No more distractions! The baseball playoffs kept my mind away from obsessing about the elections (the World Series, a little less), then there was the wild weekend just past and Sandy. Now, though, it is time to look at things squarely, without blinders, and tell 'em like I see 'em (before the other pundits go on record).
The House of Representatives
First, some individual races I'll be watching for clues on Election Night:
IL - 8 Tammy Duckworth (D) vs. Joe Walsh. Technically an open seat, Congressman Walsh is shifting to a new district, a somewhat unfavorable one created by the Democratic Legislature in redistricting. Along with Allen West (see below), he rates as one of the worst legacies of the Tea Party wave in 2010. A win by him over Iraq wounded vet and helicopter pilot Duckworth would be disastrous, though I believe it to be unlikely. If he did win, it would be the David Duke Effect (also known as the Tom Bradley Effect), in which the vote goes far stronger to an extreme right-winger than the constituents' polled opinions would suggest.
NH - 1 Frank Guinta (R - incumbent) vs. Carol Shea-Porter. The other New Hampshire district looks to be a pickup for the Democrats with Ann McLane Kuster; this one, a rematch from a close 2010 race, is a tougher task. A win by Shea-Porter should equate to a comfortable Obama win in New Hampshire.
FL - 18 Allen West (R- incumbent) vs. Patrick Murphy. West is flat-out one of the worst, full of bombastic bigotry, and beating him is a big priority for the Democratic party; Murphy is young and a bit green. It's a district in the Gold Coast area, slightly favoring the Democrats, but West's incumbency, and a lot of money, even up the odds.
AZ -2 Ron Barber ( D- incumbent) vs. Martha McSally. Barber won the seat in a special election when Gaby Giffords had to give it up; he used to work as an aide for her. He is favored to hold it.
UT - 4 Jim Matheson (D - incumbent) vs. Mia Love. Matheson is a moderate Democrat (not too liberal, but not a Blue Dog) trying to survive redistricting in a heavily red state. Ms. Love is a new Republican heroine, a conservative black Mormon mayor who spoke at the convention.
It would take a sudden storm surge greater than Sandy to send the Democrats over the top this year--every inch of gain will be hard-fought. I predict a gain of 12-13 seats, to 205-206, short of the 25-seat gain which would be needed to return control to the Democrats.
The Senate
We begin by tabulating the seats either not up for election this year, locked up for their incumbents, or in the cases of the open seats in Texas and Hawaii, the obvious favorites, Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Mazie Hirono. This is an exercise we did long ago, and our current version of this brings the point of departure count of seats to 42-42, leaving an incredible 16 races close enough to be worth talking about. I will address each of the sixteen briefly, starting with the ones that have the clearest leaders and moving to the ones that are inseparably close, and give the running total:
Maine - Angus King will win the seat with about 60% of the vote. The question is whether this moderately liberal independent can be relied upon to caucus with the Democrats. It no longer appears that his will be the decisive vote for control of the Senate, though. Called here a "Democratic pickup". D, 43-42.
Nebraska - Former Gov./Sen. Bob Kerrey has run a good, hard race against a Tea Party extremist, but it is an uphill struggle for him, or for any Democrat in this state to hold onto Ben Nelson's seat that was--just barely--counted in the Democratic column. . Republican pickup. 43-43.
New Mexico - Congressman Martin Heinrich has opened a lead against former Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson, both from Albuquerque. I saw a televised debate between them on C-Span: Heinrich is solid on the arguments but not too impressive as a speaker, Wilson still cagey but looking a bit drawn and tired. Heinrich has opened a lead. D, 44-43.
Pennsylvania - Incumbent Democrat Bob Casey has run a weak campaign this year, nothing like what he did six years ago in destroying Rick Santorum. It does appear he will win, though--the Sandy Effect (see the Presidential prediction post) should not be enough to bring him down. D, 45-43.
Florida - Incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson has been challenged, mostly by the huge spending made in the state by Republicans and PAC's, but it appears he will survive--again. D, 46-43.
Connecticut - The seat being vacated by Joe Lieberman, it should go Democratic, but free-wheeling Republican Linda McMahon has spent big money of her own on her candidacy as a Republican, and she has closed the gap. Which doesn't mean she will win, though. D, 47-43.
Ohio - Sherrod Brown is holding on in the ultimate battleground state by a few points (like the President is doing in Ohio, as well), despite being barraged by attack ads. D, 48-43.
Arizona - Rep. Jeff Flake is holding off Democratic nominee Richard Carmona, who has run a good race. Flake is still a slight favorite to hold onto the seat being vacated by Jon Kyl. D, 48-44.
Nevada - Republican Dean Heller won the seat in a special election after it was vacated by disgraced Sen. John Ensign. Heller now seems likely to hold off the challenge of Rep. Shelley Berkley. /D, 48-45.
Massachusetts - I expected this to be one of the closest races, and it is certainly one that will get more than its share of attention on Election Night. I see it as a fairly safe win for Elizabeth Warren, though, over that special election interloper, the incumbent Republican Scott Brown. Basically, he was brought down by his association with the national party. Democratic pickup. D, 49-45.
Missouri - Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill should be losing this one, despite the advantages of incumbency. Instead, her opponent is the infamous Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin, so she should pull out a 2-4 point win. D, 50-45.
North Dakota - This race for the seat Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad is vacating should favor the Republicans for a pickup. Democratic nominee Heidi Heitkamp has run a good political race, tilting a bit populist and anti-liberal to some extent, while seeking plenty of national party and feminist support. North Dakota also has the most vigorous economy in the country, due to a big oil boom. Still, got to go with the Republican Rick Berg here. Republican pickup. D, 50-46.
Virginia - After Massachusetts, and alongside the fate of the extremist Tea Party candidates in Missouri and Indiana, this race rates as one of the biggest stories of the night. Two former governors battling for an open seat with big budgets, major national party involvement, and, of course, the complexity added by Virginia's being one of the most critical swing states in the Presidential election. I give a slight edge (1-2 points) to President Obama's former national party chairman, former Gov. Tim Kaine. D, 51-46.
Indiana - Vying for the seat held by Republican Dick Luger are the Tea Party extremist who defeated him in the Republican primary, Richard "Rape pregnancy? God planned it" Mourdock and moderate (even conservative) Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly. Despite repeated gaffes (Mourdock insisting on speaking honestly), I think he will win, very narrowly--I don't trust the Indiana voters to do the right thing. D, 51-47.
