Political S&T

First, a short discussion on the complex issue of contraceptive insurance in the implementation of the Federal health care bill. We have opined on this issue as long ago as 2009: contraceptive insurance needs to be a part of the standard package of health care insurance available to all Americans. Reduction of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and all the attendant effects; these benefits make contraceptive insurance a public policy necessity.

With the Obama Administration's concession last week that religiously-sponsored hospitals and universities would not have to contribute to these offerings, it is hard to find exactly what basis they would have to continue to oppose the policy. Insurers will instead pay for them--it probably was fairly easy for the insurers to calculate and confirm to the Federal health administrators that the cost to the medical system would be lower by paying for these features, than for the alternatives. Any opposition from the religious community is based on sheer bloody-mindedness: they would oppose contraception for anyone, and rather than allowing people to make the choice whether to use birth control, they would block it for all. For me, the only question was whether the contraceptive rider should be free to those who choose it, but apparently its economics pay for itself.

That being the case, it is pretty hard to find the justification for opposing the policy on the grounds of expanding personal freedom, or on the grounds of opposition to abortion, either. The ship has sailed on allowing people access to contraception (some 50 years ago); I see this issue fading pretty quickly, as the petty disputes about whether the "morning-after" pill constitutes abortion will hardly be compelling.

The Santorum Blip

Rick Santorum pulled off a couple of big upsets over Mitt Romney last week in Republican votes in heartland states. In terms of delegate strategy, the losses by Romney were not serious, but they did re-open--once again--the battle for control of the nomination contest, or at least for perception of its control. Romney had taken command with an impressive win in Florida, but his strategists gave a low importance to the contests in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, leaving an opening for Santorum, who won all three.

As has been the case in the past, the show of strength by a Romney challenger in individual states immediately translated into a dramatic change in the national surveys of Republicans. All of a sudden, Santorum is polling about equal with Romney nationally. Romney still has a big advantage in every strategic sense: more money, better organization, and more delegates than all his opponents combined; however, the party's primary voters remain unconvinced of his inevitability. As long as that remains true, his nomination is not, in fact, inevitable, even if every Republican campaign in living memory suggests otherwise.

But, if you were to ask me if Rick Santorum is the man who can win it--my reaction would still be to say: 1) impossible; and 2) if only!

Electoral Strategy Fakes
I am suspicious of either party disclosing strategy at this early stage: what they say may have some validity, but the real strategic decisions are yet to be made.

A good example is the "Road Map to Victory" I received from the Obama campaign recently. It has some good information, for example, the number of electoral votes each state has, and their early assessment that they believe they can start with all the states John Kerry won in 2004, totalling (after the 2010 Census) 246 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed.

They then offer four "paths" to get to the required number, or just beyond. The first is the West Path, featuring CO, NM, and NV--what they don't say is that they slipped IA in there to get to 272. They are more straightforward with the Midwest Path: add OH and IA to the Kerry states, and you get exactly 270 (hey, what about the Omaha Congressional district in NE, which Obama won in 2008?) The South Path requires just NC and VA, plus Kerry, to get to 274, though I think that the whole NC play (which includes having the party convention in Charlotte) is a head fake. Finally, the Expansion Path adds to the West Path the state of AZ--a longshot if Obama doesn't get Gaby Giffords campaigning actively for the ticket, which I think is a lot to ask of her--and, once again, IA, but has quietly backed out the Kerry states of NH and PA to land at 272.

The bottom line on these strategies: add PA to the critical states of focus I identified last year--VA, NV, OH, and IA (and take NH off the list if it's Romney). FL and MO are missing from these strategies, which is disappointing, as both have close Senate races critical for the Democrats if they are to hold any kind of majority. This strategy discloses the long-term plan of building organizations in key states--CO, IA, VA, NM, NV, OH, etc.--to make the strategic position one of strength, forcing the Republicans to counter in these and miss opportunities that may exist elsewhere. As such, it is true as far as it goes, but I think there are some alternatives remaining undisclosed (such as a late Super PAC bombing run in FL, now that Romney has shown how well that works and that the Obama campaign has reluctantly conceded they will need to go the S-PAC route).

As for the Republicans, the word is that the real strategy will be discussed only among the elites--the big money givers, Congressmen, party national committee--and anything that's out there in public is not the real strategy. This I can believe; I also think that Karl Rove is going to be right in the war room, calling the shots. Given the weakness of their eventual Presidential candidate, whether he be Tea Partier, Bushite, or Salamander, their real strategy has to be to hope for a Democratic blunder and dig in, throwing big money into closely contested Congressional races.

Tactical Investment
My friend Norman Goldman (.com), speaking on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio the other night, was referring to the secret Republican strategy, which he described (and I paraphrase) as bailing on this Presidential race, holding Congressional losses to a minimum and planning for Chris Christie for 2016. He concluded that the appropriate response for progressives was to put their money into House and Senate races this year, as Obama's re-election feels assured to him.

With all due respect to Norm's acumen, though, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, the battle for control of Congress may end up being the one that keeps us up late on Election Night; however, I think the shortest route to success in that battle is an Obama victory of landslide proportions. We need to run the score up like the 49ers in those '90s Super Bowls (Norm, it was Denver they beat 55-10!); only that will carry the Democrats through in some of the House races that would otherwise lean Republican, and those very tight Senate races in swing states (NM, NV, WI, FL, MO, VA being examples).

I think the Obama Road Map is fine for showing where the ground game will be fought and won, but the battle for Congress will be an air war, battled with the big money on the air waves, and I see it focused in three states where the Republicans and their 2010 Congressional gains will be vulnerable: PA, OH, and FL.

If you're a little guy like me, your money isn't going to make the difference in these field of fire ordnance saturation encounters. After I make a single contribution to each of the big 5--Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, the Democrati Governors' Association, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--each with my own plea for campaign reform after this election cycle, mind you--I will keep my powder dry for tactical contributions down the stretch in selected campaigns, and I may make myself available for some volunteer work in my beloved New Mexico. More on this later.

S.B. Sunday Sports Report

Today, of course, is Stupid Bowl Sunday; the trick will be finding enough things to do so that we do not sit around watching the endless pregame, postgame, and during-game blathering. I'm hopeful that my son's Sunday tennis practice will go on as usual; that would keep me busy driving back and forth--I can still catch some of the telecast if the game is engaging enough.

The usual pattern is for a tense first quarter as each team tries and fails to establish a running game, then some key turnovers or big passing plays setting the stage for one team taking a significant lead, with the trailing team becoming gradually more desperate, and the leading team's blitzes becoming more all-out, leading to blowout conditions. This is certainly a possibility for tonight's game, but I'm hopeful that whichever team ends up trailing will keep its cool, as both certainly have the capability to score in bunches.

Though the betting favorite is New England, there is big money coming in for the New Jersey Giants: the point spread has shortened since the opening line, and many of the "experts" are predicting the mild upset, which would be a repeat of the huge upset Eli Manning and the Giants pulled against the Patriots four years ago, when they were seeking to achieve only the second undefeated NFL championship season in history (after the '73 Dolphins). The Giants also won a closely-contested regular season game with the Patriots during the regular season last fall. What I find to have little merit is the argument that the Giants have the momentum coming into tonight's game: the Patriots have a ten-game win streak, during which they have sometimes shown the ability to score at will.

My prediction is for a high-scoring game: possibly some early scores leading to a wide-open second half, or just a lot of late-game heroics from both sides. I will go with a score which will win me the office pool, NE 30, NJ 28. With this score the Pats would fail to cover the 3-point spread, but the teams would surpass the over/under line of 54 (see below for a--by now, too late to be useful--analysis of the final digits of teams' final scores in past Super Bowls).

One thing is certain: tonight's game featuring two of the teams with the largest fan bases, representing large TV markets, will get great ratings. Regardless of the S.B. outcome, the NFL is to be congratulated on fully satisfactory season, recovering from the threat of disaster with the preseason lockout. Give the owners credit--and I basically hate their guts, all of them--they gave ground in time and got a good agreement, which the players seem not to have accepted.

Chelsea-Man U.
Tonight's American football game would need to do a lot to reach the emotional excitement of this morning's English football game from Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium--televised on Fox's regular network, with (intense Arsenal fan) Piers Morgan coming over from CNN to help out with the broadcast.

The teams have had a great rivalry in the last decade, often decisive in the Premier League competition, and sometimes even in the Champions League; each has suffered rare home losses at the hands of their opponent (Chelsea, for example, lost a key Champions League game at home last spring, probably cooking the goose of last year's coach), and most of their games have been close ones (the Champions League final in Moscow four years ago being an example: Chelsea lost in penalty kicks when John Terry slipped while taking his shot).

This week's game had all the hoopla but a little less at stake: Chelsea fell off the pace with a shaky spell late last fall, while Manchester United has so far been outplayed by its crosstown rival, Manchester City, whose surge of expensive player purchases has finally paid off this year with a solid team getting more than its share of good fortune. Man U. needed a win to get back to a virtual tie with "City", while Chelsea needed not to lose to hang onto fourth place (fourth being the critical dividing line at season's end between those teams getting a place in the Champions League and those in the second-level Europa competition).

The game had three distinct phases, something like the S.B. experience I described above. The first third of the game was scoreless, with Chelsea tentative and Man U. unable to use its ball possession to do much, either. The second third--bridging both sides of the halftime break--was all Chelsea: first, an "own goal" (going off a defender) set up by superior ball control by Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge. (His move--pushing it along the end line, which eliminates the possibility of an offsides call, then centering the ball backwards at close range toward teammates and defenders--has been producing a lot of these own goals recently.)

Then, after the half, Chelsea scored two brilliant goals: the first off a wonderful cross from Fernando Torres with a well-timed volley from the back post by Juan Mata, the best of Chelsea's additions this season. Torres has been struggling to score, but partly that is because he draws a big crowd of defenders, and he used that effectively to create a wide space for Mata to convert the perfect pass. The third goal was a free kick by Mata headed in by David Luiz.

