Author: Marie3

Getting lots of post-mortems on the seventy day Scott Walker campaign for President.  A major one seems to be at  Politico: Walker’s campaign manager unloads.  The opening paragraph is a decent summary of this and other reports:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker pulled the plug on a bloated campaign that was headed into debt and was being undermined by furious donors, a warring staff and — at the root of it all — a candidate who was badly out of his league.

But what interests me more and seems not to  have been remarked upon or questioned is from this:

“We built the machine that we needed to get a governor in just phenomenal shape to take a stage in a presidential debate,” Wiley said. “I think sometimes it’s lost on people the largeness of the job. I think people just look at it and say, `Wow! Yeah, you know, it’s like he’s a governor and he was in a recall’ and blah, blah, blah — he’s ready.
…
By Wiley’s telling, the end came fast. “June and July, up through that first debate, were good, fundraising-wise — really good,” he said. “Hitting your numbers. And we thought maybe we could even project [that] outward, like tick our numbers up a little bit.
…
When Walker and Wiley began building the campaign team in January, they made a bold, and ultimately foolhardy decision: Go big. Walker was the front-runner in Iowa polls through the spring and early summer, and he tried to capitalize on that momentum by hiring former Republican National Committee aides and Washington operatives, plus a Beltway PR firm to target conservative media, a full-time photographer and well-known consultants for outreach to evangelicals.
…

Note this again:

“June and July, up through that first debate, were good, fundraising-wise — really good,” …

Scott Walker didn’t officially enter the race until July 13, 2015.  If June fundraising was “really good,” why no 6/30/15 FEC financial filing?

Before July 13, Walker had or didn’t have an “exploratory committee.”  There are reports from January that he opened a committee.  Then in February, Bloomberg reported: Walker May Skip Exploratory Committee in 2016 Run.  Big and bold in keeping with the January campaign decision.  Then — nothing for months.  What was the hold-up?

A potential legal difficulties or campaign creative financing?  Or both.

Here’s the deal from The Atlantic on exploratory committees. Per the FEC, an exploratory committee ends and a campaign begins under these circumstances:

• Makes or authorizes statements referring to him/herself as a candidate;
• Uses general public political advertising to publicize his/her intention to campaign;
• Raises more money than what is reasonably needed to test the waters, or amasses funds to be used after the candidacy is established;
• Conducts activities over a protracted period of time or shortly before the election; or
• Takes action to qualify for the ballot.

In addition to that exploratory committees are required to register with the FEC and donations from individuals are capped at $2,700, but the committee is not required to file financial statements and donor lists with the FEC.

That “really good” June fundraising was convenient.  The end of the second quarter and avoided FEC reporting and still allowed Walker another two weeks before he couldn’t avoid being an official candidate.

The minute you say you’re running, though, the no-disclosure honeymoon is over. You have to tell the FEC how much you have, where it came from, and how you spent it — whether it was raised by your “exploratory committee” or just by some guys you’re paying, which is basically the same thing.

But what was the state of his campaign before June?

From FoxNews June 18, 2015: “He’s sort of keeping up with the Joneses:” Governor Walker inches closer to a run for president

Walker has still not declared he is running for President. He has indicated that won’t occur until after the Wisconsin Legislature passes a state budget, but he has inched ever so closely to doing it with the appointment of a presidential fundraising committee.

This also means he no longer has to rely solely on his super PAC. [emphasis added]

“When he had a 527 supporting him, he had no legal control of it but there were no legal limitations or contributions. And there was no disclosure of contributions. The step he took today was a step toward becoming a formal candidate but it means that now there will be disclosure on contributions and there will be limits on contributions,” said Mordecai Lee, UW-Milwaukee Urban Planning Professor.
…

Ah, so it was a 527 and not an exploratory committee that covered his presidential campaign operation from January through at least May.  How exactly could that function with no coordination with Walker and those whoever may or may not have worked for him for his ephemeral  “exploratory committee?”  Who exactly did Wiley work for during that period?

If they followed the letter of the law, an iron curtain between Walker and the 527, it’s no wonder that such a naturally clueless Walker jumped onto the campaign stage in July.  Too dumb to know that he’s ignorant of national public policies and nobody around him to coach him in all the months of preparation for his really big shew.

Too clever by half on the part of Wiley and others on the team milking the sugar daddies and mommies over those months, but also too dumb to recognize that Walker lacks breadth, depth, smarts, and charisma.

What was Walker’s cash burn rate in April through June?  We do know what an  authentic “go big” campaign costs because that’s what Hillary did in building a campaign infrastructure during the first three months.  $19 million.   The other campaigns(1) spent far less.  So, was Walker up there with Clinton, down among the pikers, or somewhere in between?

