Three Reasons Donald Trump will Drop Out before Iowa

[osan]

I thought this was a good article.

Well, it's almost 5 AM, I cannot sleep, and have nothing better to do other than auto-combust, which also doesn't appear to be happening - so why not give this one a whirl.

Reason 1:

Donald Trump Isn’t Running A Serious Campaign

What does the author mean, exactly, by "serious"? Perhaps he will specify. Continuing:

First and foremost is the fact that his campaign so far has been more of a publicity tour than a serious run for President.

And how is this different from a "serious" campaign? Are not all political campaigns publicity tours at their cores?

So far Donald Trump has risked very little to run his campaign and relied entirely on soaking up free wall-to-wall publicity.

This presupposes that high-risk is somehow inherent to "serious". FAIL.

Every one of his business projects have been funded with other people’s money.

Firstly and foremost, so what? Once again the author employs patently false tacit presupposition, it being that using other people's money for projects is somehow tainted. FAIL.

That’s why Trump has stumped for Super PACs that are supporting him. The problem is, those PACs aren’t going to be able to run a ground game in Iowa. They’ll put ads on TV for him but that’s about it. Actually signing up voters and organizing registration drives takes real organization which is not a priority for those PACs or Trump’s campaign.

And one more time, so what? Thus far the author appears to be of the school of thought that says there is only one way to run a successful campaign. FAIL.

When it’s below zero on caucus day there won’t be anyone to drive Trump supporters to vote.

And the author knows this... how, exactly? Without supporting evidence, we have on our hands yet another FAIL. Batting .000 so far.

This flaw is not an oversight but by design.

See point immediately above.

Trump is only concerned with being in the spotlight and stoking his ego.

Clinton, Obama, and most of the rest aren't? Is this person serious? FAIL.

The campaign is geared around him and not around actually winning.

Yet another empty assertion. My keyboard should have a key marked "FAIL".

Not to worry though, Donald Trump will drop out before that Achilles heel shows.

Maybe. Maybe not. Thus far, the author is deeply unconvincing.

Reason 2:

Donald Trump Can’t Stand To Lose

The fact is that barring sitting Presidents and VP’s no one has ever won the nomination in a clean sweep and that will undoubtedly prove true this primary season.

There's the setup for something I suspect will have an odor about it, but let us not prejudge.

This is a “yuge” problem.

Credibility just went to zero with this.

Donald Trump cannot accept losing.

Demonstrably FALSE. Were it so, he never would have lasted in business. He may not like losing - who among healthy and self-respecting individuals does? - but saying "he can't stand it" implies facts clearly not in evidence based solely on the fact that he has been in the game a long time and despite failures, has managed to keep going.

His entire image is built around the illusion that he is always winning.

This is remedial public relations strategy 001. Author FAILs yet again to make a valid point. This is boring.

Given his lack of organization so far it’s undeniable that he will lose numerous primaries and caucuses.

Any number greater than zero is "numerous". That aside, only time will tell. Lack of organization? Says who? This apparent nitwit author? Please.

He can’t rely on abstract polls to win physical votes.

Finally, are reasonable statement squeaks its way out.

So, instead of risking several humiliating defeats, he’ll just quit.

A stupid statement made by someone who is either stoopid or sufficiently blinded by apparent personal disdain for Trump to do any better. Transparency FAIL.

Donald Trump will drop out because of his own insecurity which is trademark of all narcissists; Trump can’t stand appearing to be a loser.

Do I really need to say it?

That’s why he always tries to quit in a way that makes him look like and feel like a winner. Even though he lost his yacht, his airline, and stake in the company when Trump Taj Mahal went bankrupt he still likes to claim that he smartly got out of Atlantic City first and went on to more fantastic businesses.

And if he did, how would the author know, based on whatever it is he uses as his yardstick?

It will be the same story when Donald Trump drops out before Iowa. He’ll say he could’ve won if he stayed and that he had bigger, better, more terrific things to do instead.

And if Trump doesn't do this, the author will have proven himself a fourth-rate loser/$#@!. If Trump does, author will be unable to claim any credit for the prediction because it is based on... well, what? And no, I'm not chasing down other links. That is a waste of time when someone fails to construct a basic argument in an article. Learn to write properly or lose all credibility.

Reason 3:


Donald Trump Doesn’t Want To Be President

The two previous reasons suggest that he will drop out before Iowa to avoid an embarrassing and unacceptable loss.

They do no such thing. The only thing they suggest is that the author is an inept fop, possibly brain-damaged.

But, again, this is by design. Donald Trump does not want to win the nomination. Seriously. Just because he’s running for President does not mean he actually wants to be President.

