Yeah, because being able to demonstrate strong skills in working with others, furthering political goals, fundraising, and the like is a lot less important than… Oh, I dunno, being willing to say literally whatever during a stump speech in a convincing way to get votes? Riddle me this - do you care about the republican party overall? Probably not really, if you don’t think political clout within the party should be important to the nomination. But would you ever vote for a democrat? Even if your answer to that second question is “yes”, there are a whole lot of people who would say “no” to both questions.
What we have right now is incredibly dangerous: weak parties but strong partisanship. It means that the power-brokers within the party can’t do much to ensure a candidate that actually represents what the party stands for (or isn’t fucking crazy), but once that person is nominated, the party necessarily piles in behind that candidate, because, “Hey, at least they aren’t <the other party>”. Partisanship probably isn’t going anywhere, so what we need is strong parties.
I agree with you except for the bit that seemed to imply that a future Clinton would not get in trouble for having smoked weed because of the Trump campaign. That seems to have changed when it became known that GWB had done drugs. Obama stated before the 2008 election that of course he had inhaled – “that was the point.”
Campaigns will still be the same old two party duopoly, you still have to be a billionaire or a friend of a billionaire to have a shot, and the campaigns are elaborate PR machines with little connection to the truth or the interests of the people. If the elections grow more vulgar that’s just a new fashion. Men used to wear tophats and suits everywhere, now they don’t.
Presidential political campaigns have always been fought with the latest technologies, deep-pocket contributors, grass roots supporters, media outlet party supporters, and party/candidate acceptable advisors. None of that will change.
Trump’s campaign was run differently than Hillarys. Both of their campaigns were run differently than Obama’s. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy, etc. all ran personalized campaigns that proved successful at that point in time. The common factors to all political campaigns is that they are fluid, changeable, and adaptable to current events.
Will the next Presidential elections be tailored differently than any previous Presidential election? Yes they will be.
If Trump wins again in 2020, then yes, I would agree things have permanently changed. I don’t think he will win in 2020. I think that running on a theme of returning to normalcy might actually be a good strategy for the Democratic candidate in 2020.
IMO that kinda depends on how the people who’re addicted to Trump’s pet media and the rest of the R media are feeling by then.
If they have a hangover and indigestion from swallowing too much Trump that is quite likely to work.
If instead they’ve grown in both number and vehemence, such that “'Merica! Fuck Yeah!!” is almost our national motto then trying to be “normal” will be crushed a la Dukakis or McGovern.
I think Trump’s “total war/no compromises” style may be here to stay. Other politicians occasionally throw an olive branch to the other side, or appoint someone from the other party to a position of power, or even reach across the aisle to support legislation written by the other party. But not Trump. He is dug into his bunker and is surrounding himself with only loyal toadies and yes-men, and he sees bipartisanship as a weakness - the other party cannot get anything right and is dangerous and stupid - only he knows what’s best for us.
People seem to want a strongman as President now, so those type of candidates are going to get more traction now than before. Sensible candidates offering compromise in order to get things done wont get very far in the primary processes. They are too boring.
I think that some things have changed. Trump proved that money isn’t all that important. He proved that a blunt idiot will beat a polished liar. Hopefully candidates stop paying millions to experts to handle them and run their campaigns and just go out there and speak directly to the public.
We need more Donald Trumps, but smarter and more moral Donald Trumps.
Correction: blunt idiot liar will beat a polished person the right-wing media has tarred as a liar. Anyone who wants to characterize this as “the idiot vs. the liar” missed just how often and how flagrantly Trump lied throughout both his campaign and the start of his election, and drastically overstates the case for Clinton’s dishonesty.
There are a lot of misconceptions in politics. The first is that bluntness=honesty. Another is that partisanship=extremism and that bipartisanship=moderation.
But addressing the bluntness issue, we need blunt politicians. Blunt and honest. We’ve had many of them, but they generally don’t get elected President. That should change. Maybe we can be the first generation that’s willing to hear things that might offend us rather than the pablum that usually gets served up so that politicians can appeal to as many people as possible.