I think there is one other critical trait Trump has: humor.
Trump says things that genuinely make me laugh. Not a lot of politicians do that. I don’t think Kamala has ever said anything that’s gotten even a small chuckle out of me.
Should humor be an admirable trait in a politician? Probably not. But when you decide who wins by popularity contest, such a trait is highly useful.
I was skeptical about this being a real thing. I googled it and the top video hit from a mainstream news source shows a clip that was much more nuanced and apparently blown way out of proportion:
Similarly, a number of your other items are trivial, like saying something vulgar when he thought he was in private or "93 felonies".
Trump is not my guy, but the media lies nonstop about him in ways that are also easy to verify. That makes me sympathetic to him. The media has thousands of hours of video of him talking extemporaneously at rallies, so the fact that they can provide a steady stream of untruths is not so impressive. Rally speeches are not dissertations. I've known bombastic people, and that personality doesn't make them terrible people.
To be clear, I like the idea of a technocratic leader (I would have chosen DeSantis or Vivek out of this GOP crop), but it's important to recognize that an aesthetic which might be horrific in an academic setting is still a valid kind of human that can be understood on its own terms. I would shift the blame to the current electoral system and its incentives instead of the candidate.
I suspect a not-insignificant block of voters is drawn to him exactly because of the persecution he has endured.
Mike, I don't have any objections to your explanatory suggestions, but I'd love a deeper look. I'm especially interested in the effects of changes in information technology and practices over the last 2-3 decades. I just listened to an interview with Martin Gurri about his 2014 book and it seems like he had a bead on what was happening. I could stand to learn a lot more about the issue, but my guess is that people's increasing ability to curate their own information sources is a crucial factor, and that its ramifications have put us on an increasingly steep slippery slope to the dark ages (a trend of which Trump's re-election is just one manifestation). I also think it's relevant that we are increasingly distant from the twin catastrophes of the Depression and WWII, which provoked a serious bout of sobriety and responsibility which shaped cultural and institutional memory for decades, but has now more or less worn off. But I don't really know. I'd be curious to get your thoughts about the deeper, longer-term trends at work in bringing about the extraordinary event which is your explanandum.
I think the most important parts of the overall explanation will be omissions. Why people are attracted to Trump as much as they are is interesting. But why they aren't more repelled is *really* interesting. That's why I see information as key: people weren't more repelled because they were ignorant of crucial facts - facts that were quite available and, I believe, would have been more salient in a pre-internet informational ecosystem. So then the question becomes why they were so ignorant. Answering that seems likely to contribute more to our understanding than displaying what attracted people to him, given their impoverished cognitive states. (Another omission worth exploring: the absence of more elite Republican dissent. Given that fidelity to the Constitution, limited government, liberty, and moral character were at the very core of Republicans' self-avowed values for decades leading up to 2016, why did so few follow the Cheneys' lead? Where was George W. Bush? Where was Mitt Romney? Where were at least some of the Senators and Representatives who condemned him after 1/6? Where were the members of his cabinet and staff who were willing to express concerns about his fascist tendencies for Atlantic articles but apparently not willing to call a press conference to plead with Americans to heed their warnings? The almost total absence of concerted elite Republican opposition also cries out for explanation.)
Here's a factor you overlooked. In a general election candidates typically try to move toward the center to capture more votes from moderates and independents than they would receive if they were generally perceived as extremists. The Democrats would have had difficulty finding worse general election candidates than Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Before Harris became VP she was ranked by FiveThirtyEight as the most extreme progressive in the Senate, with Bernie Sanders in 2nd place. A Cato Institute study picked Walz as the worst governor in the country. That Cato is a libertarian individualist organization implies that Walz is an extreme authoritarian collectivist. Given their record, the Harris/Walz team couldn't plausibly move very close to the center. Donald Trump and J D Vance are naturally closer to the center than Harris and Walz. You can confirm that by checking the answers to the iSideWith.com quiz attributed to the four candidates and comparing them to answers given by candidates closer to the center.
I doubt that truly undecided voters took much of that into account. Much more relevant was Harris's complete failure to make a case for voting for her, other than “I’m not Trump.” I guess they saw that it worked in 2020 and hoped it would work again in 2024. But evasions, mud slinging, and platitudes didn’t work this time.
“Committed sexual assault, which he was found liable for in court.”
Having not followed the more salacious stories carefully, I am not sure what this refers to. The more interesting point is the circuitous locution “ found liable.” It seems a bit rhetorical to me, in a claim that is supposed to be purely factual. I imagine this means that some court finding held him liable in some way that makes this factual without being strictly informative, since it fell short of convicting him of this crime. So this strikes me as an exaggeration or an attempt to mislead. I have become so tired of those, perhaps I have become overly sensitive.
