PDA

View Full Version : Will Trump Recover?



Kathianne
08-08-2024, 10:57 AM
I think the 'enthusiasm' difference is real and perhaps even underestimated. In general it seems to me that the democrats in general and Trump republicans only care about winning, assuming that will give them all they want. Thus the disappointment with the anti-Semites with anything they perceive the party doing to nod to Israel, even acknowledging the aggressor in this current conflict.

OTOH, the 'republicans other than Trump owned' differ on many issues. Thus hard to get the type of loyalty the dems and Trump parties can count on. Some are driven by pharmaceutical or militarizing the police or any number of other issues. Many just want some 'normalcy return' which is likely why Joe got in and lesson learned there for many.

Now we'll see if Trump can zero in on any voters out of his 'given loyalists,' which are not enough to pull him over the line-see 2020.

Gift link

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-teeters-but-will-he-fall-republican-needs-to-get-campaign-focused-2024-race-6a37bab0?st=8wcy2lpkq17tywn&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


Trump Teeters, but Will He Fall?He looked unbeatable until Biden dropped out. Now he urgently needs to get on track.
By
Karl Rove
Follow
Aug. 7, 2024 4:58 pm ET




Americans watching the presidential campaign may feel as if they’re suffering from whiplash. Going into the June 27 presidential debate, Donald Trump held a 1.5% lead in the RealClearPolitics average and was the clear frontrunner. But the contest blew wide open after President Biden’s catastrophic performance. In the debate’s aftermath, it looked like smooth sailing for Mr. Trump. And it would have been had Mr. Biden not withdrawn on July 21. That changed everything.


Opinion: Potomac Watch
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Kamala Harris Picks Tim Walz for Vice President




Democrats rapidly coalesced behind Vice President Kamala Harris. Now the RCP average shows Ms. Harris with a 0.5% lead. That will likely grow as she campaigns through the battlegrounds this week with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and if she follows with an effective convention starting Aug. 19.


Ms. Harris isn’t making inroads with independent voters or soft Republicans, but she has energized previously dispirited Democrats. For months Democratic enthusiasm lagged behind that of Republicans. That’s flipped: A July 27 ABC/Ipsos poll found 88% of Democrats are enthusiastic about Ms. Harris, while 82% of Republicans are enthusiastic about Mr. Trump.


An election many thought would be determined by voters who liked neither candidate—“double haters”—is now nothing of the sort. Before the debate, 2024 looked as if it might be the first election since 2012 in which the overall turnout rate would drop from the last election. Instead, voters may set a new record for this century.


This race will be decided by each party’s success in two fundamental tasks—turning out its base and persuading independent, swing voters.


Democrats have a head start on turnout. The Biden-Harris campaign began building its ground game early this year. Its field staff has been training and deploying volunteers for months. Democratic state parties in five battleground states—Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—have significantly outraised their GOP counterparts and had lots more cash on hand as of June 30. The parties are at parity in Georgia, this year’s sixth battleground, but there the GOP is spending heavily on lawyers to defend against charges that party leaders schemed to overturn the 2020 election.


While Republicans play catch-up on their ground game (disclosure: I’m assisting a National Republican Senatorial Committee effort on this), the best that can be said for the GOP is that Mr. Trump’s campaign is more focused on get-out-the-vote efforts this year than it was in 2016 or 2020.


Yet the race is still tight. This makes the second variable—who persuades undecided and swing voters—the decisive one.


It could come down to a smaller percentage than you think. At first glance, the pool of independents appears large, ranging from 24% of all voters in an Aug. 4 SurveyUSA poll to roughly 31% in an Aug. 2 CBS poll. But University of Missouri political scientist John R. Petrocik argues convincingly in a recent report that most self-described independents, while rejecting party labels, are actually faithful Republicans or Democrats in their voting patterns. Mr. Petrocik writes that those “without a tilt toward either party” make up roughly 15% of the electorate.


A former colleague of Mr. Petrocik, Daron Shaw of the University of Texas at Austin, suggested over email that the genuinely up-for-grabs voters consist of three groups: true independents who don’t lean toward either party, non-MAGA Republicans, and less-motivated low-interest voters. Mr. Shaw, who is also Fox News’s poll director, says voters within these three groups who remain undecided or weakly linked to their current choice make up as little as 1.8% of the electorate. I’d suggest this share could be as high as 5%, given the number of undecided voters in national polls. That’s not a large figure, but in a tight race it would matter.