Wisconsin - Democrat Tammy Baldwin has run a strong race to hold the seat of the departing Herb Kohl, but she has a competent, popular, fairly-moderate opponent in former Gov. Tommy Thompson. After this spring's recall vote which went to Gov. Scott Walker, I don't trust the Wisconsin voters much, either. Republican pickup. D, 51-48.
Finally--
Montana - Moderate (even conservative) Senator Jon Tester (the farmer with the crewcut) has run hard to save his seat; he has a typical Western Republican (think: Goldwater-type) opponent in Rep. Denny Rehberg. I expect this race to be too close to call all night, maybe even subject to a recount with the outcome in doubt. At the end of the day, though, I think the Republican will win. Republican pickup. D, 51-49.
So, my picks are for four seats gained by the Republicans vs. two for the Democrats, a net gain of two. I'm leaning toward the Republicans' winning the closest races, with the exception of Virginia's. The Democrats would still hold a majority that would be somewhat safe, assuming Maine's King goes with them, even without the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President. We will look at the race for Joe Biden's seat (and, President Obama's), in our next post.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Departures
George McGovern (died 10/21) - It was only after the frenzy of the electoral campaign and the embarrassment of his landslide defeat in 1972 that America really got to know this fine person. In 1968, he was the guy who came from nowhere (i.e., South Dakota) to try to claim the mantle of the martyred Bobby Kennedy and acted as a spoiler for Hubert Humphrey's nomination. In 1972, he was the symbol of opposition to Richard Nixon's Vietnam War (which had--officially--expanded into Laos and Cambodia) that the Democrats found themselves nominating, the man who selected Tom Eagleton as his running mate without proper vetting, who ended up winning one state (Massachusetts) and 17 electoral votes.
It was a time when political passions ran higher than they do now, and he was furiously, and successfully, caricatured by his political opponents. Nixon's dirty tricks crew broke into the Democratic HQ at Watergate in June, when McGovern had almost clinched the nomination. It wasn't McGovern they were worried about; they were hoping to get some dirt in case Ted Kennedy decided to make a late run for the nomination. It was the great irony; they needn't have bothered, and without that error the fundamental, tawdry criminality of Nixon's White House would probably never have surfaced.
McGovern did win re-election to the Senate one more time, in 1974, before being turned out in the Reagan election victory of 1980. What we eventually learned about him is that he was no un-American radical; he was just a normal liberal who saw the problems with the Vietnam War earlier than most, and he was a World War II hero. He distinguished himself in his post-Senate career and came to be a respected senior statesman of his party.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk (10/15) - Speaking of the war in Southeast Asia, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia (later King Sihanouk) was one of the most interesting players in the conflict. Though his ways were somewhat flamboyant, he worked hard to try to keep his country from being enmeshed in the conflagration chewing up his larger neighbor country, Vietnam. He tried to maintain neutrality, but could not sufficiently maintain the integrity of his borders from infiltration by the North Vietnamese. The Americans eventually lost respect for him and his country's territorial integrity and messed around with the country--they put in the palindromic anticommunist military man Lon Nol through a coup d'etat, and chaos ensued.
The Khmer Rouge communist insurgency in Cambodia, which had been a minor force prior to the coup, gained strength from the end of neutrality--and from the appearance by their side of Sihanouk himself--and eventually took power (America had lost interest by then). What followed was one of the worst episodes in recorded history, as the Khmer Rouge rusticated the capital and massacred thousands of Cambodians. After the Khmer Rouge eventually exhausted the patience of Communist Vietnam, the Vietnamese invaded, overthrew them, and began a long occupation.
Sihanouk went to exile once, twice. His Second Act (or was it the third?) began in 1993 when he acted as guarantor for democratic elections and was named king in what was intended to be a constitutional monarchy. He stayed on after the next coup by another strongman, Hun Sen, for another decade, before his health, which had been bad for decades, took a more permanent turn for the worse. He died abroad, in Beijing. He had quite a life--dramatic, sensational, sometimes courageous--but may not be remembered particularly well by his people, whom he protected poorly from the violence of the region.
Arlen Specter (10/14) - Like Sihanouk, Specter was another cat with several lives. He was elected, repeatedly, as a moderate Republican from swing-state Pennsylvania. In another era, he worked with the Democratic majority on many occasions.. When the Republicans controlled the White House, though, he showed different colors. One of his most famed episodes was his hostile questioning of Anita Hill for the temerity she showed in challenging Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment of her when he got the nomination for the Supreme Court. Specter won that battle, and we all lost as a result.
Specter turned his coat inside out again in 2009, switching from the Republican side to the Democratic one, and thus giving the Democrats a short-lived filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes (they lost it when Republican Scott Brown won the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat). He cited the intransigence of the Republicans at the time, but the real problem was that he saw the rise of the Tea Party and that he was going to be challenged, and likely defeated, for re-nomination. As it turned out, though, the Democrats' acceptance of him was only temporary: he was defeated for re-nomination on the Democratic side by Congressman Joe Sestak, who then narrowly lost the race for the seat to right-winger Pat Toomey.
Specter had suffered from cancer for several years, and his health was probably a factor in his political decline in 2010. He will be remembered as a savvy politician with a mixed record, an old-fashioned Senate swing vote who showed that political leverage can come from the ability to take positions independently of the party line.
Eric Hobsbawm (10/1) - Hobsbawm was one of the greatest historians of the modern era. His approach was a Marxist one that emphasized economic analysis and frequently focused on those who were not of the exalted elite. His political stance made him a target for criticism, and then for the triumphalism that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union. He defended his belief, though he didn't stand behind all the many mistakes of the Communist regimes.
Hobsbawm came to England as a refugee to the imminent World War II and made a home there. Later in his life he became a close ally of Britain's Labour party. I appreciated in particular his social economic history study of the Sicilian Mafia, its roots, and others of its ilk ("Primitive Rebels....") and his history of "the short 20th Century", from the beginning of World War I through the end of the Cold War, 1914-1989, "The Age of Extremes".
Alex Karras (10/10) - Karras was a Pro Bowl NFL offensive guard for the Detroit Lions who became a successful professional actor. He combined the two talents in a prominent role in George Plimpton's famed chronicle of his pretended attempt to make the Lions as a third-string quarterback, "Paper Lion". Karras was a big, strong man, but also an intelligent one, and someone who was willing to show a more gentle side on occasion. My favorite among his acting roles was the one he performed in "Victor/Victoria", where he was a sort of foil to Julie Andrews' cross-dressing male drag singer (if you can follow that); Karras' character was a tough guy who later revealed he was gay.
In his football career, Karras was the rare offensive lineman who became a well-known face. Partly it was due to his ability, partly to the role in "Paper Lion", but also because of his notoriety when he was suspended for a year for consorting with suspicious characters, back in the '60's when that kind of autocratic edict was possible for an NFL commissioner.
