In what it is billing as an “exclusive”, The Hill reports that in a Wednesday interview, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said “the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will ‘absolutely’ increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.”
Trump told The Hill, “The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy. The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.” Asked about an independent run “if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that ‘so many people want me to, if I don’t win.'”
However, speaking in Laredo, Texas Thursday, Trump said he expects to be the GOP nominee. Trump said, “I want to run as a Republican. I think I’ll get the nomination. … The best way to win is for me to get the nomination.”
It may be a good thing if Trump actually notices and responds to GJ. Wouldn’t hold my breath though.
Thanks for the correction Paulie and Andy. Sorry for the misinformation.
I don’t think Trump would mind giving GJ attention. He’s attacked Pataki who’s literally at 0% in the GOP. (That was pretty much the basis of his attack, in fact.) The man is an egomaniac who I don’t think can let an attack slide on him. I certainly don’t think GJ is putting out all these news releases for that sole reason, but I equally think he’d not mind having his name mentioned in a national news story either.
@paulie 11:03 pm beat me to the punch. 😉
“Well two millionaire brothers just gave Cruz something like 15 million.”
Incorrect. They might have given a pro-Cruz PAC that much, but the individual contribution limit for the actual campaign is still $2,700. The individual limit for a national political party like the LNC, is $33,400 per year. Of course that’s all just a charade, and reporters are awful about conflating them without explanation. But that’s the state of current law.
I doubt Trump will want to give Johnson the publicity. More likely Johnson wants media hits, and anything about Trump gets them right now. Also, he just wants to highlight his views on the issues.
They did not give it to Cruz. They have it to a superpac that supports Cruz. You could call that giving to Cruz but technically it isn’t.
So I encourage Gary to keep it up. Maybe get personal. Target the hair. Or hell, call Trump a wannabe fascist dictator. I don’t think he’d be able to resist a counter retort to that.
Well two millionaire brothers just gave Cruz something like 15 million. I’m sure if he really wanted to Trump could find a way to make it aboveboard. But yes, just a thought exercise. I don’t think he would.
On an unrelated note, I do think GJ is criticizing Trump so much because he wants Trump to throw some fire in his direction. Would get him and the LP some press, and knowing Trump his criticism would actually attract some support to Johnson.
No.
And there are also things called campaign finance limits, BTW.
And I thought supposedly he would want the LP nomination because it would save him money on ballot access, even though he would need to spend a lot more to make up for brand popularity.
Wouldn’t spending that contribution money, if it was legal, which it isn’t, wipe out that savings and then some?
Not that I believe this has any chance whatsoever of happening, but if Trump were to say offer to donate 20 million to the LP and various candidates if they nominated him, do you think they would?
The small amount he would save on ballot access is not worth as much as the extra popularity of the independent label over the Libertarian label. And he’s a life long Ron Paul fan, they just disagree on just about everything?
I’d disagree over the whole “dragging down” assumption. From Trump’s end, it’s more economical to attempt to take over an existing ballot access structure, put in some tacky/over-embellished gold decorations at the DC Party office, rebrand it along the lines of “Trump Libertarian Party,” and act like Libertarianism was his idea and he’s been some life long Ron Paul fan; come on, Trump has that kind of ego to pull of something that.
Not saying that they won’t try. I am saying that they will not succeed, and that the majority of delegates from most states will vote against adding Trump delegates if there is a whiff of any organized takeover attempt to nominate a bottom of the Nolan chart authoritarian such as Trump. And from Trump’s end, independent polls better than Libertarian. He would be better sserved to spend a fw million dollars than to be “dragged down” by our label, especially since it means pretty much the opposite of almost everything he stands for.
Well, Paulie, considering there are rumors that the LPF will attempt to pack the 2016 Convention, and have already begun the process of researching where they place supporters at the convention as delegates (outside the Florida delegation), I can see them attempting to pack the convention to become kingmaker. Given the egos involved in the LPF leadership, it wouldn’t surprise me if the rumors are true and that Stone may get involved to help out in that effort.
Even if that were true, there are 49 other states and DC that get votes to pick a presidential nominee.
Paulie,
You’re assuming the LPF is run by rational people who live in the real world. In reality, they live in a bubble that strokes their own egos and justifies their delusions of grandeur. It would not surprise me if they did something that stupid to massage their egos.
True as always, but I’m willing to bet it will not be the LP nominating Trump for president. Anyone want to take that bet?
He can try. I don’t see it succeeding.
You’re making a logic leap there. Many of them may have no idea that he would do such a thing, and some of them may well no longer support him if and when he tries to do so. Some may still support him for Senate but not any cockamamie idea to run an open unapologetic authoritarian as the LP presidential candidate. And Florida doesn’t get to decide what all the other state delegations do.
