Unfortunately, regardless of political side if someone, especially a presidential candidate, wants to stay relevant, they they have to stay in our hyper-24/7 news cycle.
The more the bolder, even extreme stance on a given issue, the more they will be featured in the news, and more exposure.
Trump proved that in 2016. Even bad media coverage is still coverage. I dont recall the figures, but he got something like $3billion in free press coverage, even if it was negative.
Both sides see themselves as the “good side.” Depending on one’s POV, that is subjective.
I live in a very rural area. Contrary to what the left-wing MSM is reporting, most are good people, accepting of any race, religion, or sexual orientation, etc. Now, they may not agree with it, but they are more of the live and let live type. All they want is less government, lower taxes and just to be left alone to live their lives.
I heard a NPR report after the 2016 election, where the reporter commented on how those in the rural areas were less educated, not having a college degree. She absolutely seethed with contempt for voters living in the rural areas. I was offended. While many of my rural neighbors do not have higher education, they are far from stupid or uninformed. They are in my opinion, more grounded in reality.
Flip side, my wife has 2 masters degrees, and we have more than a few friends who have higher education.
And they are more inclined to vote for Trump, even if they do not like him, than Clinton, or some of the more radical Democrats currently running.
And they are more likely to vote as they see it as their civic duty to vote.
How will they vote? That depends on who is put forth as candidates, be it Trump, a Democrat, or a 3rd party.
But they will vote.