Andy Williams (9/25) - For me, Williams was the best of an unpleasant breed, the '50's-style romantic male vocalist. He could sing well, but what was more appealing to me, compared to someone like Sinatra, was his personality, which was humorous and self-deprecating. I found myself surprisingly fond of his eponymous late-'60s TV musical variety show.
After that, he had a rather dramatic episode or two, when his ex-wife, the glamorous Claudine Longet, killed her lover, the famed skier Spider Sabich, then charmed the Colorado jury into letting her off. Williams had only a supporting role in that drama, but after that he mostly retreated from the public eye; he would appear in annual TV musical specials for Christmas for several years, and he bought a club in Branson, Missouri and used that as his base for performing thereafter. He seemed to be genuinely popular in the phony world of show business.
It was a time when political passions ran higher than they do now, and he was furiously, and successfully, caricatured by his political opponents. Nixon's dirty tricks crew broke into the Democratic HQ at Watergate in June, when McGovern had almost clinched the nomination. It wasn't McGovern they were worried about; they were hoping to get some dirt in case Ted Kennedy decided to make a late run for the nomination. It was the great irony; they needn't have bothered, and without that error the fundamental, tawdry criminality of Nixon's White House would probably never have surfaced.
McGovern did win re-election to the Senate one more time, in 1974, before being turned out in the Reagan election victory of 1980. What we eventually learned about him is that he was no un-American radical; he was just a normal liberal who saw the problems with the Vietnam War earlier than most, and he was a World War II hero. He distinguished himself in his post-Senate career and came to be a respected senior statesman of his party.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk (10/15) - Speaking of the war in Southeast Asia, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia (later King Sihanouk) was one of the most interesting players in the conflict. Though his ways were somewhat flamboyant, he worked hard to try to keep his country from being enmeshed in the conflagration chewing up his larger neighbor country, Vietnam. He tried to maintain neutrality, but could not sufficiently maintain the integrity of his borders from infiltration by the North Vietnamese. The Americans eventually lost respect for him and his country's territorial integrity and messed around with the country--they put in the palindromic anticommunist military man Lon Nol through a coup d'etat, and chaos ensued.
The Khmer Rouge communist insurgency in Cambodia, which had been a minor force prior to the coup, gained strength from the end of neutrality--and from the appearance by their side of Sihanouk himself--and eventually took power (America had lost interest by then). What followed was one of the worst episodes in recorded history, as the Khmer Rouge rusticated the capital and massacred thousands of Cambodians. After the Khmer Rouge eventually exhausted the patience of Communist Vietnam, the Vietnamese invaded, overthrew them, and began a long occupation.
Sihanouk went to exile once, twice. His Second Act (or was it the third?) began in 1993 when he acted as guarantor for democratic elections and was named king in what was intended to be a constitutional monarchy. He stayed on after the next coup by another strongman, Hun Sen, for another decade, before his health, which had been bad for decades, took a more permanent turn for the worse. He died abroad, in Beijing. He had quite a life--dramatic, sensational, sometimes courageous--but may not be remembered particularly well by his people, whom he protected poorly from the violence of the region.
Arlen Specter (10/14) - Like Sihanouk, Specter was another cat with several lives. He was elected, repeatedly, as a moderate Republican from swing-state Pennsylvania. In another era, he worked with the Democratic majority on many occasions.. When the Republicans controlled the White House, though, he showed different colors. One of his most famed episodes was his hostile questioning of Anita Hill for the temerity she showed in challenging Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual harassment of her when he got the nomination for the Supreme Court. Specter won that battle, and we all lost as a result.
Specter turned his coat inside out again in 2009, switching from the Republican side to the Democratic one, and thus giving the Democrats a short-lived filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes (they lost it when Republican Scott Brown won the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat). He cited the intransigence of the Republicans at the time, but the real problem was that he saw the rise of the Tea Party and that he was going to be challenged, and likely defeated, for re-nomination. As it turned out, though, the Democrats' acceptance of him was only temporary: he was defeated for re-nomination on the Democratic side by Congressman Joe Sestak, who then narrowly lost the race for the seat to right-winger Pat Toomey.
Specter had suffered from cancer for several years, and his health was probably a factor in his political decline in 2010. He will be remembered as a savvy politician with a mixed record, an old-fashioned Senate swing vote who showed that political leverage can come from the ability to take positions independently of the party line.
Eric Hobsbawm (10/1) - Hobsbawm was one of the greatest historians of the modern era. His approach was a Marxist one that emphasized economic analysis and frequently focused on those who were not of the exalted elite. His political stance made him a target for criticism, and then for the triumphalism that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union. He defended his belief, though he didn't stand behind all the many mistakes of the Communist regimes.
Hobsbawm came to England as a refugee to the imminent World War II and made a home there. Later in his life he became a close ally of Britain's Labour party. I appreciated in particular his social economic history study of the Sicilian Mafia, its roots, and others of its ilk ("Primitive Rebels....") and his history of "the short 20th Century", from the beginning of World War I through the end of the Cold War, 1914-1989, "The Age of Extremes".
Alex Karras (10/10) - Karras was a Pro Bowl NFL offensive guard for the Detroit Lions who became a successful professional actor. He combined the two talents in a prominent role in George Plimpton's famed chronicle of his pretended attempt to make the Lions as a third-string quarterback, "Paper Lion". Karras was a big, strong man, but also an intelligent one, and someone who was willing to show a more gentle side on occasion. My favorite among his acting roles was the one he performed in "Victor/Victoria", where he was a sort of foil to Julie Andrews' cross-dressing male drag singer (if you can follow that); Karras' character was a tough guy who later revealed he was gay.
In his football career, Karras was the rare offensive lineman who became a well-known face. Partly it was due to his ability, partly to the role in "Paper Lion", but also because of his notoriety when he was suspended for a year for consorting with suspicious characters, back in the '60's when that kind of autocratic edict was possible for an NFL commissioner.
Andy Williams (9/25) - For me, Williams was the best of an unpleasant breed, the '50's-style romantic male vocalist. He could sing well, but what was more appealing to me, compared to someone like Sinatra, was his personality, which was humorous and self-deprecating. I found myself surprisingly fond of his eponymous late-'60s TV musical variety show.
After that, he had a rather dramatic episode or two, when his ex-wife, the glamorous Claudine Longet, killed her lover, the famed skier Spider Sabich, then charmed the Colorado jury into letting her off. Williams had only a supporting role in that drama, but after that he mostly retreated from the public eye; he would appear in annual TV musical specials for Christmas for several years, and he bought a club in Branson, Missouri and used that as his base for performing thereafter. He seemed to be genuinely popular in the phony world of show business.
