Trump's genius.

[Beet]

Donald Trump has gotten to where he is today, because he knows how to take positions that seem very strange and bizarre, but appeal to people outside the 'establishment' consensus. In an anti-establishment year, this is a very powerful tool. IMO- some of this controversial positions that are purportedly about one thing are actually (partially) about something else.

Immigration - Purportedly about keeping out Mexicans, but really this position is popular because after the 2012 elections, the media successfully convinced Republicans that Obama won on the backs of minorities, even though they backtracked on that later, and that minority = Democrat. Thus, it became drilled into the Republican mind that in order to win future elections, they had to control immigration at all costs. This leads to a future where political differences become totally subsumed by identity, rather than policy or ideology, which is probably not ideal, but a narrative the media helped shape even before Trump came on the scene.

Muslim ban - Purportedly about security and keeping out sharia law, this position is really in part about political correctness. About 40% of Americans support the ban, but a larger number don't like the idea that it's considered sacrosanct against discussing - they feel that in recent years, expressing the wrong thing in public means inviting a tremendous backlash. It's not just right-wingers - Jennifer Lopez, who has endorsed Hillary, received backlash for having #AllLivesMatter on her Instagram, just to name one small recent example. Many people see this sort of thing as threatening to their substantive free speech. Some people admire Trump for standing up to that, whether they agree with him or not.

Trade - Trump is running to the left here, he's getting to the left of Hillary and the Democrats. This expands his coalition. Obama's pushing TPP, and Clinton was his SoS when negotiating it, and so the optics are a disaster, even though Democrats in Congress are overwhelmingly against it.

Russia - It seems bizarre, but most Americans don't see Russia as a threat. Saying he won't defend Estonia is a perfect example of something that is unpopular with the establishment, where NATO is sacrosanct, but popular with ordinary people. No one cares about Estonia, but they do care a great deal that troops are not sent over to fight a war where they could be killed. Again, this is something that appeals to moderates, because it's liberal logic (don't fight costly wars, etc.)

Basically, the reason Trump is not 20 points down despite his personal unsuitability for the presidency is that, as someone who has been both a Republican and a Democrat, he sees the weak spots and can tap into the thinking of both parties. He knows how to appeal to both sides, even running as a Republican. In that sense, he is a sort of third way triangulator, in the vein of Tony Blair in 1997.

[136or142]

Donald Trump has gotten to where he is today, because he knows how to take positions that seem very strange and bizarre, but appeal to people outside the 'establishment' consensus. In an anti-establishment year, this is a very powerful tool. IMO- some of this controversial positions that are purportedly about one thing are actually (partially) about something else.

Immigration - Purportedly about keeping out Mexicans, but really this position is popular because after the 2012 elections, the media successfully convinced Republicans that Obama won on the backs of minorities, even though they backtracked on that later, and that minority = Democrat. Thus, it became drilled into the Republican mind that in order to win future elections, they had to control immigration at all costs. This leads to a future where political differences become totally subsumed by identity, rather than policy or ideology, which is probably not ideal, but a narrative the media helped shape even before Trump came on the scene.

Muslim ban - Purportedly about security and keeping out sharia law, this position is really in part about political correctness. About 40% of Americans support the ban, but a larger number don't like the idea that it's considered sacrosanct against discussing - they feel that in recent years, expressing the wrong thing in public means inviting a tremendous backlash. It's not just right-wingers - Jennifer Lopez, who has endorsed Hillary, received backlash for having #AllLivesMatter on her Instagram, just to name one small recent example. Many people see this sort of thing as threatening to their substantive free speech. Some people admire Trump for standing up to that, whether they agree with him or not.

Trade - Trump is running to the left here, he's getting to the left of Hillary and the Democrats. This expands his coalition. Obama's pushing TPP, and Clinton was his SoS when negotiating it, and so the optics are a disaster, even though Democrats in Congress are overwhelmingly against it.

Russia - It seems bizarre, but most Americans don't see Russia as a threat. Saying he won't defend Estonia is a perfect example of something that is unpopular with the establishment, where NATO is sacrosanct, but popular with ordinary people. No one cares about Estonia, but they do care a great deal that troops are not sent over to fight a war where they could be killed. Again, this is something that appeals to moderates, because it's liberal logic (don't fight costly wars, etc.)

Basically, the reason Trump is not 20 points down despite his personal unsuitability for the presidency is that, as someone who has been both a Republican and a Democrat, he sees the weak spots and can tap into the thinking of both parties. He knows how to appeal to both sides, even running as a Republican. In that sense, he is a sort of third way triangulator, in the vein of Tony Blair in 1997.

1.Muslim ban:  Can we please stop using the meaningless term 'political correctness.'
You're politically correct if you say 'happy holidays'  instead of 'merry Christmas'
You're also politically correct if you don't say 'Muslim extremist'

So, politically correct is somehow both about freedom of speech AND the 'incorrect' use of free speech. Given that inconsistency, it is now a meaningless term.

