I've watched Trump years ago on The Apprentice. What he brought to politics was business sense and marketing know-how, which has been surprisingly absent from political campaigns before.
So was everyone else in the Republican Primary lineup. The only reason Kasich came off as a moderate is because he smiled and didn't directly attack the other candidates.
I think it's actually quite interesting - as a non-insignificant number of people are probably supporting Trump because they are tired of being told that holding a particular belief is 'racist' or 'xenophobic' (something they clearly would disagree with).
So a bunch of racist, xenophobic people are tired of being told that they're racist and xenophobic? I can believe that. Of course, I thought they also want a "straight shooter" who "isn't afraid to tell it like it is"... well, I guess something's gotta give.
Is there a benchmark for measuring racism or xenophobia? Ie the terms are so vague and subject to personal interpretation that I think they pretty much mean 'Someone's whose views I disagree with'.
I think that's something that someone who doesn't really understand Trump and Trump supporters would say.
As far as I can tell, most Trump supporters want someone who is outside the system to go in and shake it up, because they see the system is failing them, and the other candidates are just extensions of the status quo (see also why Bernie Sanders is popular).
This is why it doesn't matter what Trump says or does, because people don't care about single sound bites of the current news cycle.
Note, also that many (but not all) of the 'racist, sexist and xenophobic' comments attributed to Trump are things taken out of context, and then blown up via the media and various social networks.
If you go back to the source and look at what Trump actually said, it's often quite different from what the anti-trump headlines and tweets imply.
He also has an entire career full of actions that refute many of the accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and whatever else.
Note: I am not a Trump supporter, and not even eligible to vote in US elections. This is just what I have gathered from following more than once source of news and trying to get a balanced understanding of what's happening in US politics at the moment.
Neither business sense nor marketing know-how have been absent from political campaigns before; plenty of politicians (and many of their close advisors, as well) have been quite successful in business before or between political campaigns, and the people running campaigns are generally experts in marketing (many of them quite successful in that in the commercial realm before and between political campaigns as well.)
Consider this - Trump took every opportunity for media interviews, while other candidates would avoid them. Trump's bombastic statements made for constant headlines. I read somewhere that he garnered billions in free publicity, and would often be the lead news story of the day.
This is marketing know-how.
Consider also his labeling of opponents with nicknames that had just enough truth to stick. Very effective.
Scott Adams' blog has a lot more interesting commentary on this.
Trump's (presumptive) nomination was a big surprise to me. However, in retrospect, it looks less surprising. Trump was always going to attract a sizable minority, and there were really no other compelling candidates in the race. While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. At the end, well, I am not certain that I wouldn't pick Trump over Cruz, for example.
No; the evidential "I am not certain" is not logically exclusive with its negation, "I am certain". So the principle of double negation does not apply.
Brought to you by a partially wasted youth as a philosophy major.
> While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear.
Why are you sure of that? He's gotten a record number of votes for a Republican primary. It's very clear that, in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump, along with a sizable percentage of independents who voted in some of the primaries.
It's this kind of wishful thinking by non-Republicans that leads to all the laughable errors of the pundit and pollster class.
There were really no other compelling candidates in the race.
Last year, the 2016 GOP presidential candidates were referred to as a "Republican dream team" by Karl Rove. That was true only by comparison with the 2012 field, which was more like the Republican clown car.
Really, the disappointment here is that the candidates just weren't very good. The choices were a few second-rate governors (Bush, Kasich) and a bunch of far-right nuts. None of them would measure up to Eisenhower, or Reagan, or Bush I, or even Nixon.
This setup where you become President by raising your own money and running your own campaign isn't working.
An old school Republican (wealthy older white gentlement), told me at the begging of the campaign that Republican party is doomed. He considered Trump a bad joke at the time. And was talking about Cruz and others. He saw the target demographics of the Republican basically dying out, nothing to appeal to younger generation and predicted the party won't last too much longer.
It made sense to me. It seems funny enough the clown that everyone was laughing at might now be a new hope for the party.
