I have to begin with a bit of a brag: two of my four entries in ESPN's Tournament Challenge have the Final Four exactly right.
My wife did the fifth of the five free entries. She did as well, or better, up to the round of eight. Though she had two wrong out of those--Kansas, and the Quackers of Oregon--she can still beat me out if Georgetown beats Ohio State. Meanwhile, I've got Florida beating Ohio St. in one of the perfect fours, and Ohio St. beating Florida in the final in the other.
I like the fact that you get multiple entries--it lets you try things out, act them through the whole scenario. I kept coming back to the same teams winning through the latter rounds, and I'm surprised that I was right. In that sense, the biggest game was not Xavier-Ohio St., or the tough losses Tennessee and Vandy suffered, but the defeat of the dragon, University of North Carolina, in the regional final at the hands of Georgetown.
I had it wrong, though, about chaos in the early rounds. Plenty of close games, but the top teams almost always pulled them out. This year. A blast of normalcy in the jetstream.
Applying this Learning...
Clearly this bodes well for HRC. Following the NCAA's example, Her Royal Chalkness should edge past upstart BHO with a couple of close scares in the preliminary rounds.
With the Republicans, it's always the Chalk, every time. Or so it seems. Last time there was an upset was 1940. Is it just too early to set the line?
The Most Favored Scenario is that McCain somehow survives the Iraq debacle to become the favorite going into the caucuses--Giuliani's true record of his mayoral years catches up with him, and the Bushites cut Johnny a break and begin withdrawals as we enter 2008, thus relieving the pressure.
McCain is now totally compromised among virtually all who would call themselves Democrats or Leaning Democratic. He's thus lost his chance to fully capitalize on Hillary's high negatives, and I think those will end up drifting off to a third-party candidate like Bloomberg, or not voting if there is no significant third.
We begin to believe in the concept of Hillary as the odds-on favorite, and it is very easy to see how a bit of momentum for her could snowball, as those who like her OK but doubt her chances become agreeable to her nomination, and then to her election.
Please note that with the acceleration in the primary schedule, it will be almost impossible for another Final Four to be nominated before the two party presidential candidates are--even if the Unofficial National Primary fails to name a clear winner.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
I Got Barry Bonds for $30...
...and other notes of despair.
I can't decide what to do with him (his 3rd year of a 3-year contract in a 5X5 w/runs and IP NL-only keeper Rotisserie 15H/10P league--12 teams). In other words, the price is a pretty reasonable estimate of his value until he gets 755. The Giants and he toyed with each other, but it looks as though he's ready to go for the season--at least until he breaks the record or he gets indicted (probably under a charge of sheer effrontery), whichever comes first. The choices are: cut him now (potentially to be claimed by others at $30), keep him, trade him before Draft Day, or trade him after Draft Day. Obviously the optimal is to trade him just before he breaks the record, but I have to advise the unitiated that the problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. I also make note that I discard the option to extend his contract beyond this year at any price. Apart from that, any advice would be welcome.
NCAA Brackets
Big controversy! 'Cuse, Drexel don't make it! In favor of, what, Xavier and Illinois (or Arkansas)? Where was the Eastern delegate?
These are all marginal decisions in the extreme (though they might mean real points in ratings), though not marginal at all to the players, coaches, and fans of the teams involved. I think Boeheim had missed once before, so the thought was not unthinkable, though it did seem so in the case of Bobby Knight's team, Texas Tech. For all those not picked, NIT is a good party in NYC, though, if you keep practicing.
As far as personal leanings, I'm pulling for Kentucky to beat Kansas in the second round, for Louisville to go a long way (unless it's at the cost of my father's dedication to Indiana), and the winner of the Virginia-Albany game to go a couple of rounds further. So will read my first two espn pick sets (one with Albany), driven totally by emotions. Then I'll try one crazy one and one sober, chalk-driven.
Chalk is definitely called for, after the second round. There are essentially 8-9 teams with fairly similar chances to win it all (Florida has the best, though, with its #1 seed and draw--well earned, I say!). Beyond those, I would deny that anyone else has a chance: they just weren't consistent enough. Predicting results among teams rated 14-51 in the tourney will be total chaos. This already emerged during "Championship Week", and caused a lot of the wild, Brownian movements of The Bubble.
In basketball, the NCAA has done a good job of pushing that monster all the way down to around 45th place (where the last of the 34 at-large teams would rank). Compare that to their miserable flailing in football (due to the difficulties of scheduling multiple games for such large teams), where the crunch seems to happen around #7.
