Obama's got ground game

By Richard K. Barry

We are going to hear a lot over the next two weeks about the superior ground game the Obama campaign feels it has in place to help ensure people who are supportive actually get out and vote. If you are unfamiliar with the term, a ground game in electoral politics refers to the infrastructure a campaign has close to the voters in any given constituency that allow it to be in touch face-to-face both to persuade voters and to get them to the polls on the big day: offices, campaign staff, volunteers, telephone lines, literature, campaign signs, etc.

For example, much has been made of the fact that the Obama team has a lot more field offices in battle ground states. Molly Ball had a terrific article at the Atlantic yesterday going into some detail about the comparative advantage the Obama people have on all aspects of their effort.

Still, I liked David Gergen's comment on this. He said:

In the pivotal state of Ohio, for example, the Obama campaign has three times as many offices, often captained by experienced young people. By contrast, a major Republican figure in the state, throwing up his hands, told me that the Romney field team looked like a high school civics class.

Conventional wisdom is that a good ground game can add up to two points to an election result. In 2008, Obama didn't need those points, but he probably will this time. And this time his ground game is better than last time.

By the way, the Obama campaign will be posting a blog by Jeremy Bird, its National Field Director, on what they call its "historic grass roots operation," or what I call its ground game. You can find that here.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)