2024 US Presidential Election

[SGR]

Funny timing on this, as @Jwb and I have recently been discussing Trump's campaign strategy (or lack thereof) in 2016, and how the novelty of Trump's 2016 campaign is probably not replicable even by Trump, Trump's campaign has re-hired his first campaign manager of that 2016 run, Corey Lewandowski, in some kind of senior advisory role.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/15/trump-campaign-brings-corey-lewandowski-back-on-board-00174155

Some free advice to Trump's campaign: Make sure Lewandowski keeps it in his pants and keep him far, far away from Kristi Noem (especially if he has any dogs). 

[DJChameleon]

There are two debates scheduled. Trump v Harris on 9/10 and then the VP debate on 10/1.


looking forward to the Trump V Harris one it should be highly entertaining.

[SGR]

There are two debates scheduled. Trump v Harris on 9/10 and then the VP debate on 10/1.


looking forward to the Trump V Harris one it should be highly entertaining.

All of us watching these debates:

[Psy-Fi]

Ralph Nader's take on the US 2024 election

[Jwb]

@SGR

So here's where I would try to clarify:

First,  on the point of what is there for Trump to be antagonized by, I mean specifically in that moment.  Not in a generic sense. 

If you think back to many of the famous Trump moments where he said something wild,  it was either in direct response to (or in a back and forth with) a moderator/interviewer/other candidate/etc, or it was him riffing in front of one of his own crowds. The format of the last debate,  the moderation strategy,  and the temperament of his opponent just didn't lead to many opportunities for that kind of moment to arise. That was my point there.

I also would point out that when I say Trump is a one trick pony or that he can't do otherwise,  you seem to get the impression i am suggesting that Trump is just fundamentally incapable of any strategic thinking on the topic or that he can't even react in some way to a changing dynamic or basic feedback that might encourage him to alter his tone,  avoid certain talking points, etc.

Obviously all politicians do this, especially at the presidential level. Some better than others. I wouldn't say it's a particular strong suit of Trump's,  in my estimation, but I'm sure that it's not far fetched that for example he was less aggressive in the 2nd Biden debate based on the feedback he got from the first. That makes perfect sense.

To understand more how I was thinking about it,  recall that this tangent started when I took issue with your characterization of two basic Trump traits as unique media insights he possessed that all of his rivals lacked.

These two traits were:
1) the endless stream of controversial statements that drove a lot of his press coverage
2) his incessant shameless lying,  which inserts narratives into the discourse through creating a new debate about how true said lie is or isn't

Now, my pov is that these are at the root, basically just character traits that Trump has that helped him launch a particular kind of insurgent campaign. 

So when I say he's a one trick pony or that he doesn't have another mode he can access,  I mean in the sense of these two basic traits being baked into his actual personality. I'm not saying that his temperament never changes or that he might be more combative in one debate than he was in another.  That's only natural.

But the two basic traits you mention remain constant fixtures in his personality that,  while you can obviously find variations in this performance vs that,  over time present an overall persistent pattern of behavior.

If I'm not mistaken, even you basically already said the lying hasn't changed,  so we can agree on that one at least.  With regard more specifically to the combative moments and unhinged quotes that tend to drive his press coverage... I feel like that perfectly describes the current state of his campaign against Kamala lol.  Which I believe bolsters my point that whatever difference you might notice in this debate vs that... this basic dynamic of his ability to create needless controversy and get up in petty drama is a persistent aspect of his personality that endures to this day,  albeit in a somewhat less energetic and less compelling form

I'll concede that maybe there's some variability there that is intentional and strategic such as shifting tones from one debate to another after getting bad feedback, but I think Trump's ability to do so seems fairly limited in my estimation.  It's certainly an aspect where I rate him below the average politician. Do you disagree?

Where as,  the strength which you originally pointed to,  his willingness to lean in to provocative and combative statements that churn up controversy, those just sort of flow naturally from his caustic personality and his unfiltered way of speaking. Even you don't seem to think a lot of the quotes that started these various petty controversies were intentionally designed to do so,  but rather that there's just a generic idea of "letting Trump be Trump," which really is just a strategy for his campaign manager that involves a rather hands off approach to managing Trump to avoid cramping his style. Which effectively transaltes to them allowing him to lean into these personality traits which pose inherent risks but are also intrinsically tied up in his momentum and can't really be neatly separated out.

So that seems to lend itself to my framing of these attributes as basically baked in personality traits that are being managed (or not) by the campaign.  And the extent to which Trump can really deviate from his basic approach is only insofar as he can try to moderate these traits.  And I think his ability to do so is very limited.  The state of his current campaign reflects that quite clearly in my eyes.

