Democrats Must Ditch the ‘Ground Game’ Myth and Mature Fast!

Long ago, in a far-off precinct, campaigns were built on personal connections within the neighborhood. Neighbors not only shopped at the same stores but also bumped into each other at the bank, gym, and library. This close-knit scenario is a stark contrast to today’s “ground game,” where individuals, often strangers from far away, arrive with clipboards and campaign shirts, ready to instruct locals on their voting choices.

Despite numerous articles praising the “ground game” during the final stretch of the Harris campaign, there’s little discussion on the diminishing effectiveness of this strategy. For instance, an October election article by Time Magazine, titled “Democrats Bank on Ground Game Advantage in Pennsylvania,” starts with the observation that most people weren’t even answering their doors to campaign workers, yet fails to delve deeper into this issue. This oversight is common, even in detailed analyses like one by The New York Times, which compared Vice President Kamala Harris’ in-house door-knocking team with Trump’s outsourced field operation. Both articles highlighted the extensive manpower and number of doors knocked, overlooking the reality that few are answering these doors or engaging with the campaigners.

This narrative misses the core issues with modern door knocking: today’s voters are less likely to open their doors, fewer people know their neighbors, and undecided voters are increasingly wary of discussing politics.

As Democrats, we must recognize that deploying a last-minute, paid “ground game” just days before an election has not been effective for years.

The traditional model of year-round local precinct organizing, where neighborhood “captains” intimately knew their area and how each resident would likely vote, has vanished. Political parties and campaign industries have shifted away from building robust local systems in favor of utilizing temporary volunteers and paid staff who are active only during major elections. This shift from a familiar, trusted neighbor to an anonymous visitor has transformed modern campaigning into a numbers game focused on data over genuine effectiveness.

Still, the importance of both the message and the messenger persists in all campaign facets, particularly in field operations. Door-to-door selling, once commonplace, is nearly extinct (the Fuller Brush company began moving away from door-to-door sales back in 1985).

Studies in public safety have shown that community policing efforts are more effective when officers are familiar with the community members they serve. Political campaigning should be no different.

Moreover, technological advancements have reshaped door knocking. Ten years have passed since the advent of video doorbell technology, with a 2024 Consumer Reports study finding that 30% of Americans now use these devices. These shifts in neighborhood dynamics and consumer behavior are crucial realities that campaigns must confront.

The days when a volunteer might get lost in freezing temperatures or risk a dog bite while canvassing should be left in the past. While such campaign stories may be entertaining, it’s crucial to acknowledge that these methods are outdated and ineffective. If homes are empty or people aren’t answering their doors, political campaigns must adapt.

To secure more electoral victories, campaigns must target voters with relevant messages delivered by credible messengers. It’s time to explore more efficient ways to use limited resources to garner the desired outcomes. Are there more strategic locations where volunteers might be better utilized to engage potential voters?

This isn’t to suggest that field organizing is obsolete or that campaigns should shift entirely to digital approaches. Critiques of these new strategies are abundant and adjustments are needed. However, as the Democratic Party’s strategies evolve, it’s essential to critically evaluate all tactics to determine what is effective and discover improved methods for winning elections.

It’s important to remember that just because a tactic was successful in one campaign doesn’t mean it will be effective indefinitely. We’ve seen this with automated calls and text messaging, which have shown diminishing returns in successive cycles. Now is the moment for candid discussions with field organizers and volunteers to determine which tactics should be retired and which new strategies should be adopted.

Let’s move past the illusion that more “fake neighbor” door-knocking is the key to resolving the Democrats’ challenges. Instead, focus on how to best communicate with targeted voters through respected and meaningful voices, while there is still time to develop a genuine grassroots field effort.

As Democrats, we must accept that last-minute, paid “ground game” tactics, like those seen in Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, which involved flying numerous staff and volunteers to Iowa, have not been successful for years. Two decades after Dean’s notorious campaign moment, it’s clear that we need to rethink our approach, moving away from these outdated methods towards sustainable, community-focused strategies.

Eventually, we all must face reality and grow up. Otherwise, you might as well keep believing in Santa Claus and see what he brings you next election cycle.