Post New

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-agai...

Trump is again falsely denying any connection to project 2025 while more and more clear connections between Trump and Project 2025 keep popping up. Furthermore, Project 2025 is getting more and more unpopular the more people hear about it.

Albaby, are you still of the mind that bringing up Trump's ties to Project 2025 is not worth making an issue in the campaign? Personally, I think it is great every time Trump says the words 2025 even if it is in a denial. I think When Harris debates Trump she should accuse him of supporting various unpopular aspects of Project 2025. Make Trump deny he is associated with it in the debate. Heck the more times he denies it the better.

The more people know about Project 2025 the more they will associate it with Trump? Why? Because it fits Trump's brand. Trump has talked numerous times about remaking the government and rooting out the "deep state". Just like abortion. Trump can pretend that he for states to have the right to decide abortion, but it is too late. It already goes against his brand. He has already bragged about ending abortion. He has already bragged about appointing the judges that have ended the right for a woman to choose about what her body is used for. People know he regularly courts the far-right groups that want to outlaw abortion in all of the U.S. in all forms. That is his brand.

That is why Democrats should be tying Project 2025 around Trump's neck (along with abortion). It fits his brand and is unpopular.

There are many advantages of being an incumbent when running for office. There is also one big disadvantage. There is a record. Not only of the policies someone like Trump passed, but the people he has appointed. When judges he appointed make radical, unpopular decisions, that reflects upon him and shows the type of judges the voters can expect from the candidate. Candidates also make other appointments like Cabinet positions, but also thousands of sub-Cabinet level positions. So when many of those appointees then go on and create a plan to kill the Department of Education, each of those appointees are often identified as a "Ex-Trump administration official" (and probably future Trump administration official). Their policy becomes Trump's policy.

Project 2025 has been created by Trump's people and fits his record and is unpopular. Make him wear it.

I know Trump is not the incumbent in this next election, but he has held the office so the point still stands.

Trump has talked numerous times about remaking the government and rooting out the "deep state".

He has - and some of it didn't sound like puffery. I don't watch him speak, only get highlights, but I remember how he was upset with Jeff Sessions over his recusal from the Russian Investigations. He will interfere where he wants to.

Albaby, are you still of the mind that bringing up Trump's ties to Project 2025 is not worth making an issue in the campaign?

Yep. It's a waste of time.

Most of what's in Project 2025 is just a restatement of policies that Trump has already advocated. As you point out, he has a record. So don't waste resources trying to make Project 2025 a thing so that you can criticize Trump for Schedule F - just criticize Trump for Schedule F. It was his policy. The fact that Heritage included it in Project 2025 doesn't add anything.

You tie a candidate to a more extreme external thing when they don't have a record - or if their record isn't useful for your oppo strategy. So you tie a moderate Republican to the Koch Brothers or Donald Trump or whomever; you tie a moderate Democrat to AOC or Nancy Pelosi or whomever. You don't do it as part of the campaign against the extreme candidate with a record.

I'm not sure it would change my mind if Trump were actually involved in Project 2025 (I think it would still be kind of pointless); but since he wasn't, it's even more of a waste of resources that could better be applied elsewhere, because it's marginally harder to convince people of things that are false than true. He has no idea what's in it, and almost had no idea it was even being put together. When an Administration loses an election, there are literally thousands and thousands of people that were political appointees in that Administration that are now out of a job - so the fact that a few percent of those former staffers ended up either working for Heritage or got paid to write a piece of their "Mandate" is utterly unremarkable. There's no way that Heritage's "Mandate" is actually Trump's blueprint for a second term; they publish this thing every time they think a Republican might win the WH, but it hasn't been important or influential for decades - pretty much since Reagan.

Robert Reich on Trump and Project 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-e6YM-UcUU

Robert Reich on Trump and Project 2025.

Yeah, again - it's the same thing. Not only do I think it's a waste of time, but it's mildly distressing to see Democrats that I otherwise esteem doing this type of shady stuff.

Here, it's in Reich's rhetorical slight of hand about Trump's denial. He starts with Trump's claim that he doesn't know who's behind Project 2025. Reich then (correctly) points out that some of Trump's cabinet officials contributed to Project 2025. But then Reich implies that what Trump is saying is that he doesn't know who these people are (his "cognitive decline" barb), when it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't know that these specific people were involved in the Project.