It's also worth pointing out that these examples you bring up of Trump moderating his style or message during a debate to prove he can be strategic actually seem to be at odds with your earlier assertion that Trump's basic wisdom, which he realized not at all through motivated reasoning and post hoc rationalization, is that "all press is good press." If he likes the negative headlines so much,  surely the play would have been to double down and antagonize Biden even more.  If he had done so and it worked out for him,  it would be easy to rationalize that after the fact as proof of his thesis.  But when he avoids doing so it's proof he can be strategic.  Yet this move is at odds with the only identifiable strategy you've assigned to him thus far.  All of this very neatly encapsulates why I think there's a tangible level of rationalization going on. 

Any way,  sorry for the delay.  I needed to wait for when I had a day off so I could take the time to try to lay this out properly. As for the funny timing with the recent news... I noticed that as well

[SGR]

@SGR

So here's where I would try to clarify:

First,  on the point of what is there for Trump to be antagonized by, I mean specifically in that moment.  Not in a generic sense. 

If you think back to many of the famous Trump moments where he said something wild,  it was either in direct response to (or in a back and forth with) a moderator/interviewer/other candidate/etc, or it was him riffing in front of one of his own crowds. The format of the last debate,  the moderation strategy,  and the temperament of his opponent just didn't lead to many opportunities for that kind of moment to arise. That was my point there.

Ah, okay - in that case, yes, I would agree with you. In the moment, Biden looked weak and ineffectual, and without an audience, there was no real energy to provide any catalyst for Trump to feel the need to antagonize Biden.

I also would point out that when I say Trump is a one trick pony or that he can't do otherwise,  you seem to get the impression i am suggesting that Trump is just fundamentally incapable of any strategic thinking on the topic or that he can't even react in some way to a changing dynamic or basic feedback that might encourage him to alter his tone,  avoid certain talking points, etc.

Obviously all politicians do this, especially at the presidential level. Some better than others. I wouldn't say it's a particular strong suit of Trump's,  in my estimation, but I'm sure that it's not far fetched that for example he was less aggressive in the 2nd Biden debate based on the feedback he got from the first. That makes perfect sense.

To understand more how I was thinking about it,  recall that this tangent started when I took issue with your characterization of two basic Trump traits as unique media insights he possessed that all of his rivals lacked.

These two traits were:
1) the endless stream of controversial statements that drove a lot of his press coverage
2) his incessant shameless lying,  which inserts narratives into the discourse through creating a new debate about how true said lie is or isn't

Now, my pov is that these are at the root, basically just character traits that Trump has that helped him launch a particular kind of insurgent campaign. 

So when I say he's a one trick pony or that he doesn't have another mode he can access,  I mean in the sense of these two basic traits being baked into his actual personality. I'm not saying that his temperament never changes or that he might be more combative in one debate than he was in another.  That's only natural.

But the two basic traits you mention remain constant fixtures in his personality that,  while you can obviously find variations in this performance vs that,  over time present an overall persistent pattern of behavior.

Thanks for clarifying that - as I stated in my last post, I suspected there was a possibility I was misunderstanding what you meant, and that appears to be the case here. And I'd add, going back to my last post, that the Trump we see (and have seen) since 2016 is the Trump you're going to get, with of course, minor variations and changes to approach/mannerism given the circumstances - simply due to his age and the inability to truly fundamentally overhaul and change your personality and tics at that age. So I think we agree on that. Though I'd add, I think Trump knows when it's time to ramp up controversy vs. when it's time to mostly abandon controversy (like he largely did after the debate, letting Biden dominate the news cycle)

If I'm not mistaken, even you basically already said the lying hasn't changed,  so we can agree on that one at least.  With regard more specifically to the combative moments and unhinged quotes that tend to drive his press coverage... I feel like that perfectly describes the current state of his campaign against Kamala lol.  Which I believe bolsters my point that whatever difference you might notice in this debate vs that... this basic dynamic of his ability to create needless controversy and get up in petty drama is a persistent aspect of his personality that endures to this day,  albeit in a somewhat less energetic and less compelling form

I'll concede that maybe there's some variability there that is intentional and strategic such as shifting tones from one debate to another after getting bad feedback, but I think Trump's ability to do so seems fairly limited in my estimation.  It's certainly an aspect where I rate him below the average politician. Do you disagree?

