Donald Trump Running for President

[Astronuc]

Rick Perry: 'Donald Trump does not represent the Republican Party'
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/rick-perry-donald-trump-does-not-represent-the-123295260376.html

 

[ecoo]

Don't worry, Donald Trump is secretly a Democrat :D

 

[StevieTNZ]

If he fails to win the Republican nomination, he can mimic Sarah Palin and start his own TV channel which he can air his TV shows on, now that NBC have dumped him.

 

[russ_watters]

He will be as successful as last time, only a distraction.

Agreed. However:

The head of the Republican National Committee, responding to demands from increasingly worried party leaders, spent nearly an hour Wednesday on the phone with Donald Trump, urging the presidential candidate to tone down his inflammatory comments about immigration that have infuriated a key election constituency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c75b4c-25ab-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html

That's the wrong move, IMO. By telling him to tone it down (and making that public), they are affirming that he's a legitimate part of the Repbulican party. Instead of telling him to tone it down, they should be sending out press releases every other day saying what a dumas he is and how what he says has nothing to do with the party mainstream.

 

[gleem]

With not committing to supporting another Rep nominee if not nominated (he'll wait and see whose nominated) , with His the growing popularity in the polls, and with the threat of going independent if not nominated and thus splitting the ticket Trump seems he might have significant influence in the Rep. choice of candidate.

 

[lisab]

This article makes the pitch that Trump's supporters are motivated by anger and paranoia.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of angry, paranoid people out there. But do you think they form the core of his supporters? I'm too far out of mainstream, reality-show culture to know if this is true.

 

[jim hardy]

Gleem hit it i think.

Were he positioned to split the conservative vote what a bargaining chip that would be. He could extract something in exchange for his support.

I don't know anything about Trump, can't guess what he'd want.

I really laughed at that bankcard TV ad where
he drops his credit card from a balcony then has to dumpster-dive to retrieve it, much to the dismay of two socialite matrons one of whom exclaims "..and to think he was doing so well !"
Whatever you dislike about him, he does have a sense of humor !

old jim

 

[russ_watters]

With not committing to supporting another Rep nominee if not nominated (he'll wait and see whose nominated) , with His the growing popularity in the polls, and with the threat of going independent if not nominated and thus splitting the ticket Trump seems he might have significant influence in the Rep. choice of candidate.

What we are watching right now is reality tv, not selection of the next president. When crunch time comes, we'll see what his popularity really is. He's no Ross Perot.

 

[russ_watters]

This article makes the pitch that Trump's supporters are motivated by anger and paranoia.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of angry, paranoid people out there. But do you think they form the core of his supporters? I'm too far out of mainstream, reality-show culture to know if this is true.

That depends: do you believe Trump is for real? Sane? That his "core" supporters are "core" Republicans? And that they are real?

Based on my belief that neither he nor the vast majority of his apparent supporters are real, the (guess) 5% of real Republicans who really do support him probably do qualify as angry and paranoid.

Remember, saying he's got 12% of the vote and is in 2nd place to Bush's 19% does not necessarily make him a legitimate contender. If the other candidates dropped out, the proportion may not hold: Trump could still have 12% and Bush the other 88. Why? Because that's what an outlier is: the mainstream candidates are likely splitting the 88% of the votes to his left, while all the angry/paranoid stick to him.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That depends: do you believe Trump is for real? Sane? That his "core" supporters are "core" Republicans? And that they are real?

Based on my belief that neither he nor the vast majority of his apparent supporters are real, the (guess) 5% of real Republicans who really do support him probably do qualify as angry and paranoid.

Remember, saying he's got 12% of the vote and is in 2nd place to Bush's 19% does not necessarily make him a legitimate contender. If the other candidates dropped out, the proportion may not hold: Trump could still have 12% and Bush the other 88. Why? Because that's what an outlier is: the mainstream candidates are likely splitting the 88% of the votes to his left, while all the angry/paranoid stick to him.

You are basing your above statement on whether his apparent supporters are real or part of the core Republican base. It's difficult to know or even to guess, but at least in my opinion,12% of the Republican support strikes me as too large a percentage to dismiss as being somehow "unreal" -- I'm assuming when we talk about 12% of the vote vs Bush's 19%, we are talking about the percentage of the electorate who have self-identified as Republicans or are official members of the party, and I have already expressed my opinion of whether Trump is for real (he isn't). Of course, that 12% may not actually be "core" supporters of Trump, but just as likely consist of disgruntled Republican base supporters (some of whom of the angry and paranoid sort discussed in the article) who have coalesced under him to express their dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates.

Whether these supporters will continue to throw their support to Trump or shift to another candidate is yet to be seen.