And, as I just pointed out, right wingers are just as quick as left wingers to try and shut down debate.  Their use of the term 'politically correct' is actually one of their methods.

2.Trade.  Trump has both gains and losses over this.  He'll might gain some anti-'free trade' voters who normally vote Democratic (if they end up believing they can trust him) but he'll lose normally Republican voters in the professional, managerial and executive class.

3.Russia.  I mostly subscribe to the notion that 'all politics is local.' While most people, as you write, may agree with Trump on this (I'm actually not convinced of that) I think most people won't vote on this and, those that will are scattered all over the country.

In contrast, Trump risks losing a lot of voters of Eastern European heritage over this, and, most importantly from a political perspective, those voters are heavily concentrated in important Mid-Western battle ground states like Iowa and especially Ohio as well as Pennsylvania.

I think Trump stating this may just have cost him any chance he had of winning Pennsylvania and it could be his final nail in the coffin on winning Ohio after childishly name-calling their popular governor, John Kasich.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Russia - It seems bizarre, but most Americans don't see Russia as a threat. Saying he won't defend Estonia is a perfect example of something that is unpopular with the establishment, where NATO is sacrosanct, but popular with ordinary people. No one cares about Estonia, but they do care a great deal that troops are not sent over to fight a war where they could be killed. Again, this is something that appeals to moderates, because it's liberal logic (don't fight costly wars, etc.)

I had a spat with a far-left individual who bought Russia's patently absurd and easily disprovable narrative on the Euromaidan in Ukraine.  That the violence that erupted was a false flag perpetrated by NATO allies to instigate revolution and bring a fascist, NATO-friendly dictatorship into power.  If the left is willing to believe Russian state propaganda and turn their back on defending Europe, the anti-NATO case is easy meat for someone like Trump.

[136or142]

Russia - It seems bizarre, but most Americans don't see Russia as a threat. Saying he won't defend Estonia is a perfect example of something that is unpopular with the establishment, where NATO is sacrosanct, but popular with ordinary people. No one cares about Estonia, but they do care a great deal that troops are not sent over to fight a war where they could be killed. Again, this is something that appeals to moderates, because it's liberal logic (don't fight costly wars, etc.)

I had a spat with a far-left individual who bought Russia's patently absurd and easily disprovable narrative on the Euromaidan in Ukraine.  That the violence that erupted was a false flag perpetrated by NATO allies to instigate revolution and bring a fascist, NATO-friendly dictatorship into power.  If the left is willing to believe Russian state propaganda and turn their back on defending Europe, the anti-NATO case is easy meat for someone like Trump.

You claim 'if the left...' on the basis of speaking to one far-left person?  I suggest you take a remedial course in statistics immediately.

There also seem to be a lot of people on the right who seem to admire Putin because he 'talks tough' for whatever that's worth, including Rapist Trump himself.

There is also the fairly prominent Russian History and Russian Studies Professor Stephen F. Cohen who seems to be on the left and is a blatant lying apologist for Putin.  I don't know what the deal is with him but I think he mostly just speaks for himself.

[fldemfunds]

Trump thinks he's being politically incorrect, but he's just incorrect.

[PeteB]

While there is no doubt that Trump tapped into legitimate issues such as illegal immigration and less legitimate, but very scary for some, issues such as free trade, calling him a genius is an exaggeration of the highest order. 

If Trump was truly a genius or even a person of average intelligence, he would have prepared for an opportunity that even he did not expect to have, and he would be leading Hillary by double digits now.  Instead he is a poster boy for ego, greed and every lowest common denominator in society. 

Populism can be inviting, for the down and out, but most people will run like h..l from Trump's "make-it-on-the-fly" management style, poorly thought-out plans, and utter lack of any non-materialistic and self-serving principles.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

While there is no doubt that Trump tapped into legitimate issues such as illegal immigration and less legitimate, but very scary for some, issues such as free trade, calling him a genius is an exaggeration of the highest order. 

If Trump was truly a genius or even a person of average intelligence, he would have prepared for an opportunity that even he did not expect to have, and he would be leading Hillary by double digits now.  Instead he is a poster boy for ego, greed and every lowest common denominator in society. 

Populism can be inviting, for the down and out, but most people will run like h..l from Trump's "make-it-on-the-fly" management style, poorly thought-out plans, and utter lack of any non-materialistic and self-serving principles.

[Devout Centrist]

Trump's played the populist position very well and won on the basis of a plurality of primary voters. The only reason he has a hope of winning is due to the inexplicable lunacy of the GOP's politicos rallying around him and denouncing Hillary more thoroughly than Satan.

