Pragmatically Distributed

Metternich, Volume II page 324

February 1, 1809. — I have been to see M. de Romanzow today. There is nothing definite to be drawn from him. He asked me what I thought of the war. I replied that I thought that it was rather for me to address this question to him. He did not hide from me that he believed the Emperor’s course was taken, and that still more prudence was required on our part. ‘What do you call prudence?’ said I to him. ‘If Napoleon takes an offensive or even a distrustful attitude against us, we must depart from the footing of peace on which our army now stands. Do you wish that we should allow ourselves to be surprised in our quarters?’

‘I work hard to keep him quiet,’ said Romanzow. ‘I have a most trying task; but beware of involving yourself; that might have incalculable results.’

‘I suppose,’ replied I, ‘that the first news from Prince Schwarzenberg will be of a nature to show that the Emperor, my master, was right to make him his Envoy. One cannot do the Emperor Alexander the injustice of believing that he could ever be found on a course hostile to us.’

‘That depends on the position,’ replied M. Romanzow. ‘There might be very embarassing anterior engagements.’

‘Embarassing in case of the aggression of France,’ replied I; ‘the question from which side the war comes should be more clear to you than to anyone else.’

‘When once the guns are heard,’ said M. de Romanzow, ‘it is very difficult to decide from which side the aggression is.’

‘War does not date from the first shot,’ replied I; ‘a moral war precedes that of arms. Suppose that we are disturbed to the point of being compelled to take the attitude of repelling force by force, and that you were then told, “You see it is they who make war on us,” would you believe that version?’

M. de Romanzow lost himself in phrases which sometimes led to the conviction that it was not possible to avoid war, sometimes to the hope that he might succeed in quieting Napoleon; spoke of the necessity for our being very prudent, said that we should be on our guard, that we should not arm ourselves, &c.

On my visit to this minister all my energies were directed to proving, as decidedly as possible, that it is not we who put ourselves in a state of hostility.

One of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of extensive Iranian agents operating in the US Government is the strange overestimation of Iranian military strength which, if pro-Iranian agencies like the CIA are to be believed, makes them invulnerable to American conventional retaliation.

This deceptive analysis of the Tehranologisits (the modern day equivalent of the old Kremlinologists who tended to overestimate the USSR) is so pervasive across administrations that the various foreign policy, military, and “intelligence” agencies have ruled out directly attacking Iran (which spends about $20 billion a year on its military) which they, apparently, must assume is some sort of military colosus that they are unable to defeat with a Pentagon budget of over $800 billion.

In reality, it would take less than a week of US airstrikes to completely destroy Iranian naval assets, nuclear weapon facilities, drone and missile factories, and oil infrastructure.

Coupled with a greenlight to the Saudis to use their vast arsenal of American and European weapon systems to crush the Houthis, Iran’s ability to project power in the Middle East would be neutralized for decades because the proxy war Iran is fighting against America and its allies is poorly suited for a weak military power; very unlike the Soviet Union, which was far stronger than modern Iran, but which America still defeated with Reagan’s successful proxy war pressure that led to the US winning the Cold War.

In Iran’s case, a smaller version of Reagan’s triumphant proxy strategy against Moscow would (if not completely toppling the Iranian Government) in a much shorter span of time result in Iran being crippled as a regional power –

Proxy warfare is inherently more suitable for strong states with great resources to distribute to its proxies. Iran is a weak state with few resources playing a great power’s game. It should be punished for its overestimation of its own power with the destruction of the Iranian economy, a destruction which by extension will mean Iranian proxies will have fewer Iranian resources to rely on.

But instead of retaliating against Iran for having its Houthi proxies fire missiles at the USS Mason, having its Iraqi and Syrian proxies fire on American bases, or attacking Iran for threatening the economically vital cargo traffic going North and South through the Suez and the oil tanker traffic navigating the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian controlled Biden foreign policy team is barely giving Iran a slap on the wrist when what they need to do is shatter Iran’s glass jaw.

