Posse Incitatus

Mulling it Over

Much to the chagrin of my co-blogger, I suspect, I will comment on Monday’s presidential debate. Yes, I’m a few days late, but I simply work too many hours to post daily and consistently. Better late than never, I suppose.

To be sure, Monday’s underwhelming debate was a truly disappointing affair. Starting with moderator Lester Holt’s obvious bias (avoiding issues like immigration, terrorism, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, and Hillary’s flagrant and reckless email transgressions, Holt interrupted and attempted to “fact-check” Donald Trump three or four times more than he did Hillary Clinton).

But Holt did find time to badger Trump about not releasing his income tax returns, the idiotic waste-of-time birther issue, and about alleged name-calling against a former beauty contest winner. Hillary delightfully joined Les in these meaningless exchanges.

Hillary looked and sounded smug, as usual, and doesn’t even realize how condescending she can be without even trying. Trump failed to articulate his positive visions (lower taxes and regulations, sealing the border, offering school choice and pro-growth policies to the millions of poor blacks and Hispanics suffering on the Democrat urban plantation). He failed to mop the floor with Hillary on issues such as her mendacity, reckless handling of sensitive documents, Senate vote for the Iraq War and support for the train wreck of Obamacare.

Trump did what I and many others have warned him not to do: Take the bait and wallow in inane garbage like the birther issue, the pejoratives he used to describe various females in the past, and the money his father gave him to help him get started back in the 1970s. It was obvious The Donald didn’t prepare much and figured that winging it would work in this format just as it did in the GOP primary debates, which I’ve described as “cattle calls.”

K.N. McBride is correct in implying that the importance of these debates is blown out of proportion. Trump will probably fare better in the second and third debates, because he realizes how many broad avenues are available to rake Shrillary over the coals. But even if he is mediocre, unfocused and at times exhibits bizarre facial expressions (which he did Monday night), his poll numbers won’t be adversely affected, nor will Hillary’s be boosted much, if at all.

The only thing that could severely damage one of the candidates is a major meltdown, such as Trump exploding and shouting -- veins bulging, eyes bugging out. Or Hillary sounding even more grating than she normally does, dripping with arrogance and condescension, as she spouts off with another “Basket of deplorables” statement that betrays her true opinion of a huge swath of Americans.

I suspect (and hope) that Americans are so sick and tired of a moribund economy and failed healthcare system; so angry with a president who sucks up to Islam and frequently criticizes America; and so incensed with being labeled racist/sexist/xenophobic/Islamophobic by the vermin of the Left, that they will turn out en masse to vote for Trump -- not so much because they think he's great, but because they viscerally know that a Hillary presidency will be the kill-shot from which our nation will not recover.

Most Americans probably have made up their minds by now about whom they’ll vote for. I believe the seemingly large percentage of undecided voters is misleading. Many people unfortunate enough to be interviewed by pollsters may simply use that answer as a copout to avoid further interrogation. In some cases, Trump voters won’t admit they will vote for him because they perceive pollsters to be hostile to Trump, and they fear pushback or confrontation.

This is a long, grinding process. I am certain that tens of millions of Americans have a bleak, anxious view of how it will play out and what the future holds for our nation. With cyber-leaks galore, master manipulators working behind the scenes, enemies including terrorists seeking to meddle in the election, and the utter corruption that permeates both major political parties and the entire federal government, it is extremely difficult to feel optimistic.

I would say that I’ll be glad when this dark, foreboding cloud lifts and Nov. 8 is behind us. But I deeply fear that the destructive charlatan of the Left will come out on top. And I also recognize that, no matter who wins, the bitterness and polarization will not go away. In fact, they will intensify to a dangerous level.

We are likely in for some rough times, indeed – the usual chaos of a lousy job market, stagnant wages, violence in the streets, terrorism, strained race relations and unchecked immigration all being amplified by toxic, corrosive cynicism, disillusionment and pessimism.

Enough about the debate already

I stopped watching presidential debates in 2000.  I remember the one where Al Gore got all made up like a drag queen and was sighing like a soap star to everything George W. Bush said.

To me, it showed that Gore was an absolute idiot, not to be trusted with burnt match, let alone the nuclear football.

But he still won the popular vote, so what do I know?

The first debate (oh yes, there will be more) was massively overhyped, like a combination of the Superbowl and the seventh game in the World Series/NBA finals.

In fact, it's the least important debate because by the end of the month, no one will remember it.

