“Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” *
One of the first childhood nursery rhymes I can recall learning is this famous example dating from 1731 in England, sung to a French melody from 1761. It seems appropriate to use childhood phrasing in this season of Trump driven intellectual (non) rigor.
Its use here however is not for the sunny aspect of the favorite old rhyme. But it does share a common focus on three bags full and a natural farmyard product. More about this later in the post.
The Magic of Even Numbers for Trump: $100
Trump is overtly fond of even numbers, even as he is arithmetically challenged in his personal calculations (Remember 17 x 6 results with Howard Stern in 2006). Three recent examples of his crowing about the number 100 come to mind. Since we are discussing Trump it is not just 100, or $100 dollars, it is the princely sum of $100 million dollars, which is a choice number even for the fabulously wealthy Trump. Though not enough to make him sweat in public.
The first example is his oft repeated campaign promise that he would spend whatever it took to be competitive and win, even entirely from his own pocket, if necessary.
Leaving aside the embarrassing fact that Trump initially apparently had no idea just how much a full competitive Presidential race would cost (that would require attention and study, foreign items to his meandering mental concentration).
Plagued by criticism of this outsize promise, as well as for some of his other super grand ideas, at some point in the spring of 2016 Trump particularized his personal financial commitment to the Movement. He proudly announced he would contribute (wait, wait, here it is) the shambolic magical number of $100 million personally, by himself, and out of his own funds. to his campaign.
This was a significant statement since no Presidential candidate had ever done such a bold thing, much less make it a public promise. Again, after some more skepticism about his intentions when it was revealed that his heavy contributions to his primary campaign were in fact refundable loans and not rock solid contributions at all, Trump doubled down on his commitment. In late June, in time for the upcoming Republican convention he converted his loans to actual donations. More power to him.
As the General Election campaign began, he stopped loaning his campaign money, and started instead giving $2 million per month steadily, all the way until October (FEC Report covering October 1-October 19).
Thanks to federal reporting requirement, which must be filed under oath, we all now know that from start until then (October 19) he had provided $56.1 million to his campaign in cash. (we will leave aside for now the fact that he also reimbursed himself about $10 million of those funds mixed with other contributions to the campaign, and accept his gross figure instead of using a more precise net total).
The continued accounting based on the FEC reports is an example of wonderful, persistent reporting in the national interest from Bloomberg.
Remember these figures are official, filed under oath, sworn to be truthful. So, as of October 19, that is 20 days away from the election, Trump has not done what he promised multiple times in public over several months to do. He is short by $44 million, nearly half of his unmodified Promise. He had been closing the gap at $2 million per month since June, but not at all during the first 19 days of October.
Actually, Trump did not completely stiff his campaign for personal contributions in the first part of October. He did give $30 thousand. The press caught wind of his generosity by reading the official reports, and drew mocking attention to it. Perhaps in response, or perhaps because he just had forgotten to write a catch-up good luck check, his campaign did announce on November 2 that sometime the previous week (after October 24), Trump did write a large check for $10 million (another one of those dreamy, even numbers designed to impress). Let’s add that in for completeness sake to his total.
So, with respect to his first big financial promise, Trump is now only $34 million short, a surprise and insult to those small dollar donors who believed in him, and supplied about 30% of all his campaign funds..
On the first $100 million event, Trump is a proven liar, but he has a teeny-tiny chance of making good, if he wants to borrow a boatload of money this weekend. How much good that would do his campaign is another story. There are no news reports trumpeting such a last minute rescue of his financial rectitude in the past week that I can find. The election is now just 5 days off.
We mentioned above that this post was about bags and a farmyard product. It will perhaps not come as a surprise that we meant to describe a very large bag of ovine, bovine, or equine solid waste material.
So, Trump’s $100 Million Promise Number One is a very large bag of farmyard waste material.
Or, to forego the scatological reference, he is a just a documented Liar. Since this is about money, Trump’s dearest and most carefully scrutinized measuring stick in life, he is not likely to be confused what he is about.
