The Myth of Hillary’s Ground Game

Edward Klein ^ | 9/20/2016 | Ed Klein

[nathanbedford]

1. The data mining ground game to which I refer claims to be able to win an election that is within 3%. You point out good reasons why Trump might exceed that margin, I hope you are right. You might note that I acknowledged in my reply the Trump now has the momentum. But despite all of Trump's acknowledged prowess the question is, does he have a ground game and if not what happens if the margin is within 3%? Which was the question, of course, raised my original reply

2. The ground game as described by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal implies a revolutionary approach to the "ground game" not to be dismissed by simply applying a comforting label. Therefore, you can argue that there is no such revolutionary new ground game which shocked all the pundits and pollsters in 2012, but you might at least advance facts in support of your contention.

3. You might argue, as wastoute intelligently did, that Hillary has generated so much chaos that she will have squandered any advantage which you might have inherited with the new digital ground game approach. In learning about the digital ground game one notes that Obama himself had very little to do with it because it was done by nerds quite independent of the actual campaign staff. The anecdotal evidence showing chaos in Hillary's campaign might prove the undoing of this approach, but we must recognize that it is only anecdotal evidence.

[1Old Pro]

I also disbelieve that Hillary has this mythical “ground game” - how can she, she has virtually zero enthusiasm around her campaign. Her people are mostly paid, not volunteers. They are also political people who want something, not grassroots who actually believe in a cause.

[wastoute]

I would humbly submit that Trump’s rallies ARE his ground game. Using data mining techniques is essentially Astroturfing. Real enthusiasm is spontaneously a ground game. Enthusiastic people don’t need a last minute email to get a designated neighbor to the polls. An enthusiastic neighbor will have already gotten that neighbor to the polls.

[going hot]

But despite all of Trump's acknowledged prowess the question is,

The acknowledgement from you is certainly appreciated.

... does he have a ground game and if not what happens if the margin is within 3%?

He most certainly has a game, ground, subterranean, and aerial, and appears to be gaining in all three.

The 3 per cent margin is not important because of any perceived ground game Zero had that Hillary gets to borrow.

It is important because it is close enough to be able to be manipulated with focused cheating and vote irregularities, which are likely components of Zero's ground game regardless.

2. The ground game as described by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal implies a revolutionary approach to the "ground game" not to be dismissed by simply applying a comforting label.

Coming from the journal of MIT, any statement of political subject is itself subject to politically motivated leaning.

Therefore, you can argue that there is no such revolutionary new ground game which shocked all the pundits and pollsters in 2012, but you might at least advance facts in support of your contention.

Romney losing was no shock to most. It was a shock to pundits and pollsters who make a living believing their own tripe. Proving a negative is not optimal use of my time, nor yours.

3. You might argue, as Wastoute intelligently did, that Hillary has generated so much chaos that she will have squandered any advantage which you might have inherited with the new digital ground game approach.

Wasteout is free to argue or present anything he wishes to present or argue. Certainly his arguments could b meritorious, but I would not stop there, nor do I think that this is a primary consideration.To them, the office and the power to drive this country is far more important than any worthless individual grafter that may be sitting in the oval office.

In learning about the digital ground game one notes that Obama himself had very little to do with it because it was done by nerds quite independent of the actual campaign staff.

My contention is that the nerds, and their bosses, control the entire rat agenda and it's focus. Their candidate could be the strawman of Oz, and it would make no difference. In this age, they are mostly right, regards their base of support. it is only when someone truly worthless comes along that they change their support in small numbers, and mostly sit it out due to rejection of the candidate.

[nathanbedford]

The 3 per cent margin is not important because of any perceived ground game Zero had that Hillary gets to borrow.

That is precisely the point, the election results in 2012 shocked the experts because they did not correlate with their expectations and the authors of this revolutionary new data mining approach to the ground game very convincingly demonstrated that they had indeed created and implemented something revolutionary. They did not prove a negative as you dismiss them, they demonstrated that they could accurately predict and create a result at the polls.

You can deny its existence, you can say you don't believe it because you don't like MIT if that makes you feel more secure but you at least ought to have some reason other than wishful thinking to disbelieve it.

The point about Obama himself not being in charge of the digital ground game which had been left to the nerds is to point out that the same nerds could very well be running Hillary's digital ground game quite independent of the chaos in her overall campaign and hence her ground game might be quite effective even as her efforts elsewhere are chaotic.

If it is the case that digital mining has the potential to alter close electoral results, you better start thinking seriously about it and not just dismiss it because you don't like the idea of losing or because you don't like the people involved on the other side.

Finally, it is well known the Donald Trump's campaign is virtually devoid of a ground game and any ground game he can muster will come as inheritance from the Republican Party-which totally fouled up in 2012, as I pointed out in my previous reply. You can cavalierly dismiss that too if you like but it is a fact.

[going hot]

Finally, it is well known the Donald Trump's campaign is virtually devoid of a ground game and any ground game he can muster will come as inheritance from the Republican Party-which totally fouled up in 2012, as I pointed out in my previous reply. You can cavalierly dismiss that too if you like but it is a fact.

My Friend, and I use the term respectfully, you have told me directly or indirectly since last year that trump is expected to fail, that he would not even last through the end of August 2015, that he would not win anything, that he would not get the nomination, that cruz' debating skills and ground game were going to toast him, to your credit, you did call Iowa correctly

One of your favorite lines was "too many people must be wrong in order for trump to be right".

There was a time when I looked at your posts and respected what you had to say, and actually spent time digesting them and most often agreeing.

Over the past year or so however, you have lost a great deal of cred in my eyes, and I no longer read what you say and take it as anything more than your opinion, and more often than not proved to be less than steller in prognostication or otherwise.

Therefore, please keep writing, as you no doubt will, but please understand that you will need a whole string of "rights" to get back to your former level of regard.