In addition to the Clinton campaign, he can be seen from the 6/30/15 FEC filings that Paul and Sanders were building their campaign infrastructure out of their campaign funds.  (Less sure as to what Carson and Cruz have spent their money on.)  Is it plausible that team Walker’s notion of “go big” was comparable to Paul and Sanders’ total of $5 million before July?  What were their estimates for third quarter campaign fundraising and spending?

All we know is that in just over two months they blew through whatever they actually raised in just over three months.

My “back of the envelope” estimates for the Sanders’ campaign from July 1 through half of Super Tuesday was $60 million.  That was for a heavy ground operation campaign and approximately a third expended on media buys.  More media and fewer troops, the Walker campaign could have made it with $30 million (SuperPac covering $30 million or more in media buys).   Only a couple thousand maxi- ($2,700) donors per month or approximately $5 million/month from all donors.  (Right on target with Wiley’s half a million dollars expected from a three day fundraising swing in Texas.)

They may have hit that $5 million/month target in June and July (although I suspect that even then they came up a bit short), but that likely tapped out all the Walker’s pre-campaign pledges from maxi-donors and all the other expected drips and drabs from “little people.”  Wiley is correct that once Walker began speaking fundraising fell off a cliff.   Who could have predicted that?

Back in her day, Molly Ivins pointed out that there are almost no campaign finance laws in Texas.  And yet, Tom DeLay managed to violate it.  Nationally, a few laws still exist, but it’s now more nearly like the wild west of campaign spending.  Yet, it sure looks as if Walker was and Fiorina is trying to cheat their way to the WH.  If they are allowed to get away with this, it will make it that much easier for the oligarchs to install their puppets.

(1)
The others – campaign committee spending In round numbers as of 6/30/15:

Carson $6 million
Cruz $6 million
Paul $5 million
Sanders $5 million
Bush $3 million
Rubio $3 million
Graham $3 million
Huckabee $1 million

SuperPac Spending* from Open Secrets:

Christie $5 million
Bush $4 million
Carson $2 million
Walker $2 million
Perry $2 million
Kasich $2 million
Clinton $1.5 million
Jindal $1 million
Paul $0.5

*(overview – for illustration; not precise in part because the reports are incomplete; so, don’t quote without doing your own research)

(Note: Bush’s SuperPac has recently committed to $24 million for media ads in IA, NH, and SC)

Combined known spending by 2016 Presidential candidates:

Clinton $20.5 million
Carson $8 million
Bush $7 million
Cruz $6 million
Paul $5.5 million
Christie $5 million
Sanders $5 million
Rubio $3 million
Graham $3 million
Perry $2.6 million
Walker $2 million
Kasich $2 million
Huckabee $1 million
Fiorina $1 million
O’Malley $1 million
Jindal $1 million

LA Times: All the ‘Happy Birthday’ song copyright claims are invalid, federal judge rules

None of the companies that have collected royalties on the “Happy Birthday” song for the past 80 years held a valid copyright claim to one of the most popular songs in history, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled on Tuesday.

In a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, the judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the “Happy Birthday To You” song. Warner had been enforcing a copyright since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which claimed the original disputed copyright.

This isn’t an insignificant ruling to Warner/Chappell that has been collecting about $2 million  a year in royalties for “Happy Birthday.”  The story on the copyright of this song is complicated, but before detailing that,  want to  back up a moment to the US Constitution.  Specifically, Article 1, Section 8, clause 8, the Copyright Clause

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Balancing the general need for progress of the nation with the exclusive right of creators to their own work(s).   On the one hand outlawing the theft of intellectual property and on the other, not permitting an individual person to lock up forever a creation for use by others as others see fit.   Implicit is the notion that inventors and artists are due just compensation for their work(s) for some period of time.  The open question was the time Limit for the protection of the creator and his/her creation.  (Licensing and exclusive assignments to use a creation were known back then.)

Now back to “Happy Birthday.”  The ditty or melody was written some time in the latter part of the 19th century.  Officially claimed to be a joint work by a KY school teacher and her musician sister, Patty Smith Hill and Mildred J. Hill, respectively.  The sisters included it in their 1893 publication Song Stories for the Kindergarten.  Except the title was Good-Morning To All and the lyrics were:

Good-morning to you,
Good-morning to you,
Good-morning dear children,
Good-morning to all.

