Campaign Manager Forum w/ Trump-Harris teams (Video)

[wbrocks67]

Moderated by Molly Ball (WSJ) for Harvard Institute of Politics

https://www.youtube.com/live/tAr40wfmu4g

Just started watching. Quentin Fulks gave Trump team credit for staying disciplined and not forcing their candidate to moderate, and let him be him.

Fabrizio wondered allowed if any of the Harris team ever wondered in the back of their mind what they would do if Biden ended up dropping out pre-switch (they basically said they did, but were coy about it, and again said nothing was ever officially planned until the minute he dropped out on their end), and he gave them credit for the switch and how seamless it was, and how cohesive the message was very quickly.

Fabrizio actually seems like a very smart person with good insights (so far) - wouldn't have expected that given his hack-ish write-ups, memos, releases, etc. La Civita though is clearly a hack through and through.

[GAinDC]

I'll note that the Trump 2020 campaign team refused to do this forum, even though it's a tradition in American politics

[wbrocks67]

Both teams essentially confirm that when Biden was in the race, Trump's team was looking at states that normally wouldn't be in play because of the high disproportionate amount of Democrats and Dem-leaning Independents who were thinking about voting third party.

However, they add that in that first initial 2-3 weeks, those voters basically instantly snapped back for Harris. Fabrizio even notes that this is something fairly unseen in politics. Fair evidence to show that Harris did a very good job with those initial first weeks to get a ton of those disaffected voters back on board.

Both teams also agree that once those voters snapped back for Harris, it settled into a margin of error race that basically stayed until the end.

Said that it was so close and margin of error that the undecideds were very low, maybe 2% by the end.

[wbrocks67]

Fabrizio also mentions that they saw traction with men voters, especially young men, men of color, etc., and that they saw podcasts and the events (UFC fights, etc.) as a way to reach them in the way of just putting Trump in spaces where they knew these voters would be. Once again, Fabrizio makes a good point here and comes across really reasonable. A lot of what he says here makes sense.

Harris pollster says something similar to what one of the others said in another interview - most of their research showed that voters opinions of Trump were very firm. But they had evolved over time - and most of what they thought *now* was basically how they liked his economy. Many voters glossed over the more erratic or negative parts, and as I suspected, kind of glossed over his handling of COVID as well, and focused much more on economy. So they figured there was no point in trying to re-litigate the past, but focus on what his 2nd term would be like.

[GAinDC]

Fabrizio also mentions that they saw traction with men voters, especially young men, men of color, etc., and that they saw podcasts and the events (UFC fights, etc.) as a way to reach them in the way of just putting Trump in spaces where they knew these voters would be. Once again, Fabrizio makes a good point here and comes across really reasonable. A lot of what he says here makes sense.

Harris pollster says something similar to what one of the others said in another interview - most of their research showed that voters opinions of Trump were very firm. But they had evolved over time - and most of what they thought *now* was basically how they liked his economy. Many voters glossed over the more erratic or negative parts, and as I suspected, kind of glossed over his handling of COVID as well, and focused much more on economy. So they figured there was no point in trying to re-litigate the past, but focus on what his 2nd term would be like.

I think that was a mistake. They should have spent more time reminding voters what his presidency was like

[Pericles]

Fabrizio also mentions that they saw traction with men voters, especially young men, men of color, etc., and that they saw podcasts and the events (UFC fights, etc.) as a way to reach them in the way of just putting Trump in spaces where they knew these voters would be. Once again, Fabrizio makes a good point here and comes across really reasonable. A lot of what he says here makes sense.

Harris pollster says something similar to what one of the others said in another interview - most of their research showed that voters opinions of Trump were very firm. But they had evolved over time - and most of what they thought *now* was basically how they liked his economy. Many voters glossed over the more erratic or negative parts, and as I suspected, kind of glossed over his handling of COVID as well, and focused much more on economy. So they figured there was no point in trying to re-litigate the past, but focus on what his 2nd term would be like.

I think that was a mistake. They should have spent more time reminding voters what his presidency was like

As Nate Silver pointed out, Democrats weren't exactly helpless. They had four years to run a negative campaign against Trump, so it was not naturally left to the last hundred days. It was Biden and his own team that meant Harris had to scramble to change baked in views.

[GAinDC]

Fabrizio also mentions that they saw traction with men voters, especially young men, men of color, etc., and that they saw podcasts and the events (UFC fights, etc.) as a way to reach them in the way of just putting Trump in spaces where they knew these voters would be. Once again, Fabrizio makes a good point here and comes across really reasonable. A lot of what he says here makes sense.

Harris pollster says something similar to what one of the others said in another interview - most of their research showed that voters opinions of Trump were very firm. But they had evolved over time - and most of what they thought *now* was basically how they liked his economy. Many voters glossed over the more erratic or negative parts, and as I suspected, kind of glossed over his handling of COVID as well, and focused much more on economy. So they figured there was no point in trying to re-litigate the past, but focus on what his 2nd term would be like.

I think that was a mistake. They should have spent more time reminding voters what his presidency was like

As Nate Silver pointed out, Democrats weren't exactly helpless. They had four years to run a negative campaign against Trump, so it was not naturally left to the last hundred days. It was Biden and his own team that meant Harris had to scramble to change baked in views.

I agree Biden and his team should have done more, but Republicans dropped the ball as well post Jan 6. More R senators should have voted to convict him. That was their chance to neutralize him once and for all constitutionally, and they failed.

[wbrocks67]

Fabrizio also mentions that they saw traction with men voters, especially young men, men of color, etc., and that they saw podcasts and the events (UFC fights, etc.) as a way to reach them in the way of just putting Trump in spaces where they knew these voters would be. Once again, Fabrizio makes a good point here and comes across really reasonable. A lot of what he says here makes sense.