Some may have thought that 3-0 lead with 30 minutes left was a safe one, but I knew better. Man U. applied the pressure and was rewarded with two penalty kicks in the next 15 minutes, both converted by arch-foe Wayne Rooney, the second penalty award being a faulty call by the referee. (Why does Man U. always get awarded the penalty kicks, and their opponents, never?) Their third goal, with 10 minutes left, was well-earned, badly defended, and converted by Chicharrito--Javier Hernandez of Mexico--the most recently-acquired and deadliest of Man U.'s many weapons. The last 10 minutes were wild and woolly, Chelsea's ace goalie Petr Cech doing well, but Man U's De Gea making the save of the match on another Mata free kick in the last five minutes.

The 3-3 result did not fully satisfy either team--both coaches complained of the refereeing afterwards--but at least Chelsea impeded Man U's chances to retake first place, while avoiding a damaging loss. (I predicted a 2-2 score on Chelsea's website, correctly calling for goals from Rooney and Mata.) Chelsea's goals for the season are straightforward: finish no worse than 4th in the EPL, and win either the F.A. Cup or the Champions League. Man U. has been eliminated from both of those competitions, so for them it's all about winning the Premier League battle with City.

NBA Update
The players and the coaches hate the compressed, shortened regular season, but I don't share their opinion: their normal regular season is too long, too slack in terms of effort and stakes. This season there was not enough preparation and conditioning, and that combined with the concentrated weekly load of games has led to a rash of injuries, and those are having a strong influence on the battle for playoff positions.

The Miami Heat still looks to be the best team--they have now augmented their Big 3 of James-Wade-Bosh with a better supporting cast--though the best records belong to the upstart Oklahaoma City Thunder (the Durant-Westbrook axis has been dominant) and the Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose defending his MVP title well). The defending champion Dallas Mavericks have fallen off the pace as I predicted in my preseason review, and the Lakers and Celtics, who have been injury-ridden, are also underperforming. The big suprise of the early season has been the strong play of the Philadelphia 76ers; they are such a surprise that they haven't even been scheduled for national TV games thus far, so I don't have much to say about them. I will say that they destroyed our local team, the Bulls, when Chicago showed up short-handed and tired, and that they have a mix of underrated veterans (like Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand) and rising stars (like their young point guard Jrue Holliday). More healthy teams in the East is definitely a good sign for the league, so this helps make up for the disappointments from the Amare Stoudamire/Carmelo Anthony Knicks and Deron Williams' Nets.

Footnote on Super Bowl Betting Squares

A little empirical data from the history of the first 45 Super Bowls:

The winning team's last digit of the final score is well distributed: all 10 digits have at least 3 occurrences, with the leading ones being 7 (7 times), 1 and 4 (6 times) and 6 (5).
Not so the losing team digit: 2 and 8 have never occurred, and 5 only once for the losing team (last year). 7 and 0 are the winning choices for losers: the loser has had a score ending in 7 twelve times, and 0 eight times (though never a shutout).

In terms of the 55 combinations, there are 27 that have never occurred and 16 that have happened once. The leading combination is 7-4 (or 4-7) which has occurred 5 times in 45 years. Ones that have occurred 3 times are 1-5 and 0-7, and the following have occurred twice: 7-7, 6-0, 5-0, 7-3, 6-3, 4-3, 9-0, 4-1, and 7-1.

I hope this has told you all you need for me to tell you--if not, too bad! Please note I'm only looking at final scores--quarter-end odds may differ.

Money and Politics

For the most important issue emerging from the 2012 election campaign, you would search vainly in both the transcripts of the 18 (so far) Republican debates and President Obama's overly-lengthy State of the Union address this week. Also, disappointingly, nothing on the topic can be found in Esquire's "79 Things We Can All Agree On" that I discussed (see the next post down), even though it is something that a huge majority of people would agree--and I'm talking about Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling following on the 2008 campaign, swept away the campaign finance restrictions on private organizations, not affiliated with individuals' electoral campaigns. I have condemned the ruling, not so much on the legal merits (about which I don't claim to be expert) but on the horrendous impact it would have on national campaigns, which already are enormously over-expensive and with the quality of the effect of all that spending continuously deteriorating.

What I basically expect, and there is already plenty of evidence of it, is that the unlimited spending from the uncontrolled Super PAC organizations is going to produce a very strong reaction from the public. There will be a decline in turnout from usual Presidential election years because of all the negativity (and possibly from other methods the Republicans are trying to use in some states to suppress voting), but the stronger reaction will be revulsion at the sewage put on the television ads and their frequency during the general election campaign.

I see no chance at all that there will be any serious ceasefire in the money war going on this year (Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown have made a truce regarding their Senate campaign in Massachusetts, but that could easily be broken if one or the other finds things not going well under the restriction). The Super PAC's will weigh in most heavily on some of the closely-contested Senate and House races. Will the influence of negative advertising paid by outside money benefit the campaigns of its big-money backers--as it has often done in the past--or will voters recognize they are being bought and sold and produce a backlash? I am not optimistic about that, but I am hopeful that the bad taste that will remain in all of our mouths (or at least those of the districts whose stations will bombard us with poisonous gas) will lead us to speak out and purge the vitriol.

There are two main directions this reaction should take in 2013--To the Supreme Court's equating of speech with money, and of corporations having the same rights as people, the only response sufficient would be a constitutional amendment to the effect that "Corporations are not people; and only people can contribute to electoral campaigns." This will be difficult, but it needs to be established--this is the only way. When the public will is sufficiently motivated on a bipartisan basis, an amendment can be passed in months--an example being the repeal of Prohibition. There are a couple of online petitions I have seen and supported, one from Sen. Sherrod Brown and one from a group called Democracy for America and signed by Bernie Sanders. I know my Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is supporting some action. As I believe this is--and must be--a movement with bipartisan support, I will also be looking for initiatives coming from Democrats and Independents (besides Bernie) that I can support. Basically, I want to use this year to show consistently my support for change, and I expect the blowback to materialize next year, with serious debate and votes on initiatives.

Unfortunately, even a constitutional amendment will not be enough to clean up our elections. PAC's and companies could still buy time for unofficial statements on political issues that are not specifically endorsing or attacking individual candidates; these ads were already prevalent before Citizens United. There is legislation to provide for Federal financing of campaigns for Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, but I don't think it will get too far: incumbents like the advantages they have which this legislation would reduce, and libertarians don't like the idea of the government paying for elections.

What I want is the equivalent of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Elections should be reduced to a period of three months (six including the primaries), with no paid advertisement whatsoever on political topics. The television stations should be required to put the candidates on in public forums (and get paid for their time). On this issue, I am willing to support measures in the interim which offset the disastrous trend that I see, but I will not let go of it until this poison on our political system is purged.

My Donation Strategy in 2012
I ignored virtually all appeals for money last year--I'm not interested in fattening anyone's war chest, as that just makes them more eager to do battle with their money. I will not be able to lay off entirely this year, as this election is--or could be--very consequential; however, I intend that any money I give this year will be accompanied by a personal statement (there are lots of opportunities to do it) that my #1 issue is campaign financing, and that I expect the candidates I support to be in favor of humans' political expression in years to come.

Today's Primary
I've already expressed my opinions enough: I don't expect today's Florida primary to change anything. Newt, Santorum, and Paul will hang around for a longer or shorter time, possibly doing some additional damage to Romney, but I feel that the outcome is inevitable. For the record, my prediction for Florida: Romney 41, Gingrich 34, Santorum 13, Paul 11. Santorum has done pretty well and will get some sympathy vote despite this being a winner-take-all primary in which he has no chance. Paul has already moved on to Maine, a caucus state in which he believes he can score some delegates.

79 Things Upon Which "We" All Can Agree

Last week, returning from a business trip, I needed a magazine to read. Esquire had a cover with the heading "An Issue for our Divided Times" and the related cover story "Agree: Bill Clinton and 78 Other Thing We Can All Agree On".

I picked it up: I'm looking for areas to broaden the "new consensus", and ya gotta like the preposition they ended their title with(see above!) Anyway, Bill Clinton was a good choice for their theme: even Newt Gingrich, his nemesis, seems to remember Clinton fondly, and, since he got a bit older, Clinton's testosterone seems to have given him a break, releasing him from his sex addiction (or was it the open-heart surgery and the vegetarian diet that did it?), and allowed him to turn his talents wholly to worthy pursuits.

So, yeah, I read the opening interview with Bubba and the editors' promise that they would present 78 other "things that, regardless of party, region, or class, we can agree are great, lousy, true, false, beautiful, stupid, delicious, or crazy."

Alas. There wasn't much more upon which to build a political consensus. Turns out "we" are the Esquire readership--or their perception of it--which is a moderate, metrosexual, manly sliver of our society. Not that I have anything against that particular fragment; they're better than many. It's just not a sort of a "we" that one would recognize as being representative of American society.

Very little of it was political, none of it a statement as clear as their choice of Clinton. Most of it, as you'll see, was tendentious opinion about stuff that doesn't matter much or about their taste in the arts, drinking, and fashion. You'll also see that they started pretty well (put their good ones up front), then lost the thread, and then they wandered into a bunch of random short pieces they had lying around.

I'll try to categorize the other 78 (either quoted or paraphrased) in a few groups and give a little backing thought to my classification. Starting positively,

We Do/Should All Agree:
#1 Bill Clinton. see above
#5 "The electoral college should be abolished." Score one for Esquire!
#7 "Boss (on Starz) is as good as anything...on HBO." (see my recent post on that show, and note my comments on the Oscar nominations made this week)
#21 "the worst...Followed closely by the NCAA." (see #20 below, or my posts on the subject)
#22 "SNL is pretty good these days." Could've been written 25 or so of the past 35 years, but I will admit that my children have caught the bug in the last year or so.
#24 Navy Seals. OK, I get the point of this one (OBL); you need say no more.
#26 "Tina Fey is a national treasure."
#40 The National Parks.
#42 "Turkey: Also the Man." Corny line, but the sentiment is right (see #41 below, and Rick Perry should read the argument--it's short, Rick.)
#56 Bruce Springsteen. Yes; anyway, this is someone on whom everybody used to agree, 25-30 years ago.
#66 "There's no way to master all the...data in the world." They've got an article about someone who's trying to do that, and they're justifiably skeptical.
#69 "...Dr. Ralph Steinman deserved his Nobel Prize." He's the guy who died after they decided to award him, before he found out about it. No reason to penalize him just because his luck was all-time bad.
#73 "Larry Summers is an a--hole." Even Larry would agree, objectively speaking.
#75 Martin Scorsese. Probably someone doesn't like his movies; that person would probably hate all movies.

