When the presidential campaign was in full swing in 2015, a friend of mine said that Trump's campaign was very effective because it researched and relayed what the people wanted to hear.

Now I am not sure if this is true so my question is this: Were President-elect Trump's 'playground' insults and bigotry comments based on the campaign's research or were they a result of just how he is as a person?

Because now that he has won the presidency, it appears to me that about half of the American population resonated with his snide remarks and insults among other things.

  • 2
    Have you considered that people may have voted for Trump not because of his snide remarks and insults, but despite them - and because they were negatively reacting to years and years of snide remarks and insults of them from Trump opponents (culminating with Clinton's final, honest, unscripted admission that she sees 30 Million American voters as "Deplorables"). – user4012 Nov 20 '16 at 0:37
  • 2
    Or to put it more on-topic, another angle to consider: for years, the Right(ish) side lost big, in part because their elites tried to fight the fight by "Marquess of Queensberry rules" (namely, discussing policy and being nice and playing PC games), while the opponents played by Saul Alinsky rules. Trump's willingness to act like a playground bully wasn't seen by many of his voters as a downside - it was seen as an upside, an ability to finally stand up to bullying from the opposite side. – user4012 Nov 20 '16 at 0:43
  • Random example (Thanks, @Pocket) vulture.com/2016/11/… – user4012 Nov 20 '16 at 1:11

There are many reasons that Trump won, I'll list some of the more important and significant ones:

  1. Message

    • Trump's message resonated with the people, his campaign slogan's "Make America Great Again" which is very powerful.

    • He also stated that he would "fix" Washington, and went against the "establishment". Many people felt that they were "forgotten", thus this message would especially resonate with them.

    • He ran on a protectionist platform, went against China for stealing jobs, oppose trade deals such as TPP and NAFTA.

    • He campaigned in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin and promised to bring back their jobs. These messages are what voters care about, rather than his rhetoric.

  2. Media & Polls

    • The media does seem to be skewed towards Clinton. Since both the media and polls does seem to report that Clinton already has the presidency in the bag, some Clinton supporters might be turned off to vote, thinking that she would win no matter.

    • However, Trump's supporters are much enthusiastic about voting for him, translating to a Trump win.

Not many people who voted for Trump may actually agree with him on all of the issues. As CNN exit polls have shown, only 38% described Trump as qualified, while 52% described Clinton as so.

So, basically, you don't have to agree totally with Trump to vote for Trump.

Given that his campaign's an unconventional one and many initially dismissed it as a "joke", his strategy does prove to be effective.


Ok so I don't agree with trump at all, but here is one of the reasons why an awful lot of people voted for him. There are towns and communities, especially in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the mining communities have been destroyed by competitiveness from overseas. There are no jobs and peoples futures are bleak, their children futures. Some of these towns survive on these coal mines and steel manufacturing. Without them there are no jobs, no nothing.

Now they've had Obama for 8 years now. NOTHING has changed for them, there are less jobs everyday, they are still suffering. Along comes Hilary Clinton to carry on the 'Obama' legacy. She represents the status quo and for these people the status quo hasn't helped.

Along comes Donald Trump, presenting a complete alternative, he offered change. Now whether or not he can actually deliver that change remains to be seen obviously, but a lot of people were prepared to overlook his snide remarks and insults for change.

It's very easy just to think that, the only reason people voted for him was because of his remarks. But really it's so much more complex than that, and there are an awful lot of factors involved, why do you think so many Women voted for him?

  • 1
    +1, but it's not just competitiveness from overseas - it's also the push towards greener fuels and automation throughout industry which has caused productivity to separate from employment. – Luke Briggs Nov 20 '16 at 1:16
  • Very true, with this movement towards greener fuels and automation, because there was no support for these communities left behind, it created this divide between the working class and those at the top who ignored the fallout of this – JudgeArmada Nov 20 '16 at 16:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .