The obvious case for "disruption as winning strategy" is the Brexit, in which the Leave campaign was effectively arguing for a bygone age before Thatcher closed the coal mines and held it up as a possibility for the future. Trump doesn't really have that angle available to him - it's clear that by pounding on NAFTA he hopes to remind Rust Belt voters that globalization stole their livelihood and the Clintons are the poster couple of globalization. But he fucked even that up - the man literally slagged on Newark airport by comparing it unfavorably to Qatar.

You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible — you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land — we’ve become a third world country.

Your comparison to Ontario politics is facile. Ontario has about the same population as Illinois, and it's been less than 24 hours since the debate - do you really believe Clinton or any of her surrogates are going to let "I don't pay taxes because I'm smart" slide? Meanwhile, you're saying that McQuinty won by going positive while his opponents went negative... as an example of why Trump won the debate. The guy who keeps saying America is "so sad" while his opposition are saying the country is "already great."

It's not provocative or insightful to call Trump a protest candidate. It is provocative to assert that somehow Trump is bringing out the vote when Republicans are demonstrably staying home in droves.

What it comes down to is this: you want Trump's outsider status alone to be enough to win him the election, but you've made no arguments for your case. I appreciate your attempts, but I don't find your assertions compelling.