Great news: Donald Trump hinting at presidential run

posted at 10:14 pm on October 4, 2010 by Allahpundit

Obviously just a stunt aimed at piggybacking on the perpetual “Bloomberg for president” buzz, but since the primaries are already looking to be a Category 4 clusterfark, why not make ‘em a Category 5?

In Monday interview with TIME’s Adam Sorensen, Trump lays out what sounds an awful lot like a 2012 platform:

“I have never had any interest [in running for office] before. If I ever did, this would be the time. That’s not to say I have interest, but if I ever did, this would be the time, because we’ve never had a country that’s sunk and thats gone to levels as low as it is right now.”…

“I think I’m qualified because I deal with countries that are taking us to lunch in a negative sense. I deal with Chinese. I know the Chinese. I understand the Chinese. They laugh at our stupidity. That laugh at how stupid our leaders are.”…

“Every week I wake up an the country is weaker and weaker and less and less effective and just less of a force. We’re working for China and that could be changed very rapidly.”

What is there to understand about China except that we owe them lots and lots and lots of money that we’ll never repay? Mark Halperin, citing a mysterious poll taken last month in New Hampshire that mentioned Trump, weighs in:

Trump created a flurry of speculation when he flirted with running for president in the past. The Republican nomination fight is so wide open — with no clear front-runner and a lot of potentially strong candidates on the fence about making the race – that a Trump trip or two to the Granite State (along with some token TV and radio spots) could juice his poll numbers and make him an immediate player in the world of cable/blog/talk radio speculation. Trump’s brashness, faux anti-establishment populism, willingness to take on Obama right here right now as a take-charge-CEO-type, and bright-shiny-object status with the media would allow him to draw a lot of attention. He wouldn’t have to declare he was running for sure, just say he was thinking about it.

He told Time that he’s a Republican, which presumably means a primary run rather than a third-party candidacy. If he runs as an independent, he can style himself as the new Perot — a colorful business-savvy billionaire who’s ready to show the career politicians how to get things done. If he runs as a Republican, he’s basically just … Mitt Romney with bad hair and a more exciting love life, no? He’d be the Al Sharpton of the GOP primary, zinging the stiffs ahead of him in the polls with plain-spoken “truths” while gaining traction with pretty much no one. I hope he jumps in. We’d have a ball blogging it until, inevitably, after he flames out in New Hampshire with three percent of the vote, he quietly withdrew.

Speaking of third-party runs, I commend to you this Nate Silver analysis of why 2012 could be a uniquely favorable year for a third-party candidate, especially if Palin’s the GOP nominee. She’s unpopular with centrists and, if unemployment stays high, Obama will be too, thus leaving a huge vacuum in the middle for some indie moderate to fill. That ain’t Trump, and it ain’t Halperin’s fever dream of a, er, Bloomberg/Petraeus ticket, but there’s potentially room to run for some enterprising gazillionaire who can pay his/her own way. Exit question: Note Silver’s reminder that if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in a three-way race, it falls to the House — which is likely to be controlled by the GOP — to select the new president. Does that mean we should welcome a third-party candidacy, especially if the Republican nominee looks weak? It’s the Coons/Castle/O’Donnell dynamic all over again, except this time the GOP (probably) gets to decide things if no one reaches 270. Fun!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Fun?!?!

dude….

ted c on October 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I commend to you this Nate Silver analysis of why 2012 could be a uniquely favorable year for a third-party candidate, especially if Palin’s the GOP nominee.

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Your Fired! Donald

hawkman on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I want to see a poll!!! Primary and general.

El_Terrible on October 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM

One thought for everyone here…… Think of who`d be the first lady. :)

ThePrez on October 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Gross.

Connie on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

this new comment filter thingy is like 10x slower than last week. It’s severely cramping my hotair style if uknowwhutimean….my comment submission is down like 90% since its rollout, so for AP, it’s probably working right as predicted…

ted c on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Think of who`d be the first lady. :)

ThePrez on October 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM

What year? :P

lorien1973 on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

One thought for everyone here…… Think of who`d be the first lady. :)

ThePrez on October 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Dunno…who’s The Donald’s current wife? LOL

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

President or not, what Trump SHOULD HAVE HAD was manager or developer of the Twin Towers resurrection. Seriously, Trump SHOULD have been in charge of that, not Bloomberg and the various jello-people on the NYCity various boards of Whatnot.

Lourdes on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM

hat ain’t Trump, and it ain’t Halperin’s fever dream of a, er, Bloomberg/Petraeus ticket, but there’s potentially room to run for some enterprising gazillionaire who can pay his/her own way.