Besides, for all the people claiming so-and-so won, there is no actual score.  It's like those pointless arguments between superfans over whose team is better.  "Yeah, you beat us ten games in a row, but you still suck."

Imagine a world where perception decides victory.  This would only empower the most delusional of partisans.

In such a place the University of Michigan would never lose a game.  Ever.

Yeah, count me out.

Based on the post-debate coverage, I see that Nate Silver claims Hillary won while Dilbert Guy (Scott Adams) says Trump lost the debate but won the argument.

Given that Adams has been eerily prescient and Silver has stepped on his dick continuously since this campaign began, I'll hand the victory to Trump.

Fragmented Reaction

Well, we are only a few hours away from what could be the first of three "Super Bowl of Politics" events: The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The Internet is buzzing with all sorts of analyses about how each candidate can win, what their respective strengths and weaknesses are, whether debate moderator Lester Holt will be fair, yada yada yada....

Like so many other developments in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, tonight's debate may play out completely differently than anyone had imagined. Maybe it will be boring and low-key. Or maybe it will be so angry and raucous, both candidates will have damaged themselves (or so Gary Johnson & Jill Stein hope). Perhaps viewers will discover a new aspect or angle to one or both of the candidates. This seems likely, since millions of likely voters haven't been paying a lot of attention until just the past few weeks. Those of us who live and breathe politics find it unbelievable, in light of the stakes for our nation's future, that millions of people don't care much about the political scene.

I wonder if I should bother making a prediction, since predictions (even by the most vaunted of soothsayers) have more often than not proven laughably inaccurate. Nevertheless, I will take the plunge. I believe this debate will be, on balance, a draw. However, I think there's a better chance Trump comes out on top than Hillary.

Hillary can practice and rehearse and study and obsess until the cows come home, but she can never, ever shed the accurate impression that she is a self-serving, mendacious, corrupt harridan. To use an analogy, back when I was a dorky teenager, I used to say that I could lift weights and go to the batting cages until I am blue in the face, but I would never have the talent to play Major League Baseball. Each of us has some limitations, and even if we have a massive cheerleading squad trying to paint us in the best light, there comes a point when people assess -- accurately -- that the emperor has no clothes.

I suspect that Hillary will repeatedly emphasize her experience and the variety of positions she has held. But this is, in reality, a slow pitch over the middle of the plate for Trump. All he has to do is sum up what that experience has resulted in: the Middle East is aflame; ISIS is menacing with vicious cruelty and bloodlust; Benghazi was a massive failure and the blatant lies that attempted to cover it up were shameful and pathetic; the Clinton Foundation takes donations from odious, oppressive regimes; Hillary has shown gross carelessness and incompetence with her handling of classified materials, and lied repeatedly to cover up her ineptitude. What it boils down to is this: Experience is worthless if it means experience at failure, and a dismal track record at learning from and rectifying mistakes.

What will be interesting is to gauge the reactions (PLURAL!) during and after the debate. Dramatically unlike the paradigm of 32 years ago, when incumbent President Ronald Reagan debated challenger Walter Mondale, we have a disparate, fragmented and widespread "peanut gallery" willing and able to hold forth. The old expression, "Opinions are like a**holes: Everybody's got one" never was truer. 

The old media -- ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, Reuters, et al -- still delusional about their degree of influence -- may try to portray Hillary as the winner or at least as having debated Trump to a draw even if she gets her butt kicked. But talk radio, social media, conservative blogs, political forums, text messages between friends, co-workers and acquaintances -- all of these may tell a different story. It would be asking too much to expect some media organization to sort it all out and come up with an accurate score-keeping regimen.

The old media is nothing if not shameless. They will try to do what they do. But I suspect their cynical bullshit will be blatantly exposed, so much so that they will unwittingly drive more nails into their despicable coffin.

Gun Review: SAR B6P

As much as gun manufacturers have tried to make their products look current and tactical, the fact remains that firearms technology hasn’t advanced much in the last 120 years.  The materials have been upgraded, but functionally they are the same weapons that were developed before the start of the 20th Century. 

This has two implications for the bargain-minded shooter.  The first is that the patents on many iconic designs have long since expired, making it possible for multiple manufacturers to produce the exact same firearm (so much so, the parts are sometimes interchangeable). 

The second is that because this technology is so well-established, it is easy for smaller producers to enter the market and offer reliable products and far less than a ‘name brand’ manufacturer would offer.