We Agree to Some Extent, That Is, I Agree:
#4 "The Sarah Palin episode in American politics is a bafflement." Yes, but I disagree that it's over.
#9 "Sooner or later, the Monday after Super Bowl must become a national holiday." The Stupid Bowl should be played every year on Feb. 13--they don't need it to be a holiday because it starts in the evening!--and Feb. 14 the men should make up for it with a holiday for their women.
#12 "Kids, Career, Marriage: In That Order." That's fine for those with kids, I guess, but that's not everybody.
#13 "Kevin Durant is the best combination of talent and personality in sports today." He's good, all right, but what about Derrick Rose?
#19 "...you can always find one area of agreement between polar opposites." Cute graphic with Venn diagrams--the best one is the intersection of Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga, being "Shoulder pads have their uses."
#23 "The United States needs an active manned space program. With its own spaceships." Well, not exclusively so, but we should have our own.
#37 "Men are Men." Dissing the trend of faddish articles about the disappearance of men; I do agree about the recent lead article "The End of Men", in The Atlantic, by a woman who led men on about commitment for most of her life and then decided it was better that she should never marry.
#41 "Mark Wahlberg is the man." I've grown to respect him since Boogie Nights.
#44 "Howard Schultz is the most interesting billionaire in America." He's OK, but there are others.
#54 "Screening for Cancer, like screening for a lot of other diseases, ain't all it's cracked up to be." The point being, what's the point of detecting if you can't do anything about it? It does absorb a lot of money, certainly.
#57 "In retrospect, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest mistakes our country has made in our lifetimes." Some of us are old enough and would argue that Vietnam was a bigger mistake (at least 5X the US deaths); and, to nitpick, the first war with Iraq was no mistake.
#58 "Most people really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a handgun."
#63 "Marijuana should be as legal as cigarettes or alcohol."
#68 Roast Chicken. Well, I like it, anyway.
#70 "There is nothing we all agree on." They give some good examples of things most, but not all, people agree about, but then why did they make this whole piece trying to argue the contrary? Because it would/might sell more magazines, surely.
#71 "We can all agree to hate a few things." They give 15 examples, and true to form, it's about 20% each for Yes/Maybe/No Way/Who Cares?/What are you talking about? This post is already too long, or I'd give examples, and Esquire hasn't put the list on its website yet.
#79 "Things are not so bad." I agree, though I don't think that many others do--but does that make the pessimists right? I'll give Esquire some credit here for arguing a minority point of view, though it's hardly the case that "we" all agree.

Totally disagree:
#3 Chris Christie owes his popularity to being fat. Quite the contrary.
#6 "Bono should sing more, talk less, and never write at all." Sure, sing, but I actually like his writing in the Times. They're jealous they didn't score him.
#10 "The Obama presidency has been a disappointment for everyone involved." I read that as meaning "for everyone" (and of course I disagree); if they mean everyone in the Administration I think they have to back that up a bit.
#11 "Even if he's accomplished more...than any of his five predecessors." That's what I was talking about!
#14 "Whoever rebranded rich people as 'job creators' should win some kind of award..." No, that person should be fired, then shot, then eaten.
#20 "Banks are the worst." My self-serving opinion: not all banks! More objectively: Insurance companies are the worst, and particularly health insurance.
#25 "Baltimore is America's next great underdog city..." I've heard some people speak well of it, but I'm not convinced of its greatness nor its uniqueness. Cleveland?
#27 "Economics isn't dismal; it's foolish." No, you are! It's not foolish to try to understand economic behavior, it's just sad that there is so little agreement about this "science"--for example, it should not be allowed for someone who calls himself an economist to say that reducing tax rates will not reduce tax revenue.
#45 "Nobody ...replaced..what the young Eddie Murphy brought to movies." Certainly it wasn't done by the older Eddie Murphy, but I do think there are claimants.
#46 "The same can probably be said for Julia Roberts." I was never a big fan, though she did a good Erin Brockovich impersonation.
#48/#49 "Everybody roots for Jennifer Anniston...and wonders why nothing...ever works out for her." I like her OK--no strong feelings--but not everyone does.
#50 "Same for Billy Joel." OK, the same for me, too, but from a different starting point: not everyone feels the same.
#51 Woody Harrelson: Who Doesn't Love Him? OK, the same again. Some really don't like him. Actually, Esquire just wanted to use the interview they had with him. It was kind of interesting, not as surprising as they think: he's trying to live clean but finds it hard to do.
#55 "Past Results are no indication of future performance." examples being Robert Downey, Jr., Indianapolis Colts, Lindsay Lohan, and Mitt Romney's former position in favor of abortion. As an empiricist, I must object and argue that the seeds of the reversal of fortune of each were always present.
#59 "There are so many instances when medium rare is not the call." If they're talking about beefsteak, I disagree: it's always the call.
#60 "They Greeks can f--k off for all we care." Some--Greeks, people who care about their indirect effects on the US economy--would disagree, and I'm one (no, not Greek).
#61 "After all this...scripted dramatic television is the most satisfying of all the entertainment media." I'll take movies, music, and TV sports over that one.
#76/#77/#78 "Tim Tebow has us all riled up about football (and God) again....soccer is really going to be big in this country...even though we all agree that's not true." Three statements that couldn't all be true, though they could be, and are, all false.

Couldn't Care Less:
#15 "The 100th birthdays of Julia Child, David Packard, and Fenway Park are worthy of celebration." Most would choose 1 of the 3.
#16 "Not to mention those of Arizona and New Mexico." 1 of 2, and I'm partial to that one.
#28/#29/#30 (see #27) Ezra Klein worship. He's OK, but the whole thread was lame.
#32/#33 Russell Banks. Lyle Lovett. No explanation--tell me why. Like or no like?
#34/#35/#36 "It's still better to read the paper on paper...Especially The New York Times, the only essential newspaper left. Except for the Harrisburg Patriot-News." Basically, just filler: on #34, I'm changing my mind; on #35 I can't really say it's the only one, and I've been reading it almost exclusively online for years, and regarding #36, I know nothing about Harrisburg's paper; do you think anyone else does?
#38 "You can ask a man anything except how much money he made last year." Go ahead and ask, if you want. What about asking a woman?
#52/#53 "No cocktail should take more than 45 seconds to make"; picture, recipe of some (unnamed) cocktail with egg whites, sugar, half and half, Heyman's Old Tom gin, etc.
#62 "Berenice Bejo should be in more movies". They have a nice picture of her in a negligee and a short interview. (she's the wife of the director of The Artist and stars in it)
#64 "Everybody loves a good dip." They have a recipe they like for pimento (sp) cheese dip.
#67 They've got an article about a new Jeopardy! hero who taught himself all the subjects he didn't know.

Buh?
#2 "J.B. Smoove and Larry David are the best black-white duo since Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder...."
#8 Siri. No further comment necessary? Do we love it, hate it, or ignore it? I couldn't tell. Maybe I should ask Siri what they are talking about...
#17 "Speaking of Arizona Muse." (see #15/16 above)
#18 The Egg McMuffin. See #8 Siri above. They show a picture with lots of them; is that supposed to make me hungry or puke?
#31 "The moment you hit the water." Sometimes good, sometimes (like when it's freezing, when you bellyflop, when you fall from 300 ft. up) not so much.
#39 "The Tiny-Suit thing is getting a little silly." I have no idea what they are talking about.
#43 "Ashley Greene can go any way she wants to, it's all up to her." picture of a fetching woman in a body suit (last month's cover model?)
#47 Watermelon. Some like it, some loathe it, even without the seeds.
#65 "Counter-terrorism is getting complicated." It always has been. They have a researched article on four old white geezer would-be militiamen who got stung by a provocateur and a guy from Homeland Security on the make. It's just complicated because they're white and not Muslim.
#72 Tim Gunn. They have his picture; I don't recognize him at all.
#74 "Sinclair Lewis was right: It carries the cross and comes wrapped in the flag." I looked this up: the reference is to "When fascism comes to America...", but this is a truism: it was the case when fascism came anywhere, that's always how it came. So we can agree, but it doesn't mean much.

The Final Tally:
We all Should/Do Agree--14
We Agree To Some Extent, That Is, I Agree--17
Totally Disagree--21
Couldn't Care Less--16
Buh?--11

A Spherical Oscar Re-Preview

The Golden Globes awards last Sunday provide a good view into the Oscars. Not so much into the nominations, which will be announced soon and should be already fully baked, but the format of the Globes' top movie awards, though, with separate categories for Drama vs. for Comedy/Musical, helps identify the two top contenders for Best Picture, Actor and Actress. (Other categories like Director, the Musical ones, and Supporting Actor/Actress, strangely, are combined into one award; also Screenplay, which Oscar breaks into Original and Adapted).

So, it would seem that Best Picture will end up a showdown between The Artist and The Descendants, that Best Actor will be between Artist's Jean Dujardin and Descendants' George Clooney, and that Best Actress will end up being a battle between The Iron Lady's Meryl Streep and My Week With Marilyn's Michelle Williams. I would buy into each of those as a current state of play assessment.

While the movie-about-a-movie gambit in Artist plays well with Hollywood's movie industry population, I do not think its silent French accents will do quite as well as it did with its foreign press (the voters for the Golden Globes). I see it winning for Musical Score and Art Direction, but Clooney, Payne and Company winning the big awards. Director could be interesting: Marty Scorsese won for Hugo at the Globes and his chances should not be discounted, but he was (finally) recognized a couple of years ago for The Aviator, so he's not owed. Woody Allen would get some consideration--he should be nominated--but for his habit of dismissing award shows. I like Alexander Payne's chances, but I'd be thrilled if Terence Malick pulled off a surprise (for Tree of Life) and will be disappointed if he is not at least nominated.

The Globes showed that sentiment is running low for J.Edgar, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (was it too late to be considered for the Globes?) The Help would have been a serious contender for top honors except that it was released too soon. It's too soon for me to admit that my initial foray into the previews, before most of the movies were even released, missed the mark, but it doesn't look good for my advocacy of Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.