The Second $100 Million Promise
Trump’s second big $100 million dollar financial promise, to his small donors and true believers, was announced on September 23 to widespread media attention. He promised to spend $100 million (at least) on TV advertising in the last 6 weeks of the campaign in order to stay competitive (starting September 26), and that the first week of $15 million had already been booked by September 23.
Thanks to the diligent reporting of comprehensive data compiled by Kantar Media folks, we have been following along week by week Trump’s Pilgrim’s Progress to fulfill his entirely sell-imposed, voluntarily assumed obligation financial obligation. We know for sure that at the end of Week 5 (ending October 29), his total expended was $50.24 million. While those figures were comprehensive, they still left a final gap of one week in question.
On November 2, the Trump Campaign announced a $25 million final week ad buy until election day.
The campaign announced a $25 million advertising buy for the final week of the campaign and plans to air spots in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Nevada and New Hampshire. Trump Digital Director Brad Parscale said in a statement that the campaign is expanding its map to Michigan and New Mexico and similar states as the attention on the FBI and Clinton’s emails remains. Trump is trailing by 7 and 8.5 points in those two states, respectively.
So, instead of an educated guess we have near complete information on Financial Promise Number Two. By election day Trump will have spent $75 million towards his $100 million promise to donors. That is, assuming the orders actually are paid for and get broadcast. We will see when official results are published next week after the election. Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt for this last unproven piece, his 6-week promise is yet another in a string of broken promises. This time for a $25 million hit.
Sad to say, Trump’s final push doesn’t gain him any ground on Clinton either, since her campaign has already booked $34.4 million (about a $10 million further advantage for the last week). Worse, in ach of the last several weeks, she has actually spent more than the amount initially booked.
A recent article says that in terms of influencing voters, ads fade greatly within a week or so. So the last ad impressions this week are probably the most crucial in the entire campaign. As in so much else, Trump’s failed financial promises to his supporters will likely have distressing adverse consequences on Election Night.
In one way, I suppose that lessening the final weekly gap could be considered good news for Republicans. It means Trump will only be down in the $10’s of millions range, instead of the massive $100 million plus deficit looming for the whole campaign. That is, assuming all that prior advertising didn’t make any difference to voters. I bet, though, there must be some toxic residue from the constant unanswered pounding Trump has excited over the last 6 months.
Just for the record, $25 million in any one dimension may not be a game changer for a billionaire like Trump. But for his millions of ordinary <$200 campaign, donors it is a considerably big deal. For example, if you happen to make $50,000 a year at your job (not a huge amount, but better than average in America today), and you work for 40 years over your lifetime, that works out to $2 million in lifetime earnings, So, Trump has gypped his most loyal supporters of an amount equal to the entire lifetime earnings of 12 people, in just 6-weeks time on just one promise.
So, the second very large bag of farmyard waste material is heavily loaded, but not quite as full as the first large bag.
Trump’s Third $100 Million Promise
On Wednesday, November 2, the Trump campaign issued an official Press Release touting another magical $100 Million.
See the entire official text just below:
– NOVEMBER 02, 2016 –
TRUMP CAMPAIGN RAISES $100 MILLION IN SMALL DOLLAR DONATIONS IN OCTOBER
NEW YORK, NY – On the heels of Mr. Trump’s huge surge in recent polls, the Donald J. Trump for President campaign has announced it has raised more than $100M in small dollar donations in October. This massive haul is backed by more than 1.6M small dollar donations (up 151% from September).
Mr. Trump’s campaign is fueled by the incredible support of millions of Americans giving generously towards a movement that will Make America Great Again, while Hillary Clinton continues to prop up her empty candidacy with money from special interests and Wall Street elites.
“Hitting a 100 million dollar goal in October is an amazing milestone for the campaign as it shows how Mr. Trump’s message is resonating with millions of voters across the country. We have seen significant growth in our fundraising online, just as we see growth in our poll numbers. These metrics and others highlight the groundswell of support that will make Donald J. Trump the 45th President of the United States,” said Brad Parscale, Digital Director.