That publication date of 1893 sets the beginning of the time period for which the song could be under copyright.  Whatever the law was then, the court accepted what existed for works published between 1909 and 1921.  That would have been 28 years from initial publication with a 28 year extension if renewed in the last year of the initial copyright period.  Another Hill sister (Jessica) did file for the extension in 1921; thus, the melody and “Good-Morning To You” lyrics became public domain in 1949.

So, how could copyright claims to “Happy Birthday” have been enforced for all these decades?  Why has it taken all this time for a court  to determine that no valid copyright ever existed?  From the court order, it appears that it was never thoroughly questioned before.

Who penned the derivative lyrics to that become known as Happy Birthday To You?  Nobody knows.  The first published reference to it was in 1901 and the first known publication of the lyrics was in 1911 without credit.  Some decades later, Patty Hill thought that she and her sister might have written the lyrics, but they never filed for copyright protection, and they were knowledgeable about copyrighting their work and collecting royalties from it.  In several disputes with their publisher and a Broadway show, they only asserted their rights as to the melody and Good-Morning To All lyrics.  Nor did anyone else ever file a copyright for Happy Birthday

In light of the forgoing, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED as set forth above.  Because Summy Co never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.’s purported sucessors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics.

IT IS SO ORDERED
September _ 2015

GEORGE H. KING
Chief United States District Judge

Did any one person(s) write the Happy Birthday lyrics without claiming them or  were they developed by many over some period of time and no one person(s) could claim them as their own?  That’s unknown.  Could any such person have copyrighted the lyrics?  Probably not.  Or at least not without getting permission from the Hill sisters.

To Kill A Mockingbird will become public domain in 2055.  Unless, Congress acts before then to further lengthen the “limited Times” for the corporate person.  

No, it wasn’t a hijacking of a tractor-trailer loaded with $16 million worth of fruitcakes.  (Not exactly a product that’s easy to fence.)  Nor was it properly labeled a heist.  Thieves who steal with a pen and a computer are called “white collar criminals” and their crime is embezzlement.

Missed this big crime in Corsicana in real time with the bust in 2013.

Sandy Jenkins was sentenced in federal court in Dallas Wednesday after pleading guilty in 2014 to charges connected with the embezzlement of nearly $17 million from Collin Street Bakery, where he was comptroller. He was sentenced to 10 years for each count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, mail fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

You can read the reported details of how this grand embezzlement was perpetrated at the above link to the Corsicana Daily Sun.  As well as the really stupid crap this thief purchased with over $17 million.  (Hint: a much larger version of the husband/wife McDonnell and Jackson, Jr. duos.

The real story of how the bakery embezzler did it without being detected will not be published.  (That would make it too easy to inspire a copycat thief.)  However, it is an all too common story.

1. A trusted employee of a family owned business.
2. No annual CPA audit.
3. Weak internal financial control systems.
4. Extended period of time in which the embezzlement was perpetrated.

(Missing from this one is the dedicated employee that never takes a vacation.)

Number four is the stuff of nightmares for embezzlement loss control analysts.  That’s how some small, almost petty individual thefts can add up.  Consider this October 2013 LA Times report Theft case stuns Rialto schools:

An investigative firm hired by the Rialto Unified School District has so far found a “documented” loss of at least $1.8 million but warned it could reach as high as $3.16 million, including discrepancies that could not be documented. School records go back only to 2005.

In this case, some sort of justice was served.  ABC7 reportFormer Rialto school accountant who stole $1.8M in lunch money released early from jail.

A former Rialto Unified School District accountant who embezzled at least $1.8 million in student lunch money has been released from prison after serving six months of her five-year sentence.

(Compare that “justice” with: Young black man jailed since April for alleged $5 theft found dead in cell (The Guardian report.)

Small businesses and operations, particularly non-profits, are particularly vulnerable to the “trusted employee” with sticky fingers.  While a culture of trusting employees is admirable, it’s no substitute for proper financial management systems.  Even the smallest of operations can avail themselves of a minimum level of separations of duties.  I was once doing some bookkeeping  and tax reporting for a teeny, tiny entity.  At one point the principals suggested that they give me the checkbook.  My response was, “Are you nuts?”  They said, “We trust you.”  To which, I said, “That’s irrelevant, and furthermore, anyone in my position that would willingly accept handling the cash and books is precisely the person you shouldn’t trust.”

In the Collin Street Bakery case, if over a million dollars a year could be pilfered, it is much too large not to have an annual CPA audit.  Contrary to what some think, CPA’s don’t look for criminal activities in the course of an audit.  It’s often more by accident than design when they detect embezzlement in the course of an audit.   However, it would have been impossible for an auditor to balance the cash and bank accounts for this bakery which would have led to the discovery of the embezzlement in less than two years from when it began.

