Around the Net
Trump Doesn't Have Enough Cash To Fund Own Campaign
- The Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 16, 2016 12:21 PM
Donald Trump consistently said throughout the primaries that he was self-funding his campaign. Adding that his wealth kept him insulated from private interests, which corrupt our political candidates. It has now become clear that while Trump may not have raised much money to date, he will have to do so if he wants to keep pace with expected spending on the Democratic side.
In financial disclosures last summer, Trump had between $78 million and $232 million in cash or liquid assets, nowhere near enough to fund a presidential campaign.
5 comments about "Trump Doesn't Have Enough Cash To Fund Own Campaign".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Hardly surprising, Trump has debt financed everything else, why not his presidential bid? Trump is baby boomer writ large in his opportunisim, but his popularity is so low, it threatens to call into question our govenment by election. But who is he unpopular with? The young is my guess. What does it mean when two vastly unpopular candidates are the only choices available? It seems we are to find out in 2016. This is the last political hurrah for the baby boomers, let's make it a good one. They have provided us with two of the most unpopular leaders in our nation's history.
Remember, Anglyn, Hillary and Donald were both millennials once. For that matter, so were Hitler, Stalin, OBL, Napoleon and many, many others who turned out badly for the world---yet, I'm not blaming millennials as a group for those disasters----or should I?
Actually, a person is only born once. Hillary C is bound by a birth in 1947, just as Donald Trump is bound by the same year. It does give them something in common, they are both late 60s, both rich and well connected, and both disliked by the common weal. We are stuck with baby boomer candidates, and they are not well received. That's a historical first that is worth recognizing, the sheer unpopularity of both candidates is historic, and it bears some comment. It does have to do with their age, their point in history. And with those who come later. It is a marketing opportunity, or a marketing disaster, place your bets now.
I would also point out that Stalin, Hitler, and Naploeon rode a wave of popular support to power, however misguided that support might have been in hindsight. Neither of the candidates are "popular" in any sense. What does it mean when the old elect themselves in the last standing gerontocracy in the developed world? We are the last with age requirements for office. In the UK, one can run for PM at the age of 21, one must be 35 to run for president here. Every other European country allows the young in at earlier ages than the USA. Surely, the boomers have enough control just from the age requirements alone in the USA, never mind what anyone under their age might think. Consider that one . . . the boomers have aged into the pocket designed by the founders for the aged and rich. It is no accident the boomer aged candidates no longer need a popular mandate.
Anglyn, I must disagree with you about Stalin's rise to power. As party secretary he outmaneuvered his superiors and assumed power---there was no popular support. As for Hitler, while the Nazis became the largest political party after a series of see saw elections, Hiltler came to power as a result of a blunder by Hindenburg--then a tired and about to die old man---who thought he could control Hitler and made him chancellor.
I do tend to agree with you about our age restriction for the presidential office------ then, again, I doubt that a 21-year old would even be nominated by the Democrats or Republicans as it takes years of political activity and glad handing to get into the pipeline, so to speak. A third or fourth party is a different question, however.