The argument, basically, is that Clinton doesn't inspire a get-out-the-vote campaign the way Trump does. No matter how you do the math, the vote is the vote - and I get it, trump is a "populist" candidate. But the populist movement this year, on that side, is "keep the goddamn Darkies out of the country" while the populist movement this year, on this side, is "oh shit there's a Nazi running for President" with some "also, make weed legal" thrown in for good measure. For every argument you can make for the populism of Trump, an argument can be made for the populism against Trump.

Clinton hasn't even accepted the nomination yet. Sanders endorsed her yesterday. Arguing the ground operations in November from here in July is... well, premature. And we could debate "grass roots" vs. "astroturf" from here to the moon and back but...

Fuck Bubba's cousins. Trump gets coverage by saying outlandish shit. Now that we're in the general election, every outlandish thing Trump says gets an automatic rebuttal in the press. Every campaign ad doesn't. And Clinton simply has more money.

I hear what you're saying. But the disaffected white guy vote doesn't balance out the are-you-fucking-kidding-with-that-taco-salad Hispanic vote or the polling-at-zero-in-multiple-states African American vote.