The award for Best Animated Film is usually a formality, but this year's contest could be a spirited one between the production starpower of Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson for The Adventures of Tintin, challenged by two critically-approved comedies, Puss 'N Boots and Rango. My kids' vote is for P'NB: that's who should decide the category (not my kids, specifically, but kids).

Finally, I think the Globes' Foreign Language film award for A Separation from Iran would be a likely indicator (though the Oscars' electorate is mostly American, and thus automatically anti-Iranian, the movie's director made a good move by choosing to make a political statement on behalf of his people--and implicitly against the regime). Wim Wenders' Pina was not nominated for the GG's but may have an outside chance in the Oscars.

Besides being a good indicator of final Oscar winners, the Golden Globes also tops off the television award season with a few select awards. The only one I want to comment on was the one given to Kelsey Grammer for Best Actor in a Series for his role in Boss. This searing drama--seen, I'd imagine, by few people on the Starz network--and Grammer's performance as a ruthless, corrupt Chicago mayor fighting off intrigues from his rivals and a hidden, debilitating illness is far from a reality show, much more dramatic than something like The Wire--almost Shakespearean in its archetypal situation and its high-stakes political battles. The show hooked me from the start and left me with my jaw dropped by the end of most of its eight episodes.

Ricky Gervais' hosting was deemed somewhat tame this year. I think it was mostly perception--the element of surprise was gone for those watching him; the talent was laying for him (and for Harvey Weinstein, who was getting abused mercilessly all night for his usual vote manipulative tactics). It seemed that the crowd of stars, starlets, and production folk were having a great time getting sloshed. More power!

I've Seen Enough

I watched the Republican candidates' debate the other night on Fox News, and my conclusion is that I don't need to see any more of them. The entertainment value of these telecasts has dissipated, and their political importance is evaporating very quickly.

The name of the game Monday night (MLK Day) was for each candidate to try to one-up the others by showing he was more "conservative"--in the South Carolina context, this meant more militaristic, more xenophobic, lower on taxes for their flat rates, cutting more from government assistance programs, putting responsibilities and authorities with states rather than the Federal government. Everyone except Ron Paul joined in the game at every opportunity, and the large, vocal crowd applauded the red meat being thrown out to it.

Mitt Romney, with a big opportunity to exploit his opponents' divisions, win a plurality in South Carolina, and get an even stronger hold on the lead for the nomination, generally showed himself willing to match his most rabid opponents. A good example was his flat refusal to consider negotiations with the Taliban. As President, he will no doubt see things differently, but in SC it was more politic to refute his foreign policy advisor's position (he blamed it on VP Biden and ignored his advisor's position stated in the question) and stick with a determination to fight and eliminate them (something well beyond our capability). He was caught out once, by Rick Santorum, advocating a tougher position on voting by felons than he actually administered as Massachusetts Governor, but that's one issue that is truly a state-administered one, so his position as President would be legally irrelevant.

Paul was certainly willing to play when it came to taxes--the others merely suggested tax reductions, but he said "why not a 0% rate?"--to service and aid reductions, and to devolution to states. He challenged the consensus and the crowd, though, on our military policy. He argued against "these undeclared wars", the huge quantity of overseas bases, and the concept that spending more on military brings improved defense of our country. His argument to apply a Golden Rule toward other nations was heckled and booed, but Paul is contributing something new to the debate of what is truly "conservative", something the national party is unwilling to consider but that many of the party faithful--and probably a growing number--will find attractive.

The worst of the worst was Rick Perry. Pandering to the evangelical base by arguing that the Obama Administration has "a war on religion" and that we can have "no space" between our policy in the Middle East and Israel's--something which is hardly going to assist us in making peace there--these things are nothing more or less than we should expect from his limited political strategy options at this point. Fox's Brett Baier threw him a poisoned piece of bait with a question about religiously-motivated violence in Turkey, and Perry went for it. He accused Turkey of being like "Islamic terrorists", questioning whether he would allow them to stay in NATO. The Muslim-baiting got by the crowd without a murmur, but the comments did not escape the notice of political forces in Turkey, one of our critical allies, a democracy, a major regional power in the Middle East and one generally having a positive influence on international affairs. Again, his pandering to the evangelicals is totally expected, but his willingness to advocate outrageous and poorly-considered policies is, once again, clear evidence that he is in over his head. Fortunately, it seems he has no chance of success in SC, and I would presume he will pull out shortly (as he did--for 12 hours or so--after his failure in Iowa).

As for the other two jokers, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, there are several points to make. One is that both can be reliably expected to be "bold" in coming up with extreme positions. They are very interested in pointing that out, and they are having some success--apart from the activity of hammering away at the presumptive nominee and exposing his weaknesses. I think there is emerging the possibility of a tag-team strategy between the two which would have some hope of countering Romney, state by state: Gingrich would hammer Romney in the "Santorum states", Santorum hacks at Romney in "Gingrich states". Newt's states would be the Southern ones, Santorum's the Midwest, Rust Belt, and others where the social issues predominate. If their combined efforts--and they are very close allies, probably just couldn't agree that one should drop out in favor of the other--can keep Romney from winning most of the states by focusing the "anti-Romney, non-Paul" forces in each on a single candidate, they might be able to prevent Romney's attaining the votes for a first-ballot victory.

I don't really see that as a big success, though; either would likely be a worse President than Romney, if it came to that; from the Republicans' point of view, either would be a weaker opponent to Obama. And it would put Ron Paul in the potential role of kingmaker--it probably wouldn't work to the benefit of either Santorum or Gingrich.

In other words, I'm getting used to the idea that Romney will be the major party opponent, and I think any plausible alternative (other than fantasy scenarios like a stalemate, no candidate nominated, complete fracture in the party) would be worse. Romney has plenty of exposed weaknesses that make him look very much like a true successor of Bushism: his advocacy of tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations, his history of flip-flopping, his support of big government Republicanism. We don't need this charade to continue, and its ability to hold our interest is over.

With God on Their Side

The much-anticipated Saints-Lions game was indeed a good one, but the clear highlight of NFL's Wild Card weekend was the last game between the Steelers and Tim Tebow's Denver Broncos.

The Broncos played boldly and well, and Tebow's passing put his critics to shame, but the Steelers managed a late comeback to tie the score. I think Pittsburgh's destiny was sealed, though, when they essentially chose to let the clock run out on the last play of regulation time, setting up an ineffectual Hail Mary that never happened on the last play rather than trying an improbably long field goal. Clearly they decided to trust in fate.

Fate was not kind, though. The Steelers lost the coin toss to begin the overtime, and on the first play from scrimmage, the Broncos connected on an improbable 80-yard pass and run touchdown to end it.

Tebow's famous prayers were once again answered. Unlike how I feel about politicians doing it, I don't mind sports heroes giving praise to the Lord(s) as they see Him/Her/It/Them, even if it's kind of boring for the rest of us to hear. They have been blessed in some form, and it is humility that is appropriate, if sincere, that they give credit to something beyond themselves.

My only regret about it is that I hadn't posted my feelings going into the game. I heard all the "experts" picking the Steelers, but I didn't like the combination of Rothlisberger's unreliable leg (I think it was a bit of a factor, though not major), the absence of the Steelers' top running back, Denver's home field, and Tebow's dangerous karma and competitive instincts (they were on full display in the critical game against the Bears I saw some three weeks ago). I did post my qualms about the Steelers' chances in a comment after my last post of 2011.

With All That Time, This Was the Best You Could Do?

Iowa's Republicans did accomplish something with the endless run-up to their exciting, symbolically important, but practically meaningless caucuses this week. The combination of a long campaign and dozens of debates did serve Iowa's traditional purpose of eliminating candidates not ready for the marathon ahead. Cain, Bachmann, and Pawlenty were winnowed out, with Perry and Gingrich's runs probably permanently crippled. These are good things.

Still, the anti-Romney forces in Iowa had a very long time, reviewed several potential options, and the one they ended up choosing was....Rick Santorum? Sanctimonious P. Rick?
This has to be one of the worst ideas for a major party Presidential contender in history. As Larry Sabato pointed out today, Santorum's defeat in 2006 by Bob Casey was historically bad; the 17+ percent margin was the second-worst defeat by an incumbent Senator in two decades.

It's not just that his political positions are odious, though they clearly are. His manner is off-putting, a combination of arrogance, prudery, and whininess that is going to be very unpopular once people get to know him. He affects a stance of moral superiority, yet his ethics are demonstrably defective. He has extreme positions on social issues--about which most Americans are tired of fighting--and nothing useful to say about economic issues, the ones for which Americans truly hunger for ideas. Foreign/military policy? He claims expertise, but again has little to say.

I've held off from condemning his candidacy because his level of support was nonexistent; I mistakenly thought he was going nowhere fast. With his win (I think the recount may show that, instead of losing by 8 votes, he actually won, though the count is just a popularity contest with no delegate implications), he will gain some additional support, some money, but he has no organization, no natural base, no plan. And he's the one who's supposed to stop Mitt Romney?

Gingrich went to New Hampshire for the purpose of going after Romney one more time; I see him dropping out and endorsing Santorum before South Carolina votes. Rick Perry is skipping NH but has decided to contest SC--some claim it is to help Romney, which it will do, nominally (though he won't get many votes). I don't think he has anything that complicated in mind; he's just never lost an election before and doesn't know that once you get beaten, you stay beaten. Huntsman still hasn't given moderates a credible reason why they should choose him, and there aren't that many of them left in the party, anyway.

So, it will quickly boil down to Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, as long as he lasts. If Romney wins SC, Florida and Nevada will follow and it will be over quickly. If Santorum can somehow win SC, though, or yield to someone who can (though I don't know who--Huckabee?), it could go on for awhile. But I think that the Iowa result basically has put Romney onto a path to the nomination that he would have trouble losing.

Hopes for a New Year

I've got a lot of them, even limiting myself to those I'd choose to post on this blog. I may post some follow-ups later.

Sports
First, of course, my Reds: Though I'm not crazy about either of the pitcher swaps they made in the offseason (with Cubs and Padres), I think they are going into the 2012 season with both a decent pitching staff and a good everyday lineup. With the Brewers, Cardinals, and Cubs all weakened, I think they could win the division this year. I don't see them as World Series material, but once in the playoffs, there's always a chance (just see the example of the Cardinals last year).