Bloomberg, uh…no.

seesalrun on October 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM

I dunno, Trump is a smart guy. Though I noticed he tends to stay neutral when asked questions about politics. And I don’t mean centrist, just neutral.

Ortzinator on October 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Trump’s hair could be his running mate.

viking01 on October 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

Not sure about that. If Hillary ran as an Indie, she’d pull votes from Obama. If Trump ran as a third-party candidate, he screws the Pubs like Perot did in ’92.

joejm65 on October 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

The anti-Palin vote is like 75% of the country.

Let’s face it; she’s a loser.

Nessuno on October 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Hey, at least he knows how to run a business. And he’d be an entertaining president.

amerpundit on October 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I kinda’ think he wouldn’t “flame out”, though. If Trump seriously decided to run, I think it’s a sure bet that he wouldn’t waste his time losing.

Lourdes on October 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I’m inclined to agree with you. Any campaign that involves Sarah Palin by default becomes a scorched-earth negative campaign against her.

Obama will bash her, any third party candidate will bash her. She’ll win big pluralities in red states, and win enough purple states to win by the House, if not outright.

It’s just the nature of the beast. Liberal and faux-moderates’ primary objective is to destroy Palin.

KingGold on October 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Your Fired! Donald

hawkman on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

You stole my post…

Khun Joe on October 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Unless the other non-Obama candidate is also acceptable to people that would otherwise vote for Palin but not Obama.

amerpundit on October 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM

No a third party run will mean Obama for four more years. No way would the media give attention to a third party candidate unless they know the person will draw AWAY votes from Republicans.

terryannonline on October 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM

The anti-Palin vote is like 75% of the country.

Let’s face it; she’s a loser.

Nessuno on October 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM

What data are you using to back that up?

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM

No a third party run will mean Obama for four more years.

terryannonline on October 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Nope, not this time.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Interesting, I took a long telephone poll here in Iowa last week where they ask questions and gave info, then more questions on each candidate and Trump was among them. Some things I didn’t know about him. Seemed the poll was geared toward Pence, but I couldn’t figure out why they kept asking about Trump.

Poll must have taken ten mimutes!

I never thought of him as a candidate but if he were to team up with Sarah?

dhunter on October 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM

In all eloquence, Donald Trump is a creep.

DeathB4Tyranny on October 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM

President Trump…

I’m trying to imagine what he’d do to the White House. I doubt that Trump could leave a Palladian Neoclassical building like that alone for long.

Lourdes on October 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Keep hinting at it Donald… hopefully it will keep Bloomberg away from the national stage…

phreshone on October 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM

I’d never vote for him. Seems to sleazy for my liking. I can’t even stand his show.

flyfishingdad on October 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM

If Trump ran as a third-party candidate, he screws the Pubs like Perot did in ’92.

joejm65 on October 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM

No he wouldn’t. Perot had success because George Bush was perceived as a squish by many base GOP voters.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Carrie Prejean and Christine O’Donnell for Co-HHS…teehee.

SouthernGent on October 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Slow news day, huh Allahpundit? LOL

simkeith on October 4, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Oh, come on; he’d sure liven up the debates. Then he can drop out in some spectacular fashion to get all the news attention.

theperfecteconomist on October 4, 2010 at 10:32 PM

“I think I’m qualified because I deal with countries that are taking us to lunch in a negative sense. I deal with Chinese. I know the Chinese. I understand the Chinese. They laugh at our stupidity. That laugh at how stupid our leaders are.”…

he’s got a strong start right here

r keller on October 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM

The Donald is just another self serving egotist who really can’t do anything by himself. We already have one of those in the White House. Really don’t need another one. Nice to see the MSM is trying as hard as they can to make sure the GOP nominates another loser, like they did in 2008. I’m still waiting for the Dark Horse in 2012. Here’s hoping it’s Mitch Daniels or Bobby Jindal.

Tommy_G on October 4, 2010 at 10:35 PM

This is the same guy who proposed a one time tax of 10% I believe on anyone with a million dollars or more.

Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 10:36 PM

No he wouldn’t. Perot had success because George Bush was perceived as a squish by many base GOP voters.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM

He can pull away moderates.

terryannonline on October 4, 2010 at 10:40 PM

He’s about 20 years and 2 or 3 wives too late.

Marcus on October 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM

This is the same guy who proposed a one time tax of 10% I believe on anyone with a million dollars or more.

Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 10:36 PM

There’s no such thing as a one time tax!
Same for a Blue Dog Democrat or a pro-life Democrat just as elusive and non existant as Big Foot!

dhunter on October 4, 2010 at 10:43 PM

I don’t see the humor in a Trump candidacy. If he ran, I’d pay attention and give him some serious consideration.