I can't decide what to do with him (his 3rd year of a 3-year contract in a 5X5 w/runs and IP NL-only keeper Rotisserie 15H/10P league--12 teams). In other words, the price is a pretty reasonable estimate of his value until he gets 755. The Giants and he toyed with each other, but it looks as though he's ready to go for the season--at least until he breaks the record or he gets indicted (probably under a charge of sheer effrontery), whichever comes first. The choices are: cut him now (potentially to be claimed by others at $30), keep him, trade him before Draft Day, or trade him after Draft Day. Obviously the optimal is to trade him just before he breaks the record, but I have to advise the unitiated that the problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. I also make note that I discard the option to extend his contract beyond this year at any price. Apart from that, any advice would be welcome.
NCAA Brackets
Big controversy! 'Cuse, Drexel don't make it! In favor of, what, Xavier and Illinois (or Arkansas)? Where was the Eastern delegate?
These are all marginal decisions in the extreme (though they might mean real points in ratings), though not marginal at all to the players, coaches, and fans of the teams involved. I think Boeheim had missed once before, so the thought was not unthinkable, though it did seem so in the case of Bobby Knight's team, Texas Tech. For all those not picked, NIT is a good party in NYC, though, if you keep practicing.
As far as personal leanings, I'm pulling for Kentucky to beat Kansas in the second round, for Louisville to go a long way (unless it's at the cost of my father's dedication to Indiana), and the winner of the Virginia-Albany game to go a couple of rounds further. So will read my first two espn pick sets (one with Albany), driven totally by emotions. Then I'll try one crazy one and one sober, chalk-driven.
Chalk is definitely called for, after the second round. There are essentially 8-9 teams with fairly similar chances to win it all (Florida has the best, though, with its #1 seed and draw--well earned, I say!). Beyond those, I would deny that anyone else has a chance: they just weren't consistent enough. Predicting results among teams rated 14-51 in the tourney will be total chaos. This already emerged during "Championship Week", and caused a lot of the wild, Brownian movements of The Bubble.
In basketball, the NCAA has done a good job of pushing that monster all the way down to around 45th place (where the last of the 34 at-large teams would rank). Compare that to their miserable flailing in football (due to the difficulties of scheduling multiple games for such large teams), where the crunch seems to happen around #7.
"Welcome Home, Don--And Don't Ever Go Back!"
I consider Jeff Haas a friend, but I have to disagree with his recommendations-- see http://us2.newsmemory.com/crawler/pma_index4/taosnews/dar_33/cd_20070222/What-to-say-to-Rumsfeld--and-why-say-it.htm--on how to deal with unexpected encounters with former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Haas raises the hypothetical (probably sparked by a real-life sighting): If we see him, say on the ski slopes, how should we treat him?
To Jeff Haas, we should confront him as a war criminal, a destroyer of innocent lives and trusted volunteers, a man who has made a wreckage of our force readiness, who has defended coercive treatment of prisoners and denial of civil liberties.
Others to whom I've spoken argue for the slightly different treatment of ostracism. Let him feel the hostility, expressed through shunning of normal human consideration. Banish him, as best we can, and send him on his way.
I feel differently. Things have improved mightily in this nation since the November elections, in terms of the mood of the public, and even the quality of discourse. It is, of course, no accident Rumsfeld was finally fired the day after the Republicans' election day debacle--one would think he was occupying Karl Rove's province--electoral hijinks--instead of occupying Iraq and the other zones directly afflicted by GWOT. No, the electoral defeat finally provided sufficient real-world proof of his complete and total failure--Bush's general one, and Rumsfeld's specific one in Iraq.
I was never one to climb on the "Fire Rumsfeld" bandwagon. His firing would be mere scapgoating, I realized, and we see that in the actual fact. The real point of my argument was that his dismissal would come, in due time, with the definitive collapse of the forces of Bushism, of which he was as central to the Bushite proposition as Dubya himself.
So, the odd thing about having Rumsfeld around here in Taos is that Bushites can still be found on the political battlefront in Washington, although retreating as fast as their lame little waddling feet can trot. This awkward period will continue for another twenty-two months. Although the pragmatic thrust of current maneuvers (co-opting McCain on Iraq, co-opting Baker-Hamilton and participating in talks with Syria and Iran, the surprise agreement with North Korea) suggest the Bushites are not looking for more trouble (like trying to deal with Israel-Palestine, for instance), they are still capable of great mischief.
