(Crossposted at Students for a New American Politics)
Donald Trump's comments on Fox & Friends have caused quite a stir throughout the blogosphere this morning, drawing more and more attention to the actual possibility that Trump may be considering a run for President. Of course, despite increasing his public appearances, it seems that wide consensus is that Trump is not taking the whole process all too seriously, and this is either a sheer exercise in ego-boosting or an attempt to even further his profile with some other underlying motivations.
While I would still bet against Trump hopping into the Republican field, his potential candidacy deserves a bit more serious consideration than it is being given. In an election where the Republican field does little to inspire excitement, Trump has begun gearing up an operation that could prove formidable amongst a divided primary electorate. Of particular interest, however, is the fact that despite the outlandish rhetoric and bombastic public personality, a legitimate Trump candidacy could mean disaster for one of the primary's top contenders: Mitt Romney.
At face value, there are obvious differences that set Trump apart - for one, he is certainly no Mormon, and he does not carry the political experience that Romney brings to the table. However, beyond these basic differences, a legitimate Trump candidacy could raise serious concerns for Romney's path to the Republican nomination.
Romney's biggest asset among the presumed Republican candidates is his private sector experience, which not only is helpful in distancing himself from the big, bad government his party decries, but also garners him connections to many of the wealthiest donors. Trump's entire image, on the other hand in business, through his television show and the buildings that share his name, Trump's built his reputation as the public image of a CEO.
But the national Republican primary electorate has become such an untamed fray of evangelicals, tea partiers, and corporate apologists that business credentials alone are no where near enough to capture the imagination of voters in Iowa and the primaries that will follow. Romney's trap in 2008 was that he could not convince conservatives that he was really one of them. He's spent the past four years trying to remedy that fault, pandering to the far-right right, and distancing himself from Mitt Romney, the governor who signed into law the blueprint for ObamaCare.
It's all ready remarkable that despite all the reasons the American public could have for disliking Trump, his favorability ratings look surprisingly competitive with the rest of the Republican electorate. Furthermore, Trump has no political record to run from. Governors typically make for better Presidential candidates than Senators because they rarely have had to stake out a position on national policy issues - it just so happens that in Romney's case, one of his signature state policy achievements now is something he has to pretend never happened. Trump carries none of that baggage, and so he can craft a policy platform that the base will gobble up. But moreover, Trump isn't playing timid with rhetoric on the far right, and he's using the credibility he's built up to cozy up with the "fringe" elements of the GOP that make up an increasingly alarming chunk of the party.
At this stage, everyone seems intent on letting Donald Trump walk out into the political arena, act like a buffoon, and predictably back out of it to let the serious candidates play. But when you allow your political base to make serious so many ridiculous notions, when you create such rigid tests of ideology, it becomes increasingly easy for a new face to come on to the stage, sounding the notes that some of these serious contenders are "too serious" to pander to, and wind up swiping the rug out from right underneath their feet. Donald Trump is a political unknown, but voters know his name, he's hitting all the notes to the base, and he's got the money to build an operation even if the establishment doesn't take too kindly to his participation. That's the price you pay when you make governing and politics more of a game and less of a job.