This was then picked up across the media landscape, left and right flanks, often with less than careful reading or analysis.
For example:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised $100 million in October from “small-dollar” donors, his campaign announced on Wednesday.
His campaign announced that the total was garnered from 1.6 million small-dollar donations, a term traditionally used to describe contributions of less than $250.
Trump has faced a significant fundraising deficit compared with his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. In the first 19 days of October, Trump raised about $30 million, compared with Clinton’s $53 million.
Or, from the other side:
As Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump surges in the polls, his campaign coffers have swelled, thanks in large part to a surge of “small-dollar donations.”
In October, the Trump camp raised more than $100 million just in small-dollar donations. More than 1.6 million small-dollar donors contributed to his campaign during the month—an increase of 151 percent over September.
“Hitting a 100 million dollar goal in October is an amazing milestone for the campaign as it shows how Mr. Trump’s message is resonating with millions of voters across the country,” the campaign’s digital director, Brad Parscale, said. “We have seen significant growth in our fundraising online, just as we see growth in our poll numbers. These metrics and others highlight the groundswell of support that will make Donald J. Trump the 45th president of the United States.”
While small-dollar donations fill a campaign’s coffers more slowly than can bigger contributions, they are a strong indicator of grass-roots support for a candidate.
In this instance the Gray Lady herself, that failing paper, the New York Times, our distinguished national paper of record, got closest to an accurate assessment.
Donald J. Trump raised $100 million in small donations in October, his campaign announced on Thursday. But Mr. Trump’s announcement — made in a news release sent to reporters late in the afternoon — contained few other details, and his figures cannot be independently verified until after Election Day, when the winning and losing campaigns file their next financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission.
Mr. Trump’s tally appeared to include money raised into party accounts he jointly controls, but did not specify what threshold he used for “small” donations, and a spokeswoman did not immediately reply to a request for clarification. The release did not specify whether the total represented any money that was raised earlier in the year but was only recently transferred into his campaign accounts.
The Trump team’s last official F.E.C. report was filed last week and covered the first 19 days of October. Using a conventional measure of small donations — checks from people giving less than $200 — Mr. Trump would have had to raise about $65 million from small contributions during the remaining days in October, effectively tripling his clip with these donors. That would be a huge jump.
But it is also possible that Mr. Trump is including contributions of more than $200 in his tally, since he has been collecting relatively few large checks. If Mr. Trump’s figure included all the money raised in the first part of October, then he would have had to raise $40 million to reach $100 million by the end of the month.
That would leave him at more or less on the same pace as earlier in the month — and only a slightly faster clip than in September.
In a statement accompanying Mr. Trump’s news release, his digital director, Brad Parscale, said: “Hitting a 100 million dollar goal in October is an amazing milestone for the campaign as it shows how Mr. Trump’s message is resonating with millions of voters across the country.”
Now, what have we here? Trump has been trounced in every money raising category from stem to stern and back again for the entire race by the Democrats. The latest iteration example was for the honest to God truthful, under oath report numbers to the FEC for October 1-19, where Trump again was outpaced by Clinton, lagging by $52.4 to $28.8 million.
From Bloomberg’s valuable piece on the 2016 presidential campaign finance race, here is a chart of official Trump small dollar donations from June 2015 through October 19, 2016.
Actually, the October amount from small donors (<$200 total)) is only $8.5 million for the first 19 days. What the Trump campaign is now saying, officially via press release, is that in 12 days they raised $91.5 million from about 1,000,000 additional donors. That’s only 11 times as much money in 12 days as during the rest of the 19 October days they have to tell the truth about.
It is mathematically possible, but would be an enormous change from the entire campaign performance going back to June 2015. His previous high day for donations was $5 million on August 31. To pull this October mega-surprise off, he would need to have raised $7.63 million each and every day in the last two weeks (12 days).