 

[gleem]

Apart from His provocative statement Trump stand out among the other candidates. Unlike Perot who spit the Rep. ticket he is very well known, a persuasive speaker and a physical presence.

He currently leads all candidates in the latest poll http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-donald-trump-in-first-place-2015-7 He says He is not a debater but a talker. He claims to have good Latino relations in spite of his remarks. He has oodles of money. The republican electorate may not as yet be flocking to his camp but I bet they are listening closely. With the ticket spit up to 16 ways it is easy to think as the candidate cohort dwindles He will get more support.

 

[jim hardy]

There's a lot more pent up anger than many realize.

Little subliminal things add up .

A $2 pound of Oreos now costs $5 and is only ten ounces.
Walmart's $17 oil change is now $35. Their $80 car battery is now $110.
A loaf of decent bread is upward of four bucks.
That 79 cent quart of rubbing alcohol is now $1.29 , only a pint , and 50% instead of 70%.
Toilet paper has got so the hole for the roller goes almost to the outside of the roll.
Shopping is death by a thousand tiny needles.

Yet we're fed the government line "there's no inflation".
Yeah, big screen TV's have come down, just what i buy every week.
And they waived Hank Paulson's taxes on his half billion of Goldman stock.

Trump is tapping into subliminal rage.

In my circles(retired guys) this is the sentiment:

I made a hundred bumperstickers - they went in a flash.

 

[Czcibor]

There's a lot more pent up anger than many realize...

I'm not sure how it works but in my country there is a high level of rage on internet. And in recent election heavy voting on protest candidates. (while instead of crisis we had only slowdown, so rationally looking people should be more or less content)

I wonder whether:
-coincidence
-more personalized media let people to confirm their bias until they are vivid about the desolation brought by people of different views
-similar level of rage existed for decades / centuries, just now people have a medium to express it

 

[jim hardy]

Marketing discontent seems to work for certain denizens of Fox News , FSTV and RT networks, and much of the internet blogosphere.
I noticed i feel better since i quit watching them.

 

[russ_watters]

You are basing your above statement on whether his apparent supporters are real or part of the core Republican base. It's difficult to know or even to guess, but at least in my opinion,12% of the Republican support strikes me as too large a percentage to dismiss as being somehow "unreal" -- I'm assuming when we talk about 12% of the vote vs Bush's 19%, we are talking about the percentage of the electorate who have self-identified as Republicans or are official members of the party...

Yes, it is 12% of self-identified Republicans. But I don't mean 12% isn't big enough to be real, I mean I don't believe his real support is 12%. I think he's got name recognition and a reality show fun factor boosting the number and he'll fade. See:

But with so many qualified Republican presidential contenders out there, Trump's rise is not expected to last. Several pollsters consulted for the story say the recent bump may reflect the entrepreneur's high name ID more than it shows genuine voter support. And at a time when the Republican field is so fractured, with more than a dozen candidates in the race, Trump's low, double-digit poll numbers are enough to fling him toward the top. If he cannot expand his base, though, he's expected to fizzle out fast...

As the Republican field begins to narrow, pollsters say Trump will likely begin to fade. Earlier poll numbers revealed that Trump remained the most unlikable candidate in the race from voters' perspective. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 74 percent of Republican primary voters said flatly they could not support him. He may have 10 percent of the vote now, but he would need to amass far more and mobilize more moderate voters to get to a majority.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-is-donald-trump-polling-so-well-20150701

So the first part is why I think the 12% is inflated and the second part is why I think his numbers wouldn't proprtionally rise if other candidates dropped out.

 

[Czcibor]

Marketing discontent seems to work for certain denizens of Fox News , FSTV and RT networks, and much of the internet blogosphere.
I noticed i feel better since i quit watching them.

In my country such insanity explosion happened after Smoleńsk air crash in 2010. I can't blame RT or other people (like internet trolls) on Putin's payroll, because they started their intensive work around 2013, after Maidan.

I see insanity in media, but to be honest I'm not sure whether it already existed in latent form before Internet. As someone noticed in my country we almost elected in first free election in 1990 one populist who dodged draft using document from psychiatrist and lived mostly in South America (making some of the Communist Party activists vote in panic for Solidarity candidate - priceless :D ).

Any idea how to measure such insanity in political discourse and voting? Because I'm always worried about speaking about mythical good old days, where we forgot freaks from the past.

 

[jtbell]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

 

[jim hardy]

I see insanity in media, but to be honest I'm not sure whether it already existed in latent form before Internet...
Any idea how to measure such insanity in political discourse and voting?

Hmmm now THERE's a thought - put a number on it.

