I scanned the article this morning and have just finished a more leisurely read. Robomatic's remark that the article is the "Bread and Circuses" one has some merit, in that it emphasises people value being entertained quite highly - I think of many popular films, for example, that are high on spectacle but have almost no storyline. Also the idea that Trump won because he was playing a different game has merit. Both of these go some way towards explaining why the results were what they are. But they don't resolve it for me, because they neglect two factors that are important. There are those who take the ake viewpoint that some voters were completely neglected under the traditional system and they saw this as a way getting some influence. Like it or not, there are significant numbers who thought - and still think - like that. Equally, this article posits that there are some who value entertainment and spectacle so highly they are prepared to risk losing everything - rights, welfare, what have you - in favour of being entertained. Again, such people definitely exist. For example, compulsive gamblers need the thrill of the bet even if it eventually costs them their home. The article seem to be proposing it was these seekers-after-spectacle-at-all-costs that were the deciding factor. That could be right, but I don't see the evidence for it. And making that case can easily be presented as "the voters were just stupid", but in a more sophisticated language.

Don't get me wrong: I am not Trump supporter. But this article seemed to be an "easy" explanation (albeit a more erudite one).