JCred on October 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM

There’s no such thing as a one time tax!
Same for a Blue Dog Democrat or a pro-life Democrat just as elusive and non existant as Big Foot!

dhunter on October 4, 2010 at 10:43 PM

I know at least one person who would disagree with you concerning Largefoot :)

Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Yeah, a candidate with no voting record would be a definite winner. ///

Sorry, not playing the 2012 game until after Nov. 2.

conservative pilgrim on October 4, 2010 at 10:52 PM

One thought for everyone here…… Think of who`d be the first lady. :)

ThePrez on October 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM

We’d have a First Lady Pageant…each year.

I don’t see the humor in a Trump candidacy. If he ran, I’d pay attention and give him some serious consideration.

JCred on October 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Now THAT was funny! Dude, you’re killing me…you were joking, right?

Seriously, tho’, Trump’s ego waaaay out paces his popularity.Bloomberg fancies himself to be popular outside the northeast? Delusional.

cartooner on October 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM

If Palin’s the GOP nominee, a third-party candidacy guarantees her victory. Take it to the bank. It’s the anti-Palin vote that will be split.

ddrintn on October 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Mighty big IF in the first place.
Hillary-Petraeus or Hillary-Bayh makes it difficult for Palin to make 100 electoral votes.

Bradky on October 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM

well I like what he said about China laughing at us, some much needed plain speak. Would be great to see him make a primary run but I wouldn’t vote for him. I would like him to get his message out, some things need to be said about what a joke we are becoming because it seems to be taboo these days to look out for your national interests.

Daemonocracy on October 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM

If Lucifer was running against the DOTUS?…….I’d have to say…..Second look at Satan.

PappyD61 on October 4, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Bradky on October 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Hilliary? You’ve got to be kidding. She’s a certified loser. She couldn’t even beat the guy that’s currently in the White House. Have some patients, wait and see. All this over analysis is what got us into trouble in the 2008 election. Don’t let the opposition pick our candidate like they did in the last election.

Tommy_G on October 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM

The anti-Palin vote is like 75% of the country.
Let’s face it; she’s a loser.
Nessuno on October 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM

If that was the case, all of the candidates that she endorsed in the primaries wouldn’t have advanced. Her success rate is 70%. Your 75% figure makes no sense.

joejm65 on October 4, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Don’t let the opposition pick our candidate like they did in the last election.

Tommy_G on October 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM

The “opposition” would like nothing better than to see Palin nominated.
And you badly underestimate Hillary’s influence with independents and conservative democrats.

Bradky on October 4, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Your 75% figure makes no sense.

joejm65 on October 4, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Only 29% of people polled said they would vote for her for president but her favorables are in the 40′s.
A half term as governor and some successful endorsements does not instantly make one qualified to be president. Considering all the baggage O’Donnell has is it not fair to question Paln’s judgment when she picks a wackadoodle?

Bradky on October 4, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Have some patients

Tommy_G on October 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Bradky IS a patient.

Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Duuuuude.

Hummer53 on October 4, 2010 at 11:42 PM

The Chinese take our jobs, sell us cheap plastic garbage, and pirate whatever they don’t feel like buying. They mock the capitalists who sold out their principles for an easy trading partner, in everything from valuing the unborn to ethical treatment of laborers, while preparing to take our place as a world power.

Wow, look at that, I understand the Chinese better than Donald Duck Trump.

Dark-Star on October 5, 2010 at 12:05 AM

should be “as well as”, not “better”. never type with a tired brain.

Dark-Star on October 5, 2010 at 12:06 AM

The same applies to Mitt Romney as well. If he’s the nominee, there’ll be a third party run by a Tea Party candidate. How’s that kemosabe?

promachus on October 5, 2010 at 12:28 AM

publicity stunt – right on schedule for Trump

noodle on October 5, 2010 at 1:11 AM

Note Silver’s reminder that if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in a three-way race, it falls to the House — which is likely to be controlled by the GOP — to select the new president.

While more likely than not that a republican controlled house would vote for the republican candidate, remember that it is not a simple up or down vote where a simple majority wins. In this case, the house breaks down to state delegations and each delegation votes and each state, regardless of size, gets only 1 vote, with 26 states needed. States that are deadlocked (i.e., 6 GOP, 6 Dems) would obstain from the vote total. If nobody gets 26 states, the house repeats the process perpetually until someone does. This could take months, lead to many backroom deals in order to get someone to switch their vote. Fun!

OhioBuckeye7 on October 5, 2010 at 3:01 AM

Not a chance in hell I would ever vote for that guy.

crosspatch on October 5, 2010 at 4:03 AM

Trump vs Bloomberg in a Steel Cage Match featuring chainsaws!

