That was actually Game 4 of the Spurs-Lakers series, not tonight's finale. One of the major contending teams lost at home (the previous consequential game was San Antonio's Game 7 win at New Orleans).
The game turned on a non-call (at home!) on the final play, a surprising finish and one that doesn't fit with my overall assessment of how NBA games are officiated.
To set the scene, Spurs with the ball down two. Brent Barry faked a shot, got fouled on an over-reaction by Derrick Fisher. After a collision, Barry dodged him, then got off a desperation lunge for a potentially-winning 3-pointer which missed badly.
The NBA league office today admitted the play should have been called as a two-shot foul. That would be more in line with expected behavior, and it happens to be the correct call. What they need in the rules is the idea which is called "playing the advantage" in soccer. The referee raises his hand when the foul occurs, but does not blow the whistle and call the defensive foul until the play is complete, so as not to take away the advantage if the offense can overcome the foul and score.
Would this take away the "continuation play", the "and-one" that is so popular on the street these days? Not necessarily; the situation is different because of the high rate of conversion in basketball and the low rate in soccer.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Party of Lincoln Becomes That of Bushite
Or "Party of Bushites" (P.O.B.), if you're thinking individuals, as opposed to philosophy (or, more accurately, "Bushite" is a summary of practices as there is no philosophy involved).
To a much greater extent than the Democratic party has ceased to be the party of Jefferson and Jackson, the Republicans have yielded their claim to anything occurring before 1980. Part of that amnesiac process was throwing off the burden of Nixon. In the end, he dealt the party a severe blow, because his leadership within the party was entirely focused on himself, and he took the whole thing down with him when he left in shame. Same prospect with Dubya and the Bushites.
McCain's nomination should be viewed as what it is: a desperate act by a failed political party. Coming from the same elective position as the greatest Republican landslide loser since FDR, McCain has revived the maverick political stylings on a hard-right framework that was Barry Goldwater's formula for success.
What's worse for them is the double-bladed consequence of McCain's nomination this year:
1) he's unlikely to last eight years if he wins; and
2) based on the primary campaign, there's no bench strength.
People talk about how Obama is a risk: McCain is the only thing standing between the party and the abyss of permanent minority status (among other things--like every issue, at present--the demographics will work against them in the future). It's a crap shoot, and the Republicans are trying to make snake eyes.
To a much greater extent than the Democratic party has ceased to be the party of Jefferson and Jackson, the Republicans have yielded their claim to anything occurring before 1980. Part of that amnesiac process was throwing off the burden of Nixon. In the end, he dealt the party a severe blow, because his leadership within the party was entirely focused on himself, and he took the whole thing down with him when he left in shame. Same prospect with Dubya and the Bushites.
McCain's nomination should be viewed as what it is: a desperate act by a failed political party. Coming from the same elective position as the greatest Republican landslide loser since FDR, McCain has revived the maverick political stylings on a hard-right framework that was Barry Goldwater's formula for success.
What's worse for them is the double-bladed consequence of McCain's nomination this year:
1) he's unlikely to last eight years if he wins; and
2) based on the primary campaign, there's no bench strength.
People talk about how Obama is a risk: McCain is the only thing standing between the party and the abyss of permanent minority status (among other things--like every issue, at present--the demographics will work against them in the future). It's a crap shoot, and the Republicans are trying to make snake eyes.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hillary's RFK Thing
I go along with Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, who basically ascribes it to fatigue, arguing convincingly (on Meet the Press--way to go, Ruth!) that Hillary had no self-interest play whatsoever in her mentioning this. And she knows from self-interest.
In particular, who says Hillary would get the nomination if Obama were to be assassinated, anyway? We should remember that the core of RFK supporters avoided commitments to Humphrey and McCarthy, allowing George McGovern to make his dramatic appearance on the national stage in his bid for their votes.
I see it as basically a sentence fragment, in which she failed to finish her thought
...when RFK was assassinated in June, 1968 the nomination was by no means assured for any candidate. "
(Italicized parts added)
Which is a fact, as is the fact RFK was assassinated in June, 1968, and that politically, we can't seem to get over it. 2008 presents yet one more opportunity to finally get it right and get past it. Let's hope it's the last.
And, while I'm plugging the Post, here's an absolutely brilliant analysis by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom of the failures of Bushite policy toward Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html
In particular, who says Hillary would get the nomination if Obama were to be assassinated, anyway? We should remember that the core of RFK supporters avoided commitments to Humphrey and McCarthy, allowing George McGovern to make his dramatic appearance on the national stage in his bid for their votes.
