Will he run in 2024? Will, he set up a new Trump TV channel? Will he continue to dominate the Republican Party and Tweet it into loyal submission?
Any of the above possibilities are being regularly canvassed in the US. And after his 2016 win and the relative closeness of 2020, it would be unwise to make any firm prediction about what he might do and how successful he might be.
But what’s his likely future?
His first problem about leaving a further mark on the world is that by 2024 he will be the same age as Joe Biden is now. Under normal circumstances pitted against a normal candidate, Biden may not have won partly because of doubts about his age and fitness. Trump would face the same problem himself when the next election rolls around.
The second problem is that potential Republican nominees are not going to sit around and give Trump a free pass to the nomination. He may currently have massive support in the Republican Party but that may be transient and no ambitious candidate, from Mark Rubio to some Republicans we have never even considered, is going to meekly say well Donald is the guy. Ambition will trump loyalty.
A third problem is what legal problems we will face. Sure he can try a self-pardon but, even if what he hopes will be a supine Supreme Court agreed, it would still only be for Federal crimes.
And so far the Supremes have been less supine that he imagined – probably because they have bigger fish to fry on Obamacare, abortion and religious ‘freedom’.
He also already faces the New York Attorney General’s Grand Jury probe and that could tie him up in court for some time.
If you were him you ought not to bet on whether Deutsche Bank will refuse to roll over given there many other problems and the risks of exacerbating them. A new administration may also want to look further at the bank’s roles in facilitating money laundering – particularly for dodgy Russians – and he could be collateral damage in such a probe.
There is also an ongoing suit from his niece Mary Trump and a bid by his Mar-e-Lago neighbours to prevent him living at his resort. The latter could also tie him in courts as he does seem to be in breach of various covenants and commitments made in legal settings.
Then there are his financial problems. He managed to convince many Americans that he was a billionaire but we should remember when Elizabeth Warren said in a candidate’s debate that the Presidential race didn’t need two billionaires, Mike Bloomberg replied: “Who’s the other one?”
Businesses – including the Washington hotel – are hemorrhaging cash; tenants are revolting over maintenance and other issues; overseas operations have been scaled back; and, if the Trump brand has to depend on the sort of people who vote for him from conviction rather than financial motivation, the businesses face further pressure.
He has personally guaranteed $US420 million in debts and there is a $US340 million debt to Deutsche Bank outstanding.
Probably no one was going to try to foreclose on a sitting President because the risk of retaliation would have been too great. But now the sensible course is to get in before the avalanche.
On the other hand, his post-election Save America fund-raising campaign, ostensibly for fighting the election results, has brought in more than $US 200 million. While one billionaire has asked for his one million-plus donation back it still leaves Trump with a healthy sum and who knows, given his previous financial record, what he will use it for. If he’s not careful what he chooses might also cause him legal troubles.
Right-wing US billionaires might like very conservative politicians who gift them benefits but once they lose their ability to deliver they can readily be dispensed with and replaced by others.
Finally, he might have won the Presidency thanks to a distaste for Hilary Clinton and the stupid pox on both your houses approach of the Sanders supporters, but before that, he didn’t actually have a reputation as winner except in his own mind.
The Economist once calculated that if he had taken his inheritance from his father and invested it in government bonds or an indexed fund he would be much better off than he is.
In defeat, facing legal and financial battles, he can’t rely on his non-existing business skills to get him out of the mess he is going to be in.
He will see his situation as tragic and unfair when the outcome – which will inevitably be very messy – will be more a combination of farce and belated justice.
Noel Turnbull has had a 50-year-plus career in public relations, politics, journalism and academia. He blogs at http://noelturnbull.com/blog/
Comments
26 responses to “Will he really run in 2024?”
Thanks for laying out the potential scenarios succinctly, Noel. He won’t be running in 2004.
