Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Which suggests to me that, rather than Corbyn has no chance, the polls aren't capturing a significant part of the Corbyn electorate.

Or the Corbyn people are just really good at running a campaign. And why not? The gaggle of international consultants that usually run campaigns as a paid service don't seem to be doing so well since the glory days of Boris Yeltsin. Most people are only very weakly connected to the political system. In the earlier days said consultants and the media conglomerates could herd them to the polls, get them to make a cross and then fuck off for a few years. How would they react to a genuinely enthusiastic campaign?

by generic on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 12:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly Theresa May showed herself to be an astonishingly bad campaigner... and Labour have a massive active membership advantage now to canvass and get their people to the polls.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 12:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's half a million people, many of them willing and able to be active campaigners as they've only recently joined and feel the energy is going their way. Or, to put it another way, 1 in 80 voters is willing to go out and be an active campaigner for the Labour party.

As compared to an estimated Tory membership in the region of 70,000, most of whom are elderly, so let's call it an active membership of 50,000. Or 1 in 800 of the electorate.

That is a significant advantage. That's people going out knocking on doors talking to people. People with the right messages and answers, people with literature putting it through doors.

All the bullshit in the media can't compete with actually meeting people. And that has a snowball effect of energising campaigns and electors notice. they see the signs, they see who is on the streets, they want to buy into winners.

At the last election one of the things that most impressed a lot of Corbynites was the willingness of momentum to help even Corbyn's most intractable Westminster foes. Nobody got left behind, every vote counted.

Polls don't mean shit when your ground game overwhelms

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 02:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's quite astonishing, how much of our society seems to be set up to keep Democracy from actually happening. In popular culture, getting involved in politics as a "civilian" risks making you THAT GUY at the Christmas party. Better leave it to the professionals.
by generic on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 04:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Polls don't mean shit when your ground game overwhelms

That's what the Democrats (and I) thought in the US general election. Trump had virtually no ground game in many states - including swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida. (Unless you count evangelical churches and the NRA as the GOP ground game)

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 04:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But didn't Clinton's ground game be less effective in reality than on paper? As in not actually being that good at getting boots on the ground. I think I saw complaints from activists.

And on the other side, I think the Trump campaign didn't need to put as many people out there, because the GOP did much more as a party than the Demcrats. And of course, GOP does voter suppression too.

by fjallstrom on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 05:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a specialist subject and I am relying on only a few sources - Booman, 538, Politico etc. but certainly the expectation before the election was that the Dems had a far superior ground game, were putting far more money into it, had better voter intelligence systems and more volunteers. Trump seemed to rely more on TV advertising and spent surprisingly little - especially of his own money.

I think the key factor may have been a lack of voter and activist enthusiasm for Hillary combined with over-confidence and complacency: who in their right minds thought Trump was going to win Pennsylvania? Booman didn't, and it's his home state.

In subsequent analysis it emerged that the key factor was that Hillary did far worse than Obama in rural and Red districts, and her advantage in urban and suburban areas wasn't enough to make up the deficit. Booman's expectation had been that she would do much better than Obama in Red districts because of the absence of the anti-Obama racist factor. She also did less well than expected with minorities despite Trump's overt racism.

For me the key message seemed to be that being less bad than your opponent is not a winning strategy. Trump brought out his base. Hillary didn't, or at least not to the same extent. Triangulation has its costs...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 06:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Analysis: Do Campaigns Matter?

Here's what Clinton, Trump spent to turn out votes | CNBC |

Analysis: Do Campaigns Matter?