I think what is going to be interesting is that there a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and would vote for Hillary instead. And also there are a good number of Democrats who will vote for Trump if they can't have Sanders (as both Sanders and Trump are seen as being anti-existing-political establishment).
Identifying the Reasons in hindsight is not the point. There are always Reasons but if you can't reliably identify them before the event rather than after then it's not of any predictive interest.
>"...our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses"
People of al stripes do this in all kinds of situations. We have a hypothesis and find data to support that.
In this case both Trump and Bernie were hard to gauge. Trump just had no prior history (I said to myself) and Bernie was never notable in national politics outside a small core constituency so the default was to discount both because on both sides they were more to the extremes (left and right ends) of their parties.
Also, both Bernie and Trump are the animus the personification of the feelings of large swaths of the electorate --so it goes beyond what they represent as isolated individuals ("movement").
most of these analysts will find it hard to discount their "instinct" even if they want to be data-driven (in a sphere where data can only reveal so much.
> In any race where Silver didn't make a pick — again, he isn't playing the pick-every-contest game — Diggler's numbers treat the non-prediction as a wrong prediction. So Silver's accuracy rate through May 7, according to Diggler, was just 55 percent, while his own was 89 percent.
Null is neither correct nor incorrect. If I don't play a game of chess today and you do, I haven't lost anything. I simply haven't played. The world is not binary.
This claim is tantamount to a schoolyard taunt like, "If you don't fight me, you're a coward." And claiming victory when your opponent wasn't even at school that day to hear the taunt.
Right, but if you play chess against a lot of children and crush them 100% of the time and I play against moderately experienced players and win 90% of the time, I'm probably better at chess
Fine. Fuck the analogies because yours isn't even close to the actual situation.
At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied.
The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction.
EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph.
EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur.
The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.
There are no good data sources for politics now. Gallup admits that well over 90% of the people they call for polls won't talk to them. They can't call cell phones for polls. They can try focus groups, but that gets you people who have time to waste.
> These fundamentals usually consist of economic indicators and various measures of incumbency.
I looked at a couple links, and couldn't quickly find the exact "fundamentals" he refers to. For instance, do they include campaign financing (corrected by peculiar things lke Trump's free media coverage, and perhaps whatever unpaid labor of Sanders' supporters)?
Given that politicians spend enormous time on financing, this is an obvious indicator. But it may be politically incorrect to use models that imply money drives the US.
(Chomsky mentioned, "At the moment, the polls indicate an even race. Usually, US elections can be predicted pretty well by the level of funding, overwhelmingly from the very wealthy and corporations. In the early stages, Bush was far in the lead, not a surprise in the light of the enormous gifts his administration has lavished on a very small wealthy minority and on corporate power. However, that funding gap has reduced considerably in the past months, apparently reflecting concern among elite sectors over the extraordinary incompetence of the Bush planners and the harm they are doing to core elite interests." https://chomsky.info/20041011/)
Not only did he call it, he explained and predicted in detail. For example, he predicted the Megyn Kelly interview.
Edit: He predicted the interview and that it would mark a turning point where Trump softens his image, destroys Clinton's image, and coasts towards a landslide victory. The interview happened and the polls are turning now, on cue.
He also predicted Trump would use the word love and possibly be seen hugging minorities. Anyone see Trump's Cinco de Mayo tweet?
Unfortunately, Trump is our next president.
Second edit: I highly recommend Scott Adam's blog. He and Trump are both psychology geniuses and the blog explains it.
Not the OP but Cruz was an ideologue (would apparently not compromise) engaged in risky tactics (shut down government) , was disliked by colleagues and religion was above all else.
The country does not need a priest or pastor in chief.
I get all that. I will note that what you say is phrased like talking points from Cruz' enemies designed to make him 1-dimensional, but at least you provided some simple examples to back up some of your statements.
Back to my original question: how does the GP figure that a Cruz presidency would be worse than a Trump one?
Does Trump have any negatives for you? Can you weigh Trump's policy statements, demeanor, and history against Cruz'?
If one were to take Trump literally, then yes, he would have some very negative aspects --but so would Bernie.
