Could Obama's "ground game" clinch the election?

[TroyD]

Tue Oct 16, 2012

If Obama holds off his Republican rival Mitt Romney in the crucial state of Ohio and goes on to win a tight race, it could be thanks to roughly 120 such field offices across the state - and hundreds more nationwide.

They are home to an Obama "ground game" operation that is sophisticated in identifying potential supporters yet basic in relying on personal contact from neighbors to register potential voters and help get them to the polls.

Democrats say the breadth of Obama's organization is unprecedented in national politics - a claim that draws skepticism from Republicans, who have built a large get-out-the-vote operation of their own.

One thing is clear, however: Obama's organization - which his campaign says involves hundreds of thousands of people nationwide - reflects the power of incumbency.

Some of Obama's local offices never closed after the historic 2008 election that made him the nation's first black president. As a result, Obama is viewed even by some Republicans as having an advantage in on-the-ground organization, the trench-warfare part of a national campaign.

More:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-campaign-ground-idUSBRE89F07C20121016

[leftynyc]

1. Absolutely

We saw it happen with Harry Reid's race. He was even or behind in just about every poll and his ground game won that race against the Angle nutcase.

[oswaldactedalone]

2. It better

because this thing is slipping away fast. Robme's bounce continues, it ebbed for a bit, but now seems to be accelerating again. Obama better kick ass in these two debates and his ground game better get every voter out.

Crazy that a moran like Robme could even be close but it's 50-50 at this point.

[bemildred]

3. Horseshit. Rmoney's only chance is to steal it, and he knows it. nt

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Ohio scares me

I can just see all the early voting getting changed or lost. They have shown that they will do anything to get in the Whitehouse.

[bemildred]

7. Your fears do not sway elections.

If anything, fear of losing Ohio should result in better turnout.

But most of all, people are voting NOW.

So, how are they voting? No need to turn to polls about what they might do.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. Lose the snark

Ive been around long enough to not have that kind of snark from frustrated duers

[bemildred]

10. No. nt

[Stuckinthebush]

13. In that case, a nice snarky day to you. (nt)

[TroyD]

5. The race has tightened

Let's be realistic.

[bemildred]

8. I am being realistic.

I don't believe polls predict the future, at best they take a snapshot, and at worst they are a fancy way to lie.

Even if there is some correlation between poll results and election outcomes, in the late going, it still does not imply causation, or that tomorrow will be like today. It just means there was correlation in that election.

You don't think that all those polls are being paid for and published out of a fear that we might be misinformed do you? They are PR devices, and that is all they are.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. Do you not believe that polls in total are an accurate view of point in time circumstances?

If so, then you have to be a bit nervous. Of course polls don't predict the future but they sure do have a good track record of understanding trends over time.

To say that polls are a fancy way to lie assumes that all polls are simply there to reinforce a partisan-based meme. Some polls are surely there to do just that but we know which ones those are. As a business plan, lying through polling in order to prop up a candidate is a lousy way to continue to make money. We ignore all polls are our peril. I can assure you that the Obama campaign isn't ignoring them.

Of course, we can ignore them and whistle past the graveyard. That usually feels good for the moment.

[bemildred]

20. Well, probability is always in play.

But if done well (which is no cheap or easy task), they can provide good estimates of momentary public opinion with a small probable error. The problem with most polls is that they are multiple choice, you don't get to say what's on your mind, you have to pick an approved response, the same sort of "management" that one will see tonight in the debate. Most polls find only what they look for, and tend to throw the results out if they don't get it, like tonight.

So, if one were to take a series of such "good" estimates, you would have a pretty good track of public opinion, and might be able to make some intelligent GUESSES about what motivated any changes. But you still have no prediction of future events without the hidden assumption that tomorrow will be like today, and anybody paying attention knows it might not, and the probability is far from miniscule, and all it can take is one to harm or help irretreivably, election wise.

It is worth remembering that one of functions of the MSM, the Mighty Wurlitzer, is to stall change, any fundamental change in who runs things here, they are 100% pro status quo, since they are privileged members of the elites themselves.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the Black Swan guy, would rip them to shreds, he understands the math, he understands how much they are assuming their own conclusions and building them into the questions and answers, and how false the premises of unitary population (i.e. it is sensible to talk about the pollees as though they were all part of the same population WRT the studied attributes), single peak distributions (they can have as many as you like), and follow something like the normal curve, all of which are ridiculous assumptions in the context of large human cultures and human mental states, which are anything but uniform as a rule.

But it gets too expensive without the simplifications, and anyway, they are not in the business of keeping us informed, exept incidentally. So with a few exceptions I consider them all complete crap, bascially propaganda tools.

They tell you nothing about future reactions to future events, and they assume the status quo as a beginning premise, that tomorrow will be like today, which is ridiculous in modern times, we are going through the period of most rapid change in human history, or for a long, long time in the past, we are talking rapid geological change now. Changes in sea level, changes in atmosphere, resource exhaustion, ...

But mostly, they are bought and paid for, with the usual consequences plain to see.

Edit: the few polls I give any credence to are one and all done by academics.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Seriously, though

[bemildred]

21. Hey.

Yeah, that reality is just everywhere, it like permeates things and tells certain favored people what to think.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Indeed it has

We probably should have expected this. Things tighten toward the end. Also, a bad Obama performance in the first debate and Romney having a large advantage in swing state advertising does make that understandable.

Obama has to perform well tonight - that's critical. Then, he has to keep kicking butt in the swing states and ignore the rest of the red and blue states.

I still see an Obama victory but expect it to be closer. I always worry about GOP dirty tricks. We shall see.

[Maximumnegro]

18. Not in Ohio Troy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. That means we need to do some more calling

[budkin]

11. Yes

Without a doubt!

[amborin]

12. Obama's next term crucially depends on GOTV

[Sugarcoated]

14. It's going to get us Nevada

Obama's neck and neck there, and his ground game will absolutely get that state for him.

[Guavajam]

19. I sure hope so.

How people are falling for this evil Romney/Ryan duo is beyond me.