Kelly on Trump

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's General Kelly's "pitch," prompted by Trump's recent comments that he wants to use the military to go after American citizens.

If that doesn't concern you at all, I don't know what to tell you.

You don't get what I'm saying.

I don't know if you ever listen to the Hacks on Tap podcast -- but it's a really good one to listen to you if you want to get a sense of the conventional wisdom among political strategists (both D and R) who are supportive of the political establishment and opposed to Trump and the populist movement.

The main hosts are David Axelrod and Mike Murphy (and they have other, mostly D, political gurus on). I like to listen to it because these guys are smart and shrewd political strategists -- and, more importantly, I think they do a fairly good job at laying out where they're at rather than just spinning on behalf of the Dems. Spin is useless, it's an attempt to shape thinking rather than convey it.

Anyway, here's something Axelrod said on the latest episode that gets at what I'm talking about:

And the second thing that worries me is…I think that people have made a judgment about Donald Trump. If this were just an up or down referendum on Donald Trump, I don't think he'd get elected. And he still butts up against his ceiling, which is under 50%.​

​

The questions they have are about her because she's brand new. And they haven't completely. This is the key thing. And so, I would be more in the contrast mode between with her and him. And I'd give them a little more information about her probably around middle class economics and basically being a battler for them. And around abortion rights. And I would be doing contrast, contrast, contrast. So, their judgment is they gotta pummel Trump here for the reasons that Plouffe told you.​

​

Axelrod's point is that the more the narrative is about Trump and not Harris, the worse it is for her.....even if it's in the context of friggin' Hitler. There's nothing anybody can say about Donald Trump that is going to move the needle. It's fully moved.

She needs to close the sale on herself. And the more she or her surrogates are focused on going after Trump, the less they're doing what she needs done.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, that answers my question. You're trying to defend an indefensible statement by saying "you can't take what Trump says seriously."

Here’s the problem. Let’s assume that What Kelly said about Trump is true, and Trump actually said awful things about dead and wounded vets and doesn’t like them.

Yet, in 2016, Trump campaigned on the issue of shabby or worse treatment of Vets in the VA hospital system. As President he took administrative actions and championed legislation to correct many problems, including allowing vets to seek care outside of the system on the VA dime. You can evaluate Trump on the basis of hearsay, or what he actually did. Your choice.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So everyone is just supposed to guess at what he is and isn't going to do? Some things we should take seriously but others we shouldn't. Is there a guide book you have and could share that deciphers this?

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

People should be well aware of the kind of person Trump is. He's considered unfit by a very concerning number of his former cabinet and staffers. Even his own Vice President won't endorse him. These people know him well. Seems like very important information to have.

My point is that this isn't what she needs to do to get over the hump. She needs to sell herself to these unsold voters. Anybody who's going to vote against Donald Trump because of who he is and how he is already is voting against him. Not only is he not an unknown quantity, he's probably the most known quantity in modern American political history.

It's kind of like January 6th. It's brought up incessantly...as if there are undecided voters out there who can be won over by being reminded about the event. Isn't it patently obvious to anybody with half a brain that every single voter in this country who is going to be motivated to vote one way or the other because of January 6th already has been?

It's amazing to sit here and watch the Dems repeat the very same mistakes they made in 2016 -- while expecting a different result. And I don't think a lot of them are even aware they're making it again.

 

[Lucy01]

Worse her San Fran

How could anyone vote for that?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Oh, come on, you just can't take what Trump says seriously. Is that what you're saying and that's your defense of the indefensible?

According to a former sitting VP and eventual president, you wanna put black people in chains. I didn’t know that about you.

 

[hoosboot]

You don't get what I'm saying.

I don't know if you ever listen to the Hacks on Tap podcast -- but it's a really good one to listen to you if you want to get a sense of the conventional wisdom among political strategists (both D and R) who are supportive of the political establishment and opposed to Trump and the populist movement.

