Posted on 09/15/2015 9:51:24 AM PDT by jimbo123
Fivethirtyeight.com founder Nate Silver said that GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have a “maybe about 5%” chance of winning the nomination on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360.”
Silver put Trump’s and Carson’s chances of winning the nomination at “maybe about 5% each, somewhere around there.” Silver explained, “there are a of couple things to think about. One is that if you look back at history, you’ve never seen candidates like Donald Trump certainly, or Ben Carson win a party nomination, and secondly, if you look at the polling a lot of times, a candidate leading the polls now, mid-September didn’t win the nomination, didn’t even come close. So, if you look four years ago, Rick Perry was in the midst of a surge right now, and eight years ago on the Democratic side, you had Howard Dean — or 12 years ago, rather, Howard Dean was surging, Hillary Clinton was still way ahead of Barack Obama in 2008. Rudy Giuliani was leading the polls in 2008. I think people — there’s so much interest in this election, in this campaign, people forget that polls five months before Iowa, historically, have told you very, very little.”
-snip-
Silver added that an establishment candidate was “probably” going to be the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Carson...I believe he has a real issue. He has no money at all. He is dependent on the donor class, so he’ll have to go to them begging. That’s why the media is pushing Carson so hard. They know he can be taken out and one of the establishment favorites can then slip in. Bush is the favorite son, and it appears that Fiorina is the favorite daughter. The criticism of both is valid. Fiorina got fired and has been jobless since. Bush starts slow and then wants to throttle back. He is so low energy that he’s competing with LED.
Trump has billions, and his luxury jet tells me that accessing that cash flow is different than what you and I think of when we are asked to ‘hand over the cash’.
I’ll take those odds. Where can I find a bookie who will take the bet?
20 to 1 in a field of 12-15? With Trump leading the pack by 20 lengths out of the gate?
Put me down for $5000. Papa needs a new pair of shoes.
He got lucky. He hasn’t been right since.
No, I laid out the FACTS in his disclosures.
NO ONE believes he can't marshal the resources to finance his campaign, and a "maybe he can't" isn't going to change that perception.
I never said that he couldn't, I was pointing out that it's not as easy as some think. When Ross Perot ran pretty much all of his wealth was in marketable securities, all he needed to do was call his broker and sell some stocks; Donald Trump simply IS NOT in that position.
Donald Trump's wealth IS NOT liquid and he doesn't claim it is, the only people who think it is are his devotees who won't stop to look at reality.
I'm just going off his disclosure and what he lists as marketable securities.
It WILL cost the GOP nominee more than $1 billion between now and the election. Trump DOES NOT have a billion dollars in cash, stocks and bonds, nor does he claim to.
His choices to self-finance would be to either sell or borrow against property, I am simply pointing out the realities associated with that.
No, you speculated on what he could do *based* on his disclosures. It's not the same thing, and I'm convinced you know that, but it seems you desire justification more than intellectual rigor.
I never said that he couldn't, I was pointing out that it's not as easy as some think.
Now you're just caviling. The clear implication is there exists the possibility he could not self-finance. Further, why are you assuming people need to, or care to, know how "easy" it would be for him to liquidate enough assets to self-finance.
You're missing the entire point of his candidacy; it's based on people believing he can accomplish what he says. How he does it is of secondary importance, because others who've promised much the same (thus implying it's not unreasonable) have accomplished NOTHING.
“Selling or borrowing” are what we think in terms of. But we don’t have billions and know how deals are made at that level. Barter, trade, pawn, hand shake, etc., are all words we know. As you recall, Trump is claiming instant access and support from Carl Icahn.
Nonsense.
He has about $300 million in case and securities, this fact is not in dispute.
The Trump "brand" is not something that can be readily converted into cash, so it's not part of the equation.
That leaves his real estate, the options to get a billion dollars from that is to either sell property or borrow against it. I was simply pointing out the realities associated with either of those options.
Now you're just caviling. The clear implication is there exists the possibility he could not self-finance. Further, why are you assuming people need to, or care to, know how "easy" it would be for him to liquidate enough assets to self-finance.