True, the point being...

That would require actual work!

Credibility << 0. To suggest Trump is lazy renders author a petty douche bag. Trump may be many things, not all of them very flattering, but lazy? Um, no.

Trump’s lackadaisical management of his own companies proves that he’s not actively running any of them. He’s taken a three month vacation to campaign around the country. No other Fortune 500 CEO could or would ever do that – because they’re actually busy working. If Trump won the nomination and/or the election it would mean he would actually have to work. Running the country would prove impossible for him and he knows it. Donald Trump does not want to be President of the United States. That would mean he would actually have to start taking responsibility instead of giving rambling speeches and going on talk shows.

SNORE...

If this is a good article, I would hate to see what qualifies as bad.

Well, that's twenty minutes I will never get back. Shame on me, I suppose.

[DevilsAdvocate]

If Trump drops out....that will cost his heirs billions of dollars.

He eliminates the current 40% estate tax in his tax plan....if he drops out / does not become President / if President Trump fails to get Congress to approve his tax plan....the estate tax will hit his heirs hard when he passes away. 40% of his net worth of billions of dollars is a lot of money.

Also if he drops out he'll have to continue paying the 39.6% top tax rate while he's alive instead of the 25% he is proposing in his tax plan.

Someone here knows what's up.

You're saying that even with all the money he's spent getting elected, even with all the opportunity cost for the deals he's missing out on, he might actually make a huge profit if he wins? Amazing!

[osan]

Why does anyone think Trump will drop out? He's been #1 in the polls since he entered the race, with no signs of dropping any time soon. He has a cult following from 30% of Americans, the stupid ones. He has infinite money to spend on his campaign, and nothing better to do with his time.

Sorry, but I think he's in it until the end.

I cannot disagree. The silly article attempts to paint Trump as some flailing prisoner of ego. I don't think it is quite like that. I'm sure he has his failings, some of them perhaps pronounced, but I don't think Trump is any sort of candy-ass.

It may be that he got into this on a lark or even as a joke - perhaps just so he can say he ran. But it may very well be the case that the success with which he has met thus far took him by complete surprise. Being not quite the fool the OP article claims, he may have said to himself "hey, what the hell... lets see where this bitch goes." I can easily see the curiosity factor taking over, if nothing else.

The article is complete $#@!, IMO.

[osan]

If Trump drops out....that will cost his heirs billions of dollars.

Nope.

He eliminates the current 40% estate tax in his tax plan....if he drops out / does not become President / if President Trump fails to get Congress to approve his tax plan....the estate tax will hit his heirs hard when he passes away. 40% of his net worth of billions of dollars is a lot of money.

Not sure you know how these things work. He will have no heirs in the tax-legal sense. I would be utterly shocked to learn that Trump has not set up a family trust, wherein his heirs are, or will become, trustees. When he snuffs it, his heirs take over the business and pay not a thin dime in taxes. This is how real wealth passes between generations.

Also if he drops out he'll have to continue paying the 39.6% top tax rate while he's alive instead of the 25% he is proposing in his tax plan.

Now that is a different issue. But is HE paying that, or is it the corporation? Regardless, America has the highest corporate tax rates on the planet - yet another reason business is fleeing these now gravely tainted shores.

[Badger Paul]

"You're definitely wrong about Rand. "

Maybe. But when I read reports about a Paul Super PAC no longer raising money for him or the fact Paul's next two fundraisers are for his SENATE campaign (of which he has no opponents for yet) and then weigh it against news about all these endorsements in the caucus states and such, I'm and I'm sure many other are left wondering what the reality is? Is the Presidential campaign moving forward or is Paul preparing the groundwork for a withdrawl?

If he can't get into the next debate, is that when he basically says piss on the whole thing? I don't think Rand himself really knows, he's probably debating it in his mind as write this. The campaign is certainly plowing ahead. Now if it can just get the man they're working for to do the same, it would get back on track.

[CPUd]

"You're definitely wrong about Rand. "

Maybe. But when I read reports about a Paul Super PAC no longer raising money for him or the fact Paul's next two fundraisers are for his SENATE campaign (of which he has no opponents for yet) and then weigh it against news about all these endorsements in the caucus states and such, I'm and I'm sure many other are left wondering what the reality is? Is the Presidential campaign moving forward or is Paul preparing the groundwork for a withdrawl?

If he can't get into the next debate, is that when he basically says piss on the whole thing? I don't think Rand himself really knows, he's probably debating it in his mind as write this. The campaign is certainly plowing ahead. Now if it can just get the man they're working for to do the same, it would get back on track.

