[cbgb]

This argument, to me, seems like a lot of inside baseball. I think people attuned to the political conversation vastly overestimate how much political coverage the average voter consumes.

Occam's Razor might suggest people are voting for Clinton and Trump due to name recognition and previous primary results.

[jonnathanson]

Actually, ironically enough, the average person's lack of political involvement is precisely why political media coverage works so well for Trump and Clinton. If most people are generally unaware of what's going on, then there's a massive premium attributable to awareness alone. People are more aware of Trump than they are of, say, John Kasich. (I'm willing to bet the latter's unaided awareness among the general population is quite low, and lower still among that sample of GenPop who doesn't read or watch election-cycle news).

This observation is at the heart of Trump's calculus. Awareness, awareness, awareness. How do you get awareness? Through reach and frequency of your exposure to the public. How do you get reach and frequency? Media. How do you get free media? Say crazy shit. Be outrageous. Be different.

Awareness, awareness, awareness. It is nine tenths of the battle, especially in the primaries.

Things like favorability only matter once you've cleared the awareness hurdle. And that hurdle is quite high; it's often a lot higher than campaign managers or media pundits expect. In fact, the more disengaged people are from election coverage, the less aware they are of who the candidates are, and the more important it is to get in front of them through any means possible. Someone like Clinton or Trump has had, what, 9 billion chances to get in front of the average person at this point.

Another key to Trump's success has been hijacking the non-election news cycle. You only hear about John Kasich if you're watching or reading political news, and since many people are not, that sucks for John Kasich. But you hear about Donald Trump pretty much anytime and anywhere; he is inescapably in all aspects of the news across all outlets.

[frogpelt]

> "People are more aware of Trump than they are of, say, John Kasich."

This is as anecdotal as it gets, but to your point. In a recent political discussion one of my co-workers had no idea how to pronounce Kasich's name. If he was all over the news, this would not be a problem.

> "Be outrageous. Be different."

Or be a Clinton.

[jonnathanson]

"Or be a Clinton."

Exactly.

Both Trump and Clinton have preexisting celebrity going for them, and Trump fuels that fire with a steady trickle of media-baiting tactics.