What is Donald Trump's appeal as a candidate exactly?

[dudeabides]

Stupid people like stupid candidates.
Bigots like bigoted candidates.
People who hate America like candidates who hate America.
Socialists love socialists.
Angry people like angry candidates.
People who are soft on defense like candidates who are soft on defense.

[dudeabides]

Racism.

No its not that and yes I have thought about if Race is an issue but it doesn't seem like it is with Trump's candidacy.

In the world you live in, the KKK is just a social group. Geez, wake up.

[dudeabides]

Angry people like angry candidates.

And a majority of the Republican electorate is angry.

I think you are on to something. Look, these are difficult times for most Americans. This is a stagnant economy, the President has implemented failed policies, he's appeased our enemies, and he's lawless. In my mind, we Republicans have a choice. We can either identify the problems and find solutions, or we can yell and scream. I like the first option, but apparently others disagree.

I noticed that Donald Trump's supporters were twice as high among non-college graduates than college graduates. Its right wing populism. Its blaming others for economic problems (immigrants, China, trade, outsourcing, etc.) that these supporters may be facing. Its saying whatever the hell you want without giving a sh**t. Its about attitude, not politics. That's what the appeal is, and its pretty clear it is working among 1/4 of the GOP electorate. Its stupid, but so are they.

As I have said before, Trump's supporters are old white men who are angry because brown people moved into their neighborhoods and displaced workers who hate immigrants and blame globalization for their unemployment or low wages despite that not being responsible fully. Now, someone made the argument some of his supporters are young, okay, that's just folks who only know him from television, these aren't high information voters. I completely agree with you that it's about attitude, but I will also say that a majority in both parties want a presidential President.

Stupid people like stupid candidates.
Bigots like bigoted candidates.
People who hate America like candidates who hate America.
Socialists love socialists.
Angry people like angry candidates.
People who are soft on defense like candidates who are soft on defense.

Apparently "soft on defense" means not sending Americans to die in wars that have nothing to do with our national security.

What I am specifically referring to is Donald Trump's opposition to the mission in Iraq. But, I actually think policing the world is also soft on defense. In my opinion, there have to be some overseas bases and on occasion, as a last resort, the U.S. has to go to war. We should always be a leader in the world, but we shouldn't police the world. If we retreat from the world, we are allowing evil forces to take over and when we police the world, we stretch ourselves too thin. It's a balancing act. Mr. Trump opposed the mission in Iraq, yet he also has said he's "the most militaristic person."

The Atlas bubble that thought "JOHN KASICH WON THE DEBATE!!!!" is not going to understand Trump's appeal to the average American.

Trump doesn't appeal to most Americans, that is why right now Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are the only two candidates defeating Hillary Clinton in general election matchups. Trump makes them both look even more presidential than they already were. Some say Trump is hurting the GOP in a general election, I'm not so sure about that. His stupidity makes Governor Bush and Senator Rubio, two smart individuals, look even more intelligent than they already are.  

[dudeabides]

I noticed that Donald Trump's supporters were twice as high among non-college graduates than college graduates. Its right wing populism. Its blaming others for economic problems (immigrants, China, trade, outsourcing, etc.) that these supporters may be facing. Its saying whatever the hell you want without giving a sh**t. Its about attitude, not politics. That's what the appeal is, and its pretty clear it is working among 1/4 of the GOP electorate. Its stupid, but so are they.

There were a number of good answers here.  This one probably explains his popularity the best.

What Trump's supporters ARE angry about is the cutting off of the discussion of THEIR issues.  We'll talk about immigration, but only so much, because we want a bigger share of Hispanics to vote for us.  We'll talk about jobs, but the free-trade agreements that shipped manufacturing jobs overseas are off-limits because they're GOOD for us.  The other Republicans live in denial of the shrinking of the middle class, and only mention it to bash Obama.  

Trump brings up the discussion.  Trump calls out folks and says they're to blame, and he doesn't stop at Obama.  Trump doesn't give a crap about niceties, and folks like that because niceties generally mean that they're being soft-pedaled and lied to.  Trump doesn't treat people like they're stupid, and they're NOT stupid.  (Would you vote for a person whose minions regarded you as a "low information voter"?)   More importantly, Trump doesn't insult their intelligence by turning the campaign into a "Conservative Contest"; he's injected new issues into the campaign, and they are many of the issues of the old Perot constituency.