When I was a kid, there was this fellow who went by the name William Jennings Bryan. Trump reminds me of him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Donald Trump has gotten to where he is today, because he knows how to take positions that seem very strange and bizarre, but appeal to people outside the 'establishment' consensus. In an anti-establishment year, this is a very powerful tool. IMO- some of this controversial positions that are purportedly about one thing are actually (partially) about something else.

Immigration - Purportedly about keeping out Mexicans, but really this position is popular because after the 2012 elections, the media successfully convinced Republicans that Obama won on the backs of minorities, even though they backtracked on that later, and that minority = Democrat. Thus, it became drilled into the Republican mind that in order to win future elections, they had to control immigration at all costs. This leads to a future where political differences become totally subsumed by identity, rather than policy or ideology, which is probably not ideal, but a narrative the media helped shape even before Trump came on the scene.

Muslim ban - Purportedly about security and keeping out sharia law, this position is really in part about political correctness. About 40% of Americans support the ban, but a larger number don't like the idea that it's considered sacrosanct against discussing - they feel that in recent years, expressing the wrong thing in public means inviting a tremendous backlash. It's not just right-wingers - Jennifer Lopez, who has endorsed Hillary, received backlash for having #AllLivesMatter on her Instagram, just to name one small recent example. Many people see this sort of thing as threatening to their substantive free speech. Some people admire Trump for standing up to that, whether they agree with him or not.

Trade - Trump is running to the left here, he's getting to the left of Hillary and the Democrats. This expands his coalition. Obama's pushing TPP, and Clinton was his SoS when negotiating it, and so the optics are a disaster, even though Democrats in Congress are overwhelmingly against it.

Russia - It seems bizarre, but most Americans don't see Russia as a threat. Saying he won't defend Estonia is a perfect example of something that is unpopular with the establishment, where NATO is sacrosanct, but popular with ordinary people. No one cares about Estonia, but they do care a great deal that troops are not sent over to fight a war where they could be killed. Again, this is something that appeals to moderates, because it's liberal logic (don't fight costly wars, etc.)

Basically, the reason Trump is not 20 points down despite his personal unsuitability for the presidency is that, as someone who has been both a Republican and a Democrat, he sees the weak spots and can tap into the thinking of both parties. He knows how to appeal to both sides, even running as a Republican. In that sense, he is a sort of third way triangulator, in the vein of Tony Blair in 1997.

I find it amazing that folks that don't support Trump can't at least concede that Trump knows SOMETHING about politics that the rest of Atlas, and the rest of the Established Political World, didn't know until he pointed it out to them by way of winning the GOP Presidential nomination.  Trump's "winning" theme is an attempt to sell folks on the idea that he's sharper than others.  And it's working.  Indeed, Trump understands "Nothing succeeds like success!" like no other candidate I've ever seen.

[Hermit For Peace]

I find it amazing that folks that don't support Trump can't at least concede that Trump knows SOMETHING about politics that the rest of Atlas, and the rest of the Established Political World, didn't know until he pointed it out to them by way of winning the GOP Presidential nomination.  Trump's "winning" theme is an attempt to sell folks on the idea that he's sharper than others.  And it's working.  Indeed, Trump understands "Nothing succeeds like success!" like no other candidate I've ever seen.

OK he knows something about politics, but not nearly enough of what he needs to know if he wants to be President. Making his VP -- who does have the political knowledge -- the effective President because of Trump's overall political ignorance is certainly not OK in my book.

I'll give Trump his business "genius" and that's where he should stay, IMO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I find it amazing that folks that don't support Trump can't at least concede that Trump knows SOMETHING about politics that the rest of Atlas, and the rest of the Established Political World, didn't know until he pointed it out to them by way of winning the GOP Presidential nomination.  Trump's "winning" theme is an attempt to sell folks on the idea that he's sharper than others.  And it's working.  Indeed, Trump understands "Nothing succeeds like success!" like no other candidate I've ever seen.

OK he knows something about politics, but not nearly enough of what he needs to know if he wants to be President. Making his VP -- who does have the political knowledge -- the effective President because of Trump's overall political ignorance is certainly not OK in my book.

I'll give Trump his business "genius" and that's where he should stay, IMO.

The "something" Trump knows about politics was enough to get him to the GOP nomination, over 17 rivals, few of them slouches.  The "something" Trump knows made him a start-to-finish frontrunner in the primaries, in the face of the opposition of the entire GOP Establishment and most "Movement Conservatives".  I believe that "something" is an ability to determine the pulse of America in ways that other politicians can't even begin to approach. 

How else do you explain his rise?  Tom Tancredo was an anti-immigrant candidate; he got nowhere.  Pat Buchanan took many of Trump's stances, but he made little headway in 1996.  Ross Perot ran as an independent, but does anyone think Perot, if he tried to, could have won the Republican nomination, even in an open race with no incumbent running?

