I wouldn’t, on my own, call Trump charismatic, I guess I have mentally reserved the meaning with a positive connotation. But in searching for an explanation for why such an obviously terrible person could have the effect he does on so many people, charisma is the only answer, as described in the linked articles. Trump is a disease, a psychological virus that about 50% of the voting public has contracted.

One place I read that his effect will quickly subside when the exposure is reduced. It will be interesting to see if that is the case. It was also said that the strength of his power over the minds of the gullible would fade during a second term, if he got one.

I don't know who is saying that, but I suspect they do not understand the impact of a cult leader on the followers. These folks are not just gullible, they are people in search of something to believe, something to be their voice in a world which is bypassing them, because they can not adapt to change. As long as Mr Trump continues to spew the message in which they believe, they will follow. His base is the same base which has supported Republicans for the last 50 years. Those Republicans leaders have always denied who the base is, but it was clear to everyone who and what they are. These are folks who have no ideology. They are really not Republicans. They are the dispossessed peoples who can not accept what is happening, and happening too rapidly for them to analyze.

There is an infamous story about a Haitian dictator who once, while a european diplomat was visiting the fort overlooking Port au Prince, ordered one of his soldiers standing on the parapets to jump to his death. These are the Trump supporters. They are willing to die for him if he so ordered ... masks

I wouldn't classify Trump as being charismatic, at least in the normal sense of the meaning of being charismatic. But there's definitely an attraction there.

I believe this is the point of the author, who is a cult expert. The mind control of the leader depends heavily upon consistent and continuous exposure. In the instance of Trump losing the bully pulpit, that control will diminish to a point below the threshold.

If he got a second term, the author predicts that the root messaging would go stale, especially when coupled with failure of the mythology to come to pass.

Lots of assh*les are "charismatic".

Satan himself is charismatic...it's not a compliment, it's an uncanny ability to get people to admire you for no reason at all.

Definition - exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.

There's nothing charming about Trump, Now that the adjective definition. Used as a noun - quality of leadership derived from personality.

If the latter, a good many people must love an obnoxious, uncouth, raunchy personality.

Jim Jones was charismatic as Hell: When he asked all his followers to line up for cyanide KoolAid, very very few bugged out for the jungle. Like a handful. Trump is essentially the same guy. His followers are willing to die for him. (No masks and packed rallies.) They believe every tweet or statement, even if they contradict a previous one. They believe he is immune to error or the laws, like papal infallibility.

I think we have a lot of deprogramming to do over the next few years. Maybe we should just start forming group therapy sessions now. When one of them does something crazy, they get diverted into a group led by a real psychologist.

Or we can just implement the Republican solution and issue them all fake headsets, so when they wander down the street talking to the voices in their heads, people will think they are talking on their cell phones.

Will this be the takeaway?
Trump is the political pied piper that led voters astray from the approved path by playing his charisma flute?

Couldn't be anything else in the political economy?

Hooo boy!

I think it should be one takeaway. Do you think there is only one takeaway?

I think 2016 and the election of Trump has to be placed into the context of 2016 when both parties nominated the least like candidates in our history. At least since Pew Research and Gallup started keeping track of these things. Here's the list

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 70/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/43%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%


Hillary and Trump have the honor of being seen unfavorably by over half of all America. Even Barry Goldwater back in 1964 wasn't seen as negative as both Trump and Clinton were. They are also the only two major party candidates to be seen by less than 40% of all America favorably. Another honor bestowed on Trump and Hillary.

I'll add Biden and Trump 2020 to the list once I receive it.