Chelsea has basically blown its chances in the Premier League--last weekend's embarrassing 3-1 loss at home to Aston Villa being just the latest evidence--but, it is the leading surviving team in the Champions League. They should de-emphasize the League matches and focus upon the Champions League--their next matchup will be against Napoli, and that will require all their ability. The Blues have plenty of offense, but have been subject to sudden lapses on defense, way too often.

In college basketball, I have very high hopes for my regular teams: Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and on behalf of my parents' alma mater, Indiana (I'm OK with them since Bobby Knight left). In the next poll, I think SU and UK will be 1-2, with U of L and IU in the top 10. So, I'm not just thinking rooting interest in the Final Four, but a possible title. The Tar Heels and Buckeyes appear to be the chief rivals, and I will enjoy seeing them fall.

NBA-wise, I'm very optimistic about the upcoming season. The players and coaches don't like the heavy, short regular season necessitated by two months' loss of play, but I do.

US Politics
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up about the behavior of this nation's electorate, but I feel that there's a decent chance the Republicans could get a well-deserved repudiation this year. I stand by the viewpoint that they had forfeited their privilege of governing by 2008 and have not done anything to change that since then.

Really the only reason for my optimism is the weak field they are putting out for the Presidential nomination this year. Where President Obama should be in a nearly-desperate situation given the domestic economy (unfair, but it's reality), I see him winning easily against any candidate except Romney, and I see his chances as better than 50-50 even against him.

The bad news is that the campaign up until now could not have gone better for Mitt, and if things don't change soon (by South Carolina), he will have the nomination practically won by Feb. 1. And in the Palmetto State (a/k/a the Hardcore Confederate State), it appears that the right-wingers (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul) will split their votes, giving Romney a chance for a win he clearly should not expect. If he can somehow win there, Florida's primary will wrap it up for him.

Romney will present a challenge in critical Mideastern and Upper Midwestern states (PA, OH, MI, IA, maybe WI) that Obama would badly need for a safe Electoral College victory, and it appears that there will be nearly unlimited funds from Super PAC's to buy an advantage. If Obama loses a couple of those, he might have to pick up VA, AZ or FL (beyond states like CO, NM, NV).

And, the general election campaign could go very badly for Romney, opening the way for a decisive victory on the order of the one Obama produced in 2008 in spite of everything. If that happens, the Democrats could regain the House and hold onto the Senate. I actually think there's a chance for the Democrats to retain a Senate majority even in a close Presidential race.

I kept a stone wall against campaign contributions in 2011 (with one minor exception for Emily's List), but I will be loosening the wallet a bit this year. This is not because I can suddenly afford it, and I hate--absolutely hate--the fact that the Obama Administration has not made a move to challenge the current campaign finance regime (or lack thereof). I'm only going to do it because it's necessary, and I will try to be tactically astute and strategically sound. The fact that Ben Nelson has decided not to run again in Nebraska helps--now I can give to the DSCC without fear that it will be wasted on DINO's. Frankly, I felt that all those appeals to give before some arbitrary deadlines in 2011 were phony and unconvincing.

My hope is that after the totally expected orgy of negative ads and obscene levels of spending in 2012, both parties will turn, exhausted and bleeding, to legislation that will somehow limit the ugliness in future elections. It will be my #1 political priority, and I hope it will enter Obama's list as well--after, of course, he makes the most of the current monstrous system this year.

Finally, on a local level, I'm waiting to see how the Congressional districting turns out in my section of the northwestern Chicago suburbs before I decide whether I will retain my New Mexico voter registration (I certainly could do so), or switch to the area where I'm working and spending most of my time. If I get a chance to vote against Joe Walsh, or against Bobby Schilling (see my 2010 election post for the significance of the latter), that would be interesting. Otherwise, the Senate race in NM will be a close and a critical one.

Economic and International Politics
My hopes are more for GDP growth than reduction in unemployment or a big stock market rally. The key thing is to avoid a new recession, and I think that should be possible.

As far as the Euro is concerned, I will think there may be some triage, with Greece being reluctantly jettisoned (as I've suggested, that could be a big opportunity for Turkey), and with Italy and Spain salvaged. The nations (excepting Britain) are reluctantly going to allow stronger regional control over national budgets, and that is a formula that will ultimately solve the problem. Britain may decide to seek something like an associate membership, along with Sweden, Turkey, Greece, and a couple of others: trying to get the benefits of trade without the political mess.

I'm going to continue along this rather outlandish tangent of predictions and suggest a couple unexpected countries where the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority will rise: Russia (it's started, but I think/hope it will go much further) and Israel. I hope (but don't expect so much) there will be some sort of progress in the talks to make peace in Afghanistan, with participation of some Taliban elements, Pakistan, India, and Iran.

Personally, I want to wish the best for all friends and family--health, wealth, and happiness!

Sports Report

Among the campaign promises President Obama has failed to fulfill, the one that is most painful to me is any absence of effort to fix college football's Broken Championship S---bag. Seriously, there are more important gaps, but he really should make the BCS illegal by Executive Order, or put out a contract for it to be demolished by a drone or something.

This year's messed up championship game will feature a game that was already played and wasn't very interesting. I don't doubt that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams--basically, the regular season proved that, while there may be more productive offenses, they were the only two with defenses capable of shutting down top offenses.

The results show just how much the SEC now dominates national college football. They could make the whole controversy a lot simpler by just crowning the SEC champion--even simpler, the SEC West champion. No need for conference championship or any of the BCS nonsense.

Actually, I don't really care about the BCS muck-ups, and it's really no worse than the inconclusive Bowl arrangements that preceded it (except they didn't have the slimy sponsorships in their names back then). What I resent is the negative effect on basketball's organization that the unseemly scramble to participate in the automatic-berth BCS football conferences has had. As an ex-hoopster, President Obama needs to stand up and be counted--not to create some new integrity around big-time college football, which corrupts everything that it touches, but to preserve other intercollegiate sports from its stench.

So far, we've had a couple weeks of Nothing Bowls between Whoever and Whatever and sponsored by Who Cares? College football underlined its ineptness by completely punting all its traditional January 1 games to January 2 so as not to offend the networks or Big Daddy NFL. That being said, there are two BCS games that should be entertaining to watch: the Rose Bowl between Oregon and Wisconsin, and the Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma State and Stanford. I'm pretty resistant to the appeal, but not totally immune.

NBA: Nothing's Been Anticipated
If they hadn't built a new, hard-won 10-year collective bargaining agreement around 82-game regular seasons and their associated economics, I think all would've found the 66-game scramble this year to be a superior product. It's going to be intense--the way it should be--and none of the teams will be able to do much slacking. I like the way the abrupt start to the season has not allowed too much hype to precede the real action, as opposed to, say, the Republican nomination process.

While I was very critical of the owners and their bargaining stance during the lockout, which was basically necessitated by their own incompetence in negotiating and signing talent and their inability to share revenues, I was not as critical of league Commissioner David Stern. Since then, Stern inserted himself controversially in blocking a trade of All-Star point guard Chris Paul to the Lakers, taking advantage of the league's ownership of Paul's 2011 team, the New Orleans Hornets, to prevent a new superteam forming to oppose the player-created monster of last year, the Miami Meltdowns.

Speaking of meltdowns, one of the most interesting storylines will be the Oklahoma City Thunder, which have emerged in their short history since moving from Seattle through the development of the best scorer in the league, Kevin Durant. The Thunder surprised most everyone last year by reaching the Western Conference finals, but then their chemistry deteriorated, and it's unclear whether they will get it back together again. Miami, on the other hand, looks to have learned its lessons, and with a second year of experience playing together, the Big 3 of LeBron, LeWade, and LeBosh are the league favorites once again; this time it appears to be justified.

One team that seems unlikely to stop them this year is the defending champions, the Dallas Mavericks, who lost the key mid-year addition of last year's team, Tyson Chandler, and picked up some unneeded veterans. Similarly appearing unready are perennial contenders San Antonio Spurs and the Lakers themselves.

The team most likely to stop Miami would be the Eastern Conference runner-ups, the Chicago Bulls, which return their nucleus,featuring MVP Derrick Rose, and have added some good additional pieces.

Finally, there are several other teams ascendant, something that warms Stern's heart: the Pacers, the Knicks, the Hawks, the Warriors, the rebuilt Nuggets, and, most importantly, the Clippers, who ended up with Paul in a trade Stern deemed acceptable for league dynamics. None would appear to be championship contenders, but their development makes for better economics and better early-round playoff matchups.

NFL: Networks' Friends Livestrong!
This postseason will mark an important test: whether the dominance of top quarterbacks is absolute or just a feature of the regular season. The Green Bay Packers, with Aaron Rodgers, and the New England Patriots, with Tom Brady, emerge with the best records in each conference, despite having two of the worst defenses (as measured by yards allowed to opposing offenses). The question is whether this formula will allow them to win in the playoffs and reach the Super Bowl, or whether the classic norm, that defenses win chmpionships, will still apply this season.

The Packers and Patriots do have a predecessor, Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts, which were able to outscore opponents and reached two Super Bowls, winning one. And, to be fair, one reason the Packers and Pats allowed so many yards on defense is because their offenses were so efficient in producing quick scores that the defense had to be out there a high percentage of plays. Still, the Saints, whose quarterback Drew Brees was almost as supremely effective as Rodgers, were able to produce better defensive results.

There are a couple of teams in each playoff bracket who would appear to have the required capabilities (an adequate starting quarterback, a good running game to control the ball, and a good defense) to defeat the conferences' number one seeds: San Francisco and New Orleans in the NFC, and Pittsburgh and Baltimore in the AFC. But all teams making the playoffs have a shot (see the Cardinals' success this year in baseball), so it's worth mentioning the improbable qualification of the Giants and Broncos, and the unusual postseason presence of the Texans, Lions, Falcons, and Bengals. Postseason experience does matter, though, so I would not like the chances (vs. the odds) of any of these teams except the Giants (who've won the Super Bowl with Eli Manning).

The Big Top in Iowa

The circus in Iowa is finally reaching its grand finale, and it's clear that there are three rings: 1) the Clown act/trapeze of the rising and falling Tea Party/evangelical dramatic players; 2) the ongoing barker performance of the Romney Show; and 3) the trained dog-and-pony show on the highwire of Ron Paul's libertarians.