Being able to inspire party loyalists while appealing to independents has long been the mark of political thoroughbreds. Neither Mr. Trump nor Ms. Harris qualifies for that designation, but each needs only to be better than the other. Today, she appears likelier to do that than he does.


The past six weeks have shown that the pendulum can swing rapidly and wildly. For the first time this year, the Trump campaign is floundering. Mr. Trump seems rattled. He’s making plenty of unforced errors and wasting valuable, irreplaceable time on insults, side issues and trivia. All this undermines his cause. The Trump-Vance ticket needs to become much more disciplined and settle soon on an effective line of attack against Harris-Walz that wins over swing voters and then stick to it. If it can’t achieve both these goals, a race Mr. Trump was on the verge of winning three weeks ago could be lost.

Kathianne
08-08-2024, 10:59 AM
Very related, another gift link, go ahead and read on your own. ;)

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-2024-election-kamala-harris-jd-vance-tim-walz-cd3d557a?st=t9dzw70chumf5lo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Gunny
08-08-2024, 12:40 PM
I think the 'enthusiasm' difference is real and perhaps even underestimated. In general it seems to me that the democrats in general and Trump republicans only care about winning, assuming that will give them all they want. Thus the disappointment with the anti-Semites with anything they perceive the party doing to nod to Israel, even acknowledging the aggressor in this current conflict.

OTOH, the 'republicans other than Trump owned' differ on many issues. Thus hard to get the type of loyalty the dems and Trump parties can count on. Some are driven by pharmaceutical or militarizing the police or any number of other issues. Many just want some 'normalcy return' which is likely why Joe got in and lesson learned there for many.

Now we'll see if Trump can zero in on any voters out of his 'given loyalists,' which are not enough to pull him over the line-see 2020.

Gift link

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-teeters-but-will-he-fall-republican-needs-to-get-campaign-focused-2024-race-6a37bab0?st=8wcy2lpkq17tywn&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

It is entirely up to Donald Trump whether or not he wins.

Kathianne
08-08-2024, 12:42 PM
It is entirely up to Donald Trump whether or not he wins.

The more I listen to vance, the more I like him. He's better at articulating Trump's policies than Trump. It's why, imo the media is on him full force.

Black Diamond
08-08-2024, 12:53 PM
The more I listen to vance, the more I like him. He's better at articulating Trump's policies than Trump. It's why, imo the media is on him full force.

Maybe i should give Vance another listen /chance.

Kathianne
08-09-2024, 08:42 PM
The more I listen to vance, the more I like him. He's better at articulating Trump's policies than Trump. It's why, imo the media is on him full force.
Not just me:

https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/08/09/vance-leads-the-way-n3792927


Vance Leads the WayPaul Mirengoff from Ringside 9:20 PM | August 09, 2024

From what I’ve seen of Vance on C-SPAN, he’s doing a fine job of branding Kamala Harris and Tim Walz what they are — far-left radicals. Vance has been especially merciless when it comes to Walz. He’s hammering the Minnesotan for the policies he inflicted on his state, some of his far-left positions, and his misleading statements about his military service.


At his rallies, Vance also solicits questions from the media, while pointedly noting Harris’ unwillingness to meet the press. From what I’ve seen, Vance answers questions adroitly, though it will only take one major slip up for this strategy to backfire.


The problem for the Republican ticket is that Vance is only second fiddle. As much as presidential nominees agonize and calculate before they select a running mate, the vice presidential nominee almost never plays a big part in determining the outcome of an election.


Ed Morrissey
Perhaps some success here could convince Trump to follow suit.


https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/jd-vance-is-doing-a-fine-job-of-what?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=888959&post_id=147496780&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5ky3s&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email


JD Vance is doing a fine job of what Trump needs to do, but seemingly can't.

Paul Mirengoff
Aug 09, 2024


Presidential nominees pick their running mate for a variety of purposes — to improve their chances in a key state or region (Kennedy-Johnson); to reassure a key portion of their party (Johnson-Humphrey and Trump-Pence); to add gravitas to the ticket (Bush-Cheney); to appeal to a demographic group (Mondale-Ferraro); or to double-down on an ideology or image (Clinton-Gore).


Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance looks like a classic ideological double-down. In his current incarnation, Vance is as MAGA as it gets.


There was a time when vice presidential candidates were often picked for another purpose — to serve as an attack dog against the opposition, while the presidential candidate remained largely above the fray. Eisenhower-Nixon is one example. Nixon-Agnew is another although, believe it or not, the main reason for Agnew’s inclusion was to reassure the liberal Rockefeller win of the GOP.


The best example is probably Barry Goldwater’s selection of the relatively obscure (and long forgotten) William Miller. Goldwater is said to have picked Miller because he liked the way the congressman got under Lyndon Johnson’s skin.


Nowadays, presidential candidates have little desire to stay above the fray, and Donald Trump has none. He’s his own attack dog. Thus, it doesn’t seem likely he selected Vance for that purpose.


But Vance is turning out to be an attack dog, par excellence. And because his attacks are more focused and less petty than Trump’s, he’s filling a gap in the ticket.


From what I’ve seen of Vance on C-SPAN, he’s doing a fine job of branding Kamala Harris and Tim Walz what they are — far-left radicals. Vance has been especially merciless when it comes to Walz. He’s hammering the Minnesotan for the policies he inflicted on his state, some of his far-left positions, and his misleading statements about his military service.

At his rallies, Vance also solicits questions from the media, while pointedly noting Harris’ unwillingness to meet the press. From what I’ve seen, Vance answers questions adroitly, though it will only take one major slip up for this strategy to backfire.


The problem for the Republican ticket is that Vance is only second fiddle. As much as presidential nominees agonize and calculate before they select a running mate, the vice presidential nominee almost never plays a big part in determining the outcome of an election.


Vance isn’t going to get the attention Trump gets (unless he slips-up badly). So it’s really up to Trump to brand the Harris-Walz ticket effectively.


From what I’ve seen, Trump isn’t doing this. Where Vance cites chapter and verse, Trump’s attacks are conclusory — and that’s when they have any real substance at all.


For example, Trump told Fox News that “this is a ticket that would want this country to go communist immediately, if not sooner.” Harris and Walz are lots of things, most of them bad. But they are not communists. Calling them that just makes Trump look dopey (to borrow Bill Otis’ description) to everyone but his ardent supporters.


Trump needs to present sharper, more focused attacks, if he can.


But even if Trump does this, his message may not break through because of where he’s presenting it. He’s not in the swing states. Instead, as Erick Erickson complains, he’s doing live stream interviews with “influencers” whose influence, if any, is largely confined to people who already favor Trump.


It’s still a good while before Election Day. But people will start voting in Pennsylvania, for example, soon. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ will have a big audience for their convention, at which they will roll out Harris and Walz in a form bearing almost no relationship to reality.


Thus, the task of effectively defining the Democratic ticket is too urgent to be left to JD Vance alone. Erickson writes:


Trump should barn storm the swing states and do local media. Right now, Trump is having J.D. Vance do the leg work. But the signs say Trump on top, not Vance. People are voting for Harris or Trump, not Vance or Tim Walz. The 500,000 Americans who will decide who our next president is are not going to watch Trump do a livestream with a Twitch influencer. They are tired from a long day.


They trust the long news anchor on their local news station who has been behind the anchor desk for thirty years. That guy or lady, they think, is fair and one of us. If Trump does an interview with that person, the swing voters in the swing states will pay attention. An interview with Elon Musk on a platform most Americans do not use does not get the same return on investment. . . .


The national press hates Donald Trump. The local press wants the ratings. They will ask tough questions, but they will be the local, trusted faces. Trump has stories to tell.

Every state is affected by illegal immigration and fentanyl. Every state has higher grocery and gas prices than when Trump was President, and most have higher crime rates.

If Trump wants to win, he must reset, and he can do that locally in swing states.


Erickson is right about the need for Trump to “storm the swing states.” He’s also right about the importance of local media.


My question, though, is whether Trump is capable of talking coherently and persuasively to anyone other than a MAGA supporter at a rally, a friendly “influencer,” or a Fox News show host. His performance in the debate with Biden and in his speech at the GOP convention suggests to me that he is not. Instead, Trump seems wedded to gratuitous insults and “shorthand” that seems at times like a private language understood by only his followers.


Alienating a “trusted” local news answer and baffling his or her audience is not a path to victory in swing states. Unless Trump can clean up his act — and wants to — maybe he’s better off leaving those local interviews to JD Vance, after all.