Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

The biggest reason for Ellison for DNC would be:

Dean became DNC chair and all the Deansters are not Dem tent.
Ellison goes there, better chance to convert Sanders supporters to life long Dems.

But Ellison has to be full time.

 

[Vixdean]

Yeah, this entire narrative about Obama being bad for the DNC is just as bunk as the "economic anxiety" bullshit in the wake of election night. The gerrymandering that happened in the wake of the 2010 elections wasn't his fault. In 2012/14/16, Republicans won way more seats than their share of the popular vote should have allowed. Not his fault the game was rigged.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Like I said, I disagree with the strategy. I thought it was interesting that Clinton's camp had more popular figures (Obama, Bill, Michelle) make that argument, whereas I didn't hear Hillary herself make it much. It's similar to what the Obama campaign did in 2012 when they rolled out Bill Clinton to argue House republicans were more extreme than anything that came before. All that being said, that isn't what cost her the win. It's not even in the top 3 IMO.

In terms of Obama political management over the last few years (elections) again, I'm confused. 2010 was inevitable. We've discussed this many times but the idea that "50 state strategies" were going to save democrats is laughable. The economy, racial animosity, Obamacare fear, etc destroyed southern democrats. I don't care who the DNC chair is, that wasn't going to be stopped.

2012...republicans lost 8 seats. Dems lost about 12 seats in 2014 but it largely went how you'd expect a midterm to go for the party in the WH.

I don't think Perez or Ellison are some amazing talents who will Change Everything. Both would do a good job. Both will likely receive too much praise when democrats win more seats in 2018.

You're focusing too much on national results. I do not think the complete collapse at the state level can be explained away by typical election trends.

 

[whyamihere]

The follow states have never elected a woman to a major statewide office (Governor, Senator, At-Large Congressman):

Pennsylvania
Virginia
Georgia (had a female Senator for one day)
Alabama (had appointed, never elected)
Ohio (elevated from LT, never elected)
Indiana
Tennessee
Mississippi
Colorado
Idaho

Vermont has had a female governor (Madeleine Kunin) but has never elected a congresswoman.

 

[Vixdean]

You're focusing too much on national results. I do not think the complete collapse at the state level can be explained away by typical election trends.

Citizens United. Flood of outside money spent on local races.

 

[Polari]

I mean I think the issue is that's its not clear how large vs. how loud the whiny anti-establishment Left is. Like should Clinton have given those Wall Street speeches? Probably not. However, after the primary, if the Wall Street speeches was actually in any way part of the rationale one used to scream at Clinton during the GE or vote 3rd part or vote Trump, especially given who he is and the MO of the GOP, then you are a moron. I remember that whole bit when people were screaming and protesting that George Clooney was holding a massive fundraiser for Clinton. If we can't even let a staunch liberal like Clooney give us money because it will upset some voters, how do we compete with the Koch Bros? You can argue that money didn't help Clinton but cutting off access to that money seems unlikely to help too?

I think the point is that it can be hard and dangerous to appease a group if what they want or what they are upset about isn't rational or based on fact. This isn't the same as saying "excommunicate everyone who favored Sanders" but rather a comment that some number of them (probably a function of youth and probably louder than they are large in number) are dumb and want dumb things and think dumb things.

It depends what issues are important to you, right? If big money politics is a critical issue to you, you probably weren't going to suck it up and vote for Clinton, in the same way you wouldn't suck it up and vote for a homophobic candidate if gay rights is a critical issue for you, even if you like the rest of their platform.

Instead you'll probably stay home, or vote third party, while continuing to attack both major candidates for not supporting what you see as a critical issue.

 

[Debirudog]

The biggest reason for Ellison for DNC would be:

Dean became DNC chair and all the Deansters are not Dem tent.
Ellison goes there, better chance to convert Sanders supporters to life long Dems.

But Ellison has to be full time.

He will be if he wins.

 

[studyguy]

Citizens United. Flood of outside money spent on local races.

I mean look at NC. Art Pope basically launched an all out assault with funding to absolutely devastating effect.