I think Trump’s belief and the conviction of his admirers and followers that he was a winner was based on and developed in the extremely popular and long-running ‘reality’ TV show, ‘The Apprentice’, in which he banished applicants with short shrift and arrogant abandon, appearing to the audience, somehow, as decisive and authoritative. It made him presidentially plausible only one year after the last ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ show. Remember the catch cry? ‘You’re fired!’ As president he took the TV ‘reality’ concept to Washington, where he starred in the same minds – his own and the followers’ – in ‘The Whitehouse’, hiring and firing Whitehouse staff, personal advisors and numerous state officials with the same capricious abandon, leavened with a serious nastiness and a fantastic stupidity. I will bet he won’t be challenging in 2004; he’ll likely be broke and either in jail or a foreign country. Certainly, there’ll be no reality TV show to make him electable again.
Very interesting analysis,Noel, thank you.
I am not so worried as some. In 2024, Trump will be in jail. And even if he’s not, he will be utterly tied up in lawsuits. I liked the meme that went around social media a few months ago, a picture of Trump saying in frame 1, “I’m going to serve two terms” and frame 2, “one in federal prison and one in New York prison.”
Trump won this election comfortably but the establishment has shot him down without using sniper rifles. I hope we see a populist candidate in 2024 who learns from Trump’s mistakes and carries less baggage from the business world. As classics scholar Victor Davis Hanson says, however, it is possible that only an outrageous character like Trump can do the job.
No. He didn’t. There was no fraud. 60 courts cases and not one vote overturned, not one vote to be shown inadequate. This whole post-election kerfuffle has been a colossal embarrassment to the deeply corrupt Republican Party which, as Paul Krugman pointed out recently, gave up on facts under Reagan. “The facts are whatever I want them to be”., “Gimme” and “Look at me”. That’s Trump’s legacy.
Like a lot of American intellectuals, Paul Krugman is politically partisan. Even as a boy I noticed this big difference between the Australian and American academic worlds in which I was growing up. The Democrats stole the election in broad daylight. The courts don’t want to buy into it. I agree with Slorter, not for the first time. Trump is symptomatic of deeper American problems and both his sins and his influence are exaggerated. The solution is for a political movement to find common ground between the many million supporters of Trump and Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile in Australia let’s stick to our old-fashioned system where we form a queue outside the local school on a Saturday and write down our vote on a piece of paper.
But Jerry, we have mail-in votes too, and they are increasingly popular. Our big advantage is a politically neutral electoral commission with integrity that the vast majority of Australians trust. Including me.
Krugman is certainly partisan; why not? Is Fox News neutral? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? You get my drift. I haven’t seen Krugman simply invent anything, unlike the three I named.
The courts have certainly bought into allegations of election stealing. The trouble is, Republicans have produced no evidence whatsoever that has any credibility. Of the 60 court cases, 48 were procedural and only 12 alleged fraud. They were ludicrous, like Sydney Powell claiming more people voted in Michigan than lived in the counties – but the counties she cited were in another state. Every allegation that is sending the Trump cultists white with fury has been disproved, eg the Dominion voting machines.
Where I agree with you is that Trump is a symptom of a much older and wider problem, but he is a deeply malevolent and repellent symptom. Rather like the plague boils.
I grew to like Trump but the fact that Americans voted for him doesn’t mean they all love him. They have seen enough of the Democrats and they would have voted for a rattlesnake if that was the option. As mentioned previously I would have voted for Howie Hawkins this year and Jill Stein in 2016 and 2012. I’m not comparing Krugman with journalists but with Professors who on our side of the Pacific tend to be more cautious about political partisanship. I have been reading Krugman for years and his bias does affect his credibility. The American election was stolen in the early hours of Wednesday 4 November but I agree that Trump is unlikely to run in 2024 for the reasons outlined by Noel. In the meantime I have heard enough chatter about America and China and I am looking for new books on Europe, in particular the French and German relationship which is where the EU started and on Russia because I can’t see the Russians and the Chinese getting on all that well in the long term.
Re your last 17 words, I have been posting the same thing. Marriage of convenience against the US.
I can count to 17, Barney. China and Russia looks like too much of a cultural clash to me. I’m thinking of the European influence pre-revolution and the religious history. Interested to read your posts. Whereat?
