Democrats have taken to calling Trump "Hitler" in the closing days of the campaign. According to the New York Times (see below), some Kamala Harris aides believe it is working, while other believe it could push voters further away.

It is, first of all, a tactic of desperation. Despite the Times' effort to paint the Harris campaign as cautiously optimistic, you don't break out the "Hitler" claim unless you really think you are losing, because it hurts your ability to govern.

How will Harris bring Americans back together after calling her opponent a Nazi, and implying that his supporters are Nazis, too? She can't -- not without significant outreach and compromise, which have never been her strong suits.

It's also such a vile and offensive claim that it will, in fact, alienate some voters. Gone is the "joy" of the early days of the Kamala Harris effort; this is mean, scorched-earth stuff. Trump can be divisive, but "Hitler" goes far, far lower.

But it works for Democrats in one way: it signals to the base that the campaign is still willing to fight -- and not just to win, but to resist a Trump victory. Already, Democrats have hinted they will not let a "dictator" take office.

Accordingly, calling Trump "Hitler" suggests that Democrats will go right back to where they were, 2016-2020: namely, making the country ungovernable if Trump wins. (How can you work with Hitler?) It is a threat, and a credible one.

There is another advantage -- one that would have been impossible without the collusion of the media: namely, that Trump and his allies have to push back against the charge of "Hitler" or "Nazi," thereby keeping it in the news.

The media not only promoted the Democrats' bizarre conspiracy theory linking Madison Square Garden to Nazis, but also took one bad ethnic joke by a comedian there and turned it into "evidence" that Hitler was in the building.

So, in sum, calling Trump "Hitler" is not persuasive, but gives a boost of motivation to the base; gives fearful voters a reason to choose Harris out of simple and understandable fear; and takes back control of the media debate.

If the Harris campaign hopes to repeat Obama's 2012 playbook, and win based on a a sheer "base turnout" strategy, then calling Trump "Hitler" makes sense. But Harris is not Obama, and turning out the party base may not be enough.

Harris has struggled all campaign long to reach out to moderate, independent, and undecided voters. Calling Trump "Hitler" is not exactly the right way to reach them; they have heard everything about Trump. They need to hear more.

They aren't going to hear it from her. But they will hear it from Trump, who has -- rather surprisingly -- built a broad coalition in his closing days. He has also been positive, and disciplined: for once, the big campaign gaffe wasn't his own.

I've often said in this campaign that we now live in a country with two separate media. Each campaign has to talk to its own audience. The "Hitler" debate is largely just Democrats talking to each other, through the Democrat media.

Trump is talking to his own audience -- and a wider audience, through podcasts, conservative news platforms, and rallies in places like Madison Square Garden. They have already tuned out the mainstream media and the "Hitler" absurdity.

Maybe the "Hitler" ploy will pull the polls a little closer. Maybe bad jokes will push a few people toward Harris. But Trump's strategy still feels like the winning one -- at least for this country, at this moment, looking for strong leadership.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election.html