 

[kirblar]

Yeah, this entire narrative about Obama being bad for the DNC is just as bunk as the "economic anxiety" bullshit in the wake of election night. The gerrymandering that happened in the wake of the 2010 elections wasn't his fault. In 2012/14/16, Republicans won way more seats than their share of the popular vote should have allowed. Not his fault the game was rigged.

No. It is not. This was an issue internally in the party long before it bust into the limelight this year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278703-rebranded-obama-campaign-causes-frustration-for-dnc 1/23/13

Several members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) expressed fear Tuesday that the new outside group Organizing for Action — a retooled version of President Obama's campaign machine — could hurt the national party's fundraising and drain its resources.

"I don't know how splitting things apart is conducive to progress. When you start looking at competitive interests that are trying to move in the same direction, why wouldn't you all be on the same page?" Krystal Thrailkill, a DNC committee member from Arkansas, told The Hill at the committee's annual winter meeting.

DNC members said they were caught off guard when the leaders of the president's reelection team announced Obama for America was morphing into Organizing for Action (OFA), a nonprofit group that can take unlimited "soft money" donations.

The group will be spearheaded by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina and advocate for Obama's policies by mobilizing the millions-strong list of grassroots supporters built by the campaign.

While the new group will seek to go toe to toe with GOP outside groups like Crossroads GPS, some Democrats aren't pleased that Obama didn't fold his powerful grassroots operation back into the DNC.

Thrailkill said she understood that OFA's ability to raise unlimited contributions and keep Obama voters engaged could be a help to Democrats. But she suggested the new entity could confuse the party's messaging and would compete with the DNC for money and manpower.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/01/democrats-serve-two-masters-dnc-and-organizing-for-action/ 4/1/13

Can the Democratic Party – rarely a smoothly coordinated creature for starters — function when two different outfits in two different cities are trying to run the show?

The Democratic National Committee is undergoing a recalibration as it learns to live with President Barack Obama's permanent political presence – the independent issues group Organizing for Action that spun-off from the president's re-election. Once vertically aligned in party flow chart, the two organizations are now co-equals with Obama at the head – independent organizations that some worry will fight for resources and attention from the president and supporters.

OFA, which transformed itself into an advocacy group in the months since the election and has spent months testing the waters and recruiting staff, is now fully operational. The incessant fundraising and volunteer emails are back. The organization completed its second day of nation-wide events targeted around gun control on Thursday, and is turning its efforts back to immigration reform this week.

When the 2008 Obama campaign ended, it was folded into the DNC as Organizing for America, with the purpose of mobilizing Obama's base for health care reform and other administration initiatives. But the effort was a financial drain for the party, prompting the unprecedented formation of an enduring grassroots campaign for the president's agenda as a 501c(4) this January. The move has prompted a shift in focus for the Democratic National Committee back to its traditional role of winning elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/29/if-the-obama-presidency-is-winding-down-why-is-his-group-organizing-for-action-ramping-up/ 7/29/15

On June 30, Organizing for Action, a nonprofit group that grew out of Obama's campaign machine, sent out a flurry of e-mails to potential donors announcing the impending conclusion of OFA's fiscal quarter and requesting recipients chip in before midnight. These sorts of e-mails are standard little more than a year out from a general election, as we are now.

But Obama isn't going to be on any ballots anytime soon. So each dollar that flows into OFA's coffer is, presumably, a dollar not going to a candidate with battles yet to come. Why is there not more outcry against OFA from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), or congressional Democrats, or Hillary Clinton's campaign? And why is OFA still pressing forward even as Obama's presidency is winding down?

The answer says something about how Obama intends to influence the party in years to come. At a time when a good deal of partisan action takes place outside of regular party organizations, OFA works to mobilize support for progressive priorities in the face of continuing intense opposition. Beyond current struggles, the challenge for Organizing for Action will be to move beyond loyalty to Obama himself and find ways to deepen his political and policy legacies after he leaves the White House

Bonus- the Obama/DWS mess http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

 

[Dominican Power]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...lon-new-year-bash-article-1.2932315?cid=bitly


You can't make this shit up.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

I don't think Ellison is some messiah or anything either. It's that we have a serious crisis at the state level that Iin large part comes as a result of Obama dismantling the 50-state strategy. That crisis doesn't have to do with national year to year election trends.