Sandy's Revenge
One of Bruce Springsteen's best albums (and my personal favorite) is his second, "The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle". The worst song on that album is the one generally known as "Sandy", officially titled "Fourth of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)". The song is very much what Bruce's title suggests that it is, an entry in a catalog of one-night stands. Bruce (or the character Bruce is voicing) made her on the rebound, down on the Boardwalk of A.P., because his waitress girlfriend broke up with him. Its lyrics are basic "Jersey Shore" banality, while the music, and especially Springsteen's singing, are sappy.
Tonight, Sandy got her revenge on Asbury Park and the whole Jersey Shore for being memorialized so dishonorably. The folks who live there, and those throughout the middle-Atlantic East Coast who have suffered from the storm, have my full sympathy,
And Bruce? He was scheduled to perform in Rochester, NY tonight, according to a blog that tracks his every move. The concert was cancelled, so I guess she got him back a little, too.
The superstorm called Sandy is a new type of phenomenon, one that blends the cyclonic swirl of a summer/fall hurricane with the kinetic thrust of a winter Nor'easter. That blending of seasonal storms suggests something different in our climate, or at least in our weather. I can only hope that this one is not a prototype for superstorms we will see more frequently in the future.
A final point: It is time to realize that destruction of homes on the barrier islands on the East Coast is the norm, not the exception. It is not rational to continue to offer Federal flood insurance to some of these areas. Those who had the insurance should expect it to be honored, but not continued.
Tonight, Sandy got her revenge on Asbury Park and the whole Jersey Shore for being memorialized so dishonorably. The folks who live there, and those throughout the middle-Atlantic East Coast who have suffered from the storm, have my full sympathy,
And Bruce? He was scheduled to perform in Rochester, NY tonight, according to a blog that tracks his every move. The concert was cancelled, so I guess she got him back a little, too.
The superstorm called Sandy is a new type of phenomenon, one that blends the cyclonic swirl of a summer/fall hurricane with the kinetic thrust of a winter Nor'easter. That blending of seasonal storms suggests something different in our climate, or at least in our weather. I can only hope that this one is not a prototype for superstorms we will see more frequently in the future.
A final point: It is time to realize that destruction of homes on the barrier islands on the East Coast is the norm, not the exception. It is not rational to continue to offer Federal flood insurance to some of these areas. Those who had the insurance should expect it to be honored, but not continued.
Friday, October 19, 2012
"Please Proceed, Governor"
With these polite words, President Obama set the trap into which Mitt Romney stepped. Romney made the foolish move of once again challenging Obama on The Benghazi Affair, and once again he got burned. It's not that Obama's administration is unchallengeable on the matter, or that it is inappropriate to do so; we have already pointed out two major issues which the tragic episode brings forward, ones which Romney could have usefully debated and which might have put him in a good light, positioning him better for the final debate on foreign affairs and military policy. Instead, he thought he caught Obama in a lie, and Obama, knowing he had the winning cards, let the hand play out.
In general, Obama did what he had to do, even if it was unpleasant: get in Romney's face, challenge him, and show that he cared about winning. The second debate, along with a substantial home-field advantage in the subject of the last debate, should allow him to complete his electoral victory. It may end up being very close in the popular vote, as the current polls suggest, but Obama's edge has been restored in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Ohio, and with those, the rest of the swing states--both the ones which have tipped a little in Romney's favor (VA and FL) and those about which the uncertainty is complete (CO, NH, IA)--won't be enough for Romney, even if he were to win them all. With regard to the popular vote, in fact, I'm kind of hoping that Romney wins it while losing the Electoral College--not that I would encourage anyone to vote for him--because that might, finally, be the result which will convince the Republicans that what happened to Al Gore in 2000 can just as easily happen to them, and then we can complete the process of converting the Presidential election to one decided by popular vote.
90 Minutes of Broadsides and B.S. Displaced by 5 Minutes of Truth
I will readily admit that it's important who "won" the debate, and who will win the election; however, with regard to the important question of the education of the electorate, I don't think the debate served us very well. Along with the well-researched and publicized untruths, there were plenty of half-truths, and, most importantly, unspoken truths. This is because of the simple fact that there are certain honest responses to the questions that both Obama and Romney would not dare speak. I, on the other hand, who am not running for anything, can fill in these gaps.
So, here are the questions asked of the candidates (I may have missed one), and the truthful answers that just couldn't be uttered.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
Alas, Jeremy, there are no guarantees in the Western world. For the next 15 years there is going to be a consistent oversupply of labor, even for graduates. I hope your graduate degree includes some useful, marketable skills, or that you can borrow money to start a business or buy a franchise. Otherwise, I would reassure your parents that politically-motivated tax reforms will likely make it possible to increase the degree of deductibility of the support they will be giving you.
QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
Gas is only one commodity of energy; its price is partly driven by global demand, partly by decisions by monopoly capital which keep it high, and the government cooperates by taxing it heavily. The US and state governments can not give up the revenue, and can do little about the rest of it. What the Energy Department can do is help to make sure that real costs of energy in general--all sources, and including the externalities like pollution--do not get so high as to strangle the health of the economy.
QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you're elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue.
Concerning the -- these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the -- oh, what's that other credit? I forgot.
OBAMA: You're doing great.
QUESTION: Oh, I remember.
The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class?
First, it's Congress that decides the tax rates, not the President. Second, tax reform is not going to make a significant difference in the taxes the middle class pay: it is electoral suicide to propose eliminating the deductions you mention, so nobody is going to do that. The question is basically about which rich people will pay more or less, but I'd put my money on more of them paying less, because they can afford the tax accountants and attorneys.
QUESTION: In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?
The biggest thing that we could do would be to help working mothers reduce the career interruptions often driven by motherhood by requiring "job-killing" things like providing infant care and transportation assistance, which we won't be doing anytime soon. Or we could increase tax assistance for working mothers; with the current deficits that is a non-starter. Obama did what he could, legislatively, on Day 1 of his Presidency; Romney doesn't really support mothers working; it's a concept which is inconsistent with his religious beliefs.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
I assume you're saying you're not as optimistic as you were in 2008, not 2012. I have no idea why you would've been optimistic in 2008, but if you were, you were due to be disappointed. As for the cost of living, it hasn't gone up. I did what I could, but let me ask you: where was your vote in 2010? That's what really limited my first-term effectiveness.
QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
Self-deportation seems to be working very well with the Obama administration: due to the weak economy and oversupply of labor, net flow has moved into the outbound direction. The problem has been receding of its own accord.
There is always an election coming up, so there is almost never a good time for comprehensive immigration reform--it certainly wasn't in 2009, when we were bleeding jobs. I can certainly understand why it didn't happen then. If there ever comes a time when the oversupply of labor ends, there will be plenty of support for it--until then, it's just a question of which legal rights we will allow them to have.
QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.
Prayer, mostly. What, you mean it's not working? How about that Fast and Furious assault weapons export program? Did I mention that it has been practiced by administrations of both parties?
QUESTION: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?
The only jobs over which my government would have much direct influence are the government jobs, which aren't going anywhere. But, do you want to increase or decrease those?
As for the rest, facilitating trade--which is the best way to support private job growth here--means accepting the risk that jobs will move. Job protectionism ends up protecting fewer jobs. It's just a question of getting the balance right.
QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?
Actually, I think their responses to this one--that Romney is a bad person who has no social conscience, and that Obama is a Marxist--were pretty accurate.
The good news is that we're almost so close to the election that it won't make sense to ask us for any more money.
In general, Obama did what he had to do, even if it was unpleasant: get in Romney's face, challenge him, and show that he cared about winning. The second debate, along with a substantial home-field advantage in the subject of the last debate, should allow him to complete his electoral victory. It may end up being very close in the popular vote, as the current polls suggest, but Obama's edge has been restored in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Ohio, and with those, the rest of the swing states--both the ones which have tipped a little in Romney's favor (VA and FL) and those about which the uncertainty is complete (CO, NH, IA)--won't be enough for Romney, even if he were to win them all. With regard to the popular vote, in fact, I'm kind of hoping that Romney wins it while losing the Electoral College--not that I would encourage anyone to vote for him--because that might, finally, be the result which will convince the Republicans that what happened to Al Gore in 2000 can just as easily happen to them, and then we can complete the process of converting the Presidential election to one decided by popular vote.
90 Minutes of Broadsides and B.S. Displaced by 5 Minutes of Truth
I will readily admit that it's important who "won" the debate, and who will win the election; however, with regard to the important question of the education of the electorate, I don't think the debate served us very well. Along with the well-researched and publicized untruths, there were plenty of half-truths, and, most importantly, unspoken truths. This is because of the simple fact that there are certain honest responses to the questions that both Obama and Romney would not dare speak. I, on the other hand, who am not running for anything, can fill in these gaps.
So, here are the questions asked of the candidates (I may have missed one), and the truthful answers that just couldn't be uttered.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
Alas, Jeremy, there are no guarantees in the Western world. For the next 15 years there is going to be a consistent oversupply of labor, even for graduates. I hope your graduate degree includes some useful, marketable skills, or that you can borrow money to start a business or buy a franchise. Otherwise, I would reassure your parents that politically-motivated tax reforms will likely make it possible to increase the degree of deductibility of the support they will be giving you.
QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
Gas is only one commodity of energy; its price is partly driven by global demand, partly by decisions by monopoly capital which keep it high, and the government cooperates by taxing it heavily. The US and state governments can not give up the revenue, and can do little about the rest of it. What the Energy Department can do is help to make sure that real costs of energy in general--all sources, and including the externalities like pollution--do not get so high as to strangle the health of the economy.
QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you're elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue.
Concerning the -- these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the -- oh, what's that other credit? I forgot.
OBAMA: You're doing great.
QUESTION: Oh, I remember.
The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class?
First, it's Congress that decides the tax rates, not the President. Second, tax reform is not going to make a significant difference in the taxes the middle class pay: it is electoral suicide to propose eliminating the deductions you mention, so nobody is going to do that. The question is basically about which rich people will pay more or less, but I'd put my money on more of them paying less, because they can afford the tax accountants and attorneys.
QUESTION: In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?
The biggest thing that we could do would be to help working mothers reduce the career interruptions often driven by motherhood by requiring "job-killing" things like providing infant care and transportation assistance, which we won't be doing anytime soon. Or we could increase tax assistance for working mothers; with the current deficits that is a non-starter. Obama did what he could, legislatively, on Day 1 of his Presidency; Romney doesn't really support mothers working; it's a concept which is inconsistent with his religious beliefs.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
I assume you're saying you're not as optimistic as you were in 2008, not 2012. I have no idea why you would've been optimistic in 2008, but if you were, you were due to be disappointed. As for the cost of living, it hasn't gone up. I did what I could, but let me ask you: where was your vote in 2010? That's what really limited my first-term effectiveness.
QUESTION: Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
Self-deportation seems to be working very well with the Obama administration: due to the weak economy and oversupply of labor, net flow has moved into the outbound direction. The problem has been receding of its own accord.
There is always an election coming up, so there is almost never a good time for comprehensive immigration reform--it certainly wasn't in 2009, when we were bleeding jobs. I can certainly understand why it didn't happen then. If there ever comes a time when the oversupply of labor ends, there will be plenty of support for it--until then, it's just a question of which legal rights we will allow them to have.
QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.
Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
You expect me to believe that you were sitting around talking about Libya? Didn't any of you cosmopolitan-minded geniuses know the embassy is in Tripoli and it was the consulate in Benghazi that was attacked?
Sorry for the sarcasm. Two points: 1) Our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions are considered fair game for the terrorist movement, which is always looking for soft targets to hit. 2) Our diplomatic missions in that part of the world are basically part and parcel of the military counter-terrorism mission and they all need more security; our enemy spotted a weakness at the consulate and took advantage. It happens, in a war.
All the embassies and consulates in the region are clamoring for more security, all the time. It's the only safe stance to take. You want to pay for it all?
QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?All the embassies and consulates in the region are clamoring for more security, all the time. It's the only safe stance to take. You want to pay for it all?
Prayer, mostly. What, you mean it's not working? How about that Fast and Furious assault weapons export program? Did I mention that it has been practiced by administrations of both parties?
QUESTION: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?
The only jobs over which my government would have much direct influence are the government jobs, which aren't going anywhere. But, do you want to increase or decrease those?
As for the rest, facilitating trade--which is the best way to support private job growth here--means accepting the risk that jobs will move. Job protectionism ends up protecting fewer jobs. It's just a question of getting the balance right.
QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?
Actually, I think their responses to this one--that Romney is a bad person who has no social conscience, and that Obama is a Marxist--were pretty accurate.
The good news is that we're almost so close to the election that it won't make sense to ask us for any more money.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Don't Let's Panic
I can't decide who's more stupid: the political elite and media who've overreacted to the first debate, or the "low information voters" who changed their minds based upon it.
