Zero won by hook and crook, and a very complicit media, to whom he was their anointed savior.
In addition, Romney just plain sucked. His oratory skills sucked, his one on one sucked, his timidity to allow moderators to shame him on live tv with lies sucked, and every one knew it.
He ignited nothing in anyone's heart or mind.
Trump, who has "no" political skills, "no" oratorical skills, "no" ground game, and basically "no" effing chance to get anywhere more than 3% support, is now the front runner, and the one with more EV's than the bucket of warm spit he is running against.
Ground Game?
What is that, another name for state by state organizational skills that ensure voter turnout and thus the winning totals at election time?
I see so far that he is doing quite well, better than any other contender, including the Grifter.
Either he apparently has ground game, or does well without it.
Perhaps, there truly were that many that were wrong, for D trump to be right?
Last I heard, the Hillary campaign had around 800 employees, Trump had about 80. And he’s out front, by a mile if you figure in the voters who won’t admit it.
Not bad for a beginner.
Dear Washington,
America is coming,
and they’re bringing Donald J Trump.
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.
