## The Total Primary Vote Counts and the Candidate Vote Breakdowns

The Total Primary Vote Counts and the Candidate Vote Breakdowns

Since I wrote so many articles on the delegate counts in the primaries, I thought I should look at the total number of voters in the primaries. This is also desired to get a perspective on Trump’s achievement of getting the highest Republican primary voter count in history.

I had not payed much attention to the vote totals since there are many caucus states, where the number of participants may only be a tenth of the final election party vote. One expects that races with several candidates of differing views will encourage a large turnout, as opposed to a one sided race where voters think that the outcome is already determined.

According to Wikipedia, the total Republican turnout was 31,160,103 voters. Instead of giving the individual vote numbers, I will just give the percentages. Trump got 45.0%, Cruz got 25.1%, Kasich got 13.8%, Rubio got 11.3%, Carson got 2.8%, Bush got 0.9%, and others got a total of 0.8%. The startling result is that while Trump emphasizes his total vote, he actually did not achieve a majority of the total vote. This may be why every speaker in the Republican convention tore down Clinton, so that even if primary voters favored another candidate, they would have no choice but to vote for Trump. It was also emphasized that a vote for another alternative, such as a Libertarian, would be equivalent to a vote for Clinton.

Political Science lectures on elections that I have attended said that Republicans would come together after the convention. I haven’t seen voters polls on this yet, but the other candidates and some party leaders, plus candidates from swing states, don’t seem to be coming together.

The total Democratic primary vote was 30,015,289. Again, with the caucuses, this doesn’t represent all Democrats who would have liked to vote, if all states had democratic caucuses. Of the primary votes, Clinton got 55.2%, and Sanders got 43.1%.

An amazing coincidence is that the Republican and Democratic primary voter turnouts were almost equal, with the Republican total being only 3.8% larger.

## The Republican Convention and the Unmentionable: Climate Change

The Republican Convention and the Unmentionable: Climate Change

So far the Convention has covered Make America Safe Again, and Make America Work Again. The Unmentionable topic has not shown up, or not shown up in a significant enough place for the press to cover it.

From listening to some talks on Monday, it wasn’t clear that Make America Safe Again was actually supposed to include foreign policy. Climate Change mitigation, adaptation, and suffering are important world topics. Only by world action with US participation can the climate change problems be effectively attacked. The increasing damage and costs expected from climate change due to floods, droughts, sea level rise, tropical diseases, heat waves, dying forests, forest fires, etc. should fall under the topics of our security. The Pentagon projection of wars due to climate change should have been addressed. It is said that future wars may occur over the availability of water. Even Trump’s charge that the Climate Change issue is a Chinese plot (not believable) should be addressed under our foreign policy toward China. Yesterday, climate scientists said that 2016 is on track to become the hottest year on record.

On Tuesday’s Make America Safe Again day, stopping Climate Change with increases in clean energy should provide many new jobs in these industries. Energy production is a local industry, and you cannot ship energy in from foreign sources. There are opportunities in the installation of solar facilities in home and commercial sites, as well as in energy production facilities. Some solar cells are still made in the US. Installation of wind turbines is also a growing industry. The production of electric cars, electric hybrids, and more efficient gasoline engines are growing industries. The production of electric car batteries and household batteries is just beginning to grow. Upgrading old buildings to increase energy efficiency and building more efficient new ones is a growing industry.

Unfortunately, the Grand Old Party is trying to concentrate its efforts on OLD. It is trying to go back to polluting coal plants, violating its commitments to the principal of a free market economy, which is replacing coal plants with cheaper and much cleaner natural gas plants.

Today is Make America First Again day, and the party should address our international commitments under the Paris agreements to do our part to be a leader in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and aiding other countries with our technology to accomplish this. The party can also reemphasize its policy of pursuing nuclear reactors, although it does not usually acknowledge their roles as continuous, clean energy sources.

## Chris Christie, the Republican Convention, and the Blatant Disregard for Due Process

Chris Christie, the Republican Convention, and the Blatant Disregard of Due Process

Most of the speakers at the Republican convention and the delegates have seriously violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing due process of law. They are demanding jail and in some cases trial for their Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton on charges about her email server or Benghazi, ignoring that she has already been cleared of such charges.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has been involved in over 3,000 court cases. The fraud suit against him on Trump University has, fortunately for him, been delayed until after the election, by a judge that Trump has called biased due to his parents country of origin, Mexico. Trump has been accused of refusing to pay contractors, of fleecing investors in now defunct housing projects, and in his many bankrupt hotels. I hesitate to think of how many cases he has argued in tax court, since none of his tax records in the last 18 years has been released.

