Think there's definitely room for Trump in American politics because he sparks a conversation between parties rather than in ideological echo chambers. There's a large majority of individuals who are embarrassed at the presence of Trump, but he's a byproduct of infotainment that professes political views through one-liners.
Both sides of the media have fed their consumers the awfulness of their counterparts and we're facing a complication of that with Fox news and the conservative base. They've fed the extreme right base fearmongering information and media bias for so long that now when they try to counter the consensus' narrative around Trump, they shouldn't be surprised that people won't listen. They've been spoonfed the one liners about media bias enough to remember them and simply label their own news agencies as participants (thus pointing to the need of Trump).
Trump is polarizing and divisive, but it seems in some ways that we are catering to the same divisive tactics he is using to reach voters. The most popularly shared articles I see aren't intellectual engagements, but rather click bait echo chamber performances. (Think Onion, Slate, Fox) These articles focus on pointing out the absolute incompetence of the other side and invite the reader to share in being a member of the winning team, the smart team. His tactics just feed on the material people have been taught to fear and hate by their own side (read into how much polling he did before his election campaign).
It's an interesting moment because for the last 10 or so years the Republican party has been two parties combined together in service of their economic agenda. You have the economically focused anti-govt side and then the socially conservative (arguably racist) minority that come together to fight against the established Democratic party. It has worked for a long time. The shift to infotainment has, however, seemed to shift and seduce economically conservative voters to the more socially conservative and fearmongering side of the party. You shouldn't be surprised with the amount of articles that suggest this moment is the fracturing and possibly end of the two party system.
I do find it interesting that the rest of the world is taking this as a moment to mock Americans. This is a civil war in a two-party system and the posturing of the political establishment on the Republican side should illustrate the fear their party is under. It is not a question of who they nominate to the position of President, it is a question of who loses to the Democratic candidate. Unless Kasich wins the nomination, there is no chance that we have a Republican President (and if the nominee is Trump, I'd suggest that we're facing 16 years of Democratic power in the White House).
Mitt Romney's emergence and the continued establishment attacks on Donald Trump are a too little too late reaction to a situation that they created. Previous to Rubio's drop-out in Florida he ranted against the situation of the political party, though I can't seem to find the video--here's a synopsis published by Mother Jones that contains some of the interesting rhetorical moments. (
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ters-thugs)
Another interesting article I've spent some time thinking about is How the P.C. Police Created Donald Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... trump.html. Think through some of the issues raised by that author then engage with this article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ns-support. As far as economics seem to go, Trump's international policies align closely with Sanders (without making any comment on militarization because it seems hard to consider any of what Trump says as anything other than pandering). So, both parties have an upstart outsider with economic ideas that go directly contrast to the party's professed political ideologies.
There is room for Sanders as an Independent, but it should be noted that he is not a Democrat. He does not align himself within the two party structure. There is no room for Donald Trump, so he is pandering to the created base that the conservatives have been fostering as they move closer and closer to an extreme right and further and further away from a moderate stance on anything. There are a lot of interesting possible consequences of the election, but again it depends on what candidates are elected. I would almost guarantee it leads primaries to become across the states proportional in their declaration of delegates. It might cause the Democratic side to abandon the super delegates situation.
At the end, though, the idea that Donald Trump is a potential president (even presidential candidate) is bogus. More than likely the Republican party sides behind someone who is more moderate (Kasich) or backs their own version of an extremist (Cruz). If they back Trump the consequences to the party extend far beyond the implications of the current election. (Consider how much money the Koch brothers spend, and their importance to the party). The Koch brothers are against Trump, they have not committed to spending money either way in the presidential race, though it was clear they preferred candidate Rubio. Likely, the Republican party will not risk the Koch brothers support for the popular vote (if it is in favor of Donald Trump).
Fun cycle to think about though, I enjoy the implications.
