Trump doesn't need much "ground game" or a "war chest" when he's so distinctive and in-demand

We're all glad that the Trump campaign made more of an effort to pound the pavement and hold small-scale chats with voters, in the wake of coming in 2nd in Iowa, where he finished a few points below what the polls had said, though still within the margin of error. In New Hampshire he came within the margin of error again, though now a few points higher than suggested. Perhaps the ground game gives him a few points boost, but don't leave anything to chance, right?

Still, it's worth remembering how his poll estimates rose so high to begin with -- by being the only candidate with a clear populist and nationalist platform. That stands out so much from all the others that he doesn't need to knock on your door or call you on the phone to clarify to you who he is and what he's about.

The whole obsession with retail politics from the standard candidates stems from their nearly identical positions on major issues. They all want some degree of amnesty for the tens of millions of illegal immigrants, they are fine with continuing to off-shore our economy, they want to be something like the policeman of the world (in fairness, also-Rand was an exception), they think the main danger from radical Islamic terrorism is white people turning Islamophobic, they go to pains to add "...or woman" every time they say the word "man," and so on and so forth.

It's like there's a scale from 0 to 10, with Trump being the only one who's on the half from 5 to 10, and all the cucks being huddled at 2, 1.5, 3, 0.8, 1.9 -- if you want someone on the other half of the spectrum, Trump is the only one staking out a claim there. You can see the difference between him and the huddled pack of cucks from a mile away. No need for him to introduce himself up close and personal -- just the media coverage, internet, and maybe large rallies in real life.

If Trump is not your man, then you have to zoom way in to see which cuck is 2, which is 0.8, which is 3, etc. Nobody would bother researching nearly identical candidates, so the candidates have to introduce themselves and their positions to the voters directly. "Hey, we hear you don't want Trump. Now, you may think you'd like a cuck at 0.8, but trust me, what you really want is a cuck at 1.5 -- and I'm just that cuck." In a non-Trump election, they'd skip with the first sentence and go right into the spiel about why 1.5 is better than 0.8, on a scale from 0 to 10. Borrrrinnnng.

This is reflected in how long supporters of Trump vs. the cucks have had their minds made up. The Trump army has made up their minds for months and months now -- once it was clear he was the only candidate in the entire populist/nationalist side of the spectrum. And that only took a split-second to tell, even for the legally blind, since the chasm between him and the rest was so yuge.

If you want an elitist/globalist candidate, you either have to do your own research into the half-dozen of them, or wait for them to introduce themselves to you at length, or maybe just roll a die once you get into the voting booth. Because they're so similar, it'll take you longer to quite juggling them around and hold onto just one.

This also explains why Trump has needed to spend so little -- it's not just the hours of free media coverage he gets. If word got out that there was a candidate with Trump's positions, who was rich enough to fund his own campaign and not be beholden to the donor class, and whose positions and performances they could at least see during the debates, that candidate would enjoy massive word-of-mouth support. He wouldn't need to spend anything -- that I can tell you.

If, however, you're just one of a pack of nearly identical stiffs, you need to spend a fortune to distinguish yourself from the other stiffs. Help the voters realize that you're the 0.8 cuck -- not the 1.5 cuck, the 2 cuck, the 1.9 cuck, or the 3 cuck. These candidates are so far into diminishing marginal returns on their campaign spending, that they waste tens of millions just to move from 5th to 4th. And to still lose big-league to the one who's so distinctive he doesn't need to spend anything for voters to understand where he stands relative to the competition.

Imagine an election where there were five or six Trump-like candidates -- get ready, faggots, that will be the reality within your lifetime -- suddenly Trump would have to spend lots of money to distinguish himself from so many close imitators. But in this election, he's the only one in the other half of the spectrum, so we don't need to know his absolute standing -- if he's at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. Trump himself has largely left that question open, and probably hasn't firmly settled the matter even in his own mind. He doesn't need to pin down precisely where he is -- he just has to be the one on that half of the spectrum, while the rest are in the other half, and he gets the votes of those who want a populist/nationalist.

We could attribute Trump's efficiency -- low spending, low ground game, great results -- to his native talent, to years of experience running an efficient business, and so on. But I keep wanting to emphasize that his success is due to his positions rather than anything about his personality. That he's a master negotiator and strategist does not hurt, but if the disaffected masses of voters saw a personality like Jeb Bush sincerely stake out the only claim on the populist/nationalist half of the spectrum, while being funded from his own money or small donors, they would quickly gravitate to him and send him to the White House, as wimpy and flustered as they might find his personality.

That should give us hope about the worst-case scenario where Trump doesn't become President, and does not run again. He would not need to be replaced by another media magician or business wizard -- just someone who held the same positions, maybe a little more fine-tuned, and who didn't want big-money funding. Remember, such an easily distinguishable candidate wouldn't need tons of funding anyway if there's a soaring demand for what they're offering, as there clearly seems to be. Enough to pay campaign staff, run some ads, etc., but nothing near the fortunes that the identical cucks have to spend to stand out from one another.