Obama and Sanders both tried to go top->down. It doesn't work.

This is literally not true, we've had this conversation multiple times since November. A 50 state strategy doesn't save rural democrats.

 

[kirblar]

This is literally not true, we've had this conversation multiple times since November. A 50 state strategy doesn't save rural democrats.

It doesn't save them, it keeps your margins from dropping off a cliff in the borderline areas.

This is about establishing infrastructure, candidates, etc. Yes, you'll still lose a lot of them anyway, but the margins matter here.

 

[VendettaRed07]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...lon-new-year-bash-article-1.2932315?cid=bitly


You can't make this shit up.

I thought Hillary was going to wait till the inagguration to make an appearance with him

 

[Wilsongt]

Nice little slap in the face to everyone who believed in her by attending the Oompa Loompa's inauguration.

Every other living president is going, sans Bush 1 due to health reasons.

 

[whyamihere]

Maybe if state parties want more money, they don't need to be so fucking terrible. See: Wisconsin Democratic Party

@SJohnsonWPR
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler will run unopposed for another 10-year term on the court. The 5pm filing deadline passed.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Nice little slap in the face to everyone who believed in her by attending the Oompa Loompa's inauguration.

You guys are going to have to deal with the reality that Donald Trump is the next president of the United States, and will be treated as such. Hillary is married to a former president, why wouldn't she attend the inauguration?

 

[Hellwarden]

Does it really matter who attends the inauguration? Will having the Clinton and Bush families there really make Trump's presidency more authentic?

Hell, don't a lot of Trump supporters hate both families?

 

[whyamihere]

There is no good option for Hillary, but the better option for her, without question, is attending the inauguration.

AS WITH THE EC VOTE, it's imperative that Democrats at least attempt to uphold the norms of society.

 

[Plinko]

I think that the goal of universal health care was a bad goal to have. It should have been "health care for the poor and sick."

You could have just had a public option where the sick can buy some affordable health insurance and then the rich pay the bill via taxes for how much money this public option loses.

The individual mandate and the regulations were so unpopular that the GOP won in 2010 and might repeal the whole thing now and those things were needed for universal health care, but not giving the poor and sick affordable health care.

I really think the best route for democrats to take with health care is to first propose free health care for all children 18 and under. That's a winning proposal I believe most people will get behind.

Show the general public it works and you'd have a tangible example on the table to show everyone.

 

[whyamihere]

I really think the best route for democrats to take with health care is to propose free health care for all children 18 and under. That's a winning proposal most people will get behind.

Show the general public it works and you'd have a tangible example on the table to show everyone.

They tried that, didn't they? It didn't work.

 

[Plinko]

They tried that. It didn't work.

Try it again in 2018, a time when the ACA will most likely be repealed and the health care industry will be in shambles and message it well. Messaging is the key, and democrats have been absolute garbage in that respect.

 

[kirblar]

They tried that. It didn't work.

(that's the joke.jpg)

Edit: nvm he was serious.

Ask Hillary how that one went in the 90s.

 

[Plinko]

(that's the joke.jpg)

Edit: nvm he was serious.

Ask Hillary how that one went in the 90s.

You mean when the health care system was in better shape and costs weren't skyrocketing out of control?

That 90s? A huge LOL to "Hey, that idea didn't work 20 years ago so we should never bring it up again." Come on.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Maybe if state parties want more money, they don't need to be so fucking terrible. See: Wisconsin Democratic Party

I propose we send a bunch of Missourocrats to organize the rest of our state parties.

 

[kirblar]

You mean when the health care system was OK and costs weren't skyrocketing out of control?

That 90s?

Why would you ever have the impression that the health care system was ok at any time you were alive?

 

[VendettaRed07]

People don't give a fuck about children

Especually the large growing population of 20 to 30 somethings who don't have any

 

[Plinko]

Why would you ever have the impression that the health care system was ok at any time you were alive?