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey since 2010, was former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 2002 through 2008. He was appointed by President George W. Bush, back in the day when the Senate was still fulfilling its Constitutional role to appoint judges. Christie has his J.D. From the distinguished Seton Hall University School of Law. As a lawyer, an attorney general, and a governor, he well knows that you do not violate due process by indicting a person in public, especially on charges that have already been dismissed, and especially not to further your future candidacy for the presidency at a political convention. Yet in his ambition, he carried out such a witch trial against the opposing Democratic candidate.

This kind of purging and arresting of political opponents is decried when dictators around the world do it. It occurs under Putin, except by murder, is occurring in Egypt, and is currently being done in an enormous scale in Turkey.

Several circumstances compound his violation of due process. The most blatant is that following his rejection as Trump’s Vice President, he is being mentioned as a possible appointee as Attorney General in Trump’s cabinet. Does he really think that the Democratic Senators who must consent won’t remember this speech?

The next factor is Bridgegate. While Christie has not been implicated or charged in this, his career has been effectively terminated by unfair questions of his involvement or future charges. This made him an unlikely choice in the primaries. It may have weighed against his being chosen as Trump’s VP. Christie now knows full well what happens when you are unfairly denied the protection of due process and of being innocent until proven guilty.

Most of the speakers, and many of the delegate chants in the Republican convention, are ignoring the protection of the due process clauses. Of course, this is hypocrisy by the Republicans who love to tout that they are the party which will uphold the Constitution.

The anti-Hillary emphasis of the convention is also their main campaign focus, in order to ignore the widespread dislike of Trump and his policies. Almost nobody is touting the few policies of Trump that we know about, because they are so unpopular. Policies to Make America Safe Again and for Jobs are not known in detail, and change weekly anyway.

## Prof. Martin Wattenberg of UCI on Trump’s Convention Bid

Prof. Martin Wattenberg of UCI on Trump’s Convention Bid

Political Science Prof. Martin Wattenberg of UCI gave an Osher Lifelong Learning Class at UCI on Republican Conventions and on the Trump Republican Convention of 2016.

In recent years, convention coverage by the three major networks has been limited to 24 hours. Conventions are more likely to be watched by older adults, and less likely to be watched by youth. The same is true for the nightly news programs, for debates, for voting participation, and for acceptance speeches. (After watching the C-Span live coverage on the first day, with its repetitiveness of emails and Bengazi, and chants of USA, Jail Hillary, etc., I can see the reason why. The cable networks decided that their commentators were more interesting than the actual convention speakers. It seems to me that the convention speakers are definitely under rating the intelligence of the delegates.) People like to watch debates, since they want to see if there are any “crashes”.

Wattenberg showed us videos of earlier Republican conventions where delegates actually chose the candidate. Speeches were actually allowed that challenged policies or candidates.

A Democratic McGovern Fraser committee in 1980 converted the partial voting delegate system to pure Conventions at 24% and Primaries at 76%. In the next election it was decided to bring back party leaders as Super delegates to give peer review to the choices.

For Republicans, they should add Superdelegates and get rid of winner-take-all primaries to eliminate dominance by a candidate like Trump.

Trump’s approach was to “be outrageous” in order to manipulate media coverage. He has been getting more positive media coverage than others.

Marty predicted that Trump would lose the election, and Republicans lose the Senate and possibly the House too. (Since he is an experienced student of politics, I give this a lot of importance.) His guess was the Clinton would win the election by something like 57% to 43%. When the final polls show this split, he expects a low voter turnout.

He said that the Quinnipac poll, which shows Trump in the lead, doesn’t follow the best polling standards. (The other polls, except for Fox News, all show Clinton in the lead. There is usually a post-convention boost.)

Prof. Wattenberg is co-author of a standard textbook “Government in America, People, Politics, and Policy”. He also authored “Is Voting for Young People”.

Wattenberg worked on the importance of TV and of media and momentum, starting with the Iowa primary.

In looking at the upcoming campaign, Wattenberg argues that Trump is not good in the debates, as seen in the Republican debates. He has a lack of knowledge. Clinton has much better organization. An estimate was that Clinton’s campaign was at 55% of preparation, while Trump’s was at 5%.   One media source called all 50 state Trump centers, and only six of them answered.  Clinton has better surrogates to campaign for her than Trump has.

He summarized that Trump has zero chance of winning.

## Director Comey’s Testimony Essentially Clears Clinton

Director Comey’s testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reveals an amazing decrease in the seriousness of the secrecy violation by Secretary Clinton.  None of Clinton’s emails that she received was labeled secret or even classified in the header, where it was required.