Personally my view is the effort put in by Trump's Texas troll factory of bots made the difference. Thanking Robert Mercer and his Cambridge Analytica. [Brexit too]

Unless one trusts Hillary Clinton's RESIST movement, pointing fingers to Putin's Russia. A budget of $4 million in ads from ISA in St. Petersburg did the trick? Hardly!

by Oui on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 07:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by state, 21 Oct - 7 Nov, 2016 alone

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Mar 2nd, 2018 at 12:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spending and the ground game do not necessarily turn out voters. IMO Clinton created her own head wind by her dismissive attitude towards the still largest ethnic group in the nation. She virtually wrote off all but the well educated, epitomized by her 'basket of deplorables' remark, but far from limited to it. I think her campaign was biased against even trying to compete for the working people because they thought they could win without them and didn't want to owe them anything. That was less offensive to the wealthy.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 08:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that was the expectation, and by offices Clinton's campaign was far ahead of Trump's, though not as far ahead of Trump+GOP. But in the end, Clinton's campaign appears to not have used their advantage to get out the base, but rather spent to much time chasing moderate Republicans.

Here's one article from the Jacobin - https:/www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-gotv-unions-voters-rust-belt - claiming among other things that lack of on the ground knowledge led the Clinton campaign to turn out Trump voters.

And while Trump's lack of organisation was saved by the GOP, the Democrats as a party appears dead in large parts of the interior, partly from lack of organisation, partly from loss of offices during Obama. And Clinton's campaign added to that by using state parties as vehicles to increase donations to the campaign rather than raising money for the state parties. So the party couldn't save her.

by fjallstrom on Thu Mar 1st, 2018 at 11:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trump won because he is/was a maverick, coming into politics sideways from a billionaire's podium, a la Berlusconi.
His notoriety as a crook made him media red meat, they gobbled up every gaffe and vomited it back repeatedly creating a vortex and regaling him with millions of dollars free publicity. Hillary could not compete on this level at all, she was recycled old news. Old policies, reconstituted pablum, b-o-r-i-n-g.
She thought the answer was to buy fancier pantsuits and widen that rictus leer of delusional superiority.
Her femininity was supposed to be a big voter plus, but the bloodlust she showed around the manner of Ghaddaffi's dying revealed a level of sadism that  couldn't be unseen, not exactly the kinder, gentler leader many would have affirmed her as, purely on her gender.
She placed herself right in the Madeline Albright hag-bag, hobnobbing with Kissinger just in case anyone had any illusions by then as to her true nature.
Her lust for war with Libya made her a whitebread Condoleeza on steroids.
The Republicans were on the ropes, all their candidates had the charisma of cold mashed potatoes, so when Trump showed up with his base of aggrieved, angry voters eager to see their reality show superhero drain the swamp -as if!- the Party saw voters and grabbed with both hands onto his coattails.

Similarly again to Berlusconi, people thought riches symbolised a crude wisdom that politicians were too poor and savvy-deficient to understand, and if politics was really all about money then why not get a successful businessman to run the country like a corporation?
Straight-shootin', tuff-talking, the frisson of bad boy behaviour to grab ledes and shout soundbites.
Isn't he awful? Tut-Tut.
What did he do today? Oh how shocking!
The more he hated on the media the more they lapped up their profitable punishment, like johns with their dominatrix.
Whip me! I love it! Harder? Yes! Talk dirty to me! OK you asked for it!
Gimme scandal, abuse, and alt-facts, gimme wannabe fascists, give me peace with Putin, give me Mexican walls, give me Hillary behind bars!
And so we got to know his temperament, slalom mood swings, rabid tweet-olalia, the sneering superiority failing to cover up the cry-for-help insecurity that boastful bragadocio was always really about. He defied credulity, our cosy myths about normality shattering as we watched his trajectory dominate the narrative.
Love me, fear me, but never forget me.
We watched his high wire act with sanity like passers-by watch a train wreck, rubbernecking at his antics, marvelling at how a man so clueless about anything could have the epic hubris to want to be POTUS.
No way, can't happen, surely...
Yes way. We looked into the abyss with GWB, now with Trump the abyss is staring back -hard- at us.
The swamp is deeper than ever, the sheepskin off the wolf as we ponder what mayhem he can conjure before he self-combusts, and how many he will take with him when he does.
Bang or whimper? Time'll tell. (Bigly).  

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2018 at 11:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series