Admittedly, the question in the title is quite complementary to our scandalous politician. It would probably be more correct to ask - what are Gobzems' chances to hope for the title of a local version of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, but let's stick to the original question - can Gobzems become the leader of such a large part of the Latvian population to be considered as a possible head of state - Prime Minister (distant analogue to the title of US President)? All the more so because Gobzems himself emphasizes these ambitions in every possible way and tries to copy Trump in his behavior.
To answer this question, let's first look at how Trump became President of the United States. Following the controversial war in Iraq and Afghanistan by George W. Bush's neocon administration, U.S. public opinion leaned sharply to the left under Barack Obama, sparking a corresponding tide on the right flank. Trump did not hesitate to use it. His rhetoric and the methods used in political battles were unprecedented. At first no one took him seriously. Not even in the Republican Party itself. However, the US political system requires each party to nominate its own presidential candidate in complex pre-election battles involving large masses of voters, not just the parties' internal nomenclature.
It soon turned out that the simple Republican voter wanted to see Trump as the presidential candidate, rather than someone else who spoke more matter-of-factly, more composed and less offensive. Although the party's leadership was generally opposed to Trump's nomination, it could not resist the will of ordinary voters. After Trump was elected, the situation became even more unusual. No matter how much Trump's demeanor got on the nerves of some Republican party members, they had to support the current president, no matter what he was doing or talking about. That is just how the mechanics of the US political system work.
It just seems that Trump, unwillingly, has highlighted the biggest shortcoming of the two-party system. Millions of voters had to make an extremely difficult choice in 2016 and will have to again on November 3 this year - Trump or Hillary? Trump or Biden, who the current president calls only as Sleepy Joe. It is very possible that in a multi-party system quite different people would have been the main candidates for the presidency.
So the US political system is such that the Republican Party apparatus (in its broadest sense) is forced to endure Trump’s eccentric moves because 1) these actions are enjoyed by large masses of voters; 2) for other, equally large masses, who don’t really approve of these actions, the candidate of the other party (since there are no others) and his political offer appeals even less. As a result, the entire huge Republican party, with the giant economic block behind it, has been unwittingly forced to support Trump.
Now let's look at our political system and Gobzems’ place in it. In the best traditions of Trump, Gobzems razes all political opponents and tries to pretend to be an out-of-system politician who will blow up the existing political system, creating a new one instead. A system in which "those who were at the bottom will be at the top, and finally they too will be able to live happily."
There is no doubt that the number of people for whom such a song warms the soul is not small in any society.
Especially if the politicians of the "ruling system" regularly sing another song with a completely different tone - "if you fail, buddy, you can blame only yourself. If you don't know how to live, we will milk you dry. "
The unofficial motto of our political class is that everyone is responsible for their own happiness. If for various reasons you have not been able to carve out this happiness for yourself, then live as you can and quit whining. That is, stop bothering others.
In theory, Gobzems’ focus towards the unsatisfied part of the electorate is correct and it should bear fruit. But it’s not really happening. Yes, more people came to Gobzems’ mass protest on the Esplanāde than the authority-loyal media reported, but much less than needed to make anyone in the corridors of power actually worry. Where did Gobzems’ calculations go wrong?
What allowed the blatantly populist out-of-system politician Trump to achieve what he had achieved? A strong party that was forced to accept him and stand behind him with all their might. Who is standing behind Gobzems? I'm not talking about individuals, but about something organized. Is he publicly supported by a society of beekeepers or philatelists, or anyone else? No. No organized force or movement. Therefore, the answer to the question in the title is quite simple - no.
We can go further and ask - can Gobzems create a new party that would unite all those who are disappointed in the existing ones? Let's look at the Trump again. If he had formed a new party of his own, he would probably be right next to all the Ross Perots and Gary Johnsons, who could count their percentage of voters on the fingers of one hand, and as disappear as quickly as they appeared.
Alright, I agree, Latvia is not the United States. An actor and remarkably shameless radio host once already founded his own "out-of-system" party and was even in parliament. Among other things, Gobzems himself got in the Saeima through this party. And here is also the main error in Gobzems’ calculations. There is an extremely old saying, the authorship of which is accredited to Heraclitus - no man ever steps in the same river twice. Gobzems has already used his unique opportunity to catch a bird of happiness by the tail once. For the second time, such an opportunity is unlikely. I agree, there are some exceptions when a person is given a second chance. Will this exception be Gobzems? Who knows? In any case, the probability is not high.