I see it as basically a sentence fragment, in which she failed to finish her thought
...when RFK was assassinated in June, 1968 the nomination was by no means assured for any candidate. "
(Italicized parts added)
Which is a fact, as is the fact RFK was assassinated in June, 1968, and that politically, we can't seem to get over it. 2008 presents yet one more opportunity to finally get it right and get past it. Let's hope it's the last.
And, while I'm plugging the Post, here's an absolutely brilliant analysis by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom of the failures of Bushite policy toward Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html
Dramas of World-Changing Events
Oftentimes, when watching action movies that pride themselves in the accuracy of their simulations, I think that they are asking us to believe in events that, if true, would each be the greatest event in modern history, with the hero rising into the heights through a blizzard of tickertape. Think of a Die Hard, Speed, Indiana Jones, or even a Rocky (in the real world, he'd run for Governor--Pennsylvania, I guess--and win!) Why go to so much trouble for a story that couldn't possibly be real in this world?
No, I don't get it.
Anyway, there are some stories out there that really are of world-historical importance. Let's look at how a couple of them play out as dramatic fodder.
Recount
This made-for-TV debuted on HBO over the weekend. In spite of the significance of the events, Gore v. Bush is not terrain which has been mined excessively.
The hero of this well-casted dramatization was Ron Klain, former chief of staff for VP Gore, who became the Gore campaign's chief lawyer in Florida (played by Kevin Spacey). This is Klain's story: Election-night, including catching the VP stageside that night in Nashville to stop him from publicly conceding, is told mostly in arcs moving outward from his point of view, and his POV predominates in the remainder as well. There are some scenes set within the Republican camp which are honest attempts but appear founded on guesswork.
As reported elsewhere (and in real life), it's Laura Dern as Katherine Harris who steals the show and provides comic relief. Tom Wilkinson provides an excellent Jim Baker. The movie tastefully keeps both Gore and Bush out of the line of the camera, and its editing brings in plenty of real news spots (maybe too many, on re-thinking). David Boies' role was very accurately included in the story as the brilliant hired-gun lawyer who gave the Democratic case its best shot with the Supreme Court. So, overall, I'd rate it very highly as docudrama--plausible, if not unbiased.
I respect the screenwriters' efforts to explain the context of the Court's decision within the flow of the principal story, which related to the counting of ballots in Florida and Klain's leadership in keeping the Gore campaign's fight going. The moral Klain finally accepts, spoken verbatim at some point, is: "At some point you have to admit you can't win--even if you win." That advice could hardly be more timely for a certain leading lady of the currently-running drama.
They had a little trouble with the Epilogue, a doubtful event (as in, I doubt it occurred) in which Klain and Baker meet on the airport tarmac before each boards his hired jet to go back home. A little better would be a little scrutiny of how each of the Supremes now views his/her role in this fiasco, including Scalia's "Get over it".
Aye, there's the rub.
The Drama of Lincoln
I think Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a 700-page "treatment" for a movie script, and she knows it. If I were a producer I'd have already commenced negotiations with her, though I don't imagine she'll yield the rights easily.
The basic story frame of Team of Rivals is the four principal candidates for the 1860 nomination: former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, Judge Edward Bates of Missouri, Senator William Henry Seward of New York, and Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. They come together, at Lincoln's persistent invitation, into key roles in his Cabinet--a fractious bunch brought together to personify Lincoln's intention to hold together various party blocs, as he went into the crisis which started immediately upon his taking office with the Southern state secessions. The emphasis is on their family lives, how events brought them into the same arena at that crucial time, and the events of the Civil War through their perpectives.
She supplies all the ingredients for that, including numerous anecdotes humorous and tragic and easy-to-follow shooting sequences. There's even a scene where Lincoln dreams of himself, out of body, viewing his own tomb. The assassination itself includes a simultaneous assault on Seward in his home (cut back and forth as John Wilkes Booth silently closes on Ford Theater's Presidential box). An intruder brazenly comes to the Seward's house pretending to bear medicine (Seward had been injured badly in a carriage accident recently), then pulls out his pistol and knife and takes on all comers. Seward was badly slashed in the face, and his son Fred nearly killed by pistol-whipping.
Oh. I just consulted IMDb (International Movie Data Base) to see what movies on Lincoln's drama have been made. The good news: nothing since the 1940's Abraham Lincoln of Illinois (Henry Fonda as the Young Abe Lincoln).
The bad news--real bad--which I found when I dug a bit deeper, is this listing:
Lincoln (2009).
Directed by Steven Spielberg [no less].
Liam Neeson in the lead role.
