Kind of misreads Johnson's victory in more than a few simple ways. Labour still commanded the youth and metropolitan liberal vote in many of our major cities - so the premise that Johnson won that vote and Trump could too is fundamentally wrong.
Labour lost through a combination of over complex and misguided strategy, many years of bombardment of the party leader in the hostile press, and the perfect storm: a Brexit impasse that Johnson exploited.
The best summation of Johnson's strategy that I've seen is "Johnson made politics horrible / unbearable, and asked us to vote it away". He positioned himself as champion of the Brexit process (and therefore democracy) Vs unending "dither and delay", shifting the failings of his own Tory government to the feet of his opponents - reinforcing people's view that Brexit had become an interminable distraction and that only he could make it go away.
It didn't matter that he was serially lying and committing gaffes left, right and center, because the one issue people trusted him on was considered the ultimate issue of the day. And apparently more important than the 9 years of damage a lot of people are still actually quite angry about - despite what looks like a landslide victory. In fact this is probably the most troubling kind of victory anyone could have had, because you get the lingering feeling the people who voted for it are going to be bitterly angry if things don't improve exactly as promised.
Labour lost a lot of votes in towns that have apparently felt left behind. Decimated by the conservatives in the 80s and 90s, but not listened to, invested in or healed as much as bigger towns and cities by Labour of the late 90s and early 2000s. Burdened with cuts under the conservative lib dem coalition... I'm sure America does have places equivalent to these towns, they are probably the people that voted for trump first time around...
People are attracted to the idea that their ills are because of immigrants and overcrowding, because of the EU, because of external actors and pressures not of our own making. Crucially, although it's a brainchild of the right wing in the UK, Brexit has proponents right across the political spectrum. And although Farage is himself of the right wing, his UKIP and Brexit parties have enjoyed considerable support among working and middle class sections of the electorate who have in recent memory found the Tories completely unpalatable. They are the acceptable face of a culture that blames the "other". The moment they announced they would stand aside for Tory MPs, contesting only Remainer opposition MPs - it made Labour's position all the more difficult... But it wasn't the only factor for them to consider either...
In the local elections, some months before the election that Johnson has just won - the Liberal Democrats, who had taken the most pro European stance -enjoyed a surge in support at Labour's expense, with the popular vote still very much split between pro Brexit and pro Remain parties. Labour's strategists interpreted this as a warning, and internally the party decided to further hedge it's bets, evolving its position towards offering to seek a Brexit deal but to put it to the people in a final say. It seems this was enough for some to make the Lib Dem offer feel perhaps less democratic, their performance at this election can only be regarded as wholesale rejection - but Labours position too was deemed over complicated. "We've had a vote" people would say. How can you negotiate a deal and then potentially campaign against it? What position will the leader take? Why are they sitting on the fence? Questions. Too many for some.
And then we had people who believed the fear driven in to them by the hostile press... fear of anti semitism or historic links with the IRA (let's be real - the Queen has shaken hands with Irish Republicans too, and the Tories have a former member in their ranks - it was a smear)... For some, they couldnt read that stuff and hold their nose to vote.
I heard a Labour voter in the Midlands admit on LBC he voted for the conservatives because he couldn't back Corbyn but was still disappointed that they won. His logic was that he didn't like those IRA links, that his community have still never received closure from the IRA bombing.
That kind of typifies for me how well the conservatives convinced enough Northern voters that Labour were a bigger risk than they were. It wasn't really an economic argument, it was more about values.. and fear. Identity. He's a Marxist. He's an anti Semite. As an anti war campaigner people were able to say Corbyn stood alongside people from the IRA and Hamas. You can't trust him, can't trust the promises, can't trust the numbers, he's not the right leader... Of course, nobody can tell you who is the right leader, if they could they'd probably be smeared too, but because it's him, it's definitely not him... Given barest, even most faintly reasonable scrutiny, a lot of it doesn't really make sense - especially given the Tories conducted themselves disgracefully in the campaign - struggling themselves on matters of trust - but as I see it - Brexit and enough distrust of the other guy saw them win it.
I would say there are huge question marks over how much tolerance Johnson's policies will enjoy in many of those new seats. If Brexit goes horribly or there's even a whiff of hardship, people might start to twig the new government is a lot like the last one, they may start to twig they haven't really had that change they cried out for.
It's interesting that Farage wants his new project (replacing the Brexit party) to be a Reform party. I don't like the guy but he does seem to understand that the engine for his and the Tories victory is a desire for change. He's weaponising it for the benefit of his own beliefs rather than what might actually be best for the country but there can be no doubt - as a political operator - his impact has been huge. People should pay more attention to the reasons why he has appeal.
Now, I'm not sure how this translates for Trump. As I understand it, he came in pledging to "drain the swamp". He promised America First. Jobs coming home. Coal. I think the same thing that motivated Brexit over here motivated people to vote for him. A paradoxical will to blame the establishment or functional flaw in society for everything that is wrong in the world, embracing divisive views and putting the mega rich in power. UK politics may point to potential strategies but I think a lot rides on a few things: are people still hurting? Did their vote for him work? Has he been fulfilling his promises or failing them? Can he still be trusted? Has exposure to his rantings and ravings while in office had an effect on moderates? Is the impeachment saga going to play a role? Lots of questions. Possibly more than there are for his opponents. At least until the war chest starts getting spent on attack ads..