[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.