CPAs also check out the operating internal controls and make recommendations when they are weak or non-existent.  Absent more details, it appears that the thief could issue, void, and send out checks and also do the monthly bank account reconciliation.  IOW no separation of duties.  A lower limit on the automatic check signing authority wouldn’t have prevented the theft, but might have reduced his total take or at least made it more cumbersome for him to steal in smaller chunks.

Two ancillary observations:

This controller was paid only $50,000 a year (and started at $25,000 fifteen years earlier).  That’s low for someone with the proper skills/experience and level of responsibility such a job required.  Not that higher compensation attracts employees that don’t steal, but it reduces employee resentment which is often a factor in employee theft.

An exceptionally high standard of living in comparison with an employee’s salary should be noted and in some way questioned.  In this case, why would someone that claimed to have inherited a bundle continue working at such a relatively low paying job?  Earning a fraction of what a casual observer could see that he and his wife were spending year after year.   (The CIA was slow to note this in the case of the USSR spy Aldrich Ames)

btw — While I loathe thieves, but do like a good fruitcake.

It is more interesting than the top line report that Clinton and Sanders are in a tie.

Billmon does a great riff on this:

So Hillary heads & associated pundits are already talking about Southern “firewalls” & $ power — in September BEFORE primaries even start.

This doesn’t seem like a good sign for the Clinton Restoration.

Southern Strategy:
[Clinton logo with the arrow pointing south]

Hillary, 2008: “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.”

“hard working Americans, white Americans.”

Hillary 2008: “White voters will save me!” http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/?_r=0 …

Hillary aides 2016: “Black voters will save her!” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-relying-on-southern-primaries-to-fend-
off-rivals.html

If anyone on Team Clinton suggests a response to her sagging poll numbers is to reprise the 2004 takedown ad against that other man from Vermont:

“Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs

They might need a rethink.

Clinton’s strongest lead in Iowa is among those age 65+.  Clinton 53% and Sanders 20%

Among 18-34 year olds it’s Clinton 19% and Sanders 66%.

Clinton’s second strongest demo lead is with the  annual household income >$100K.  Clinton 50% to Sanders 36%.

At the opposite end of the income ladder <$30K it’s Clinton 32% to Sanders 51%.

Close behind Clinton’s lead among the wealthier is her lead among women:  49% to Sanders at 35%.

Men: Clinton 28% and Sanders 49%.

College Deg: Clinton 43% and Sanders 37%.

No Deg: Clinton 37% and Sanders 44%.

Interesting is that Clinton’s favorables are similar to that for Sanders.  Her unfavorables are higher than Sanders,’ but that may only reflect that she’s better known as 15% of those polled don’t know enough about Sanders to have an opinion one way or the other.  And Clinton scores an impressive 92% on possessing “strong leadership qualities.”  Thus, I’m tentatively going to say that men favoring Sanders’ by a larger margin isn’t exclusively an issue of sexism.

If this poll is even close to being a representative sample, it’s stunning that Sanders’ message is being heard this well, this early by Democrats most negatively impacted by neoliberal economic policies.  And the least likely to have been subjected to heavy anti-communism and by extension anti-socialism propaganda as they grew up.*  More men seem to be hearing an economic message from Sanders that doesn’t exclude their plight or anxieties.  Many of those same men possibly thought they were hearing the same from Obama in 2008, but with Sanders it’s more explicit.  If not an anomoly, this could be a game changer.

For your reading pleasure, the latest Quinnipiac Iowa Poll

*Three reasons for it being far less prevalent.  The demise of the USSR.  Communist China makes a high percentage of the goods we buy.  The Democratic Party ceased to advocate for socialistic economic policies in the 1980s.  IOW, capitalism won.
Update

FWIW — NYTimes report on new Reuters/Ipsos poll. (At this time, the poll report seems not to have been published.)

…
Clinton leads Sanders nationally among Democrats by eight percentage points, 39 percent to 31 percent, her smallest cushion since the nominating battle began for the November 2016 election. She led Sanders by 20 percentage points in the online poll a week ago.
…

One more thing that presidential candidates attempt to manufacture to differentiate themselves from their competitors.  My initial response to Trump’s —Make America Great Again — was that it was clunky, trite, and hackneyed.  Then began to wonder if perhaps I was missing something about it.  Including if presidential campaign slogans are important and effective in winning or irrelevant to election outcomes?  

Surveying past slogans, which appears to have started with William Henry Harrison’s 1840 campaign and Tippicanoe and Tyler Too (which is still catchy), I noticed a few things about these slogans.  They contain one or more of  three characteristics.

