Rupert Murdoch has divined the real meaning behind Trump’s populist surge — it really reflects frustration with “endless regulations over people’s lives.” (“Thought this was Rand Paul’s issue,” Murdoch adds, helpfully.) Salena Zito knows that Trump himself is not important — what’s important is how his campaign reflects a transpartisan “skepticism about everything related to government,” an angry reaction against “incompetency” at the V.A., O.P.M. and F.B.I.. Ron Fournier reports that Trump’s popularity is really … well, some sort of Ron Fournierist outrage at everyone:

America’s ruling duopoly, long corrupted by lobbyists and donors, clinging to government institutions that work for party interests rather than for an e-connected populace buffeted by change,

OK! That about covers it. Note that none of these probing analysts even mentions the issue Trump’s most conspicuously campaigned on: immigration. It’s all about the issues they care about. Funny how that happens. Mike Kinsley used to call this the Howell Raines Fallacy — the assumption that “the great and good American people of course agree with me.” Especially when they’re angry! (Has E.J. Dionne written his version yet — the one about how Trump voters are really furious because the GOP Congress is obstructing Obamacare and neglecting the nation’s crumbling infrastructure? If he hasn’t, it’s coming soon.)

Only Dem blogger Greg Sargent of WaPo seems willing to even entertain the possibility that Trump gets his support from people who actually agree with him on the main issue he’s talked about. It can’t be that simple. …

Trump probably thinks he’s discouraging people from attacking him by insulting them — in crude but not uninformed fashion — when they do. But he’s having the opposite effect, I think. Getting attacked by Trump is what you want right now. It’s surely the best thing that’s happened to John McCain in a while. RIck Perry too — Perry may make the debates because Trump questioned his IQ. It’s the logic of trolling, writ large.  … Trump’s fire would only be suppressive if his putdowns were so devastating the damage outweighted the publicity. But they aren’t. His best shot was probably the one against Mitt Romney — “He lost an election that should have easily been won against Obama” — because it put in words what most Republicans actually think. Even so, it was a net plus for Romney, I suspect. …