On the one hand, I would not be surprised to learn that Trump had indeed sexually assaulted someone. On the other, the constant exaggerations and misinterpretations put forward by the media and his opponents make me wonder whether I can rely on anything I have ever learned about Trump.
You mention that people might be "fed up with Democrats bullshit". I think this is a major cause of the rout. On every one of the top policy areas, Rs have a significant advantage.
Economy - Dems spend enormous amounts of money in unpopular ways (e.g. student loan forgiveness), and inflation was a major thing on their watch at least somewhat as a result. The mainstream consensus that R's are just as bad on spending seems obviously untrue. Experts continued saying that after DOGE was announced, which is silly. Only one party is even trying to cut the size and scope of govt!
DEI - Dems impose it on govt and people that do business with the govt and on private sector, enthusiastically bringing disparate impact cases. Even the NYT wrote about how passionate Harris was about it.
Pro-Israel - Clear advantage for R's here. Trump will let Israel do what they want instead of offering mild resistance trying to stop them.
Regulation & Lawfare - Seeing them persecute Musk is way across the line. I would vote against any party that acted this way. Dems are the blob / machine now.
The only major issue Dems have a popular position on is being pro-choice.
I voted for Trump. These reasons are close, but not quite on the mark.
The reason really is that we're voting against the other candidate. The other candidates, whether Clinton, Biden, Harris or Jeb Bush are all basically the same because they're part of the same regime. There is a single regime and ruling ideology in America that controls the primary schools, the universities, the mainstream media and the Democrat party, and that regime wants conservative white people like me to go extinct. People are excited about Trump and are willing to overlook his many shortcomings because he is the first political leader in decades who is openly and unabashedly on our side.
Is it plausible that many ordinary people, people that are not particularly ideological, or partisan, or even political, came to see the left in general, which includes almost all of academia, almost all of journalism, almost all of 'the administrative class' and, of course, the Democratic party of the United States of America, as they plainly, simply, and clearly are in fact?
“My job is just to tell the truth,” Truth can be defined as what works best for each family. In voting for Trump over Harris, I’m grateful that most people care more about their truth than your truth.
I think there is one other critical trait Trump has: humor.
Trump says things that genuinely make me laugh. Not a lot of politicians do that. I don’t think Kamala has ever said anything that’s gotten even a small chuckle out of me.
Should humor be an admirable trait in a politician? Probably not. But when you decide who wins by popularity contest, such a trait is highly useful.
"Advanced foolish ideas like injecting bleach"
I was skeptical about this being a real thing. I googled it and the top video hit from a mainstream news source shows a clip that was much more nuanced and apparently blown way out of proportion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE
Similarly, a number of your other items are trivial, like saying something vulgar when he thought he was in private or "93 felonies".
Trump is not my guy, but the media lies nonstop about him in ways that are also easy to verify. That makes me sympathetic to him. The media has thousands of hours of video of him talking extemporaneously at rallies, so the fact that they can provide a steady stream of untruths is not so impressive. Rally speeches are not dissertations. I've known bombastic people, and that personality doesn't make them terrible people.
To be clear, I like the idea of a technocratic leader (I would have chosen DeSantis or Vivek out of this GOP crop), but it's important to recognize that an aesthetic which might be horrific in an academic setting is still a valid kind of human that can be understood on its own terms. I would shift the blame to the current electoral system and its incentives instead of the candidate.
I suspect a not-insignificant block of voters is drawn to him exactly because of the persecution he has endured.
Mike, I don't have any objections to your explanatory suggestions, but I'd love a deeper look. I'm especially interested in the effects of changes in information technology and practices over the last 2-3 decades. I just listened to an interview with Martin Gurri about his 2014 book and it seems like he had a bead on what was happening. I could stand to learn a lot more about the issue, but my guess is that people's increasing ability to curate their own information sources is a crucial factor, and that its ramifications have put us on an increasingly steep slippery slope to the dark ages (a trend of which Trump's re-election is just one manifestation). I also think it's relevant that we are increasingly distant from the twin catastrophes of the Depression and WWII, which provoked a serious bout of sobriety and responsibility which shaped cultural and institutional memory for decades, but has now more or less worn off. But I don't really know. I'd be curious to get your thoughts about the deeper, longer-term trends at work in bringing about the extraordinary event which is your explanandum.