The main hosts are David Axelrod and Mike Murphy (and they have other, mostly D, political gurus on). I like to listen to it because these guys are smart and shrewd political strategists -- and, more importantly, I think they do a fairly good job at laying out where they're at rather than just spinning on behalf of the Dems. Spin is useless, it's an attempt to shape thinking rather than convey it.

Anyway, here's something Axelrod said on the latest episode that gets at what I'm talking about:

And the second thing that worries me is…I think that people have made a judgment about Donald Trump. If this were just an up or down referendum on Donald Trump, I don't think he'd get elected. And he still butts up against his ceiling, which is under 50%.​

​

The questions they have are about her because she's brand new. And they haven't completely. This is the key thing. And so, I would be more in the contrast mode between with her and him. And I'd give them a little more information about her probably around middle class economics and basically being a battler for them. And around abortion rights. And I would be doing contrast, contrast, contrast. So, their judgment is they gotta pummel Trump here for the reasons that Plouffe told you.​

​

Axelrod's point is that the more the narrative is about Trump and not Harris, the worse it is for her.....even if it's in the context of friggin' Hitler. There's nothing anybody can say about Donald Trump that is going to move the needle. It's fully moved.

She needs to close the sale on herself. And the more she or her surrogates are focused on going after Trump, the less they're doing what she needs done.

Totally agree. The Harris campaign has been at its best when they have been defining her aspirationally. Positive campaign ads. Being strong, calm, and measured in the debate. Talking about the future instead of the past. The Harris campaign isn't going to shape perspectives on Trump. They need to show why she is the adult in the room who you want in charge for the next four years.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

According to a former sitting VP and eventual president, you wanna put black people in chains. I didn’t know that about you.

You're taking issue with one statement (which I think was reprehensible and won't defend) and take no issues with countless indefensible statements by a certain former President? Why?

 

[snarlcakes]

Yeah but applying the same logic as "Google me. I win." to Trump doesn't really work. I see a whole lot of losing. A little winning but mainly losing.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Here's some more from the recent Hacks on Tap episode. This quote is from Mike Murphy (a Republican strategist....McCain, Romney, Jeb Bush). He essentially makes the same point Axelrod did, but in relation to Michigan polling data which suggested Harris' vulnerability was from low-propensity voters:

I just saw a little private poll in Michigan which was interesting. The total thing that decides whether it lands Kamala +3 or Trump +4 is low turnout voters. And if they show up, she's going to win. If they don't, it's going to be Trump by a mile.​

​

So those are very casual voters. And I agree. If I said this, what do they care about? Stuff costs too much. And the old guy screwed everything up. And who's the new lady? And that's about it.​

​

I don't think Trump is the moving number. So pounding on the risk of him is fine. But she's got to close herself, which means 10 great days on television, dropping the bubble and being a star. I think that and screaming, I'm here to fix the goddamn economy. And if Joe Biden's feelings are hurt too bad…this is how presidents get elected. You tell the truth. And things aren't good. But I got to make them better.​

​

That first bolded sentence is such a key point. Trump isn't the moving number, Harris is. She's the unknown quantity and her job is to convince these voters he's talking about that she's the one who's most capable of fixing their problems.

So anybody -- whether they are working in conjunction with her campaign or just operating independently (I'd guess it's the former in this case) -- who thinks that the key to close here is by going after Trump's outrageousness is flat missing what Axelrod and Murphy are talking about.

 

[dbmhoosier]

What a fraud. So her closing argument is Trump is Hitler.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Totally agree. The Harris campaign has been at its best when they have been defining her aspirationally. Positive campaign ads. Being strong, calm, and measured in the debate. Talking about the future instead of the past. The Harris campaign isn't going to shape perspectives on Trump. They need to show why she is the adult in the room who you want in charge for the next four years.