The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't say anything particularly wrong or bad--nothing like what Mitt Romney has done several times in the campaign--he just didn't seem particularly into the event, or very interested in responding vigorously to Romney's (deceitful, flip-flopping) arguments that he debuted that night.
I can't believe the media is putting such a spotlight on tomorrow's Vice-Presidential debate. Re-reading that sentence, I guess I do believe it, but I can't credit it very much. I want to know who is going to change their vote because Paul Ryan made better points in a televised debate than Joe Biden (or vice versa, for that matter). It will be interesting to see what tack the two will take, though; will the Republicans try to continue with the faux moderate stance Romney adopted in the debate (can Ryan do that?) Will Biden have all restraints removed and go into total attack mode? Then, I guess, tactically, both Presidential candidates can reconsider and reset their tactics for the next debate. (The last one will be on foreign policy, which will be the most important but probably anticlimactic.)
The worst overreaction came from Andrew Sullivan in The Daily Beast, who was positively freaking out about the Pew poll the other day that had Romney ahead by four points nationally. Does he understand the meaning of the word "outlier"?
I don't want to call this "facts", because it's just an opinion based on data, but I would say that Obama is still an overwhelming favorite to win the election. I think Obama should be able to learn from his errors in presentation evidenced the other day; what he needs to do in particular is demonstrate the passion for winning the election that we believe we deserve. Why we think that, I don't know; based on what I've seen last week, we deserve the total black-hole tunnel of risk that electing Romney would represent.
OK, I guess we were a bit disappointed by his performance. I would like to quote my blog post on the eve of the 2008 election, "We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain." Give him a break--we all have a bad day!
The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't say anything particularly wrong or bad--nothing like what Mitt Romney has done several times in the campaign--he just didn't seem particularly into the event, or very interested in responding vigorously to Romney's (deceitful, flip-flopping) arguments that he debuted that night.
I can't believe the media is putting such a spotlight on tomorrow's Vice-Presidential debate. Re-reading that sentence, I guess I do believe it, but I can't credit it very much. I want to know who is going to change their vote because Paul Ryan made better points in a televised debate than Joe Biden (or vice versa, for that matter). It will be interesting to see what tack the two will take, though; will the Republicans try to continue with the faux moderate stance Romney adopted in the debate (can Ryan do that?) Will Biden have all restraints removed and go into total attack mode? Then, I guess, tactically, both Presidential candidates can reconsider and reset their tactics for the next debate. (The last one will be on foreign policy, which will be the most important but probably anticlimactic.)
The worst overreaction came from Andrew Sullivan in The Daily Beast, who was positively freaking out about the Pew poll the other day that had Romney ahead by four points nationally. Does he understand the meaning of the word "outlier"?
I don't want to call this "facts", because it's just an opinion based on data, but I would say that Obama is still an overwhelming favorite to win the election. I think Obama should be able to learn from his errors in presentation evidenced the other day; what he needs to do in particular is demonstrate the passion for winning the election that we believe we deserve. Why we think that, I don't know; based on what I've seen last week, we deserve the total black-hole tunnel of risk that electing Romney would represent.
OK, I guess we were a bit disappointed by his performance. I would like to quote my blog post on the eve of the 2008 election, "We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain." Give him a break--we all have a bad day!
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
The Debate Tomorrow
I will not be able to view tomorrow's Presidential debate--prior, overriding engagement; however, the event does deserve comment and a decent preview.
The first debate is Mitt Romney's last, best chance to turn around the momentum, which, since the conventions, has been spectacularly bad for him. He was even presented with a significant September Surprise opportunity, in the form of a fairly significant foreign affairs setback (see my post on "The Benghazi Affair"), and he botched it.
Still, debating is suggested to be Romney's strong suit, and it is not particularly President Obama's. Romney has had a great deal more time to prepare--Obama's daily work as President is only somewhat relevant to the task of standing before cameras and improvising brilliant statesmanship.
Not that something like that is really required of Obama. A sufficient formula will be the usual unruffled, matter-of-fact, logical exposition that he produces in most public contexts (apart from his specialty, the political pep rally). The main thing is not to let Romney get to him; I would not be surprised to see Mitt do something like what he did with Rick Perry--crowd his space, put his hand on him, something like that, or the verbal equivalent of it. Obama must not let his distaste for Romney show as anger--something more like incredulity at Romney's awkwardness would be appropriate.
As for issues, I'm sure there will be the duel of competing tax reform/entitlement reform packages. There will be more similarity than difference in the plans, but the differences will be emphasized. Neither is likely to be able to get his plan through Congress. As for jobs, there will be competing claims through their respective plans of investment/infrastructure (Obama) and tax rate cuts/laissez faire (Romney); also neither likely to get approved, or to make a significant difference in the employment picture if it were.
I am curious as to whether two issues will come up: gun violence (the debate will be in Denver, and the massacre at the cinema in nearby Aurora might suggest a question on the topic) and the obscene level of campaign spending--both by the campaigns and by their officially non-affiliated PAC's.
As for the race, the Electoral College tally is moving slowly but definitely toward Obama. Michigan and Pennsylvania seem definitively in Obama's column, Nevada and New Hampshire are beyond the margin of error for him, and--most important of all--Ohio is close to or at that point. Romney's position in North Carolina has held--even, or with a small lead---so, if we put that state down for Romney, he projects to 206 electoral votes. With NV, NH, and OH, Obama reaches 265, with the following states still not assigned:
Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and Florida (29). Florida remains a definite toss-up; the others are all polling in Obama's favor, but by such small margins that they could reverse. Winning all five is definitely likely, which would (once again) get him to 332 EV. The over-under is in the 315-320 range, but with a wide margin of error due to the uncertain nature of Florida's votes, in particular.
Obama would only need one of the five: if they were 50-50 and the results were independent, he would have a 31-in-32 chance of winning. Neither of those statements are true, though; his chances are better than 50-50, but they are not at all independent of one another. So we're back where we started, with Romney needing a breakthrough in the first debate to reverse the momentum.
Senate Race Shift
The odds on intrade.com and 538.com* shifted dramatically in the last half of September to the level (80% chance of Democrats' holding control; technically, the intrade odds are lower, but they should include the 20% for "neither" having control, because they exclude the independents--Bernie Sanders, and the likely new Maine Senator Angus King--from the calculation) that I had suggested in late August.