For House Republicans they should take advantage of this egregiously stupid Iran policy by having Sullivan and Blinken testify in front of the various House military and intelligence committees to explain why their Iran policy of not only refusing to attack Iran for acts of war, but actually giving Iran $50 billion in oil revenue from lowered American sanctions and $6 billion in ransom money, some of which must have gone to finance the October 7 terrorism on Israel.

They should also suggest that Blinken and Sullivan are either Iranian agents, or, covering up Iranian agent operations and operatives like Robert “Ayatollah” Malley.

The purpose of bringing them to testify would not be to get them to change policy, but to get them to defend obviously indefensible policy results in public, and then demand they both resign when they inevitably have no coherent defense for the status of Iran policy.

The demands for them to resign would, again, not be designed to actually make them resign but score political points when the Biden Administration refuses to remove them for this exceptional incompetence.

Today’s University of New Hampshire poll is BY FAR the most interesting poll of the primary campaign so far because it shows Christie is within 6 points of overtaking Haley for 2nd place.

The poll has Trump at 45%, Haley at 20%, and Christie at 14%.

The potential for Christie to take 2nd in New Hampshire is now a real possibility due to the state being a good match for Christie.

New Hampshire’s libertarian leaning tendencies are out of sync with Haley’s blundering comments about requiring all internet commenters to post their real names. And this is before the poll had given time for voters to fully process her comments; usually it takes a week or two for the impact of a major blunder to fully reflect itself in the polls because of a time-lag effect.

The state is also promising grounds for Christie because of how many tri-state transplants live there, the higher number of independents/undeclareds who can vote in the GOP primary compared to other states, the moderate tendencies of the overall GOP primary electorate fitting Christie’s policy stances, and last (but not least) because of New Hampshire’s quirky voting patterns

If Christie were to take at least 2nd it would scramble the race in very interesting ways for the following candidates.

There is also a risk to Trump (although small) that if Christie’s numbers move past Haley that he may actually defeat Trump outright for 1st place given the odd voting history of the state. A Christie win would not be the most shocking New Hampshire presidential primary result in the state’s history.

Here are the scenarios the major candidates face and what their likely actions will be to them –

Haley – She now must prevent Christie from taking 2nd place from her in New Hampshire because if she falls to 3rd her momentum (such as it is, or, such as it was) would stall and decline nationwide. This could be difficult for her to do because she is facing a challenger with nothing to lose by going after her non-stop, who has natural geographic advantages among this electorate by being a former New Jersey Governor, and who can dedicate all of his energy on this state, whereas she cannot.

Christie – I expect Christie will basically spend almost all of his time campaigning in New Hampshire now that Haley has given him a great opening to capture 2nd place. The state is small enough that he can get his message out effectively by mostly by doing townhall discussions with voters. And whatever money he does have for ads can be spent exclusively in New Hampshire whereas the other major candidates have to spread their appearances and money around multiple states.

DeSantis – There are a number of ways DeSantis can handle the rise of Christie. In addition to try to cause as many defections among Trump and Haley’s bases of support to himself as possible, DeSantis will probably give Christie an assist by running attack ads against Haley’s police state remarks in an attempt to drop her down to 3rd (or lower) so that her campaign is derailed well before South Carolina votes. He will probably also help Christie by spending more money in South Carolina against Haley to try to divert Haley’s energy and resources away from playing defense in New Hampshire where Christie will be fully committed.

Trump – Trump has to be aware of the risk (maybe around 5% to 10%) that Christie will actually win New Hampshire because he is within striking distance of 2nd at a time when Haley may have peaked. Although the odds are against Christie finishing 1st, they are far from impossible. Even this small possibility needs to be taken seriously by Trump’s campaign because of how disastrous it would be for him if, despite the odds, Christie wins the state.

The effect of debates on overall campaign trends on each candidate are what matter and why I don’t view them from the perspective of which candidate “won” them.