About ten years ago i re-read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer", his classic study of the psychology behind mass movements and fanaticism. People can be 'herded'.
It changed how i watch the news, with an eye toward " is this presented to inform , or for crowd control ? "
Hoffer published the book in 1952. It could be an instruction manual for how to tap into that latent insanity.

So i think yes it's nothing new, but it's certainly more in our face nowadays.
And with the information explosion , the news industry itself is more susceptible to "herding" .

A measure of it. hmmmmm.. media volatility index... i'd wager it's an already established science someplace.

food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

The title should be "Donald Trump grabs free publicity by faking a run for President." And the idea that somehow this can be used to embarrass the eventual Republican nominee is laughable. Nobody is going to say "I was going to vote for [insert GOP nominee here]. But I remember that a year and a half ago Donald Trump once polled at 12% - so therefore all Republicans are as crazy as he is, and therefore I will vote for [insert Democratic nominee here]."

 

[russ_watters]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

Very good possibility. When no one is really campaigning, it is easy to be a flash-in-the-pan if you do something that gets you noticed.

 

[Czcibor]

Hmmm now THERE's a thought - put a number on it.

I think so. It's a science forum after all. ;)

And more seriously - without such numbers we don't know whether the phenomena is really increasing or we're just annoyed.

About ten years ago i re-read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer", his classic study of the psychology behind mass movements and fanaticism. People can be 'herded'.
It changed how i watch the news, with an eye toward " is this presented to inform , or for crowd control ? "
Hoffer published the book in 1952. It could be an instruction manual for how to tap into that latent insanity.

So i think yes it's nothing new, but it's certainly more in our face nowadays.
And with the information explosion , the news industry itself is more susceptible to "herding" .

A measure of it. hmmmmm.. media volatility index... i'd wager it's an already established science someplace.

food for thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html

Honestly? It may be a good description of mass society guided by mass media, but I'm not convinced at all of explanatory power for individualistic societies that uses personalized TV/internet.

How for example (from USA) it fits idea of "starve the beast" libertarianism? Or survivalist that hoard ammo and gold? Its an exact opposition of classical mass movements.

Or from Poland how it explains phenomena of protest parties? A group of distrusted voters annoyed with mainstream politicians, who would vote any freak each election? And soon feel not amused, start to perceive the person as part of mainstream and throw it away like a broken toy?

Or what about people in my country who were outraged that the EU forbade ineffective bulbs? They love freedom... to waste some electricity.

Escape from freedom? Or maybe just loving freedom in the irresponsible way?

 

[WWGD]

I think so. It's a science forum after all. ;)
<Snip>

Escape from freedom? Or maybe just loving freedom in the irresponsible way?

Indeed. Have you seen anyone protesting for obligations to go along with their rights?

 

[lisab]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

The title should be "Donald Trump grabs free publicity by faking a run for President." And the idea that somehow this can be used to embarrass the eventual Republican nominee is laughable. Nobody is going to say "I was going to vote for [insert GOP nominee here]. But I remember that a year and a half ago Donald Trump once polled at 12% - so therefore all Republicans are as crazy as he is, and therefore I will vote for [insert Democratic nominee here]."

I think you're missing the point. We're equating Trump with wackos, which I strongly believe is legitimate. And while we realize there have always been wackos, we're wondering if there are more now than in previous years.

Trump may or may not embarrass the Republican nominee in the future - I don't think that's even relevant. But look at gleem's post #46 where a Business Insider poll puts him polling first in that large circus candidate pool - and he's sure embarrassing the party now, IMO. He didn't buy that poll result.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump is a distraction, and for some it's disturbing that he would poll with such fractions of various populations sampled, but those fractions are not the majority of the GOP. Some of his points/positions may appeal to varying numbers of GOP, but that may be the case with others.

However, consider his business history - Fourth Time's A Charm: How Donald Trump Made Bankruptcy Work For Him
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ow-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

First things first: Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of http://www.trumpcasinos.com/ . He has never filed for personal bankruptcy — an important distinction when considering his ability to emerge relatively unscathed, at least financially.

He makes bad decisions, pays himself well, and leaves others (investors/creditors) holding the bag. Not very credible as a leader.

"Trump has never apologized for using Chapter 11 as a business tool". Oh, really?

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're missing the point. We're equating Trump with wackos, which I strongly believe is legitimate. And while we realize there have always been wackos, we're wondering if there are more now than in previous years.

PFers are always talking about how worse the Republican party (and the economy) is getting. Based on the number of threads talking about it's death, I'm forced to conclude the republican party is a cat.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I think Trump is merely the first in a series of "candidates of the month" like the Republicans had four years ago. Remember Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Rick Perry was one of them, too. And Huckabee. And Santorum.