Trump is a selfish narcissist - he doesn't know or care what his former Commerce Secretary has been up to since his Administration ended. Trump certainly had no knowledge of, or involvement in, that former Secretary deciding to write an essay for Project 2025. He didn't send that guy to Heritage to write this thing, didn't approve what he wrote, doesn't know what he wrote, and doesn't give a fork what the end product says.

Anyway, the rest of the video is an illustration of how ineffective this sort of stuff is. There some horrible stuff in the more than a thousand pages of Project 2025. But pointing out that Page 455 calls for "abortion surveillance," or that Page 587 has some terrible stuff on overtime rules, is just isn't going to land. Because no one is going to believe that Trump has anything to do - really - with anything that has a Page 455 or a Page 587 in it. Trump isn't a Page 455 or Page 587 guy. Robert Reich is a Page 455 guy, and maybe a lot of his viewers are - but Trump isn't, and the voters won't think he is.

albaby1: Not only do I think it's a waste of time, but it's mildly distressing...

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

Even Fox and Friends this morning was lobbing softballs at Trump to help him distance himself from Project 2025 and he whiffed.

When asked what his thoughts are about what's in Project 2025 and what role it plays in his campaign, he immediately said:

It's a group of very, very conservative people and they wrote a document that many of the points are fine...

Again, marry him to Project 2025 because the more he has to talk about it's "fine points," the more Project 2025 becomes his. And most American voters hate it with a passion.

Yeah, again - it's the same thing. Not only do I think it's a waste of time, but it's mildly distressing to see Democrats that I otherwise esteem doing this type of shady stuff.

I’ve been wrong about things in this election cycle, so perhaps I’m not the best messenger. But P2025 is a valuable tool in the Dems arsenal.

I just listened to Kamala speak to the teachers union. She expertly wove P2025 into one of her main messages that the Republicans want to move us backwards and the Democrats want to move us forward. It rings true because it is true.

So far, I am highly impressed with Kamala’s message. She’s energized the base.

Trump sounds tired, monotonous, and bored. Waa, waaa, poor me, unfair, poor me (rinse and repeat). Definitely low energy.

It’s still a long campaign, but Kamala looks like she ready for prime time. And more importantly, she seems to be enjoying taking on Trump.

It's a group of very, very conservative people and they wrote a document that many of the points are fine...

How is that a whiff? Much of the document is just a restatement of stuff that Trump did in his first term. Of course he thinks that it includes a lot of fine points.

That doesn't mean he had anything to do with the drafting of the document, approved of the document, has any plans to use the document, or even knew it existed before he was asked about it the first time.

Again, marry him to Project 2025 because the more he has to talk about its "fine points," the more Project 2025 becomes his. And most American voters hate it with a passion.

No, most American voters have no idea that it exists. Consumers of progressive-leaning media know it exists, and dislike it - but that doesn't get you anything. I don't even know if they hate the document with a passion or not (I haven't seen any intensity polling).

There's only 102 days to the election. Any ad that's talking about Project 2025 instead of just talking about the issues themselves is a waste of resources. There's so much stuff to attack Trump on - why waste your ads on trying to educate voters that Project 2025 contains stuff advocating limiting abortion rights and then trying to tie Trump to that stuff....rather than just point out that Trump caused Roe v. Wade to be repealed and that he wants to further restrict abortion rights?

She’s energized the base.

I saw that she’s inspired 10s of thousands of new volunteers, and a significant number of voter registrations since Biden dropped out of the race.

—Peter

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

I think he has a point. The convict already has a record. Pummel him with that. Though I don't see the harm in mentioning P2025 in an off-hand way whenever appropriate. "Convict Trump wants to replace competent civil servants with sycophants and yes-men, just like outlined in P2025". That sort of thing.

We on the board are more sophisticated than most. Some of us are even "wonks" (not me, but a few posters seem to be). It would take a lot of time to educate the public on P2025. I agree that this would be a wasted effort. But mentioning it while attacking the convict on a policy point? I don't think that would be a waste of time. The media would then take care of explaining P2025 to curious viewers, and the Dems wouldn't have to waste their bandwidth on it.

There's so much stuff to attack Trump on - why waste your ads on trying to educate voters that Project 2025...

I have to agree with that. The convict has a record (politically, and criminally). Use that to bash him.

As an analogy, you're in a fight. Do you say "excuse me, let me get my baseball bat to do this properly", or do you pick up a lamp and bash him with it? Don't waste time getting the bat, just pick up the lamp (or anything else handy).

