There is so much "precedent" for what Trump is doing that it's not even funny.
In 1968, George Wallace began rising rapidly in the polls right after the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The reason? Because he was "telling it like it is." His motto was "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the two political parties (this sound familiar to anyone?). His drawing power was limited by virtue of his already established reputation as a racist, but he was collaring 25% of the national vote in a three-man race up until he chose Curtis LeMay as his running mate (October 3, 1968). And for the record, over 40% of his national votes came from OUTSIDE of the South - union men in the Rust Belt, etc.
In 1992, H. Ross Perot went on "Larry King Live" two nights after Clinton and Buchanan both lost the NH primary (while the press touted both of them as if they had won). When I went into boot camp on 24 February, I didn't even know about Perot; when I got out, he was skyrocketing in the polls. In fact, on the day Clinton won the California primary (June 2), polling had Perot in SECOND, ahead of Clinton (36-33-30, well within the MOE). But then the Republicans turned their guns on Perot, trotting out daily to administer talking points. Story after story after story revealed Perot to be a - shall we say - "investigative" personality. It got out that he had threatened to publish photos of a news reporter in a compromising situation if a particular story was reported. His entire "straight talking" appeal was already on the wane even before he abandoned the ship in July because it was easy to uncover instances of where he was more of a devious business man than anything else.
This happens every so often - the populace is always fed up with "politics as usual" and hungers for something different. They want to actually believe that they can make a difference and that things can change. Jesse Jackson even parlayed this appeal in 1988 to a runner-up slot in the Democratic primaries. Sure, Jackson said a bunch of stuff that would have eliminated a white candidate from the same race because back then the press dared not call him out on for fear of being branded a racist. In 2012, Herman Cain was popular for a brief period of time - and then it came out he had a zipper problem or something close to that.
It'll happen again. My brother, who is pretty smart but isn't the most 'astute' observer yet (he's only 29 so cut him so slack) made the point the only reason Trump is polling well is because the rest of the GOP vote is split by 15 other candidates - and that as soon as it comes down to "Trump versus the Alternative" IF it reaches that stage........the alternative will win. What no candidate wants to do is peak too soon.
The candidate I'm most interested in at this point (the one who seems to have some appeal) is Walker, primarily because: a) he's a governor; b) he's a Republican elected in a primarily Democratic state; and c) if he can frame his anti-union decisions under the rubric of "making tough choices," he has a shot at appealing to the sensible center. (It always kills me how the objection listed to any Republican is "well the unions hate him" - uh, the unions don't vote GOP anyway....that's like saying Hillary can't win because "the NRA doesn't like her"). I don't know how he is as a candidate because I haven't watched him - and winning a limited universe of voters is far different than winning the entire country.
I'm not really "for" anyone at this point (I haven't been except for my first vote in 1988; every single Presidential vote since then has been AGAINST somebody, usually both candidates).