Writers: Doris Kearns Goodwin (biography); Tony Kushner (screenplay).
Well, nothing really bad about any of that. Except that they were so far ahead--"Been there--done that" far ahead--of me.
Spielbergian excess, usually a bit over the top, will be merely appropriate to this tale. Just think of this ending, straight from the book: Elderly Leo Tolstoy, visiting remote Northern Caucausus tribesmen in the early 20th century, telling dramatic tales of the past--Napoleon, and Caesar. They ask, though, for him to tell them of "that great ruler of the world," Lincoln. Tolstoy's answer includes this quote from an interview he gave later in New York to The World (February, 1908):
... Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country--bigger than all the Presidents together...we are still too near to his greatness, but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.
So, one more reason to look forward to 2009.
As for Tolstoy, not shabby praise coming from the guy who still probably gets the most votes as #1 on the all-time novelist list.
Born a Unionist Democrat from Kaintuck', I've always objected to the Illinois license plate: "Land of Lincoln" (Lincoln's birthplace log cabin being, of course, in Kentucky). Now I see that I was wrong all along to feel that way: All of America is "Land of Lincoln", and we all have claim to a piece of his legacy (which, as the book carefully shows, was the whole point of Lincoln's career: Legacy. Legacy. Legacy.)
Barack Obama (I love the recent bit he offered about how his first name is, essentially, the same as the Hebrew "Baruch") has just as much claim to being Abraham's progeny as anyone not directly descended from Robert Todd Lincoln (Abe's only child surviving to make it to adulthood).
No, I don't get it.
Anyway, there are some stories out there that really are of world-historical importance. Let's look at how a couple of them play out as dramatic fodder.
Recount
This made-for-TV debuted on HBO over the weekend. In spite of the significance of the events, Gore v. Bush is not terrain which has been mined excessively.
The hero of this well-casted dramatization was Ron Klain, former chief of staff for VP Gore, who became the Gore campaign's chief lawyer in Florida (played by Kevin Spacey). This is Klain's story: Election-night, including catching the VP stageside that night in Nashville to stop him from publicly conceding, is told mostly in arcs moving outward from his point of view, and his POV predominates in the remainder as well. There are some scenes set within the Republican camp which are honest attempts but appear founded on guesswork.
As reported elsewhere (and in real life), it's Laura Dern as Katherine Harris who steals the show and provides comic relief. Tom Wilkinson provides an excellent Jim Baker. The movie tastefully keeps both Gore and Bush out of the line of the camera, and its editing brings in plenty of real news spots (maybe too many, on re-thinking). David Boies' role was very accurately included in the story as the brilliant hired-gun lawyer who gave the Democratic case its best shot with the Supreme Court. So, overall, I'd rate it very highly as docudrama--plausible, if not unbiased.
I respect the screenwriters' efforts to explain the context of the Court's decision within the flow of the principal story, which related to the counting of ballots in Florida and Klain's leadership in keeping the Gore campaign's fight going. The moral Klain finally accepts, spoken verbatim at some point, is: "At some point you have to admit you can't win--even if you win." That advice could hardly be more timely for a certain leading lady of the currently-running drama.
They had a little trouble with the Epilogue, a doubtful event (as in, I doubt it occurred) in which Klain and Baker meet on the airport tarmac before each boards his hired jet to go back home. A little better would be a little scrutiny of how each of the Supremes now views his/her role in this fiasco, including Scalia's "Get over it".
Aye, there's the rub.
The Drama of Lincoln
I think Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a 700-page "treatment" for a movie script, and she knows it. If I were a producer I'd have already commenced negotiations with her, though I don't imagine she'll yield the rights easily.
The basic story frame of Team of Rivals is the four principal candidates for the 1860 nomination: former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, Judge Edward Bates of Missouri, Senator William Henry Seward of New York, and Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. They come together, at Lincoln's persistent invitation, into key roles in his Cabinet--a fractious bunch brought together to personify Lincoln's intention to hold together various party blocs, as he went into the crisis which started immediately upon his taking office with the Southern state secessions. The emphasis is on their family lives, how events brought them into the same arena at that crucial time, and the events of the Civil War through their perpectives.
She supplies all the ingredients for that, including numerous anecdotes humorous and tragic and easy-to-follow shooting sequences. There's even a scene where Lincoln dreams of himself, out of body, viewing his own tomb. The assassination itself includes a simultaneous assault on Seward in his home (cut back and forth as John Wilkes Booth silently closes on Ford Theater's Presidential box). An intruder brazenly comes to the Seward's house pretending to bear medicine (Seward had been injured badly in a carriage accident recently), then pulls out his pistol and knife and takes on all comers. Seward was badly slashed in the face, and his son Fred nearly killed by pistol-whipping.