There's no way that Heritage's "Mandate" is actually Trump's blueprint for a second term; they publish this thing every time they think a Republican might win the WH, but it hasn't been important or influential for decades - pretty much since Reagan.

Now that would be a great book for Pollie wonks. Publish it in a series of articles, then put em all in one binder, and if it makes sensed to modify a bit for the final book no problem.

Though I don't see the harm in mentioning P2025 in an off-hand way whenever appropriate. "Convict Trump wants to replace competent civil servants with sycophants and yes-men, just like outlined in P2025". That sort of thing.

Yeah, no problem with that. You sprinkle some easter eggs into your speech, so that the folks who are in your base get the shout-out and appreciate that you see them. Some GOP candidates will do this, often with lesser-known religious phrases (like "Wonder-working power") or with terms that set the right-wing base aboil (like "CRT"), even though those terms might not have a lot of meaning for 'normies.' If the progressive base has been told that Project 2025 is a dangerous document, including some shout-outs to it will both energize them and reinforce your in-group connection to them.

But don't bother trying to include them in the main pitches to voters. There's 102 days. You don't have time to teach voters new things, and no real need to do so with Trump on the ballot. Argue from the things they already know.

Now that would be a great book for Pollie wonks. Publish it in a series of articles, then put em all in one binder, and if it makes sensed to modify a bit for the final book no problem.

But....that's what it already is.

Again, Heritage has issued this thing every election cycle (almost) for the last four decades. This is the ninth version of the Mandate for Leadership.

They're always telling everyone how the Heritage Foundation thinks the country should be governed. Back in the Reagan years, the Mandate for Leadership was influential. For the last thirty years, it's mostly been ignored. But they publish it almost every four years.

"he doesn't know or care what his former Commerce Secretary has been up to since his Administration ended. Trump certainly had no knowledge of, or involvement in, that former Secretary deciding to write an essay for Project 2025."

Albaby... do you know for a fact Trump doesn't know what these people were writing and planning, or are you assuming that Trump is not lying... or what.

The traffic in and out of Mar a Lago is reportedly heavy; thick with 'his people,' so it's not implausible that he has been exposed to their goings on.

Albaby... do you know for a fact Trump doesn't know what these people were writing and planning, or are you assuming that Trump is not lying... or what.

As I prefaced that sentence, Trump is a raging narcissist. He is interested in himself, and himself alone.

I don't ever assume that Trump is telling the truth, but I do assume that the most likely choice he ever and always makes is the selfish one. He's not going to be interested in the lives of the thousands of people who were loyal to him while he was in office just because that's the decent thing for someone to do. He's only going to be interested in them if they're doing something for him now.

So I'm fairly confident that Trump wasn't the least bit involved in this project, because it doesn't have any of the things that the raging narcissistic arsehole that is Trump would have insisted on. He wasn't paid for it. It's not named after him - either "Trump" or "45" or "47" or what have you. It includes things that aren't abject subservience to him and his worldview, like an entire section on how tariffs and protectionism are bad. Worse still, if you read the document it has virtually no praise for Trump in it. It doesn't say how awesome he is, how these are all his ideas, how fantastically amazing Trump is.

But the main reason? The key way you know that this isn't Trump's project?

It's a BOOK.

Trump doesn't read. He doesn't write. He's perhaps the most non-intellectual President we've had in a century or more.

Trump's campaign has a manifesto. One that's just as terrible as Project 2025 - moreso because it's the one that's actually Trump's manifesto. And it takes the form of a series of short videos - NOT A BOOK! Because that's who Trump is. Trump is TV Guy, not Book Guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47

I think he has a point. The convict already has a record. Pummel him with that. Though I don't see the harm in mentioning P2025 in an off-hand way whenever appropriate. "Convict Trump wants to replace competent civil servants with sycophants and yes-men, just like outlined in P2025"

Vance said he was looking forward to debating Harris, so hang them together on the same gallows.

'VANCE said Trump is America;s Hitler, and just as Hitler blah blah blah, Trump and Vance have their Project 2025."

I do assume that the most likely choice he ever and always makes is the selfish one.

While that's not an unreasonable assumption, it's also not unreasonable to assume that his associates have advised him that they have created P2025, that they have advised him the contents will provide guidance as he enters his 2nd term.

If he mindlessly nods as he's wolfing down hamberders like Jabba the hut, that's good enough to hang it around his neck, make the media acknowledge it, perhaps make him deny it over and over.

