first, it's not like you can separate the population into "authoritarians" and "non-authoritarians". like every other measurable trait, everybody has some kind of authoritarian streak and it can be turned up or down depending on reactions to events.
second, it's not like trump is some kind of new phenomenon. canadians will recognize that this is the same voting base that brought us stephen harper and his "strong leadership" propaganda.
third, it's not like conservatism is historically divorced from authoritarianism. not even recently. have we forgotten george w. bush so quickly?
fourth, this isn't obscure, either. it's called neo-conservatism. it's neo-hobbesianism. it's leo strauss. it's michael ignatieff. it's all over the fucking place.
fifth, it's not like the democrats don't use this tactic, either. in fact, if this election were between clinton and jeb bush, she'd probably be the one pushing the neo-con "activation" jargon. in fact, she's tried a few times already, and may try again before november.
i do not believe that either candidate got bumps from their respective conventions. i believe that trump got a bump from the spate of terrorist attacks last month but that it faded quickly - and that any such bump will follow a similar pattern because it is emotional rather than intellectual. and, i believe that this is the factor that will "activate" potential trump voters.
those charts about terrorism, iran, russia - that was what clinton wanted to run on. but, the situation got flipped over.
there is only one scenario in which donald trump wins the election: a serious terrorist attack at exactly the right moment. and, it will not simply be people labelled "authoritarians" that vote for him. it will be an expression of mass temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of extreme rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM