As pointed out in this article in Rolling Stone
, Moveon.org has done an amazing job of raising money for Democratic causes, but it has a terrible record of turning that money into political victories. So, strategically, is Moveon.org a viable organization?
Strategically, the simple answer is that, since it continues to generate money, it is a successful organization. This is where strategy's view of politics differs from the mainstream view. Sun Tzu's strategy define the battlefield in terms of economics. We may think the battlefield is one thing, but we don't know the real battlefield until we follow the money. As Sun Tzu says, the point of battle is to make victory pay. You don't have to beat your opponents to do this. Sometimes, you can lose consistently to your apparent opponents and still make the real battle pay-off.
Moveon.org has done in many ways, what the Democratic Party has failed to do. It has built up a political position and organization. Its "causes" starting with fighting Clinton's impeachment to the recent election may have all been lost, but the organization has continued to grow. Rolling Stone compares this to a dot-com stock before Nasdaq fell, but I am not so sure. As long as there are people like George Soros in the world, Moveon.org may well be mining a rich vein of discontent. To many of these people, the continued failure of Moveon.org actually proves how necessary the organization is to fight the "forces that be."
However, long-term, strategy teaches that only visible victories creates the esprit d-corps that keeps and organization vital. It is a competitive world, even for political entities. Moveon is safe until another organization arises that does demonstrate some success. Since the money is obviously there, it is only a matter of time until this competition arises. If Moveon wants to remain viable, it is going to have to start picking some political battles that it can actually win.