Who is the real Donald Trump?

[Lucky]

I can't figure this guy out.

Some people say he's a business genius, but I've read that he has filed four bankruptcies in connection with his various business ventures. And we know that the ability to make a lot of money does not require a great deal of intelligence. In fact, some of his statements would lead one to conclude that is lacking in this regard. Yet one of our members here says he had dealings with Trump and found him to be smart.

Watching his interviews, I am struck by a few things. His insistent questioning of the President's citizenship indicates that he is either lacking in intelligence or character. He says he is a brilliant businessman, and that he is worth more money than anybody knows, and that we will all be surprised when he reveals is net worth. I have been around a lot of people who bragged about their wealth. The ones who bragged openly about wealth, but refused to substantiate their claims, usually turned out be full of s**t.

Is he running or not? It seems to me that if someone is serious about becoming the leader of the free world, he wouldn't have to wait until the end of the season of his reality show to let us know.

When talking about his 'investigation' into the President's birth certificate, he keeps telling us that we'll be surprised when he reveals what he has found. He implies that he has found something out that would support his birther position, but won't disclose it. That makes him seem like a charlatan or a sideshow huckster. He is intentionally vague when anyone questions him directly on these points.

He apparently travels all over the world doing business of one kind or another. Yet he appears to have a high school understanding of how the global economy works. He says he would "call OPEC" on the telephone and tell them that their game is over. What does that mean? It's not even a good sound bite.

I've never seen his TV show, but from the trailers it looks like Jerry Springer in the corporate boardroom. Why would someone who claims to be one of the richest, smartest and most powerful people in the world want to be in such a show? Is his time not worth more to his business interests? Does he actually enjoy doing it? He said one day that delaying his announcement of candidacy was because he owed the American people the benefit of the remainder of the season of his show. Does that sound delusional?

Somebody who has a serious take on this guy please check in. Is he smart, is he serious, and why does he keep playing these games regarding his wealth and the birth certificate investigation?

[Fresno Bob]

the one whose daddy had to bail out twice (financially, not prison).....

seriously, he's an attention whore. That's who he is....

[Erik]

He is PT Barnum writ large.

(Barnum went through bankruptcy also.)

[nots]

Garden variety narcissist.
Not going to run IMO--just playing the media for free advertising for his brand. He knows one way to get a lot of coverage is to go the birther route, which MSNBC has lapped up in spades. Trump gets a free media buy, MSNBC gets to drive the dumb GOP narrative. Win, win.

[Lucky]

Garden variety narcissist.
Not going to run IMO--just playing the media for free advertising for his brand. He knows one way to get a lot of coverage is to go the birther route, which MSNBC has lapped up in spades. Trump gets a free media buy, MSNBC gets to drive the dumb GOP narrative. Win, win.

Okay, one vote for not running. Do you think he is really spending all this money on the investigation, or is that part of the package to get media coverage?

It seems like a ton of time and effort just to maintain the image that he is running. I can't see how there will be a net publicity gain if he bails. Or is it the case, as one of my bosses used to say, that all publicity is good publicity?

Is it a sign of the times that two of the best know presidential contenders (Trump, Palin) are believed by so many to be gaming the system instead of actually planning to run? Tim Pawlenty is looking better and better for the GOP. I think they also benefited from having Haley Barbour drop out. That could have been a train wreck.

[nots]

Okay, one vote for not running. Do you think he is really spending all this money on the investigation, or is that part of the package to get media coverage?

It seems like a ton of time and effort just to maintain the image that he is running. I can't see how there will be a net publicity gain if he bails. Or is it the case, as one of my bosses used to say, that all publicity is good publicity?

Is it a sign of the times that two of the best know presidential contenders (Trump, Palin) are believed by so many to be gaming the system instead of actually planning to run? Tim Pawlenty is looking better and better for the GOP. I think they also benefited from having Haley Barbour drop out. That could have been a train wreck.

I don't think he's spending money on an investigation--he's a frequent and well chronicled liar--I think this is another example of that.
I'd also struggle to call him or Palin Presidential contenders--more like political celebrities IMO. I think Trump's poll numbers are a reflection of his name recognition (most people aren't tuned into the race yet) and I think Palin's poll numbers are dropping like a stone (which even she has come to realize).
I can't see Pawlenty being the nominee (unless Pres Obama's numbers are so high that the GOP just throws in the towel) but I agree Barbour would have been an optical disaster to run against President Obama. This isn't the year for an old southern white man with some questionable racial comments in his portfolio to be running.