While that's not an unreasonable assumption, it's also not unreasonable to assume that his associates have advised him that they have created P2025, that they have advised him the contents will provide guidance as he enters his 2nd term.

Except this thing was published in April of 2023 - eight months before even the first caucus of the Republican primary. It wasn't made for Trump. This was just Heritage doing what it does every election cycle - publishing their Big Book of What Heritage Thinks is Grand so that they can seem important and relevant.

Plus, Trump isn't one to take kindly the idea that people are going off and deciding things for him. Again, it's that narcissist thing. No one's opinion matters but his, no one's ideas matter but his, no one other than him can do it well or right. The scenario you've described just doesn't mesh with that overwhelming aspect of his personality.

The whole Project 2025 thing is good for media shows, but it's useless for the campaign. You want to argue that Trump wants to gut the civil service and replace them with his loyal flunkies? You don't need to go through the rigamarole of reading that in P2025, doing lots of research and convulsions to create a scenario where it might be possible that Trump might have had a hand in it, then argue that because Trump had that role that this reflects his position.

Why don't you need to do that? Because Trump literally created a video, where he said he was going to do that straight into the camera, and posted it on his website!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcMVdh915AE

None of this is new! None of this is a secret! Trump posted most of the worst stuff in his "Agenda 47" videos - he just comes out and says that he wants to do nearly all of the major things that are in Project 2025 - more than a year ago:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-policies-agenda-e...

Which is why this is good for media outlets, but pointless for the campaign. The Trump show is a rerun. Reruns are boring. It's hard to get an audience engaged in stuff that's already happened. For an attack ad, it doesn't matter that the content is old. All those Agenda 47 videos are all you need. But if you've got a "five heads in boxes" panel on a talk show, you can't be bringing up some video that Trump posted a year and a half ago and get your viewers to pay attention. It's got to be something you're discovering now.

Again, it will be an enormous waste of time and resources if the campaigns bother with this.

Why attempt to incorporate Project 2025 into campaigning against Trump/Vance?

Any reference to Project 2025 is a great way to highlight the contrast between the things not just a fringe sect of Republicans but nearly ALL Republicans care about:

* rolling back voting rights protections
* adding more anti-democratic measures to State Constitutions to make legislatures LESS responsive to voters
* eliminating protections for civil service workers
* paralyzing the ability to create new meaningful regulations for safety, environment, health
* imposing nationwide abortion bans via federal law

and the real things all voters and politicians should be focused on. One great example is another "Project 2025," the effort to secure a new legal framework governing water rights between the states in the Colorado River basin, the American Indian tribes and Mexico. The existing treaty governing those rights was crafted nearly 100 years ago and is built upon statistics for rainfall and available water which are now off by probably twenty five percent. If a contract says 20 parties get to divide 100 units of water equally, it doesn't matter how hard each party jumps up and down screaming for its "5 share" it is legally entitled to if the ACTUAL total supply is only 75 instead of 100. There is NO WAY for all twenty parties to get their 5 in perpetuity without destroying the resource.

That existing legal agreement expires in 2025.

That's something every person living in the western Unitied States can grasp with a sound byte.

"While the Republicans devised a NEW Project 2025 to re-fight old battles and further redistribute power and wealth to the already powerful and wealthy, the rest of us would like to focus on NEW problems that are REAL problems that effect our very EXISTENCE and lead every citizen to ask the most basic question... Where is my next glass of drinking water going to come from? How much will it cost? Will I be able to afford it? Will I be able to drink it?"

PBS ran a 90 minute special program on the natural and legal aspects of the effort to negotiate a new water rights regime for the west.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wpUCsaP5_Q


WTH

Any reference to Project 2025 is a great way to highlight the contrast between the things not just a fringe sect of Republicans but nearly ALL Republicans care about:

* rolling back voting rights protections
* adding more anti-democratic measures to State Constitutions to make legislatures LESS responsive to voters
* eliminating protections for civil service workers
* paralyzing the ability to create new meaningful regulations for safety, environment, health
* imposing nationwide abortion bans via federal law

and the real things all voters and politicians should be focused on.

How? How is Project 2025 a great way to do this?

You list five things up there. Before you can do anything with Project 2025 on those things, you have to teach the voters that Project 2025 exists (most know nothing about it) and that Project 2025 advocates all these things.

