If the Donald starts a complete campaign organization, starts soliciting funds, and pledges allegiance to the GOP, he will become just another politician. And then what will be the attraction?
5
The GOP machine, with its farm system of PACs and super-PACs, will stymie The Donald like Ms. Piggy's brick house foiled the big, bad, blustering wolf. Look for The Donald to bolt from the Party and walk back his pledge not to run as a third candidate on the grounds of the Republican Party's unilateral abrogation of its undeclared commitment to be "nice" to him.
The Donald feeds on his own self-promotion far too much to allow being shunted to a grumpy sideline of silence.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The Donald feeds on his own self-promotion far too much to allow being shunted to a grumpy sideline of silence.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
This article makes no sense whatsoever. The notion that a candidate somehow shows executive skills by raising campaign money is utterly ludicrous.
What you are really trying to do with this Establishment piece is perpetuate the idea that candidates answer to donors. In many Western countries, especially in Europe, election season is brief, TV time is free, and campaign related expenses are publicly financed. By rejecting that alternative, the Times has once again aligned itself with big monied interests. These are the same people who funnel money to the .1% with their whorish candidates, and ensure that our media has little interest in publishing the truth on any subject. The Times is in decline, but this article takes that trend to another, much lower level.
What you are really trying to do with this Establishment piece is perpetuate the idea that candidates answer to donors. In many Western countries, especially in Europe, election season is brief, TV time is free, and campaign related expenses are publicly financed. By rejecting that alternative, the Times has once again aligned itself with big monied interests. These are the same people who funnel money to the .1% with their whorish candidates, and ensure that our media has little interest in publishing the truth on any subject. The Times is in decline, but this article takes that trend to another, much lower level.
8
Getting donations is about more than the money, even a small donation shows real support as opposed to just saying you like the guy. Like in life, you need enough money but more doesn't necessarily make you happier. It's what you do with what you do have that makes the difference. A person who makes a $20 donation is making a commitment and will stand by their candidate. If you like a politician be sure to put your money where your mouth is.
What is immediately striking in this article is not Donald Trump's change of heart on taking campaign contributions, even from SuperPACs directly reversing his previous stance. Its undetstandable Mr. Trump may want a little help from his "friends" in financing his presidential bid. Yes, Donald Trump is extremely wealthy, but he isn't that wealthy.
Nor is it how they article's author very slyly recast taking millions from Billionaires and their SuperPACs as indicative of their popularity with regular donors and voters; Gee I guess getting a few million from the Koch brothers isnt so bad after all.
No, it is the conspicuous abscence of two candidates' fundraising activities; Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. In particular Hillary Clinton's name not being mentioned in connection with SuperPAC fundraising is inexplicable given she has raised the most money from these sources and leads all candidates, Republicans or Democrats, in total political contributions.
In Sen. Sanders case his political fundraising isn't mention because he is the glaring exception to the author's thesis disproving her supposition accepting SuperPAC donations is indicative of overall popular support. Sen Sanders categorically does NOT accept SuperPAC donations and has political events packed with thousands of supporters.
Nor is it how they article's author very slyly recast taking millions from Billionaires and their SuperPACs as indicative of their popularity with regular donors and voters; Gee I guess getting a few million from the Koch brothers isnt so bad after all.
No, it is the conspicuous abscence of two candidates' fundraising activities; Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. In particular Hillary Clinton's name not being mentioned in connection with SuperPAC fundraising is inexplicable given she has raised the most money from these sources and leads all candidates, Republicans or Democrats, in total political contributions.
In Sen. Sanders case his political fundraising isn't mention because he is the glaring exception to the author's thesis disproving her supposition accepting SuperPAC donations is indicative of overall popular support. Sen Sanders categorically does NOT accept SuperPAC donations and has political events packed with thousands of supporters.
13
Sanders is also showing a broad range of support in that he is leading in the number of small contributions, a better measure than how much money is raised in total. People who give to a politician tend to be more invested in that person and will work hard to get "their" candidate elected. The big money just goes to the TV ad noise which tends to just be annoying after awhile. If your friend is passionately telling you to vote for someone it is much more compelling than any ad.
4
This piece only hints that monitoring who's giving money to whom highlights the need for real-time transparency , so that voters can evaluate who's being bought by whom. Campaign finance reform might, but probably won't address this.
1
"He has yet to garner an endorsement from a sitting Republican governor, senator or House member. "
Voters believe that is an asset.
In case you haven't noticed Americans don't just believe they know that "all politicians are corrupt."
Clinton Cash isn't a best seller for nothing.
The Democrat elites won't allow Bernie to be the nominee because he means what he says about corrupt crony capitalism and Hillary and Jeb Bush's corrupt "Big donors."
Voters believe that is an asset.
In case you haven't noticed Americans don't just believe they know that "all politicians are corrupt."
Clinton Cash isn't a best seller for nothing.
The Democrat elites won't allow Bernie to be the nominee because he means what he says about corrupt crony capitalism and Hillary and Jeb Bush's corrupt "Big donors."
7
Investing is important to make your candidate listen to your lobbying and to make you feel responsible for your choice, which is quite meaningful. Imagine, each Hillary's voter has to pay 20 dollars - I bet, she won't win.
1
We'll see if Trump considers himself a worthwhile investment. In then past he got others to make the majority of the investments, with himself as the managing partner.