One example of this is the SAR B6P, which is an updated version of the CZ-75 produced by the Turkish firm of Sarzilmar and imported by European American Armory. 

First the good points.  The B6P has excellent balance and feel.  It points naturally, and the polymer grip fits well in my hand.  It’s a right-handed weapon, so southpaws may not like it, but since I’m part of the righty majority, it suits me fine.  Aesthetically, it has that fine matte-black tactical feel that is all the rage with the kiddies.  The sights are highly visible and easy to use.

As you would expect, the B6P has the modern double action/single action trigger, allowing you to carry it with a round chambered and the hammer down.  The difference in trigger pull is significant.  Happily, the hammer does lend itself to manual cocking, so if you have time, you can go right to single action.

So aesthetics and ergonomics are pretty good. 

Where the design falls short is functionality.

The first issue is the slide.  Because the slide sits inside the frame, gripping it to pull it back is more difficult than it would be in a Hi-Power or 1911.  It is undoubtedly the hardest pistol slide to cycle that I’ve ever used.

Then there’s the trigger.

Generally, when one thinks of trigger use, the focus is on what part of your finger makes contact with the trigger.  That’s crucial with the B6P, but equally important is what part of the trigger your finger rests on. 

I’m sure veteran shooters are puzzling over what I mean, but basically if you don’t have your finger on the sweet spot of the trigger (the center of the curve) you get a little bite when it fires.

Once I figured that out, my accuracy improved as did my comfort, but only in target shooting do you have the luxury finessing your grip and trigger placement.  If I ever had to use it in an emergency, this would be a problem.

This brings me to my final issue – reliability.  I’ve never had a pistol with so many issues.  Rounds stovepiped and several times the slide didn’t move at all after firing.  At first I thought it might be an ammo quality problem, but my trusty old SIG-Sauer P226 used the same ammo without incident.

Now when a 30-year old pistol beats out a brand new one in terms of reliability – that’s a problem.

It may well be that with time and some work, the reliability issues would clear up.  I’ve seen the grip enhancers you can add to the slide and it’s possible a trigger job with improve it as well.

For people with that kind of time and energy – and wanting a very affordably priced handgun – the B6P may be a good fit.

 

In the clutch, in a crisis - I'm just not comfortable with it.

Media Vacuity

Anyone who has read this blog for just a little while knows that I hold the mainstream media in utter contempt. I respect them about as much as I respect a Bowery bum or a whore on the east side of Detroit. Most of the members of the so-called Fourth Estate are liberal apologists, susceptible to knee-jerk reactions, and so devoid of originality and critical thinking that they may as well be parrots. They live in a delusional, insular world, but think those who doubt them are the freaks.

Sometimes, just to reassure myself that I am not overreacting (a reality check, if you will), I will listen to CNN or MSNBC on my Sirius XM satellite radio as I am driving. It doesn't hurt every now and then to see what the other side is saying, and ascertain whether my preconceived notions should be challenged. The answer, after I listened to CNN last Friday morning, is an unequivocal "no" -- my preconceived notions were right on the money.

I thought about the miserable economy, Hillary Clinton's precarious health and her continued flagrant lying, the influx of unvetted Muslims from the Middle East, the hacking of Julian Assange and its often embarrassing fallout (Colin Powell's status seems to have been greatly diminished based on his petty gossip and vindictive digs against others). I had in mind the continued menacing threat of Islamofascist terrorism, the 93 million adults not in the labor force, the collapsing health care system and other pressing matters. 

So what did CNN lead off its newscast with, and how long did they beat it to death? The "birther" issue -- the contention by Donald Trump and others a few years ago that President Obama was not really born in the United States and should divulge his birth certificate, and once he did produce a birth certificate, that it was fake. Trump has since stated he believes Obama was born in the United States, but the press wouldn't let it go.

How long would they drag this out, I wondered. Well, maybe 5-10 minutes. I switched the station back and forth to some music a few times, not being able to withstand the inanity. But after 10 minutes, I turned it back to the CNN station, and they were still going on. It ended up lasting nearly 15 minutes. Incredible, I thought. A major cable news network, now 36 years old, which claims to be the gold standard in cable network news, spent a full QUARTER of its hour-long newscast on the birther issue.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the birther issue is not going to decide the election, and ranks down there with, say, the budget for national parks and monuments, as far as how much importance the public gives it. But it is an opportunity for the Hillary Clinton cheerleaders to A) drag Trump through the mud and fire up African American voters; and B) avoid discussing Barry's horrendous economic record. Under his stewardship, blacks -- especially teens and 20-somethings -- are far worse off now than 8 years ago. The teen black unemployment rate is an appalling 35 percent. How's that for "hope and change" and "change you can believe in"?