You do realize costs have gotten exponentially worse since then, right? And that wages have stagnated? And that medical debts and bankruptcies have skyrocketed?

 

[Rebel Leader]

The biggest reason for Ellison for DNC would be:

Dean became DNC chair and all the Deansters are not Dem tent.
Ellison goes there, better chance to convert Sanders supporters to life long Dems.

But Ellison has to be full time.

Ellison has said he will be a full time DNC xhair if he wins

 

[Plinko]

People don't give a fuck about children

This is wrong. I strongly believe a majority of Americans would get behind this with the current cost of medical care.

And, you know what? If the republicans didn't get behind it, guess what? You've now got a new message to attack them with. It benefits the democrats regardless of how it turns out.

 

[whyamihere]

You mean when the health care system was in better shape and costs weren't skyrocketing out of control?

That 90s? A huge LOL to "Hey, that idea didn't work 20 years ago so we should never bring it up again." Come on.

Not universal, but they tried this in 2007! Didn't work!

 

[Plinko]

Not universal, but they tried this in 2007! Didn't work!

CHIP is for low-income families. I'm talking about a proposal that all children regardless of income are covered, period.

You guys are in here whining about Bernie v. Hillary, so I'm trying to come up with some broad proposals that would appear beneficial to the general public that the democrats could get behind.

 

[VendettaRed07]

This is wrong. I strongly believe a majority of Americans would get behind this with the current cost of medical care.

I just think at the end of the day everyone is selfish and won't get behind something that doesn't more effectively target and benefit them directly

I agree that just because something didn't work 20 years ago doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again now, but I don't think this is the answer

Especially considering so much of the country is aging and the middle class aren't having as many kids anymore. Free healthcare for kids would make them more affordable but not enough to where it lessens the burden on people enough so that it makes sense for people who currently can't afford one to have one

 

[whyamihere]

CHIP is for low-income families. I'm talking about a proposal that all children regardless of income are covered, period.

It wouldn't work. Socialized healthcare is not popular in America, unless you have it.

 

[Plinko]

I just think at the end of the day everyone is selfish and won't get behind something that doesn't more effectively target and benefit them directly

I agree that just because something didn't work 20 years ago doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again now, but I don't think this is the answer

Especially considering so much of the country is aging and the middle class aren't having as many kids anymore. Free healthcare for kids would make them more affordable but not enough to where it lessens the burden on people enough so that it makes sense for people to currently can't afford one to have one

See, here's the issue with this statement: Most homes have children. Both republican AND democrat. It DOES benefit them directly. Both deal with medical costs for these children. ACA helped, but once that's gone, people are going to be dealing with it all again.

It wouldn't work. Socialized healthcare is not popular in America, unless you have it.

No, "socialized healthcare" as proposed by democrats for all is not popular in America. When you target children, you grab the republicans by the balls. Both sides have kids. If they vote against it, they're directly hurting their constituents. This isn't just a "I'm giving rich a bigger tax cut than you" type of hurt their own constituency--this is a "I could have saved you tens of thousands of dollars over time, but screw you" hurt their own constituency. That's damaging, and that's what type of plan democrats need to start targeting.

If, by chance, it gets passed at some point and it works out, you now have Exhibit A of how this can work across our country. It's the best route to take at this point if we want universal health care.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Here's a crazy idea: why don't we just have Medicare negotiate drug prices? It's really popular, both candidates ran on it and Obama ran on it in 2008 before selling it down the river like the public option and the Medicare buy-in.

 

[kirblar]

People who have insurance through their jobs have never understood just how fucking expensive it is for their employers to pay it.

This is why Obamacare is sticker shock to so many. The true cost (employer premium) is hidden from the,. That employer premium has also been sucking up the majority of their year over year income increases because it's a hidden parasite on the paycheck.

This is also why "this was fine" is the reaction from middle-class people who had coverage in the '90s- of course it was fine, they had coverage!

