My Fourth-Quarter Advice to Kamala and The Donald, Part II 

Last Friday, I wrote about the key issues Trump/Vance and Harris/Walz will be facing over the next two and a half months. A conservative-leaning reader complained, noting that most of the advice I gave was beneficial to Dems.

When I looked over what I had written, I realized that he was right. So today, I’m going to give my helpful counseling to Trump and his team.

Here goes…

Donald – In advising the Harris team, I suggested that it would be wise for them to keep her out of the public eye until November. (“Just read that teleprompter and smile, Kamala. Don’t laugh!”)

As you know, that didn’t happen. Three times she went off script and, obviously without getting clearance from the COPs, announced three policy proposals, one dumber than the other. Why she felt the urge to go solo with these ideas is anyone’s guess. They were so ill-informed – so economically ignorant and politically naïve – that her media supporters had to leap to her rescue almost as soon as the words left her mouth.

The COPs (especially Obama) must be furious with her. Where did she get the idea that she could make complex economic, military, and diplomatic decisions on her own? Was she reading and believing her own hype?

I’m not, as you are not, a huge Kamala fan. She sometimes says and does things that make me wonder if there are any lights on in the attic. But there is a reason she has come so far. It’s not just the boost she got from Willie Brown or now from Joe Biden. We saw that last night in her speech, which was a political triumph. This joy and strength theme is making her core audience giddy. As for undecided voters – it’s difficult to believe it will have much impact.

What will have an impact is her new platform, which is basically a shameless confiscation of many of your strongest policy plans, but lathered with promises that economists said would amount to $5 trillion worth of government giveaways.

I claim partial credit for her great night last night because she stuck to the script that was written for her and never strayed. And she made most of her stated falsehoods sound believable.

So, her three dumb moves last week are all but forgotten and she is now big on closing the border and returning illegal immigrants.

My point, Donald, is that she almost blew it when she ignored my advice, and yet she bounced back strongly when she heeded it. I want you to think about that. And consider the danger of not following my instructions.

I know you pride yourself on saying whatever is on your mind when you say it. I also know that this political personality disorder has won you tens of millions of middle-class and working-class voters that were tired of the ever more ludicrous lies they were being fed.

Nevertheless, I have to remind you: This election won’t be decided by the fan base you have now. It will be decided by undecided voters in the swing states. And to move them to your side, you need a new approach and, in a few cases, a different narrative.

First of all, I know you will attack her for her easy-on-crime policies as California AG. And you should. But if you do it the way you always like to go after your political opponents, you will only cheer up your core at the expense of losing many of the undecideds.

The undecideds are undecided because they (a) have common sense and (b) pride themselves on thinking through the decisions they make. So, we must assume that they are aware that crime has been on the rise since Kamala’s woke ideas on the subject have been effectuated by woke governors and AGs in a dozen states.

Which means that, though the issue of rising crime is a good one for you, the way you bring it to the undecideds is important. If you do it as I’m about to tell you, it should be a slam-dunk in your favor. But if you follow your instincts, you will almost surely lose the advantage that you now have.

You must – I repeat, must – desist from the ad-hominem attacks. Undecided voters are looking for reasons to make their decisions. They are looking for facts. It will turn them off if you try to humiliate Kamala on this issue. Remember, even though the undecideds want to make rational decisions, they don’t know enough about crime or criminal justice to have already formed an opinion on her ideas and history. It will turn most of them off if you treat her like you treated Hillary.

So, how should you act when this topic comes up in a debate (as it most surely will)?

Remember when, after Biden blew himself up at the debate with you, you were asked to respond? You miraculously restrained yourself by simply explaining that you couldn’t understand what he had just said.

That’s the way you need to deal with the crime issue. Resist your impulses and speak as if you believe Kamala is a worthy, or at least sympathetic, opponent.

The undecided voters are looking for facts, not rhetorical combat. If you verbally abuse Kamala, they will see you as mean. But if you treat her the way you did Joe – like a nice person with some mental shortcomings – they will see you as kind.

I give you the same advice when it comes to discussing the economy. Don’t try to shred Kamala when she claims that she and Joe improved the economy with such failed policies as their Orwellian named anti-inflation bill. Undecided voters know how much more they are paying for food and rent and utilities. So treat her gently but correct her on facts.

My specific directions are thus: When she makes a statement that is clearly wrong, look at her for a few seconds as if you are thinking, “Are you serious?” (And smile when you do that.) Then, and this is important, turn away from her and face the camera.