Here in Taos, Rumsfeld has the least possible chance of influencing events in the world at large. Yes, it would be better if he were in a Saddamesque spider hole, electronically monitored. I think this is our opportunity to show ourselves to be better than he. Confronted with the defeated, boxed-in, but unapologetic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, he chose to attack that caged, but untranquilized, beast, as animal handlers around the world cringed at the faulty technique.
The worst outcome would be for Rumsfeld's advice or counsel to be sought once again in Washington. Undoubtedly he and Cheney share an irredentist urge to somehow get a changed outcome, away from this one of electoral defeat, repudiation of their theories, and the world moving on without them.
I say that we should sacrifice, give him shelter, and make sure he never raises his neocon profile in public again. We only shout him down if he stands up to speak to us.
To Jeff Haas, we should confront him as a war criminal, a destroyer of innocent lives and trusted volunteers, a man who has made a wreckage of our force readiness, who has defended coercive treatment of prisoners and denial of civil liberties.
Others to whom I've spoken argue for the slightly different treatment of ostracism. Let him feel the hostility, expressed through shunning of normal human consideration. Banish him, as best we can, and send him on his way.
I feel differently. Things have improved mightily in this nation since the November elections, in terms of the mood of the public, and even the quality of discourse. It is, of course, no accident Rumsfeld was finally fired the day after the Republicans' election day debacle--one would think he was occupying Karl Rove's province--electoral hijinks--instead of occupying Iraq and the other zones directly afflicted by GWOT. No, the electoral defeat finally provided sufficient real-world proof of his complete and total failure--Bush's general one, and Rumsfeld's specific one in Iraq.
I was never one to climb on the "Fire Rumsfeld" bandwagon. His firing would be mere scapgoating, I realized, and we see that in the actual fact. The real point of my argument was that his dismissal would come, in due time, with the definitive collapse of the forces of Bushism, of which he was as central to the Bushite proposition as Dubya himself.
So, the odd thing about having Rumsfeld around here in Taos is that Bushites can still be found on the political battlefront in Washington, although retreating as fast as their lame little waddling feet can trot. This awkward period will continue for another twenty-two months. Although the pragmatic thrust of current maneuvers (co-opting McCain on Iraq, co-opting Baker-Hamilton and participating in talks with Syria and Iran, the surprise agreement with North Korea) suggest the Bushites are not looking for more trouble (like trying to deal with Israel-Palestine, for instance), they are still capable of great mischief.
Here in Taos, Rumsfeld has the least possible chance of influencing events in the world at large. Yes, it would be better if he were in a Saddamesque spider hole, electronically monitored. I think this is our opportunity to show ourselves to be better than he. Confronted with the defeated, boxed-in, but unapologetic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, he chose to attack that caged, but untranquilized, beast, as animal handlers around the world cringed at the faulty technique.
The worst outcome would be for Rumsfeld's advice or counsel to be sought once again in Washington. Undoubtedly he and Cheney share an irredentist urge to somehow get a changed outcome, away from this one of electoral defeat, repudiation of their theories, and the world moving on without them.
I say that we should sacrifice, give him shelter, and make sure he never raises his neocon profile in public again. We only shout him down if he stands up to speak to us.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Big Ticket
Much has happened since my last stab at the Democratic nomination forecast. This thing about 20-25 states having a primary the same day, including most of the big ones: I dig it, although I think ideally the date would come a couple of months later. Perhaps once this thing gets established, it'll be able to shift later--it's just the dynamic of not being after everyone else that's making this thing happen, and happen so early in the season.
From a strategy and tactics point of view, it changes things considerably. The first four contests remain as they were, but they gain even more importance. The way the primaries have run (since 1972), there develops an inevitable momentum, and buyer's remorse creeps in. This event could conceivably have a different, completely unintended pattern: a split decision, and a close contest following.
Like a buttery stew, 2008 Candidate soup has clarified and then congealed, except for the continuing suggestions that Gore might enter at some point. The big news has been the announcement and continuous rise of Obama. BHO has captured the best terrain on Iraq--don't blame me, I was right all along--and it looks like he's made a serious down payment on the hearts of the African-American community.
Far from being taken for granted, Before Obama there appeared the prospect of an interesting battle for the black vote between Edwards, who had all the right positions, was a genuine Southerner for the key South Carolina contest, and Clinton, who had justly inherited the strong bond her husband held (no, not marriage). Now, it looks as though at least half of African-Americans will gravitate naturally towards Obama as they become convinced that he is, for all the complexity of his background, one of them. That's about 20% of the national Democratic primary vote for Obama, right there.