Instead it is better to study who benefits, or not, from them based on overall campaign dynamics.

Christie and Scott actually did better at this debate than the previous ones. But it makes no difference because it is way too little, way too late.

Ramaswamy was (apparently) running some kind of science experiment to see if he can drive his own poll numbers below zero and solidly into negative territory.

This leaves us with just DeSantis and Haley to seriously consider.

Haley was better at this debate than the second, but not so exceptionally as to alter the campaign beyond one week worth of acceptable bragging rights. She was at her best attacking Ramaswamy but seemed confused, even depressed, when DeSantis responded to her attacks against him.

Perhaps more importantly, Haley simply doesn’t seem like she is trying as hard to win as DeSantis is, which makes a difference to voters who respond to energy for leadership. Half the time, whether in a debate, interview or at a campaign rally, she looks like she is just angling for a book deal and a guest-host gig with FOX News.

I suspect she will be flat or move slightly up as moderates reluctantly default towards her for lack of a more convincing centrist candidate – although the attacks of the DeSantis campaign might drive away some of her more conservative supporters, possibly negating some of her gains with moderates.

For DeSantis, the major campaign dynamic to analyze is the very important announcement that Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds endorsed him.

And not only did she merely endorse him. She will be actively campaigning with DeSantis and lending him the support of her considerable statewide election machine.

Her support now poses a significant threat to Trump’s effort in Iowa because of how the caucuses operate.

The Iowa caucuses are not traditional primaries where voters cast ballots anonymously.

They are more like a campaign ground-machine operation (like ballot harvesting) where people will meet in a room with voters and try to persuade others, one on one, for hours to support one candidate or other.

When Reynolds Iowa campaign operatives join forces in caucus rooms with DeSantis Iowa campaign operatives (who were already numerous before her endorsement) they would have considerable persuasive power over Iowa voters.

The debate only added more momentum behind the DeSantis Iowa campaign to build on the announcement of Reynolds.

Arguably, DeSantis in November 2023 is in a better position to upset Trump in Iowa than Obama was in November 2007 to upset Hillary in the Democratic Iowa caucuses, whereafter Obama famously went on to defeat Hillary in the 2008 primary.

Like DeSantis, in November 2007 Obama was in the high teens while Hillary (like Trump today) was polling in the mid-40s.

This dynamic creates a dilemma for New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu whose endorsement DeSantis would also love to snag: Although Sununu wouldn’t have the same degree of impact as Reynolds because New Hampshire is a simple primary, not a caucus, and therefore New Hampshire’s outcome is not as dependent upon on-the-ground political machinery as Iowa is.

Still, Sununu’s endorsement wouldn’t hurt DeSantis.

The dilemma Sununu faces is that his moderate Republican tendencies are closer to Haley than DeSantis.

However, Sununu hates Trump, and almost certainly hates the idea of a Trump ticket with Tucker Carlson as running mate even more than he hates the concept of a Trump nomination by itself.

If he wants to maximize his odds of stopping Trump he would need to support DeSantis because he has a better chance of defeating Trump than Haley does.

Therefore, the question for Sununu is the FAVORITE question in all of game theory to ask: What do you value more?

If Sununu hates DeSantis’ policy platform more than he hates the possibility of a Trump nomination then he will endorse Haley despite the fact she is not nearly aggressive enough to stop Trump even if she wins New Hampshire (almost none of her attack ad spending is against Trump) and despite the fact she is not appealing enough to the rightwing of the GOP to defect to her like they potentially could defect to DeSantis.

Mathematically she must win defections from Trump and DeSantis’ base voters in order to win because consolidating 100% of the smaller portion of moderate Republicans will not get her the numbers to surpass Trump.