I had responded specifically to the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" blunder which shifted the Missouri race against the Republicans, but also generally to trends favorable to the Democrats in several races. This has continued, or accelerated, with the races in Nevada and Indiana both looking to be great possibilities for Democratic pick-ups, but the most dramatic move has been in Wisconsin--a state I didn't even mention in late August--in which Tammy Duckworth has moved right by former Gov. Tommy Thompson into a substantial polling lead. Massachusetts and Virginia remain high-profile, impossible-to-call races, but it is now quite likely that control of the Senate may not depend on those two outcomes.
*I highly recommend taking a look at 538.com's Senate forecast map, which is a lot more interesting--great variety of colors, full of variation--than the Presidential map!
The first debate is Mitt Romney's last, best chance to turn around the momentum, which, since the conventions, has been spectacularly bad for him. He was even presented with a significant September Surprise opportunity, in the form of a fairly significant foreign affairs setback (see my post on "The Benghazi Affair"), and he botched it.
Still, debating is suggested to be Romney's strong suit, and it is not particularly President Obama's. Romney has had a great deal more time to prepare--Obama's daily work as President is only somewhat relevant to the task of standing before cameras and improvising brilliant statesmanship.
Not that something like that is really required of Obama. A sufficient formula will be the usual unruffled, matter-of-fact, logical exposition that he produces in most public contexts (apart from his specialty, the political pep rally). The main thing is not to let Romney get to him; I would not be surprised to see Mitt do something like what he did with Rick Perry--crowd his space, put his hand on him, something like that, or the verbal equivalent of it. Obama must not let his distaste for Romney show as anger--something more like incredulity at Romney's awkwardness would be appropriate.
As for issues, I'm sure there will be the duel of competing tax reform/entitlement reform packages. There will be more similarity than difference in the plans, but the differences will be emphasized. Neither is likely to be able to get his plan through Congress. As for jobs, there will be competing claims through their respective plans of investment/infrastructure (Obama) and tax rate cuts/laissez faire (Romney); also neither likely to get approved, or to make a significant difference in the employment picture if it were.
I am curious as to whether two issues will come up: gun violence (the debate will be in Denver, and the massacre at the cinema in nearby Aurora might suggest a question on the topic) and the obscene level of campaign spending--both by the campaigns and by their officially non-affiliated PAC's.
As for the race, the Electoral College tally is moving slowly but definitely toward Obama. Michigan and Pennsylvania seem definitively in Obama's column, Nevada and New Hampshire are beyond the margin of error for him, and--most important of all--Ohio is close to or at that point. Romney's position in North Carolina has held--even, or with a small lead---so, if we put that state down for Romney, he projects to 206 electoral votes. With NV, NH, and OH, Obama reaches 265, with the following states still not assigned:
Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and Florida (29). Florida remains a definite toss-up; the others are all polling in Obama's favor, but by such small margins that they could reverse. Winning all five is definitely likely, which would (once again) get him to 332 EV. The over-under is in the 315-320 range, but with a wide margin of error due to the uncertain nature of Florida's votes, in particular.
Obama would only need one of the five: if they were 50-50 and the results were independent, he would have a 31-in-32 chance of winning. Neither of those statements are true, though; his chances are better than 50-50, but they are not at all independent of one another. So we're back where we started, with Romney needing a breakthrough in the first debate to reverse the momentum.
Senate Race Shift
The odds on intrade.com and 538.com* shifted dramatically in the last half of September to the level (80% chance of Democrats' holding control; technically, the intrade odds are lower, but they should include the 20% for "neither" having control, because they exclude the independents--Bernie Sanders, and the likely new Maine Senator Angus King--from the calculation) that I had suggested in late August.
I had responded specifically to the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" blunder which shifted the Missouri race against the Republicans, but also generally to trends favorable to the Democrats in several races. This has continued, or accelerated, with the races in Nevada and Indiana both looking to be great possibilities for Democratic pick-ups, but the most dramatic move has been in Wisconsin--a state I didn't even mention in late August--in which Tammy Duckworth has moved right by former Gov. Tommy Thompson into a substantial polling lead. Massachusetts and Virginia remain high-profile, impossible-to-call races, but it is now quite likely that control of the Senate may not depend on those two outcomes.
*I highly recommend taking a look at 538.com's Senate forecast map, which is a lot more interesting--great variety of colors, full of variation--than the Presidential map!
Monday, October 01, 2012
Sports Report
Last weekend cleared up most, but not all, of the uncertainty about the remaining baseball post-season qualifiers. Detroit should clinch its division tonight, or soon enough, and Oakland and St.Louis are in position to lock up their playoff spots in each league. The identity of the 10 teams making it into the post-season would then be finalized.
The past few days have been very hard on my preseason picks, with the Brewers, Phillies, and D'backs all eliminated over the weekend and the Rays and Angels set up to be eliminated. These were all worthy teams in terms of talent that came on strong (especially Tampa Bay), but too late. That will leave me with only five correct postseason teams out of the ten: the Yanks, Reds, Braves, Tigers, and Rangers.
One battle with the outcome not yet indicated is for the AL East division chmpion, vs. the other AL wild card, between Baltimore and New York. This is clearly an important outcome--the winner of what is generally considered the best division in baseball must be considered a top contender for the pennant, while the loser of the contest will have an uphill struggle to make it to the championship series.
Or so it has been designed, anyway: One big piece of the plan was that the play-in game between the two wild cards, which will deplete the winning team of its best starter (one would expect each team should be able to schedule it so its ace goes in the single game, unless the race for the slot goes down to the final days) ; then, the survivor gets the team with the best record, which will have a day of rest and home-field advantage.
The problem is that the battle for the last spots is intense, and the survivor will be a hot, if tired, opponent for the team with the best record. That is why I'm half-hoping that the Reds end up with the second-best record, instead of first. I think I would rather they face the Giants (with home-field advantage) than the survivor of the Braves-Cards (or Braves-Dodgers, if somehow LA makes it). That goes against the intended wisdom; we shall see in the next couple of years how it plays out, but recent history advises to be wary of the wild cards.
The seedings in the AL are not at all finalized--besides NY-Baltimore, Texas and Oakland are playing a series which could cause them to flip positions, as well. The one team in the AL postseason which knows its spot--Detroit, as the #3 seeded division winner--would be my pick for the league championship (they were my preseason pick for the world championship), I like their combination of starters, hiters, and bullpen.
In the NL, I have to pick the Reds for personal reasons, and I think they have as good a shot as any. If the Braves win their one-game matchup, though, they would be the team I would fear most. I have to think that the Nationals, like the Orioles in the AL, are likely to underperform in the postseason due to their relative youth and lack of postseason experience. The Giants and the Cards both have recent World Championships, but I feel that they used up their supply of good luck in those victories. So, I'll go with Reds-Tigers in the World Series; we'll reassess in a couple of weeks if that doesn't happen and predict the winner if it does.
