All errors should be reported to

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Remember, President Trump had no ground game

From Politico on November 4: "Democratic insiders: Clinton's ground game will sink Trump."

Ah yes. From the story:
The presidential race may be tightening, but Democrats are convinced they have an Election Day ace-in-the-hole: Hillary Clinton's ground game. They're confident it will withstand Donald Trump’s late surge in key battleground states.
That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states, seven of which are seeing significant early- and absentee-voting operations. In those seven states where large numbers of voters are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin — more than three-quarters of Democrats think their party has done a better job turning out key voters thus far.
Democratic insiders are most confident in Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. They express more uncertainty in Florida and Iowa.
Let's see, Hillary carried two of those seven states.

Trump five, which got him exactly to the 270 he needed.

So what happened? Trump had put his son-in law, Jared Kushner on the task.

From Forbes:
“It’s hard to overstate and hard to summarize Jared’s role in the campaign,” says billionaire Peter Thiel, the only significant Silicon Valley figure to publicly back Trump. “If Trump was the CEO, Jared was effectively the chief operating officer.”
“Jared Kushner is the biggest surprise of the 2016 election,” adds Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, who helped design the Clinton campaign’s technology system. “Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources.”
No resources at the beginning, perhaps. Underfunded throughout, for sure. But by running the Trump campaign–notably, its secret data operation–like a Silicon Valley startup, Kushner eventually tipped the states that swung the election. And he did so in manner that will change the way future elections will be won and lost. President Obama had unprecedented success in targeting, organizing and motivating voters. But a lot has changed in eight years. Specifically social media. Clinton did borrow from Obama’s playbook but also leaned on traditional media. The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning. The traditional campaign is dead, another victim of the unfiltered democracy of the Web–and Kushner, more than anyone not named Donald Trump, killed it.
You can see why Twitter is purging right-wing accounts. Twitter purged Clint Eastwood.


"Trump the Press" skewers media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. I use my deadliest weapon: their own words. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.


  1. Just having a plan does not guarantee success.

  2. The ground machine built by Scott Walker and Reince P. fueled the win in Wisconsin. There may be new tools out there, but a mix of old and new will win in the future.

    1. To be sure. They got Johnson past the finish line

  3. I am working hard, even on Thanksgiving, trying to get Carrier A.C. Company to stay in the U.S. (Indiana). MAKING PROGRESS - Will know soon! dude

  4. "That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states…"

    A panel of scumbag Robert Creamers, in other words. Good to see they got their comeuppance.

    Now the POLITICO crew can spend the next four years reporting on tweets and making more stuff up.

  5. The Cruz ground game was also going to beat him.

  6. It is hard to really know what effect social media and Kushner had on Trump's victory and it may never be known. Forbes was not hot on Trump but this "revelation" allows them to look respectful while actually implying he needed a "genius" to get him into office, because he is not, wink wink.
    In most contests it was an opponent's fatal weakness that gave the victor his edge. Clinton herself was a poor candidate, hard even for her supporters to love. Comey damaged her heavily twice and Scott Walker and Ryan performed an old-fashioned political miracle in Wisconsin, as PE noted. Trump himself showed the incredible energy needed to impress people in the swing states that he actually cared about them, something Romney failed miserably to do and Clinton could not, perhaps for health reasons, bit more likely because she really didn't care. But there is no doubt his message and personality, two things that became indistinguishable, were in the end more attractive than the prospect of more Obama like misery arrogance and self-absorbed selfishness she represented so proudly. Hemingway said happiness is an anticipation of good things to come. Voters felt that anticipation coming from Trump, not her.

  7. Well, however they did it, it got done; I am SO very thankful!

    Happy Thanksgiving, Don and everyone!

  8. "Clinton's ground game will sink Trump."

    Mixed metaphors much?

    Only Hillary Clinton's best-and-brightest would try to sink someone on terra firma (see "ground").

  9. Very Nice Article.
    Downalod latestest Software
    Nero Burning Rom 2017
    Thanks For this Article
    Downalod latestest Software
    Adobe Premiere Pro CC
    Downalod latestest Software

    Adobe DreamWeaver CC


  10. Twitter consists of 5 letters, only 3 of which show up in trustworthy.

  11. I worried about the ground game since there was so much in the news about the lack of it with Trump; some of us locally were thinking all the media couldn't be all wrong. I saw this potential problem in my county since we had little support from the campaign, but I tried to rationalized that belief since I live in a very blue state whose Republican governor would not endorse or vote for him. We have a few counties like ours being conservative, but we still worked as hard as possible to elect him.
    What I did see was people coming to us when sign waving, usually that was not the norm in past elections. IMO, the issues were too blurred to cause real excitement over a candidate after Reagan.
    Having seen the TEA Party's civil and peaceful revolution fail, our local citizens were ready for a Trump revolution. But was it a national revolution was my concern. We saw the huge rallies, but would those people vote and would the Reagan Democrats rally to Trump.
    Since the MSM wouldn't dirty their shoes to seek actual out middle class voters in the rust belt to explain their concern and why they believed Trump could change things, we conservatives had little to go on other than a gut reaction. My gut failed with Goldwater and Romney, so I wondered about Trump.