our common problems moves from an individual's realm of the impossible to the realm of the possible, it doesn't tend to move back. When a person learns the truth about our stolen elections and the crimes the Bush Syndicate has committed in our names, they do not unlearn it.

The numbers go one way. With every effort driven by ordinary citizens, we are winning victories that are completely unprecedented.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2004. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

Whatever the outcome, there are always positive effects when citizens take on a battle. And every battle provides examples and breed hope and engage new people. The virtuous cycle increasing hope, increasing participation and increasingly effective action is just starting its way up.

As they say, We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!

(in case you are interested, I pulled some of the above from this draft)
[br />

[TheBaldyMan]

20. I certainly agree about the spineless wonders rolling over after both

elections. Still we do what we can and continue to plod on. Personally I can only just do the stuff that I'm able to do, it's not much but it's better than doing nothing.

It may take time, like you say, it gets easier as more hands join the task and the outcome is assured. It is a question of 'Have we reached the tipping point yet ?' and the house of cards that Bushco has thrown up in haste will fall, hopefully sooner rather than later.

It remains a matter of urgency that the idiot son is thrown out of office, this should be the only encouragement we need.

[pat_k]

23. Critical mass is impossible to predict. Could happen tomorrow. .

. . .or could take a couple years.

Transformation begins invisibility -- across fences, around tables, in small pockets of activity. For observers of the phenomenon, it is almost impossible to get a handle on the multitude of actions taken by countless people. No observer can predict the point at which enough people have joined the game or enough acts have taken place.

We don't even know the form change will come in. We could have a gigantic upheaval that completely changes politics as we know it or we could have numerous eruptions across many years.

Since we cannot predict, I figure, why be pessimistic? I reject predictions of long hard slogs. We could reach critical mass tomorrow.

As you say, we just need to do what we can and have confidence that our acts are contributing to that critical mass. We can never see all the ripples, so we can never know the true power of our actions.

BTW, do not discount the power of what you are doing. Your contribution is bigger than you think. A belief that stops vast numbers of people from participating at all is the notion that participating is an onerous and all consuming thing; that no action will be enough, so why bother?

The more examples of people doing little bits, and talking about those little bits, the more others see that maybe they COULD do something too.

So, people doing little bits can be powerful agents of change because they engage others in doing little bits. People out there killing themselves may be admirable, but they can frighten people off. (Gee, isn't the work he's doing wonderful? I could never do that!)

The power of the people is in our numbers -- large numbers doing little bits.

[Minnesota Libra]

19. Money buys voting machines, voting machines determine elections nt

[pat_k]

24. Reject suspect results & go after officials PERSONALLY

We can stop them. It isn't even that difficult. They are cowards. We threaten, they fold.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=524042&mesg_id=525568