“In the case of Trump, too, given his legendary capacity to hold a grudge, any former donors who abandon him for a competitor will stir his wrath, and if he wins, he will direct his power to their disadvantage. Since the money flow in American politics more or less resembles a pay-to-play system, big donor policy interests would be at manifest risk should they abandon Trump. There have been exceptions, but not many.”

“Trump is a master at the simple, incendiary, sloganesque, shock-bar statement. He is an extremist’s extremist when he speaks to the party faithful. And it usually works with those at the core of primary contests. You can see how important this is because Vivek Ramaswamy has imitated and tried to outdo Trump in precisely this way, and by so doing, he has put his name on the Republican political map despite having zero political experience and pretty much no brains.”

“That doesn’t mean that Trump won in 2016 without positions on issues. He did have positions, most of which were given to him, and he never studied or really understood them, but that doesn’t matter. So now, when challengers try to gain ground on him, they find themselves doing it locked into his policy positions. With few exceptions, none has broken out of the mold. So, they all end up looking like imitators, and primary voters tend to reason, “Why go with an imitator when the original real thing is there in the ring?”’

“Having been president, Trump was able to use his office to confer status and benefits on others, those who worked for him and others besides. They all owe Trump, and he collects the debts in the form of political loyalty. That has enabled him to control most state party organizations. That matters.”