He's been winning points from Clinton up to now, but in the next, more difficult phase, he will need to gain at the expense of Edwards and the 15% or so (national Dems) of would-be Gore supporters. I see his support among the other two-thirds of Democratic primary voters, the white and Hispanic Democrats, rising to about 30% in this long buildup phase. That brings him to just under 40%; that's where I expect his poll support to plateau.
That's enough to win, depending on the strength and number of other serious contenders. Right now, I'd say there are two, besides Clinton and Obama: Edwards and Bill Richardson. Richardson could well take a substantial share of Hispanic voters, especially out West, which could put him in an interesting role if things should break fairly evenly on Super Tuesday. Even though he's clearly worked on his policies, paying his dues, and honing his message, Edwards would seem to have a tough time making it all the way to winning the nomination, being boxed in by more moderate candidates who attract women and blacks even more than he. Obama could even win over some of the bar community! Dodd and Biden don't look to me to have much chance.
My assumption is that only these four, then, will make it through the qualifiers, the four points of the geographical diamond the DNC has set up: first, the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and then the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Winning three of these should set up inevitable momentum for the Unofficial National Primary, and for big, neutral-territory California, so a strategic win in the early round--3 or 4 wins out of 4--should allow the nominee to emerge immediately from super Tuesday. A tactical win would be two first-place and two second-place finishes from the first four: the results that should then emerge from Big Ticket Day would bring things near clinching. This assumes that one of the other candidates can break through to a second-place finish in at least one of the first four.
On the contrary, though, I see the story line as follows: narrow wins for Clinton (in the 40% range) in both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses; Obama narrowly second in each, over Richardson in NV and over Edwards in Iowa. Obama wins in New Hampshire, narrowly over Clinton, and then more clearly in South Carolina, over Edwards. Having split all but one of the four first-and-second-places between them, Clinton and Obama are at about 40% each going into super Tuesday, with others taking the remaining 20%. On The Big Day, and afterwards, if necessary, Clinton tends to win the open primaries and caucuses, Obama where only Democrats vote. As I suggested before, California could be decisive in a close two-way race.
My greatest concern is if something happens to Obama during the campaign a la Bobby Kennedy in '68.
I'd rate the odds now as: Clinton 50%, Obama 40%, Others (including the normally long-shot possibility of a convention not yet decided for a nominee) 10%.
And the Mezzanine Ticket
With regard to the Republican race, my October projection in the case of a Democratic Victory in '06 was:
Giuliani/Pataki/Romney 25%; McCain 40%; anti-Bushite Right-winger 35%.
The absence of any dominant force among anti-Bushite Right-wingers thus far has probably eased that group's chances of winning down to about 25%--but it's still real. (As I've said, I see Gingrich as the most likely claimant to the mantle).
McCain came out of the election as the clear favorite, as I had been thinking, but he has been busy looking old and flustered, having his iconoclastic Iraq war policy co-opted unexpectedly by the President, and having his policy successes disintegrate. His chances still remain at least 30-35%, though.
Giuliani's chances I would rate just lower than McCain's, Romney's at no more than 5%, and there's still a 5% someone else (besides Newt) could sweep down and claim this nomination.
At this point, none of the candidates are worthy of consideration in a head-to-head with any of the major Democratic candidates (or even the minor ones). That will be different if Chuck Hagel enters.
From a strategy and tactics point of view, it changes things considerably. The first four contests remain as they were, but they gain even more importance. The way the primaries have run (since 1972), there develops an inevitable momentum, and buyer's remorse creeps in. This event could conceivably have a different, completely unintended pattern: a split decision, and a close contest following.
Like a buttery stew, 2008 Candidate soup has clarified and then congealed, except for the continuing suggestions that Gore might enter at some point. The big news has been the announcement and continuous rise of Obama. BHO has captured the best terrain on Iraq--don't blame me, I was right all along--and it looks like he's made a serious down payment on the hearts of the African-American community.
Far from being taken for granted, Before Obama there appeared the prospect of an interesting battle for the black vote between Edwards, who had all the right positions, was a genuine Southerner for the key South Carolina contest, and Clinton, who had justly inherited the strong bond her husband held (no, not marriage). Now, it looks as though at least half of African-Americans will gravitate naturally towards Obama as they become convinced that he is, for all the complexity of his background, one of them. That's about 20% of the national Democratic primary vote for Obama, right there.