 

[whyamihere]

No, "socialized healthcare" as proposed by democrats for all is not popular in America. When you target children, you grab the republicans by the balls. Both sides have kids. If they vote against it, they're directly hurting their constituents. This isn't just a "I'm giving rich a bigger tax cut than you" type of hurt their own constituency--this is a "I could have saved you tens of thousands of dollars over time, but screw you" hurt their own constituency. That's damaging, and that's what type of plan democrats need to start targeting.

If, by chance, it gets passed at some point and it works out, you now have Exhibit A of how this can work across our country. It's the best route to take at this point if we want universal health care.

Both sides also have people without health insurance, yet the population at large does not want socialized health care. Children would not change this. You could barely get CHIP expanded. It's not a winner.

People who have insurance through their jobs have never understood just how fucking expensive it is for their employers to pay it.

This is why Obamacare is sticker shock to so many. The true cost (employer premium) is hidden from the,. That employer premium has also been sucking up the majority of their year over year income increases because it's a hidden parasite on the paycheck.

This is also why "this was fine" is the reaction from middle-class people who had coverage in the '90s- of course it was fine, they had coverage!

Yes, this.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

People who have insurance through their jobs have never understood just how fucking expensive it is for their employers to pay it.

This is why Obamacare is sticker shock to so many. The true cost (employer premium) is hidden from the,. That employer premium has also been sucking up the majority of their year over year income increases because it's a hidden parasite on the paycheck.

This is also why "this was fine" is the reaction from middle-class people who had coverage in the '90s- of course it was fine, they had coverage!

Yuuuup. So sad so few people understand this.

My current premium is $0. But the employer pays something like over $600 a month for coverage.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Here's a crazy idea: why don't we just have Medicare negotiate drug prices? It's really popular, both candidates ran on it and Obama ran on it in 2008 before selling it down the river like the public option and the Medicare buy-in.

I mean, that would be good, but that just helps lower prices a little bit.

The biggest thing to lower costs would be to increase the supply of doctors and maybe let low skilled medical people handle things like broken arms and break up hospital monopolies.

Basically, we need to go to war against hospitals and doctors.

But maybe in the anti-professionals mood America is in, this might be popular?

 

[Plinko]

Yeah, they could barely get CHIP expanded in 2007. Ten years ago. Health costs have gone crazy even since then, and to a level that is unsustainable for even middle-class families. Not trying this again is ludicrous.

Republicans recycle their ideas in even less of a timeframe, and they're now in control of the entire government. Might be time to start looking at some of their methods as possibilities.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I mean, that would be good, but that just helps lower prices a little bit.

The biggest thing to lower costs would be to increase the supply of doctors and maybe let low skilled medical people handle things like broken arms.

A little bit? This is one of the biggest reasons why single payer systems are so great and party of why health care in so expensive in the US. Kennedy, single payer champion, was really mad about Medicare Part D because it didn't have this in it. Why do we never mention this shit?

But to be honest I'm mostly done with trying to work towards having a bad Republican health care system no one likes where our goal is to make it marginally less bad. I'm cool w/ incrementalism though, it just needs to be incrementalism that actually works.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

A little bit? This is one of the biggest reasons why single payer systems are so great and party of why health care in so expensive in the US. Kennedy, single payer champion, was really mad about Medicare Part D because it didn't have this in it. Why do we never mention this shit?

http://crfb.org/press-releases/fact...are-save-negotiating-prescription-drug-prices

http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015...b-if-medicare-part-d-negotiated-prices-paper/

I mean, saving $10-15B would be great and it should be done, but total Medicare spending is $600B. So it's savings but a little bit of savings.

 

[AndyD]

Here's a crazy idea: why don't we just have Medicare negotiate drug prices? It's really popular, both candidates ran on it and Obama ran on it in 2008 before selling it down the river like the public option and the Medicare buy-in.

There's several things that can be done even before that to save money. For example, remove the requirement that once approved by FDA and a rebate is set up, the drugs are automatically part of the Medicaid/are formulary. Harvoni and the other mega-expensive drugs really did a number on budgets the past year or two.

Ban lobbying advertising by drug companies. Advertising budgets are exhorbitant and not only do they create perverse incentives for the manufacturers, but they also undermine trust in medical field professionals of all sorts.

 

[damisa]

The biggest thing to lower costs would be to increase the supply of doctors and maybe let low skilled medical people handle things like broken arms and break up hospital monopolies.

Basically, we need to go to war against hospitals and doctors.

This is awful. Doctor salaries are a minor part of total costs and are well deserved.

This makes the physicians’ collective take-home pay only about 10 percent of total national health spending. If we somehow managed to cut that take-home pay by, say, 20 percent, we would reduce total national health spending by only 2 percent, in return for a wholly demoralized medical profession to which we so often look to save our lives. It strikes me as a poor strategy.

actual reasons:

1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;
2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;
3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;
4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/do-doctors-salaries-drive-up-health-care-costs/?_r=0

 

[Dominican Power]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrymp...a-to-join-trumps-white-ho?utm_term=.sl2rrQp08


Groveling pays.

 

[Wilsongt]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrymp...a-to-join-trumps-white-ho?utm_term=.sl2rrQp08


Groveling pays.

There's his African American!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816452807024840704

The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!

What the fuck is wrong with you.

 

[Wilsongt]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816452807024840704




What the fuck is wrong with you.

He has to owe Putin some form of money... Just based on the NPR story I was listening to today.

 

[whyamihere]

Wow. The entire NH congressional delegation is all-Democratic and all-female for the first time ever.

 

[TestOfTide]

I agree that conservatives have been conditioned to HATE Hillary Clinton for decades. I don't dispute that.

However, I'm not convinced that most Trump supporters actually dislike him. People know his positions are unpopular, people know he's unpopular and they know what saying they support him means to the minorities and liberals around them. I'm not sure I can really trust any data on this point because it relies on voters telling the truth about something they know is in their best interest to lie about.

I also don't trust the mindset of anyone who says they thought Trump was the lesser of two evils. Those people are either complete idiots not worth our time or flat out lying. If someone supports Trump because they agree with them, I can sorta respect that, as much as I could respect, say, a foreign army that I must kill at all costs but respect none the less, they're my enemy but I can respect that, if they blanket themselves with some bullshit excuse like "lesser of two evils" they can fuck right off.

again, you have to look at this from the perspective of someone who has been conditioned to hate Hillary more than anyone else in politics.

To put it another way, around 10% of Trump supporters currently APPROVE of Obama and probably voted for him.

Edit: And I brought up Bernie because a popular narrative for some is that Bernie was the preferred Democratic nominee but was cheated by his party, which is false he lost and Hillary got more votes. Same with Trump, for being so hated he sure did beat down a bunch of other candidates by getting the most votes.

And no where have I been pushing the idea that Bernie would have done better, because I know of numerous conservatives who would rather have voted for Hillary than Bernie, some of whom DID vote for Hillary.

The primaries are over. The election is over.

His base are the people who voted for him.

Look at the Southern states. Look at Alabama. Republicans habitually vote in people who then continue to plunge their states into poverty. Do not underestimate the loyalty of the Republican voter. Any winning strategy for Democrats moving forward needs to take into account the (very real) possibility that every single person who voted for Trump in '16 will vote for him again.

How do you get the votes? How do you mobilize YOUR base? How do you mobilize the voters who didn't come out? These are the questions Democrats need to be worrying about. Stop salivating over Republican voters. We don't need them.

Stop assuming that every Trump voter is exactly the same. MOST Trump voters are not worth our time, but lets not dismiss Trump voters who fall into 1 or more of these categories:

1) Trump voters who voted for Obama

2) Trump voters who were desperate enough to get their old job back that they would do something stupid like vote for Trump

3) Trump voters who APPROVE of Obama

4) Trump voters who say they only voted for Trump because of how much they hate Hillary

Ground game is probably the most overrated idea in politics.

Correction: Groundgame is important but it needs to be enhanced by a good rally setup. Otherwise the ground game, especially the GOTV, will just involve treating your voters like children, which the campaign claimed works but from my experience it only pisses off your supporters.