Ms. Sarandon, self-righteous liberals, Hillary Haters, all the rest, SEE what's happening TODAY?

[betsuni]

118. "The critique of Clinton's campaign ... faulted her for not investing enough in field organization,

particularly in midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin that she ended up losing. This criticism was ironic, too: before the election, her 'extensive field organization' was thought to have given her a 'big advantage' over Trump, since his campaign lacked such an organization and had to depend on the Republican Party for this as well. ... But after the election, the prevailing view ... quickly changed.

"Could Clinton's smaller field organization have cost her the election? In fact, this is not at all clear. For one, the percentage of Democrats who said that they had been contacted by a campaign was almost the same as in 2012 (the percentage of Republican who reported being contacted, however, dropped sharply). For another, the apparent impact of Clinton's field organization was not large enough that a bigger organization would necessarily have won her the election.

"Candidate appearances in towns or counties often have small and temporary effects on poll numbers -- and thus an uncertain impact on vote share. ... Setting aside time on Hillary Clinton's itinerary for speeches or glad-handing in Macomb County was arguably unlikely to make much difference. ... Multiple experiments show that face-to-face contact has little persuasive effect in presidential general elections. ... Indeed, attempts at face-to-face persuasion can even backfire. One study of the 2008 Obama campaign -- which was routinely praised for the efficacy of its field organization -- found that a face-to-face persuasion experiment in Wisconsin may have reduced support for Obama. For these reasons, Clinton may have won more votes by focusing on mobilizing core Democratic votes ... than on persuading white voters in Macomb County."

From Sides, Tesler, Vavreck's "Identity Crisis"