At the start, a fine, clarifying analysis. But not so fine at the end. Umair’s distaste for Donald Trump forces him into the most damaging assumptions about Trump in order to draw the reader into similar dismissal of Trump. One assumption is that what the media attribute to Trump is actually what he said and meant. Anyone paying attention to all presidential campaigns knows to be very suspicious of media (or other candidates) attributing outrageous positions to candidates they oppose. And the liberal media opposes all Republican candidates. Trump says enough outrageous things himself, it isn’t necessary to seize on a media deduction of a third party attribution of a conclusion about Trump’s real intention by an out of context attribution of something he didn’t quite actually say, to conclude that Trump is a Fascist.

Umair may be, probably is, correct that Trump’s strategy is to cut through the noise and gain attention, even notoriety, by unrestrained speech. And he cogently nails the Troll’s Dilemma. But he fails by omitting the obvious and logical antidote to the Dilemma: once the candidate has established his brand, gained the media forum he needs, he can then deliver the substance that will convince the electorate that he has the temperament, the experience, the presidential stature necessary to earn their vote. Umair does not inform the reader of his assumption that Trump has no quality, that trolling is all Trump has, nor that his prediction of Trump’s demise depends on that assumption.

It is quite possible for a candidate of quality to adopt the Troll’s tactic early on.

Now, I don’t believe that Trump has the necessary substance, and once primary voting begins, voters will look for that and not find it. I’m not certain of that. But it was false of Umair not to identify his assumptions and not to admit that his analysis of the Troll’s fate only applies to Trolls who have no substance to support them.