That was a great intro but it ran out of steam. She needs to quickly get way more specific on how she is going to fix things. I was born middle class isn’t it. That’s why trump caught up. The ball is in her court

 

[mcmurtry66]

Here's some more from the recent Hacks on Tap episode. This quote is from Mike Murphy (a Republican strategist....McCain, Romney, Jeb Bush). He essentially makes the same point Axelrod did, but in relation to Michigan polling data which suggested Harris' vulnerability was from low-propensity voters:

I just saw a little private poll in Michigan which was interesting. The total thing that decides whether it lands Kamala +3 or Trump +4 is low turnout voters. And if they show up, she's going to win. If they don't, it's going to be Trump by a mile.​

​

So those are very casual voters. And I agree. If I said this, what do they care about? Stuff costs too much. And the old guy screwed everything up. And who's the new lady? And that's about it.​

​

I don't think Trump is the moving number. So pounding on the risk of him is fine. But she's got to close herself, which means 10 great days on television, dropping the bubble and being a star. I think that and screaming, I'm here to fix the goddamn economy. And if Joe Biden's feelings are hurt too bad…this is how presidents get elected. You tell the truth. And things aren't good. But I got to make them better.​

​

That first bolded sentence is such a key point. Trump isn't the moving number, Harris is. She's the unknown quantity and her job is to convince these voters he's talking about that she's the one who's most capable of fixing their problems.

So anybody -- whether they are working in conjunction with her campaign or just operating independently (I'd guess it's the former in this case) -- who thinks that the key to close here is by going after Trump's outrageousness is flat missing what Axelrod and Murphy are talking about.

Exactly

 

[dbmhoosier]

That was a great intro but it ran out of steam. She needs to quickly get way more specific on how she is going to fix things. I was born middle class isn’t it. That’s why trump caught up. The ball is in her court

She can't do it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're taking issue with one statement (which I think was reprehensible and won't defend) and take no issues with countless indefensible statements by a certain former President? Why?

Many of those statements are hoaxes (both sides, blood bath, dictator from day one,) and aren’t worth the time. I have taken serious issue with the legit ones like McCain and his post 2020 election comments. There are others that are accurate but don’t matter (crowd size, I made that McDonald’s order myself).

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

And it's not really a question.

When Trump talks about using the military to go after the 'enemy within' and then connects the dots and identifies Adam Schiff and the Pelosies as some of those enemies, it's kind of hard to not call that a fascist proposal.

People can argue whether or not Trump was a fascist in his first term, but there is little question that he wants to be a fascist in a second term. All you have to do is listen to him.

Explain to me how a president will yield enough power to get the military to stage a takeover? This is the most ridiculous thing the democrats have ever proposed.

 

[mcmurtry66]

She can't do it.

View embedded media

Trump bad is already baked in

 

[hoosboot]

That was a great intro but it ran out of steam. She needs to quickly get way more specific on how she is going to fix things. I was born middle class isn’t it. That’s why trump caught up

Sorry, mcm. Specifics on policy aren't what win elections at this point in the cycle. Maybe back last December or January, but talking about the right topics and reemphasizing generalities that speak to the right voters are what move elections at this point in a race.

The idea that Trump "caught up" is a misnomer. The dynamics of the race since she replaced Biden have been extraordinarily consistent. This is an extremely close turnout election with most preferences on the candidates already shaped. She has to step up in the last 10 days to close the voters predisposed to her and get them to the polls.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My point is that this isn't what she needs to do to get over the hump. She needs to sell herself to these unsold voters. Anybody who's going to vote against Donald Trump because of who he is and how he is already is voting against him. Not only is he not an unknown quantity, he's probably the most known quantity in modern American political history.

It's kind of like January 6th. It's brought up incessantly...as if there are undecided voters out there who can be won over by being reminded about the event. Isn't it patently obvious to anybody with half a brain that every single voter in this country who is going to be motivated to vote one way or the other because of January 6th already has been?

It's amazing to sit here and watch the Dems repeat the very same mistakes they made in 2016 -- while expecting a different result. And I don't think a lot of them are even aware they're making it again.

