Posted on 08/23/2015 5:35:01 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Neither party's elites represent the majority's views on an issue such as immigration; Trump does.
Trump often promotes nastiness in pursuit of legitimate policy concerns. Yet his populism also taps into real frustration with two thing The classic answer is to take the wind out of his sails by co-opting (and moderating) some of his positions, thus not allowing him to be the only candidate tapping into populist frustrations.
Even with all of his clownery, Trump won't implode until folks have another choice that satisfies the feelings he evokes. One or more of the other Republican candidates needs to draw stark contrasts between themselves and Trump, without diminishing the voters' needs and frustration.
They also need to harness the energy he has exploited. To give those frustrated voters a reason to believe they can take the country to a better place, can connect us together rather than divide or marginalize groups of us in order to win elections.
If you look beyond the hype, Trump already has peaked in the polls — at least for now. According to an average of national polls by RealClearPolitics, he was on top on the day of the first Republican presidential debate nearly a month ago, at 24.3 percent; his support softened that day, and his average now is down to 22
There is a difference between Trump's legitimate populist appeal and his dangerous demagoguery.
Populism is a funny thing, however: You cannot create it on command, and the kind of rage needed to foster it is sustainable for only so long before it fades.
The person who can successfully seize that mantle has yet to emerge — but one will. And if that person is a good leader, then he or she can take this movement and the people over the finish line.
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
No one in the GOP has the stones to seize Trump’s “populist” mantle. The only reason anyone is even talking about stopping illegal immigration is because Trump has forced them to at least give lip service to the idea.
dear LS, i didn’t watch the cruz videos, because i would be giving creedence to a queer name ellen page.
Yes, the folks did indeed turn out for Trump. However ... the ONLY website, by the average not running for President American, that is getting attention (from any candidate) is the website, ‘WeBeSisters.com’.
They are funny, on point, and refreshing.
>> The “populists” were inflationists and socialists who wanted gubment to OWN private businesses <<
In other words, you’re saying that Andrew Jackson was not a populist? I always thought he was the only 100% unalloyed populist to win the POTUS job.
She’s got some micro aggression going on there
Reminded me of the BP oil spill. Do you remember the 24/7 camera shot of oil spilling into the gulf? I see the same amount of damage to our country , the endless spilling. However there’s not the same outcry or attitude toward the illegals. Have you noticed there’s not many camera shots of them spilling into the country riding on train tops as there used to be? Is it because it’s slowed down? I think not.
Yes, I know. I think websites are a thing of the past-—useful in 08 but now old hat. Twitter, instagram, to a much lesser extent FB are now the sites. But it would be useful to have a good count of Trump vs anyone else on youtube.
But even Jackson, as research by McCormick and Benson and others has shown, was not truly the first "democratic" candidate---that was William Henry Harrison. Lee Benson showed with detailed quantitative work that the 1828, 1832, and 1836 elections were still heavily based on religion and ethnicity, and that it wasn't until 1840 that a true economic vote occurred that might be called a vote of the "common man."
None of the others have Trump’s strong alpha take charge personality or his money. They are who they are and cannot anger the money holders bankrolling their campaigns. So no one is going to take on the issues like Trump.
It is Trump or status quo.
What many are missing is the Apprentice fans. Millions of non political new voters.
Trump is Fort Knox....all the rest are chump change. When Trump appears, he exudes power, wealth, success, glamour....and, more importantly, he wants to be our president.
=========================================
Even more significant, Trump's massive support is fueled by a belief that he can give us the leadership we have been lacking on a number of fronts.
The Obama legacy is DOA.The WH ding-a-ling's hopey-changey flops; his incompetence; his visceral I-hate-America that imbued his every move....... 8 forgettable years of Obama's effeminate hipster “boy” fad has run its course....
================================================
Let's not forget the 8 dismal years of the phony Clintons.
What she doesn’t get is that in this case STYLE is the issue, (like medium is the message).
People are as enthralled by his un-PC, in your face, style as by his message.
If this is even true, so what.
How much as Trump spent on ads so far?
Ted Cruz.
Rats/progressives/libs don’t really “understand” anything. They just follow the narrative and do what they’re told.
It’s a long way to the elections and the polls are going to fluctuate, the attacks are going to be off the hook, but Trump is also going to keep connecting and communicating. He’s working on a totally different dynamic than what they were prepared for.
Trump and Cruz are like 2 peas in a pod. They may not sound the same when they speak; but their outlook on life is remarkable similar.
No, they do not agree on everything. I sense Cruz is more refined - because his focus was LAW, while Trump focused on business.
I think they would make the most dynamic duo. America would have leaders WHO ACTUALLY LIKE AMERICA .. instead of always tearing her down .. they would be able to FIX and straighten out some of the “not so politically correct” issues.
Why do I believe that ..? It’s partly because they are both fearless. Cruz might be more soft-spoken than Trump, but they both revel in speaking the truth .. which is more powerful than PC speech.
I believe they are very similar in what they stand for. But not in whether or not they can make it happen.
"Politics is downstream from popular culture"
Andrew Breitbart
>> the populists did NOT come around until the 1880s out of the Grange movement. Jackson “appealed to the common man” vs. the elites would be accurate, but there was no such thing as “populist” in 1828 <<
OK, so we can just call Jackson the first successful “commoner” candidate, as long as we specify that he was not the “great” commoner. Works for me!
>> Lee Benson showed . . . it wasn’t until 1840 that a true economic vote occurred that might be called a vote of the “common man.” <<
With New York as a test case, right? Certainly an interesting hypothesis, even tho’ at 1st glance it strikes me as verging on Beardish economic determinism. But I’d need to study his methodology to make a professional judgment. And by the way, one has gotta wonder how the paradigm holds up for all the other states that year?
Anyway, Harrison and/or his Whig puppet masters sure did pull off a fast one in 1840, appealing to the “common man” even though WHH was the wealthy scion of Virginia planters — not mention his having another wealthy VA planter scion as his running mate. Sorta like Donald Trump having another reality TV celebrity, like a member of the Hilton Clan, for his veep nominee?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.