I've already given my previews twice: once before half the movies came out, and once drawing upon the Golden Globes results. From the predictions and scuttlebutt out there, I have the feeling I'm going to be very dissatisfied with the award-winners, but I have hopes to be pleasantly surprised in a couple of categories, and I always enjoy (and usually get a bit emotional about) the event itself.
For this post, I will list the category and which one I would've selected if I had a vote, and then contrast with the one "everyone" is expecting to win in parentheses; if I have no objection to the indicated winner, I'll just show that in parens. I haven't been participating in any of those contests to predict winners, so I haven't done my research on the "minor" categories such as documentaries, shorts, etc. So I'll just leave most of them out.
Best Picture: The Descendants (The Artist)
Directing: Terence Malick, The Tree of Life (Martin Scorsese, Hugo)
Actor: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jean Dujardin, The Artist)
Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn (Christopher Plummer, Beginners)
Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (Viola Davis, The Help)
Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, The Help (Octavia Spencer, The Help)
Animated Feature: (Rango)
Art Direction: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Cinematography: The Tree of Life (Hugo)
Costume: (The Artist)
Documentary: Pina (?)
Film Editing: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Foreign Language: (A Separation, Iran)
Makeup: (Albert Nobbs)
Music: (The Artist)
Song: (The Muppets)--the fact that only two songs were nominated is shameful.
Sound Editing & Sound Mixing: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Hugo)
Visual Effects: (Harry Potter)
Writing (Adapted): The Descendants (Moneyball)
Writing (Original): Bridesmaids (Midnight in Paris)
A few closing comments: I would not be upset for Best Acturess if Davis or Meryl Streep win. Similarly, I'll be happy for Clooney if he gets Best Actor and not too upset if Dujardin gets it in his one bonne chance. I will be very upset if The Artist wins best screenwriting. I think Hugo is not really in the running for Best Picture but might end up with the most awards for its technical merits, and that's OK. The Best Director nominees are all extremely well-qualified, which makes my longshot pick of Malick a bit unrealistic.
Best Supporting Actress should've gone to Shailene Woodley for The Descendants, which wasn't nominated; Octavia Spencer's best hope is that her colleague in The Help, Jessica Chastain, looks like a long-term multi-nominee so people will overlook her this year, but the fact that the favored candidate shares a nomination with someone in the same movie does suggest that there could be an opening for one of the other nominees, perhaps even a surprise for Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids.
I do not agree that this was an unusually weak year, but I think the retrospective view will be that (or maybe that the Academy made huge errors in overlooking other films) if The Artist is chosen for all the big awards. It's a light entertainment, cute and well-made but not too engaging and with no lasting effect. I think the default pick of Christopher Plummer as Supporting Actor is a poor one with high-quality alternatives: though he's undoubtedly a great actor, nobody saw his movie--maybe Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, in which he did well in a relatively minor role, would've been a better vehicle.
Finally, the Best Picture favorite, far and away, is The Artist, with The Descendants being the second choice; however, if I were betting, I would put money on Hugo, probably about a 15-1 choice, that could pull an upset. This would disappoint few, and it follows the leading indicator of most nominations; I see it winning 4-6 Oscars prior to the Best Picture announcement, which might put it in top spot for the night even without it.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Carter Scott-Heron Hitchens Joe Pa St. Houston
A Scattering of Deceased Celebrities
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
