So far, on the left, I think it has been a battle of ideas. Pragmatism in the service of progressiveness vs radical swing to socialism, roughly modeled after Denmark. Personalities matter, with Pragmatism at a disadvantage due to the faults of the standard bearer as a candidate, and Socialism getting a boost from the ironic freshness of this near octogenarian lifelong politician.

On the right, it has been a battle almost entirely of personalities. I think we are seeing a rejection of mainstream republicanism without really seeing an alternative yet. The standard bearer is great at tearing down old ideas but seems devoid of any serious new ideas. The repub voters seem more interested in tearing down the status quo than creating a vision of what republicanism is supposed to look like going forward. The whole thing is distorted because of the amazing incompetence of the entire field, which many repubs seemed to think would be the strongest in many years. Each predicted front runner gained no traction, for varying reasons that seemed to have more to do with style. Jeb too boring and too "Bush". Rubio too lightweight. Cruz too mean. All fighting a guy who didn't train in law school, politics, or even business, really. He trained in reality television, so seemed to grasp better than anyone the value in well timed but empty insults as a way to distract the media at key times.

In 1964 you still needed to make it about ideas. The written word was still the most important way to get out the message. The first televised debate had only occurred in the last election. This election, to me, is kind of unprecedented, and I think it is almost impossible to find historical examples with predictive value.