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).
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
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:
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."
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."
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
