On the flagship podcast some weeks ago, Bob Costa explained Donald Trump’s theory of the 2016 election. Among the country’s large body of nonvoters, Trump sees disaffected Americans who are disgusted by both parties. He believes his nationalist, populist message will resonate and bring waves of them to the polls. In fact, he believes he can bring them out in such numbers that he can afford to lose the votes of the limited-government, Tea Party, Reaganite Republicans who heretofore composed the GOP base. Costa’s reporting is corroborated by that of others, and bolstered by Trump’s own public statements. (“There were statements made about me — those people can go away and maybe come back in eight years after we serve two terms…. Honestly, there are some people I really don’t want.” Regarding party unity: “I don’t think it’s necessary; people will be voting for me and not for the party.”)

So is Trump’s strategy correct? Recent opinion polls suggest not. He is behind nationally, in swing states, and even in former GOP bastions. He claimed he would put states like NY in play; instead, he is 30 points behind there. The signs are clear: Trump has lost more Republicans than voters he has brought in. Jettisoning Reagan Republicans in favor of Reagan Democrats would appear to have been a strategic miscalculation.

At the outset of the campaign, many commentators and Ricochet members considered Trump’s strategy eminently plausible. Trump, they claimed, was a different kind of candidate, with a media savvy the others lacked. He could reach new voters by “disrupting the narrative” and bending the media to his will, inducing them to cover the stories he desires. In a sense, he has done just this, though not in the manner his supporters had hoped. His outrageous newsmaking has repeatedly distracted the media from Hillary’s deepening scandals: using racial language to criticize the judge on the Trump University case, starting a spat with parents of a Gold Star recipient, making bad jokes about Russian espionage and armed insurrection, calling for tribute from NATO members before honoring our treaty obligations, insisting that Obama “founded ISIS,” and more. In view of Trump’s daily whining about media treatment, however, it would appear that relying on his ability to generate positive attention for conservative causes — among them Hillary’s corruption — was a fairly large strategic miscalculation.

As Trump’s poll numbers plummet, his steadfast supporters have refused to consider their candidate’s failings — his lack of fundraising, advertising, or state-level organization. Instead, they have found a convenient scapegoat in #NeverTrump. These right-leaning commentators and voters were deliberately and strategically ejected from the Republican party by Trump, but no matter. They were Republicans once, and they don’t support the nominee. In a narrative reminiscent of Germany’s post-WWI “backstabbers,” it is only their treachery that can explain Trump’s looming defeat. (To some degree, Trump’s supporters are following the candidate’s lead; Trump has repeatedly attempted to humiliate rather than co-opt skeptical party members, a probable strategic miscalculation. He now pre-emptively advances the stabbed-in-the-back narrative, claiming the election is going to be “rigged.”)

Last week, Trump’s biggest boosters on Fox News considered who would be responsible for a Trump loss.

[Sean] Hannity said it was time to “name names” during his show before blasting the “stupid games” of the #NeverTrump movement’s advocates: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine; Sen Ben Sasse of Nebraska; conservative commentator Bill Kristol; former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and many others.

The Fox News host then asked [Laura] Ingraham if #NeverTrump was “sabotaging” Mr. Trump’s campaign.

“I would make the argument, I think very persuasively as well, Sean, that if you call yourself a conservative and a Republican it’s actually immoral not to vote for Donald Trump — if only for the reason of the Supreme Court,” Ms. Ingraham said, Mediaite reported.

Regardless of whether Hannity and Ingraham are substantively correct or not, their approach is thoroughly baffling. One would think that if it were essential to beat Hillary on election day, Trump’s supporters would do their utmost to convert Hillary voters to neutrals, and neutrals (like me) to Trump voters. But instead, ostensible #NeverHillary folks — from Hannity & Co. to various Ricochet members and contributors — reserve their worst disdain for the neutrals. Some even sniff that voting for Hillary would be more honorable. Expressing such sentiments may satisfy one’s personal, principled vanity, but they don’t help Trump defeat Hillary. At best, if you hope to garner more votes for Trump than for Hillary, turning your fire on neutrals instead of the Democratic nominee would appear to be a strategic miscalculation.

And furthermore: Consider what happens if Trump does go on to lose. Imagine a young GOP politician, recently elected to Congress. Would you like him or her to believe that #NeverTrump is a marginal group, one that can safely be ignored in favor of Trump’s brand of nationalist populism? Or would you rather persuade the young politician that #NeverTrump is a force so powerful that it can bring down a presidential nominee — a force to be dismissed at a politician’s peril? The latter would seem to be the most ironic strategic miscalculation of all.