But if Sununu wants the best possible chance of defeating Trump in the primary more than he dislikes DeSantis’ policies then he will endorse DeSantis because his aggressive campaigning against Trump, his clear numerical advantage over Haley as the second choice of GOP voters, and the decent likelihood DeSantis will have serious momentum coming out of Iowa would be further enhanced by a Sununu endorsement because it would help evolve the field into a two-candidate race.

This would avoid a split three-way race that would favor Trump if DeSantis won Iowa and Haley won New Hampshire.

Whether DeSantis can convince Sununu to endorse him could very easily decide the campaign.

The primary contest is settling along the following lines for the remaining candidates.

The question for Burgum and Hutchinson is not whether they remain at zero or manage to skyrocket to 1% in the polls. The question is whether either of them will still be running by New Years, and those odds look very unlikely.

Tim Scott has apparently fallen off the face of the earth.

Christie is heroically sticking with his strategy of staying just *barely* above Burgum-Hutchinson levels of support.

Ramaswamy was doomed the moment he opened his mouth at the first debate.

That leaves us with the following strategies from these three campaigns –

Trump – His strategy is simply to run attack ads against Ron DeSantis in Iowa to minimize his support so that Haley and DeSantis split the non-Trump vote, with the reasoning being that if DeSantis cannot win Iowa then Trump will run the table everywhere else.

Haley – She has consolidated the moderate GOP vote simply because the only other moderate, Christie, is not viable. To advance further she needs to move beyond the limited proportion of moderates to make inroads with more rightwing primary voters.

However, it is unlikely DeSantis will let her get far with that since he has strong lines of attack against her for caving to the Progressives such as on transgender issues.

Also, her support may not be strongly committed to her because much of it is a result of moderates with nowhere else to go defaulting to her and because polls for third tier primary candidates, in general, tend to fluctuate more rapidly because their supporters are rarely loyal unless the candidate has a “niche” policy issue that those voters hold passionately.

Since her support is not enthusiastic, her numbers have more downside risk than upside potential, especially if DeSantis attacks her as a moderate.

DeSantis – He appears to be gearing up to spend some time knocking back down Haley’s numbers on social issues. While this will probably succeed because her support is not enthusiastic this is not enough to alter the election dynamics because there are not enough Haley voters to put DeSantis over the top.

The numbers require him to start causing defections among Trump supporters who, for their second choice, strongly prefer DeSantis.

To convert these voters I expect DeSantis to go more strongly negative by making more of an issue over Trump’s legal problems.

Specifically, I expect DeSantis to say that a vote for Trump is a wasted vote because Trump cannot be the nominee if he is convicted in one of his trials.

DeSantis will allege that it is very unlikely Trump will be acquitted on all 91 charges and that if he is convicted the RNC would have to remove him as the nominee because of the electoral risk downticket to the rest of the GOP candidate slate, and because a conviction would result in key battleground states legally removing Trump as a general election option for President on their respective state ballots.

There will probably be special emphasis on the word ‘convicted’ because in polling the addition of the word ‘convicted’ causes Trump to lose 20 points among GOP primary voters.

The one scenario that alters primary voter opinions more than anything else is a question asking about a Trump conviction scenario, and this scenario and word are likely to be repeated by DeSantis continuously to make the electability argument more clear, which he so far has not directly tackled.

The other change I expect is that DeSantis will start subtly floating/hinting to false rumors that are spreading on the internet regarding a potential divorce between Trump and Melania caused by an affair Trump recently conducted in order to harm Trump’s standing among Evangelicals.

This tactic is especially likely to be pursued by DeSantis prior to Iowa where its Evangelical vote would potentially be very receptive to rumors of an affair and potential divorce.

This false rumor would also play further into the electability argument DeSantis has still not made as overtly as he probably should have.

The reason Iran is committing acts of war by having its proxies fire on American bases and injuring over 30 US troops (the reason other than the strong likelihood that Biden’s foreign policy team is infested with Iranian agents like Robert “Ayatollah” Malley) is because the Biden Administration has either taken an isolationist stance to their provocations or, actually, rewarded previous Iranian acts of war with $6 billion in ransom money and over $50 billion in extra oil revenue from the relaxation of oil sanctions.