I am somewhat amazed by Newt Gingrich's late drop in the polls, as I thought he was somebody that people knew, so that the inevitable dogpile once he emerged from the pack of right-wing hopefuls would not be as effective as it was. I don't even blame Newt for his fall, though his organization was always a vulnerability that massive negative advertising was able to exploit (just like Newt's past).

It is perhaps less surprising that sanctimonious Rick Santorum now has his moment in the sun, even though the polls have recorded only in the last few days; he is a true believer in the religious right credo who has put in his time and effort. The fact that he was routed by 18 points in his last Senate race in Pennsylvania is something he has somehow managed to obscure from those desperate for a trusted white male conservative mouthpiece. Bring him on, I say; we should be so lucky.

Once again, Romney gains from the chaos in the non-Ron Paul/anti-Mitt portion of the Republican electorate. With Romney and Paul each maxed out in the 20-30% range in Iowa, the other 50% could either be split fairly evenly among the four remaining right-wingers (Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, and Rick Perry), which would ensure Paul and Romney finish 1-2 (or 2-1), or someone can dominate among that group and secure a spot to challenge Romney in future primaries in the South and other favorable terrain (like the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states). Gingrich's fading currently makes it look like no one will emerge in Iowa. This will mean that Florida and South Carolina will be the last chances for a surviving right-winger (a couple should drop out no later than New Hampshire's primary) to challenge Romney head-to-head and prevent an early Mitt victory.

Once again, with Gingrich fading and Santorum rising, Paul at the peak of whatever percentage he can draw, and Bachmann and Perry appearing to be close to the end of their runs, it is unclear around whom the anti-Romney, non-Paul faction will rally, and if they don't get it straight very soon, it will be over. Republican establishment politicians all over the country are in line to endorse Romney and get it over with; they are going to need a pretty strong reason to hold off past January.

Drone Wars

The dramatic increase in use of drones to carry out attacks against terrorists in remote locations--in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia in particular--has brought forward a debate about the morality and future of this form of unmanned warfare.

In its capability to destroy at a distance without much risk to the attacker, it is not that different from missile attacks, which are in turn a direct descendant of artillery fire. Because the remote-control attacker can see the targets at fairly close range before firing, it would seem to have the potential to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties, a potential upon which today's vague or nonexistent statistics don't convince, one way or the other.

I think that the criticism from some left-wing sources that drones are immoral because they bring no risk for the attackers is wrongheaded. Similarly, I dismiss the argument about how our use of them subjects us to what would be "totally unacceptable" counterattack by other nations' drones sometime in the future. These methods only work because of aerial superiority; they wouldn't be that hard for a defender with strong anti-aircraft or counterforce capability to take out. We are no more wrong to use these forces than we would be to take advantage of our aerial superiority to attack with bombers, cruise missiles, or long-range artillery. So I don't see a qualitative difference in the morality of their use.

Still, like mustard gas, nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, these new capabilities have dangerous implications for the future, and their use could eventually make conflicts more likely and resulting in more casualties. It is not appropriate that the US military may refuse to acknowledge the methods that it uses, or to provide its citizens with data documenting their effectiveness (or lack thereof). I also think that the international community has every reason to seek to regulate their use; I do not know where the discussion will lead--though I think it unrealistic to think there will be universal agreement to ban their use, or that such a ban would be effective--but I think the discussion should be opened, and that we should not be ashamed or furtive about participating in it.

Eric Cantor: Tea Party Sophist

The history of the extension of the payroll tax reduction is a tangled one, so we should review the facts to understand what the current developments indicate.

The reduction in the payroll tax, by 2% for the year of 2011, had been agreed in the lame duck session in another pressure-filled compromise, for which the Republicans extracted concessions. President Obama saw by mid-year that the economy's recovery remained weak, so he asked for an extension of that tax reduction for another year. The House passed one, a week or so ago, but with riders on it bad enough that the Administration threatened to veto it. The bill could not get to the floor of the Senate, but the Senate did manage to come to an agreement to extend the tax reduction, with some riders:

an extension of unemployment insurance, up to 99 weeks (not the 59 of the House bill);
delaying a provision which would have otherwise reduced payments for doctors providing Medicare services (a perennial fix needed to hold up that costly house of cards);
and a provision requiring President Obama to accelerate the decision on proceeding with a pipeline for sending Canadian oil-bearing sands to the Southeast refineries--Obama sent back the pipeline proposal (known as Keystone XL) for more study on its potential environmental impact.

This agreement was only for two months, but the aim was to keep the tax cut and insurance extension in place so that a longer duration could be negotiated. The main sticking point in the discussion of the tax cut was how to pay for it--the idea of ending the upper-income tax reduction to pay for it was discarded by Republican insistence--the House bill paid for it with cuts to domestic programs. Obama praised the Senate compromise and asked the House to approve it.

Speaker Boehner had given the Senate a nudge to pass something which the House would take up; then, when they passed the compromise he said the House would vote on it.

The Plot Sickens
Boehner has been rebuffed, not once, but twice this week. First, the Senate's bipartisan compromise that he implicitly endorsed was rejected by his party's caucus; then, it rejected his promise that he would allow a vote on the Senate bill. Boehner is hanging on to his leadership by his fingernails; his only hopes to keep this role are: 1) that his Tea Party members will be rejected in the polls in 2012 (which should encourage him finally to stand up to the more extreme views within his party's caucus); or 2) that Eric Cantor enjoys Boehner taking all the heat, with Cantor pulling his strings like a puppetteer.

The House Republicans, clearly feeling the heat of the American public for resisting the extension of the tax cut, found an ingenious way to turn things back to the mode they find more comfortable--applying the pressure and extorting concessions from their opponents. They decided to reject the bipartisan compromise on the basis that the agreement was two months, not 12 months. Then, they constructed the rules such that the votes would be to commit the bill to conference committee, not on the compromise itself.

The debate is instructive on the difference between the two Houses of Congress. Not just the traditional, envious respectful disrespect with which the members refer to the other, but the fundamental difference. With the current Senate rules, and in the absence of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators, the leverage lies with the minority of the minority--in today's Senate, with those few moderate Senators who are willing to work with the Democrats selectively. With the House, all the power is with the majority, but specifically now with the majority within the majority, those radical right-wing Republican House members who seek a very extreme agenda. Those two groups have been placed in direct confrontation by this crisis for the Republicans.

The Democrats' stance now is an interesting one: both their leaders, Nancy Pelosi of the House and Harry Reid of the Senate, are taking the position that they will not appoint their party's conferees now, so this resolution of differences that the Republican position ostensibly seeks would not happen this year. Thus, we have, once again, a game of chicken; the Democrats believe that by continuing to apply political pressure, the Republicans will be forced to come to agreement on terms more amenable to the Democrats--this time.

Truth Behind the Talking Points
When the Democrats say, "The Republicans are to blame for the tax cut not being extended", they mean, "We are happy to be able to give the blame to them, and hope people can understand the convoluted chain of logic which would give it to them."

When the Republicans say, "This two-month extension does not give certainty to job creators", they mean, "We are more than happy to create more uncertainty by blocking any temporary solution."

When the Democrats say, "The Republicans will not permit a clear vote on the Senate bill for fear that it would be approved," they mean, "They don't want a vote against the extension of the tax cut on their records, but we do. We know that, if their discipline is this strong, they would reject the Senate bill now."

When the Republicans say, "President Obama requested the one-year extension, and we are supporting that" they mean, "He changed to the two-month extension when he saw that was all that could be approved now; he and the Congressional Democrats want the 12-month extension as much as we do--in fact, more than we do. The main thing is to turn the pressure around and get control over the other items--how the tax cut would be paid for, getting the pipeline approved."

When the Republicans say, "We want the Senate to do its job and come back," they mean, "we want to pass the hot potato to them so we can go on vacation."

When both sides say, "This extension of the tax cut is needed for our economy's recovery," they mean, "this will not do anything more than help prevent a deterioration, but it's much more important as a political flamethrower to burn the other side."

It's Finally Happening

My horse in the 2012 Republican nomination race is finally getting some attention. Ron Paul has kept to his business and true to his principles, while all the other Tea Party flaves came and went. Newt's time is still in full blossom, but my sense is that his flavor will be unpalatable to many TP'ers--too unreliable, poor moral sense, too much the man on the white horse for the libertarian flange of the right wing--and many of the supporters of failed candidates like Herman Cain and Rick Perry will drift Paul's way, as someone they can trust at least to uphold his principles--intelligently--whether he has any chance or not.

The latest Iowa poll results have Gingrich at 25%, Paul at 18%, Romney at 16%, but that leaves 41% undecided or clinging to driftwood. I think that Michele Bachmann will stay the course in Iowa and draw about 10%, while about 10% will end up "committed" to non-starters like Rick Santorum, Perry, Huntsman, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and whatever remains of Cain's candidacy (not officially dead, just practically dead). I believe that Paul, among the three front-runners, will draw the largest share of the remaining 21%, some of whom will be backing lesser candidates but will need to re-group to another candidate when theirs does not meet minimum threshold levels. For one thing, Paul's organization on the ground is superior to Gingrich's, while Romney's organization is flummoxed by its sudden loss of clear front-runner status.

Thus, I now make my official prediction for Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Paul 27%, Romney 21%, Bachmann 11%, Others/Uncommitted 9%. The major media will spin this as a win for Gingrich and Paul and a defeat for the rest. Paul and Gingrich will then battle for a distant second-place finish in New Hampshire a week later. This, and Paul's demonstrated record of fund-raising success, will give him enough impetus to stay in the primaries at least through February and March; all of those, by rule, will have somewhat proportional allotment of delegates.

He should therefore have 10-15% of delegates selected before the "winner take-all" primaries start in April, and potentially 5-7% of delegates if he stayed in the race to the end. This quantity, though small and not enough to get him ever in serious discussion as the nominee, quite possibly could be enough to leave the outcome in doubt if the likely pattern--Gingrich wins big in the South, Romney wins most of the other states--ends up in a close division of delegates.

