They know how to keep a candidate who isn't serving their ends down. They ignore him. They not only didn't ignore Trump, they gave him more coverage than the rest of the candidates combined from the very first. Now, you can try to fall back on the tired old 'they couldn't ignore a celebrity' excuse. But we all saw them give him more coverage than all the other GOP candidates combined. Nobody--nobody--has so much celebrity that they have to get more coverage than all the other candidates combined unless and until they give him more coverage than all the other candidates combined. They aren't stupid, and some of us aren't either. They had a plan, and those of us with eyes to see know it.
The plan was JEB BUSH, or similar low-key milquetoast hack, to throw the election to the Democrat, just like the last two times. A conspiracy to run Trump as a phony outsider would have had to be establishment-wide to even get off the ground, whereas the events of the last year make it clear that establishment
didn't even see the outsider trend coming, or saw Trump dominating it, let alone were disposed towards having such a loose cannon egotist front for it. The elite
had a plan, but don't have a means of combating a figure and election trend that has
bypassed, and is surpassing their plan. They know how to take a Ron/Rand Paul level pol or normal-sized celebrity---who has no money, needs the media to get his national coverage or visibility, needs mega donors to win the primaries, and so has to play patty-cake with the MSM---and keep THEM down.
The elite have indeed mastered the kingmaker science of marginalization, and controlling the campaign through starving candidates dependent on their news coverage or money. What they can't handle is a populist uprising against the milquetoast conformists, led by a billionaire with 30 years of positive branding behind his celebrity, who creates his own legitimate news cycles at will, or who aggressively attacks and derides establishment pols and pundits. All the non-coverage (which Huffpo tried to do to Trump early, but could not sustain) or later negative beatdowns in the world were not going to undo in a year the positive rep and image Trump had well-established over decades. So the impact celebrity overcoming such obstacles remains relevant, regardless of attempts to discount it.
When the grassroots was still driving the Paul campaign's success, we were starting to figure out the pieces of the pie needed to achieve something similar to bypass the establishment, with the money bomb concept being one device. The concept of using a candidate who had enough of a monumental profile or national following to surpass a media shutdown was also part of the formula, but alas, turned out to not be realizable by the Pauls, because it required them to consistently create their own "news bombs" that forced coverage, and for them to aggressively challenge the media and elite's frameworks, which they were not attitudinally disposed towards doing.
Trump has accomplished those things, like Carson and Cruz to a lesser extent, despite a sea of real elite opposition. What his example shows is:
1) The populist trend is very strong, likely long term, and not picky about the persons representing it being perfect or ideologically coherent, so long as they confront the elite, show resolve under fire, and emphasize cultural issues and the American interest over war, globalism or the elite agenda.
2) The full formula for a candidate being able to pull this off is realized by a wealthy, (at least currently) independent minded, anti-PC person, who creatively uses both the new and legacy media to create
more news coverage for the campaign, and most of all, does not play nice with the current order. We were never, EVER going to win against the kingmakers trying to be friends with the establishment, from the MSM to McConnell, as that order was never going to be beaten via a genteel approach. Trump has shown this is a brawl, and requires more of a warrior's mindset and tactics to succeed.