Only three of her email receipts were marked as classified with the symbol (C), but it was only in the body of the message.  The correct procedure would have been to use classified in the header.  The (C) in the middle of the text meant that just that section was classified.

Clinton was supposed to have known that the other messages of the 110 were classified or secret or top secret, based on the nature of the message.

So when Secretary Clinton said that she did not handle classified emails, if she just looked at the headers, she would be totally accurate.

I know some people are very careful to look at their emails, and read each completely, and delete those that they do not need to keep.  I am not that way.  I only read an email if the header and sender tell me that the email might be important.  I only delete those that are clearly dangerous phishing.

As Rep. Lieu of California pointed out, every member of Congress receives a security clearance, and is allowed to keep their emails on a private email server.  He said it is hypocritical to be sitting in the Congress and criticizing Secretary Clinton for doing the same thing that congressmen do.

## The Background to Secrecy Discussions

The Background to Secrecy Discussions

According to the Washington Post, 1.4 million Americans have Top Secret clearance. Another 3.5 million have lower clearances. With a total of 4.9 million, and a population of 320 million, this is 1.5% of Americans.

According to 60 minutes, Edward Snowden took 1.7 million top secret classified documents. He leaked 200,000 to journalists while he was in Hong Kong, which is a part of China. He is now in Moscow.

Material is not originally classified, but users judge what falls into the guidelines, and then it becomes classified. There are over 2 million secrets, which I take it to mean subjects that are secret. There is a massive over classification from people being overly cautious. It is estimated that 50% to 90% could be released from their classification.

A source claimed that some documents are labeled top secret just to get people to look at them.

President Obama has stated that there are top secret, and then really top secret.

Clinton’s cell phone was a Blackberry, which is the most secure cell phone used by businesses and government. President Obama uses a Blackberry. Members of Congress use Blackberrys, but they are about to give them up.

Critics have said that her servers could be hacked, but the FBI, which could have detected such hacking, did not claim that they were hacked. In my naïve knowledge, hackers end up as lines in the log file, and leave a record. Standard security software can find virus software, and that was not found either, as far as disclosed.

The upcoming questioning of the head of the FBI, James Comey, by Congress looks very political when you contrast the 8 top secret threads of Secretary Clinton, versus the 1.7 million that Snowden walked away with, of which he has decrypted and made public a vast amount.

When you think of the huge amount that Snowden had access to versus Clinton’s 110, most just at the classified level, why would a hacker waste time with the piddling amount Clinton had, compared to the computers that Snowden had access to.

As far as the public knows, Snowden was only supposed to be working on the computer systems. Why did he have decryption software? He wasn’t supposed to be accessing the information in the files. Or, was a large amount not encrypted?

The really amazing number, is that the Secretary of State ONLY had 8 top secret threads, with few messages. Does this mean that almost all of the top secret messages were correctly accessed on her office computer with the State Department system? Or, were they printed out by aides and just presented to her? More likely, they were previewed and digested by aides, with only summaries presented to her, as any well organized executive would have done.

Let us not forget that there might be some tension between the FBI and the State Department from the case of Robert Hanssen. He daily carried secret documents between the FBI and the State Department, from 1995 to 2001. He was a spy for Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. Hanssen also attended monthly meetings of the FBI’s National Security Division, where counterintelligence and counterterrorist cases were discussed. He started spying for the KGB in 1985.

## Can Trump Fairly Appoint Judges or Supreme Court Justices?

Can Trump Fairly Appoint Judges or Supreme Court Justices?

The latest kerfuffle caused by the incorrect meeting between President Clinton and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch raises similar questions about Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been involved in 3500 court cases of people suing him or his companies, and of him suing people and companies. These cases must involve hundreds of judges. Furthermore, Trump is from New York. Many past Supreme Court Justices have come from the New York area, having trained at Harvard or Yale Law. This is where Trumps’ company is headquartered. All of these may provide grounds for judges to disqualify themselves from cases that could involve Trump’s administration or its policies. Even judges in the New York area that have read accounts of his cases in the press or heard about them in the media might have to disqualify themselves.

Clearly there would be conflicts of interest if Trump nominated any judges that ruled favorably or treated him favorably in his or his company’s case. On the other hand, his exclusion of any judges that ruled against him or were considered as having treated him unfairly would also be undemocratic and considered a violation of judicial ethics. The justices should be evaluated on their knowledge and experience on the bench, or as judicial experts or law professors.