1. Highlights a personal quality or unique accomplishment of the candidate.
2. The times colored with emotion with the stated or implied solution being the candidate.
3.  Functions as the theme for a candidate’s campaign.

(A less frequent tradition is the anti or attack slogan that began in 1884 with “Rum, Romanism and rebellion.”  Generally not effective or counterproductive.  An answer anti-slogan has mixed results — Wilkie’s 1940 “No Fourth Term Either” didn’t help him, but the 1964 “In your guts, you know he’s nuts” probably further hurt Goldwater.)

The better or more effective slogans seem to have a higher resonance or concordance quality with the candidate, times, and/or theme.

In my opinon, Give Em Hell, Harry! hits all the right notes.  (And just learned that I’m in agreement with many presidential historians.)  It reinforced that Truman was tough, reflected the times (the destructive 1947-1948 GOP Congress), and Truman would continue to fight against the anti-New Deal Republicans.  

Some strongly hit a single note.  The candidate: “I like Ike” and “All the way with LBJ.”  The perception of the times: 1980  “Are you better off than you were four years ago” and “It’s the economy, stupid.”  And some hit no notes: 1988 “Kinder, Gentler Nation.”  That one was reformulated  and more effective a dozen years later as “Compassionate Conservatism.”  The candidate and the times:  1980 “Change We Can Believe in” or the distilled version of  simply “Change.”  (Note: the word “change” was also used by Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992.)

One of the more pathetic ones was McCain’s 2008 “Reform, prosperity and peace.”  Other than campaign finance reform (later blown away with the Citizen’s United decision) and of limited interest/importance to most voters was the only part that could have attached to the candidate.  “Prosperity” by late 2008 for a GOP candidate was toxic.  “Peace” was tacked on for a third “p” word and is rarely this inappropriate for a candidate.  (Note, it borrowed from Ike’s 1956 slogan, “Peace and Prosperity.)

The slogans of most candidates, for both winners and losers, are unmemorable because they seem only weakly to contain one or more standard slogan characteristics for the person, times, and campaign themes.  Obama’s 2012 slogan, “Forward,” fell too far short of the mark for his record and the times.  (Might have been dynamite for FDR in 1936.)  However, it injected an active instead of passive voice into a slogan and that may be a positive.

Consider three other slogans that fell short:

Kerry 2004: “Let America Be America Again”

Romney 2012: “Believe in America”

Paul 2012: “Restore America Now”

Again and again we’re implored to believe that there was some golden age in this country and we want to go back to that imaginary time.  “Change” and “Forward” are far more rational and adult perspectives even if the candidate is more status quo oriented.  Team Trump has borrowed from both.  Less irrationally nostalgic and an active voice:

Make America Great Again

This thing hits three notes:

1. Trump is Great
2. These times suck
3. Trump’s proposals fit with once was.  The golden age for American men (roughly 1945-1970).  (And yes, that appeals to a high percentage of women as well.)

A bit of tarnish on the Great Trump reputation, doesn’t deactivate the other two components.  

While I’m far from ready to conclude that team Trump has consciously put together a winner of a slogan, have to recognize it for what it is and it does make the task for all the other candidates that much more difficult.

I’m sure my government teachers covered the issue of nepotism in public employee hires back before their were any prohibitions of it.   Corruption, incompetence, cronyism.  And the establishment of  merit based system at federal agencies to do away with all that.  Then only superficially about California public agencies that did have a tradition of clean government compared to that  other states.  From that I have assumed for all these years that nepotism in CA was as illegal as it is in the federal government.

Thus, in the outrage over Kim Davis, County Clerk of  Rowan County, KY, refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, I was also outraged to discover that nepotism in KY is perfectly legal.

Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years[11] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the state.
…
In 2014, Bailey chose not to run for re-election.[12] Davis then ran for county clerk as a Democrat.
…She defeated Cox in the general election, becoming the Rowan county clerk.[15][16] As county clerk, she receives an annual salary of $80,000.

Kim Davis’ son Nathan works for his mother.  So, I guess this county clerk’s office is a little family fiefdom.

And for all the federal restrictions, nepotism isn’t dead.  The Hill 2012 Nepotism prevalent at Justice Department, says IG report.  WaPo 2013 Report: Nepotism `open and widely accepted’ at Energy Department  The Hill DOJ 2014 Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices …

(How about a bit more outrage from Congress and the WH about federal government nepotism?  Or would that cut a bit too close to home for them?)

Back to CA and my self-study education today.  In an article released by California Institute for Local Government (ILG) (not a Koch funded subversive operation) titled Everyday Ethics for Local Officials Hiring: When a Relative Wants a Job, I learned that:

State law does not specifically address the issue of nepotism in local agency hiring decisions.