The question I can't answer is how Paul would utilize his delegate base if he finds himself suddenly in a strategically decisive position. I can't imagine he would want to end his campaign by supporting either one of those guys in such a situation (though I guess he will endorse either once he's won it). In the meantime, for example, Paul logically will spend a lot of time and money going after Gingrich, who is his principal competitor for votes from the right wing. (I would still bet that either Romney or Gingrich would yield to the other, though, taking the VP slot, if it were clear that they could not win--both are consumed with ambition and ideological chameleons.)

Intrade now has Romney with 45% chance of winning the nom (down a third from my last quote here in October), Gingrich up to 35%, Huntsman at 8% (I don't see it), and Paul at 7%, with Bachmann at 2% or so, Santorum at 1%, and nobody else above 0.5%. Though the punditry has missed the significance of Paul's campaign with great consistency, I can't argue that he has a higher chance of ultimately winning than that 7%--in fact, it's probably a bit high. If I were betting, I would've bought into Paul's chances earlier, when he was cheaper (like the 1.7% he had in April), and be looking to take profits the day after the Iowa caucuses, when it will peak.

I would be looking now at a long-shot bet on either Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, two names that Republi-cons generally of all stripes (and backers of the "Ron Paul Revolution" in particular) could rally behind if Romney-Gingrich looks like a stalemate in the weeks leading up to the convention. Daniels, for example, didn't run after being widely courted because he didn't want to go through the exhausting campaign; Ryan basically said he was too busy being a Congressional scourge. I suspect either would accept the nomination if handed on a silver platter, and neither would be a pushover for President Obama in a general election campaign--Ryan is telegenic and smart, but green; Daniels smart, experienced, and the opposite of telegenic.

Euro Faces Its Music At Last

I think it was Warren Buffett who said that when the tide goes out, you can see who's been bathing without their swimsuits. So it has been with Europe in these days: we are now seeing the continental Empire's New Clothes to be much less substantial than we thought.

The sins of the Euro, as regards Greece and Italy, were largely committed long ago. The rules of admission, having to do with size of budget deficit and national debt (as a percentage of GDP) were fudged for Italy at the Euro's founding in 1999; then
more brazenly so for Greece when it joined just a couple of years later, then these sins were swept under the rug since.

Now, having let these serial road-can-kickers in the club in the first place, and having compounded the mistake making their admissions irrevocable (instead of maintaining their old currencies, the lira and the drachma, on a shadow basis), the European authorities really have no choice but to make good on their sovereign debts, while compelling the national governments to start to follow the fiscal requirements they should have had to follow all along.

Politically, this is unpalatable in a variety of ways. Most significantly, though, it is that the situation has forced the regional powers that be (really it's the national governments in Germany and France) to impose rather nakedly their power through the European Central Bank. The requirements--for revenue enhancements and spending cuts, particularly for employees in government agencies and enterprises-- placed upon these governments have caused each country's parliamentary government to lose political control, succeeded now by willing, bankerly technocrats without political constituencies.

The austerity being imposed upon Italy and Greece, and the unelected governments that have been chosen to impose them, will no doubt be bitterly--even violently--resented and resisted by those two volatile societies. The irony, commented upon and lamented by some in these days, is that these two nations which in ancient times defined our original notion of what a "republic" is, now have lost political control of their economic destiny.

The fact is that these two countries have had very weak democracies throughout the postwar period; their people were poorly led and not doing much following, either. Like the Soviet workers who pretended to work while their government pretended to pay them, in Greece and Italy the companies and individuals pretended to pay their taxes and their governments pretended to have authority.

For Italy, at least, this crisis has already had one good outcome: what appears to be the definitive exodus from government of the Great Clown, that "Bounder", the Gentleman who is no gentleman, Silvio Berlusconi (it also appears that Umberto Bossi, head of the odious Lega Nord, will oppose the new government, a big plus as far as I'm concerned). The former political opposition, the center-left coalition which has traditionally governed with ineffectual honesty, as the alternative to Berlusconian disrepute and corruption, will have a good opportunity to provide implicit support for the needed reforms in the national interest, so they can claim credit if they work and disavow them if they don't--clearly a good position. Italy is not a player on the world stage, but it is a first-class prize for Europe, and as one of the original six members (with France, Germany, and the Benelux), dismissing it from the club would be unthinkable.

For the Greeks, the failure of the Socialist government will be borne bitterly, as it will be felt to have betrayed its supporters, then fell short of its aims. The right will gain power as a result of the Socialists' failure, but the timing will make its ascension a poison pill. Politically, I see the country wandering in the political wilderness for a long while, which could make it vulnerable both to vindictive forces in Europe looking to punish it, and to its hostile neighbor, Turkey, which now has a well-founded grudge against the EU. If the EU were to punish Greece beyond its capacity to accept humiliation, look for a shocker--a "historic compromise" with the Turks!

What the whole story illustrates is the internal contradiction in today's European Union, with its combination of strong and weak national economies, a centralized currency, and a weak central government. For those who remember the early days of American history, I would suggest that Europe is going through its Articles of Confederation moment. Even the Euro's legitimacy within the EU has big problems: think of how problematic the dollar would have been in those days if Virginia (think: the U.K.) had stayed out. We realized we needed a stronger central government, but it didn't come easily. Our Constitution, mighty as it is today, barely passed in several of the states, and we had to weather our Shay's Rebellion, our Burr-led Western Secession movement.

History doesn't exactly repeat itself, and it could go the other way with Europe, toward fragmentation and reasserted national sovereignty. The stakes are higher today; we're not talking about fledgling republics with a toehold on an undeveloped continent. I say that Americans should continue to provide quiet support and patience for them to work it out, and, most of all, refrain from gloating.

Today Is Admission of Failure Day

Sometime today, probably in the evening, the co-chairs of the Supercommittee of 12, Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, will come forward, together or separately, and admit that the group has failed in its appointed task to come up with a package of deficit reduction proposals for Congress to review and approve. Technically, they have two more days to get the proposals passed, but House rules require posting a bill 48 hours before it's voted upon, so no posting today means no bill by the deadline of the 23rd, thus its failure.

This result is certainly no surprise; I predicted as much as soon as the concept was announced in the Big Deal Deal of August, even before the members of the committee were named (which basically clinched inertia). I don't fear in the slightest the "mandatory" cuts which must, by law, follow this absence of legislation. I would describe the billion dollars in spending cuts, half from defense, some from discretionary spending, and a tiny bit from Medicare, as "a good start". They won't kick in until 2013, anyway, and the lame duck Congress will change them at the end of 2012, or if not then, whatever Congress comes in after the 2012 elections will change them in 2013. Or not, and I'm fine with that, too.

I would suggest that the Democrats make a surprise ploy in the final hours, one last-ditch attempt to do the Big Deal for real. Half a billion in phased tax increases, half a billion more from restructuring the tax code (details TBD), half a billion from defense, half a billion from discretionary, half a billion in interest saving, and half a billion from Medicare and Social Security combined. It would never pass the committee, or the House, or the Senate, but it has the benefits of simplicity and fairness, and would put the Democrats on the right side of the moral divide.

In time, I think the collapse of the supercommittee's deliberations will be seen as the Pyrrhic victory of Grover Norquist. His "no tax increase" pledge bound all of the relevant Republican Congresspeople such that they could not propose anything that was reasonable. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania did make a late proposal for $300 billion in increased revenue through removing some tax deductions; I have the feeling he got a waiver from Norquist because it included a clause to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something which would lose much more than the $300 billion in revenue he claimed to produce, as compared to letting the tax cuts expire through inaction--something which now seems very likely.

It will be Pyrrhic because Norquist's Folk (sounds like a tribe of dwarves), now to be known not as the GOP but the "GNP", as in Grover Norquist Party, will bear the brunt of the failure--which will be manifested by end of day today or tomorrow in the form of a big market sell-off and downgrading of US debt. A few more Republicans will dare to leave his camp of indentured servants, and a few more will end up paying the political price next year. Pretty soon it will be like having voted for the invasion of Iraq--a political embarrassment for those who can't effectively repudiate it. Unpopular as tax increases are, and will remain, the Pledge will be an albatross, an artifact of the decrepit House of Orange.

The Devil We Know

This Month's Flavor is Amphibian, Hypocritical
I've been avoiding it, trying not to admit it, but the baton has been picked up, this time by someone who knows how to run with it and is unlikely to let it drop.

I have long--very long--kicked around in my mind an idea for a future-oriented story that I probably will never write. The heroes of the story are a couple--an interracial couple--who defy tradition and local custom and dare to become celebrities, working as a team, and put their love out there--too much. Their "transgressions" cause a rupture in society, and a right-wing demagogic leader, called "The Perfesser", leads forces of reaction in the country, rises to power, and brings things to a definitive, self-righteous confrontation with the rest of the world--the only way we can really lose. The Perfesser is the "intellectual" who unleashes the atavistic, anti-intellectual tendencies lying hidden within our society.

This idea goes back beyond the '90's, and I never really saw the Newt as the incarnation of my bad daydream--until now. I didn't see him as that great a threat to our way of life, even at the peak of his power in the 1994-1996 period. He seemed like someone whose appeal was too peripheral, who inspired little trust even among those who were his political allies. His career since that period, on the edge of significance, hasn't suggested the potential that he could re-emerge and do massive damage. His Presidential campaign hardly seemed serious; he seemed more interested in selling his books than convincing us he could win, and he turned over his whole staff in the early days; they left saying that he was not serious.

Perhaps not, but he's just kept up his ego-driven, impassioned, self-righteous invective, and now, with the fading of the other anti-Romney candidacies--Herman Cain being just the latest to lose his shine--Gingrich has risen to the top, like algae. Surely he can be stopped--he can fall short of the target, just as others have done, and his ceiling, in terms of his favorability rating and in the portion of the electorate that might ultimately vote for him would seem relatively low. One thing about Newt, though, is that he will persevere; his campaign to date has shown that.

I would give him little chance in a head-to-head race against President Obama; though Gingrich is a capable debater, he would find Obama more than a match, intellectually, and far better in other dimensions (humanity, military leadership, diplomacy, public policy, familial and moral virtue, etc.) The possibility that a third-party could arise and draw support of moderates could make the election's outcome unpredictable, though.

Gingrich is certainly vulnerable on all these counts. I also give some credence to the notion that, just as Rick Perry seemed less attractive to the right-wing when it came out that he had a human side, willing to help illegal immigrants go to college or young people get HPV vaccines, so Newt Gingrich's history may disqualify him in the minds of some purists for his willingness to peddle influence for Freddie Mac, a government-backed enterprise the right-wing places right at the heart of the causation of the economic crisis of 2008.

