That would make far more sense.
protects us. :smack:
I can’t blame the Tap-A-Talk word finder or whatever it is, that’s my own brain typing out a word vaguely similar phonetically to the word I want. Is this a common disorder? Should I adjust my meds?
Did you bring enough for everyone? :dubious:
I think that the populist movements are a temporary thing, born of the disaffection of a postindustrial society that still hasn’t adjusted to the shift and the loss of faith in institutions that came from the 2008 crash. It’s now or never.
Yeah, I do it all the time. Of course, part of it is that I’m the world’s lousiest typist and as such am always watching myself type instead of paying absolute attention to the content. Then when I go back to edit, something occasionally gets missed.
Just a Freudian slip. 
The unusual circumstance surrounding the Trump candidacy (a very rich and already widely known individual who happens to be a demagogue) is, hopefully, unique and not likely to be repeated. There undoubtedly will be bargain-basement Trump-types but without the name-recognition or the $$$$ it’s unlikely that they’ll gain any traction.
I don’t think there will be another Trump, but everyone will take away some valuable lessons and I expect every election in the future will have at least one candidate who attempts the same tactics, even if to a lesser extent.
There have always been ranting demagogues. Trump is the first to get anywhere, and wouldn’t have done so without being a rich celebrity.
There’s no one else out there who could offer a toned down, rational version of Trump’s message and still get the massive, fawning media coverage that helped Trump get the nomination this year. Pat Buchanan went nowhere as an isolationist nationalist because he didn’t generate Nielsen ratings.
Trump is an outlier, not the start of something huge.
One point. I don’t think it would take a constitutional amendment to require that a candidate have been a member of the party for so many years. That doesn’t change the qualifications for being president; it changes the qualifications for being listed on the ballot under that label and that label is owned by the party. As you all know, you are not even voting for president; you are voting for electors. And the primaries are run by the states but under the rules dictated by the parties. That is why every state has its own rules for the primaries and often quite different for the two (major) parties. Often on different dates and sometimes a primary for one party and caucuses for the other and so on. I am not absolutely certain that a state party could institute a rule that only whites can vote in their primary. Probably not, but I am not absolutely certain.
What I would like to see is a two part election in which anyone who wanted could run in part 1 and then the top 2 only in part 2. Now that would require a constitutional amendment.
I don’t think these circumstances are unusual. Americans are attracted to celebrity, particularly those who appear to be successful, powerful, and competent. We’re inclined to trust a competent citizen who’s a political neophyte over a seasoned politician because a large number of us are convinced that the ‘experts’ aren’t really that smart but that they just talk over our heads in some kinda academic code speak. Wasn’t that long ago that California, the largest state in the US and with a population larger than Canada, elected Arnold Schwarzenegger. Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura. Let’s be real: Americans are suckers for that stuff.
We’re living in an age of likes, shares, YouTube vids, all of which has dumbed down the average voter to the point where they buy into conspiracy theories. A lot of voters can’t separate fact from fiction and don’t have basic knowledge about civics or other subjects that are necessary for people to understand as informed voters.
We may not have another Trump in 2020, but maybe we have some other loud-mouthed celebrity titan like Vince McMahon or Dana White who threatens to punch other candidates in the face during debates. Or maybe we have a strengthened Ted Cruz, who by the way was every bit as nasty as Donald Trump but unlike Trump has the political competence to finish off a campaign and put a staff of ideological architects.
Whether it’s someone like Vince McMahon or Ted Cruz, this country is still ripe for a right wing putsch, and I find it terrifying.
I think that Ted Cruz is the man. He brings in the Trumpian crazies while adding the Evangelical Christians. A lot of Evangelicals just can’t get behind Trump because of his moral failings and his inability to effectively claim the Jesus mantle. Cruz, on the other hand, checks the anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-government boxes while also being able to convincingly check the anti-abortion, religious “freedom”, pro-Christian boxes. Cruz is also far smarter than Trump and is able to conduct himself like a normal human being for brief periods of time.
Do not underestimate the power of Ted Cruz. He is a truly disgusting individual, but he has a following that is quite loyal.
2024: Penn Jillette (L) vs Seth MacFarlane (D). Howard Stern will run as an independent. Maybe there will be a minor (R) candidate registered in some states.
I tell you what, that would be one debate I would watch…
You think I’m joking? Bookmark it and check back in 2024. 
The OP seems to think that a smarter, more disciplined politician could sell Trump’s message successfully without self-destructing.
MAYBE so, but it’s hard for me to picture.
Pat Buchanan got nowhere as an isolationist, nationalist, protectionist candidate. Tom Tancredo got nowhere. So, why did Trump get so much farther than they did?
Because he was a big celebrity with 100% name recognition and he got endless, fawning media attention.
Whatever GOP Congressman or Senator picks up Trump’s banner in 2020 won’t have those things. Which means he can’t duplicate the Trump phenomenon.
But another celebrity who does have the those things might be able to.
Liiiike?
I think Trump has probably turned people off to TV celebrities-turned-presidential candidate for a while now.
My guess is that the next right wing power grab will come in the form of a White Christian war veteran from the Heartland and who will have at least some political experience or dealings in government. It’ll probably be a dark horse candidate with a relatively short career, leaving him with a small political track record for his opposition’s research team to work with. And no, I don’t mean that as a slap at veterans or the military, but one of the more troublesome aspects of this campaign - and frankly both sides are guilty of this - is how respected military leaders have been thrust into the political conversation.
If Trump loses, the right will call him a RINO and say they should’ve voted for a “real conservative,” like Cruz.