Donald Trump, and how his political Chad game works.

It's interesting that people bring up Donald Trump in the context of RedPill, as he demonstrates pretty clearly both the strengths and weaknesses of RedPill social/sexual strategy.

Donald Trump is not a policy wonk, nor does he really have much in the way of political experience or a natural constituency. Nor is he really a true conservative. What he's done with the Republican Party is the closest thing I've seen to a political hostile takeover and he's done it almost entirely on the back of his own charisma.

With that in mind, I think there's three key questions that should be asked:

1. What is it about Trump's persona that strikes a chord with Republican voters?

2. Why was the Republican Party and the other candidates so vulnerable to Trump's hostile takeover?

3. What is the prognosis for a Trump-led GOP in the general election and maybe beyond?

So here we go.

What is it about Trump's persona that strikes a chord with Republican voters?

The key to Trump's charisma is his willingness to polarize. He isn't afraid of bold action, in fact he seeks it out (or so he would have you think). He isn't afraid to state his intentions, even at the risk of alienating others. And when challenged, he falls back upon a practiced air of self-assuredness that's critical in boardrooms. Sometimes this becomes sheer bravado, but what sells it is the lack of self-consciousness; his playful, almost nonchalant manner that often disarms opponents. It gives him an air of brutal honesty and rock-solid confidence. He gives off the vibe of a winner - at his best, a happy warrior. Taken too far, he'll descend into Charlie Sheen-like manic absurdity, but he's actually gotten more disciplined as the campaign goes on.

Why was the Republican Party and the other candidates so vulnerable to Trump's hostile takeover?

Both parties suffer from the same problem, but in different ways. The Democratic Party is torn between its base, demanding an aggressively left-wing agenda (Bernie), and a party establishment (Hillary) that is more or less utterly unprincipled and out for its own interests. The Republicans have a similar issue. The base and the establishment are united in opposition (and more or less on goals), but utterly separated on execution. The Republican party establishment has been losing the culture battle for a few decades against the left, and as a result, the people most under media attention, almost fear it, and it's propensity for willful misinterpretation and malicious coverage. The gap on ideology between establishment and base actually isn't that large, but the gap in will is tremendous.

What this leads us to conclude is, the party best able to bridge the gap between them and their base will win the election. The current climate of polarization prevents the emerge of any realistic 50-state strategies or angling for cross-party appeal. The party that wins is the one that most energizes their base and depresses their opponents. This can be seen in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2000 as well. If Bush hadn't been able to mobilize his base and lock down key swing states (leaving Florida aside), Gore would have won. A better Democrat would have won, Bill Clinton would have had a good shot if he was willing and able to run for a third term.

With this in mind, we can see how many of the candidates have critical flaws that Trump was able to exploit. I'll run down the list quickly.

• Jeb Bush. His first and chief target. Jeb had the money and the credibility. But he was also establishment through and through. Trump basically out-machoed him. Bush was unwilling to go toe-to-toe, and was easily flustered by Trump. His inability to polarize gave Trump control over the dynamic, and as a result, Trump never went on the defensive against him. "Low energy" spoke to Jeb's inertness. By the time Trump was done with him, Bush looked like Cyril Figgis and was stuck at 10% at best support.

• Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz was the best positioned to be the darling of the base and be a coalescing point of anti-establishment animus. Once again, Trump found his weakness - "Lyin' Ted". Ted Cruz is arguably the smartest guy in the Republican field, but is socially incompetent. He reeks of insincerity and wariness that comes across as concealed aggression. When he tones it down and tries to connect with an audience, he comes across as insincere or even maudlin. Trump was even able to turn Cruz's place as the black sheep of the Republican Caucus into a strike against him! If Ted Cruz had Trump's confidence and self-assuredness, he'd be much better. Poor guy is as serotonin-starved as an anger phase RedPiller. Even if people liked Ted Cruz's stances on issues, they always felt uneasy about him. Ted Cruz is far too polarizing, you only like him if you ideologically agree with him.

• Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio has nerves, and bad. He doesn't have Ted Cruz's weird emotional undercurrents, but he's so tightly wound that he comes off a times like a Hispanic Niles Crane at best, or Marcobot at worse. Trump just let him basically hang himself, dismissing him as "little Marco", which reminds people of how he seemed like a boy applying for a man's job.

• Ben Carson. Probably the best guy to match Trump in a charisma battle, but doomed by his political inexperience. He seemed like a first-class guy, who won big hero points with the Republican base when he called Obama out over Obamacare to his face and railed against outrage culture/PC. But he was uncomfortable polarizing and carving out a niche for himself. He seemed more like a cool father-in-law and less of a President.

• Rand Paul arguably held the ideological high ground, but failed to pick his issues properly or strike a chord with the audience. Getting into repeated scraps with last-of-the-neocons Chris Christie left him bloody for no real gain. Trump more or less ignored him.

• Kasich has no real shot of winning the nomination in his own right and never did. His entire angle from the beginning is obvious - VP pick for Ohio. Winning his home state is the only reason he's still around.

Now we see why Trump's ability to give and take hits allows him to wade into the center of the ring, dominate the melee, and win the crowd. And he's done it without having to dip too deep into his own pockets, and even immured himself largely to media criticism at least where the Republican base is concerned. Even Fox News is forced to pay attention to him and give him free coverage. He was the elephant in the room from day 1 and never lost it.

What is the prognosis for a Trump-led GOP in the general election and maybe beyond?

Hard to say. The biggest thing going against Trump is he may be too polarizing. This is especially bad in a general election, because a polarizing candidate can motivate the opponent's base as well. Many of his earlier comments may come back to haunt him. It the Democrats are smart, they'll attack him by controlling the agenda. Neither Hillary nor Bernie would beat him on a charisma battle, but an Obama would make a fight out of it, and a Bill Clinton or a Roosevelt would beat him. You beat a guy like Trump by pulling his teeth. You superficially agree with him to bait him into attacking on your terms and don't break frame. You cut through his bravado with vulnerable honesty. And when he's confused, then you attack. Narcissists are easy to beat when you realize their two biggest flaws, their lack of self-awareness, and their need for respect.

The very things that make Trump a great competitor, would also make him a flawed negotiator. Business deals are different than political deals for one very important reason. In politics, appearances matter as much or more than self-interest, and influence networks are the real capital, rather than the ability and willingness to act. Politics is seduction far more than it is horse trading. The big question going forward for Trump is whether he can force a concordat with the GOP establishment on his terms, before they undermine him, even passively, at the convention or in the general. Trump understands how to overwhelm opponents, he's not so good at converting them. If he was, this election would already be over. The trouble is, for Trump to have any success going forward, he has learn how to go indirect. That will be his key to closing the gender gap, to gaining support in Congress, to pulling the media's teeth. Trump does not strike me at a man who's gifted at flirtation. And I don't think he has the sheer ruthlessness of an LBJ. Trump really is a Chad, not James Bond.