Donald Trump switches party affiliation to independent
Republican presidential candidater Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump shake hands after they met and spoke to the media in New York, Monday, Dec. 5, 2011.
/ Seth WenigDonald Trump changed his party affiliation from Republican to independent on Thursday "to preserve his right to run [for president] as an independent after the finale of 'The Apprentice' in May," Trump Special Counsel Michael Cohen said Friday.
Trump had been scheduled to moderate a Republican presidential debate next week but dropped out after all but two of the candidates declined to participate. Republican officials had questioned whether it would be inappropriate for Trump to moderate a Republican debate while openly weighing an independent run for the White House; he said he pulled out of the debate to preserve his right to embark on such a run.
Trump told Political Hotsheet last month that he could enter the race in May if "the right person doesn't get nominated" by the Republican Party. He says he would have to wait until when his reality show ends because of equal time laws, which mandate that if one candidate is given time on a network, that network "shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station
Trump announced in May that he would not seek the Republican presidential nomination. Skeptics have suggested that his long presidential flirtation is merely an extended publicity stunt.
Asked if Trump could get on the ballot, Cohen said the real estate mogul "has consulted with experts who all acknowledge that he could get himself on every state ballot even as late as May of 2012."
Asked if Trump could seek the ballot line of Americans Elect - a third-party group poised to secure ballot access in all 50 states that has yet to select a candidate - Cohen said he will not confirm or deny that Mr. Trump has spoken with individuals at Americans Elect."
But he went on to say that between those who support Americans Elect and those who back Trump, who was tied for first in April polls of the GOP field, a Trump run on the Americans Elect ticket would be formidable.
"A merger between the two would be significant and should cause both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to become concerned," he said.
Popular in Politics
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 194 Comments
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- Obama prom pictures surface 131 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 317 Comments
- Pelosi ties bridge collapse to sequester
If Donald Trump and Sarah Palin ran on on the same ticket it could be called:
The Independent Patheticas
a very distant planet named Funny Follicles.The human species is trumped by an alien creature that contains all his thoughts not in his brain but....in his hair, and what a perverse and strange place that is.Scary.....really scary.....
A.E. could appeal to voters like me by banning its candidates from accepting special interest money (and other forms of influence). Many voters are fed up with the way that such influence has contributed to the bad policy-making that has harmed them.
Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of bribery, no matter how "electable" he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?
Whether or not A.E. turns out to be that kind of third party, voters don't have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. They can simply refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).
There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals (in other words, they are not indebted to special interests). Donald Trump could be such a politician, if he's willing to draw heavily from his personal wealth.
The media aren't conspiring to dismiss Trump, but many individuals seem to not take him seriously, if the comments here are an accurate guide.
In the event that no influence-free candidate wins the primary for either major party, my strategy requires voting for neither Democrats nor Republicans, so I wouldn't mind Trump running independently. But if he doesn't run, other parties' candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which of those candidates I'll vote for, because that candidate will not win the election this time around. It's OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo.
If more people start voting for those outside party weirdos you see on ballots, it becomes more likely that sensible independent candidates or even third parties will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.
That third party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot). The best third party candidate would be an "electable" centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties.
Lack of change results from almost everyone voting for either Democrat or Republican mainstream candidates. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it's clear that that won't change anything.
Why should we forget about the past harm they've done? That harm was not accidental; it was the result of both responding to lobbying and acting based on party ideology. We should assume that politicians of both parties will repeat some of their past harmful actions.
Some voters were seduced by Obama's charisma or saw his election as a chance to break down a racial barrier; they did not consider that he is just as compromised by special interests as previous candidates were.
Enough people voted for Republicans in 2010 to give them a House majority, while we were still suffering from the economic consequences of policies pushed by Republicans. We got rid of them only two years before that. What about Republicans had changed in two years, that we should trust them? Nothing. Their bad deeds merit their permanent banishment from public office, unless they stop taking special interest money.
I agree. Almost every single Republican out there is corrupt, same goes for the Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind. Once Ron Paul gets elected then we can clean out the House and Senate and finally get some real CHANGE!
Nine out of ten people will probably to with me on this or a Pew Poll or Gallop Survey.
I think that thing living on my head told me to run for President. Everyone how agrees raise your hand.