Why do that? Why not just go out and talk about the fact that the GOP supports all those things, without the step of trying to tie them to Project 2025 first? They're all positions that numerous Republican elected officials have taken, over and over again. Heck, I'd bet that there are more voters that know that those are positions of the GOP than know they're in Project 2025 already. How does it add anything that the Heritage Foundation also wrote them down in the book they publish every four years?

You don't need the book! Just run the attack ads against the party and the candidates. Take the time that you would have used to teach people that Project 2025 supports these things, and just teach people that the GOP supports these things directly.

"Most of what's in Project 2025 is just a restatement of policies that Trump has already advocated. As you point out, he has a record. So don't waste resources trying to make Project 2025 a thing so that you can criticize Trump for Schedule F - just criticize Trump for Schedule F. It was his policy. The fact that Heritage included it in Project 2025 doesn't add anything."

I think you are completely missing the point of tying him to Project 2025.

One of the things the GOP does far better than the Democrats is they very good at using vague words to attack their opponents (or opponent's policies and bills) so that the voters can fill in the blanks on why they individually hate their opponent or their opponent's bills.

There are voters out there that when polled on the individual parts of what is in Project 2025 might really like a couple of portions, mildly like some others, be indifferent to most of it, and really hate some portions. You can spend a lot of time and energy demonizing each individual part, but if someone actually likes one individual part then your effort is wasted. By attaching the whole thing to Trump and attacking it. You are allowing voters to fill in the blanks on the parts they hate.

"You tie a candidate to a more extreme external thing when they don't have a record - or if their record isn't useful for your oppo strategy. So you tie a moderate Republican to the Koch Brothers or Donald Trump or whomever; you tie a moderate Democrat to AOC or Nancy Pelosi or whomever. You don't do it as part of the campaign against the extreme candidate with a record."

Generally true, but not true when it is an external thing that can somewhat credibly summarize your opponent's policies and is unpopular. Especially when much of the terribleness of the candidate's actual record doesn't seem to register with voters. There are generally two reasons for this. For one, much of the terribleness of Trump's actual record has been overwhelmed by COVID. Trump was set to run up huge deficits even before COVID, but now all of the terribleness of the huge deficits can be mixed in with COVID and thought of as a once a century catastrophe that wasn't Trump's fault. Considering the economy he inherited, the job and employment record of Trump (even before COVID) was mediocre. Now that mediocre job record is forgotten about because it was overwhelmed by COVID. It is hard to run against Trump's economic record simply because of COVID. Voters don't blame presidents for pandemics. The second reason is the whitewashing of the rest of his record. January 6th turned off a lot of people when it happened, but it no longer has that effect for a good size portion of the electorate. For many people who are just casual followers of the news they think January 6th is just all about partisanship. I forget the term you used the other day to describe the process of how the GOP makes it appear someone like Biden is a scummy person so that way voters can feel better about voting for an actual scummy person (Trump). That has taken place and whitewashed Trumps record. Enough articles of impeachment against Biden (and now Harris) have been filed that it doesn't matter if they vote for a twice impeached Trump.

Project 2025 better summarizes Trump than his COVID forgotten, whitewashed actual record.

"I'm not sure it would change my mind if Trump were actually involved in Project 2025 (I think it would still be kind of pointless); but since he wasn't, it's even more of a waste of resources that could better be applied elsewhere, because it's marginally harder to convince people of things that are false than true. He has no idea what's in it, and almost had no idea it was even being put together. When an Administration loses an election, there are literally thousands and thousands of people that were political appointees in that Administration that are now out of a job - so the fact that a few percent of those former staffers ended up either working for Heritage or got paid to write a piece of their "Mandate" is utterly unremarkable. There's no way that Heritage's "Mandate" is actually Trump's blueprint for a second term; they publish this thing every time they think a Republican might win the WH, but it hasn't been important or influential for decades - pretty much since Reagan."

Wow. You are really missing the forest for the trees.

Is Project 2025 a perfect blueprint or mandate of what Trump will accomplish given a 2nd term? Of course not. Refusing to attack it because it wasn't Trump who mandated its creation is silly though. Just because its creation was not funded and directed by Trump does not mean it isn't a fairly credible summary of many of his positions and a great summary of the positions of many of the people who will hold powerful positions in any 2nd Trump administration. Put another way, the GOP spend a lot of time spreading the message that Democrats like Biden want to control people's lives. Biden wants to control what they eat, how they spend their money, what stoves they can put in their houses. Now Biden has never authorized or had people put together any such mandate about anything like that but the GOP continued to tie that blatantly false claim around Biden's neck. Why do you think that is? It worked. Tying Project 2025 to Trump is certain less false than that.

