Has Trump permanently changed the way elections are fought?

Or was he a freak candidate and the 2020 or 2024 elections will see the return of politics as normal? This site suggests that it may be a good thing if that were not the case.

I have to say that it would be pleasant if politicians began saying what they really think for a change rather than having their words shaped by a team of analysts and pollsters.

I don’t think he did because I don’t think deep down he changed the way elections are run. He developed a message that would appeal to the current electorate and ran with it. All that was different was the kind of message that people wanted to hear. Also, I don’t think in any other recent election would Trump have been successful because of his inability to clearly articulate himself (and all other things surrounding Trump, but lots of threads on that already). In this past election, there was a very deep anger towards the status quo and Trump successfully rode that to victory. If anything, the lesson here is a good one if the politicians are listening (which they aren’t), you cannot ignore the electorate for too long or they’ll vote in anger and when they vote in anger, they’ll vote for anything no matter how bad. This kind of anger voting has been seen over and over again (I can think of several just in the past 20 years in Canada alone), so I don’t really think this is anything new.

I personally find it sad that idiocracy is coming to life, and people want elections to be like WWF faceoffs and we hoot and holler for the biggest alpha male who owns the other person the best.

The only good thing to come from Trump’s run is the fact that is shows you can have endless skeletons in your closet and still run. I remember a comedian talking about politics in the far future, how nobody could run because they said something embarrassing on youtube 50 years before. That won’t be a problem now, which is good. The fact that Bill Clinton got in trouble for smoking weed, etc stuff like that is absurd.

By analysts and pollsters I think you mean political lobbyists.

I think you could say that every national election of the last 50 years has changed the way successive ones were managed and “fought.” I can’t say for sure, but I think the rise of TV around the time of JFK/Nixon was the start of major changes in how the public and voters are engaged - and it hasn’t stopped since. Some elections changed little, some changed things a lot.

2016 will have changed the process permanently, yes. But I am hoping that a massive backlash against the extreme tilt of the right will make 2020 a notably high-toned and civil affair, with both sides afraid to let things go into Trumpery.

I think a lot will depend on how the next 4 years go. If it is an unmitigated disaster, then you may see future candidates shying away from Trump’s style so as not to be compared with him.

Although, my main concern about this election and its effect on future elections wasn’t Trump’s unvarnished, anti-PC, rabble rousing style. It was the demonstration that the truth was irrelevant. The fact that Trump could state things that were easily verifiable as utter falsehoods, and suffer no consequnces. In the past politicians could spin and twist the truth to the breaking point but there had to be at least some grain of fact in there somewhere. Now nothing is out of bounds and the only limit is imagination.

You can simply state that your opponent, a former member of the KKK, used to run guns for Fidel Castro, and pimped out their 8 year old son, while your tax plan will reduce everyones taxs to zero at the same time balancing the budget with enough money left over to send a family of four to mars and give everyone free wireless internet, without suffering any consequences,

This. Totally this.

Lots of countries have demonstrated how ungovernable they are when the populace operates on rumor-based fact-free CTish thinking.

In most cases countries got that way after a totalitarian destroyed civil society. Or they were/are largely tribal places which never had much of a national identity or national civil society to begin with.

That we would allow ourselves to descend down a path to that devastated condition driven there by nothing more than a hunger for advertiser’s ratings on a couple brands of cable TV is beyond appalling.

I think there will be less kow-towing to the pre-2016 election notion that you got to the brass ring by not offending as many people as possible. It used to be that candidates, especially democratic candidates, would walk on eggshells to avoid offending professional pearl clutchers. I think there will be less of this.

Although if there’s something the last two elections have shown is that you cannot directly insult a sizeable part of the electorate (even if they aren’t going to vote for you) and expect to win. I really think Hillary’s “deplorables” comment and Romney’s “My job is not to worry about those people” hurt them.

I certainly hope that the liberals stop trying to appeal in any way, shape, or form to the evangelical christian bloc. They’re not “morals” voters, they’re “whoever has an R” voters.

As for changing how elections are run, I dunno about Trump, but it sure seems that Putin is insistent on changing how elections run, by forcing whoever he doesn’t like to win through a storm of fake news, hacks, and leaks.

