An informative review earlier this month in the NYT by financial journalist James Stewart (“Den of Thieves” and “Tangled Webs,” among others) of fellow-journalist and author Michael D’Antonio’s new biography of “The short fingered vulgarian” (Spy Magazine) The Donald caught my eye the other day.
I find the review overall supports my contention that Trump is running as a marketing exercise rather than an expression of real interest in the job of president, but that may just be my bias. Stewart, for one, disagrees: “No one should be surprised that this ambition has propelled Trump into the ultimate contest, which is the race for the White House, or that he’s in it to win.”
Here is an interesting passage:
This year Forbes pegs Trump’s wealth at $4.1 billion, which, while less than half the $9 billion Trump claims, indeed makes him rich. Much of that wealth comes from the Trump brand rather than deal-making per se. His star turn on NBC’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” his licensing fees, his books, his speaking engagements, even his men’s wear line, have brought in millions. He’s had good divorce lawyers.
But he’s hardly another Henry R. Kravis or Carl C. Icahn. Four of his heavily indebted casino companies filed for bankruptcy, stiffing his creditors. Citibank took possession of the ill-fated Trump Shuttle airline. Trump himself narrowly escaped personal bankruptcy. As David Segal wrote in The Washington Post: “The people who know the least about business admire him the most, and those who know the most about business admire him the least.”
One thing, however, is undeniable: Trump is a master of self-promotion, unrivaled even by the likes of the Kardashians. Whatever the outcome of the current presidential campaign, it has made him as famous, as instantly recognizable and as talked about as anyone in America. Trump figured out early on that fortune follows fame, which is all but indistinguishable from notoriety. Whether or not Trump ends up in the White House, his golden years surely lie ahead of him. His agents must be salivating at the prospect of his next Hollywood contract.
Will The Comb Over be the Republican nominee?
doubleman says
He has a better chance than anyone else right now.
I’m not at all bullish on Ben Carson, who has generally escaped frontrunner scrutiny, which would change quickly if he jumped past Trump. I don’t think there is much there there with him. Yes, he has a notable career as a surgeon, but otherwise he is just an uninformed extremist on almost every issue. His folksy charm could fade quickly under real scrutiny.
Fiorina is surging by being angry and leading the anti-choice wing. I’m betting her record is too poor to allow a primary victory, especially when there is a clear populist fervor and she is an embodiment of layoffs mixed with failed leadership. Aside from a Sanders-Trump general debate, however, I would most like to see a Clinton-Fiorina debate. That would be fantastic to watch.
Has Bush’s numbers gone anywhere but down since he entered the race? Everything about him and his campaign seems anemic (except for the PAC fundraising). There still seems to be this underlying assumption that he will just win. But how? And why? The establishment support may start looking elsewhere soon, and it won’t be to Trump or Carson.
Maybe that support will go to . . . Rubio. I think he’s the best positioned to move ahead. He’s gaining momentum and is right-wing enough on most things to appeal to primary voters, but also nice and polished enough to not scare off moderates or establishment players. A ticket with him and Kasich would be tough to beat.
Kasich is another that is moving up, but the fact that I’d prefer him as President to any of the other Republicans, is probably not the best sign for his primary chances.
The others all seem second tier at best. Maybe we’ll see an incredible surge from Christie or Cruz, but I’m not holding my breath.
Basing it on nothing but gut feel, if I had to bet, I’d go with either Trump or Rubio to be the nominee.
jconway says
I would add that Paul’s PAC is out of money, so Rand is the next shoe to drop, probably not unexpected at this point as he is doing even worse than his dad. His dad had the benefit of rising from an obscure House seat to a GOP movement, while Rand has gone from the cover of Time to dropping out before Iowa. The rise of Trump and the fall of Walker, Rand, and probably Jeb! are still big surprises to me.
Al says
have no reason to be there except for ego and access to money.
gmoke says
One side of the business of politics is rarely discussed, the media. There’s a whole heluva lot of money in politics these days and much of that $$$$ goes to media companies for ads. As Bob Schieffer said at the Shorenstein Center recently, in response to a question I asked, “Campaign money has become the leading source of revenue in a campaign year” for the TV networks. I assume that there is a similar windfall for newspapers as well, especially a paper like the Manchester Union Leader in NH.
These ad dollars skew coverage in particular ways. There are some obvious conflicts as in how politicians and consultants can use the threat of withholding ad dollars to manipulate coverage. One recent example is a Louisiana reporter who says he was fired for asking David Vitter whether he was still seeing prostitutes after the campaign threatened to drop its ads from the station
(http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/tv_reporter_fired_vitter.html). Less obvious ways are the ginning up of horse race coverage so that candidates have to place more ads to confront competition, whether or not that competition is real or a media mirage.
Neither of these came up in Schieffer’s answer to my question about political money and media. In fact, I suspect that most reporters rarely if ever think about these issues but they suffuse and subvert our political system every day.