Interesting interview with the Trump campaign team. They were feeling confident about winning the popular vote nearly two weeks out.
Interviewer points out that Trumps closing in the last two weeks was what made Dems feel confident themselves.
They responded that the people left on the sidelines at that point were people tuned out to mainstream news.
They also say Harris' initial wave receded like a tide. They give the opinion that she closed badly with too many messages.
"Because they just didn’t really have a coherent message. And they changed. I mean, one of the untold stories of this race — perfect example, last week of the campaign. They ran 162 different unique creatives on digital, TV"
They also believed from the start that persuadable voters were a much higher share of the electorate than the Harris campaign.
"We’re focusing on the group of persuadable voters and a group of low propensity voters. It’s two different tacks. Low propensity: Get them to vote. Persuadable: Try to get them over. The Harris campaign was convinced [persuadables were] around 4 to 6 percent. We knew it was probably closer to 10 to 12 percent. We focused the entire campaign built around the issues that matter to the persuadable voters early. Tony modeled them, and we tracked what the electorate, based on the persuadables, was thinking. And that drove all of our decision making. All of our decision making. We spent millions in mail in the summer, which we were roundly criticized for doing. All of this stuff was something that we started in June."
Another anecdote: Michelle Obama was the strongest tested Biden alternative that the Trump team modeled against.
On Trump's media ploys toward the end of the campaign, they were deliberate:
"Where she’s doing the big speech or having the big debate, the conventional warfare, traditional campaign tactics. Donald Trump goes to the McDonald’s drive-through. But in the year 2024, when we’re all living on our phones, a big speech at the Ellipse vs. Trump at the drive-through, which is going to break through?"
I mean it’s mostly bullshit. They gambled and it paid off b/c enough people bought the nonsense about prices and their outside money guy ran ratfuck campaigns to keep prior Biden voters home. Neither trump’s people were as brilliant as they and Politico claim nor where Harris’ staff as incompetent as many here (and Politico) claim. It was much more about the fallout from global pandemic economy and good ole’ misogyny and racism.
I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.
The media always treats a winning campaign as total geniuses and a losing campaign as being flawed from the start. The truth is more nuanced and complex.
As Carville or someone from Clinton's campaign said, "it's the economy, stupid". Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs was not brilliant, it was a sideshow.
Wasn't really a gamble. The American people wanted to hear about fixes for the economy and the border and Democrats wanted to talk about reproductive rights and January 6, 2021. Hard to imagine a scenario where the opposition party doesn't win in that circumstance.
Michelle Obama lost me with her scolding message to male voters that they were insufficiently deferential to women's priorities. Talk about the worst possible thing to say to a demographic that already feels disconnected from your party/candidate's message. If she brought that messaging instinct to the campaign trail, she definitely wouldn't have been our salvation.
Interesting interview with the Trump campaign team. They were feeling confident about winning the popular vote nearly two weeks out.
Interviewer points out that Trumps closing in the last two weeks was what made Dems feel confident themselves.
They responded that the people left on the sidelines at that point were people tuned out to mainstream news.
They also say Harris' initial wave receded like a tide. They give the opinion that she closed badly with too many messages.
"Because they just didn’t really have a coherent message. And they changed. I mean, one of the untold stories of this race — perfect example, last week of the campaign. They ran 162 different unique creatives on digital, TV"
They also believed from the start that persuadable voters were a much higher share of the electorate than the Harris campaign.
"We’re focusing on the group of persuadable voters and a group of low propensity voters. It’s two different tacks. Low propensity: Get them to vote. Persuadable: Try to get them over. The Harris campaign was convinced [persuadables were] around 4 to 6 percent. We knew it was probably closer to 10 to 12 percent. We focused the entire campaign built around the issues that matter to the persuadable voters early. Tony modeled them, and we tracked what the electorate, based on the persuadables, was thinking. And that drove all of our decision making. All of our decision making. We spent millions in mail in the summer, which we were roundly criticized for doing. All of this stuff was something that we started in June."
Another anecdote: Michelle Obama was the strongest tested Biden alternative that the Trump team modeled against.
On Trump's media ploys toward the end of the campaign, they were deliberate:
"Where she’s doing the big speech or having the big debate, the conventional warfare, traditional campaign tactics. Donald Trump goes to the McDonald’s drive-through. But in the year 2024, when we’re all living on our phones, a big speech at the Ellipse vs. Trump at the drive-through, which is going to break through?"
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/19/trump-campaign-lacivita-fabrizio-qa-00195206
I mean it’s mostly bullshit. They gambled and it paid off b/c enough people bought the nonsense about prices and their outside money guy ran ratfuck campaigns to keep prior Biden voters home. Neither trump’s people were as brilliant as they and Politico claim nor where Harris’ staff as incompetent as many here (and Politico) claim. It was much more about the fallout from global pandemic economy and good ole’ misogyny and racism.
I think brushing off Trumps campaigns at this point as "lucky" is the absolute wrong takeaway. Especially this last one.
Point is they were seeing things the Harris campaign did not and were running a very different type of media game that was, ultimately, effective.
That is the takeaway.
I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
It wasn't perfect but it wasn't bad. She had a weak hand to play.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.
The media always treats a winning campaign as total geniuses and a losing campaign as being flawed from the start. The truth is more nuanced and complex.
As Carville or someone from Clinton's campaign said, "it's the economy, stupid". Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs was not brilliant, it was a sideshow.
Trump's in-person campaign was a disaster, but his media campaign was pretty effective considering all forms of media.
Yes, that I’d agree with
Wasn't really a gamble. The American people wanted to hear about fixes for the economy and the border and Democrats wanted to talk about reproductive rights and January 6, 2021. Hard to imagine a scenario where the opposition party doesn't win in that circumstance.
Michelle Obama lost me with her scolding message to male voters that they were insufficiently deferential to women's priorities. Talk about the worst possible thing to say to a demographic that already feels disconnected from your party/candidate's message. If she brought that messaging instinct to the campaign trail, she definitely wouldn't have been our salvation.
Wasn't it her husband, Barack Obama, who made those remarks about black men?