As far as I can read mr. Trump which isn't to say I'm right, I think he's a quite an adroit pragmatic populist who when it becomes necessary will adjust his more extreme positions and bring them in alignment with the average sentiment of the population.
His having been a business person, I don't think he'd take catastrophic action on trade in order to satisfy a vague promise. He may seek to curtail illegal immigration by simply enforcing e-verify for all jobs --that way, you might stay here, but there is no point if you can't get work. At the same time I could imagine a guest worker program, to give people who are willing to comply, an avenue to work here. He may reframe the whole NRA/2nd amendment rights issue to a less polarized one. I think he's not apt to vilify the LGBTQ community as a Cruz would likely do.
Cruz was only about his "base". I think Trump has a good chance to expand beyond his core constituency, disaffected working class and non-ideological conservatives. He has the personality to pull in blue collar blacks as well as blue collar Americans of Latin American descent. He may well alienate undocumented immigrants and people who sympathise with them, but he may risk that, for the time being.
Okay, I think you're projecting in a lot of your assessment of Trump, but that's just my dumb opinion.
I hear Trump's words and his "Big City boss" approach to governing doesn't appeal to me, and I don't believe is going to be productive. I take it you think he will tack to the populist center, but I have no clue what he'd do on a whole range of issues based just on what he has said. It's like "Hope America Change Again" should be his slogan.
He's boorish when it comes to women and sexuality. His foreign policy statements continue to be a hot mess; he's either feigning ignorance or is actually ignorant on world issues when he shoots from the hip. Demonizing Mexico/Mexicans and China for show, stoking up hate for votes. The "Rafael Cruz may have been part of the JFK assassination" antics was a completely crazy stunt and unnecessary given where the campaigns stood in Indiana. Alluding to his adequate dick size in a presidential debate. And on and on, Trump isn't funny or refreshing to me ...
Domestic policy-wise, yes, there might be some bright spots (like his tax plan). Anywhere he is cagey or ambiguous on his policy statements or has done an about-face, he is a complete enigma (was for late-term abortion and now is for punishing mothers for getting abortions should abortion become illegal.)
BTW, I don't blame you for projecting, a lot of people love the guy and want to see him succeed!
Then I'm sure you'll applaud me when I oppose Trump! I don't want to be inconsistent, after all.
You see, I'm a conservative, and I said at the time that predator Clinton deserved jailtime for what he did. Impeachment and disbarment wasn't enough for an executive that had sex with his 20-something _intern staffer_. That's straight-up criminal, go to JAIL, pig!
But let's not re-litigate the past, you're right, let's focus on Trump. What don't we know about this creep's sleazy activities? Let's see the tax returns! Trump University was a scam that hurt vulnerable people! The casino biz is full of colorful characters, I'm curious about his business partners and finances. Did he really visit that rumored "sex island" along with _Bill Clinton_? How young were the girls/boys he diddled there, if he did go? Are any of the rumors of mob ties to Trump substantial? Enquiring minds want to know!!
And then Trump sounded like a Grade-A perv when he said on mic that he'd want to date his daughter if they weren't related. Noone should talk sexually about their kids that way, SICK! For Pete's sake, sorry to vent, but WTF is the appeal of this guy?? I know Evangelical Christians that voted enthusiastically for the guy, it's madness!
Yeah, watch the hilarity ensue as we pit the two most negative political animals against one another. Pray the electorate doesn't get a clue about your guy before Nov, is all I'm saying.
With regard to politicians, like artists and many other people of note, I don't like them because of what their personal character is, but rather what I think they can accomplish.
If I'm on a boat with a captain and the choice is between a well mannered gentleman and a gruff captain who can "get shit done" I want the latter to captain the ship and I'd want the former as company.
I'm not electing an official to be the nicest person, but the person who can see through things which need to get done. Not saying I'd want a criminal, I just don't need an idealized for of personal character.
I vote independent, though have probably voted more conservative at the local level and more liberal at the upstream levels. But really depends on what the candidate might do politically, rather than personally.
> With regard to politicians, like artists and many other people of note, I don't like them because of what their personal character is, but rather what I think they can accomplish.
