Unlike many pundits, who did not opt Donald Trump for the final nomination, finally he did very well in primaries. Now, the possibility of Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton being together in the ultimate presidential race between Republicans and Democrats is wide open.
However, many wonder how Trump’s hate speech has evolved into winning condition for Republicans? If one moves about a year back and revisits the nominations of Republicans will see the full range both of the Tea Party and the anti-establishment against non dynamic options of the establishment. The fact is that the current picture of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, as the predominant nominees, shows the consistency of a series of strategic errors on the part of the Republican party.
In the mid-term elections in the US in 2014, the anti-Obama sentiment led to a blinkered strategy that has enabled the full integration of the Tea Party in the Republicans. The strong and vocal personalities of Tea Party expressed with obvious dynamics any political issue of the anti-establishment and would not be an exaggeration to say that they predominated in intensity and aggressiveness among the Republicans. Among the “Tea-Partisans”, the most moderate voices, like that of Rand Paul, lost quickly. The cause was the vocality of the populism. Out of sudden the mainstream agenda became irrelevant or uninteresting for a growing part of the US society. In parallel, among the most passionated “Tea-Partisans”, their diffuse unrealistic political discourse halted the possibility of a major electoral dynamics. There was a justified gap in order a nomination like the one of Donald Trump to be expressed and prevail.
On the other spectrum, nominees like for example Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina, could not dominate in the world of the arguments on stage. From the outset, the dominant rival republican establishment had, was Hillary Clinton. Their strategy was made to beat Hillary Clinton, while at the same time the fear, coming from their right, had not been at all clear and conscious to them. Finally, these candidates were not as good as Clinton, while at the same time the loud arguments of Trump, which strategically addressed massively in social groups that are seeking extreme positioning, were comfortably accepted. A completely lose lose situation. The moment when the acceptance of Trump was escalating and their modest argument was overlapped by Hillary, these moderate nominations suffered crushing.
These social groups that cheering in front of Donald Trump are thirsting for light in an increasingly precluded social life. They nursed eight years with a political speech, which was coming against any progressive idea of the government party.
But these people will not be able to benefit from the economic policies of the Republicans, which is geared consistently to reduce government spending. These people tended to combine extreme conservative expression of Republicans with an interventionist economic policy. Exactly this, Donald Trump gave them. Virtually there was no other comparable candidate to Donald Trump.