However, counties, municipalities, and some agencies in California may prohibit nepotism.  For example, it’s in the City of Riverside charter.  Since that was the only example presented, I’m guessing that such prohibitions aren’t prevalent throughout the state. Yet, nepotism is likely not rampant.

The ILG article details a process for CA government official and managers to evaluate the ethics of hiring a relative.  Basically recommending erring on the side of super-ethical:

Finally, a number of local officials noted in response to this question that the reality is that public service involves sacrifices. There are some things that individuals cannot do by virtue of their status as public officials – some opportunities that they (and their families) cannot take advantage of.

One official even knows of a senior level public official who went so far as to retire from city service so his son could be considered for an agency position. In short, it is a matter of choices. In this instance, the senior level official determined that his son’s opportunities were more important that his own. The son could also have chosen to apply for employment in agencies other than the one in which his father served.

With twenty-six years employment in the county clerk’s office before being elected county clerk, Kim Davis was surely most qualified in knowing all the ins and outs and daily operating procedures of the agency.  But such operating technical expertise is the job of long-term and senior employees in any organization.  Managerial skill sets can include all of that, but they also need more breadth.  Such as an ability to quickly and efficiently adjust procedures in accordance with new law.

It’s tempting to postulate that Kim Davis lacks sufficient formal education to understand that as a county clerk she must follow public law.  (Although a high school education should be sufficient to understand that.)  But that’s much too harsh considering that Harvard Law graduate Ted Cruz is supporting Davis.  What a waste education was on Cuban-Candian Cruz.  (And Harvard should be ashamed of turning out so many jackasses.)

Iowa and NH GOP caucus/primary voters’ inclinations appear to be far more stable than all the OMG – Trump hair pulling suggests.  Trump at 25% in Iowa and near 30% in NH is entirely predictable.  And, yes, he’s not yet near his potential ceiling in either state.

There are differences between these voters in IA and NH, but perhaps not as many as past results appear to indicate.  Looking at the results from 1980-2012, the voting inclinations appear to me to be more primal than self-descriptions by the voters themselves.  Where this gets somewhat fuzzier is the secondary primal inclination when none of the candidates fit the highest (or lowest) order inclination.  For example, anti-immigration primal inclination has always been present but not so well articulated and defined as it has become this year.   In those years did it default to the better racist or split up into other categories?

So, the segmented primary voter groups that I see are:

1. Party elites choice (PETS): Iowa 10% and NH 10%
2. Experience/expertise w/slight preference for moderates (TEES).  These voters take pride in doing their own evaluation of the candidates.   Iowa 10% and NH 15%.
3. Anti-party elites (ANTS): Iowa 10% and NH 15%.
4. Religious fundamentalists –

      a) Rigid (GODS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%
      b) Flexible (FGDS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%

5. Richie-Rich (latent monarchists) (RCHS): Iowa 10% and NH 10%.
6. Not a Politician (NAPS): Iowa 10% and NH 5%
7. Isolationist (ISTS): Iowa 5% and NH 10%
8. Internationalists/Interventionists (WARS): Iowa 5% and NH 5%.
9. Racist (RACS):  Iowa 5% and NH 5%
10. Anti-immigrant (AIMS): Iowa 5% and NH 5%
11. Free-floating sector (FFSS) can attach to any of the above or a separate category of “good neighbor” or nostalgia for a candidate in a prior run: Iowa 10% and NH 10%.  At this point in the 2016 race, it’s “free floating.”  Perry isn’t better the second time around.  Nor is a third Paul run welcomed.  Their might have been some “good neighbor” operating a couple of months ago for Walker, but that seems to have dissipated.  And any residual value for a Bush and/or Texas is getting slim to none.

How many sectors a candidate needs to own in a specific election cycle to win in Iowa and/or NH will vary by the number of other candidates and their individual ability to lock up sectors.

Consider 2000 and Steve Forbes who garnered 31% of the vote in IA and 13% in NH.  In Iowa he “owned” the ANTS, NAPS, and RCHS (30%); whereas in NH he owned only a small portion of the NAPS and all of the RCHS.
At this point in both states, Trump appears to have locked up RCHS, AIMS and RACS.  That’s 20%.  To that he’s only added another 3% from the ANTS, NAPS, and FFSS sectors.  In NH, he’s added 8% — more ANTS there to draw from and is likely getting a higher proportion of NAPS.

The two candidates that help Trump the most are Carson and Fiorina.