Trump's the only candidate who's told folks that they're not wrong in what they've come to think, and the only candidate who, in the eyes of voters, has actually succeeded in business (as opposed to being propped up by his Dad).  And, yes, there is no amount of rhetorical backspin that will convince even Trump's enemies (or, at least, the ones with some objectivity left) that Jeb Bush was more successful in business than Trump is. He's DONE BIG THINGS, he's not some kind of Marco Rubio Manager Trainee-type, and he's not a career politician who's done nothing but be a legislator.  

I have brought this up multiple times and I don't recall you ever responding, if I'm wrong I apologize. Jobs related to exports pay an average of 15% more than jobs in other sectors. There are 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in America today. That being said, there are plenty of foreign companies who have plants in the U.S. just as plenty of U.S. companies have plants in foreign countries. The folks in Lafayette, Indiana are happy for globalization because last year, 200 people were hired to work in the Subaru plant there, more will be hired this year, and the 200 hired last year were an addition to the plant, it's been there for years now. So with jobs related to trade paying more and with globalization and free trade creating jobs over the last few decades even during tough economic times in most other sectors, how can you argue that free trade and globalization are a bad thing for the American worker?

Secondly, immigration. It would cost us $12,500 PER PERSON to deport the 11-20 million people here illegally. The cost would be around $140 billion as a minimum. Mr. Trump argues that immigrants hold wages down, that isn't true - in fact legal immigrants actually help increase wages and are twice as likely to start small businesses as natives. We have to follow the rule of law, but we also have to recognize that we are more than $18 trillion in debt. How can you justify spending billions more and having a giant logistical nightmare to deport folks when we could give them a pathway to legal status and create more tax paying citizens?

[dudeabides]

I noticed that Donald Trump's supporters were twice as high among non-college graduates than college graduates. Its right wing populism. Its blaming others for economic problems (immigrants, China, trade, outsourcing, etc.) that these supporters may be facing. Its saying whatever the hell you want without giving a sh**t. Its about attitude, not politics. That's what the appeal is, and its pretty clear it is working among 1/4 of the GOP electorate. Its stupid, but so are they.

There were a number of good answers here.  This one probably explains his popularity the best.

What Trump's supporters ARE angry about is the cutting off of the discussion of THEIR issues.  We'll talk about immigration, but only so much, because we want a bigger share of Hispanics to vote for us.  We'll talk about jobs, but the free-trade agreements that shipped manufacturing jobs overseas are off-limits because they're GOOD for us.  The other Republicans live in denial of the shrinking of the middle class, and only mention it to bash Obama.  

Trump brings up the discussion.  Trump calls out folks and says they're to blame, and he doesn't stop at Obama.  Trump doesn't give a crap about niceties, and folks like that because niceties generally mean that they're being soft-pedaled and lied to.  Trump doesn't treat people like they're stupid, and they're NOT stupid.  (Would you vote for a person whose minions regarded you as a "low information voter"?)   More importantly, Trump doesn't insult their intelligence by turning the campaign into a "Conservative Contest"; he's injected new issues into the campaign, and they are many of the issues of the old Perot constituency.

Trump's the only candidate who's told folks that they're not wrong in what they've come to think, and the only candidate who, in the eyes of voters, has actually succeeded in business (as opposed to being propped up by his Dad).  And, yes, there is no amount of rhetorical backspin that will convince even Trump's enemies (or, at least, the ones with some objectivity left) that Jeb Bush was more successful in business than Trump is. He's DONE BIG THINGS, he's not some kind of Marco Rubio Manager Trainee-type, and he's not a career politician who's done nothing but be a legislator.  

I have brought this up multiple times and I don't recall you ever responding, if I'm wrong I apologize. Jobs related to exports pay an average of 15% more than jobs in other sectors. There are 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in America today. That being said, there are plenty of foreign companies who have plants in the U.S. just as plenty of U.S. companies have plants in foreign countries. The folks in Lafayette, Indiana are happy for globalization because last year, 200 people were hired to work in the Subaru plant there, more will be hired this year, and the 200 hired last year were an addition to the plant, it's been there for years now. So with jobs related to trade paying more and with globalization and free trade creating jobs over the last few decades even during tough economic times in most other sectors, how can you argue that free trade and globalization are a bad thing for the American worker?