Ryder Cup Epic Fail
Yielding to my proven ineptness, I gave up golf a few years ago, but I have had enough experience with the game to have some sense of the mind-numbing, tremor-inducing pressure the Ryder Cup players experienced on Sunday. So, I won't criticize the American team's play or its tactics; I will point out that actually Europe has a greater population to draw upon than the US (though maybe less golf-playing men), because I can't think of any other excuses.
I will say that, while golf is normally the second most boring sport ever shown on TV (just ahead of bowling, and poker is not a sport), this was compelling TV viewing. The number of different close matches being played simultaneously was unique, from my limited golf-watching experience, and there was a lot at stake (in golf terms). And what a beautiful course, and a beautiful day for it!
The Scabs Were not the Refs
The fourth weekend of NFL play held an escalating tide of missed calls and erroneous rule interpretations, all dutifully revealed by the TV networks' in-house rule geeks. This was capped by a howler on Monday night, when the two refs ruled differently on a game-ending Hail Mary pass that was either a win-clinching interception by the Packer defensive back or a winning touchdown catch by the Seattle wide receiver. The referee whose ruling prevailed had the worst angle and got it wrong (somehow, this scoring play was not reviewable); the Packers left the field rather than allowing the point after to be played.
That fiasco sent the owners into a hurried re-think; rather than gaining mastery over the complex NFL rules, the new referees were becoming a story with major negatives for the league (to be fair, the broadcasters did not shy from criticism). So, within 48 hours, there were concessions that couldn't be made in the previous 48 days, and the referees' union was offered a satisfactory contract for its employees. The replacement referees were put back on the street, or refereeing high school games, or whatever.
I think this lockout of the regular referees was clearly a bad tactic by the NFL; the complexity of the rules to be enforced has increased dramatically, driven by intention to protect the quarterbacks and receivers, bearers of the exciting game that attracts viewership, and to facilitate instant replay (adds a few commercial breaks to each telecast). It's challenging enough to expect full-time professionals to understand all the subtleties, and too much for short-timers to pick up.
Speaking of scab owners, the NHL seems not to have learned from its previous near-death experience and has once again locked out its players.
The past few days have been very hard on my preseason picks, with the Brewers, Phillies, and D'backs all eliminated over the weekend and the Rays and Angels set up to be eliminated. These were all worthy teams in terms of talent that came on strong (especially Tampa Bay), but too late. That will leave me with only five correct postseason teams out of the ten: the Yanks, Reds, Braves, Tigers, and Rangers.
One battle with the outcome not yet indicated is for the AL East division chmpion, vs. the other AL wild card, between Baltimore and New York. This is clearly an important outcome--the winner of what is generally considered the best division in baseball must be considered a top contender for the pennant, while the loser of the contest will have an uphill struggle to make it to the championship series.
Or so it has been designed, anyway: One big piece of the plan was that the play-in game between the two wild cards, which will deplete the winning team of its best starter (one would expect each team should be able to schedule it so its ace goes in the single game, unless the race for the slot goes down to the final days) ; then, the survivor gets the team with the best record, which will have a day of rest and home-field advantage.
The problem is that the battle for the last spots is intense, and the survivor will be a hot, if tired, opponent for the team with the best record. That is why I'm half-hoping that the Reds end up with the second-best record, instead of first. I think I would rather they face the Giants (with home-field advantage) than the survivor of the Braves-Cards (or Braves-Dodgers, if somehow LA makes it). That goes against the intended wisdom; we shall see in the next couple of years how it plays out, but recent history advises to be wary of the wild cards.
The seedings in the AL are not at all finalized--besides NY-Baltimore, Texas and Oakland are playing a series which could cause them to flip positions, as well. The one team in the AL postseason which knows its spot--Detroit, as the #3 seeded division winner--would be my pick for the league championship (they were my preseason pick for the world championship), I like their combination of starters, hiters, and bullpen.
In the NL, I have to pick the Reds for personal reasons, and I think they have as good a shot as any. If the Braves win their one-game matchup, though, they would be the team I would fear most. I have to think that the Nationals, like the Orioles in the AL, are likely to underperform in the postseason due to their relative youth and lack of postseason experience. The Giants and the Cards both have recent World Championships, but I feel that they used up their supply of good luck in those victories. So, I'll go with Reds-Tigers in the World Series; we'll reassess in a couple of weeks if that doesn't happen and predict the winner if it does.
Ryder Cup Epic Fail
Yielding to my proven ineptness, I gave up golf a few years ago, but I have had enough experience with the game to have some sense of the mind-numbing, tremor-inducing pressure the Ryder Cup players experienced on Sunday. So, I won't criticize the American team's play or its tactics; I will point out that actually Europe has a greater population to draw upon than the US (though maybe less golf-playing men), because I can't think of any other excuses.
I will say that, while golf is normally the second most boring sport ever shown on TV (just ahead of bowling, and poker is not a sport), this was compelling TV viewing. The number of different close matches being played simultaneously was unique, from my limited golf-watching experience, and there was a lot at stake (in golf terms). And what a beautiful course, and a beautiful day for it!
The Scabs Were not the Refs
The fourth weekend of NFL play held an escalating tide of missed calls and erroneous rule interpretations, all dutifully revealed by the TV networks' in-house rule geeks. This was capped by a howler on Monday night, when the two refs ruled differently on a game-ending Hail Mary pass that was either a win-clinching interception by the Packer defensive back or a winning touchdown catch by the Seattle wide receiver. The referee whose ruling prevailed had the worst angle and got it wrong (somehow, this scoring play was not reviewable); the Packers left the field rather than allowing the point after to be played.
That fiasco sent the owners into a hurried re-think; rather than gaining mastery over the complex NFL rules, the new referees were becoming a story with major negatives for the league (to be fair, the broadcasters did not shy from criticism). So, within 48 hours, there were concessions that couldn't be made in the previous 48 days, and the referees' union was offered a satisfactory contract for its employees. The replacement referees were put back on the street, or refereeing high school games, or whatever.
I think this lockout of the regular referees was clearly a bad tactic by the NFL; the complexity of the rules to be enforced has increased dramatically, driven by intention to protect the quarterbacks and receivers, bearers of the exciting game that attracts viewership, and to facilitate instant replay (adds a few commercial breaks to each telecast). It's challenging enough to expect full-time professionals to understand all the subtleties, and too much for short-timers to pick up.
Speaking of scab owners, the NHL seems not to have learned from its previous near-death experience and has once again locked out its players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
