Thread by @ThePlumLineGS

It is very likely that many of Trump's own advisers don't believe his racist attacks are good politics for him.

*BRIEF THREAD*

Here is Brad Parscale, putting the best face on this he can, privately claiming (it seems) that this will energize the base:

nytimes.com/2019/07/16/us/…

Here are a few contrary facts.

1) Remember just before Election Day 2018, when Parscale rolled out that ad featuring a suburban mom, worrying about her violin-playing daughter?

This was needed, because Trump's hate-campaign against migrants was failing:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

2) In the runup to 2018, Trump advisers made a boast very similar to the one we're hearing now from Trump.

Here are Bannon and Stephen Miller, claiming Democratic condemnation of Trump's racism and hate-policies would keep the House in GOP hands in 2018:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

3) Whether it's Bannon and Miller then, or Trump now, the basic argument is the same:

A silent majority agrees with Trump on immigration, and is repelled by the Democratic Party, because it is captive to a race-obsessed fringe:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

4) In 2018, Dems won the House in part because huge numbers of moderate whites deserted Trump.

What do Trump's racist attacks do to win back these voters?

Even if they rev up the base, do his advisers really believe this will be enough?

I'm skeptical:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

5) I think Trump has a reasonable shot at being reelected. He has the advantages of incumbency and the good economy.

But even if he does, it's all but certain these racist attacks won't be why.

Let's recall recent history, and treat this whole line a lot more skeptically. FIN

CODA: Trump hopes his racist attacks will drive turnout among noncollege whites in Rust Belt, which might mean EC win, maybe amid an even bigger popular vote loss.

That shows a dim view of his voters.

But even some Rs question this, per @RonBrownstein:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…