As I post this, one of the key games of this year’s men’s NCAA basketball tournament will be getting underway—U. of Kentucky vs. its cross-state rival, the U. of Louisville. I promise not to tailor this posting to what may be occurring before my eyes in that one.
Kentucky, of course, is the #1 seed of the entire field, the pre-tourney favorite, and a team that has, so far, fully justified its rating. I won’t say that they toyed with their four opponents so far, but none of the games were close in the end. The key one for them up until now was their revenge victory over Indiana University, the only team to defeat the Wildcats in the regular season. They were charged up from the beginning, and, though the Hoosiers caught up and even led briefly in the second half, there was never doubt (in my mind, anyway) that they would win.
Louisville is the lowest seed remaining, at #4 in its region (called, technically, the “West”), but no longshot—after all, the Cardinals did win the Big East tournament. They have shown a lot of heart and resilience, as well as employing well coach Rick Pitino’s trademark full-court press for the full 40 minutes. Since the second round*, a tough battle against #5 seed New Mexico, Louisville has battled adversity or, in the case of their third-round match vs. #1 regional seed Michigan State, a favored opponent with talented, more famed players. The toughest game was actually in the regional final against regional #7 Florida—the tourney’s biggest overachiever, in terms of its seeding (though it gave a very good account of itself, showing the quality of the Gators’ late-season play, in the Southeastern Conference semifinal against Kentucky just before the tournament started): Louisville trailed most of the game and needed a late surge to pull out the victory.
I see the current matchup as, potentially, the greatest challenge Kentucky faces in its route to the championship. Louisville’s press could expose the closest thing Kentucky has to a weakness, its backcourt play. Point guard Marcus Teague is talented, but he is still a freshman and far from being the most accomplished of their starters. Louisville may be able to unnerve him or, worse, get him in early foul trouble.
If that happens, it will reflect too well on Pitino and badly on Kentucky’s coach John Calipari. Pitino’s team’s best game, against Michigan St., was like this one in Louisville’s having a full week to prepare (I wonder if he’s been able to keep them off the streets of New Orleans). Calipari has come up short in the later rounds before, despite having the best talent in the field: he has to have known what is coming and developed strategies to beat the press. I suspect that, if his star Anthony Davis is fully healthy (he had a minor knee injury in the last game), one will be to have Davis help out with that task. Davis is a fine ballhandler who was a point guard in the Chicago high school system until a late growth surge made him a spidery, agile shot-blocking big man ripe for the pros--he’s projected as the first pick in the pro draft.
In the other semifinal, I’m going with Ohio State over Kansas. Both teams were rated #2 in their regions, but the Buckeyes have looked far more impressive, with the exception of a few minutes when Kansas’ late surge allowed the Jayhawks to defeat its regional top seed, North Carolina. I honestly believe Ohio St. deserves the game more (Kansas won two earlier games—against Purdue and Florida State--they did not really deserve); both teams are equally talented, though Ohio St.’s top players have shone more so far, and finally, if Kentucky defeats Ohio St. in the final I stand to win the office pool. Confirmation bias, anyone?
* I refuse to go with the NCAA’s new labeling of the preliminary round, which has only four games with eight teams, all seeded below #10 in their regions, as the first round. It’s probably a sneaky move toward expanding the field yet again, and I’m not buying into it; until at least half of the teams in the tourney play it will remain “the preliminary round” in my commentary.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Current Events, Recent Movies
I am one of that rapidly disappearing breed who looks to the movies for something besides escapist entertainment. Not that I expect some socially redeeming value in every film, but once in a while, yes. Frankly, though, I am not getting any of it lately, particularly nothing that one could call political relevance.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Biased NCAA Preview
I'm massively a fan of major college basketball, and this has been a banner year for the teams I back--probably the most exciting for me since 1985 and 1986. With one or two exceptions, all my top 10 faves are right there in the mix on the national scene. Here they are, in order, and with comments explaining some of my emotional ties:
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Quickie for Super Tuesday
Tonight will once again be a lot of to-do about not-so-much. There are 11 states, but I'm not very interested in the count of number of states won--that might've been interesting in the early stages when candidates were trying (and failing) to develop irresistible momentum, but now it's about delegates and the possibility of Rick Santorum and/or Newt Gingrich preventing Mitt Romney's nomination.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
