Had to drive up to Minnesota to close up our cabin and get our timeline in order. We are rehabbing it. It was a kit cabin built by Weyerhauser in 1961. It’s 650 square feet of pure bliss. It’s so far north, I call it my global warming hedge. Maybe I will plant some palm trees there next year!
Of course, currently we have solar power and no internet. Next year we will be on the grid with fiber internet. It will still be greener than anything Al Gore owns. Solar power has been nicer than a gas generator, but it’s unreliable. The propane fridge was an explosion waiting to happen.
Allow me a short anecdote. I have driven all over the country in the past year. I have driven rural areas in California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Texas. I only see Bernie Sanders signs, and Trump signs. Paul Mirengoff had the same experience in the Northeast. I never see Hillary signs. I only see Sanders bumper stickers-and occasionally a Trump one.
In 2008, I saw Obama stuff everywhere. In 2012, I saw less. But in 2012 I still saw a lot of Obama and/or Romney stuff no matter where I went. Obama supporters were more than just supporters. They saw themselves as part of a movement. The last time a President engendered that sort of following, his name was Reagan.
For all the breathless coverage the election gets on television and on social media you’d think there would be more old fashioned advertising. But, it’s 2016.
Nudge author Professor Richard Thaler asked a question on Twitter:
— Richard H Thaler (@R_Thaler) September 19, 2016
I wonder about ground game in an age with social media. Does it matter? For example, if Democrats are unsteady about the plummeting polls and continued exposure of the Clinton email scandal (and all her other scandals along with the behavior of her husband), they reassure themselves that Clinton has more offices in swing states. They are counting on a better physical ground game.
An aside, I was a bit shocked to see the Reddit post by the person who was supposed to scrub Clinton’s email. Seems like it’s the smoking gun indicating intent to me but I am not a lawyer. Of course, I was not shocked by the mainstream media’s lack of coverage-and I wasn’t shocked by hard core Clinton supporters putting their head in the sand. Hard core supporters of Clinton or Trump ignore any adverse news about them. It’s all about the end game for them.
Trump has spent far less on his campaign than his opponents. When Jeb Bush threw money at him, he rose in the polls. Hillary spent $140M in two weeks, and Trump did better without spending. It’s as if Hillary is such a horrible candidate that when people were reminded about who she was they ran.
There are plenty of people worried about money and politics, but Trump is proving their theory wrong. Trump has used Twitter, and free publicity to get the word out. He is a master of the media. He rickrolled them the other day. He knows their biases and preys on them. He’s used Facebook. His rallies are overflow and no one shows up to see Hillary except people that are paid by people like George Soros to be there.
That begs the question about physical offices, physical signs, hats, t-shirts and bumper stickers. Do they matter? Or, are Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms more important?
We certainly see signs of it in the real world. Remote working, co-working, and distance working are not unfamiliar to people. Places like Nextspace are creating communities. You don’t need formal documents to get things done. All you need is a Slack group.
Hillary’s campaign feels very top down. It’s directed. It’s controlled. Trump is running a bottom up campaign that is free wheeling. Sanders also ran a campaign like that. So did Obama. Obama, Sanders and now Trump seem to capture fervor and emotion. I know few people that are truly passionate about Hillary. They have a higher dislike or distrust of Trump or Republicans.
Gary Johnson’s campaign hasn’t captured emotion either-although he has spent nothing because he doesn’t have any money. He is door number three. In states like Illinois, it’s smart to vote for him if you don’t like either of the alternatives because the outcome is already guaranteed.
If Trump wins, it will be a strategic blow to traditional political campaign thought. He has already blown up a lot of the Republican Party. Republican consultants are wringing their hands. People at Republican think tanks are scared they will have to get real jobs that produce something of economic value. Trump’s attempting to blow up a lot of the Democratic Party. That outcome isn’t necessarily a bad thing given the way the two parties think about the future, the way they operate-and act toward their respective constituencies.
If Clinton wins, the establishments in both parties will heave a huge sigh of relief. Then it will be back to business as usual.