On P&I from time to time, and the Spectator – the two main places I comment. YHou might find them by reading back on Disquis, though I wouldn’t bother if I were you.
I’ve argued that Australia should model itself on Russia, a country that distrusts China and has many areas of disagreement, yet manages to trade perfectly well. I also agree with you that China and Russia are getting quite pally, even to joint military exercises, and this is because they share a common aim of reducing the influence of the US. But history shows, time and time again, that once they get close to success cracks appear and self-interest starts rising.
I mentioned 17 words not because I think you can’t manage without fingers and toes, but to emphasise the part I particularly agree with.
See your point. The geographical proximity in Eurasia is powerful but the history, as you say, shows breakdowns. I’m thinking the cultural – religious differences will overwhelm any common inheritance of Marxist-Leninism but my ideas here are at the formative stage. Ernie Bridge as Minister for Agriculture set up a West Australian trade office in Russia, which went well but was discontinued by a succeeding State Government. There is no need for Australia to buy into America’s hysterical Russia Phobia..
Very true, Jerry. Why create more enemies? But at the same time, let’s keep our eyes open.
I am quite sure that, should they wish to, either China or Russia (or indeed the US) could bring Australia to a standstill with cyber attacks. Of the three, China is much the most likely though; the others have no motive.
I suppose I am looking for common ground, Barney. The world appears to be splitting between east and west. Our uncoupling from China is part of that bigger picture. It is Chinese policy and there is nothing we can do about it so we might as well ease up on the mea culpas seen every day on this page. But we need to build bridges where possible. We also need to watch our religious and racial issues at home in the Commonwealth. The internal collapse of American society has surprised me. It could happen here.
Thank you, Jerry. You have found common ground, because – although I might frame a couple of points differently – I agree.
Hi Barney. I found the first few paragraphs of your review of Der Rosenkavalier. It was my mother’s favourite music. She had good taste. I told the box office lady at the Sydney Opera House that if I had to describe operas in one word, Der Rosenkavalier is magic. Rigoletto is perfection and Gotterdammerung is Hollywood. She put in a word for La Boheme and I told her my mother and I saw it at Convent Garden sung by Pavarotti and Kiri Te Kanawa.
Well, you’ve obviously had some wonderful experiences. I saw Pavarotti only twice. Once was at Covent Garden in 1981 singing Verdi’s Masked Ball with Montserrat Caballe. I queued up at 5am for standing tickets. The second was in Melbourne just before he died, when he went on tour because he was broke. It was so sad, a travesty. He had to pause for a bar, ignoring the notes he should be singing, before essaying a nigh note. But what a singer. Either my favourite tenor of all time, or close to it. Did you know he never really learned to read music?
No, I didn’t know. My Auntie Florence Taylor wanted me to come to Sydney and take her singing lessons and I confessed that I had never learned to read music. She said that was not a problem. I wish I had taken her up. Great lady. Don Smith sang the Masked Ball in a joint Australian/West Australian Opera production at His Majesty’s in Perth. I thought he was magnificent. I have the Caballe recording of Don Carlo. Opera and ballet done well are a revelation. They cost a fortune and require a lifetime of dedication from the artists but it is worth every cent for the lucky audience.
More common ground, Jerry. Where will this end? 🙂
With the Credo of the Missa Solemnis and the Gratias agimus tibi chorus of the B Minor Mass. Grateful to the umpire for letting us get away with this.
I think a question that should be presented is how did we cough up Trump in the first place!
But the real lesson we should learn from the rise of a demagogue such as Trump, who received 74 million votes from a disenfranchised group of Americans , and a pandemic that a for-profit health care industry proved unable to contain happened before Trump arrived.
The new administration is not new or fresh but a return to the imperial and neoliberal policies.
Biden’s appointments are drawn almost exclusively from the circles of the Democratic Party and corporate elite, those responsible for the massive social inequality, trade deals, de-industrialization, militarized police, world’s largest prison system, austerity programs that abolished social programs such as welfare, the revived Cold War with Russia, wholesale government surveillance, endless wars in the Middle East and the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of the working class.
I am very worried about 2024 it could be a worse selection to choose from!