Republican Mega Donors Say No to Trump

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, May 22, 2016.

  1. vrDrew, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 22, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    In a not-totally surprising turn of events, the big-money donors that have funded recent Republican candidates are largely declining to put their dollars behind Donald Trump

    Some of the quotes are priceless:

    Couldn't have put it better myself.

    For a guy who is all about money, Donald Trump is likely to enter the general election this fall at a serious financial disadvantage to his likely Democratic opponent - Hillary Clinton.

    Not only are the big-money donors largely staying away; but he has been singularly weak in establishing an independent fundraising operation - recruiting volunteers to work the phones and reach out to friends and neighbors for financial support. He has largely financed his campaign so far through loans, raising a paltry $1.4 million in April, compared to more than $10 million each for Clinton and Sanders.

    Money is no guarantee of winning an election. But it is vitally important to campaigns that need to set up the sort of person-to-person "ground game" of volunteers going door-to-door that gets voters to the polls on election day.

    Even more troubling for Trump is his failure to set up effective SuperPacs. Two wealthy donors who have indicated support for Trump may not be able to do so because of his bungling:

    Donald Trump is out of his depth on the campaign trail. His failure to recruit competent people to advise him; and his failure to understand what needs to be done to run an effective campaign are going to put him at a significant disadvantage come this fall.

    This sort of failure should be no surprise to anyone who has looked at Trump's business history. He clearly didn't understand the first thing about the airline industry when he bought the Trump Shuttle. And his arrogance and ignorance of the casino business led to the financial catastrophe of Trump's Taj Mahal.

    Putting a person with this lack of judgement into the White House would be a disaster.
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    Nor are Trump or Bernie getting any cash from General Atomics, manufacturer of the Predator drone or Lockheed-Martin, builder of the Hellfire missile. All their money went to Hillary.
     
  3. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #3
    I heard they are having trouble getting corporate sponsors for the RNC convention too. Not surprising considering Trump has said he wants to make it into some sort of entertainment show. Who knows what he will say or do? Much like the presidency itself, it's a risk not worth taking.
     
  4. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #4



    Good you brought up the subject of spending. The election thus far demonstrates how much Trump can get done with far less. Not unlike Trump's legendary rebuilding of the Wollman Skating rink on a pittance, compared with the wasteful amount spent by NYC to no avail.

    "Trump spent less to win more"


    "As Donald Trump was racking up an impressive string of GOP primary victories last month, he was actually spending less than his nearest rival Ted Cruz and just a tiny fraction of his would-be general election opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to campaign finance filings."

    "Trump spent $9.5 million in February, compared with Cruz’s $17.5 million and Clinton’s $31.6 million, according to the filings. They show that the biggest February spender was Clinton’s stubborn rival for the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders, who spent $41 million as he desperately tried to keep pace with Clinton."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-fundraising-221030

    ... That figures. Socialist Bernie, burning through other people's money like it's a wildfire in Canada.
     
  5. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #5
    Only because of existing name recognition. Do you really think he would have been able to spend so little if he had not already been a celebrity and a household name for thirty years? Essentially he has been running for office for decades. And has gotten tons of free advertising in the process.
     
  6. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6

    Name recognition did not build Wolllman Rink.

    As written about recently in Bloomberg Politics:

    “Trump’s battle with Ed Koch over Wollman Rink in Central Park still forms the core of his political identity.”

    “In June of 1986, Donald J. Trump was a second-tier developer in a city crawling with ambitious builders. He had a single skyscraper to his name, and was probably best known as the part owner of the New Jersey Generals in the flailing United States Football League, his taste for shiny finishes and his regular fulminations attesting to his own importance.

    But by November, he became, essentially, the candidate we know today, a colossal tabloid celebrity who maintains, bombastically, that he can manage government better than any politician. What changed? More than anything, what made Trump Trump was the drama surrounding the refurbishing of Wollman Rink, the ice skating oval located in the Southeast quadrant of Central Park.”

    .......

    " Shuttered for repairs in 1980 by the Koch administration and set to be restored at the cost of $4.7 million, by 1985, the rink was $12 million over budget and still not ready."


    ........


    "In allowing Trump to build the rink, Koch didn’t exactly capitulate—Trump had originally wanted to pay for the renovation himself, covering his costs by running the rink and an adjacent restaurant. In the final deal, the city paid for the renovation, and the profits were all donated to charity.

