If it all turns out to be the ground game that matters, Trump is coming up short. Only 62 days to go.
I think this idea of ground game being critical is outdated. Years ago, when I was politically active, I was part of the "ground game," e.g., phone calls, neighborhood canvasing, etc. But in the age of twitter, emails, and other social media, the "ground game" looks expensive and irrelevant. Trump is now ahead in some polls but he has spent, what, a third of what Clinton has? With his shoestring campaign Trump is nonetheless able to attract much larger crowds than Clinton. This election will probably upend the traditional convention on what is necessary for a successful campaign.
The ground game suddenly became outdated since when, the last election of 2012? Aside from the fact that Twitter, emails and social media has existed through more than one election (remember Deans internet funded campaign?) after 2012 every campaign manager in America was touting Obama's ground game as the difference maker, and the model of the future. Among the reasons:
- The Obama-Democratic campaign made twice as many voter contacts as the Romney-GOP team.
- Democratic field offices outnumber Republican offices 2-1 or 3-1 in key swing states.
- Democrats used more than a call center, they used direct contact with neighborhood team leaders, members, and volunteers in community outreach.
- The Obama campaign's effort banked huge leads weeks ahead of election day (early voting)...early voting which consisted of half the number of voters in some states.
- Having banked the votes, they focused on getting less/least likely voters to the polls as election grew near.
- Used state of the art data analytics to identify key counties and voting blocks.
- Employed timely and devastating early advertising.
And during the 2012 election, Republicans made the same excuses..."office and staff" were meaningless because polls showed that Republicans were more enthused about the election than Democrats. In 2012 Republicans were equally mislead by their campaign of big rallies and conventional polls (except Nate Silvers analytics and ground game adjustments).
That Trump now has improved to a 1/3rd chance of winning (Nate Silver) only suggests that in spite of his absent ground game and non-existent advertising, other factors (some unique) are contributing to his efforts; i.e. his personality that has gotten a few billion in free coverage from the media AND his running against the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history.
But let's face it, any candidate that can only hit a ceiling of 42 percent of the vote can't dismiss a ground game and advertising as a vote maximizing necessity (and if he had been running against far more popular Joe Biden, no doubt all this "no need for a ground game" chatter would be the subject of well earned derision.).
If Trump had actually organized a ground game to organize white working class true believers, (as Obama focused his true believers in two elections) he would be in better position.