As the author points out, Trump’s intentionally vague campaign allows a wider spectrum of voters to see him as appealing. If you’re a blue collar worker afraid of your job being lost to overseas trade or an influx of immigrants willing to work for less, but are distrustful of the pro-union democratic-socialism of Sanders, then Trump’s rhetoric comes off as more appealing. In persuasion this is called pathos, an appeal to an emotional stimuli. In this case, job security. He also uses the myth of the Shinning City on the Hill to assert American preeminence. His ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan strikes the same chord Reagan’s ‘Morning in America’ did.

He has also used his status as a businessman and political outsider to wedge himself as distinct from every other candidate with the exception of Fiorina and Carson. However, Trump’s brand was much more established than theirs. The reason Trump supporters can ignore the awfulness of his rhetoric is that logos, logical appeals based on reason, can be easily corrupted by a skilled speaker. That is why the Obama comparison is so important. Obama’s first campaign used the same style of campaign. Similar campaigns for comparison would be Reagan, Eisenhower, and TR. They created a broad based appeal by standing as candidates who stood by voters and supported the people, not making appeals for the people to support them. There is great power in that type of rhetoric, and the reason we’ve inherited a distrust of clever wordsmiths from Plato.