Once again, Mr. Marks, I appreciate your analysis but I don't think I agree. How can someone run "a disruption strategy" banking on "mobilizing enough of the 63.7% of eligible voters who had disengaged from politics" while also "assum(ing) that most politically engaged Republican supporters will cast their ballots for him"? You're effectively arguing that insiders will vote for Trump because he's a Republican but outsiders will vote for him because he isn't a Republican.
Um, not really. I'm arguing that Trump was gambling on insiders voting for him because he won the Republican ticket (and, indeed, much of the party did fall into line after the Primaries), and outsiders voting for him because he's not a POLITICIAN. Pretty much all of this was abandoned in a single sentence in the debate, though.
I think you're putting a lot of weight on that statement when, if we consider how he said it, isn't that big of a deal. He acknowledged it but it's not like he was also happy and proud. It was more of a ya shit, I'm a politician now, that happened. Which wouldn't deter any of his voters really because they are well aware they are watching a political debate. I don't think highly of them either but they are at least aware of that. What they believe though is that they arent voting for a typical politician, something I wouldn't say he's messed up yet.
I can't say I agree with this. He's targeting a group of people that have grudgingly supported the Republican party in the past, and who have been totally abandoned by the Democrats: blue collar workers. More generally, I don't really understand why so many people are confused about how Trump continues to maintain support among a certain segment of the population. I think there're two things going on here. First, for the aforementioned blue collar folks, Trump is the only politician in decades who actually acknowledges that there's a problem. He won't say what truly needs to be said, namely that those jobs are never coming back, but he's at least saying something. So I think there are plenty of people would rather roll the dice with him instead of voting for a candidate who definitely won't do anything to make their lives better. The other thing is that we have been lied to so consistently over the past however many years that no one takes a politician's promises or platform especially seriously. We know it's an act, and for some, they'd rather just flip over the table and hope the replacement pieces are better (and worth the damage in the meantime). Finally, I think people frankly have an inflated opinion of Clinton, simply because of how scary Trump is. I'm not going to lie, I understand. Part of me would love to see Trump win and then stomp around the government like a kaiju with ADHD. I'd be more in favor of this if I didn't think he would wreck U.S. foreign policy for decades to come. China and Russia will become much stronger players on the world stage with a Trump presidency. Anyway, I'm getting away from your point (and mine). I think Trump is acting like he's different because he truly believes he's secretly a genius who can fix it all. His whole life has set him up to believe this; he's been almost wholly insulated from any consequences of failure. If every decision appeared to you to work out perfectly, wouldn't you think you were extraordinarily qualified? I question the idea that Trump had that specific a plan. Maybe some of his more experienced campaign staff began to try to formulate one after he began running, but it certainly doesn't seem like he came in with one. He just decided to wing it, and that of course he'd be successful, since when has he not been?His underlying message isn’t targeted at the actively engaged electorate at all.
You must find the American political system very puzzling because this has been the platform of the majority of Republican politicians, at all levels since the Tea Party revolution. It's appeal has become so pervasive that we have people running for school board and mayor on the outsider ticket in liberal Portland. As long as a politician's existing job is one pay grade below the job they are seeking they don't try to bring experience to the table, they bring outsiderness, gonna smash some shit up! Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Farino, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Rand Paul all tried to don the "outsider" mantle this election season. I'm sure a few of the other candidates from the republican primary whom I can no longer recall did as well. Hilary Clinton even took at stab at being an outsider because she is a woman. It is remarkable that Trump won the trust of the faithful and secured the primaries. He's also ran the table playing the outsider game. Other republicans set the table by playing a junior league version of outsider for most the last decade, he sat down to eat by playing it like a pro. He's a remarkable guy, I've often wondered the extent to which his communication is a result of forthought or if he has just found his niche.On a communications level, this presidential election remains one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen. It’s almost indescribable – Donald Trump is running as an anti-establishment candidate in an established political party, with his primary message part of a direct attack on the very political establishment the Republican Party represents.
The bash the elites tactic to seem relatable is definitely more common in America however we now have this woman taking a stab at it to win the party leadership for the Conservatives. The Conservatives also tried it when Trudeau was running saying he was just some rich guy his whole life.