These acts of war, which have gone unanswered by the US, include their hijacking of oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and preventing American proxies from retaliating appropriately such as the Administration’s discouraging of Israel from bombing Iran’s nuclear program and pressuring the Saudi military to not crush the Iran backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

Constant Iranian acts of war constitute a tremendous diplomatic failure considering Iran is running amok, dictating the military agenda in the Middle East to vastly powerful American, Israeli, and Saudi armed forces despite the fact Iran is a weak military actor that is still flying F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms that the Carter Administration sold to the Shah.

The appropriate response to Iranian acts of war is to give the Ayatollahs war.

Since a ground assault is not politically feasible because of Bush 2.0’s invasion of Iraq, then a sustained American air campaign is now the correct response.

This US air attack should (short of destroying the regime entirely, which may not be possible absent a ground invasion of Iran) be designed to cripple Iran’s ability to project military, economic, and terrorist power in the region –

Given these assumptions, if destruction of the Iranian government is infeasible and Iran will always exert some sway over its fellow Shiite Muslims, then the American-Israeli-Saudi objective is as follows –

Objective:  Cripple Iran as a Middle Eastern power while leaving the Iranian government in power.  Thereafter, contain a greatly weakened Iran with an American backed proxy-coalition of Israel and Sunni Gulf Arab states.

The objectives of these air strikes should include –

• Completely destroying all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. After Iran organized and planned Gaza’s terrorist campaign (which was much too sophisticated an operation to have been done by Hamas by itself) it is clear Iran must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon).
•  Destroy Iran’s Navy and air fields to prevent them from interfering again with oil tanker traffic by, for example, hijacking oil tankers or trying to mine the Strait of Hormuz.
•  Destroy Iran’s missile and drone inventory and production facilities (to prevent them from returning fire and, while we are at it, interfere with Iran’s ability to transfer more drones and missiles to Russia).
•  Destroy Iran’s oil facilities and oil energy infrastructure to cripple Iran’s economy.
•  Green-light American allies to destroy Iran’s proxies, specifically, Israel against Gaza and unleash the Saudi’s on Iran’s Houthi proxies, regardless of any civilian casualties their attacks will cause.
•  Destroy Iranian Army bases, both inside Iran and outside of Iran where they are directing their proxy forces against America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Not retaliating harshly against Iran directly will only encourage them to further escalate with new, more aggressive and frequent, acts of war.

Because Blinken and Sullivan are foaming at the mouth, raving lunatics the slow-walking of weapons deliveries to Ukraine is a continuation of their earlier policy of delaying the delivery of refueling tankers that Israel bought from America.

Currently the tankers, which Israel has been trying to acquire before the Russian invasion, have been delayed again until at least the end of 2024 because of irrational fear that Israel will use them facilitate an air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The current request by Biden for $60 billion to (in theory) support Ukraine’s war is (like the deceptive excuses for not giving the IAF new refueling tankers) also less than it seems.

Half of that $60 billion will go to restocking American inventories and there is no guarantee that Biden will deliver more powerful equipment that will let Ukraine win the war, whereby a “win” is defined as, at least, driving Russia back to the January 2022 lines.

This is pointless because of the situation on the Zaporizhzhia front.

The problem for Russia is that they cannot afford to lose any ground on the Tokmak front because every kilometer Ukraine gets closer to Melitopol the closer they get to pushing Russia’s narrow land corridor supply routes into the Sea of Azov. When Ukraine reaches Tokmak (either flanking East or West of the city, if not directly marching through Tokmak) the land corridor is effectively cut because too much of the land between Tokmak and Melitopol will be under the control of Ukrainian tube artillery and drones for a remotely sufficient number of supply trucks and trains to reach and resupply Russian forces in Crimea.