Harris pollster says something similar to what one of the others said in another interview - most of their research showed that voters opinions of Trump were very firm. But they had evolved over time - and most of what they thought *now* was basically how they liked his economy. Many voters glossed over the more erratic or negative parts, and as I suspected, kind of glossed over his handling of COVID as well, and focused much more on economy. So they figured there was no point in trying to re-litigate the past, but focus on what his 2nd term would be like.

I think that was a mistake. They should have spent more time reminding voters what his presidency was like

As Nate Silver pointed out, Democrats weren't exactly helpless. They had four years to run a negative campaign against Trump, so it was not naturally left to the last hundred days. It was Biden and his own team that meant Harris had to scramble to change baked in views.

I'm not sure what this means - was Biden supposed to spend part of his presidency also attacking Trump? That just feels unnecessary and also would've just muddied what Biden was trying to do on his own, if he was still bringing up Trump at the same time.

I think they made the right move in the end. Unfortunately I think it just is what happened - people were annoyed by the economy so instantly their mind went to "trump's economy was good" and that kind of overpowered everything. If they thought Bidens economy was good, I don't think this train of thought would've happened. So things may have been different in that aspect. But I think it just speaks to, again unfortunately, how much voters will kind of compartmentalize and put up with if they think another issue (economy) is more important.

But I also think it's very contextual to the COVID era. I think Biden being president during 2021 and 2022 made him the "COVID president" in peoples minds and I truly believe there is like a PTSD from the Covid era as well which makes people just want to forget all of 2020 in general, that kind of happened to help Trump in the end.

[wbrocks67]

The latter half isn't really as interesting, and most of the questions from the audience are really bad (there was a question about the primary process etc and this is not what this panel is about)

Wish it was a longer panel as well but interesting nonetheless. Molly Ball mentions they had a previous session where they talked through "recriminations" and "blame" but I'm not sure if that panel was private or something lol

[VALibertarian]

My impression has always been that Fabrizio is a respectable pollster - yeah he works for the Trump campaign so the press releases are always gonna have as good a spin as possible, but is there any evidence his data is skewed/messed with?

Yep. Trump releasing internals showing him up only 1 in PA, MI, WI, NC is awful for him. Yet we're being inundated with articles about Harris "worried" in every state and internals that have her down 3 in WI etc.

Almost as if the press is just looking for clicks and Dems know dooming translates to money and zero complacency.

 

[wbrocks67]

My impression has always been that Fabrizio is a respectable pollster - yeah he works for the Trump campaign so the press releases are always gonna have as good a spin as possible, but is there any evidence his data is skewed/messed with?

Yep. Trump releasing internals showing him up only 1 in PA, MI, WI, NC is awful for him. Yet we're being inundated with articles about Harris "worried" in every state and internals that have her down 3 in WI etc.

Almost as if the press is just looking for clicks and Dems know dooming translates to money and zero complacency.

 

Ha! I'll take the L but usually when you're releasing internals of yourself only up 1, it usually IS spelling trouble! I won't completely exonerate Fabrizio because his polls outside of this year have been very all over the place in the past - I think he himself is a smart person but I also do think working for Trump and having to appease Trump definitely played a role in his releases, etc.

[VALibertarian]

My impression has always been that Fabrizio is a respectable pollster - yeah he works for the Trump campaign so the press releases are always gonna have as good a spin as possible, but is there any evidence his data is skewed/messed with?

Yep. Trump releasing internals showing him up only 1 in PA, MI, WI, NC is awful for him. Yet we're being inundated with articles about Harris "worried" in every state and internals that have her down 3 in WI etc.

Almost as if the press is just looking for clicks and Dems know dooming translates to money and zero complacency.

 

Ha! I'll take the L but usually when you're releasing internals of yourself only up 1, it usually IS spelling trouble! I won't completely exonerate Fabrizio because his polls outside of this year have been very all over the place in the past - I think he himself is a smart person but I also do think working for Trump and having to appease Trump definitely played a role in his releases, etc.

Oh good I think he's catching onto my lighthearted humor lol. (You're a good egg wbrocks) 

Of course the double edged sword with this election was if both campaigns internals were accurate they'd both be within a point or two in the rust belt swing states haha. I do agree *typically* releasing internals like that aren't a great sign.

[Voice of low info America]

I agree Biden and his team should have done more, but Republicans dropped the ball as well post Jan 6. More R senators should have voted to convict him. That was their chance to neutralize him once and for all constitutionally, and they failed.

How did they drop the ball? Trump is back in office, more popular than ever, and with a trifecta. Politically, their decision was vindicated.

[rabidPolitico]

Moderated by Molly Ball (WSJ) for Harvard Institute of Politics


Just started watching. Quentin Fulks gave Trump team credit for staying disciplined and not forcing their candidate to moderate, and let him be him.

Fabrizio wondered allowed if any of the Harris team ever wondered in the back of their mind what they would do if Biden ended up dropping out pre-switch (they basically said they did, but were coy about it, and again said nothing was ever officially planned until the minute he dropped out on their end), and he gave them credit for the switch and how seamless it was, and how cohesive the message was very quickly.

Fabrizio actually seems like a very smart person with good insights (so far) - wouldn't have expected that given his hack-ish write-ups, memos, releases, etc. La Civita though is clearly a hack through and through.

La Civita is not in the business to be liked.  Fabrizio is a pollster for the campaign.  If you want to have a winning campaign on the GOP side, La Civita is one of the best out there to help you do it.