I don't think you're so unbiased on personal character. You did say the country does not need a priest or pastor in chief. The fact that the Cruz character/persona his campaign put out there was dripping with Christianity has no bearing on his ability to "get shit done".
I got the sense that Cruz is a sharky lawyer political operator type above all. Opportunistic, and out to further his own political career. He's not the greatest human being, but I liked his campaign promises because I thought they were mostly doable if he got a strong mandate from the voters and the GOP was still largely in power in Congress.
With Trump my mind keeps returning to the fable about the Scorpion and the Frog. I just don't trust the guy.
It incurs costs both financial and political. And really, it's antithetical to being a politician. It's like being a physician and wanting to not cure people. Being a politician and simultaneously wanting to have things shutdown is anathema.
The distinguishing feature of the scientific method is not that
it always gets the answer right, but that it fails forward by
learning from its mistakes...
I want to think through his nomination while trying to avoid
the seduction of hindsight bias.
Kudos to Nate Silver for meticulously examining how he got it wrong, and publicly showing his work so we can all get better.
Maxim 20 from the Art of wordly wisdom (A must read book)
"The rarest individuals depend on their age. It is not every one that finds the age he deserves, and even when he finds it he does not always know how to utilise it. Some men have been worthy of a better century, for every species of good does not always triumph. Things have their period; even excellences are subject to fashion. The sage has one advantage: he is
immortal. If this is not his century many others will be."
This is the age of of the Troll and the response they elicit, Trump read it and understood it, ahead of most and definately ahead of his competitors. He understands the age and is taking full advantage of it. Some saw it coming, and others did not, many who even called themselves experts.
58 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadSo, basically a giant Bayesian prior fail.
edit: got to the part where nate talks about the bayesian failure in more detail. It's good.
As far as I can tell, most Trump supporters want someone who is outside the system to go in and shake it up, because they see the system is failing them, and the other candidates are just extensions of the status quo (see also why Bernie Sanders is popular).
This is why it doesn't matter what Trump says or does, because people don't care about single sound bites of the current news cycle.
Note, also that many (but not all) of the 'racist, sexist and xenophobic' comments attributed to Trump are things taken out of context, and then blown up via the media and various social networks.
If you go back to the source and look at what Trump actually said, it's often quite different from what the anti-trump headlines and tweets imply.
He also has an entire career full of actions that refute many of the accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and whatever else.
Note: I am not a Trump supporter, and not even eligible to vote in US elections. This is just what I have gathered from following more than once source of news and trying to get a balanced understanding of what's happening in US politics at the moment.
This is marketing know-how.
Consider also his labeling of opponents with nicknames that had just enough truth to stick. Very effective.
Scott Adams' blog has a lot more interesting commentary on this.
The negatives sprinkled throughout that sentence don't make it clearer.
isn't it just: "I would pick Trump over Cruz"?
Brought to you by a partially wasted youth as a philosophy major.
Why are you sure of that? He's gotten a record number of votes for a Republican primary. It's very clear that, in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump, along with a sizable percentage of independents who voted in some of the primaries.
It's this kind of wishful thinking by non-Republicans that leads to all the laughable errors of the pundit and pollster class.
He does not have a majority of the primary vote.
Last year, the 2016 GOP presidential candidates were referred to as a "Republican dream team" by Karl Rove. That was true only by comparison with the 2012 field, which was more like the Republican clown car.
Really, the disappointment here is that the candidates just weren't very good. The choices were a few second-rate governors (Bush, Kasich) and a bunch of far-right nuts. None of them would measure up to Eisenhower, or Reagan, or Bush I, or even Nixon.
This setup where you become President by raising your own money and running your own campaign isn't working.
It made sense to me. It seems funny enough the clown that everyone was laughing at might now be a new hope for the party.
I think what is going to be interesting is that there a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and would vote for Hillary instead. And also there are a good number of Democrats who will vote for Trump if they can't have Sanders (as both Sanders and Trump are seen as being anti-existing-political establishment).
Trump is a celebrity who gets free media coverage and people aspire to. So of course he was a serious contender from Day One.
