So, when do I get my Pink Catillac?
Is the Presidential election now becoming the worlds largest pyramid scheme?
The victory of WWW.Bush in the 2004 election is any indication the answer may be yes.
Move over Mary Kay. Georgie boy wants his pink caddy now.
The GOP's "revolutionary" groundlevel campaign to reelect w in 2004 focused on precincts in Ohio to mobilize a grassroots effort. But it is not grassroots in the sense that it is coming from the people up, it is more top down...like a pyramid marketing scheme used successfully by companies like Amway and Mary Kay.
It is somewhat similar to the pyromarketing strategies we have seen in the recent past with the difference being that in a pyromarketing scheme there is less top down control. The seeds are planted with important influentials and then once the spark is ignited, it takes on almost a life of it's own. With this pyramid model, it is top down so folks in their communities actually have little say in what is going on, while the National Party more or less dictates the message and the tactics.
As Herb Asher, a political science professor from Ohio State noted prior to the election, "if Bush carries Ohio by a slim margin, this type of campaining may be seen as the wave of the future."
As we all know, that is exactly what happened.
But does that necessarily mean that this top down system is any more effective than the decentralized version of grassroots organization that the Dean campaign tapped into?
Without getting into politics, there is something to be said for the following:
1) John Kerry was a weak nominee who had an inconsistant message and an often disorganized campaign
2) Bush was an incumbant president during war time
3) Republicans controlled the Congress
4) In the wake of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, Americans are fearful of change
5) Bush very nearly lost.
The point being, that a weak candidate like Kerry, with an inconsistant message has no business even being that close to beating an incumbat president during war time.
Had this type of tactic worked overwhelmingly in democratic areas against a prominant candidate, perhaps there is something to be said for it then... but to harold something as the "wave of the future" when it has only been mildly successful on one occassion may be a bit of an overstatement.
The victory of WWW.Bush in the 2004 election is any indication the answer may be yes.
Move over Mary Kay. Georgie boy wants his pink caddy now.
The GOP's "revolutionary" groundlevel campaign to reelect w in 2004 focused on precincts in Ohio to mobilize a grassroots effort. But it is not grassroots in the sense that it is coming from the people up, it is more top down...like a pyramid marketing scheme used successfully by companies like Amway and Mary Kay.
It is somewhat similar to the pyromarketing strategies we have seen in the recent past with the difference being that in a pyromarketing scheme there is less top down control. The seeds are planted with important influentials and then once the spark is ignited, it takes on almost a life of it's own. With this pyramid model, it is top down so folks in their communities actually have little say in what is going on, while the National Party more or less dictates the message and the tactics.
As Herb Asher, a political science professor from Ohio State noted prior to the election, "if Bush carries Ohio by a slim margin, this type of campaining may be seen as the wave of the future."
As we all know, that is exactly what happened.
But does that necessarily mean that this top down system is any more effective than the decentralized version of grassroots organization that the Dean campaign tapped into?
Without getting into politics, there is something to be said for the following:
1) John Kerry was a weak nominee who had an inconsistant message and an often disorganized campaign
2) Bush was an incumbant president during war time
3) Republicans controlled the Congress
4) In the wake of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, Americans are fearful of change
5) Bush very nearly lost.
The point being, that a weak candidate like Kerry, with an inconsistant message has no business even being that close to beating an incumbat president during war time.
Had this type of tactic worked overwhelmingly in democratic areas against a prominant candidate, perhaps there is something to be said for it then... but to harold something as the "wave of the future" when it has only been mildly successful on one occassion may be a bit of an overstatement.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home