Trump’s endorsement is no help to Romney


Having lived and worked in New York City the past two years, I have noted two prominent takes on Donald Trump. He’s seen as either a real estate mogul with disputable taste, or an entertainer with disputable talent. But in the past year, Trump has been developing a third identity, that of a publicity hound. His brand has devolved to where it can be summarized by one word: joke—and not a very funny one at that. The media’s treatment of his endorsement of Mitt Romney reflected as much. Romney’s obvious discomfort in accepting begs the question: did he really need it?

The Romney camp did not want more endorsements from outside-the-establishment types like Sarah Palin and Hermain Cain going to his opponents. Trump brings little to the table, but he does give Romney one less headache to deal with. Or so he thinks. Trump could, if it suits him, take his endorsement back if it helps his show’s ratings.

Endorsements are very much a part of the nomination process. Usually, they establish credibility, build momentum and reinforce a candidate’s mantra. But Trump added nothing to Romney’s candidacy and may actually hurt him. After the silly birth certificate fiasco of last spring, everyone knew Trump was not going to run. He was no threat. There was no way he would divulge the details of his wealth or his taxes for the sake a presidential run. These publicity antics have more to do with his show than the good of the country.

This should have been Romney’s best week, winning Florida and likely Nevada, and with Gingrich showing no class in losing. Instead, Romney makes a verbal gaffe about not caring about the poor that reinforces the perception of being out of touch, and gets The Donald’s endorsement. No wonder Obama can sing a good tune.

Filed under:

Trump’s endorsement is no help to Romney

  1. I guarantee that Obama is not whistling a merry tune, despite Romney’s gaffe (actually Romney has said some version of “I want to help the middle class not the poor” on multiple occasions before) and the dubious value of Trump’s endorsement of Romney. Because the far more meaningful news item coming out this week is the CBO projection that unemployment is likely to start rising again, reaching 9.2% in 2013: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/31/cbo-unemployment-could-top-9-percent-in-2013 

    The status quo fis a tight race, at least based on the indicators we have. He has a modest lead on futures markets, is projected to win 50.3% of the two-party vote in Ray Fair’s economic model ( http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2012/index2.htm ), and while he has a modest lead in most match-up polls, Obama is essentially tied in the swing states that matter ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication ). And if every state where he has a net negative approval rating voted Republican, the GOP would win in a landslide. 

    His position is pretty tenuous for an incumbent president, and from what we’ve seen, the cooperation with congress that would be needed to combat rising unemployment is unlikely to manifest. Indeed, it is in the interest of the GOP congress to sit on its thumbs, awaiting a Romney presidency.

    • Tough game for them to play though, if employment is increasing and it can be pointed out that these guys are sitting on their thumbs wanting things to get worse so that their guy’ll get in, it might just wind up as a reversal of fortune. Romney president, Democratic congress.

  2. Hanging one’s hopes on a single verbal gaffe is a telling indicator of how concerned Obama supporters must be right now.   They have reason to be concerned.

    Indeed all of the macro factors point to an epic loss for Obama.  Rasmussen’s latest polling shows a dismal 20% approval rate among uncommitted voters.  Obama is sorrily down in virtually all of the swing states he took in the last election, and Gallup has him in positive approval territory (approval being perhaps the most important number for an incumant) in only 10 states.  Ten.

    Another interesting tidbit, is that the January stock market movement has picked the winner in all but one election over the past century.  This year’s high positive movement shows the stock market has priced in an Obama loss.  Interesting story on this from Investors Business Daily here:


    Finally with respect to the comment, everyone in the world knows it was, as you say, a verbal gaffe.  When the vast republican machine sets its sites on Obama (and not each other) all the world will know, for instance, that last year Romney gave 13% of his income to charity.  Obama?  A paltry 1%.  Who cares about the poor again?

    As for the unemployment rate, have a gander at the comments section of any daily and you’ll see that the media’s ommission of the fact that labor participation (the denomitor in the percentage) plummeted to levels not seen since 1983, is not being missed by the public.

    Independents are factoring in the overt displays of favouritism shown by the media the last time around and aren’t buying the media spin (on a related note, the Democrat polling firm found all but the “most left leaning” voters with a deep mistrust of the media).  Fool me once….

    Such media cheerleading evidenced in this post will not work this time around.  In fact, it will more likely backfire with a population that feels they were sold a bill of goods with the “hope and change” uncritically parroted by Obama’s leftist journalist friends.

    • Romney’s ‘charity’ is tithing to the Mormon church. 

      • And? The Mormon church does good work. What is wrong with making charitable donations to an organization that also supports your religious beliefs? So is it not charity, unless Romney donates money to “Mirthless feminists against Jesus”? I should add that the tithe is 10%, and Romney’s tax returns show he gave more than that. 

        • “The Mormon church does good work”.

          From The Salamander Society
          As I mentioned before, we don’t know what the church does with its money in the US. But we do have insight to their behavior in the UK. And here is the disturbing summary of what happened after the 2005 tsunami:
          The church asked UK members to donate money to help the tsunami victims. Guess how much of the UK members donations went to tsunami victims? No, really, guess.
          OK, you ready for the answer? Nothing.
          Nothing went to the tsunami victims. See Mormon Think – Tithing
          Personally, I think charity fraud is vile. It’s the worst kind of people taking advantage of the best kind of people. And, in my opinion, what happened in the UK is charity fraud. It makes you wonder what is happening in the US where the church isn’t required to open their books. Some estimates place the church as donating LESS THAN 1% of its income to help the poor.

  3. Any incumbent will suffer because of the widespread delusion that there are “Made in America” solutions to things like unemployment.  No president can both solve unemployment and conquer the deficit without the help of the rest of the world.  The ones out of power have the advantage of pretending that they can until they get their turn at the trough.

    It’s also bemusing that Wall Street seems to be getting a pass on having created the crisis in the first place —

  4. As for the “aloof, out-of-touch, cold” meme being portrayed by Romney’s detractors, consider how well that worked against Harper.  In hard economic times the public doesn’t have the luxury of voting for someone they’d like to have over for a barbecue.

    As for Romney’s dreaded riches, the far left (including those in the media) may view financial success as a crime, but independents just view it as a success.  The more the left will point the jaded finger of success at Romney the better for him. 

    • It’s Gingrich doing the most criticism of Romney’s wealth.  Pretty rich. but it shows how much confusion the Tea Party has planted in the Republican party. 

      • So true JanBC. Tea Party is a liability now .

    • I have decided after last night that I will endorse Newt Gingrich . He is right. Romney is dishonest and Trump is an idiot .

      • I always love hearing Newt call other people dishonest.  It’s about as credible as Newt calling someone unfaithful.

    • “The left” is not the most vociferous critic of Romeny’s wealth (or more importantly how he made it, and how much of it is taxed) those are his fellow Republicans that are slamming him on it, the loudest critic being Newt Gingrich.

      Also, Harper may not have been harmed by his out-of-touch persona, but then again, Harper’s not richer than the last eight PM’s combined (Romney is richer than the last eight U.S. Presidents COMBINED).  Nor did Harper do things like referring to himself as “unemployed” while making over $57,000 a day in income, claiming to have “known the fear of getting a pink slip” despite being exceedingly wealthy, or said out loud that he’s not really concerned about the very poor.

  5. Trump isn’t an idiot; if anything he’s quite clever and has a talent for survival and winning.
    But he seems to be completely lacking in any motivation beyond petty self-interest.  Why anyone would care whom he endorses is beyond me.

    He reminds me a lot of Chretien, actually.

Sign in to comment.