2
I believe that he mentioned this in Art of The Deal. I read it years ago.
Steve Forbes and Meg Whitman are about as far from Trump as possible, neither of whom, as opposed to Trump, ever showed any connection to their audience.
With 17 candidates in the race, Trump is unbeatable in primary after primary.
Momentum is a hard thing to stop.
And if all the opponents are all registering in single digits in the state primary elections, why should any of them drop out, when they are within striking distance of '2nd place'?
My question is, are GOP state's delegates to the national GOP nominating convention also willing to pledge support to the GOP primary winners in their state?
Seems like fair play should dictate they must, now that Trump has done so.
With 17 candidates in the race, Trump is unbeatable in primary after primary.
Momentum is a hard thing to stop.
And if all the opponents are all registering in single digits in the state primary elections, why should any of them drop out, when they are within striking distance of '2nd place'?
My question is, are GOP state's delegates to the national GOP nominating convention also willing to pledge support to the GOP primary winners in their state?
Seems like fair play should dictate they must, now that Trump has done so.
2
I can't imagine the feeling of writing a check to the man who recently said "I'm really rich!". This campaign has now officially jumped the shark.
6
One: Trump should not have signed off on that "no third party run".
Two: While he is rich, most of it is not liquid, as Mark Cuban has noted. This limits his ability to run a 2 billion dollar campaign (fueled by Koch, Adelson et al.), as will Bush. He will have to get mucho bucks somewhere to compete seriously. It would be best if he could get enough money from many small donors, thereby distinguishing himself from the "Citizens United" crowd. At any rate watch out for the mud coming his way. Billions and billions of bucks from the folks who run our country. I hope he get mad enough to renege on that pledge
Two: While he is rich, most of it is not liquid, as Mark Cuban has noted. This limits his ability to run a 2 billion dollar campaign (fueled by Koch, Adelson et al.), as will Bush. He will have to get mucho bucks somewhere to compete seriously. It would be best if he could get enough money from many small donors, thereby distinguishing himself from the "Citizens United" crowd. At any rate watch out for the mud coming his way. Billions and billions of bucks from the folks who run our country. I hope he get mad enough to renege on that pledge
What terrorizes the establishment more than anything is the thought that small donors could easily wipe out large donors by dint of large numbers.
Obama
is President because of small donors. This is true in spite of the average size of his donations which was swelled by large donors fleeing Hillary to support Obama when they woke up late and realized Obama would win.
Trump says his small donors are investors in his campaign not graft merchants. That seems like a good idea for starters. He could put a limit on size of donation through the end of the year. It would be interesting to see how many invest in his campaign. He could earmark the money for the purpose of researching the public interest.
Obama
is President because of small donors. This is true in spite of the average size of his donations which was swelled by large donors fleeing Hillary to support Obama when they woke up late and realized Obama would win.
Trump says his small donors are investors in his campaign not graft merchants. That seems like a good idea for starters. He could put a limit on size of donation through the end of the year. It would be interesting to see how many invest in his campaign. He could earmark the money for the purpose of researching the public interest.
1
That's a lovely idea but I'm not so sure that Trump supporters will donate much.
BTW, Bernie Sanders has been doing very well with small donors.
BTW, Bernie Sanders has been doing very well with small donors.
11
Sanders has more donors than any candidate but the NYT/DNC axis still treats him like a joke, so I'm taking this article with a grain of salt.
22
Is the "NYT/DNC axis" (love the phrase) treating Sanders like a joke- or like a threat? If the NYT believed the conclusions in its own snide, marginalizing reporting about Sanders, then why not cover him honestly?
9
True, Pete. According to the Gandhi stages, we're somewhere in between ridicule and fighting.
3
When - and if - Trump decides that raising campaign donations will be helpful to his efforts, he will use his marketing skills and rake in the money. While voters are unhappy with the billionaire-funded super-PACs, donating to the campaign of a rogue billionaire who tells it like it is will have appeal to many.
4
Don't be so sure. One of the stories about Trump mentioned that many of us supporters don't actually bother voting. That kind of person isn't likely to donate money.
1
And if his supporters haven't voted in awhile (or moved) their registration might have lapsed. Surprise. surprise at the polling place.
4
It is commonly referred to as having skin in the game. It might be interesting for Trump to ask for a low amount if only to get the email address.
Dread Rick Scott, the largest, most successful Medicare defrauder in US history spent $120M of his own money and bought the Governorship of Floriduh.
Twice.
Twice.
16
Gee, how surprising. Trump's campaign only got as far as it did because of all the free publicity. Does anyone really think he's going to spend his own money for a job he doesn't actually want and would never get?
8
I am curious what happens to the donated money if (I would prefer to use the word "when") Trump loses/quits the campaign (I'll choose the word that will produce the biggest temper tantrum). Give it to charity? Improve his cashflow is my bet.
You may want to take a look at Rep. Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois, who financed his own campaign. He now has a huge war chest of his own money plus that of a few rich friends which he publicly proclaims will be used to defeat Democrats in the next election and - more tellingly - run opponents against those Republican legislators who refuse to support his winner-take-all tactics in the current draconian fight over the state budget and the future of the state..
1
What does Trump make?? He makes the show! Of course, his company helps him. All together they make a performance that helps Trump to raise his ranking. But I'm not sure that intrigues and scandals will help him to run the country!
2