Positions are only part of the mix, and Trump is doing well for the most part without even specifying what he would do, how he would do it, or why we should trust his current views given his history. Rand is struggling because while his rhetorical approach opened a dialogue and reduced attacks on him, it did not change the framework on how those issues are approached by the mainstream. Indeed, Rand has not even tried to shake that framework, just finesse his way around it.
Trump has gotten an unfair amount of media coverage, to be sure, but he has also changed frameworks, be it on immigration, trade, resisting many forms of PC pressure and so forth. Despite using token hawkish rhetoric, he has said the key thing about Iraq---that the original invasion was a mistake, and that Bush Inc bears responsibility for it, not the Democrats---that changes the game, as it accepts the verdict of public opinion on that subject, and does not lock the GOP into a mindset of further global meddling going forward.
One reason why the conservative base has been de-energized and stayed home in recent Presidential cycles is that they perceive the only thing the party REALLY cares about or stands for at this point, is invading and bombing more countries, following the 2003 model. This perception is shared by independents, who have not been attracted to GOP contenders for the same reason. As I have said before: no Republican is going to win back the White House until they at least concede the Iraq war was wrong.
Rand holds that view and can still be that Republican, but he has to appear to challenge establishment frameworks, not rhetorically finesse or embrace them. He should triangulate the Trump phenomenon instead of attack it, and by doing so inherit its anti-establishment momentum. By doing so Rand would signal to the party base factions, as Trump has signaled by emphasizing cultural policy, that the GOP is not a foreign policy party, to the exclusion of (or caving on) everything else.