That's honestly an interesting question. On one hand, I think it's not an especially useful comparison if we're just comparing Trump to a nebulously defined 'average politician', it would probably be more useful or insightful to compare him more strictly to U.S. presidents in the last 30 years or so (because the 'average politician' doesn't get the coverage or scrutiny that Trump and other presidents do). Somewhat tangentially related to this was how Trump handled the announcement of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's assassination vs how Obama handled Osama Bin Laden's assassination. I think it's probably a bolster to your argument that Trump's ability to 'shift tones' is more limited than recent presidents. Obama comes off as a serious person reporting a serious event while Trump comes off pretty closely to someone playing president in a movie doing a standup comedy bit (and it is admittedly pretty funny), which is similar to his tone in his rallies:

So I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you that Trump's ability to 'shift tones' is more limited than recent presidents, but I'd also add that I believe that even if Trump did try and consistently do the 'less combative/unifying' schtick that some media pundits said he'd do after the assassination attempt, much of the American public are getting their news from algorithmically-driven digital social media/news media silos that are characterized by the pretty deep political polarization that is the state of the country. I suppose at this point, even if Trump became a changed man, I doubt it would vastly change the perception of him among the broader voting electorate. Trump being 'nice' doesn't change Project 2025, Trump being 'nice' doesn't change the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and Trump being 'nice' doesn't change January 6th, all of which provide much political ammunition for Democrats. Pew Research for example reports that a large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say they often or sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet, including 56% who say they do so often. This is more than the 49% who said they often got news from digital devices in 2022 and the 51% of those who said the same in 2021. Maybe I'm cynical, but I just doubt that CNN or MSNBC or Fox News would cover Trump that much differently even if there was a concerted effort for him to shift tones because he'd still make flubs and he'd still tell lies (even if they weren't ones based on antagonism towards his opponent). If we were to posit what would happen if Trump was interested and highly capable in shifting tones from the outset, who knows what would have happened - because as we seem to agree, his personality traits and constant attack-dog posture is a big reason why he garnered so much support in 2016.

Where as,  the strength which you originally pointed to,  his willingness to lean in to provocative and combative statements that churn up controversy, those just sort of flow naturally from his caustic personality and his unfiltered way of speaking. Even you don't seem to think a lot of the quotes that started these various petty controversies were intentionally designed to do so,  but rather that there's just a generic idea of "letting Trump be Trump," which really is just a strategy for his campaign manager that involves a rather hands off approach to managing Trump to avoid cramping his style. Which effectively transaltes to them allowing him to lean into these personality traits which pose inherent risks but are also intrinsically tied up in his momentum and can't really be neatly separated out.

So that seems to lend itself to my framing of these attributes as basically baked in personality traits that are being managed (or not) by the campaign.  And the extent to which Trump can really deviate from his basic approach is only insofar as he can try to moderate these traits.  And I think his ability to do so is very limited.  The state of his current campaign reflects that quite clearly in my eyes.

It's also worth pointing out that these examples you bring up of Trump moderating his style or message during a debate to prove he can be strategic actually seem to be at odds with your earlier assertion that Trump's basic wisdom, which he realized not at all through motivated reasoning and post hoc rationalization, is that "all press is good press." If he likes the negative headlines so much,  surely the play would have been to double down and antagonize Biden even more.  If he had done so and it worked out for him,  it would be easy to rationalize that after the fact as proof of his thesis.  But when he avoids doing so it's proof he can be strategic.  Yet this move is at odds with the only identifiable strategy you've assigned to him thus far.  All of this very neatly encapsulates why I think there's a tangible level of rationalization going on. 

I think the approach, at various times, has been pretty hands-off in a way (e.g. "Let Trump be Trump"), but I think that hands-off approach comes with some caveats - being that his advisers/strategists recognize his strengths as a politician and as an attack dog and their role is to direct the vitriol and tighten the precision of and focus of the targets and vulnerabilities. Part of the discussion here has been whether or not Trump changes strategy in a significant way and takes advice seriously - I think he does and he can, but when only when he agrees with it (or rather, only when he's met someone who can properly persuade him to). I'm sure you can think of politicians who might be completely subservient to the advice of their advisors and strategists, and following their lead almost completely - but that's definitely not Trump. I think he brings in people who he finds compelling for one reason or another, and listens to their advice - some of which he accepts and adopts, and alternatively, some of which he rejects and ends up firing the adviser. I don't think we've brought him up yet, but I think Steve Bannon played a pretty crucially important role in Trump's 2016 campaign and he had a large role in why Trump was able to so effectively attack Clinton and exploit her weaknesses.

"We saw in the Republican primaries Donald Trump doesn't think a lot about policy but he's able to kind of dominate the opponents in a way most politicians aren't, and he used a lot of Bannon's ideas to do that and to knock out what everybody thought was the strongest Republican presidential field.

"The other thing he did is, when [Bannon] took over Trump's campaign in August, Trump was really floundering in the polls. Bannon managed to get Trump focused away from Megyn Kelly, away from the Khan family, and use all that anti-Hillary knowledge to keep him focused on the opposition."

Green acknowledged there was a lot of political overlap between the two, as Trump always had populist populist impulses, even if his earlier target was trade with Japan rather than trade with China. "I think Bannon really brought the idea of illegal immigration and understood its power as a political issue, and Trump really became the vessel for those ideas, and it's what carried him to the White House," Green said.

"They're not together on everything. Bannon, like most of us -- certainly myself -- did not understand from the get-go what a powerful politician Donald Trump was going to be. Bannon was advising him informally as long ago as 2010, thought he was an interesting guy, but nobody thought he was going to win the nomination or the presidency," Green said.

When asked if Bannon believes Mr. Trump could have won the presidency without his aid, Green replied, "I think if you tortured Bannon, he wouldn't answer that question. But my answer to that question is no, I don't think he could have. Bannon's efforts, specially the book 'Clinton Cash,' which Bannon helped mastermind, really tarnished his opponent in a way that she never fully recovered from.

"And then on the flip side his ability to keep Trump focused on Clinton in the homestretch of the race, and then you have the James Comey revelations, and suddenly Trump was able to pull ahead. I give Bannon a lot of credit for having helped Trump do that."

In some ways, the article hints at a possibility that could be considered worse than your framing - that Trump was in large part a vessel for the ideas of other people rather than mostly a slave to his own worst impulses - but of course, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

As for 'all press is good press', I think that is largely a generalization of what can, depending on circumstances, be a broader truth, rather than a rule that can be applied rigorously and strictly. Obviously, Trump and any politician would prefer positive headlines to negative headlines, but most political campaigns do generate a mixture of both for the same remarks or the same story (depending on the political bias of the media reporting it); Trump simply amplified everything, ensuring that regardless of positive or negative (and knowing he'd likely get both), it was his name and image dominating the news cycles. I'm sure we can easily imagine certain headlines/press so bad, that even Trump could not recover from them, and he'd certainly never seek out such negative press.

Any way,  sorry for the delay.  I needed to wait for when I had a day off so I could take the time to try to lay this out properly. As for the funny timing with the recent news... I noticed that as well

No need for apologies, we all lead busy lives. Reply whenever you have time, and I'll be around to read it when you do. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in the discussion and value hearing a different perspective from my own, because it challenges my perceptions of things.

As for Corey Lewandowski's re-hiring, it'll be interesting to see if the Trump campaign approach will show signs of an altered course that are more similar to 2016 in the near future. I'll be keeping a close eye on it. 

[Shhon]

[Psy-Fi]

RFK Jr. considering dropping out to 'join forces' with Trump, Nicole Shanahan says

[Shhon]

[Psy-Fi]

Ceasefire Activist Gives BRILLIANT Interview at DNC Protest

[SGR]

RFK Jr. considering dropping out to 'join forces' with Trump, Nicole Shanahan says

Word on the street is that RFK Jr. is going to drop out and endorse Trump this Friday. Not sure how much, if any impact it will really have on the race. A minor bump for Trump maybe.

[DJChameleon]

Word on the street is that RFK Jr. is going to drop out and endorse Trump this Friday. Not sure how much, if any impact it will really have on the race. A minor bump for Trump maybe.

I don't think it will be that much of a bump for Trump since whatever little following he has leans more left than right. I think Trump is promising him a future position on the cabinet if he wins.

Michelle and Barak's Obama's speeches were so good last night Michelle more so than Obama. He should have opened for her tbh.

[Lucem Ferre]

Why would anybody on the left support RFK Jr.?

[SGR]

I don't think it will be that much of a bump for Trump since whatever little following he has leans more left than right. I think Trump is promising him a future position on the cabinet if he wins.

Well his VP Nicole Shanahan was on a podcast the other day and that's the first I heard of the possibility (from either of them) that they might drop out and endorse Trump, because, according to Shanahan, "we draw somehow more votes from Trump":

"There's two options that we're looking at," Shanahan said. "One is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and [Tim] Walz presidency, because we draw votes from Trump or we draw somehow more votes from Trump. Or, we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump. We walk away from that and we explain to our base why we're making this decision."

That's been one of the big mysteries of this campaign cycle - does RFK Jr. siphon more votes from Trump or from Biden (and now Kamala)? Who is RFK Jr. more likely to be a spoiler for? If Nicole Shanahan is to be taken at her word, she believes they're drawing more support from Trump. Maybe that's based on internal polls or something, not sure. Or maybe she's simply being dishonest. I don't have a straight answer, as I haven't done much digging on the recent polling on that.

[SGR]

Seems all but certain now:

RFK Jr. is planning to drop out of the 2024 presidential race and endorse Trump

On another subject, I'm honestly interested in how Bill Clinton's speech will play out tonight and how the media receives it. Bill used to be one of the best smooth-talking politicians ever, but don't have a gauge on how much of that he still has.