The anti-Trump GOP has a few obvious problems.  First the candidates with greater than five years (as of 1/16) in high public office (GOV or SEN) are mostly scrapping the bottom of the barrel.  Three of those have been out of office since 1/07.  Mr. Oops will only be one year out of office but apparently nobody misses him.  And Mr. “why not?” has turned into “why?”  Thus, no one candidate owns TEES.

Bush and Rubio are splitting PETS (which appears to be higher in SC).

With the exception of Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and Huck, and with PETS provisionally occupied, the others are all trawling in the same sectors.  (Have the “fundies” noticed that Carson is a Seventh Day Advantist?  Not exactly one of them.)  “Buy out” any one or more of the lessers, and who gains?

Graham and Perry > Bush

Santorum and Jindal > ??? (if it’s a Catholic vote then Bush)

Christie > Walker

Rubio > Bush (most likely)

Bush > ??? (Rubio and Kasich?)

Huck > Carson and Cruz?

Paul > could default to Trump and/or Cruz

Fiorina > scatters among all the other anti-women candidates

Cruz > Walker and Trump

These guys are between a rock and prayer rug for the implosion of  Trump.   Then things will get even crazier.

Just to keep everything in perspective, the Dow shed 586 points today.  Dropping from 16,457  to 15,871 or 3.56%.  On Black Monday – 1986 the Dow dropped from 508 points; from 2,247 to 1,739 or 22.6%.

My recollections from that day and the gathering storm I saw in August 2007.

So what happened today?  The “plunge protection” operations were possibly busy.  Otherwise, it’s likely that it was nothing more than the numbers on the crash in China being absorbed and run through all the Wall St. computer financial models.  You, know those super-duper complex mathematical models behind the world derivatives markets.  Not nearly as irrationally exuberant as they were before the 2008 crash, but rational enough?  

In the short term, probably.  

In the mid and long terms?  Nobody knows.  A downturn in China impacts Germany more quickly than the US because more of its economy is dependent on exports to China.  Can it control contain that impact along with the mess it has facilitated in Greece?  How vulnerable are other countries to a downturn in China?  If one possessed that massive amount of date, are the computer models sufficiently dynamic to project all the fallout throughout the world?

Who knows.

After years of questions and concerns, it’s beginning to dawn on the west that China’s ghost cities malls, etc. are evidence of poor capital and resource allocation.*  Structurally or fundamentally not all that different from Greece’s major investment in the 2004 Olympics.  With the exception, and it’s an important one, China didn’t build this currently useless crap with loans from western banksters.  Thus, instead of “austerity” to pay the bills, China’s workers and residents will have to wait longer for the good times to trickle down to them.

Still.  Not seeing any acknowledgement that China played a role in limiting and containing the 2008 western crashes.  And if were honest with ourselves, there haven’t been any needed changes to the financial and economic fundmentals in the US.  But cheap gas should keep us dumb and happy for a while longer.

* But are brand spanking new ghost towns any worse than troubled billion dollar fighters?  

Demonstrating that birtherism rots minds, Trump platform:

End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Trump is clearly no legal scholar or even historically knowledgeable.  He also appears to suck at sociology.  Oppositional responses to his “proposal” are all over the map.  Failing to KISS is a good way to lose to an ignorant demagogue.  There is the downright silly stuff about people considered valuable US citizens based on jus soli that would become aliens under the Trump proposal.*  Silly because ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.  Thus, those that enjoy US birthright citizenship cannot have that taken away from them by any state or the USG even if the 14th Amendment were to be repealed.

It’s important to note the Section I of the 14th Amendment was necessitated to overturn the horrendous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.  Specifically:

The Court held that neither Scott nor any other person of African descent–whether or not emancipated from slavery–could be “citizen of a state”, and therefore was unable to bring suit in federal court on the ground of diversity.

As blind to existing conditions of free African Americans that owned property and legally voted as Citizens United that sees no problem with the super wealthy buying US elections.

14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This merely codified pre-existing common law and naturalization federal legislation before the Dred Scott decision.  Among other duties assinged to  Congress in Article 1. Section 8 is:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Why was “naturalization” specifically included in the original US Constitution while citizenship is unmentioned (except the requirement that the President must be a “natural born citizen)?  For an exhaustive review of this, see, Bernard Lynch v. John Clarke and Julia Lynch.  Opinion of the Hon Lewis H. Sandford.  (It’s a long opinion and well worth the time to read.  And no, Julia Lynch wasn’t an “anchor baby.”)  The simple answer to that question is that under common law, birthright citizenship (jus soli) was so completely accepted in the colonies that there were no legal arguments against it.  It was imported from Great Britain where it had been established law before 1482.  It was only the requirements for naturalization that varied among the colonies, and uniformity under the new United States for naturalized citizens was deemed necessary since all would also be US citizens.