I certainly hope so. Because of his ruthless nature, his knowledge of legislative strategy, his big ideas, I consider Gingrich absolutely the most dangerous and destructive of the candidates if he were elected. In Romney and also in Gingrich I see a Nixonian quality: the real person is hidden behind screens, the arguments are for whatever will advance the personal cause, the ambition is relentless. Gingrich is worse than Romney, though, in that personal virtue is totally lacking in him, and I have to believe that he does know what he wants to do. And what he wants scares me.

I was wrong about whose balloon would rise after Cain's, inevitably, began to lose air (his has not totally deflated, but, as a gasbag capable of holding his air, his has little future). I thought it would be Ron Paul's turn, and that may still happen; I'm thinking it may surge with good, though not great, results in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly if Gingrich turns off his current band of followers, and they turn to someone with greater moral authority and consistent political philosophy.

That would likely be too late, though, if Romney can spin his likely close second-place finish in Iowa as a tactical victory, which will be followed by a big win in New Hampshire. That combination might give him enough momentum to pull off a win on the difficult turf of South Carolina (Cain, Gingrich, and even Perry would seem to have the advantage there): if Romney wins there, it would all be over. Though South Carolina has a track record of deciding contested Republican races, I'd be betting that it will have an inconclusive result this year, which would then make Florida the likely decisive result.

2011 Elections: It Don't Mean a Thing....

...if you can't get that swing.
Doppa-doppa do-bap a-bop bap boop.
That's the take-away from this week's voting in several states, and the theme for the 2012 elections: the return of the moderate voter, and the essential importance of the swing states' electoral behavior. It's not that the offyear elections we had yesterday were unimportant; sorry, if my title suggested that.

The facts in the key election contests are well documented, because there weren't really that many contests of note.

In Ohio, the voters sided with public employee unions and against Gov. John Kasich and the state legislature, which turned heavily toward the Republicans in 2010. A bill they had passed this year limiting the range of topics those unions could include in collective bargaining was decisively repealed; however, in the other direction, in the same state, ths voters chose in a symbolic vote to support an initiative negating the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a "Obamacare"). That vote is symbolic because the mandate's constitutionality will be determined in the Supreme Court, and state laws about it will ultimately be superseded by Federal law.

In Mississippi, an extremist anti-abortion referendum giving legal protection to all fertilized zygotes went down to defeat. Even strongly pro-life Republican politicians expressed qualms about the referendum, though the state's new governor and pandering Mitt Romney said they supported it.

In Arizona, the state Senator who authored the odious anti-immigrant legislation, Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a recall vote. The person who defeated him was another Republican!

In Maine, another statehouse that had turned Republican in 2010, the law that blocked Maine's beloved same-day voter registration was repealed. In Kentucky, one of the redder states, a Democratic moderate governor won big.

The common thread in all these results was the re-emergence of the voice of the moderate voter. In 2006 and 2008, the swing voters rejected Bushite Misrule and chose Democrats. In 2010, they either rejected perceived excess from the Democrats or, disappointed, stayed home. This year, they seem to have found some topics which moved them.

Committed Democrats and committed Republicans can be counted on to turn out and vote their political passions in any contest where they are at stake. The swing voters can never be taken for granted, but in our political system, anytime they show up to vote and swing to one side or the other, their influence is decisive. This fact explains the persistent effort of President Obama to try to appease moderate factions of the Republicans, to seek compromise, to avoid full expression of his more left-wing views, and to take positions which he knows will irritate his left-wing supporters: It's all about getting and keeping the swing voters, whether independents or moderates from either party.

Next Year: What Could Swing it from Being a Swing Thing
The most probable scenario for next year is a close Presidential election, with serious contests for control of the Senate and the House. The Republicans have the edge for each house of Congress, though the dynamics of the two differ somewhat. The Presidential race, I hope to show, favors Obama as the incumbent, but it is likely to be close and depend on the outcome of a limited number of state contests.

There are four events which would change that scenario--three of them would favor Obama and the Democrats, while only one would put the Republicans in position to take decisive control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The events which would favor the Democrats, in increasing order of probability are as follows:
1) A dramatic improvement in the US economy, with GDP growth over 5% and unemployment dropping from today's 9% to something below 7%.
2) An outbreak of open warfare in Asia, possibly involving some kind of craziness in Pakistan, but more likely involving Israel fighting against (in decreasing order) Iran, Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt. Such hostilities would emphasize Obama's superior handling of international issues (and the Republican candidates unpreparedness); otherwise domestic issues would predominate.
3) The nomination of a looney-tune Tea Party nominee by the Republicans, or the fracturing of the Republicans' unity and a major third-party candidacy by the someone capturing the rump (losing) part of the party. In the category of the former, I would name (in increasing order of likelihood) Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, or Cain.
The nomination of any of these candidates should ensure an easy Obama victory, probable retention of the Senate, and likely recapture of the House. A split in the Republican party, which could occur either with one of these jokers winning the nomination, or with Romney or Huntsman winning the nomination but not the hearts of the Tea Party, would ensure an easy victory for Obama but Congress would still be in play, as Congressional races would play out tactically according to their local dynamics.

In the other sense, severe additional deterioration in the US economy, with unemployment breaking double digits and negative GDP growth, would likely doom Obama's chances, regardlsss of the degree to which anything he did or failed to do caused that recession.

But Swing Most Likely Be the Thing

Except for the economic alternatives, it is possible for more than one of the above to occur; the economic deterioration would take priority over anything else, but any other combination of would work in Obama's favor. I'd say the chances of none of them happening is upwards of 60%, which prompts our discussion of the states which will decide things in a close race for the Presidency and for control of the Senate.

One-Horse Races
There are a whole bunch of states which are really not expected to be contested in the Presidential race next year. You know, I know, everybody knows--I don't really have to recite them, but I will tell you that sum of their electoral votes, newly reallocated after the 2010 Census, totals 172 electoral votes for the Democrats and 151 for the Republicans. Failure to win any of them, as McCain somehow did with Indiana in 2008, is a clear signal for a landslide win.

There are a couple of important Senate races in these states, though most of them will not end up being close. Two very important ones will be the Democrats' attempt to reclaim the Senate seat held for some five decades by Ted Kennedy but lost to Scott Brown in a special election (Elizabeth Warren looks like a favorite to gain the seat to me, though it might help Brown if Romney is the nominee), and a possible close contest in North Dakota--the seat being given up by Kent Conrad is certainly endangered for the Democrats, but they have a plausible candidate.

Big Leans

These states will have fairly narrow margins, but the direction they should be expected to fall is clear from the outset.
Democrats: New Jersey (14); Minnesota (10). Except for Obama's home state of Illinois, Minnesota is the safest of the upper Midwest states, and Amy Klobuchar should be able to retain her Senate seat. New Jersey could be very close, but I like Dems' chances.
Republicans: Montana (3), Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Missouri (10). Montana and Missouri have critical Senate races for the Democrats to hold (Tester, McCaskill) if they hope to retain control of the Senate. They will be narrow underdogs in both races, but this extra value in the state will make the Obama campaign work hard there, no matter what their assessment of the overall state of the race. Obama campaign folks claim that they can make Arizona and Georgia competitive because of their strong minority votes, but I don't see it, except in a blowout situation.
(Cumulative: Democrats 196, Republicans 191)

Moderate Leans The election may effectively be won by the ability of the parties to hold these states; if they can't, a break or two in the 50-50 atates won't do the trick.
Democrats: Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9). Obama will go into the campaign with small leads in these states, and he must hold them. If he does, he will be very close to victory. Two Senate seats the Democrats must hold to keep their majority--the New Mexico one Jeff Bingaman is giving up, and the Wisconsin one Herb Kohl is yielding--will be extremely tough ones, as the Republicans are likely to run moderates--Heather Wilson in NM and Tommy Thompson in WI--who will make things very tough. I see Pennsylvania as the most vulnerable one of this group in the Presidential race, and its loss would be catastrophic.
Republicans: Florida (29), North Carolina (15). The importance of these two is reflected in the parties' choice of Tampa and Charlotte for the Republican and Democratic national conventions next year. I expect the Republicans to name Marco Rubio as their V.P. nominee, to further attempt to lock up that state, without which they will little chance to win. If they don't name him, it will mean something bad about Rubio, or an extremely high level of confidence about the state. Still, they should want to put maximum effort there to try and take the Senate seat from Bill Nelson.
(Cumulative: Democrats 256, Republicans 235).

Total War: The True Swing States
The final five states--New Hampshire (4), Nevada (6), Virginia (13), Iowa (6), and, of course, Ohio (18)--are the ones we'll be watching if the most likely scenarios play out. With the states above allocated as I've shown, Ohio would be an absolute necessity for the Republicans, but the Democrats could win without it. Note that three of them (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada) are among the first five states to have primaries this year, so their early sentiments will be keenly watched.

If they were not already important enough, three of them--Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio--will have critical Senate races, as well. Nevada is a rare chance for a Democratic gain, while Virginia's battle for Jim Webb's seat--expected to be Tim Kaine vs. George Allen--will be one of the closest, and closest watched. I like Sherrod Brown's chances to hold his Ohio seat, but it will be well contested and his opponent very well financed. I like Iowa for the Democrats and New Hampshire for the Republicans (especially if it's Romney), which would make winning Virginia or Ohio decisive for Obama. I think he can win both, and Nevada, for a final tally of Obama 299, Romney 239, and I think Romney would do better than any other candidate.

As far as the Senate's concerned, I see the Democrats losing Ben Nelson's seat in Nebraska (good riddance), the seat in North Dakota, and I make them slight underdogs in New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin, while I make them slight favorites in Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and for the possible pick-ups of Massachusetts and Nevada. If it plays out that way, the Republicans would net a gain of 3, making it a 50-50 result, with the V.P. breaking the tie for control.

The House is more difficult to handicap than this--and this has not been easy--but I would summarize by saying that the Democrats will find it very difficult to pick up the 25 seats they need without a decisive electoral victory for Obama and the Democratic party. The Democrats' best hope is for more Tea Party candidates--as the Presidential nominee, and in the House.