LOL are you serious?

[hells_unicorn]

So are you suggesting that he'll be able to avoid the 40% estate tax too?

You do realize that there are ways to shield your money from government grave-robbers if you look at 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 laws, which is precisely how guys like Bill Gates won't have to worry about that tax. The entire tax code, including the death tax, amount to a massive slice of Swiss cheese. If you know where the holes are, you'll get by it.

Yes, sure it was stupid of him to support Clinton....it's stupid for any wealthy person to support the Democrats....but that doesn't mean he can't wise up.

What was stupid about it? Trump made out pretty well throughout the 1990s. Guys like Trump couldn't care less about Democrats or Republicans, what they care about is who is for sale and how high the price happens to be. The Clintons are unrepentant whores, it's much easier to buy them off than more ideologically driven left-wingers.

He'll lose billions too if Hillary gets elected....what's the difference between Hillary and Sanders?

On paper, there isn't much difference between them, but in terms of personality, they are quite different. Sanders is a fanatic, Clinton is a corrupt ex-lawyer who likes the finer things in life. Clinton would be much more susceptible to persuasion if the price is right, whereas Sanders is a cult leader with an eye towards a self-fulfilling Utopia.

[hells_unicorn]

LOL are you serious?

Apparently we've got some people who, despite being members going back to the early days, are still stuck in low-information voter status. Somebody should clue in Badger Paul that Politico put out false information and that every piece of news that they put out should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

[erowe1]

"You're definitely wrong about Rand. "

Maybe. But when I read reports about a Paul Super PAC no longer raising money for him or the fact Paul's next two fundraisers are for his SENATE campaign (of which he has no opponents for yet) and then weigh it against news about all these endorsements in the caucus states and such, I'm and I'm sure many other are left wondering what the reality is? Is the Presidential campaign moving forward or is Paul preparing the groundwork for a withdrawl?

If he can't get into the next debate, is that when he basically says piss on the whole thing? I don't think Rand himself really knows, he's probably debating it in his mind as write this. The campaign is certainly plowing ahead. Now if it can just get the man they're working for to do the same, it would get back on track.

Think through your own post.

What does a SuperPAC saying they won't raise money for Rand indicate about his intentions (they didn't say that, but for the sake of argument, say they did)? It indicates nothing at all about his intentions. He doesn't and can't tell them what to do.

What does his having Senate campaign fund raisers indicate about his presidential campaign intentions? Nothing. We knew all along he was going to run for both. When he ends up running for only one of the two, the extra funds he has in his other campaign will just get moved to the one he's still running.

What does releasing news about endorsements in early presidential primary and caucus states indicate? A lot.

[SilentBull]

If I tank I'll drop out

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politi...rss_topstories

[helmuth_hubener]

The only thing gay marriage does is take away the "special rights" afforded to straight marriage couples.

In today's USA, this is unfortunately not the case. Ask "Sweetcakes by Mellisa," or ask the couple being forced to allow their own private farm to be rented out to homosexuals to celebrate their homosexuality. http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/...sbian-wedding/ But that's just people and businesses doing things directly wedding-related. You should also ask, oh, any college or university, including church colleges. You should ask any landlord. You should ask any employer, period.

No, there is no choice but to rent to these people, to sell to these people, to work with these people, to do everything with these people. There are many people who do not want to. They don't like these people, they don't like what they're doing. They certainly don't like fearing they will be publicly crucified whenever they fail to celebrate them at every turn and with every word. What they would very much like to do is continue with their lives, see their beloved institutions continue, and be able to just quietly, non-hatefully, NOT HIRE OR RENT TO GAYS.

They can't. And making their gayness official and their gay "unions" blessed by the State is one more step penning them into a corner. These people feel trapped, believe me.

No one was persecuting gays. No one was oppressing them. That wasn't, and isn't, good enough for them. They want acceptance. Celebration. They need everyone to stop discriminating against them. And that's wrong, that's ugly, that's hateful, and that's anti-libertarian.

Libertarians are on the side of gays when they are just a quiet, unassuming minority group. Nobody should lynch them or whatever (sorry, FF). But neither does everyone -- or anyone -- need to love them and accept their lifestyle. All is well. All is peaceful. We will stand up for their right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home behind closed doors, just like we'd stand up for Jews to read the Torah in their own home, and for any other very controversial or unpopular group do their controversial or unpopular things (remember, the 1st Amendment isn't so we can talk about the weather).