Although Ukraine will eventually achieve this it would be better if they have sufficient weapons rushed to them to finish this mission as soon as possible and finally destroy Russia’s Army before China will have time to invade Taiwan. If Russia’s Army is destroyed by Ukraine BEFORE an assault on Taiwan there will be little risk of Russia being capable of opening a second front in Europe at the same time China is moving.

Politically speaking, the $60 billion request from Biden poses a problem for Republicans because Biden in 2024 will blame Republicans for supposedly obstructing aid to Ukraine when the real problem is that he hasn’t delivered weapons systems despite the fact he has billions in unused Congressional authorization that was already passed by Congress but which has been wasted by the psychopaths, Blinken and Sullivan.

The way Senate Republicans should head off this 2024 campaign tactic (coordinated with the eventual, new, GOP House Speaker) is to legally mandate in the Senate bill that the Biden Administration must release specific weapons systems in a specified time frame that Ukraine has asked for but which have either not been sent, or, have been sent at an exceedingly glacial pace.

The Senate funding bill should LEGALLY MANDATE AND BIND Biden to do as follows –

• One month after passage of the funding bill Biden must transfer all promised refueling tankers and extra bunker buster bombs to Israel.
• One month after passage of the funding bill Biden must export ALL versions of ATACMS in quantities that are at least 15% of America’s total inventory for each variant of ATACMs.
• No later than January 1st, 2024 at least 100 F-16s and/or F-15s must be released to Ukraine, sent from either America’s own stockpiles or from the stockpiles of NATO allies.
• No later than January 1st, 2024 Ukraine must receive at least 300 M1A1s and/or M1A2s from American stockpiles.
• No later than one month after the passage of the funding bill Biden must release at least 500 Bradley IFVs, 500 M113 APCs, and 500 Stryker vehicles to Ukraine from American stockpiles.

While this bill works its way through Congress Senate Republicans should also aggressively attack Biden for not using the billions of existing draw-down authorization Congress has already given him so as to neutralize, ahead of time, any attacks Biden may have been planning for the 2024 campaign.

By pointing out Biden has actually been obstructing the Ukrainian war effort by simply refusing to send, or very slowly sending, Ukraine the weapons they have repeatedly requested Republicans can prevent Biden from going on offense by portraying the GOP as weak on foreign policy.

The GOP should also attack Biden for not supporting the Israelis in their attempt to gain sufficient weapons to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Even assuming that Iran did not use the $6 billion ransom money the Biden Administration paid (nor even the hundreds of millions of Swiss franc notes the Obama Administration airlifted to Iran during the infamous “Swiss franc airlift”) to fund Hamas’ war against Israel, it is almost certain that Iran financed the attack by using some of the over $50 billion in extra oil revenues they received because of the Administration’s relaxing oil sanctions against Iran: Iranian oil sanctions that were, by the way, lowered as the White House has been placing as much regulatory interference as possible to suppress American oil production.

But instead of attacking Biden, Sullivan, and Blinken about their mind boggling addiction to financing Iranian terrorism (or hiring Robert Malley who, according to Tablet magazine, may well be an Iranian agent) we have Matt Gaetz to thank for saving them from defending the indefensible.

It is time for a Republican to primary this idiot.

Christie and DeSantis benefited the most from this week’s debate because they went on the attack. And when I say Christie ‘benefited’ I mean he now has a realistic chance of finishing third in New Hampshire before he crashes to fifth place, or lower, in the subsequent primary states.

But first, the also-rans –

Bergum – He shouldn’t have been allowed into the debate.

Scott – He had more energy than the first debate but it doesn’t matter because everyone will remember the aggressive posture Christie and DeSantis took against Trump.

Ramaswamy – He was too annoying. Again. Bar him from future debates.

Pence – He shouldn’t have been allowed into the debate.

Haley – Whatever momentum she had from the first debate was derailed in the second. This week she was either too unremarkable or she was too shrill, and often shrill for no apparent reason.

