NPR had an interesting story on Morning Edition this morning regarding the impact of Trump's Billions on the campaign.
http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427857932/are-donald-trumps-pockets-deep-enough-to-fund-his-campaign?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150731 First, there continues to be disagreement over how many billions Trump has (Trump has claimed that he has $8B or $9B or most recently, $10B, Forbes estimates $4B, Bloomberg $2.9B). One of my theories has been that one reason Trump is in the race is to create an enhanced perception of his net wealth. Also, the Trump campaign has billed various Trump enterprises for more than half a million dollars in services over the last three month; in itself this is not a game changing amount (though every dollar helps) but it does not include an estimate of the value in advertising and marketing to having the Trump name on television so much, along with the logos for the hotels and stuff. ME also points out that Romney and Obama each spent a total of $1.2B on their campaigns in 2012. Trump has enough wealth to cover that from his pocket (though how much of that is really liquid?), but they point out that "Historically, self-financed candidates have usually been successful businessmen, who often end up handling a long, drawn-out campaign like an investment gone bad: They pull the plug." Unless even a protracted and unlikely campaign is generating a lot more business benefits than I can imagine, it seems that even Trump would not just pour mountains of his own cash into the enterprise. But the main point of the piece is the equalizing role of the SuperPacs. The other GOP candidates may not have the personal wealth Trump does, but many have friends who are his equal or more, and the SCTOUS decision they purchased some years ago allows them to give as much as they want to the SuperPacs. This is not quite as valuable as Trump's own money (he can give as much as he wants to himself, and he gets a discount rate for TV ad time, while SuperPacs pay the full rate), it does mean that there are effective a lot of really rich guys running for president, and Trump is probably not the richest. On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:35 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > Responding to both Joe and Adam's comments on Trump. > > Joe noted that Trump exposes a rare disconnect between the interests of FN > and the RNC. I agree that it is not the norm, though maybe not quite as > rare as Joe suggests; the mainline Republican Party has never been all that > happy with the airplay FN gave the Tea Party in its hey day, but FN's real > money demo is not the Wall Street Journal crowd, or even the Chamber of > Commerce Crowd, which together have been two thirds of the modern > Republican Party. FNC's sweet spot has always been the more populist, > angry, disaffected rural, southern and southern-ish nativists that have > provided the margin of victory in most of the GOP's presidential victories > since Richard Nixon. This is the Sarah Palin crowd, and the Ted Cruz crowd. > Trump is appealing to them - though, more interesting to me than the split > with mainline Republicans is how Trump splits these hardliners from > fundamentalist Christians. The most important part of the story out of Iowa > this weekend was how Trump either doesn't know how, or doesn't care about, > the traditional Christian code language and dog whistles. That, and not his > racism or veteran-bashing, is what is quashing his mellow among a big part > of the Republican rank and file. > > The RNC has an ambivalent relationship with FN - they are happy to use > them to heat up the passions of the shock troops on the ground, but are > always worried they will go too far, either fouling the Republican brand > for moderates, or turning the true believers against Republican incumbents > deemed to be part of the problem for their years of compromising and, well, > governing. All of which to say I agree with Joe that Trump does a good job > of illustrating these fissures in what liberals often assume is a solid > conspiracy. > > Joe and Adam both commented on the role Trump's wealth will play on the > race. While I think Joe is right that Trump's wealth allows him the option > to stay in the campaign long after the point that inevitable gaffes and > blemishes forced (and will force) the other clowns off the train when the > fund raising dries up, I think Adam is on to why Trump is unlikely to > choose to stay all that much longer. First, as Adam notes, there is a limit > on how much of his own money it would be prudent for him to spend. This > limit may be higher than Adam assumes though, because Trump is profiting > both in personal PR (and he literally has valued his "brand" in the > billions) and because he has been able to game the FEC financial disclosure > rules to make himself appear to be worth more than he actually is (which > may just be narcissistically valuable, but also may have some actual value > as he conducts his various business negotiations. As the Washington Post > noted last week, Trump is almost certainly not worth the $9 (or $10!) > Billion he claims in his FEC filings. On those forms, the highest category > they list for assets is "over $50 Million" - so Trump is free to claim that > various assets are worth billions, but only has to be able to prove they > are worth $50 Million + 1 dollar to be kosher with the FEC. The large share > of his wealth is in real estate, the value of which is always subject to > some debate - indeed, just claiming a particular address is worth $1 > Billion and having it published in the NYT probably actually raises its > value - and is most likely the real reason he is in the race in the first > place. By the New Hampshire or South Carolina Primary, I expect Jeb Bush to > have a lock on the Republican nomination, or at least enough of a hold on > it that it will be obvious that Trump can not win. I doubt we will see him > in the GOP much after that - unless (2 scenarios)... > > 1. He wins enough delegates to demand influence and prime time at the > Convention; he is enough of a wildcard that he may fund himself enough to > make it to the summer - and if he is at that point, he will probably be > able to portray himself as the populist voice of the right wing crazies, > and the GOP mainstream may be afraid enough of pissing them off to give him > convention time. > > 2. He realizes by late February that he has no chance, and decides to run > a third party campaign. In this case he could mostly shut down his paid > campaign, use free media to keep his name alive all spring, then hold his > own nominating convention in one of his own hotels over the summer. He > would also be free then to spend his own money in targeted states where he > has enough of a following to alter the outcome. This would make the GOP > shit bricks (and is why I am happy Bernie is not a Billionaire, or we > democrats might be having the same problem). > > I do think both #1 and #2 are unlikely. Four years ago we say a > progression of right wing nuts shuffle through the polls, usually ahead of > Romney - yet at no time was there ever any real danger of anyone but Romney > winning the nomination. It is not quite as sewn up this time, as Jeb has to > prove Bush-Fatigue is at least no stronger than Clinton-Fatigue, and that > he can give the necessary reach-arounds to the fundamentalists without > losing his perception as a moderate. I suspect he will be able to do both > of those though, and while Trump, and then Rubio, and then Cruz and however > else may have their day in the sun, when things get serious the grown ups > will take over. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote: > >> An interesting take on Trump. >> >> The only bit I wonder about is his funding. Yes, he claims he's worth >> billions. But can he get his hands on that as cash? And more to the point, >> is he actually willing to spend his own money on his campaign? >> >> I'm not too sure. I think he's more in the Richard Branson style of >> billionaire - he doesn't spend his own money. He uses his name to get >> partners who stump up most of the cash for his projects, and put his name >> on those projects. But he's not actually investing much - if any - of his >> own cash. >> >> It's a bit like why movie stars don't bankroll their own films. They >> could. But they know that's the first rule of Hollywood. You don't pay >> yourself. And I reckon that unlike other billionaires who are willing to >> spend their own dollar, he's not. We'll see... >> >> >> Adam >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I wanted to pull this out of the Gutfield thread because it's >>> tangentially related, but worth noting. >>> >>> I generally agree with PGage that we're very much in clown car stage, so >>> everything at this point is just news filler. >>> >>> But there are two really important things to remember about Trump as it >>> relates to this board: >>> >>> For the first time in memory (if ever), the Republican National >>> Committee and Fox News Channel are in completely different worlds, and it's >>> all about how to handle Donald Trump. Because Trump draws eyeballs, and at >>> the end of the day, FNC is about eyeballs. If Trump is one or two in the >>> polls right now, he is red meat to FNC's viewership (which is even further >>> right than what the RNC is, much less wants). The Onion Op-Ed is >>> spectacularly right: "Admit It: You People Want To See How Far This Goes, >>> Don’t You?" ( >>> http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895). >>> And don't think FNC won't take every single Trump event, much to the RNC's >>> permanent consternation. There's absolutely no way he's not on the stage at >>> the first debate. And trust me: we're all gonna either watch it or the >>> highlights the next morning. >>> >>> The second is a little more roundabout. Fundamentally, what sinks >>> candidates is what floats 'em: cash. Specifically, their ability to raise >>> it. And at this moment, Trump could literally spend a billion dollars >>> without raising one penny from a Super Pac, the RNC...you name it. He wants >>> to insult Mexicans? Take cracks at John McCain? Guess how much that'll >>> affect his fundraising? It won't, because he doesn't have to! When Trump >>> actually decides to launch a media campaign, those commercials are going to >>> be spectacular! Doesn't matter how you define "spectacular". You know it. I >>> know it. >>> >>> Everyone can laugh in July, 2015. But why do I have this feeling we're >>> still gonna be laughing in February, 2016? >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TV or Not TV" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "TV or Not TV" group. >> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