The fact that he is not polished for the media is a plus to most people.
As one woman said to a news reporter earlier in the campaign, "Well, I could vote for the other candidate. But he's a politician."
He is EXTREMELY polished. He's a professional personality. He's been doing it for a decade, wooing audiences. He knows how to do it.
What he is not, is a politician.
> Well, I could vote for the other candidate. But he's a politician.
exactly.
People aren't happy, and they'll vote for anyone that isn't "more of the same". eg Trump and Sanders.
People of al stripes do this in all kinds of situations. We have a hypothesis and find data to support that.
In this case both Trump and Bernie were hard to gauge. Trump just had no prior history (I said to myself) and Bernie was never notable in national politics outside a small core constituency so the default was to discount both because on both sides they were more to the extremes (left and right ends) of their parties.
Also, both Bernie and Trump are the animus the personification of the feelings of large swaths of the electorate --so it goes beyond what they represent as isolated individuals ("movement").
most of these analysts will find it hard to discount their "instinct" even if they want to be data-driven (in a sphere where data can only reveal so much.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/so...
So the comparison counts non-predictions by Silver makes your statement correct.
> even without a fancy statistical model
Remarkably anti-intellectual statement.
This claim is tantamount to a schoolyard taunt like, "If you don't fight me, you're a coward." And claiming victory when your opponent wasn't even at school that day to hear the taunt.
At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied.
The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction.
EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph.
EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur.
The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.
Step 2: for each election, have 50% predict one winner, have 50% predict the other winner.
Step 3: after the election, close all of the blogs that predicted incorrectly.
Step 4: repeat with a dwindling pool of more and more "accurate" pundit blogs.
I looked at a couple links, and couldn't quickly find the exact "fundamentals" he refers to. For instance, do they include campaign financing (corrected by peculiar things lke Trump's free media coverage, and perhaps whatever unpaid labor of Sanders' supporters)?
Given that politicians spend enormous time on financing, this is an obvious indicator. But it may be politically incorrect to use models that imply money drives the US.
(Chomsky mentioned, "At the moment, the polls indicate an even race. Usually, US elections can be predicted pretty well by the level of funding, overwhelmingly from the very wealthy and corporations. In the early stages, Bush was far in the lead, not a surprise in the light of the enormous gifts his administration has lavished on a very small wealthy minority and on corporate power. However, that funding gap has reduced considerably in the past months, apparently reflecting concern among elite sectors over the extraordinary incompetence of the Bush planners and the harm they are doing to core elite interests." https://chomsky.info/20041011/)
[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131749156346/the-case-for-a-tru...
Edit: He predicted the interview and that it would mark a turning point where Trump softens his image, destroys Clinton's image, and coasts towards a landslide victory. The interview happened and the polls are turning now, on cue.
He also predicted Trump would use the word love and possibly be seen hugging minorities. Anyone see Trump's Cinco de Mayo tweet?
Unfortunately, Trump is our next president.
Second edit: I highly recommend Scott Adam's blog. He and Trump are both psychology geniuses and the blog explains it.
The country does not need a priest or pastor in chief.
Back to my original question: how does the GP figure that a Cruz presidency would be worse than a Trump one?
Does Trump have any negatives for you? Can you weigh Trump's policy statements, demeanor, and history against Cruz'?
As far as I can read mr. Trump which isn't to say I'm right, I think he's a quite an adroit pragmatic populist who when it becomes necessary will adjust his more extreme positions and bring them in alignment with the average sentiment of the population.
His having been a business person, I don't think he'd take catastrophic action on trade in order to satisfy a vague promise. He may seek to curtail illegal immigration by simply enforcing e-verify for all jobs --that way, you might stay here, but there is no point if you can't get work. At the same time I could imagine a guest worker program, to give people who are willing to comply, an avenue to work here. He may reframe the whole NRA/2nd amendment rights issue to a less polarized one. I think he's not apt to vilify the LGBTQ community as a Cruz would likely do.