As to the question of whether or not slaves born in the US were citizens of the new nation, the framers of the Constitution simply didn’t address it.  Common law, regardless of the status of parents, conferred citizenship on all “native born” persons.  However, many states passed laws denying citizenship to slaves.  If not for the Dred Scott decision and with the 13th Amendment, all former slaves should have enjoyed the same rights to citizenship as the people did at the inception of the country when they automatically transferred from British subjects to US citizens.

If the 14th Amendment were repealed, where would that leave this country?  That question is way beyond my pay grade, but such a repeal on its own wouldn’t  automatically do what the Trumpsters think it would because the issue would default to the  pre-existing common law of 1864.  Thus, only an amendment to the US Constitution can change birthright citizenship.

That’s possibly a discussion that “we the people” should have, but only if it’s held dispassionately and rationally among well-informed and mature adults because it’s a complex issue.  Restricted Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, and Lex Sanguinis create problems as well.  And none address the underlying problems that are aggravating immigration in much of the world today.  So, perhaps our time would be more profitably spent on dealing with those matters instead of dicking around with Jus Soli.

*This type of argument is similar to the anti-abortionists that say, “What if Einstein’s mother chose to have an abortion?”  It’s cheap and sloppy.

There have always been ghost campaigns — candidates rarely if ever seen with no bucks, no campaign operation, and virtually no support.  Most of the third party contenders could be considered ghost candidates.   This time there are too many to count Other Declared Republican candidates in addition to the seventeen that are deemed “viable’ by somebody.

What’s never been seen before are Zombie Campaigns.  At this point Rick Perry’s official campaign is sort of broke.  Or least can’t pay staffers in NC.  Yet as of 6/30, Perry had $17 million in his Super Pac.  Thus, he could virtually disappear from the scene and TV ads in support of his candidacy could continue to appear for months to come.  And that doesn’t even include other 527 operations that could do the same for Rick Perry.

That, however, misses another potential game changer.  Well, maybe not so much of an advantage for Perry since his official campaign dollars mostly come from large dollar donations.  But a candidate with a large base of small donors could take advantage of federal matching funds for the primary to keep a skeletal campaign operation alive and not have any difficulty in abiding by the campaign spending limitations (state-by-limits and an aggregate national ceiling) if she/he has a SuperPac that covers the bulk of the media advertising and is funded by a few super wealthy donors.

So far, it doesn’t look as if any of the candidates are anywhere close to putting together such a funding scheme.  Among the Republicans only Dr. Ben has a large small donor base of any size, but his SuperPac pales in comparison to those for Jeb(?), Cruz, Rubio, Perry, and Walker.  And all of those guys are dependent on large donors for their campaign funds.  Clinton has no intention of being constrained by matching fund spending limits.  Sanders doesn’t have a SuperPac and anyway, he can’t compete against Clinton if he were bound by the state and federal spending limitations.

But maybe Trump can.  Anybody else remember the time that only Trump and Khashoggi cashed a check for 13 cents?  (iirc Trump said that he might not bother if it were less than 13 cents.)  How much could he collect in federal matching funds if he could convert all that enthusiasm for his candidacy into small donations?  Not sure anyone knows.  In 2000, Gore spent $49 million on his primary campaign and of that $15 million was in federal matching funds.  The 2012 limit was reported to be $54 million but some portion of spending is not charged to the limit.  For fun say that the limit is $56 million and “other” is limited to 10% of the total; that would mean a total of $62 million (more than all the GOP candidates but Romney spent in 2012).  If all contributions were $250 or less, it’s conceivable that a candidate could collect $32.5 million in federal matching funds.  There are other rules as well:

Candidate can’t contribution more than $50,000.

30 days after the candidate fails to receive 10 percent of the votes cast in two consecutive primary elections (unless the candidate receives 20 percent or more of the vote in a subsequent primary);

The date the candidate publicly withdraws from the race;

The date on which the candidate notifies the Commission, or the Commission determines, that the candidate has ceased to campaign actively in more than one state;

In other words, Zombie Campaigns won’t be applying for federal matching funds.  

The WSJ reporter was a bit sloppy in claiming that Trump had been his own campaign donor based on the 6/30/15 FEC filing.  Trump’s actual contribution was a mere $4,049.64.  The $1.8 million was a loan.  So, it’s still possible for him to go the matching funds route (assuming a self-funded SuperPac doesn’t count as campaign funding).  Would such a self-funded SuperPac meet the “independent” criteria?   Do any of them?

Looks as if the fun has only just begun.