You've got the discovery of using "comedy" shows and celebrities to constantly shove politics into your face and pavlovian condition people to laugh at orange man. People who watch this and repeat their takeaways don't even realize they're spewing a politicized view of an event. Both these type of shows and also Trump himself are responsible for this. Here's a guy who ran on a populist platform and talked in a way that's easy to understand (simple language, repetition, jokes). He popularized politics in a way. Gave his opponents nicknames. He almost turned politics into IBS. A spectacle.
I'm not trying to be the golden centrist above it all, I'm simply recognising both american left and american right have had to adapt to each other and find new ways of reaching people. I also don't think one man's political campaign is comparable to the whole apparatus that will continue to do this day in, day out, but that's just my personal view of it.
People grow complacent and desensitized, so then it becomes necessary to have ever bigger stimulation to poke people to vote or activise for you. This increased stimulation also helps radicalize people and makes it insanity to the more sensitive. This also makes politics louder than other things and it can drown out various other topics. This then trickles down to what people talk about.
Here's my question: if you bring modern advertising techniques into the past, would they have absolutely devastated the competition?
Would a daily show or a trump have connected with people three or five or seven decades ago?
And if not, what gave people the tools to resist the cajoling finger?
If yes, then wouldn't it all just be the result of more potent messaging, a kind of innovation in manipulating people through media?