If Trump did it, Hats Off and then some. Respect.
As for me, I’m skeptical of a press release without documentation, given the campaign’s prior history. I reserve judgment until the official sworn to numbers are filed 30-days post election, when it will be largely of academic interest. I will celebrate his achievement then.
To sum up, the third very large $100 million bag is quite full, but it could just be bundles of cash this time instead of the barnyard waste product sitting in the two other very large financial promise bags.
Summary
As some wag has said, two out of three ain’t bad.** The jury is out on Trump’s third promise, but it could be a Trump win, if improbable on the odds, based on past performance.
I think we should close this vision on a lament by the wonderful pop singer and chanteuse, Linda Ronstadt, who can represent poor Donald’s feeling of always being picked on and attacked just because he says stuff that isn’t true.
Bonus Round. Talking about a real star, Ronstadt beat Trump to the cover of Time Magazine by 12 years. She made in in 1977; he didn’t make it until 1989. She also wipes him out on the Cover of Rolling Stone, another singular star honor: seven Ronstadt covers (!975, #183), before Trump angled two lately.
The lyrics are given below for those who have forgotten them.***
As for me, I get Linda’s pain and suffering, waiting on the Double E. For Trump, not so much.
Here is a nationwide map of Election Day Poll Closing Times by State for November 8, 2016 (courtesy of Daily Kos’ talented graphics folks). Use it well to make your vote count.
The election is just five days away. Please Vote. Please Vote early, if you still can. Talk to your friends, and get them out to Vote as well, to help defend our American Democracy.
*From the Wikipedia entry:
“Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” is an English nursery rhyme, the earliest surviving version of which dates from 1731. The words have changed little in two and a half centuries. It is sung to a variant of the 1761 French melody Ah! vous dirai-je, maman. Uncorroborated theories have been advanced to explain the meaning of the rhyme. These include that it is a complaint against Medieval English taxes on wool and that it is about the slave trade. In the twentieth century it was a subject of controversies in debates about political correctness. It has been used in literature and popular culture as a metaphor and allusion. The Roud Folk Song Index classifies the lyrics and their variations as number 4439.
The phrase “yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir” has been used to describe any obsequious or craven subordinate. It is attested from 1910, and originally was common in the British Royal Navy.
The rhyme has often been raised in literature and popular culture. Rudyard Kipling used the rhyme as the title of a semi-autobiographical short story he wrote in 1888. The name Black Sheep Squadron was used for the Marine Attack Squadron 214 of the United States Marine Corps from 1942 and the title Baa Baa Black Sheep was used for a book by its leader Colonel Gregory “Pappy” Boyington and for a TV series (later syndicated as Black Sheep Squadron) that aired on NBC from 1976 until 1978. In 1951, together with “In the Mood”, “Baa Baa Black Sheep” was the first song ever to be digitally saved and played on a computer.
Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes, sir, yes, sir,
Three bags full;
One for the master,
And one for the dame,
And one for the little boy
Who lives down the lane.
**I remembered a musical version of “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”. Watch Meatloaf over through his 1977 hit version.
One of Seven Linda Ronstadt Rolling Stone Covers (1976)
*** Lyrics for “Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me”
Well, I lay my head on the railroad track
Waiting on the double E
But the train don’t run by here no more
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Oh, these boys won’t let me be
Lord, have mercy on me
Woe, woe is me
Well, I met a man out in Hollywood
Now I ain’t naming names
Well he really worked me over good
Just like Jesse James
Yes, he really worked me over good
He was a credit to his gender
Put me through some changes, Lord
Sort of like a waring blender
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Oh, these boys won’t let me be
Lord, have mercy on me
Woe woe is me
Well, I met a boy in the Vieux Carres
Down in Yokohama
He picked me up and he threw me down
He said, “Please don’t hurt me, mama”
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Oh, these boys won’t let me be
Lord, have mercy on me
Woe woe is me
Poor, poor, poor me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor, poor me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor, poor me
Poor, poor pitiful me