Explain to the camera – i.e., to the undecideds – why the “official government data” on inflation is rigged and wrong. And how even though the rise of inflation has slowed, the current level is still badly hurting middle- and working-class people. Then give three or four specific facts to back up that statement. Three or four is all you need. Watch some Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson videos to learn how to mete out your facts in an emotionally compelling way.

(And, by the way, I offer this same advice to you, too, Mr. Vance.)

Do the same thing whenever Kamala says something naïvely woke about geopolitics or foreign policy. Don’t respond to her directly. Make your point as a concerned and edifying message to the public, letting the facts speak for themselves.

It’s highly unlikely Kamala will bring up the fact that we are on the threshold of WWIII. It’s just too obvious to anyone who thinks about it that both the Israel/Hamas and the Russian/Ukraine wars started on her watch. If she does bring it up, say this:

“You know, at the beginning of my term in office, many of my critics were predicting  that I was going to get us into trouble militarily because they believed I was too tough and too inflexible. They thought I wouldn’t be able to deal with our allies and enemies diplomatically. But they were wrong.”

Then point out that you are the only president in modern times that was in office for four years without starting a war.

Let’s see. What else?

As for Walz’s exaggerated claims about his military record, don’t even mention it. Leave that to JD.

If she follows her script, Kamala will harp on abortion-related issues, including the current composition of the Supreme Court and its recent decision re Roe v. Wade. In my advice for her last week, I said that she should deal with these issues strategically – be careful about making exaggerated claims and statements.

Keep in mind, Donald, that many of the undecideds are uncomfortable with the Supreme Court’s decision and also worried a bit about what a conservative Supreme Court might do in the future.

So when abortion comes up, it’s critical for you to come off as compassionate.

Say:

“We are talking about a very difficult decision, one that weighs most heavily on the pregnant mother, but also affects the rights of the father. Ultimately, it must include such considerations as the mental and physical health of the mother, the circumstances of the pregnancy, as well as a realistic conversation about what rights the unborn child might have.”

Then say:

“I would not presume to have the ultimate ethical answer. But I think that for a pregnant   woman to make such a decision without exploring all the issues and complications is not good for all involved, especially for herself.”

Then say:

“As I see it, the Supreme Court’s decision was not about taking a side for or against the right to life or the right to choose but recognizing that the Constitution makes it clear that in nuanced and complicated matters such as these, it serves the Republic as a whole to  have such policies made on a state-by-state basis.”

Then say:

“If voters disagree with the laws and regulations made by their state, they are free to oppose them and overturn them legally if they can. That goes equally for those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice.”

If pro-choice interlocutors continue to challenge you after you have said all that, say this:

 “Our founders were divided in their opinions about all sorts of important issues. They also were very sensitive to the danger to freedom and democracy that comes from treating important issues as binary questions. It was precisely because of that wisdom, which came from their combined social and political experience as immigrants from countries that had teetered on and experienced tyranny and revolutions, that they invented the concept of separation of powers: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court. That court was established precisely because they knew that issues would arise about laws and policies that could tear the country apart. It doesn’t mean that their judgements will always be perfect, but it held out the hope that when the future populous became dangerously divided on an issue, there would be one branch of   government whose job would be to make decisions based on their commitment to making such decisions based on the founding principles of the country, which are inscribed in the Constitution.”

You’ll have to stick closely to this script. My guess is that in the swing states, a third of undecided voters are pro-life, another third are pro-choice. That means you and Kamala will be competing for the last third – the undecideds that are truly independent thinkers. Because they like to think for themselves, they will have mixed thoughts and feelings about abortion. My script is designed to win them over. So stick to it. Don’t think you can improvise your way through this minefield.

Okay, Donald, I think I’ve covered the big issues.

The bottom line is this: If you listen to what I’m telling you, you will beat or tie Kamala on all the wedge issues. But to be safe, you should assume that you will come out even on them.

And if that happens, your target audience – the undecided voters in the swing states – will make their final decision based on how they feel about the economy. Which is what has happened with so many elections in the past 20 years.

Remember that the facts are on your side. So, use them. Calmly. And with exactness. Be the rational authority, the man with the truth.

Don’t underestimate Kamala in this regard. She will come to the podium with facts of her own – facts that will sound true, however nonsensical they really are. Her facts will seem believable if she presents them with conviction. And so will yours. Your advantage will be that your facts will be actual facts.

Nobody really understands economics, and that includes the undecideds. If they are upset with the economy, and most of them are, they have no choice but to side with the person that seems most knowledgeable but also the most rational – the person who breaks down the problem into understandable pieces and offers advice that sounds like common sense. You have the edge here… if you can restrain yourself.

I’m going to be watching you next week, Donald, just as I watched Kamala this past week. I’m hoping to see that you will have understood – and paid attention to – my advice.