Christie – See earlier comments.

DeSantis – He attacked Trump on all of the best lines of attack DeSantis has at his disposal, except that he didn’t press the electability issue as strongly, and overtly, as his other points. Nonetheless, this will solidify his position in second place and will gain him points.

His ambiguity on Ukraine will serve him well if he adheres to it throughout the primary because it avoids wasting considerable energy trying to be against aid to Ukraine without sounding pro-Putin (the mistake Ramaswamy made) and avoids being accused of flip flopping.

His campaign’s attacks on Trump over the vaccine are probably ineffective because the vaccines are not a high priority issue for GOP primary voters (at least recently) relative to other issues.

Whether he can seriously challenge Trump for first place will depend on whether DeSantis continues and carries his debate attacks on Trump consistently and relentlessy into television ads (not social media ads, which still do not have the reach and effectiveness of early primary television ads) on electability, deficit spending, handling of the DC bureaucracy and its agents like Fauci and Comey, abortion, and Trump’s legal issues.

If he doesn’t proceed with an aggressively negative television ad campaign it is unlikely DeSantis will be able to defeat Trump.

Trump has been right not to debate because his opponents (unlike Trump) don’t know how to use attack ads; and so long as they do not use them properly Trump has no reason to show up to any of the debates.

His main opponent, DeSantis, has still not used his best attack against Trump which is the electability issue.

Although he has recently started running positive ads in the early primary states as a way to “introduce” him to the voters, DeSantis already has high name recognition among Republican voters and positive ads, generally do not move polls as decisively as negative ads.

From October 2016 –

The second reason is the high negatives of both candidates. Hillary has pulled slightly ahead because her attacks have raised Trump’s personal negatives, but at the same time, she is also being held back from putting the race away by her own negatives.

When Trump counter attacks, he should not focus on policy but go personal instead. Interestingly, he is preferred by the electorate on a number of issues. But on policy he has maxed out his advantage. The public has already absorbed the policy differences between Trump and Clinton, and there is no further point of reminding the electorate of what they already know.

What they have not thought about are her personal negatives; and it is her personal ratings where the most return on investment for Trump rests.

If Trump attacks Hillary with ads (and he will need to include the scandals in the ad mix, as Republicans usually must do, to get around the media blackout) about her enabling of her husband’s history of sexual assault, Bill Clinton’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein, email and financial scandals, and her role in Benghazi, and any other scandal Trump may have information about, I would expect the polls to once again close between them just as they did during his September offensive which moved him from behind to ahead.

DeSantis has started addressing his second best (Trump not disciplined enough to fire bureaucrats like Comey and Fauci immediately and hiring bureaucrats like Wray and Barr) and his third best (Trump’s adding to the deficit) arguments against Trump in interviews, but not in DeSantis’ campaign television ads, and television ads still get more visibility and reaction among voters than interviews do.

If he had used the electability issue earlier DeSantis would already be within 10 to 15 points of Trump in most of the early state polls.

Part of the reason for this is that the indictments of Trump simply took up all of the attention of voters by making it harder for other GOP candidates to get the spotlight in the primary over Summer when name recognition matters more, and by making early polls more a reflection of their view that they disapprove of the indictments.

But as Fall arrives voter attention would shift from name recognition dynamics to campaign dynamics. As voter attention in Iowa shifts, voters there and other early primary states would become more receptible to Trump’s opponents arguing that although the indictments are political (since Hillary was never charged for election interference despite her surrogates creating falsified FISA warrants, etc) Trump should not be the nominee because the indictments make him unelectable on account of the fact a Trump nomination would be a referendum on his scandals, not his policies.

If DeSantis is going to use the electability issue in attack ads look for him to first promise to pardon Trump (on grounds Hillary did what he is accused of doing, but was never touched by prosecutors) so that DeSantis would satisfy GOP voters who see the indictments as political, before DeSantis moves to persuade them on the electability issue.