7 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
ClimateHawk's avatar

A lot of communities respond well to having a presence. And do not if you don't show up. Rurals. South FL.

The idea that the absence of a ground game did not negatively impact Biden's performance is highly suspect to me. Borderline nuts.

I mean, why does every campaign ever do it, then?

Vast majority leaves a lot out there. 3%? Five? That is a total strawman.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

It's pretty much a given by campaign pro's that a solid ground game funded and staffed can get between 2-3% higher turnout in the targeted states

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Where are you getting that figure from? I feel like some pros have suggested 1% and maybe 2% at the outside.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

It's actually a pretty standard metric(case study's from past campaigns); I'm sure Larry Sabato and his associates have\will be posting on this at the Crystal Ball(I believe one of them is Emory professor Alan Abramowitz)

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Also, I'm thinking Kos might have mentioned this either yesterday or today; going to recheck

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Kos mentions it today in his post; another poster at Kos posts about today's presidential polling and brings this topic up as well, but he states the impact as being 2-4%(I have never seen the 2-4% metric ever used; it's generally agreed at 2-3% if funded, staffed, and executed properly)

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I should add further that the Trump campaign has outsourced it's entire field campaign to the grifters at Turning Point USA(which I speculate will be disastrous)

Expand full comment
ErrorError