The vast majority of LP members don’t know much about Stone or what his motivations may be. Saying he is now a libertarian and that he wants to run as a Libertarian is a lot different than trying to pack the convention in order to run an openly anti-liberty candidate, and is likely to get a very different reaction.
wu: The new logo featuring Trump hair above Rand Paul’s torch will prove to be prophetic.
me: lol
Stone’s involvement in the Trump campaign indicates that he may try to pack the convention in favor of Trump, and the LPF leadership blindly promoting Stone indicates they may be supportive of such a move. I have little confidence that any could stop Trump from gaining the nomination, since the party has allowed the cancer that is Stone to gain influence and credibility within the party. We’ll probably have to wait and see what happens.
Hey “Wake Up,” why don’t you tell us which government agency you are posting this propaganda from, CIA, FBI, DHS, DOD, or somewhere else?
Nobody here is falling for your bullshit.
Not to change the subject, but I find it very interesting that Vernon and Nathan Norman seem to be the only ones on here favoring the new logo.
And speaking of trolling, I came upon this http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=110996861 today. I think it provides a layman view of third party candidates (including Tom Knapp).
Joe Wendt is right. Trump will easily pack the convention with the help of Roger Stone and become the nominee. Stone is running in Florida and that is where the convention will be. He will have hundreds of supporters in Orlando and nearby who will be plugged into many state delegations. Rand Paul will be the VP. The new logo featuring Trump hair above Rand Paul’s torch will prove to be prophetic. The top issues will of course be rounding up and deporting all illegals and everyone who looks and smells like them, repealing the “civil rights” act, protecting American jobs with tariffs, and wiping radical Islam off the face of the Earth. Nathan Norman’s attempts to pack the convention on behalf of Gingrich will fail, because the Georgians will be outnumbered and outgunned by the Floridians and the master mind of Roger Stone. Gary Johnson will be left far behind in the dust. Trump will Trump them all, with Rand Paul at his side!
Read all about it at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/buchanan-trump-embrace-recalls-2000-reform-party-race/
Trump formed an exploratory committee with Roger Stone as director.
@PJO
I can’t find if he filed with the FEC in 2000 or not, but he actively declared himself a candidate and was placed on state primary ballots by his own action, not by supporters of an independent draft effort. Everything I can find from the time reports him as an actual candidate, not just exploratory. He then dropped out, before the Reform convention, condemning the party as mismanaged and incoherent.
Some people might, but I don’t see it working. Barr had to work pretty hard, over the course of months and arguably years, to convince a bare majority of delegates that he had converted. Johnson was beng called a libertarian by many even when he was governor, and had been an LP member a couple of times in the 1980s and 1990s. I don’t believe Trump can BS a majority of delegates to nominate him, and I don’t think he will even try to pretend to be anything close to libertarian.
Paulie,
I doubt ideological differences will deter some people from recruiting Trump for the nomination.
I’m no fan of Trump, but at least he’s threatening to bolt the GOP if he’s treated unfairly. Sanders (unlike Trump, or even Ron Paul) is on too short a leash to make a similar threat. It’s a huge strategic asset to be able to at least threaten a 3rd party run because the party establishment has to weigh the risks that you might actually do it.
She laid out the actual facts. Perot did not cost Bush the election, exit polling showed 38% of Perot voters would have gone for Bush if Perot had not been in the race and 38% for Clinton. And opinion polls actually showed Clinton doing better, not worse, during the months Perot had dropped out of the race. Bush lost because the economy sucked and he had a low approval rating. Maddow got the facts exactly right on this one, no liberal bias – just the facts – and did a great job laying them out. I’ll post the video if I find it.
That’s not to say that I agree with her on everything, of course – there are many other issues where we disagree.
Paulie,
Good to see you watching Maddow, as we all know Reality has a Liberal Bias.
I dount there are very many. He’s pretty much the opposite of libertarian on the vast majority of issues, including the ones he thinks are most important.
I think if Trump is on the ballot for November as an independent/third party candidate, and he is still polling well and he is still running a “serious” campaign, and the CPD tries to fiddle with the requirements to keep him out of the debates, Trump could afford a brigade of the best lawyers and lobbyists money can buy to get immiediate relief from a court. I don’t think he could be stopped. I do agree that we may well be seeing Trump’s apex right around now, we’ll see.
Trump was not beaten by Buchanan, he pulled out of the race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#2000_presidential_election
BTW watching Rachel Maddow explain correctly what actually happened with Perot in 1992. Hoping there will be video I can share here.
@pf Yes, I seemed to have misplaced a zero. I suppose that’s why I’m not a billionaire. 😉
I suppose the main thing, is I just have a hard time seeing Trumpmania lasting for another 16 months with anything like its current fervor. I think more likely we’ve just seen the first of another merry-go-round cycle of GOP frontrunners. Not even really the first, even. Rand Paul was polling as the “frontrunner” at some point before he even declared, Ben Carson had his peak, Cruz after his first announcement, etc. Trump has had the biggest breakout, but will it last?
We’ll see, I suppose. Fun to speculate, but it’s just that.
“Since Trump is actually running this time, as opposed to ’88, ’00, and ’12”
He actually did run in 2000. He lost to Pat Buchanan. But otherwise good point.
As usual with Donald Trump, the essential question devolves into: is he really that crazy, or is their still some method to his madness?
Repeats the common, but false, narrative that Perot hurt Bush.
