That is a good point. I kind of have trouble knowing what the Tea Party stands for because, as you say, they are so decentralized, but Trump does check some boxes with his policies on illegal immigration, taxation, some parts of his foreign policy, guy control, energy, health care. Even if they have policy differences, a lot of Tea Partiers currently in office have jumped onto the Trump bandwagon. Jeff Flake has been the exception as he was someone who was pretty critical of Trump. In Flake's case, he called Trump out before he got elected and Trump returned the favour by campaigning for basically every one of Flake's primary opponents before Flake announced he wasn't going to run for reelection. Even though Flake was already unpopular in Arizona, stuff like that probably was a pretty big early sign that Tea Partiers were going to have to fall in line. PBS had a Frontline episode about Trump's first 100 days and it mainly focused on his tax legislation. The amount of Republican politicians, including Paul Ryan, that claimed they were going to be able to curtail Trump's worst inclinations was, now in retrospect, completely absurd. Trump really has done an amazing job of getting his own party in line. I don't know if anyone else can capture that same ruthlessness and cult of personality enough to hold such influence.
Do you think that even if Trump's policies don't match completely with the Tea Party, perhaps Trump latched on to public sentiment that the Tea Party movement exposed?
People also love Trump because they think he has charisma, they think he talks their language and they think he is funny. He has an "outsider" persona that people love and they are drawn to him because they think he is "authentic". Even if his supporters are seen as non-thinking cultists, creating that cult is not easy.
So, one example I think is interesting is Arizona. Trump lost the state, in part, because he picked a fight with someone as popular in Arizona as John McCain, basically continued to hurl insults after McCain was dead, and started a war with McCain's widow. Trump failed to win a state that has voted pretty solidly Republic in presidential elections for 20 years. Democrats are celebrating this as the "Revenge" of John/Cindy McCain. All cheers. However, Trump still got more votes in Arizona than any other Republican nominee for President and only lost by 20,000 votes. So, if someone similar to Trump can come around, say similar things, but not constantly pick fights with dead, popular war heroes, that person might win back Arizona. But, what caused 1.6 million people from Arizona to continue to support him despite his comments and can a potential Trump-lite presidential candidate continue to appeal and motivate that type of (disturbing) populist movement? Is the ground swell of support permanent without the rhetoric or does the hateful rhetoric create the groundswell of support? Would a more polished politician, who whose every instinct would be to avoid picking fights with war veterans and widows, still hold onto the same mass appeal?
However, and nothing against Biden, but Joe Biden was a pretty uninspired candidate. But he too got more votes in Arizona then any other Democratic nominee, and (I think), more votes nationwide than any other nominee. But Trump also received more vote than any other Republican candidate for president. So, another issue is whether an individual can build on that Trump movement while not creating a Democrat reaction. But part of Trump's appeal is this idea of "owning the Libs" and saying such offensive and outlandish things that it creates both a positive response and a negative reaction.
