The Ground Round

Yesterday on MSNBC's early Sunday show, they had a very interesting -- and encouraging -- discussion about the ground game between the parties.  Obviously, any discussion still falls into the “Who knows?” category, and there was an aspect of bias in the conversation.  But…the discussion was very low-key and (importantly) supported with data and experience, and appears to be as objective as possible.  (I like, too, that they quote Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg several times, and he’s someone who I like a lot.) 

Later in the morning, there also was an excellent, related-interview that Jen Psaki did on her show with the head of the Harris-Walz campaign on a related subject.  I don't usually find such talks all that interesting, generally just addressing policy talking points, so I often fast-forward through, but this was different.  And, I thought, notable,
 
I’ll post the 10-minute video of the "early show" segment below, so it's not necessary to address it here in detail, excellent though it is.  However, it’s worth highlighting one important thing that especially stood out  from the round-table conversation.
 
It stood out as notable because, although an issue that does get mentioned a bit, I haven’t it heard addressed in this specific context before.  The point was, now that early voting has begun, when we hear reports of how many Republicans and Democrats have voted early thus far, it should not be assumed that all Republican votes are for Trump.  After all, 20% of votes cast in the Republican primaries were “Nikki Halley voters”, and not all of them (or even most, for all we know) are necessarily for Trump.  They may not vote for Harris, but it is reasonable to assume that at least some, if not many, will not be voting for Trump.  And some (or more) may well for Harris.

Which brings us to a very interesting discussion that dealt with a related subject when host Jen Psaki interviewed Harris-Walz campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon.  Yes, of course, as the Democrats' campaign manager, she’s totally biased, but biased or not, she made two good and very thoughtful comments, including one that, the more I thought about it, was most-especially reasonable.  Both of the comments concerned low-propensity voters, those who rarely go to the polls.

The first subject was about the get-out-the-vote effort in dealing with such people – something that is important for getting those votes, of course, but also because these votes don’t generally show up in polls, since they aren’t “likely voters.”  And O’Malley Dillon discussed how actually getting them to vote takes a great deal of extra work, where you have to go directly to them and literally knock on the doors and talk with him, and address why they don’t vote and why they should this year.  And she mentioned how this weekend Democrats had 1.2 million people knocking on doors in Swing States.  Now, on the surface, that sounds great – but as I thought about it, it sounded even better under the surface, for two reasons:
 
One reason is we know that Republicans don’t have an organized ground game like this, and have instead farmed it out to Elon Musk’s group that has literally no experience.  And the second reason it seems even better is that, while we keep hearing about Trump going on these podcasts for low-voting men to reach them, what I realized is, yes, he’s reaching them on podcasts, but that's all he doing.  As low-propensity voters, they are most likely nodding along in agreement, but (being people who don’t usually vote) they are only nodding in agreement and are not getting that critical, personal contact that gets them motivated enough to go out and actually vote.

The second, intriguing topic O’Malley Dillon discussed (and I think even more important) was the general concept of people who don’t usually vote.  Not surprisingly, she felt that all the Democratic efforts with low-propensity voters were more favorable than Republicans.  But while that can be dismissed as biased, the more I thought about it, the more I sensed a shift in my thinking on why her comments were objective, as well --
 
After all, it’s my sense that most deeply loyal Trump voters are going to vote for him, and likely have in the past.  As a result, there aren’t all that many Trump loyalists who are low-propensity voters.  Some perhaps, but not many.  But as for standard Republicans who don’t usually vote, if they haven’t voted for Trump in the past, what can a GOP “get-out-the-vote” operative say or do to convince those people to actually go out and vote for Trump this time – especially since he’s even far-more Trumpier and fascist and dystopian than in the past, now convicted of 34 felonies and found liable of rape, and with far more clear signs of dementia, when they didn’t vote, not just for him but at all, period??!  On the other hand, a low-propensity Democratic voter who just doesn’t usually bother to vote is someone who actually does now have strong issues you can reach him or her on – like that Trump is a fascist, Trump is showing signs of dementia, and (especially for women who don’t usually vote) Trump takes responsibility for banning abortion.  There’s no guarantee, of course, that any low-propensity voter of either party will vote this year, but it seems fair to think that there’s much more reason why some Democrats who don’t usually vote have a far-better chance of being convinced to vote this year than Republicans who don’t vote.
 
And I’ll add in one thing – someone who doesn’t usually vote might be convinced, but just won’t be bothered to go to the polls, especially in a Swing State where they have to stand in line.  But…you can tell them, “Just use a mail in ballot and vote from home.”  But a Republican who doesn’t vote has been convinced by the party that voting by mail is evil.

This is all “Who knows?” but it’s still encouraging, for specific and (I think) realistic reasons.

Here's the MSNBC video.  It’s excellent, and encouraging.

And a P.S. to this all -- 
 
Jen Psaki also had Jordan Klepper on as a guest.  I absolutely love his work, going to Trump rallies and oh-so-polities saying idiotic and contradictory things that he gets them to agree with.  He was on because he has an hour-long special on Monday on Comedy Central about his recent journeys through Trump rallies.  And Jen Psaki asked him, since he’s gone to 93 Trump rallies over the years, what he’s noticed that are the same and what are different.  And though he’s a comedian, he’s a very smart one with a TON of experience talking to Trump supporters at rallies – and he said it’s noticeable that Trump rallies are smaller today with a lot less enthusiasm.  That it’s like the circus has come to town again and again with the same act, and they’ve seen it all before.