    Trump had Wollman Rink up and running by November 1, two months ahead of schedule and $775,000 under budget. Skating stars like Dorothy Hamill, Scott Hamilton, Dick Button, and Aja Zanova-Steindler glided across the ice at the ribbon cutting, with Button declaring the new rink to be like skating on velvet."


    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/f...city-battle-explains-donald-trump-s-candidacy
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Being able to build an ice rink doesn't mean you can run the country.
     
  8. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    Except Trump has been a big recognizable name for decades, using the media attention that would obviously come with his entering the race an already-known figure.

    Big difference, noting that media industry village knows that by waving his name around it will rake in big money too.

    Either way, do you want an oligarchy or plutocracy where only money and fame are qualifying factors?

    Keep ignoring the media articles citing "Media giving billions of dollars in free airtime" and so on.

    Whatever happened to equal airtime and other clauses?

    See above, all this falls into the same scenario. The other candidates don't have reality shows that are still fresh in peoples' minds.

    Don't worry. Capitalism has found ways to get peons to work for less pay. Talk about other peoples' money. ;) Still, if people got their way and lived by it, they would STILL blame everyone else. Fact is, if you drive on roads, have police and fire, use memory foam or transitions lenses or the internet or other things, or used a product or service from a company that received any taxpayer money, socialism is far more extensive - only it's closer to supply side corporatism, which I didn't say was a bad thing by default or de facto... so if you hate socialism, even if it's slanted toward business-only freebies, why not go to a free country like Somalia and then ask why they are all coming here. ;)
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    So the other GOP candidates were fit for office?
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    Same "office" Hillary is fit for. Padded or with bars :D
     
  11. boast macrumors 65816

    boast

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix
    #11
    Sounds like my kind of candidate!

    We need more candidates like Trump and Bernie who are not completely bought.
     
  12. aaronvan, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 22, 2016

    aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    We need candidates who didn't vote with Bush to invade Iraq. That would be Bernie, Trump, Gary Johnson, Dr. Jill Stein. Did I miss anyone?
     
  13. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #13
    Aren't you against money in politics? What's the matter? Where is the problem? Or do you want these large sum donations to only go to the queen?
     
  14. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #14
    In principle? Yes. I really sincerely believe it is obscene that wealthy individuals are able to spend all-but unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

    But as I've noted previously, thats an intellectual concept that our Supreme Court has made inconsistent with our equally cherished ideal of Free Speech. And that once the Supreme Court said a billionaire spending a hundred million or more on TV ads was the same thing - legally - as writing a letter to the editor or holding a sign outside a courthouse - then intellectually, philosophically and ethically, I think you have to accept the rules as they exist.

    As far as the Republican mega-donors, everyone from the Koch Brothers to Michael Vlock: Yes, I am quite sure there are numerous issues upon which we might have good-faith disagreements over specific issues and policies. But what is significant to me is the fact that these people are willing to overlook policy differences (which, in reality, are relatively minor) in light of the glaring, and truly horrifying, problems with Trump's temperament,intellect, experience, record, and general suitability to be President.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    so your principles change depending on who they affect? lmfao.
     
  16. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #16
    Do as I say, not as I do. ;)
     
  17. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #17
    trumps new motto.
     
  18. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    Obama.
     
  19. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #19
    He learned that when he was a democrat :D
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    lmao, well played.
     
  21. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #21
    Iraq war started in 2003. Obama became a senator in 2005.
     
  22. steve knight, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 22, 2016

    steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #22
    how many GOP'rs do we see all focused on family values bonking someone other then their wives? or drinking or doing other sinful things while trying to ram their faith down our gullets?
     
  23. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23
    I'm really not sure what sort of point you are trying to make here.

    Yes: I think unlimited money is contrary to the highest ideals of Democratic government. But given the rulings of our Supreme Court - and their interpretation of our Constitution - I think a intellectually honest person has to accept the fact that wealthy people can, and will, spend sometimes outsize amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections.

    I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Neither does it make one out of the people making the donations nor the the politicians who accept them.

    I try to go through life not setting myself up to be unhappy. Maybe you ought to try that sometime?
     
  24. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #24
    Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein included in @aaronvan's post weren't elected federal reps either.
     
  25. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #25
    There are some, no doubt. But there are a lot more hypocrites on the left side.
     

Share This Page