Haha Herman Cain --

 

[lisab]

PFers are always talking about how worse the Republican party (and the economy) is getting. Based on the number of threads talking about it's death, I'm forced to conclude the republican party is a cat.

But both parties go through cycles of crazy. The Ds were a mess in the 60s, culminating with the disastrous chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

For the Ds at that time and apparently the Rs now, the folks at the fringes were allowed to have too much power , IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

But both parties go through cycles of crazy. The Ds were a mess in the 60s, culminating with the disastrous chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

For the Ds at that time and apparently the Rs now, the folks at the fringes were allowed to have too much power , IMO.

I think it's a problem of too many soap boxes, or too many demagogues being given a platform.

 

[mheslep]

Recall how close John Edwards came to the WH without endless speculation on his representation of all Democrats. But come the spectacle of The Donald and he's distraction from a realistic consideration of the other candidates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/06/krauthammer_on_trump_we_have_the_best_republican_field_in_35_years_and_were_talking_about_this_rodeo_clown.html (who per Trump is "over rated"):

This is the strongest field of Republican candidates in 35 years. You could pick a dozen of them at random and have the strongest cabinet America's had in our lifetime and instead all of our time is spent discussing this rodeo clown...

 

[jim hardy]

reaching back a page

Honestly? It may be a good description of mass society guided by mass media, but I'm not convinced at all of explanatory power for individualistic societies that uses personalized TV/internet.

How for example (from USA) it fits idea of "starve the beast" libertarianism? Or survivalist that hoard ammo and gold? Its an exact opposition of classical mass movements.

Eric Hoffer aside, I've had militia type friends.
There exists a US Army field manual for how to start insurrections.
The introductory chapter says to effect (please excuse the approximation , it's been decades and memory for detail fades)
'There is in any population about ten percent who are suggestible and can be used to your ends.'

The information age enables anyone so inclined to jump on an electronic soapbox and find a following from among that ten percent.
Our extremists of all stripes do not lack for outlets tailored to their particular mindsets, often selling gold or ammo or just stroking egos.
I think maybe that's a good thing for it keeps them fragmented.

Mass movements begin with "men of words" or "fault-finding intellectuals" such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (e.g., Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, Lenin). These men of words feel unjustly excluded from, or mocked and oppressed by, the existing powers in society, and relentlessly criticize or denigrate present-day institutions. While invariably speaking out in the name of disadvantaged commoners, the man of words is actually motivated by a deep personal grievance. The man of words relentlessly attempts to "discredit the prevailing creeds" and creates a "hunger for faith" which is then fed by "doctrines and slogans of the new faith".[19] A cadre of devotees gradually develops around the man of words, leading to the next stage in a mass movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer , part 4

Hitler was a mesmerizing speaker. But what if he'd had to compete with thousands of other mesmerizers on the internet ?

I'm immediately suspect of anybody peddling discontent. As Huckleberry Finn said, "I been there."

old jim

 

[cellurl]

Donald Trump is nothing more than a carnival barker who is stoking his ego and engaging in the type of shameless self-promotion that has been his gimmick over the years (no doubt enhancing his visibility and thus his bottom line along the way). There is no chance whatsoever that Mr. Trump can possibly win the nomination or else be elected President, and I'm surprised that anyone takes this man or his run for the nomination seriously.

I liken it more to post WWI. Conservatives are so tired of being ignored, that they are willing to accept an unusual contender. This is similar to why people in MN voted for Jessie Ventura. (I asked some!) At first I was amused as you are with Trump, but I am starting to pay attention.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Trump now getting the attention of el chapo. Not smart.

 

[Bystander]

Another endless year of this crap? Nnnnnoooooooooooooo ------

 

[WWGD]

Trump has softened his original position on Mexicans, which may mean he is serious.

EDIT: Or maybe as Greg suggested, Trump is trying to soothe El Chapo. To his credit, Trump was

roasted a few days back, so he seems to be willing to laugh at himself.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Trump now getting the attention of el chapo. Not smart.

If you're referring to the tweets purportedly originating from El Chapo threatening Trump, I wouldn't put too much credence to this. First of all, no one has been able to attribute those tweets to El Chapo or even his associates in the drug cartels. Second, I find it highly unlikely that a fugitive drug lord of such reputation would even think of going on Twitter of all places to comment on what Trump utters out of his mouth.

My take is that Trump is softening his original position on Mexicans either because he's realized that he looks like a fool (the most charitable interpretation), or (perhaps more likely) that being dumped by NBC and Univision (and potentially other business partners as well, particularly his investors in his real-estate holdings) is really bad for business.