Was Clinton's ground game overrated

[Da2017]

I,m reading the chapter Red October in Shattered and there was concern about the lack of ground forces in swing states like Florida. I'm hearing she did not have a ground game in the rust belt, Michigan and Wisconsin. It did help her in States like Nevada and New Hampshire. Was Clinton,s ground game hyped or is it getting too much blame.

[here2view]

She had an acceptable ground game in PA from what I remember reading, the problem is Trump just beat her there by sheer force. She could have done more in Michigan or Wisconsin than in PA is the notion that I get.

[TML]

She had an acceptable ground game in PA from what I remember reading, the problem is Trump just beat her there by sheer force. She could have done more in Michigan or Wisconsin than in PA is the notion that I get.

Even in places like PA and FL, I don't think her ground game was optimal. In PA, her campaign should have focused more on the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, while in FL, it should have focused more in the suburban/exurban areas in the I-4 vicinity. It was massive shifts in these areas which flipped these two states to Trump.

[here2view]

She had an acceptable ground game in PA from what I remember reading, the problem is Trump just beat her there by sheer force. She could have done more in Michigan or Wisconsin than in PA is the notion that I get.

Even in places like PA and FL, I don't think her ground game was optimal. In PA, her campaign should have focused more on the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, while in FL, it should have focused more in the suburban/exurban areas in the I-4 vicinity. It was massive shifts in these areas which flipped these two states to Trump.

I would agree with this, which is why it was "acceptable" and not good. She definitely needed to have focused on different areas in Pennsylvania. I don't know as much about Florida but the same is true like you said.

She should never have lost places like Erie County, which hadn't got Republican since Reagan (and he barely won it in 1980 and '84.) This is a place Obama won 20% and 16%. Losing that is inexcusable.

[RaphaelDLG]

Does the Pope sh**t in his hat?!?

[RaphaelDLG]

She had an acceptable ground game in PA from what I remember reading, the problem is Trump just beat her there by sheer force. She could have done more in Michigan or Wisconsin than in PA is the notion that I get.

Her machine was accidentally turning out Trump supporters in Pennsylvania according to multiple accounts.

[Blair]

Yeah much like Labours 2015 campaign a great ground game can’t make up for a sh**t product

[Lord Admirale]

Clinton gambled way too much on urban areas (Philly, Miami, etc.) and expected the suburbs to swing violently to her, but Trump driving out rural voters really propelled his victory.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Most losing presidential candidates have bad Veeps and Kaine was overrated just like John Edwards. In 2004 and Gephardt would have been the decider.

[RaphaelDLG]

Most losing presidential candidates have bad Veeps and Kaine was overrated just like John Edwards. In 2004 and Gephardt would have been the decider.

If she had picked Booker, she would have won in a 1984-style landslide

[Continential]

She focused too much in PA on Philly and the Democratic Establishment is from Philly

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Most losing presidential candidates have bad Veeps and Kaine was overrated just like John Edwards. In 2004 and Gephardt would have been the decider.

If she had picked Booker, she would have won in a 1984-style landslide

Perez should have been picked, she was already leading in VA, before Kaine, and he underperformed in the debate with Pence.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There are only so many ways to sell ice to Eskimos.

[beaver2.0]

Yes.  I think she was overconfident (not that she was necessarily out of touch with the country - a lot of people probably believed the same).

[Beet]

Ground game in general is overrated in presidential elections. Where ground game makes the most difference is very low turnout elections, like primaries, caucuses, or special elections. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus in part because of his strong ground game in that state.

[Mechavada]

Overrated?  Dude, she lost.

Anyways, while it's easy for people like me to say her ground game sucked. . . . .. . what else was she supposed to do with the narrative that was out in 2016?  Polls consistently showed her way up and there might have been like 2 polls in Michigan for every 12 to 16 polls for Texas and Georgia.  The media and the pollsters, not just Clinton's campaign, took it for granted in that environment with such strong suburban trends towards Clinton in the polling that Clinton didn't need to cover her ass and invest as much money and time in the Midwestern states.  The assumption of a Clinton victory was so strong that instead of focusing efforts on making sure those two decade plus Democratic voting states stayed in the column efforts were instead focused in trying to flip states like Arizona, Georgia, and Texas to "expand the base".

So yeah, her game might have been overrated, but so was a lot of the information she was given/relied upon to make up her ground game.  If anything it can be concluded the Narrative was overrated, but that's just me.

[junior chįmp]

If only Hillary's ground game was as good as her blame game then maybe she would of won

[South Dakota Democrat]

If only Hillary's ground game was as good as her blame game then maybe she would of won

I'm pretty pro-Hillary, but that made me laugh.