In the particular case of the Trump University lawsuits, Trump claim that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel was Mexican and therefore is or must be prejudiced against him because he was going to build a wall on the Mexican border, (not to mention deport 11 million illegal immigrants, half of which are from Mexico.). Trump did not mention that the judge was born in Indiana, and Trump was carrying over his parents’ heritage to him. Actually, Judge Curiel did treat Trump fairly in postponing the case until after the election. The FBI investigation into Clinton’s email server did not grant her such a favorable exemption.

Trump’s charge against Judge Curiel shows that if Trump’s administration loses any cases in federal court or in the Supreme Court, he will claim that it was because the judges or Supreme Court Justices are prejudiced against him.  He will not be able to understand that they result because he does not understand the constitution of the United States.

Lets look at issues or countries where Trump could claim that justices had to be excluded because of a conflict with his extreme policies. Clearly any justice with a Hispanic name would be excluded. Because of his misogynistic statements and policies, he would also exclude any women justices, or any justices whose parents might have included a woman, since they would be prejudiced against him.. Trump also has argued with the Pope, meaning he could rule out any Catholic justices who, in his mind, might resent his argument with the Pope. Four of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. Trump is also going to exclude Muslims from entering the US, and monitor those here. Any lawyers who’s heritage comes a from Muslim country would be excluded from Trump’s appointments.

Today, after most of this article was written, Trump tweeted an anti-Clinton add showing a background of cash, and a red Jewish Star of David.   It was replaced two hours later with a red circle.  Trump must explain how this unmistakable and ancient anti-Semitic slur came to be used.  If not in Trump himself, it shows the presence in his political organization of a definite anti-Semitic stripe.

Trump has claimed that China has been taking jobs by unfair trading, and that global warming is a Chinese plot, which, in his mind, eliminates judges of Chinese heritage. Trump has also criticized Japan and South Korea, eliminating many other justices of Asian heritage. If Trump picked a Justice of German or Scottish and therefore U.K. heritage, he would be accused of prejudice to his own heritage.

Candidate Trump has already stated that he would not nominate a Vice President who was a woman or a minority, calling it pandering. He may have a similar attitude toward justices. Since this probably excludes 60% of Americans, it violates the tradition that justices should just be nominated on the basis of knowledge and judicial qualifications. It also shows extreme misogyny and racial prejudice, and raises the question of whether any Democratic Senators should vote for confirmation of his nominations, since they have been selected on a prejudiced basis, even if the nominee is qualified. Trump also plans to choose a Supreme Court Justice based on the extreme conservativeness of the judges’ views and rulings, which also violates the precedent and traditional approval of justices without screening them on party or particular issues or rulings.. This also makes the appointments highly political. So far, Trump has only accepted advice from very conservative groups. Since Trump changes policies daily, as he eventually learns something about a subject, and receives public reaction, he is the last person who should require justices with fixed judicial views.

We conclude that Trump cannot make any nomination of judges or Supreme Court Justices without being accused of extreme prejudice. His choices would be sharply questioned by the Senate, by the American Bar Association, by media legal commentators, and by law professors. Trump should instead defer to a committee appointed by the American Bar Association to nominate judges and Supreme Court Justices . This committee would be broadly representative of American law schools, and of the cultural, racial, and religious sectors of America.

## UK Exports and Imports, from EU and non-EU regions

UK Exports and Imports, from EU and non-EU regions.

We give a view into the worldwide distribution of UK exports and imports. The EU countries are separated since they will need new negotiations, and may be most affected by BRexit.
We use data in billions of British Pounds, for 2014.

Imports were 199 (47%) from non-EU, and 222 (53%) from the EU for a total of 421.

Exports were 164 (53%) from non-EU, and 147 (47%) from the EU for a total of 310.5.

The order of regions of export and import were remarkably similar, and will be listed by their ordering of imports. The order of EU countries were also similar, except for the Irish Republic, and will also be listed by their ordering of imports to the EU.

It’s expected with the dropping British Pound, that it will be easier for the UK to export products, and more costly to import products.

Worldwide Regions for Imports and Exports in Billions of British Pounds:

World Region:   Imports Non-EU;…… Exports Non-EU
Total Non-EU ……………………199…………… 164

Asia and Oceania……………….. 80…………….. 50
North America…………………… 44…………….. 44
W. Europe non-EU…………….. 34…………….. 29
Middle East and N. Africa…… 15.3…………… 18.6
Sub Saharan Africa…………….. 10.5……………. 6.9
Eastern Europe……………………. 7.8……………. 6.4
Latin America………………………………………….. 5.1

EU Countries for Imports and Exports in Billions of British Pounds:

Country:           Imports from;           Exports to
Total EU……………………. 222………………… 147

Germany…………………….. 60…………………. 31.6
Netherlands………………… 32…………………. 22.3
France………………………… 25…………………. 19.7
Belgium………………………. 21.6………………. 12.6
Italy……………………………. 16.7………………… 8.8
Spain………………………….. 13.3………………… 8.8
Irish Republic……………… 11.8……………….. 17.8
Poland…………………………. 7.7…………………. 3.8
Sweden………………………… 7.6…………………. 5.5

We note that there is a net negative balance of payments with each non-EU region, except for North America, where imports and exports are about equal.  The net non-EU balance of payments is a negative 65 billion pounds.