Cruz was only about his "base". I think Trump has a good chance to expand beyond his core constituency, disaffected working class and non-ideological conservatives. He has the personality to pull in blue collar blacks as well as blue collar Americans of Latin American descent. He may well alienate undocumented immigrants and people who sympathise with them, but he may risk that, for the time being.
I hear Trump's words and his "Big City boss" approach to governing doesn't appeal to me, and I don't believe is going to be productive. I take it you think he will tack to the populist center, but I have no clue what he'd do on a whole range of issues based just on what he has said. It's like "Hope America Change Again" should be his slogan.
He's boorish when it comes to women and sexuality. His foreign policy statements continue to be a hot mess; he's either feigning ignorance or is actually ignorant on world issues when he shoots from the hip. Demonizing Mexico/Mexicans and China for show, stoking up hate for votes. The "Rafael Cruz may have been part of the JFK assassination" antics was a completely crazy stunt and unnecessary given where the campaigns stood in Indiana. Alluding to his adequate dick size in a presidential debate. And on and on, Trump isn't funny or refreshing to me ...
Domestic policy-wise, yes, there might be some bright spots (like his tax plan). Anywhere he is cagey or ambiguous on his policy statements or has done an about-face, he is a complete enigma (was for late-term abortion and now is for punishing mothers for getting abortions should abortion become illegal.)
BTW, I don't blame you for projecting, a lot of people love the guy and want to see him succeed!
It's funny that people say this, when Bill Clinton repeatedly raped and took advantage of women and Hillary helped cover it up.
You see, I'm a conservative, and I said at the time that predator Clinton deserved jailtime for what he did. Impeachment and disbarment wasn't enough for an executive that had sex with his 20-something _intern staffer_. That's straight-up criminal, go to JAIL, pig!
But let's not re-litigate the past, you're right, let's focus on Trump. What don't we know about this creep's sleazy activities? Let's see the tax returns! Trump University was a scam that hurt vulnerable people! The casino biz is full of colorful characters, I'm curious about his business partners and finances. Did he really visit that rumored "sex island" along with _Bill Clinton_? How young were the girls/boys he diddled there, if he did go? Are any of the rumors of mob ties to Trump substantial? Enquiring minds want to know!!
And then Trump sounded like a Grade-A perv when he said on mic that he'd want to date his daughter if they weren't related. Noone should talk sexually about their kids that way, SICK! For Pete's sake, sorry to vent, but WTF is the appeal of this guy?? I know Evangelical Christians that voted enthusiastically for the guy, it's madness!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct...
It's especially weird that "Trump will be bad for women" is the (hilariously inept) angle the Clinton campaign is trying to take on him, given this.
If I'm on a boat with a captain and the choice is between a well mannered gentleman and a gruff captain who can "get shit done" I want the latter to captain the ship and I'd want the former as company. I'm not electing an official to be the nicest person, but the person who can see through things which need to get done. Not saying I'd want a criminal, I just don't need an idealized for of personal character.
I vote independent, though have probably voted more conservative at the local level and more liberal at the upstream levels. But really depends on what the candidate might do politically, rather than personally.
I don't think you're so unbiased on personal character. You did say the country does not need a priest or pastor in chief. The fact that the Cruz character/persona his campaign put out there was dripping with Christianity has no bearing on his ability to "get shit done".
I got the sense that Cruz is a sharky lawyer political operator type above all. Opportunistic, and out to further his own political career. He's not the greatest human being, but I liked his campaign promises because I thought they were mostly doable if he got a strong mandate from the voters and the GOP was still largely in power in Congress.
With Trump my mind keeps returning to the fable about the Scorpion and the Frog. I just don't trust the guy.
"The rarest individuals depend on their age. It is not every one that finds the age he deserves, and even when he finds it he does not always know how to utilise it. Some men have been worthy of a better century, for every species of good does not always triumph. Things have their period; even excellences are subject to fashion. The sage has one advantage: he is immortal. If this is not his century many others will be."
This is the age of of the Troll and the response they elicit, Trump read it and understood it, ahead of most and definately ahead of his competitors. He understands the age and is taking full advantage of it. Some saw it coming, and others did not, many who even called themselves experts.