I think both campaigns have already decided there are very few undecided voters. Now they are targeting their own unmotivated supporters to boost turnout.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sorry, mcm. Specifics on policy aren't what win elections at this point in the cycle. Maybe back last December or January, but talking about the right topics and reemphasizing generalities that speak to the right voters are what move elections at this point in a race.

The idea that Trump "caught up" is a misnomer. The dynamics of the race since she replaced Biden have been extraordinarily consistent. This is an extremely close turnout election with most preferences on the candidates already shaped. She has to step up in the last 10 days to close the voters predisposed to her and get them to the polls.

Disagree on both

Her lack of specifics is making people lose faith. Generalities aren’t working.

Polls reflect otherwise. Trump closed the gap and I believe it’s for the reasons crazed noted. She lost that shine

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

And you feel like he’d actually do that? Or are you just fear mongering?

Still waiting on someone to tell me how that would even be possible.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

She can't do it.

View embedded media

And....there's Frank Luntz saying the exact same thing that Axelrod and Murphy are saying.

If the Access Hollywood "pussy grabbing" tape that was released in 2016 had featured any normal politician rather than Donald Trump, that politician would've been immediately ruined. For a real-world, timely example of this, see Republican candidate for governor in NC Mark Robinson. When the Stein folks released the oppo they came up with on Robinson, it was all she wrote for him. He may as well stop spending money on his own campaign and save it to give to other candidates.

But have Dems ever pondered why that tape didn't sink Donald Trump? I'm sure it's frustrating for them -- in a sane world, such a revelation would end a presidential campaign.

The reason it didn't sink him is because of what Axe, Murphy, and now Luntz are saying. Trump's basically impervious to that sort of broadside.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here's some more from the recent Hacks on Tap episode. This quote is from Mike Murphy (a Republican strategist....McCain, Romney, Jeb Bush). He essentially makes the same point Axelrod did, but in relation to Michigan polling data which suggested Harris' vulnerability was from low-propensity voters:

I just saw a little private poll in Michigan which was interesting. The total thing that decides whether it lands Kamala +3 or Trump +4 is low turnout voters. And if they show up, she's going to win. If they don't, it's going to be Trump by a mile.​

​

So those are very casual voters. And I agree. If I said this, what do they care about? Stuff costs too much. And the old guy screwed everything up. And who's the new lady? And that's about it.​

​

I don't think Trump is the moving number. So pounding on the risk of him is fine. But she's got to close herself, which means 10 great days on television, dropping the bubble and being a star. I think that and screaming, I'm here to fix the goddamn economy. And if Joe Biden's feelings are hurt too bad…this is how presidents get elected. You tell the truth. And things aren't good. But I got to make them better.​

​

That first bolded sentence is such a key point. Trump isn't the moving number, Harris is. She's the unknown quantity and her job is to convince these voters he's talking about that she's the one who's most capable of fixing their problems.

So anybody -- whether they are working in conjunction with her campaign or just operating independently (I'd guess it's the former in this case) -- who thinks that the key to close here is by going after Trump's outrageousness is flat missing what Axelrod and Murphy are talking about.

I’ve always heard and understood that the typical low turnout voter would be a young male, particularly a young minority male. How does motivating that group help Kamala?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Still waiting on someone to tell me how that would even be possible.

So, the plan is to rely on sane people in government not to carry out the insane wishes and orders of the President? You have no issues with the insane wishes and orders though?

 

[hoosboot]

Polls reflect otherwise. Trump closed the gap and I believe it’s for the reasons crazed noted. She lost that shine

Have to agree to disagree. The polls have been within the MOE the entire time. It's silly to think there are large numbers of voters out there going back and forth "I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump" instead of recognizing that it's been a ridiculously close election all along.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think both campaigns have already decided there are very few undecided voters. Now they are targeting their own unmotivated supporters to boost turnout.