We not that there is similarly a net negative balance of payments with the leading EU countries, except for the Irish Republic, where there is a net positive 6 billion Pound balance of payments.  The net EU balance of payments is a  negative 75 billion Pounds.

The total balance of payments is a negative 140 billion Pounds.

Of course, I have to add California’s trade relation to Britain.  In 2014, California exported $5 billion to Britain, which was our 10th largest export country. For imports to California, Britain ranked 17th with$3.8 billion.  Britain had the largest number of visitors to California, second to China, with 686,000, spending $905 million. Thanks to the LA Times for this data. Posted in BRexit, Economies | Leave a comment ## Comparison of World, EU, the U. K., and US GDPs Comparison of World, EU, the U. K., and US GDPs. We provide and compare the GDPs of leading world countries, and leading countries of the EU, with respect to that of the U. K.. We also compare the GDPs scaled by the value of goods in terms of dollars, or the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) values. Since the PPP is scaled to dollars, the US GDP and PPP are always the same. We use mostly International Monetary Fund (IMF) data for 2015. Starting at the top, the World’s GDP is$73.2 trillion (t). All numbers given are in trillion dollars. The top three entities are the US at $17.9, the EU at$17.0, and China at $11.0, but China has the largest PPP at$19.4. The next largest PPPs are India with $7.97 ($2.09 GDP), and Japan with $4.83 ($4.12 GDP). The next largest PPPs which are not in the EU, are Russia at $3.72 ($1.33 GDP), and Brazil at $3.19 ($1.78 GDP).  A bagel chart of the World’s GDP contributions is taken from Wikipedia.

Now we switch to the EU GDPs, which total $17.0. The largest is Germany at$3.36 ($3.84 PPP), then the UK at$2.85 ($2.68 PPP), France at$2.42 ($2.65 PPP), Italy at$1.82 ($2.17 PPP), and Spain at$1.20 ($1.62 PPP). The sum of the top 5 GDPs of the EU is$11.7 or 69% of the total. For the PPP, the top 5 EU total is $13.0. The percentage of EU GDP by the UK is 17%. A pie chart of the contributions to the EU GDP from the IMF is below. Since we are reporting from California, we show where this would fit if it were a country. California’s GDP and PPP are$2.42. In terms of GDP it would be tied for sixth with France. In terms of PPP it would be 11 th. Comparing its PPP to that of EU countries, it would be fourth. Of the US GDP of $17.9, California’s GDP is 13.5%, or about one seventh. Of US states, Texas is second with a GDP of$1.65, and New York is third with \$1.44.

## Comparison of the U. K.’s, European Union’s, and US Populations

Comparison of UK, European Union, and US Populations

Many of us know the UK for their Royalty and history, their wonderful collection of artifacts in the British Museum, their accents, their actors, Downton Abbey, the Beatles, their habit of piling stones in circles, the Rolling Stones, etc. We have no notion of their population or economics. I am just going to provide some of these boring population numbers in comparison to the European Union (EU) and the US to get a feel for their size. The next article will report on the GDP comparisons.

I was surprised to learn that the UK population is 65 million, compared to the US population of 324 million, so they are 20% of the US population. I was also surprised to learn that they are essentially tied with the population of France at 64 million. We are also admirable of France with their great history, monuments, cuisine, museums, culture, nearly unpronounceable language, tourism, and long vacations.

In fact, all of the venerable historical and cultural countries of the EU have similarly smaller populations compared to the US. Here are the top six in population: Germany, 81 million; UK, 65 million; France, 64 million; Italy, 63 million; Spain, 46 million; and Poland, 39 million.

The total of the top 6 is 358 million. The total population of the 28 countries in the EU is 508 million, so the top 6 have 70% of the total. The total of the top 5 is comparable to the population of the US.  The U.K.  has 12.8% of the EU population, or about an eighth. The US has 64% of the population of the EU.

Comparing the UK to the US, and to California with its population of 37 million, and Texas with its population of 25 million, the U.K.  slightly beats the combined population of California and Texas with 62 million.

Even if Scotland soon departs from the UK  in order to remain in the EU, it only takes away 5.3 million from its’ population.