Actual polling, including exit polling, shows that Perot drew equally from people that would otherwise have voted Republican and those who would otherwise have voted for Democrats; about 38% each, with the rest of Perot’s voters being people who would not have otherwise voted.
Right now we might assume that Trump would pull only from the Republican side if he runs as an independent, but that may be because right now he is pitching himself to a Republican primary audience. As an independent in the general election, he may emphasize some other views he has more in common with the left. He could also get some votes from the Democratic side with his VP choice. On the other hand, it may be that unlike Perot he actually would pull overwhelmingly from voters who would otherwise vote Republican.
That’s the usual dynamic, but keep in mind
A) That the debate rules are based on polls that are a couple of months before the election, so that last minute deflation hasn’t happened yet
B) It doesn’t happen at all if he polls well enough to be seen as having a chance to actually win. For example, if Perot had not dropped out before dropping back in, he was actually leading both Bush and Clinton in the polls at one point. If he hadn’t crashed his momentum by dropping out, after that it would have been implausible to argue that he would be a spoiler or a wasted vote. To take another example, support for Ventura for Governor escalated, not collapsed, close to the election.
True. I guess he is eiher banking on the publicity bringing him more money down the line, or thinks he can actually win, or maybe he just has more than enough money and wants attention more than money at this point.
If his net worth is 4.2 billion, 1% is 42 million, so it would be less than 1%. His FEC filing claims his net worth is something like 9 or 10 billion. Either way it is less than 1% for him to get ballot access. I don’t know that it would cost him 20-30 million, either…Seidenberg seems pretty eager to put him on the ballot in California, for example, and that is the one most expensive state. Nader managed to get close to 50 states in 2004 and 2008 with no major alt party nomination for a lot less than 20 or 30 million.
Buying a new car costs, let’s say 30k. Does the average American have 5 or 10 million$ net worth? I don’t think so.
I see Trump bolting from the GOP after a few primaries, than seeking the LP nomination on the advice of Stone. Why pay the money when the LP has the ballot access and there are idiots in the LP willing to nominate the schmuck to get the LP media coverage.
Trump could pay for 50 state ballot access but given his portfolio is mostly real estate it could seriously hurt his liquidity. He has had to walk away from his cash flow due to his careless remarks regarding immigrants. It cost him his tired TV show (for which he was paid over 200K per episode) and his other consumer product lines at Macy’s so he might not have as much cash as one might think. Still, if he wanted to do it I am quite sure he could. As far as getting lousy advice and wasting money on ballot access… this is Trump after all. He won’t do it half assed. He didn’t make all his money and come back from the brink of bankruptcy 20 years ago or so by being stupid.
Perhaps. However the net worth he’s claiming is inflated. Conservatively ballparking the cost at $20-30 million, and using Forbes’ estimate of his net worth at $4.2 billion, that would be in the range of 5-8% of his net worth. Not pocket change, even for Trump. For the average person by analogy, closer to buying a new car than lunch. And then there’s the question of not only putting up the money, but also spending it competently, which I would by no means count on.
Trump can easily pay for ballot access. It’s a lot of money for most people, but pretty trivial for him. Trump buying national ballot access, as a proportion of his net assets, is like me buying lunch.
Perot was only down to 8% because of the stunt where he dropped out and then dropped back in. I think it’s entirely likely Trump could be polling at 15% plus. If the nominees are Clinton and Bush as I expect them to be, a lot of people will be looking for an alternative.
I don’t think even Trump would be consistently polling at 15%+ by September/October 2016, and if he was that would be their excuse to raise it to 20% or 25%. But Perot was only at 8% in 1992 at that point, and I don’t think Trump would do better than Perot. I also don’t think he can keep it up for a year without even those who currently support him getting sick of him- the novelty and media-obsession will wear off long before than.
In terms of their political capital to defend the decision, I think there would be more support for excluding Trump than support for including him. Even with his top-of-the-pack polling, he has by far the highest disapproval rating, well north of 50% among both Republicans and the general electorate. There will be a strong “he’s a distraction, an insult, a joke, etc.” sentiment that will probably far outweigh his supporters, even if they’re numerous enough to have him show up in polls. At least, more than enough to cover the CPD’s decision, which will be primarily driven by the demands of the major-party nominees.
This is all assuming Trump spends enough money to get his 270+EV ballot access and does so successfully, which I wouldn’t bet on happening.
I would think he could get included in the debates, because he would poll high enough, and the CPD wouldn’t have the political capital to keep him out, just as with Perot in ’92. Where he could conceivably shore them up is by showing: see, they don’t always keep out third candidates. But on the other hand, combined with efforts of Johnson, Stein and maybe Sanders to get in the debates, they would be included in some of the coverage of whether or not Trump will be in the debates or not.
Assuming he did it and poured the millions into independent/new-party ballot access, this would be an excellent way to torpedo and discredit the efforts for debate inclusion. The GOP might not want that scenario, but it would be a godsend for the CPD. They’d have carte blanche to write whatever standard they want, even raising the barrier, to exclude Trump.