Interviews and emails with more than 50 of the Republican Party’s largest donors, or their representatives, revealed a measure of contempt and distrust toward their own party’s nominee that is unheard of in modern presidential politics.
That is the 2nd paragraph of this article by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns in today’s New York Times. The authors found more than a dozen who together had given $90 million in the past 3 campaigns who will not give to Trump.
For example, read these words:
Among the party’s biggest financiers disavowing Mr. Trump are Paul E. Singer, a New York investor who has spent at least $28 million for national Republicans since the 2012 election, and Joe Ricketts, the TD Ameritrade founder who with his wife Marlene has spent nearly $30 million over the same period of time, as well as the hedge fund managers William Oberndorf and Seth Klarman, and the Florida hospital executive Mike Fernandez.
“If it is Trump vs. Clinton,” Mr. Oberndorf said, “I will be voting for Hillary.”
In the middle of the article is this link which will allow you to see pictures of and analyses of those who are now on the record as refusing to support Trump. In each case you will see who the person is, why that person matters (how they have offered past support to Republican), and why they won’t give.
Here are a few of the reasons not to give, according to what you will find there
Stanley Druckenmiller, major supporter of John Kasich:
“Not sure why anyone would give money to Mr. Trump since he asserts he is worth $10 billion.”
Sherry Herschend, who runs a Missouri-based theme park company, and who was a big supporter of Mike Huckabee:
She said that Mr. Trump had degraded politics. “I’m just very disappointed in our whole country,” she said. “Our company is built on families, making people happy, and we just go down lower and lower every day.”
And just one more from that link. Bruce Kovner, a New York based finance executive who had supported Bush and Christie:
“I believe his boorish behavior throughout the campaign suggested to me that he did not have the character to be president.”
Returning to the main article, We find hedge fund manager William Oberndorf going even further:
“If it is Trump vs. Clinton,” Mr. Oberndorf said, “I will be voting for Hillary.”
The article found only 9 willing to be on the record as supporting Trump at this time, although I suppose more might decide later. Among those supporting him are some familiar names, starting of course with Sheldon Adelson, who provided most of Newt Gingrich’s support last cycle; Foster Friess, who besides supporting Rick Santorum last cycle became well-known — or should I say infamous — with his comment on live tv that left Andrea Mitchell speechless (if you don’t remember it think about an aspirin and knees); and energy executive T. Boone Pickens.
Then there is this:
Many more donors declined to reveal their intentions or did not respond to requests for comment, a remarkable silence about the de facto nominee of their party.
Why the lack of support? The article notes
Donors cited his fickleness on matters of policy and what they saw as an ad hoc populist platform focused on trade protectionism and immigration. Several mentioned Mr. Trump’s own fortune, suggesting that if he was as wealthy as he claimed, then he should not need their assistance.
Which leads to this:
Some major donors have not explicitly closed the door on helping Mr. Trump, but have set a high bar for him to earn their support, demanding an almost complete makeover of his candidacy and a repudiation of his own inflammatory statements.
Among those in this category is the well-known Betsy DeVos of Michigan. Remember the DeVos family money comes from Amway, and has been one of the major funders of the conservative efforts in Michigan.
For some it is far more basic. Among those is Michael Vlock, a wealthy Connecticut investor who thinks Trump is dangerous:
“He’s an ignorant, amoral, dishonest and manipulative, misogynistic, philandering, hyper-litigious, isolationist, protectionist blowhard,” Mr. Vlock said.
Mr. Vlock said he might give to Hillary Clinton instead, describing her as “the devil we know.”
“I really believe our republic will survive Hillary,” he said.
Now stop and think about that for a moment. Not only would he vote for Clinton, here’s a man who since 2014 has given more than $5 million to Republicans and is willing to to give financial support to a Democratic candidate whom some on the right have demonized for 25 years or more.
While neither of the Koch brothers is on record for this article, they have previously made clear their distaste for Trump, with one intimating his possible willingness to support Clinton. And as the authors note
their advisers have been scathing in private assessments of Mr. Trump’s candidacy and his policy agenda.
Trump has come late to fundraising. He did not have the apparatus in place.Some are now questioning whether he has time to raise the $1 billion or more necessary to fully compete against a candidate (Clinton) who clearly will be able to raise and spend that amount of money, as did both Obama and Romney 4 years ago. Such amounts are necessary not only for television advertising, but for building the infrastructure necessary for a ground game. Of course, Trump has said that he doesn’t believe in such an approach, because he has gotten where he is — presumptive nominee — without much spent on tv advertising or building the ground game. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks he can win a general election based on “earned media” (of which he will receive plenty as long as he continues making outrageous statements).
While we do not really know how much Trump is actually worth, his assertions about his wealth actually hurt him in fundraising, as noted in the comment above.
And it is highly unlikely that, regardless of his total net worth, he has the liquid assets to spend even $100 million on his own.
Even if he were to try to pivot to the center in order to become more acceptable, there are some statements that may be impossible to reel back in. The article ends with one example and its impact.
William Buckley was a Chris Christie supporter who is now willing to support Trump because of Christie’s endorsement, but said
he remained upset about Mr. Trump’s mockery of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for having been captured in Vietnam.
“I don’t think anything that anybody’s ever said on the political front has bothered me more than that,” Mr. Buckley said.
Hillary Clinton is now on record saying she does not think Trump is qualified to be President. When even someone willing to support you is criticizing you for what you said, that legitimizes using what you said against you.
I can see the ads that will write themselves.
Note that the problems Trump has with support from some of the major Republican donors is not in itself dispositive. This still could be a highly competitive race.
And yet. . . there are enough statements on the record, from Republican office holders, from Republican donors, that will create problems. Yes, that criticism is something Trump can use to motivate those who are angry at the system. But there is a flip side, because those statements, especially those expressing a willingness to support Clinton, may well make it easier for some Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to cross-over and vote for Hillary Clinton.
One last point. These people are clearly turned off to Trump. Their willingness to support Clinton neither means she is too conservative for Democrats to support, nor that she is going to move in their direction on policy: she has already moved in the other direction, towards more progressive policies, and yet some are still willing to support her over Trump, and even perhaps help finance her campaign.
I thought this article worth noting and filing away. I’m sure the folks in Clinton headquarters have already taken full note of it.