This is the "no true Scott's man" fallacy.
You are redefining smart because it makes you uncomfortable to admit it. Google the definition of smart and notice how being quick witted is part of the definition. It directly describes the behavior you cited in your post.
Whatever the hell he is doing, he certainly did it better than everyone else in the country.
He did that shyt twice. I would completely agree with you if 2016 was a fluke, but this guy rigged the entire system around him the second time. It reminds me of the Reagan maps from the 1980s election. Recall that The democratic party has hundreds of PhD social scientists, political scientists, policy writers, etc and none of those people could defeat trump's strategy. And keep in mind Trump is known to ignore telepromters, speech writers, and ananalysts when he approaches poltics and it keeps working.
I gave you the exact specifics of what they did well, you essentially reinforced what I said. But you are asking for an undetailed, blanket "they smart" type of assessment, and no...thats not really what's going on.
Not when you don't know how tarrifs work, not when you don't believe in science, not when you're religious minded abd believe in race science unironically
An example of an intelligent person is say...Neil degrasse tyson, now put Trump in a room with Neil, and would Trump be able to win any debate, convince, or charm Neil in any fashion? No. Meaning Trump relies on the manipulation of *other* special types of people. The less informed. The easy to manipulate. The ones not versed in psychology or social dynamics
Also, Trump won like in 2016 merely because of a fracturing of the democratic base. Less turnout, and far left non voters that didn't vote because ofGaza, or just uninspired to do so. Like Bernie supporters in 2016.
I warned about that shyt prior to the election, that if we lose, it's because of the Hasan pikers, and non voters. The fracturing of the base.