You’re not going to get many Trump clones in the future. He rode on his fame as a TV personality, so unless a lot of those types start running, it’s going to be business as usual. Your average schlub can’t behave like Trump and get elected.

Remember something: Trump is not the first person to run for President on a nationalistic, anti trade,anti-immigrant platform. He’s not even the first TV host to run for President on such a platform. Pat Buchanan made all of Trump’s arguments more articulately and intelligently than Trump ever could, and he got nowhere.

The number of voters devoted to Trump’s platform may not be all that big.

Bolding mine.

I don’t necessarily disagree. But if the number who support his *platform *is not very big then the only conclusion left is that the rest of the large number who voted for him support his electoral tactics.

Which means our populace is a sucker for a bombastic jerk who can promise any fact-free anything and then after entering office he can do whatever the rest of the system can’t prevent.

Trump is IMO avaricious and incurious. But he doesn’t dream of being Dictator for Life of the Reformed United States. Rest assured there are people who dream exactly that. And they’re watching and learning what works.

Well, for starters, we refer to elections as “fought.”

He personally is so oblivious to all that is not him that he has not changed a thing through his own design. What the campaign did was demonstrate that truth has become irrelevant in US politics, that a bumper sticker outweighs the most thought-out plans and that a certain group of voters respond to appeals to racism.

People have been using phrases like “a hard-fought election” since at least the 19th century. And the word “campaign”, which metaphorically casts a contest between parties or candidates for elective office as a military operation, was first used in a political sense no later than the first decade of the 19th century.

If anyone thinks they can “act like Trump” and win, IMHO they are mistaken - he is one of a kind. Again, IMHO, there were a lot of externals that contributed to his very narrow win, which have been discussed ad infinitum. Had he lost, many would have written about why he lost because of him being him, so I don’t think there is a solid lesson there.

I think a lot of the starchiness of our candidates carries over from the traditions of our House and Senate where a formality and decorum are embedded in the rules.

That said, I can see an opening for a slight shift in the rhetorical approach candidates take. More “plain speaking” maybe? But, it’s still going to come from the same cast of political message framers and pollsters, so nothing new there. Instead of polling the effectiveness of bumper sticker phrases we are used to (“No new taxes!”), it may be polling for which taunts and name calling work best.

All this came naturally to Trump. It’s not really something others can hope to adopt without sounding clangy.

I hope the Democrats run Kanye in 2020, but I distinctly remember Democrats saying the same thing about Trump in 2016, so maybe it’ll be my turn to eat some crow.

Lately Democrats seem to think vulgarity is the way to go. I have very low expectations that 2018/2020 will set any new high-water mark for civility.

Wasn’t this HRC’s strategy?

Agree a conventional politician can’t adopt a Trumply persona and expect it to stick.

But there are plenty of “plain speaking” demagogues of the right. Perhaps Limbaugh will run. Or Arpaio. Or any number of other oddball fringe candidates.

The biggest thing Trump demonstrated is that a sizeable fraction of the public considers “professional politician” something to vote against, not for. As long as that demographic remains out here it’s free for the taking by any non-politician with enough audacity to grab the big microphone.

The other thing he demonstrated is that at least the R party is feckless enough to align behind whatever they think will win. Many people, myself sometimes included, thought the R party would come up with a way not to tar themselves with Trumps brush. Instead they decided to go swimming in the tar bucket. That can only be encouraging to the many rightists with websites and gleams in their eyes. Trump hijacked the R party; perhaps they can too. It’s always hardest to do something unprecedented the first time. The second time it’s a well worn rut.

It’s possible the Ds are as feckless. Or will learn to be so if there’s advantage in it. Or perhaps not and their long-term principles will win out. We simply don’t know. Yet.

Yes, I believe he has.

He is the first non-politician to be president since Eisenhower. People are sick and tired of the parties choosing the person. Hillary was a “MY TURN” candidate same as was John McCain and Bob Dole.

Political clout within your party should NOT be the reason you get the nomination.

Now in 2020 I’ve read that dozens of people are looking to run. Many of them non-politicians.