Question about "ground game"

[Anonymous]

I have heard about having a so-called "ground game" being important when it comes to elections. I have also read that the Clinton campaign has a great ground game but the Trump campaign has little in that regard and the suggestion is that the lack of a good ground game will hurt Trump.

From Wikipedia:

Typically GOTV is distinct phase of the overall campaign. Tactics used during GOTV often include: telephoning or sending personalized audio messages to known supporters on the days leading up to an election (or on election day itself), providing transport to and from polling stations for supporters, and canvassing known supporters.

I reside in a swing state and get inundated with phone calls about the election and I more often than not end the conversation very quickly since I don't want to be bothered with having to listen to anyone advocating for a candidate.

I plan on voting for sure especially given that I am in a swing state but the ground game or GOTV is not a factor for me.

Are voters really influenced by admonitions or encouragement from strangers urging them to vote. I personally find it an irritation.

[Anonymous]

Yes, ground game is typically acknowledged to be incredibly important, which is one of the many reasons the RNC was so pissed at Donald. Ground game is the reason Obama won both times; you can have immense excitement for a candidate, but you have to make it to the booth (or get that early ballot completed, depending where you are).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, ground game is typically acknowledged to be incredibly important, which is one of the many reasons the RNC was so pissed at Donald. Ground game is the reason Obama won both times; you can have immense excitement for a candidate, but you have to make it to the booth (or get that early ballot completed, depending where you are).

So, am I an untypical voter who actually finds these activities a turn-off? I don't need to be encouraged to vote.

[Anonymous]

It's not a factor for you because with politics, you are checked in. You're interested and someone reminding you to vote or giving you an extra push doesn't make a difference.

Think of the people who don't tune into the news regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, ground game is typically acknowledged to be incredibly important, which is one of the many reasons the RNC was so pissed at Donald. Ground game is the reason Obama won both times; you can have immense excitement for a candidate, but you have to make it to the booth (or get that early ballot completed, depending where you are).

So, am I an untypical voter who actually finds these activities a turn-off? I don't need to be encouraged to vote.

I think a lot of people find the repetition annoying, but it.... wait for it... gets out the vote. It's only every four years.

[Anonymous]

The ground game is also about getting people to the polls who you know are your voters.

They are registered, so know you who to go out and talk to and make sure they do the actual voting. That's what Obama was so good at.

[Anonymous]

On Morning Joe they showed aggressive illegal immigrants forcing old women to fill out their ballots and LITERALLY forced them to walk to the curb and put it in the mail box. How is that legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Morning Joe they showed aggressive illegal immigrants forcing old women to fill out their ballots and LITERALLY forced them to walk to the curb and put it in the mail box. How is that legal?

How did they know they were illegal immigrants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Morning Joe they showed aggressive illegal immigrants forcing old women to fill out their ballots and LITERALLY forced them to walk to the curb and put it in the mail box. How is that legal?

cite.

[Anonymous]

OP, I have worked the ground game for the last 4 prez elections. Hate when I have to call folks such as yourself but most folks I call, canvas, etc need that nudge to get to polls. In many instances, campaigns are trying to bank as many votes through early voting. Many people are not "plugged in" and, therefore, need these prompts.

[Anonymous]

It's not just making phone calls. There are lots of ways to get your people to the polls. Clinton has rallies walking distance or right next to early voting places. Her campaign has also held party type events with food, bounce houses etc right next to early voting places. It's partnering with churches to shuttle people to vote right after services on Sunday. It's having the data to find who will definitely vote for you and getting their vote locked in as early as you can. It's getting people rides to the polls. Etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, ground game is typically acknowledged to be incredibly important, which is one of the many reasons the RNC was so pissed at Donald. Ground game is the reason Obama won both times; you can have immense excitement for a candidate, but you have to make it to the booth (or get that early ballot completed, depending where you are).

FWIW, worked in a swing state - white and black working class neighborhoods - for last 3 cycles. McCain probably had a ground game, but I never met a single field organizer or volunteer for him over the three weeks I was based in state. In '12, worked one neighborhood where a Romney staffer was also based. Our ratio was about 3:1.

[Anonymous]

OP here: So does a ground game matter more within certain socio-economic groups or is voter apathy - warranting intervention by campaign volunteers - something that crosses socio-economic groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have heard about having a so-called "ground game" being important when it comes to elections. I have also read that the Clinton campaign has a great ground game but the Trump campaign has little in that regard and the suggestion is that the lack of a good ground game will hurt Trump.

From Wikipedia:

Typically GOTV is distinct phase of the overall campaign. Tactics used during GOTV often include: telephoning or sending personalized audio messages to known supporters on the days leading up to an election (or on election day itself), providing transport to and from polling stations for supporters, and canvassing known supporters.

I reside in a swing state and get inundated with phone calls about the election and I more often than not end the conversation very quickly since I don't want to be bothered with having to listen to anyone advocating for a candidate.

I plan on voting for sure especially given that I am in a swing state but the ground game or GOTV is not a factor for me.

Are voters really influenced by admonitions or encouragement from strangers urging them to vote. I personally find it an irritation.

Ground game is for low info voters who don't know what's going on and/or don't have transportation to go to the polls. In a sense Hillary must have a better ground game to get those type of voters to the poll. They are an essential part of her voting bloc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: So does a ground game matter more within certain socio-economic groups or is voter apathy - warranting intervention by campaign volunteers - something that crosses socio-economic groups?

yes. you'd be surprised about apathy even within higher SES groups. Lots of instances in which folks want to vote, but they need a ride, etc. especially if they have infants and toddlers. Folks who have the will to vote, but not a way to get to the polls.