So even though Trump wasn't directly involved in the creation of Project 2025. It certainly fits his brand and matches many of his policies and he has been adjacently involved for certain. Furthermore, something like Project 2025 shows what will happen in a potential 2nd Trump administration when Trump doesn't care about a particular topic. During his first term, Trump didn't care (or was too lazy) to worry about things like selecting circuit court or appellate court judges. He wasn't going to go through the resumes of a dozen (or even just 3 or 4) people for each open position. He pretty much outsourced that to Heritage. Similarly, when it comes to a 2nd administration. Trump isn't going to be interested in appointing a 2nd undersecretary to the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Education. He is going to outsource selections like those to Heritage. So Heritage gets someone into those positions who can drive policies towards Project 2025. Sure, they would never get to do anything major that Trump clearly was against, but they can certainly bend and shape policy in those directions and openly push for things he doesn't care about.

Finally, one reason for Democrats to tie Project 2025 to Trump is that even if it doesn't help them win the election, it gives them a quick easy soundbite to lots of Trump and GOP policies when they are the opposition party in the next administration. Make Project 2025 unpopular and whenever Trump or the GOP try to pass any bills that can be remotely tied back to Project 2025 and Democratic Senators and Representatives can go on TV and talk about how Bill XYZ is Trump trying to push his radical Project 2025 agenda.

"That doesn't mean he had anything to do with the drafting of the document..."

Maybe it is because you are a lawyer, but you are really getting hung up on the idea that Project 2025 can only be hung around Trump's neck if he was directly involved in the writing of the document. I think your block is making you miss so really obvious stuff. This isn't a court of law. Trump's personal signature doesn't have to be on the document to use it against him.

"I think he has a point. The convict already has a record. Pummel him with that."

Except that isn't working. Trump's terrible record (including convictions and impeachments) have been normalized as just partisan infighting. To a layperson who doesn't follow politics closely, Trump is a crook, Biden is a crook, Trump has been impeached, Biden has articles of impeachment filed against him. What is the difference between them?

Now a well-informed person can easily point out huge differences using real, court admissible evidence. But a layperson, not a chance. They are the same.

"Yeah, no problem with that. You sprinkle some easter eggs into your speech, so that the folks who are in your base get the shout-out and appreciate that you see them."

It can reach further than the base if it is mentioned enough and the various negative aspects about it are mentioned enough. Take an elderly person who is a political layperson. They might be predisposed to vote for Trump because that is who their friends always support and Biden (Harris) is for open borders. That is the extent of their political "knowledge". Now they hear an ad about Project 2025 and how it aims to cut SS and Medicare benefits (or worse). Later on they hear another negative ad about Project 2025. Then they hear a congressman tie Project 2025 to Trump. Maybe they aren't as interested in voting for Trump anymore.

Generally true, but not true when it is an external thing that can somewhat credibly summarize your opponent's policies and is unpopular.

Once again, Project 2025 isn't unpopular. Most voters don't know anything about it. Most voters won't know anything about it. The only ones that will are people that avidly consume left-leaning media.

There's a real break here between what's in the interest of media producers - especially the 24-hour news and opinion channels - and the interests of campaigns. News media channels have tons and tons of time, and not a lot of content. It's hard to fill the five hours of talking head/opinion shows from 6:00-11:00 every weeknight. Especially since viewers don't want you to go over things that are "old news." Campaigns, on the other hand, have the opposite problem - they have to pay gobs of money for time by the 30-second chunk, and rarely lack for content to attack their opponents with.

So media channels have all the time in the world, and all the incentive, to spend gobs and gobs of time on Project 2025. It's a new (to them) thing, and it's a thousand pages long - you can always crack it open and find some new depredation to put to your five-guest panel or write a column about. But in a campaign, you can't waste your bandwidth like that. Don't attack a book - attack your opponents.

Now Biden has never authorized or had people put together any such mandate about anything like that but the GOP continued to tie that blatantly false claim around Biden's neck. Why do you think that is? It worked.

Yes! Exactly! Do that, Democrats! The GOP didn't go out and find some third-party policy paper advocating for eliminating gas stoves (and there are plenty). They found something from the Administration itself and used that as the basis for their smears, rather than spending their time trying to build up some tenuous connection between Biden and some external think tank.