Yes, G.W. Bush handed Obama a horrible economy, and the economy recovered (but not because of the pork-laden stimulus bill). Things were bad, and got better. But not much better. Many of the new jobs created are low-wage and part-time positions, and Obamacare has caused premiums to skyrocket and coverage to decline. The economic illiterates in the White House are stifling job creation and prosperity with regulations, high taxes and misguided policies galore. These are the real issues the media would focus on if it were legitimate.

But alas, the media is largely illegitimate.  That explains why so many newspapers have suffered catastrophic circulation declines, with many of them going out of business. And why viewership on CNN ain't so hot. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Wolf Blitzer!

 

 

 

Colin Powell's email shows the real threat to Hillary: No one likes her

The hacker knives are out for Hillary.  Renegade computer nerds are happily dumping damaging emails all over the place - and doing so at a moment when she physically incapable of responding.

They also claim that they are saving the best for last.

I'm sure a lot of conservatives assume that the later batches will be highly classified messages that clearly damage national security.

I disagree.  For most voters, Hillary's inability to handle classified information is already priced into their support.  Those that care about it are already against her; those that don't, aren't going to shift if even more evidence comes out.

The recent leak of Colin Powell emails shows the real threat:  People will learn that no one actually likes her.

Imagine an email coming out on the eve of a debate from someone high in Obama's inner circle, an email that basically tears Hillary to pieces for being incompetent and corrupt.  Something on the order of:  "Really getting tired of HRC selling access to the State Dept.  Can you tell her to cut it out?"

It could also cut to her competence.  "Yeah, I know State is a mess, but what can we do?  We promised the bitch a job.  Don't worry, she'll be leaving in a year and we can start cleaning up the mess then."

Emails like that would be lethal to her competence narrative and would throw the Dems in turmoil. 

I know, many of you are thinking I'm guilty of wishful thinking.  Perhaps, but we know that one of the defining characteristic of both the Clintons and the Obamas is their contempt for each other.  Indeed, all of Washington pretty much loathes the rest of it, and relishes the chance to be catty.  In my own political experience, I've been amazed how people who otherwise are staunch ideological allies hate each other's guts.

We know that there is no love lost between Team Clinton and Team Obama.  We also know that both sides are incredibly arrogant and also very casual about what they write.

If the next Wikileaks dump really does have something game-changing, my money is that it's personally damaging rather than security-related.  We'll find out soon enough.

 

Fifteen years later, a day like any other

One of the many highlights in the BBC production of "I, Claudius" is when John Hurt (playing the degenerate Emperor Caligula) exclaims:  "Aren't people awful?"

I say that on today of all days because it's manifestly true.  Fifteen years ago we woke up to find ourselves under attack by a cruel and merciless foe.  Now, a mere decade and a half later, we treat it as a bit of unpleasant weather that we probably had coming anyway.

Terrorists kill our ambassador and we shrug.  They shoot up our holiday parties and military installations and our political class clicks there tongues about "gun violence."

When the attackers scream out their motivation while blasting away in a gay bar, the press is there to say that it's mental illness likely caused by the Southern Baptist Convention.

In an environment such as this, there's nothing I can say to rouse those who've fallen asleep and little comfort to offer for those who are still awake.  It's a dark time for the republic.

Things may get better and they may get worse.  They can't stay the same.  Hope for the best and prepare for the worst - and remember what happened today.

The gun culture - then and now

One of the folks at ammo.com recently drew my attention to an old post from 2005 about the gun culture.

It's crazy to think that not only has that much time passed since I wrote that, but also that this blog is 12 years old!

Anyhow, a couple items in it are worth another look to see how well they held up.  Here's one:

However, one of the more interesting trends in recent years has been the evolution of the American gun culture.  Increasingly, firearms are becoming the province of non-traditional shooters.

Women, for example, are taking an increasing interest in guns as a means of self-defense.

True, and that trend has actually accelerated.  In fact, though the bullet bubble is pretty much gone (I can get 9mm retail for almost as cheap as it was 15 years ago), the calibers that remain expensive and scarce are the light ones that are favored by women.  Both 22LR and .380 are nowhere near as cheap as they theoretically ought to be.  Several gun store owners have said it's because these calibers are hugely popular with women.