[Wonderboy]

Trump is a man who values people based on how much money they make.

[B-Fly]

It's too bad Thomas Nast wasn't alive to memorialize Donald Trump.

[B-Fly]

Trump is a man who values people based on how much money they make.

I'd say he's a modern-day social Darwinist, except that his public record of policy opinions is so scattershot that the only thing resembling a persistent ideology is his narcissism.

[Bob Kohm]

Okay, one vote for not running. Do you think he is really spending all this money on the investigation, or is that part of the package to get media coverage?

Make that two. Nots has it dead on-- this is an exercise in vanity and brand promotion for Trump.

It seems like a ton of time and effort just to maintain the image that he is running. I can't see how there will be a net publicity gain if he bails. Or is it the case, as one of my bosses used to say, that all publicity is good publicity?

All publicity is good publicity but there's an important codicil to that principle-- the best publicity is free ink. Trump is driving brand recognition with this stunt and he's doing it without spending much if any of his own money at all. This benefits the various Apprentice shows, his holdings, etc. And it's all basically free.

Is it a sign of the times that two of the best know presidential contenders (Trump, Palin) are believed by so many to be gaming the system instead of actually planning to run? Tim Pawlenty is looking better and better for the GOP. I think they also benefited from having Haley Barbour drop out. That could have been a train wreck.

I'm really wondering who emerges between now and Christmas, which could be bad for the Democrats-- I'd rather have a defined front runner out there right now so that we don't get a momentum rush to accompany a last minute emergent candidate.

Barbour out is a boon to the GOP as much as I would've loved to have seen him run. Pawlenty is just so GOP "Walter Mondale" bland I have difficulty seeing him as the GOP nominee. Mitch Daniels is as bland as Pawlenty, cutting his chances.

Last I checked Romney was still Mormon and thus disqualified by the GOP base, and that's before we start talking about Romneycare (tm). Similarly, Jeb Bush is still related to Dubya, isn't he? I'm hoping that the GOP loses its collective mind and gets behind an easy target like Mike Pence or Bobby Jindal, but that's likely too much to hope for. Petraeus is too good a soldier to get into this against a sitting President he's immediately served under.

Scott Brown/Marco Rubio candidacies wouldn't make a lot of sense politically for either guy, as they'd be likely to lose badly in the primaries and damage their brands. The ideological warriors, people like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, are too despised (or lampooned) by the RNC structural types to be given serious consideration as candidates.

Moderates from the Lindsey Graham school might face a tough time with the base if the Tea Party types can rile them up-- guys who would otherwise be good candidates may well sit this one out over that fear and set themselves up to challenge Hillary in '16. Although he's no moderate, I'd put John Thune in this group unless he can't withstand the gravity of getting sucked into the ever-more-clear GOP leadership vacuum and going early-- we all know that the GOP recycles its Presidential losers if they don't embarrass themselves. If Chris Christie is as serious about running as his constant, emphatic denials of wanting to run make him seem to be he'll lose 75 pounds this spring and summer.

That leaves one last group-- the true wildcards. Herman Cain is one potential guy who could go this route, emerge from zero name recognition and find himself the Cinderella story after the first debate, but he'll have considerable baggage to overcome. I can't imagine that Gary Johnson could overcome his actual free-thinker status and get the GOP base to nominate a pro-choice, non-religious pro-immigration guy, but his financial credentials should appeal to the six or seven Republicans who truly believe in the small government meme more than they desire some Eisenhower-esque cultural purity fantasyland. As usual, I'll believe that Mike Bloomberg has no intention to run an hour after the deadline for filing nominating petitions in New York has passed. If he gets in (and I honestly don't believe he will) it will be quite an election year.

If I had to pick now, I'd pick "none of the above" and look for the emergent candidate who is right now planning quietly in the weeds and whose name seventy percent of us have never registered.

[nots]

Make that two. Nots has it dead on-- this is an exercise in vanity and brand promotion for Trump.



All publicity is good publicity but there's an important codicil to that principle-- the best publicity is free ink. Trump is driving brand recognition with this stunt and he's doing it without spending much if any of his own money at all. This benefits the various Apprentice shows, his holdings, etc. And it's all basically free.