I think the most important parts of the overall explanation will be omissions. Why people are attracted to Trump as much as they are is interesting. But why they aren't more repelled is *really* interesting. That's why I see information as key: people weren't more repelled because they were ignorant of crucial facts - facts that were quite available and, I believe, would have been more salient in a pre-internet informational ecosystem. So then the question becomes why they were so ignorant. Answering that seems likely to contribute more to our understanding than displaying what attracted people to him, given their impoverished cognitive states. (Another omission worth exploring: the absence of more elite Republican dissent. Given that fidelity to the Constitution, limited government, liberty, and moral character were at the very core of Republicans' self-avowed values for decades leading up to 2016, why did so few follow the Cheneys' lead? Where was George W. Bush? Where was Mitt Romney? Where were at least some of the Senators and Representatives who condemned him after 1/6? Where were the members of his cabinet and staff who were willing to express concerns about his fascist tendencies for Atlantic articles but apparently not willing to call a press conference to plead with Americans to heed their warnings? The almost total absence of concerted elite Republican opposition also cries out for explanation.)
Cards were down after the 2020 election. Republican officials told him to pound dirt.
Here's a factor you overlooked. In a general election candidates typically try to move toward the center to capture more votes from moderates and independents than they would receive if they were generally perceived as extremists. The Democrats would have had difficulty finding worse general election candidates than Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Before Harris became VP she was ranked by FiveThirtyEight as the most extreme progressive in the Senate, with Bernie Sanders in 2nd place. A Cato Institute study picked Walz as the worst governor in the country. That Cato is a libertarian individualist organization implies that Walz is an extreme authoritarian collectivist. Given their record, the Harris/Walz team couldn't plausibly move very close to the center. Donald Trump and J D Vance are naturally closer to the center than Harris and Walz. You can confirm that by checking the answers to the iSideWith.com quiz attributed to the four candidates and comparing them to answers given by candidates closer to the center.
I doubt that truly undecided voters took much of that into account. Much more relevant was Harris's complete failure to make a case for voting for her, other than “I’m not Trump.” I guess they saw that it worked in 2020 and hoped it would work again in 2024. But evasions, mud slinging, and platitudes didn’t work this time.
“Committed sexual assault, which he was found liable for in court.”
Having not followed the more salacious stories carefully, I am not sure what this refers to. The more interesting point is the circuitous locution “ found liable.” It seems a bit rhetorical to me, in a claim that is supposed to be purely factual. I imagine this means that some court finding held him liable in some way that makes this factual without being strictly informative, since it fell short of convicting him of this crime. So this strikes me as an exaggeration or an attempt to mislead. I have become so tired of those, perhaps I have become overly sensitive.
On the one hand, I would not be surprised to learn that Trump had indeed sexually assaulted someone. On the other, the constant exaggerations and misinterpretations put forward by the media and his opponents make me wonder whether I can rely on anything I have ever learned about Trump.
Policy - "Does Trump have genius policies"
You mention that people might be "fed up with Democrats bullshit". I think this is a major cause of the rout. On every one of the top policy areas, Rs have a significant advantage.
Economy - Dems spend enormous amounts of money in unpopular ways (e.g. student loan forgiveness), and inflation was a major thing on their watch at least somewhat as a result. The mainstream consensus that R's are just as bad on spending seems obviously untrue. Experts continued saying that after DOGE was announced, which is silly. Only one party is even trying to cut the size and scope of govt!
DEI - Dems impose it on govt and people that do business with the govt and on private sector, enthusiastically bringing disparate impact cases. Even the NYT wrote about how passionate Harris was about it.
Pro-Israel - Clear advantage for R's here. Trump will let Israel do what they want instead of offering mild resistance trying to stop them.
Regulation & Lawfare - Seeing them persecute Musk is way across the line. I would vote against any party that acted this way. Dems are the blob / machine now.
The only major issue Dems have a popular position on is being pro-choice.
I voted for Trump. These reasons are close, but not quite on the mark.
The reason really is that we're voting against the other candidate. The other candidates, whether Clinton, Biden, Harris or Jeb Bush are all basically the same because they're part of the same regime. There is a single regime and ruling ideology in America that controls the primary schools, the universities, the mainstream media and the Democrat party, and that regime wants conservative white people like me to go extinct. People are excited about Trump and are willing to overlook his many shortcomings because he is the first political leader in decades who is openly and unabashedly on our side.
Is it plausible that many ordinary people, people that are not particularly ideological, or partisan, or even political, came to see the left in general, which includes almost all of academia, almost all of journalism, almost all of 'the administrative class' and, of course, the Democratic party of the United States of America, as they plainly, simply, and clearly are in fact?
I think this also sheds some light on Trump's success:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-monotheists-modelled-god-on-a-harem-keeping-alpha-male?fbclid=IwY2xjawGjbNdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbOx665DFF-1Zw1zezaOC7oSz1oseACs67syGwGXlZDjcASeUsruMs-HPg_aem_vwCsaYBFXGqOlkThhx4FUA
“My job is just to tell the truth,” Truth can be defined as what works best for each family. In voting for Trump over Harris, I’m grateful that most people care more about their truth than your truth.