Libertarians should not, however, be on the side of gays such as they are in the current climate. We should not side with the gay movement. This would be a major strategic error. This gay movement is a loud, obnoxious, intolerant, yes hateful movement. They are super-passionately, vitriolically opposed to traditional old-fashioned moral standards of virtue and chastity. They are arrayed in battle against the traditional white, heterosexual, patriarchal European culture. But this is the very culture that has acted as the incubator for liberty, for classical liberalism and finally libertarianism. These (white, heterosexual, culturally-traditional males) are the very people most disposed to favor libertarian ideas. To adopt a posture opposing the well-spring of our existence and the only hope of our success would be, well, suicidal.

As Ron says, don't confuse support with endorsement.

Ron Paul also released a brochure entitled "Protecting Marriage" with headers like "The Defense of Marriage Act" (explaining how much he supports it) and "Defending Traditional Marriage". It was one of only about 6 brochures on key issues (taxes, guns, and traditional marriage right up there). Ron Paul had some strategic sense. Ron Paul knew who his friends were.

In my opinion, the gay movement are not our friends. If we were very charismatic and said just the right things with just the right tone -- like Ron Paul did -- we could avoid alienating the gays altogether and at the same time appeal to the bourgeois religious traditionalists. But if we must choose one or the other, we should obviously choose the bourgeois. And actually, honestly, the gay movement hated Ron, too. There's no pleasing those people.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't see either Donald Trump or Rand Paul dropping out any time soon. I also think Trump has some chance of winning the nomination.

But then I (probably like most everyone else, if they were honest) was surprised Walker dropped out so soon. So what do I know!

[CPUd]

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump says he's no "masochist" -- so if one day he finds himself plummeting in the polls, he'd drop out of the Republican presidential race.

Right now there's no reason to go anywhere: The real estate mogul has consistently led national GOP polls for months.

But in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood, he said he'd drop out of the 2016 campaign if he found himself alongside Republican contenders who are struggling to get off the ground.

"Well, I'm not a masochist," Trump said. "Right now I'm leading every poll, and in most cases big. That's good. If that changed, if I was like some of these people at 1% and 2%, there's no reason to continue forward. If I fell behind badly, I would certainly get out."

He said he isn't planning to return to his business empire soon.

"I'm in this for the long haul," Trump said. "That doesn't mean someday I don't wake up and I say, 'Wow, I'm really tanking.' Well, if I tank, sure, I go back to the business. Why wouldn't I?"

In pressing Trump on how he'd accomplish many of his campaign goals -- like deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants -- Harwood said, "We don't have Superman presidents."

"No," Trump said, "but we will if you have Trump."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politi...man/index.html

[Badger Paul]

"LOL are you serious? "

Uhh, yeah I am and I'm not the only person who feels this way. What the hell is he doing back in Kentucky campaigning for someone who couldn't bring himself to endorse him? He needs to stop worrying about state politics and focus in one the one race which matters right now and that's the one for the Presidency. Otherwise, get out!

[Peace&Freedom]

Trump is a "killer," as he refers to others he likes in the business world, whose track record shows he rarely loses. Other than our dislike of him compared to Paul, there is nothing about his circumstances in this race that suggests he will, or even needs to quit early.

When/if the situation changes, and he is no longer a frontrunner, is somehow out of funds, or is unable to draw media, then perhaps his departure from the race becomes more likely. As it stands, his presence in the campaign has been utterly scuttling Bush et al (which is a very good thing), and by doing so has been buying Rand more time to get traction in the race.

[69360]

Bimbos, bankruptcy and business. Those are the 3 words to remember.

The media has totally given Trump a pass. Right before IA and NH the media will unload multiple bimbos, bad business deals and revisit his multiple bankruptcies. Jeb will start "surging" and win. Trump will drop out. The GOP will be tainted and pushed into loony land and Jeb will loose to the Clintons.

Have you missed the last few elections, this is how things work now.

Rand won't win but won't drop out for a good while yet.

[Ronin Truth]

Well, it probably won't be because he runs out of money.

[qh4dotcom]

Nope, Trump did not drop out before Iowa

[erowe1]

Nope, Trump did not drop out before Iowa

True.

[Kade]

Trump is not dropping out before Iowa.

Edit: Wrong. Trump will win nomination. Thank you Jeb.

Called, 1-28-2016 at 1:21 PM. First on entire forum (and even beat Ann Coulter's suggestion that he could possibly win on Maher).

[Mordan]

Trump is not dropping out before Iowa.

Edit: Wrong. Trump will win nomination. Thank you Jeb.

you were right. OP was wrong. Its a fact.

I have a feeling Trump will win in November.

[Ronin Truth]

How about 3 more reasons? LOL!