Jump to content

U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Re: Shryke

 

The huge disparity in ground game GOTV operation is often dismissed by Trump supporters or "neutral" observers by saying that Trump's campaign is so unconventional that it doesn't matter.

 

I think it's possible that Trump just breaks the system so badly that GOTV operations no longer matter. But I don't think it's likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 From Direwolf's post in the last thread...

  "George Orwell couldnt have dreamed of a work of fiction as damning as the reality that the PTB inflicted upon the great unwashed as the monopoly MSM media stood by and questioned nothing, challenged nothing, challenged noone and didnt dare let out out as much as a whimper over fear of losing access to their insider mouthpieces in the Pentagon and White House. Investigative journalism has been under attack because it doesnt benefit those that hold power. Our American airwaves all but dead air or fluffy Matt Lauer segments on anything and everything except the unchallenged crimes right under the gagged media's nose, right under the embedded medias nose."

 

 

Yeah, that's a whole different layer to media outlets protecting their parent companies financial interests. In addition to that, the parent company is so in bed with government on so many different levels that they are reluctant to criticize politicians that have in the past voted for or against legislation that affects their bottom line. There really is no 4th Estate at this point. Or at least it's been so diluted that you can't really call it that anymore. No one is watching the watchmen. Or those that are watching are so far in the pocket that it doesn't really matter if they're paying attention or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

I think it's possible that Trump just breaks the system so badly that GOTV operations no longer matter. But I don't think it's likely.

It's not just Trump, it's Clinton too. My guess would be that if an individual is partial to one of them and is not motivated to vote by the presence of the other, then people calling them at inopportune times (and, for some incomprehensible reason, it's almost always at inopportune times) is not going to make much of a difference.

Also, during the Republican primary, the media made a pretty big deal of Ted Cruz's ground game from the very beginning to the bitter end. Obviously, the primary electorate is different from that of the general election, but it's not obvious that it is different with respect to the impact of the ground game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From last thread via Jaxom 1974,

Quote

Hasn't Trump essentially negated the need for a strong ground game through the absolute dearth of free media coverage he's enjoyed through his manipulations?  His lack of a ground game only will take any effect if the media backlash over the birther hotel commercial fiasco has any lasting effect.

No.

This kinda misunderstands what is meant by ground game and what it's for. Trump has alot of free media coverage but that's not a substitute for ground game. Media coverage has always been around after all. Trump's sole innovation is in getting it for free instead of paying massive amounts of money for it.

Ground game as a term has always been meant in contrast to that media coverage. It's the other thing basically, the thing you need on top of media coverage.  The point being that ads are all well and good but what's understood in American politics to actually get votes out is the knock and drag. Get out there, knock on doors and drag your voters to the fucking polls. Metaphorically on the second part these days of course. It is generally believed that without this kind of operation, alot of people simply won't come out and vote cause they are distracted, lazy, can't get to the polls, etc.

I mean, we'll see if Trump somehow defies this or if conventional wisdom was always wrong here, but I'm not so sure.

 

Re: Terra Prime above on this subject

There's alot that is unconventional about Trump's campaign but I don't see anything terribly unconventional about his voters or their habits on this subject. I just don't think the idea that he's going to break the system and not need to remind people to get to the polls holds up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

It's not just Trump, it's Clinton too. My guess would be that if an individual is partial to one of them and is not motivated to vote by the presence of the other, then people calling them at inopportune times (and, for some incomprehensible reason, it's almost always at inopportune times) is not going to make much of a difference.

I don't see why this would matter. It's not the first time we've had candidates alot of the other side hates.

 

Quote

Also, during the Republican primary, the media made a pretty big deal of Ted Cruz's ground game from the very beginning to the bitter end. Obviously, the primary electorate is different from that of the general election, but it's not obvious that it is different with respect to the impact of the ground game.

Ground game can't make up just not having the support in the first place. It doesn't matter how good you are at getting your people out to the polls if there's just way way less of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I don't see why this would matter. It's not the first time we've had candidates alot of the other side hates.

No. However, the low ratings of Trump and Clinton are record-setting: there have never been two candidates so disliked and it's not close.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanted to interject, re:. Orwell, I think the dude is way overrated (specifically 1984 and Animal Farm) and that the term Orwellian is grossly overused.  Sorry for derailing, continue.  

 

Edit:. @ direwolfspirit, there were definitely journalists saying the entire Iraq war was bogus and that the intelligence was faulty.  They were simply ignored.  But they were there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Wanted to interject, re:. Orwell, I think the dude is way overrated (specifically 1984 and Animal Farm) and that the term Orwellian is grossly overused.  Sorry for derailing, continue.  

Well in fairness I ended with a Goebbel's reference in the previous post, so the scope of my mini rant actually transcended Orwellian, there's some lame Nazi imagery thrown in for good measure.

Somebody had to end the previous thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ground game, or GOTV, is not calling. Calling is weak. We do it, but we know it's unreliable.

Ground game is going through your voter roster, identifying likely voters for your party, then go knock on their doors, bringing with you all the forms they'd need to register. It's having your precinct chair person be at the poll checking off the list of those who should be here voting, and then calling the team member to go knock on their doors if they haven't shown up yet by 3pm. It's a whole slate of activities that need warm bodies, drawing a lot from your local party enthusiasts, led by your party officers of the area.

This apathy you speak of against Clinton is a red herring, because it's not the general electorate that matters on the issue of running GOTV. It's the party loyalists. At my district's precinct volunteer meeting, I can tell you that there are no apathy. Can't speak for the rest of the country, obviously. But seeing as Clinton is a favorite for Democratic party members, and the Sanders supporters who identify as Democrats are also supporting Clinton by and large, your prognostication on the level of enthusiasm for Clinton on the issue of GOTV just seems entirely made of bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

This apathy you speak of against Clinton is a red herring, because it's not the general electorate that matters on the issue of running GOTV. It's the party loyalists. At my district's precinct volunteer meeting, I can tell you that there are no apathy. Can't speak for the rest of the country, obviously. But seeing as Clinton is a favorite for Democratic party members, and the Sanders supporters who identify as Democrats are also supporting Clinton by and large, your prognostication on the level of enthusiasm for Clinton on the issue of GOTV just seems entirely made of bullshit.

Who is speaking about apathy? If this was directed to me, then I said the exact opposite: those who favor Clinton are motivated to vote because of Trump and those who favor Trump are motivated to vote because of Clinton. Of course, there do exist many people who despise both of them, but, as you say, the GOTV efforts are mainly directed at loyalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

I don't. But when a celebrity is having a mental breakdown over cartoon frog, people notice. 

Yeah, if you think that's Cher having a mental breakdown, you really don't follow her on Twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, give me Patton Oswalt or Peter Serafinowicz or Owen Ellickson for funny Trump commentary. Leave the comedy to the professionals...

 

 

Nah, they're both fine, but Cher's house style is something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...