Does it matter whom Donald Trump endorses?

In the short run, a nod from Donald Trump might give Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a little boost in Nevada. But in the long run? A Trump endorsement could turn off some voters, polls show.

Seth Wenig/AP/File
Donald Trump smiles at left as Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talks to media after their meeting in New York, in this December 2011 file photo. Whom will Trump endorse for president, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?

Whom is Donald Trump endorsing for president? Early Thursday it seemed as if it were going to be Newt Gingrich – that’s what the Associated Press reported, anyway. Then the Romney camp swung into action.

Now CNN is reporting that The Donald will go for Mitt. Will it be the insurgent or the front-runner? Stay tuned for Mr. Trump’s 12:30 p.m PST (3:30 p.m. Eastern time) press conference in Las Vegas. It’s like an episode of “Celebrity Lessons in How to Get Attention.”

Anyway, whoever it is, our question is this: Is a Trump endorsement worth it?

In the short run, it might give either Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich a boost in Nevada. For one thing, it would get lots of press attention, because reporters flock to anything Trump like moths toward a flaming toupee. Trump remains popular in tea party circles, so it might bolster the endorsee’s conservative credentials. Most important, it might draw some support in Las Vegas, gambling mecca. Trump is a gambling mogul, after all.

But the long run? At best, it’s a wash. Romney has got so many endorsements that it would be just one more name on his shelf. Gingrich could use it more, though it now looks as if he’s going to finish second in this contest, as well. More likely, it’s a nod that could damage its recipient. There’s a reason that only two GOP contenders, Gingrich and Rick Santorum, agreed to attend a Newsmax debate that Trump was supposed to host last December, before it was canceled. The other contenders weren’t going to touch that event with a 10-foot comb.

Yes, Trump briefly led GOP polls back when he was publicly toying with a run. (Or, publicly toying with a run more than he is now, since he’s continued to hint he might jump in.) But he sank faster than a bad gambler’s fortune. By last April, a Gallup poll showed that 64 percent of Americans said they would definitely not vote for Donald Trump. That’s a very high unfavorable rating.

Plus, a Trump endorsement is actually a net negative, according to a January Washington Post/Pew poll. Twenty percent of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents to this survey said a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for the candidate in question. Seventeen percent said it would make them more likely to vote for the endorsee.

Trump will say almost anything, and has, and that would be a problem for Romney, or whomever Trump backs. The endorsee will be asked about the birther thing, for instance – Trump got lots of mileage out of questioning whether President Obama was born in the US. He’ll be asked whether he shares Trump’s view that the US needs to slap tariffs on imports from China (thereby raising the price of every item in Walmart at a stroke.)

Trump is unpredictable – just look at the confusion over who his favored choice actually is. If we were putting down our money – and we’re not – we’d say this is one wager that isn’t going to produce a row of cherries across the slot machine, electorally speaking.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.