Now that I just might watch…

Trump has already met the ceiling on his inability via the Peter Principle, and he really should learn to recognize that.

ajacksonian on October 5, 2010 at 6:35 AM

I have been saying since shortly after Obama was elected that he will NOT get re-elected unless there is a third party candidate. Bill Clinton never would have been president if it hadn’t been for H. Ross Perot, because Clinton NEVER got more than 50% of the vote.

And I said in another post today that you can bet money that Democrats will arrange for there to be a third party candidate. probably the safest place to put your money these days.

I was thinking it would be Bloomberg, but there are other self-promoting egomaniacs that would gladly put self-promotion before country, delivering a plurality of votes to Obama and dooming the nation to become Venezuela’s North campus. Trump could be just that shameless.

American Elephant on October 5, 2010 at 6:36 AM

Hillary-Petraeus or Hillary-Bayh makes it difficult for Palin to make 100 electoral votes.

Bradky on October 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Now we see Bradky’s dream ticket. Awwwww. Bradky’s a Hillbot. Figures.

ddrintn on October 5, 2010 at 7:06 AM

Now we see Bradky’s dream ticket. Awwwww. Bradky’s a Hillbot. Figures.

ddrintn on October 5, 2010 at 7:06 AM

Just because you enjoy being someone’s bot doesn’t mean everyone else is a bot. A hillary palin matchup is a disaster for Palin. You just don’t want to look at the facts regarding Independents and Conservative Dems.

Of course if the past is any indication I expect you to start on Hillary’s looks as your primary criticism. Christie – weight, Jindal – religion, Newt – divorces. Real weighty policy objections you have brought up…. /sarc

Bradky on October 5, 2010 at 7:31 AM

The Donald was just in Morning Joe sounding like a candidate. Interestingly, he had praise for Pat Buchanan.

Greek Fire on October 5, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Didn’t he vote for Obama?

Disturb the Universe on October 5, 2010 at 7:47 AM

Do it Donald! Split the New York vote and flip it to the Rethugs

wiseprince on October 5, 2010 at 8:07 AM

The Donald was just in Morning Joe sounding like a candidate.

Greek Fire on October 5, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Saw it. Loved everything he said.

SlimyBill on October 5, 2010 at 8:09 AM

At least with Trump as president, the MSM wouldn’t have to pretend that we have a hot and stylish First Lady.

AZCoyote on October 5, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Bloomberg/Petraeus? Good grief.

Cindy Munford on October 5, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Electoral politics being what they are I’m not sure that the Dem wouldn’t pull that win out. There are too many solid blue states.

livefreerdie on October 5, 2010 at 9:31 AM

It’s the Coons/Castle/O’Donnell dynamic all over again, except this time the GOP (probably) gets to decide things if no one reaches 270. Fun

Good lord. The cries of stolen elections will be worse than in 2000.

Vyce on October 5, 2010 at 9:34 AM

I’ll tell you one thing – Trump is a global warming denier. I refuse to vote for anyone who wants to continue this “green jobs” idiocy.

Trump might be the best anti-dote for what ails us. He has consistently complained about how nothing is built in America any longer and that he actively tries to find products built here to use in his hotels and other projects. Recently, he was talking about the fact he couldn’t find windows built in the US.

On the other hand, he does business in and with other countries all of the time.

This might provide the appropriate balance so that we would not fall into an isolationist period but would renegotiate our trade contracts.

It’s intriguing and his Fox & Friends appearance this morning certainly had him leaning toward running.

Greyledge Gal on October 5, 2010 at 9:54 AM

I like the idea. Every year he’d have a reality show to pick his new Vice President. Imagine guys like Lindsey Graham out on the streets of New York trying to sell diaper cream or something.

JohnTant on October 5, 2010 at 10:10 AM

EGo talking. He’s be nothing but a distraction. Too shallow for something as important as the Presidency.

jeanie on October 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM

EGo talking. He’s be nothing but a distraction. Too shallow for something as important as the Presidency.

jeanie on October 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Funny, that’s what people said about Obama.

Dark-Star on October 5, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Mitch Daniels/John Bolton 2012!!!

Unstoppable.

realityunwound on October 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Of course if the past is any indication I expect you to start on Hillary’s looks as your primary criticism. Christie – weight, Jindal – religion, Newt – divorces. Real weighty policy objections you have brought up…. /sarc

Bradky on October 5, 2010 at 7:31 AM

Point out the specific posts in which I objected to Christie OR Jindal.

Yeah, you’re an anti-Palin bot. Precious. Anyone’s a disaster for Palin because it’s your *sigh* fantasy.

ddrintn on October 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM

^ By the way, even if I had such objections they’d be no less weighty than your “Dr Fell” objections to Palin.

ddrintn on October 5, 2010 at 4:49 PM