Do you think the way for Harris to get these voters to the polls is by directing attention to how much of an asshole Donald Trump is?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Have to agree to disagree. The polls have been within the MOE the entire time. It's silly to think there are large numbers of voters out there going back and forth "I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump" instead of recognizing that it's been a ridiculously close election all along.

I think it’s people staying home as much as undecided. On the other read crazed’s posts above and lutz re Harris not talking policy

I still believe the election is hers to lose

 

[dbmhoosier]

And....there's Frank Luntz saying the exact same thing that Axelrod and Murphy are saying.

If the Access Hollywood "pussy grabbing" tape that was released in 2016 had featured any normal politician rather than Donald Trump, that politician would've been immediately ruined. For a real-world, timely example of this, see Republican candidate for governor in NC Mark Robinson. When the Stein folks released the oppo they came up with on Robinson, it was all she wrote for him. He may as well stop spending money on his own campaign and save it to give to other candidates.

But have Dems ever pondered why that tape didn't sink Donald Trump? I'm sure it's frustrating for them -- in a sane world, such a revelation would end a presidential campaign.

The reason it didn't sink him is because of what Axe, Murphy, and now Luntz are saying. Trump's basically impervious to that sort of broadside.

Just FYI, it was the RINOs that put out that smear on Robinson. Stein didn't have anything.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

So, the plan is to rely on sane people in government not to carry out the insane wishes and orders of the President? You have no issues with the insane wishes and orders though?

You claim to ba military guy. You are telling me that Trump yields enough power to actually carry out this plan. You are more delusional than I thought.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you think the way for Harris to get these voters to the polls is by directing attention to how much of an asshole Donald Trump is?

Maybe for some of them. For others, it's defending Biden on Israel. For others, it's breaking with Biden on Israel. For some it's doubling down on woke. For others, it's ignoring culture and focusing on jobs. I think she's holding a very difficult hand.

 

[mrhighlife]

Gotta read the tea leaves.

She isn't actually gonna "give everyone $25K for a home, put price controls on grocers, tax unrealized gains, etc."

Sound familiar?

Hmm. Talking about her economic policy that she will absolutely try and enact(even though Dems won't also control congress) vs. saying you're going to use the military against people who don't agree with you.

What kind of tea do you drink?

 

[Ohio Guy]

Explain to me how a president will yield enough power to get the military to stage a takeover? This is the most ridiculous thing the democrats have ever proposed.

Hopefully it's all hypothetical and we'll never have to worry about it, but Trump himself has mentioned the Insurrection Act of 1807.

I don't know if he'd actually be able to pull it off, but you're not paying attention if you haven't heard him talk about it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Maybe for some of them. For others, it's defending Biden on Israel. For others, it's breaking with Biden on Israel. For some it's doubling down on woke. For others, it's ignoring culture and focusing on jobs. I think she's holding a very difficult hand.

Yep. Not easy to balance all that

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Have to agree to disagree. The polls have been within the MOE the entire time. It's silly to think there are large numbers of voters out there going back and forth "I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump, nah I want Harris, nah I want Trump" instead of recognizing that it's been a ridiculously close election all along.

Oh I agree. The polling margins right now are razor thin in the places that matter. Either candidate can win this race.

I do tend to think that Trump probably has AZ and NC sealed up. GA maybe less certain, but probably is. The AJC's poll is usually the one handicappers pay the most attention to and their final one had Trump +4. They had Biden +1 in 2020...and that's right about where it ended up.

If that turns out to be right, then it's kind of the scenario we've been talking about for a while: in order to win, Harris needs to sweep the "Blue Wall" states...Trump needs to pick off one of them. And I think that both of those outcomes are well within the realm of possibility.

 

[hoosboot]

Do you think the way for Harris to get these voters to the polls is by directing attention to how much of an asshole Donald Trump is?