I've come to believe that the Trump Deniers will be with us through the last day of his second term of office.  So be it. 

[Hermit For Peace]

I find it amazing that folks that don't support Trump can't at least concede that Trump knows SOMETHING about politics that the rest of Atlas, and the rest of the Established Political World, didn't know until he pointed it out to them by way of winning the GOP Presidential nomination.  Trump's "winning" theme is an attempt to sell folks on the idea that he's sharper than others.  And it's working.  Indeed, Trump understands "Nothing succeeds like success!" like no other candidate I've ever seen.

OK he knows something about politics, but not nearly enough of what he needs to know if he wants to be President. Making his VP -- who does have the political knowledge -- the effective President because of Trump's overall political ignorance is certainly not OK in my book.

I'll give Trump his business "genius" and that's where he should stay, IMO.

The "something" Trump knows about politics was enough to get him to the GOP nomination, over 17 rivals, few of them slouches.  The "something" Trump knows made him a start-to-finish frontrunner in the primaries, in the face of the opposition of the entire GOP Establishment and most "Movement Conservatives".  I believe that "something" is an ability to determine the pulse of America in ways that other politicians can't even begin to approach. 

How else do you explain his rise?  Tom Tancredo was an anti-immigrant candidate; he got nowhere.  Pat Buchanan took many of Trump's stances, but he made little headway in 1996.  Ross Perot ran as an independent, but does anyone think Perot, if he tried to, could have won the Republican nomination, even in an open race with no incumbent running?

I've come to believe that the Trump Deniers will be with us through the last day of his second term of office.  So be it. 

Trump is part of a dying breed of human being. He has been tapping into that fear and discontent of those who do not like to see our country change into a bigger melting pot than it already is. His political secrets were for those types: build a wall between here and Mexico, ban Muslims from entering the country, and saying all those countless other insulting things he's said over the past year about everyone but white America. After 8 years of Obama, those types are fed up with diversity and white is sounding pretty good right now. That's what it looks like to me.

The reason he won is because all the other candidates were simply mediocre. None of them stood out, and that's why there were so many of them. They were easy to beat, in my view.

More Republican voters dislike Trump than any other Republican candidate in history. That's not singing his praises very much.

Consider me a major Trump denier. Him winning the WH is a joke, let alone a second term.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Most who whine about "political correctness" are pretty much complaining that they can't be a**holes without consequence.

[Hermit For Peace]

Most who whine about "political correctness" are pretty much complaining that they can't be a**holes without consequence.

This.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Basically, the reason Trump is not 20 points down despite his personal unsuitability for the presidency is that he is running against an equally historically unpopular candidate

Fixed.

Against a generic Dem he would be losing in a landslide right now. "Genius" my arse.

[Beet]

Most who whine about "political correctness" are pretty much complaining that they can't be a**holes without consequence.

Yeah, but people like the right to behave like an asshole sometimes. Like, one of the reasons I don't like open carry, is, I like feeling like I can flick someone off without worry about them pointing a gun at me.

I don't condone racist, or sexist sentiments, but I think it's gotten to the point where many citizens feel like well intentioned and good faith disagreement gets shut down as morally outrageous. And then it drives them into the arms of people like Trump, who is really dangerous. We have to try to be kinder to one another and not just assume that everyone who disagrees with you has committed some terrible sin.

[Maxwell]

I feel a little better knowing Beet is worrying about it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Most who whine about "political correctness" are pretty much complaining that they can't be a**holes without consequence.

Yeah, but people like the right to behave like an asshole sometimes. Like, one of the reasons I don't like open carry, is, I like feeling like I can flick someone off without worry about them pointing a gun at me.

I don't condone racist, or sexist sentiments, but I think it's gotten to the point where many citizens feel like well intentioned and good faith disagreement gets shut down as morally outrageous. And then it drives them into the arms of people like Trump, who is really dangerous. We have to try to be kinder to one another and not just assume that everyone who disagrees with you has committed some terrible sin.

Hence why I said "most"

This is all tied up in white panic anyway.

[Ljube]

Most who whine about "political correctness" are pretty much complaining that they can't be a**holes without consequence.

Yeah, but people like the right to behave like an asshole sometimes. Like, one of the reasons I don't like open carry, is, I like feeling like I can flick someone off without worry about them pointing a gun at me.

I don't condone racist, or sexist sentiments, but I think it's gotten to the point where many citizens feel like well intentioned and good faith disagreement gets shut down as morally outrageous. And then it drives them into the arms of people like Trump, who is really dangerous. We have to try to be kinder to one another and not just assume that everyone who disagrees with you has committed some terrible sin.

No. Trump is not dangerous. That's just Hillary's talking point and you are bying it. Also, that's been propagated by the dishonest media.

Try listening to what Trump is saying without your PC filter switched on and you will see he's sensible and right.