Secondly, immigration. It would cost us $12,500 PER PERSON to deport the 11-20 million people here illegally. The cost would be around $140 billion as a minimum. Mr. Trump argues that immigrants hold wages down, that isn't true - in fact legal immigrants actually help increase wages and are twice as likely to start small businesses as natives. We have to follow the rule of law, but we also have to recognize that we are more than $18 trillion in debt. How can you justify spending billions more and having a giant logistical nightmare to deport folks when we could give them a pathway to legal status and create more tax paying citizens?

Of course foreign companies have plants in the US; they're required to.  There are nowhere near as many foreign company-created jobs in America as there are American company-created jobs in other countries. 

The "jobs related to exports that pay 15% more" aren't filled by the folks whose jobs went bye-bye due to "globalization".  Other folks may fill those jobs, but those jobs don't help those devastated by globalization, and they don't help the communities where those jobs were that were devastated by globalization.  And some of that 15% more has to do with the fact that many jobs created by imports are in some of the more expensive locales (NYC, Miami, Los Angeles, other major cities) whereas many of the jobs that disappeared from Middle America due to globalization are in places where the cost of living is less.

Even if it's a "wash", there are folks who have been devastated by the loss of their jobs due to globalization.  These folks had the absolute gall to, OMG, buy a home in a smaller town or city where the plant was located, and throw down roots; they played by the rules, worked hard, and one day found their job shipped to China or wherever.  Of course, these folks could always move (if they could sell their house), go back to school at age 50, and apply for new jobs with companies whose HR offices would never on their worst day practice age discrimination, so perhaps these low information mindless Trumpkins are just complaining about not playing the Capitalism game well enough, and it's just too bad for them.  These low information folks can't see the big capitalistic picture; all they can see is THEIR job gone, THEIR needs barely met, THEIR prospects diminished.  They support Trump because what Trump is saying to them is true, based on their experience, and they're tired of their experiences just blown off in the name of globalism and "competitiveness".

As for the deporting of illegal aliens:  Why don't we call off the War on Drugs that has been wholeheartedly sponsored by all of the Bushies?  That's expensive, and no more effective in stopping drugs.  The reason is that, at a certain point, we have an interest in enforcing our laws to show people that laws should be obeyed.  From an economic point of view, there is a certain logic to granting amnesty to all non-criminal illegal aliens now, and grant them a pathway to at least Permanent Residency.  On the other hand, what sort of message would that send to those who intend to come to America by hook or crook and can't do so legally?  A certain amount of our immigration policy has to be based on deterrence, and our current policy, in reality, provides very little of that.  I don't endorse Trump's entire immigration plan as he's spelled it out, but I certainly agree with the idea of more vigorous enforcement.  And I certainly agree with enforcing sanctions on public officials who create "Sanctuary Cities" that obstruct our current laws.

To your point about jobs in exports, I agree. We have a skills gap today. I support the idea that states should, through their community colleges, fund some job training programs. But, the reality is, if you reverse free trade agreements or make trade less common, folks in multiple sectors would be negatively impacted.

Middle America has made a comeback thanks to the energy revolution and tax policies that are more favorable to business than in the northeast or out west. Other than Illinois, the mid-western states have made a comeback - not that I take too much stock in unemployment numbers at face value, but midwestern states have lower unemployment than let's say California, Nevada, my home state of New Jersey, or even places like South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana.

I'm glad I brought this up because you and I actually do have some common ground here. I think it is devastating that there are folks over 50 who are forced to go back to school etc. But let's be clear here, there are multiple factors as to why. One is computers, another is that we have been anti-competitive with our tax and regulatory environment. Skyrocketing health care costs also have a role to play. It's not free trade that costs us jobs, it's our economic policies generally in addition to changing industries.

As far as the War on Drugs, I think marijuana ought to be decriminalized and even legalized in cases of medical necessity but harder drugs can cost lives. Most illegal immigrants aren't murdering people. I think we need to balance our desire and need to enforce laws with the fiscal reality of our time. Additionally, it is logistically almost impossible to find 11-20 million people and send them somewhere. There are also humanitarian factors to be considered and in some cases, economic factors - we need a temporary worker program because there are jobs poor people from Columbia and other places will take that poor Americans won't. You and I are on the same page on sanctuary cities.