He's been winning points from Clinton up to now, but in the next, more difficult phase, he will need to gain at the expense of Edwards and the 15% or so (national Dems) of would-be Gore supporters. I see his support among the other two-thirds of Democratic primary voters, the white and Hispanic Democrats, rising to about 30% in this long buildup phase. That brings him to just under 40%; that's where I expect his poll support to plateau.
That's enough to win, depending on the strength and number of other serious contenders. Right now, I'd say there are two, besides Clinton and Obama: Edwards and Bill Richardson. Richardson could well take a substantial share of Hispanic voters, especially out West, which could put him in an interesting role if things should break fairly evenly on Super Tuesday. Even though he's clearly worked on his policies, paying his dues, and honing his message, Edwards would seem to have a tough time making it all the way to winning the nomination, being boxed in by more moderate candidates who attract women and blacks even more than he. Obama could even win over some of the bar community! Dodd and Biden don't look to me to have much chance.
My assumption is that only these four, then, will make it through the qualifiers, the four points of the geographical diamond the DNC has set up: first, the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and then the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Winning three of these should set up inevitable momentum for the Unofficial National Primary, and for big, neutral-territory California, so a strategic win in the early round--3 or 4 wins out of 4--should allow the nominee to emerge immediately from super Tuesday. A tactical win would be two first-place and two second-place finishes from the first four: the results that should then emerge from Big Ticket Day would bring things near clinching. This assumes that one of the other candidates can break through to a second-place finish in at least one of the first four.
On the contrary, though, I see the story line as follows: narrow wins for Clinton (in the 40% range) in both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses; Obama narrowly second in each, over Richardson in NV and over Edwards in Iowa. Obama wins in New Hampshire, narrowly over Clinton, and then more clearly in South Carolina, over Edwards. Having split all but one of the four first-and-second-places between them, Clinton and Obama are at about 40% each going into super Tuesday, with others taking the remaining 20%. On The Big Day, and afterwards, if necessary, Clinton tends to win the open primaries and caucuses, Obama where only Democrats vote. As I suggested before, California could be decisive in a close two-way race.
My greatest concern is if something happens to Obama during the campaign a la Bobby Kennedy in '68.
I'd rate the odds now as: Clinton 50%, Obama 40%, Others (including the normally long-shot possibility of a convention not yet decided for a nominee) 10%.
And the Mezzanine Ticket
With regard to the Republican race, my October projection in the case of a Democratic Victory in '06 was:
Giuliani/Pataki/Romney 25%; McCain 40%; anti-Bushite Right-winger 35%.
The absence of any dominant force among anti-Bushite Right-wingers thus far has probably eased that group's chances of winning down to about 25%--but it's still real. (As I've said, I see Gingrich as the most likely claimant to the mantle).
McCain came out of the election as the clear favorite, as I had been thinking, but he has been busy looking old and flustered, having his iconoclastic Iraq war policy co-opted unexpectedly by the President, and having his policy successes disintegrate. His chances still remain at least 30-35%, though.
Giuliani's chances I would rate just lower than McCain's, Romney's at no more than 5%, and there's still a 5% someone else (besides Newt) could sweep down and claim this nomination.
At this point, none of the candidates are worthy of consideration in a head-to-head with any of the major Democratic candidates (or even the minor ones). That will be different if Chuck Hagel enters.
Monday, March 05, 2007
GOP Handicap: Sent to CQ Quarterly
McCain-Feingold will fade to insignificance shortly, along with Presidential election financing. Too much is at stake in 2008 to allow meaningful controls. Already the fundraising is insane, and there is no election of significance in 2007.
McCain's 2008 candidacy has been fatally crippled by Dubya's unexpected selection of McCain's own preferred strategy. Giuliani can not be excluded in an extraordinary circumstance such as this election, but it would be the first such nomination from the Republicans since Willkie in 1940. Romney is a typical haircut candidate of the type we know too well.
The right is waiting to be scooped up by Gingrich, who pretends to be waiting for someone to ask him to run. Since no one will, he will decide on his own to do so shortly, which will frame what could be a very close 3-way contest (McCain-Giuliani-Gingrich).
McCain's 2008 candidacy has been fatally crippled by Dubya's unexpected selection of McCain's own preferred strategy. Giuliani can not be excluded in an extraordinary circumstance such as this election, but it would be the first such nomination from the Republicans since Willkie in 1940. Romney is a typical haircut candidate of the type we know too well.
The right is waiting to be scooped up by Gingrich, who pretends to be waiting for someone to ask him to run. Since no one will, he will decide on his own to do so shortly, which will frame what could be a very close 3-way contest (McCain-Giuliani-Gingrich).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