Really? People don't "care" about campaign promises?
You're missing the entire point of his candidacy; it's based on people believing he can accomplish what he says.
That was also the point of Obama's candidacy in 2008.
I apologize if the realities of self-financing a billion dollar plus campaign conflict with populist "beliefs."
How he does it is of secondary importance, because others who've promised much the same (thus implying it's not unreasonable) have accomplished NOTHING.
And I have demonstrated the method of HOW he could self-finance AND the obstacles in doing so.
You have dismissed this with, "FReeper please," as if it's somehow sacrilege to point out the realities of his promises.
Now, I understand that you are talking about Trump's major campaign promises like building a wall and tariffs. However, these promises are largely contingent on him self-financing.
Trump doesn't have billions either, he has PROPERTY worth billions, they aren't the same thing.
As you recall, Trump is claiming instant access and support from Carl Icahn.
And this would not be the same as self-financing. You recall that this all started because I was pointing out the liquidity issues that Trump would have in self-financing.
bump!
I know we’re talking about his assets. That’s what this conversation is all about. My previous comment directly applied to that.
Aside from the fact the need for "a billion dollars" is pure speculation on your part, and likely wrong based on his performance so far using MSM assets instead of his own, Trump seems to think he can do it, no one of note seriously questions his ability to do it, and the American people have confidence he can do it. While I understand your "equation" seems comprehensive enough for your purposes, it's just not any more convincing than global warming calculations.
Really? People don't "care" about campaign promises?
Only when they're not kept...a situation that has not occurred yet.
I have demonstrated the method of HOW he could self-finance AND the obstacles in doing so.
And that demonstration is simply not as convincing as you would like to think, if for no other reason than the popular belief rich people have more going on *sub rosa* than a balance sheet would indicate.
Romney and Obama each spent over a billion in 2012 (Romney spent nearly $400 million getting the nomination). It is absurd to believe that it will cost LESS this time around.
As far as using the media, it's absurd to think that Trump can use this in lieu of money. In 2008 the media went out of their way to deify Obama and he still spent nearly $800 million that go around. And keep in mind, the media WANTED Obama to win.
There are huge costs to the campaign beyond simple ad buys.
As for "no one of note" has questioned his ability to finance it, that's true. But, at the same time, NOBODY has suggested he has the cash on hand to actually do it.
While I understand your "equation" seems comprehensive enough for your purposes, it's just not any more convincing than global warming calculations.
Fine, show me how Trump can get elected by spending less than half of what Obama spent in 2008.
And that demonstration is simply not as convincing as you would like to think, if for no other reason than the popular belief rich people have more going on *sub rosa* than a balance sheet would indicate.
Really? What are these sub rosa conditions that Trump has? Trumps assets are far easier to identify than most billionaires, he has his name on everything. Or, are you suggesting that he lied on his financial disclosures and has more than $300 million in cash and securities?
Right, and if he chooses to self-finance the campaign he has two choices of what to do with those assets, he can sell them or borrow against them.
All the campaign expenditure is worthless if it does not get mindshare for the candidate.
Trump has demonstrated an almost fiendish efficiency in dollars per mindshare because he has been putting out viral ideas. People are talking privately about Trump. That costs Trump $0.00.
And that’s really how US politics should have looked in the first place. Having to spend obscene sums to grab individual minds in isolation through conventional media is a testimony to apathy more than anything else.
Very true, but the exact same thing could have been said for Obama in 2008 and it still cost him three-quarters of a billion dollars to get elected.
The gap between “Obama is talk worthy” and “I want Obama” had to be spanned by the wall to wall coverage because it was great enough.
Trump is coming out of the box a lot more appealingly.
And anyhow, suppose in worst case Trump had to match that. He’s worth what again? Tell me please?
Absurd? He's played the press like a Stradivarius, so far but it's "absurd" to think he will continue to do so. Riiiiight.
Also, please tell me about Obama’s “viral ideas.” It was the same old liberal crap....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.