I'm really wondering who emerges between now and Christmas, which could be bad for the Democrats-- I'd rather have a defined front runner out there right now so that we don't get a momentum rush to accompany a last minute emergent candidate.

Barbour out is a boon to the GOP as much as I would've loved to have seen him run. Pawlenty is just so GOP "Walter Mondale" bland I have difficulty seeing him as the GOP nominee. Mitch Daniels is as bland as Pawlenty, cutting his chances.

Last I checked Romney was still Mormon and thus disqualified by the GOP base, and that's before we start talking about Romneycare (tm). Similarly, Jeb Bush is still related to Dubya, isn't he? I'm hoping that the GOP loses its collective mind and gets behind an easy target like Mike Pence or Bobby Jindal, but that's likely too much to hope for. Petraeus is too good a soldier to get into this against a sitting President he's immediately served under.

Scott Brown/Marco Rubio candidacies wouldn't make a lot of sense politically for either guy, as they'd be likely to lose badly in the primaries and damage their brands. The ideological warriors, people like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, are too despised (or lampooned) by the RNC structural types to be given serious consideration as candidates.

Moderates from the Lindsey Graham school might face a tough time with the base if the Tea Party types can rile them up-- guys who would otherwise be good candidates may well sit this one out over that fear and set themselves up to challenge Hillary in '16. Although he's no moderate, I'd put John Thune in this group unless he can't withstand the gravity of getting sucked into the ever-more-clear GOP leadership vacuum and going early-- we all know that the GOP recycles its Presidential losers if they don't embarrass themselves. If Chris Christie is as serious about running as his constant, emphatic denials of wanting to run make him seem to be he'll lose 75 pounds this spring and summer.

That leaves one last group-- the true wildcards. Herman Cain is one potential guy who could go this route, emerge from zero name recognition and find himself the Cinderella story after the first debate. I can't imagine that Gary Johnson could overcome his actual free-thinker status and get the GOP base to nominate a pro-choice, non-religious pro-immigration guy, but his financial credentials should appeal to the six or seven Republicans who truly believe in the small government meme more than they desire some Eisenhower-esque cultural purity fantasyland.

If I had to pick now, I'd pick "none of the above" and look for the emergent candidate who is right now planning quietly in the weeds.

I agree with most of this though I expect the nominee to be Romney as the GOP does like it's favorites. Betting on the favorite is smart, but it isn't fun, so I'll put my money on a long shot--Christie with some caveats. If the early primaries are split among 3-4 people and unemployment is high enough that President Obama appears to be vulnerable, I think Christie's ego will demand he enter the race.
I like your none of the above pick as well--especially if unemployment goes to the mid 7's making Obama almost unbeatable. I think the GOP fractures with the nomination going to an unknown, late entry moderate candidate (Linda Lingle?) and the Tea Party ensuring a 48 state loss by running one of their social conservative favorites (Pence?).

[Gregg]

What do you politicos think of Bobby Jindal?

[Bob Kohm]

What do you politicos think of Bobby Jindal?

Big time loser on the national stage. He totally screwed up the GOP response to the State of the Union 2009 which hurt his stock dramatically within the party power structure. He's a bit too much of a religious zealot for most of the country to stomach and can expect very limited support form what many might think would be a fundraisign wildcard for him-- the Indian business community, who can't stand him. I don't think he's much of a threat, despite early press.

[PaleoMan]

I will be putting forth all my energy to get the venerable Ron Paul nominated, now that he has announced his potential candidacy. After being mocked in 2008, a twist of serendipity has made his platform appear almost prophetic. He's been clamoring for years about the heavyhandedness of the Federal Reserve and a reckless money supply for more than 3 decades. The impracticality of maintaining a massive overseas empire largely off foreign credit is another issue which bodes well for him. At the very least, he will be the conscience in the GOP primary race, separating the wheat from the chaff. His chances of being nominated are slim, but if he can generate some momentum in N.H. and Iowa, you never know when a kingmaker like DeMint would throw his support behind him in a key state like South Carolina.

[nots]

What do you politicos think of Bobby Jindal?

Thought his State of the Union rebuttal was bad. Thought he came back strong during the oil spill--handled himself well. Other than that, I confess to not knowing much--I'm sure some of our southern posters will give you a more informed response.