Not sure if you've seen the clips, but Nick Fuentes has publicly "declared war" on the Trump campaign. It seems like he's going to try something similar to what he did to Charlie Kirk and TPUSA a few years back. Basically trolling, complaining, and harassing the campaign. Putting them on the spot and forcing them to answer unflattering questions.
I think it makes sense strategically from his perspective. If Trump wins by a landslide, the left falls apart and Fuentes becomes one of the main opposition leaders left standing. If Trump loses, Fuentes can take credit and the takeaway would be that Trump lost because he couldn't hold on to the most right-wing voters.
I think Nick expects Trump to lose right now and thinks the media will say he lost because he chose Vance and was too far-right, too politically incorrect etc. Nick wants to shift the blame onto his campaign staff and send the message that he lost because he went too establishment and lost the "base" which Fuentes seems to think is himself and his supporters.
Basically, it's a power move.
By attacking Trump instead of supporting him this year, it sends the message that the "far-right" is against his campaign and forces the media to shift the blame somewhere else. Fuentes seems to think this will position him and the right-wing in general better going forward regardless of if Trump wins or loses. If Trump does end up winning, it would shift the Overton window, effectively making Trump the new "center" of American politics.
I took it as he is concerned about the direction the campaign is going….floundering. He said he still supports Trump, but I think his venting is unproductive and childish.
What is his evidence that the campaign is floundering? The polls and the betting markets? We did not spend three-plus years blasting apart every MSM narrative and poll and survey to start believing those polls again. And I believe that betting markets are vulnerable to the same kind of lies and manipulation.
The messaging? There is a documented order of messaging and tone that actually works and it is based on a timeline between now and the election:
In the beginning, when you are trying to get your foot in the door and establish a profile, you appeal to the more hardcore and extremes of your side.
When the primary season is looming about, you appeal to the more dedicated members of your party who are not as extreme as the hard-core members.
Now that primaries are over and the next stop is the general election in November, you now should appeal to the less-dedicated members of your party and the moderates to maximize the number of votes you get. Ideally, you should pull as many non-affiliates and defectors from the Demonic Rats as possible.
This is the general battle plan for political campaigning used for over a century (and is still applicable today, believe it or not). Trump follows this, and I suspect that one the Demonic Rats get through their messy primary, they will try to pull themselves together to grab the moderates and non-affiliates too. Fuentes and his followers wants to instead appeal to the hard-core and extremes; this demonstrates a lack of understanding and knowledge of how political campaigning works and if we follow their plan, we will definitely lose.
The campaign managers' past as Never-Trumpers? I am pretty sure that there are plenty of dedicated MAGA-men whose past is not that great nor good (speaking for myself, I am not that into Trump even as I voted for him in 2016 (mostly did it for denying Clinton, fully jumped on board the Trump train late in 2017), but we are wise enough to know that people can change and grow as they age and mature.
Maybe take their past into account when choosing your staff, but realize that people can change and grow and be better overtime and we should also take that into account.
Conversely, realize that today's loyalists can be tomorrow's deadly enemies, and people can grow in the opposite direction and be worse.
I am pretty sure Trump and his competent team knew about the managers' past, and took that into account when hiring them and their talents.
This is the final battle, and we must treat it with the upmost seriousness it requires, which means using what works, instead of slavish-adherence to creed at a cause of competence. That is: pragmatism over dogmatism.