After 16, no one thinks holding up a mirror to Trump - or engaging him tit for tat- is a winning strategy. However, sticking to a plan of ignoring Trump is a lot harder in a one-on-one matchup than for House challengers running individualized races.
The challenge is, it is extremely difficult to be more newsworthy than Trump - with his provocative-by-design utterances- on any given day. This makes it difficult for even laserlike focus on strictly policy-focused messages - like preexisting conditions- to "win the day"
No cable news producer will devote their "A block" to a report on Trump attacking Judge Curiel for being Mexican-American and then pivot to a straightforward package about the Democratic nominee's plan to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Because the "A block" segment in this scenario was rightfully hard-hitting on Trump for making racist comments about a judge, any producer feels compelled to then have an equally hard-hitting segment on the Dem nominee even if they didnt do anything remotely as controversial
This is how contrived - or overblown - controversies are born. In time, the Dem realizes that rollouts on expanded EITC won't cut it, and will leave the network correspondent traveling with them forced to come up with some new hook to talk about, say, emails, or DNA tests, again
But - aha! - guess how the Dem nominee in this scenario can reassert control over their news destiny. It turns out the rollout of an expanded EITC does not get anyone on the assignment desk's attention, but firing back at Trump at does.
This creates a sugar high of satisfaction - a false sensation of being on offense for once, rather than being on defense about some contrived controversy. But the joke is on you, because in reverting to an exchange of salvos, you are playing Trump's game.
You can give a thoughtful speech documenting Trump's many examples of acting racist. But at his evening rally, he will - with no supporting evidence - simply call you a racist back. And the next day's stories will read "Candidates trade barbs".
Especially with Trump as the sitting President, and much of the media taking view that "if the President says it, it must be taken as news," it will not be easy to avoid being sucked into Trump's vortex - no matter what a candidate promises themselves at the start of the race.
This is why I tend to think that the theory that "all Democrats need to do is nominate a bland, inoffensive guy and let Trump beat himself" is wrong. An uninteresting character is most susceptible to being sucked into the vortex because they cannot command attention on their own.
A nominee best situated to be able to ignore Trump is one who commands a media ecosystem apart from Trump. Whose life story is inherently fascinating enough to draw endless human-interest stories. Whose social media videos in the car or carving flank steak are deemed interesting.
This type of person can talk about economic inequality or universal health care and have it actually break through because the messenger is authentic and intriguing enough from a storytelling standpoint to exert their own gravitational pull on the media cycle - away from Trump.
In conclusion, Dem primary voters shouldn't make some pundit-driven judgment about "who can best beat Trump." They should follow their heart & vote for someone who inspires. Because the same quality that inspires caucus-goers will enable them to transcend Trump attacks in the general.
