See, I don’t think it’s strategically advantageous to get 1/50th as specific as you are. The more specific you get, the fewer and fewer people will be able to relate.
This is not an intelligent electorate. It is a Kardashian electorate. The appeal is not intellectual. Women are generally not intellectual in terms of what gets into their minds FIRST and FOREMOST. By that I do not mean they are smart or stupid. And half of men are emotional in that regard. So an intellectual appeal is only 25% good. If you wanna get into peoples’ heads, it is not about appealing to Consitutional principles, sadly.
BEFORE getting all that specific, I believe Trump is making FAR MORE effective and preparatory moves, most especially showing the media as totally corrupt and showing the inner workings of the Dem party as a vicious elitist cabal that would have nothing to do with the American people if not for the unpleasant task of convincing them to vote Dem.
Peoples brains are like the grooves of a record. Once conditioned in a certain way, the mind wants to replay those grooves over and over. To get out of those grooves the grooves have to be destroyed and that is what is going on with these demonstrations that the MSM is useless and corrupt and that these memes of “the Dems stand for the little guy” are the precise opposite of what is true. This is no trivial task; getting East Coast intellectual libs people to give up their cherished NYTimes, and getting working people to see just how despised they are.
To present alternative ideas without prepping peoples minds to receive them is like putting a brand new record down next to the record player. It may have a shiny, attractive psychedelic cover on it, but it does not take the old record off and it doesn’t put the new record on.
While I agree with you in principle, I find that the weak generalities are political pabulum that has little power of persuasion outside the base. It is obvious that most people agree on the corruption of government and the extreme examples of lack of accountability. The key here is to bring those folks not following Trump into this fold. But one of the big rubs by the basic independent out there is that NO ONE tells them HOW they would do it, and they also feel that Trump is particularly weak on specifics. This approach blows holes in both of those. Maybe get Ben Carson, Kelli-Ann or Newt to go out and give it the heady approach on the shows. Start with the discussion that the government depend on 100s-of-THOUSANDS of people in positions of Public Trust, yet the American People do not trust the government, because of the IRS, Emails, Hillary activity, insider immunities, bla bla bla, then drop into the reasons for Public Trust and how it is a privilege, and how it can be removed for activity causing concern with folks in those positions. Then you drop the items. You do this on two or three talk shows, drop a couple of editorials on the topics and even go into the explanation that the Clintons and all of the activities around them essentially prevent them from fixing this issue.... BOOM!