Looking at all these protests I am struck by the thought that there are few more

[Monty92]

The thing is, though, that a more competent, sane and suitable candidate than the Donald wouldn't have been as appealing. His very unsuitability was rather the point.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think any number of sane, competent right-leaning, straight-talking, anti-PC, non-establishment populists would have had the same appeal.

[Burney]

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think any number of sane, competent right-leaning, straight-talking, anti-PC, non-establishment populists would have had the same appeal.

Don't think so, actually. Thing Trump was, the more grotesquely he behaved and spoke, the more people were determined to vote for him. Why? Precisely because he appalled and horrified the people his supporters hate. The very fact that he he appeared to have no filter - lying outrageously, saying appalling things and mocked sacred cows like the disabled and POWs - gave him his edge because they made the bien pensant liberals clutch their pearls. A more polished candidate wouldn't have been able to achieve that.

[Monty92]

Don't think so, actually. Thing Trump was, the more grotesquely he behaved and spoke, the more people were determined to vote for him. Why? Precisely because he appalled and horrified the people his supporters hate. The very fact that he he appeared to have no filter - lying outrageously, saying appalling things and mocked sacred cows like the disabled and POWs - gave him his edge because they made the bien pensant liberals clutch their pearls. A more polished candidate wouldn't have been able to achieve that.

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

[Ash]

And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

ISTR RickyG ticking a few of these boxes.

[redgunamo]

Don't think so, actually. Thing Trump was, the more grotesquely he behaved and spoke, the more people were determined to vote for him. Why? Precisely because he appalled and horrified the people his supporters hate. The very fact that he he appeared to have no filter - lying outrageously, saying appalling things and mocked sacred cows like the disabled and POWs - gave him his edge because they made the bien pensant liberals clutch their pearls. A more polished candidate wouldn't have been able to achieve that.

We don't need his money and we don't like his sort, as dear old "Sir" Peter might've said.

[Burney]

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

[redgunamo]

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

Not last year though, not when he began his campaign. Remember he had absolutely "no chance" to even get through the Primaries.

In the end, between The Feeb, Wikileaks and simply being Hillary, she was mortally wounded anyway, not least amongst her own supporters. Trump's methods made sure he was the last opponent standing when it came time to take advantage and he otherwise ran a great, ballsy campaign.

[World's End Stella]

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

I don't agree that it was his crassness, vulgarity or offensiveness that got him the nomination. I think it was the fact that he wasn't a politician. Any highly successful businessman who rejected 'the establishment' would have sufficed, I think.

The fact that he's utterly vulgar held him back although, ultimately, not enough.

[redgunamo]

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

Told you so, didn't I. The America what won it for him isn't interested in a' that ****e, except to say that it *is* ****e and the main reason they're in this ****e.

[redgunamo]

I don't agree that it was his crassness, vulgarity or offensiveness that got him the nomination. I think it was the fact that he wasn't a politician. Any highly successful businessman who rejected 'the establishment' would have sufficed, I think.

The fact that he's utterly vulgar held him back although, ultimately, not enough.

That was the banter of the thing though. The fact that he's a millionaire playboy business celebrity going back decades means he most certainly *is* establishment, so his behaviour was crucial in ensuring he alone avoided that charge.