It's not a zero sum game. I agree with a lot that you are saying, but she has to hit a lot of buttons to drive her voters to the poll and that's one of them. My problem with the campaign right now is that it's the loudest one.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh I agree. The polling margins right now are razor thin in the places that matter. Either candidate can win this race.

I do tend to think that Trump probably has AZ and NC sealed up. GA maybe less certain, but probably is. The AJC's poll is usually the one handicappers pay the most attention to and their final one had Trump +4. They had Biden +1 in 2020...and that's right about where it ended up.

If that turns out to be right, then it's kind of the scenario we've been talking about for a while: in order to win, Harris needs to sweep the "Blue Wall" states...Trump needs to pick off one of them. And I think that both of those outcomes are well within the realm of possibility.

Trump is threatening in Nevada, too. That's where it gets really fun because a Trump win in Nevada puts the tie in play.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

Hopefully it's all hypothetical and we'll never have to worry about it, but Trump himself has mentioned the Insurrection Act of 1807.

I don't know if he'd actually be able to pull it off, but you're not paying attention if you haven't heard him talk about it.

Yes I heard say he would be dictator on day one. Saying he would overturn many of Biden's executive orders just as Biden did on day one. I also heard him say that he would send the military and national guard to go after illegal aliens which are by definition criminals.

 

[hoosboot]

Oh I agree. The polling margins right now are razor thin in the places that matter. Either candidate can win this race.

I do tend to think that Trump probably has AZ and NC sealed up. GA maybe less certain, but probably is. The AJC's poll is usually the one handicappers pay the most attention to and their final one had Trump +4. They had Biden +1 in 2020...and that's right about where it ended up.

If that turns out to be right, then it's kind of the scenario we've been talking about for a while: in order to win, Harris needs to sweep the "Blue Wall" states...Trump needs to pick off one of them. And I think that both of those outcomes are well within the realm of possibility.

I suspect that NC is closer than Georgia and the Governor's race could still impact it some, but I think you're likely spot on about the path Harris has (which is an extremely difficult one.)

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Hmm. Talking about her economic policy that she will absolutely try and enact(even though Dems won't also control congress) vs. saying you're going to use the military against people who don't agree with you.

What kind of tea do you drink?

If she actually tries to enact any of that policy. She is a full scale lunatic.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I’ve always heard and understood that the typical low turnout voter would be a young male, particularly a young minority male. How does motivating that group help Kamala?

This is something Axe and Murphy also touched on in their podcast.

I find this super interesting is that one of the premises of a lot of the strategy on both sides in this campaign is that the coalitions have shifted to the point where, unlike in the Obama days and for a lot of our of our professional lives, where kind of reliable voters were Republican voters, and where irregular voters, casual voters were Democratic voters who you had to worry about turning out.​

​

The numbers have shown all through the cycle that Trump is more reliant on those voters. And you see that in his gains with Latinos and Black voters and some of his gains with young voters. And Democratic voters have become more regular reliable voters because they're the better educated voters. Democrats now kind of dominate college brothers. So how does that play in what you said just now about the Michigan folks?​

​

An extremely good pollster I've known a long time said….I'm not going to predict this race because we have to fill the survey with a lot of questions about demographics and stuff. We bolted this on for a cross tab and something else we were looking at. But it was clear that it's going to be young turnout that'll make her break her in Michigan. You know, other, older African American men, you can break it out in other groups where she needs a lot. But if you, if you just go to the voter list and survey it and assume a big juicy presidential turnout, she was ahead.​

​

If you start stripping it more to the old Republican off-year model and crunchy old Marine colonels retired, then Trump was doing really well. So it was kind of a back to the future thing. It's tied. But, but she, she needs those casual people to feel like there's a bandwagon to jump on a change here, I think, to close it.​

​

The good news for Harris in this is that she reportedly has assembled a really good voter mobilization team. But the question is whether or not she's closed the sale on her enough to convince those people to mobilize. If she does that, then she'll probably win. But if her closing pitch is that Donald Trump is a reckless prick, then that's not going to motivate those voters.