If Donald Trump is nothing else, he's an American brand. The Trump name adorns luxury condominiums, hotels and golf courses around the world; it has sold a TV show, millions of books, a line of cologne and even, briefly, an airline.

And that brand, according to new data published here in Politico Magazine for the first time, is taking a major hit in the wake of his presidential campaign.

SNIP

But as Trump the candidate has ascended, hitting the top of the polls and staying there thanks to a series of controversial statements and a groundswell of Republican populist support, the opposite has happened to Trump the brand: Among the people Trump's business depends on--the consumer making over $100,000 a year--the value of the Trump name is collapsing.

A December survey of American consumer opinion, fielded by the BAV Consulting division of advertising and marketing giant Young & Rubicam (and the largest and longest running study of brands in the world), found that since Donald Trump's run for president, the Trump brand has lost the confidence of the people who can afford to stay at one of his hotels, play at one of his country clubs or purchase a home in one of his developments. It is also rapidly losing its association with the gilded traits Trump has long promoted as the essence of his business.

In categories such as "prestigious," "upper class" and "glamorous" the Trump name has plummeted among high-income consumers. Within the same group, it is also losing its connection with the terms "leader," "dynamic" and "innovative"--quite a blow for a man who criticizes others for being "low energy" and considers himself an industry trailblazer. The brand has been a survey subject for BAV Consulting's regular surveys for over a decade and has never before experienced such a precipitous drop in reputation. It's the kind of change that usually follows a big corporate scandal, like a product recall or financial misconduct. But in Trump's case it's a man's personality that is in play.

Linked article with email chain pdf.

There is of course the collateral issue in which he referred to Hillary Clinton getting a spanking - his euphemism for voter's expressing their disapproval. This is obviously beyond the pale. It so sexist and misogynistic. The lowest.
He will probably be taken to task for it... One hopes.

But I am more interested in a national dialogue about smacking little children to "learn 'em".

It is a some what one sided legal analysis of the recent FAA requirements to register RC pilots.  It does seem clear the the paperwork simplification act prohibits rules or regulations of hobby aircraft, in fact those are the exact words used.

On the other hand there does seem to be a need for some type of control over the small number of crazies flying these RC platforms.

"Secretary Clinton says that Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the financial crisis because shadow banks like AIG and Lehman Brothers, not big commercial banks, were the real culprits. Secretary Clinton is wrong. Shadow banks did gamble recklessly, but where did that money come from? It came from the federally insured bank deposits of big commercial banks -- something that would have been banned under the Glass-Steagall Act."

-- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), speech on Wall Street and the economy, Jan. 5, 2016

SNIP

We can find little support for Sanders's statement that Glass-Steagall banned commercial banks from making loans to investment banking firms to facilitate their trading in the shadow-banking arena. Indeed, the two examples he cited did not fail because of loans received by commercial banks, according to the exhaustive government-sponsored investigation of the crisis. Indeed, in the case of AIG, the problems largely stemmed from a law that Sanders himself supported.

On a broader level, Sanders would be on more solid ground to argue that the commingling of investment and commercial banking functions permitted by the 1999 partial repeal allowed the growth of megabanks such as Citigroup that exacerbated the crisis. The observation of Rickards, the former hedge fund general counsel, that such shadow-bank loans routinely required Fed permission before the 1999 law is also instructive -- though Rickards also says the 2000 law that Sanders supported was an important factor in the crisis.

We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchio. But this was a prepared -- and important -- speech by Sanders. So it's essential to get the facts straight.

This game reminds me a little bit of the 2013 Title Game where the Notre Dame defense didn't give up rushing TD's during the season, and on Alabama's opening drive the Crimson Tide pounded it on the ground right into the endzone. It was all downhill for the Irish the rest of the way with Bama winning 42-14.

Tonight it's the other side. Clemson will have to find a way to get through Alabama which has the best defense in college football. If they can't break through that Alabama defensive front early it could be a long night for Clemson.

Why would the number 2 team in the country be a 7 point favorite over an undefeated Clemson? The SEC set a record with 8 Bowl Game wins this year going 8-2 while the ACC went a mediocre 4-5. That has no actual bearing on tonight's game, but it does explain why the gamblers around the world see Alabama cruising to a win.

Still hard to watch when you start believing the hype and think Houston will at least be competitive.  They were not, but I think the Chiefs are the best team int he AFC.

Steelers 18 - Bengals 16
Good game, but the up until Saturday I liked the Bengals, but between the debacle that lost the game and the fans throwing stuff and cheering at Roethlisberger being carted out, the fans and team showed zero class and deserved to lose.  They simply acted like a bunch of douche bags and it cost them the game IMO.

Funny how Adam Jones became Pacman Jones after he shoved a Steelers coach.  He also took to twitter and did exactly what one would think Pacman Jones would do, profanity laden rant about the refs.

Seahawks 10 - Vikings 9
Another good game fought in the 3rd coldest game ever, minus 5 at kickoff.  It bothered me to no end how everyone was saying MN has the cold weather advantage, seriously, they normally play in a dome, but played at the Gophers stadium this year, which until Sunday was not even close to being cold for any of their home games.

Neither team was ready for below zero temps and the play showed it, but I cannot express how tired I am of Seattle catching breaks to win.  It's turning into heir forte, not that they don't have a good team, but many of their clinch wins are due to things they do not control, like a missed 27 yard field go.

Plus the whole Lynch thing is weird, the guy is ready to go, practices all week, then last minute he says he is not, then he doesn't travel with the team.  Sounds like Lynch knows where he will play next year, anywhere not called Seattle.

Packers 35 - Redskins 18
God dang was it was good so see the Pack offense playing well, haven't seen that in about 6 weeks.

The skins played as well as expected from the winner of the NFC East.  It's why I can't get excited by the Pack, they are in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they can compete with the Big Dogs, Carolina & Arizona.  They can't so while they walk away with a win, next week they play a team that beat them 38-8 3 weeks ago.

The Skins were simply over matched and now they move forward with out RG3.  I think the teams that gets him will have a world class QB.  Griffen was throw into the injury grinder last year when the team interests outweighed RB3's need to heal.  This is what he left in his locker, class all the way.
-------------------

Next week predictions, two teams will lose, GB and Seattle.  I can't see the Chiefs losing to the Pats.  If Manning is on, which is not a guarantee, Denver will win, if he's not there, I don't know that Osweiler can get the job done unless Roethlisberger is out.  If he is Pitt might as well stay home.

Now mama affluenza is claiming she is broke, her bond was reduce from a million to $75,000.  I was thinking that they might try the same defense, but it seems after the divorce, she and her son no longer suffer from being too rich to know better.

Wonder where the $30k they took with them came from or where it is now.  Surely they didn't spend it in their limited time in Mexico.

I also why they are fighting extradition for the son.  A mexican jail would be my last choice of places to be considering they can't really do much to him when he gets back, but put him in jail for a bit, probably as long as he is going to sit in jail in Mexico, a couple months.

LINK

And I watched the Gators in a few.

Hope no one went to bed early or you missed 40 points scored in the 4th quarter.

Clemson played their hearts out only to get put away by a little Alabama trickery on a kickoff (the best onside kick I've ever seen), a kick return for TD by the backup running back, and two TD's by a Tight End that hadn't scored a TD in 2 years.

Eastern Oregon citizens and law enforcement officials alike say the Bundyites are purposely escalating, in order to provoke a response from the feds. It seems the town folk are sick of "these thugs" and want them to knock it off and go home.

Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina have missed the cut and slide back to the undercard with Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.