Trump's Agenda 47 is just sitting there. He's literally turning to camera and saying directly on video all the major things from Project 2025. I can see why MSNBC wants to spend hours and hours talking about Project 2025 instead of Agenda 47 - but it would be political malpractice for the campaigns to do that.

During his first term, Trump didn't care (or was too lazy) to worry about things like selecting circuit court or appellate court judges. He wasn't going to go through the resumes of a dozen (or even just 3 or 4) people for each open position. He pretty much outsourced that to Heritage. Similarly, when it comes to a 2nd administration. Trump isn't going to be interested in appointing a 2nd undersecretary to the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Education. He is going to outsource selections like those to Heritage.

But that's wrong. And it's wishful thinking. Don't you see that? In his first term, he was completely new to governance and needed to reach out to the then-existing power structure - so he ended up filling his Administration with a lot of establishment Republicans, the sort that hang out in Heritage. And there's no doubt that he now regards that AS THE WORST MISTAKE HE MADE. He ended up spending a lot of his term fighting with those guys; he spent even more time in that term and the subsequent years purging them all from the party. He is not going to outsource anything to a think-tank establishment - it's going to be much, much worse.

Make Project 2025 unpopular and whenever Trump or the GOP try to pass any bills that can be remotely tied back to Project 2025 and Democratic Senators and Representatives can go on TV and talk about how Bill XYZ is Trump trying to push his radical Project 2025 agenda.

There's a quick and easy way to demonstrate why that would be a waste of time - it just takes a single-word substitution:

Make MAGA unpopular and whenever Trump or the GOP try to pass any bills that can be remotely tied back to MAGA and Democratic Senators and Representatives can go on TV and talk about how Bill XYZ is Trump trying to push his radical MAGA agenda.

See how that doesn't add anything? You've already got a label for Trump's agenda - and it has the advantage of being one that he actually is involved in. You don't gain anything by switching out "Project 2025" for "MAGA," and you actually just make it worse. Because to return to the main point, most people have no idea what Project 2025 is.

Maybe it is because you are a lawyer, but you are really getting hung up on the idea that Project 2025 can only be hung around Trump's neck if he was directly involved in the writing of the document. I think your block is making you miss so really obvious stuff. This isn't a court of law. Trump's personal signature doesn't have to be on the document to use it against him.

Two things. First, it sure makes it easier to hang something around a candidate's neck when it's true that they were involved with it. The foolhardiness of wasting time with Project 2025 isn't because it's not possible, with a lot of hard work and resources, to hang it around Trump's neck. It's because most of the worst parts of Project 2025 are things that Trump is on video speaking directly to camera as part of his own campaign manifesto. Why are you wasting time trying to hang the Project 2025 version of these things around his neck when he's just out there saying it as part of Agenda 47?

Second, as I've mentioned several times, it doesn't fit with his brand. Trump's not a think-tank guy. He's not a 1000-page manifesto guy. You can hang stuff around a candidate's neck if it fits well with what voters tend to think of that candidate to begin with. It doesn't work well if you're trying to go against their preconceptions. Trump's the guy who destroyed all the institutional guardrails and purged "real" conservatives in favor of his own authoritarian "Me and Me Alone" approach to politics....but the message is also that he's working with an organ of the Establishment Republicans so that that faction can gain control of all the real decisions in his Administration?

Now they hear an ad about Project 2025 and how it aims to cut SS and Medicare benefits (or worse). Later on they hear another negative ad about Project 2025. Then they hear a congressman tie Project 2025 to Trump. Maybe they aren't as interested in voting for Trump anymore.

Why not just run two ads that say Trump wants to cut SS and Medicare benefits? And have the congressman talk about how Trump wants to cut SS and Medicare benefits?

Why bother with the Project 2025 stuff - especially since your two ads are utterly wasted if that voter doesn't happen to hear (and believe) the Congressman when he tries to tie it to Trump?

Why not just run two ads that say Trump wants to cut SS and Medicare benefits? And have the congressman talk about how Trump wants to cut SS and Medicare benefits? - albaby

--------------------------------

I would like to hear the "how" as well, saying it without the how leads me to think that some wording in 2025 has been spun to suggest that cutting SS and Medicare is an explicit general objective for Trump when the reality is something that might be more acceptable, eg cutting medicare for illegal immigrants. A goal without a plan, is just rhetoric.