Speaking of women, here's an example where I was dead wrong:

The unwitting agent of part of this is feminism.  Many female shooters fully buy into the notion that they are equal to men and should not have to rely on someone else to defend them.

Yeah, maybe that was true in 2005, but it certainly isn't true now.  Contemporary feminism now teaches that women are helpless, fearful, and generally useless creatures that need a big strong man to protect them.  Even a stray word can reduce them to tears.  They are so pathetic that even the slightest amount of alcohol destroys their sense of judgement and self control, which is why society needs to rewrite the criminal code to give these delicate flowers special protection.  In a moment of stress, they collapse into a weepy heap.

Think I exaggerate?  Read R.S. McCain's ongoing project on feminism and be horrified.

Of course most women no longer want anything to do with feminism - even the ones who were once pillars of the movement.

Despite the fact that modern feminism has a near constant case of hot flashes mixed with hysteria, modern women are still keenly interested in defending themselves.  In that earlier post I linked to the Second Amendment Sisters, but their site seems to be abandoned.  I suspect one factor may have been the success of their project - women no longer feel the need for a special organization to represent them in the firearms-using community.

The firearms industry has  not been slow to recognize this trend.  The aforementioned ammo.com guys asked me to link to their women's guide to concealed carry and I'm happy to do so (despite the fact that they didn't pay me).

Overall it seems solid advice.  They do mention comfort in several areas (which is key) but I would maybe add some extra emphasis that caliber is less important than control.  There is a very vocal community that insists on big bore guns for every use (particularly .45 ACP) and while I get what they are driving at, shot placement is more important than making a big boom.

In my younger years I was all about using the biggest caliber I could control and I still deeply enjoy blasting away with a hand cannon, but the fact of the matter is that large calibers often turn women against using guns.  My wife loves firing the .357 Magnum, but she practically grew up with a gun in her hand.  Our daughters much prefer using a .380.  With time and experience they may choose something more powerful, but for now that what they are comfortable with and that's fine.

But that is a minor quibble.  On the whole, if you know a woman who is interested in concealed carry, the ammo.com page is a good place to start.

 

Coming Around to Trump

I admit, I have said some harsh things about Donald Trump. I have called him a buffoon, shallow and an arrogant, egotistical jerk. But even when I was strafing him with venom, I was acknowledging that his straight talk -- his willingness to shit on PC -- were just what the doctor ordered. People are fed up with scripted, phony, two-faced, hypocritical political hacks who care first and foremost with feathering their own nests.

(Cliche alert: Desperate times call for desperate measures.)

There's currently an analogy making the rounds on the Internet: This is the "Flight 93" election. We know what will happen if we don't rush the cockpit and overpower the Islamofascist scum who want to run this Boeing 757 into the ground: We all perish; there is a 100 percent certainty.

Hillary Rotten Clinton is the Islamo-Nazi in the cockpit. If elected president, she will eviscerate this nation and put us on the fast-track to banana republic/third world status. She will do so by opening up the floodgates to non-assimilating, third-world immigrants, 95 percent of whom will vote Democrat, and many of whom will have large families. She will also lower the bar on voter ID requirements, allowing a boatload of illegal immigrants to vote without IDs and permitting convicted felons to vote. Additionally, she will appoint hard-left Supreme Court justices, so that the highest court in the land will serve as a rubber stamp for unconstitutional, left-wing legislation and a hatchet to destroy any conservative rulings by lower courts or legislation enacted by Congress.

But by charging the cockpit and overpowering HildaBeast, and wresting the controls from her Alinsky-inspired grasp, we'll put in charge a man who at least gives us a fighting chance. But this analogy fails, I believe, because Donald Trump has a much greater chance of reviving our economy, protecting our borders, improving health care and strengthening our military than your average Joe would have of successfully landing a jet airliner without having had any flight training.

A more apt analogy, it has been noted, is that a Hillary Clinton presidency is like Russian roulette with a semi-automatic. Definite suicide. But electing Donald Trump is, metaphorically speaking, using the proverbial six-gun to play Russian roulette. You spin the chamber and you've got a better than 50-50 chance you'll survive after pulling the trigger.

