Good news, especially when there's really no telling how much Hillary's organizational advantage is worth.
I've really been wondering how much of an effect this will have, because things are quite different this time around. In 2012, Obama ran a superior ground game and over-performed his RCP average nicely (I could be attributing things wrongly here, but whatever), and that was with Romney actually running his own ground ops, albeit dysfunctional in the end.
Compare this to Trump, who has virtually no field effort worth mentioning, and the RNC's own operation has different priorities, leaving many states vulnerable and important ones outmatched.
If robust ground games truly do have worthwhile effects, they could be very substantial for Democrats this cycle. A bonus that we won't be able to measure until the results come in on November 8th.
There are a few papers floating around from the 2008 and 2012 cycles, but I'd look at Indiana 2008 as the best example of what happens when the ground games are asymmetrical. The state has averaged R+7-8 in post-Cold War elections, except when Obama invested heavily and McCain ignored it. The result was R+3.
Now I don't expect Trump to have
zero GOTV, but that example is pretty telling. An extra two points of margin doesn't seem out of line at this point.