I would like to hear the "how" as well, saying it without the how leads me to think that some wording in 2025 has been spun to suggest that cutting SS and Medicare is an explicit general objective for Trump when the reality is something that might be more acceptable, eg cutting medicare for illegal immigrants. A goal without a plan, is just rhetoric.

This is what happens in the Philippines when the person gets paid for posting a patterned group of words on the site, or making a point which the person is too intelligent to believe. It gets worked in no matter how stupid it makes a reasonably intelligent person look.

It wasn't made for Trump.

Trump has been the defacto leader since he lost. He dominates US right wing politics. His crew and the Heritage foundation did not create this cycles edition with Liz Cheney in mind.

I agree that Trump will not acknowledge his staff's participation or give them credit for their work product because, as you point out, narcissism is a dominant symptom of his psychosis.

Yet, I would bet dollars to donuts that he's lying when he denies knowledge of the contents AND who is responsible for the contents.

..and now, it's time to wade through the pea soup fog to check the waves.

Good morning.

I would like to hear the "how" as well, saying it without the how leads me to think that some wording in 2025 has been spun to suggest that cutting SS and Medicare is an explicit general objective for Trump when the reality is something that might be more acceptable, eg cutting medicare for illegal immigrants.

Mike,

I assume you already know that illegal immigrants can’t get Medicare.

Alpha: "Mike, I assume you already know that illegal immigrants can’t get Medicare."

Of course he doesn't. He can't distinguish propaganda from legitimate journalism. Facts from lies.

Mike's inability to think critically has landed him in a cult...

Trump supporters now inhabit their own self-created media echo chamber, which functions as a type of lie-filled, sealed-off universe.
The creation of such an alternate reality is an important attribute of fascism, in which truth itself must be destroyed and replaced with fantasies and fictions in support of the leader and his movement.

The creation of such an alternate reality is an important attribute of fascism, in which truth itself must be destroyed and replaced with fantasies and fictions in support of the leader and his movement.


In the past it was necessary for the authoritarian government to control all the media, now, in our system, they can have a similar effect by just controlling a segment of the media. Brainwashing is real.

You don't need the book! Just run the attack ads against the party and the candidates. Take the time that you would have used to teach people that Project 2025 supports these things, and just teach people that the GOP supports these things directly.

A good PR/Ad firm can accomplish both with well designed messaging ads. Project 2025 can be that threatening diaphanous thing that needn't be understood, but contains things that independents will recognize if they choose to look into it.

Present it as a sack of turds and hang it around Trump and Vance's neck.

Present it as a sack of turds and hang it around Trump and Vance's neck.

And the neck of every MAGA running for Congress and state and local office.

--Peter

...cutting medicare for illegal immigrants.

Already done. If that's why you're voting for the rapist convict, no need. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicare. Full stop.

Some states have programs, but that's not the federal.

That was an easy claim to check. Google is your friend (and I don't just say that because I own the stock).

Project 2025 and how it aims to cut SS and Medicare benefits (or worse). Later on they hear another negative ad about Project 2025.

Exactly that simple.

The copy practically writes itself.


Project 2025 want to cut social security and medicare for America's hard working seniors. Bad for seniors, bad for America. Stop Project 2025. Stop Donald Trump.

Why not just run two ads that say Trump wants to cut SS and Medicare benefits?

Advertising 1: Sell the sizzle, not the steak.

The SS/MC cuts are the foul smelling sizzle. TrumpProject2025 is the source of the foul smelling sizzle (the steak).

My only tweak would be to always add "Republican" in front of Project 2025 the first time it's used. So:

The Republican Project 2025 wants to cut Social Security and Medicare ...

--Peter

My only tweak would be to always add "Republican" in front of Project 2025

Not so sure.... there are probably some RINO never Trumpers that might take offense.

If it's hung squarely on Trump that possibility is reduced?

Not so sure.... there are probably some RINO never Trumpers that might take offense.

1. Are there any RINO never Trumpers left?? ;-)
2. I suspect there are several proposals in there that these nearly extinct folks would support. Abortion restrictions were a common Republican talking point even before Trump.
3. The real point of calling it the Republican Project 2025 is to connect it to down ballot races and basically tie it to the whole party and not just Trump. There are some real nut jobs in other races as well. This isn't just a strategy for one race, it's for all of the races.

--Peter

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.