A few months ago, a Posse Incitatus reader called my attention to something I had not really considered that made me more positive about Trump: His children have turned out to be high-quality citizens. They are not drug addicts or alcoholics. They have not been in trouble with the law. They lead productive lives. Being born into an uber-wealthy family did not turn them into hedonistic, narcissistic heathens. There's really something to be said for that.

In the past few months, I have observed Donald Trump's actions, behavior, statements and positions on the issues. Would I do things differently if I were in his shoes? Probably. But I can't help but resort to scripture when analyzing The Donald. There have been many, many imperfect individuals who ended up being saints. St. Paul is Exhibit A. When he was Saul of Tarsus, he persecuted Christians. He despised them, and worked overtime to harm them. But after his conversion to Christianity, he became an outspoken advocate of Jesus Christ. He is believed to have been martyred. His Bible verses are fundamental underpinnings of Christianity. 

Mind you, I am not implying that Donald Trump is a saint. I am only making the point that those who ultimately do great things and have a long-term positive impact are often highly flawed individuals. Donald Trump fits the bill. 

The "Never-Trumpers" are bitter, petulant people who are too immature (or frankly, too egostistical or stupid) to realize that they are on a suicide mission. Let them live in their bitter fantasy world. I believe history will prove them colossally wrong.

If only Hillary treated national secrets the way she treated Goldman Sachs speeches

The FBI engaged in a classic midnight document dump yesterday and what a doozy it is.

The internet almost broke under the strain, and while I generally hate to pile on, I'd like to use this as proof that my analysis offered two weeks ago was eerily accurate.

For those who skipped it, I remarked that Hillary's campaign was a hostage to events.  One of them now has come to pass. 

As everyone with any cognitive ability can see, Hillary either lied blatantly and stupidly to the FBI about the intentional destruction of documents and willfully disregarding national security, or she is a total blithering idiot.  There is no middle ground.

Perhaps the worst thing Trump can do is take her at her word, taunting that she has no great experience and can't even remember being briefed on how to handle classified information.  So much for her "competency!"

He might also observe that the only secrets Hillary can be bothered to keep regard her infamous speeches to billionaire banks.  Those she's managed to keep under lock and key.  Priorities, right?

Speaking of Trump, his flank march to Mexico was brilliant and could not come at a better time.  Trump now looks like a sober statesman - presidential, if you will.  His continued outreach with minorities is shattering the "RACIST!!1!" label and will give more cover for people to rationalize their support for him.

THE NEVER TRUMPERS AT BAY:  I also predicted that the Never Trump crowd's position would be increasingly untenable and this is a great example of it.  Either they have to admit they are voting for a self-identified imbecile or electing empress who will do whatever she wants with impunity.  Which is it, guys?  She obviously thinks she can auction off American foreign policy for personal gain.  What's to stop her from having people she finds inconvenient disappear? 

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to noticed that people the Clintons don't like have an uncanny tendency to die in suspicious circumstances.  Now that we know the FBI is no longer interested in prosecuting abuses of power, we can be certain that the number of accidental suicides will only go up.

ABOUT THAT VAUNTED GROUND GAME:  Over the last week I saw a bunch chatter about how Trump was going to get crushed because of his lack of a 'ground game,' i.e. district offices scattered throughout the land.  As someone who worked in the nitty gritty of electoral politics longer than I care to remember, I have a simple response:  Bullshit.

Outreach offices are welfare for political activists.  The main employees are the kids and friends of the connected.  Later on they use the time they spent to justify employment in the political world.  This is how most political staffers get their start - first as a door-knocker or phone banker, later as a supervisor in a district office.  Win or lose, they use their networking to land a paid gig.  Most of these people don't know the first thing about government, but hey, they did the work, so now they get a government job.

Outreach is really only effective at the very  local level - situations where people have never heard of the candidates.  If you are running for school board and city council, ground game is huge.  For president it is irrelevant.

The consultant class insists these things are important because that's how they get paid.  Trump had a craptastic ground game throughout the primaries and dominated the race.  This election won't be decided by turnout ratios in Oakland County.  The victor will destroy the loser.

Trump is an electoral innovator.  His tactics have shattered the way we've waged political campaigns.  In a sense, he's bringing the same innovations to politics that Napoleon brought to warfare - hard-hitting swarms of skirmishers and dense columns of ardent nationalists hammering baggage-laden mercenaries wearing powdered wigs and clinging to half-century-old doctrines.

Trump may yet fail, but it won't because he didn't have enough field offices.