Oh. I just consulted IMDb (International Movie Data Base) to see what movies on Lincoln's drama have been made. The good news: nothing since the 1940's Abraham Lincoln of Illinois (Henry Fonda as the Young Abe Lincoln).
The bad news--real bad--which I found when I dug a bit deeper, is this listing:
Lincoln (2009).
Directed by Steven Spielberg [no less].
Liam Neeson in the lead role.
Writers: Doris Kearns Goodwin (biography); Tony Kushner (screenplay).
Well, nothing really bad about any of that. Except that they were so far ahead--"Been there--done that" far ahead--of me.
Spielbergian excess, usually a bit over the top, will be merely appropriate to this tale. Just think of this ending, straight from the book: Elderly Leo Tolstoy, visiting remote Northern Caucausus tribesmen in the early 20th century, telling dramatic tales of the past--Napoleon, and Caesar. They ask, though, for him to tell them of "that great ruler of the world," Lincoln. Tolstoy's answer includes this quote from an interview he gave later in New York to The World (February, 1908):
... Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country--bigger than all the Presidents together...we are still too near to his greatness, but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.
So, one more reason to look forward to 2009.
As for Tolstoy, not shabby praise coming from the guy who still probably gets the most votes as #1 on the all-time novelist list.
Born a Unionist Democrat from Kaintuck', I've always objected to the Illinois license plate: "Land of Lincoln" (Lincoln's birthplace log cabin being, of course, in Kentucky). Now I see that I was wrong all along to feel that way: All of America is "Land of Lincoln", and we all have claim to a piece of his legacy (which, as the book carefully shows, was the whole point of Lincoln's career: Legacy. Legacy. Legacy.)
Barack Obama (I love the recent bit he offered about how his first name is, essentially, the same as the Hebrew "Baruch") has just as much claim to being Abraham's progeny as anyone not directly descended from Robert Todd Lincoln (Abe's only child surviving to make it to adulthood).
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Popular Process: Get it Now!
Hillary is being rigorous in adhering to the point of view that all her votes in Florida and Michigan should count. Her self-interest is transparent: The issue will help her prolong her race another couple of weeks (until enough Superdelegates shift to the Unofficial Presumptive Nominee to make FL/MI moot).
If she really felt so strongly about it, she would dedicate herself, over the next four years, toward improvements in the American political process--particularly as relates to our Federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential).
In order to find a reed to hold onto, she has grasped the idea that popular vote should determine the Ddemocratic party's nominee (big- and small-d). Hear, hear!--though the count that favors her requires disregarding anyone who participated at a caucus and counts fully even Michigan, where the voters were denied any major candidate choice except Hillary.
Unfortunately for her, the nomination is decided purely by delegate numbers. Similarly, though one might want the leader of the free world decided by voluntary, universal adult suffrage, the President is the person chosen by state winner-take-all contests.
I find that Hillary can have no real beef with the process that has undone her this time around. Obama has beaten her fair and square, though she arguably had just as great support in the party throughout the campaign. The elected delegates of the party are the most true form of representative election to be found in this country; the superdelegates a mild attempt to preserve a modicum of party sanity. Caucuses are, indeed, less democratic, but we've left this to the states to decide, and so you get the patchwork.
I return to what would get this straightened out: in the general election, nothing less than abolition of the Electoral College by constitutional amendment. We need to junk this 18th-century artifact which was badly designed in the first place (look at the 1800 mess), never reformed to correspond to the advances in suffrage, and continues to show its ability to create mischief.
As for the parties, the DNC would announce its Unofficial National Primary Day a year or so ahead of the fact--it should be sometime in May or June. States that held their primaries on that day (or within a month afterward) would have their expenses paid by the national party, which would ensure that vote-counting standards were maintained (some state parties have not done so well on that, like my own NM this year). State parties could go up to 90 days before UNP Day if they paid the prices--some penalty in delegates (there is already some assessed in both parties), and covering the cost of the operation.
To facilitate this outcome, Congress should pass a law prohibiting state governments from paying for party primaries--these are essentially private affairs, and it is unfair to charge Independents any cost of their execution.
The Republicans would be forced by pragmatism and respect for the popular will to go along, though they could still count their delegates funny, with winner-take-all everywhere, or just in the states that they care about, or whatever. The Democrats should keep their system combining elected delegates and superdelegates (though encouraging the primary route, particularly on UNP Day). The changes I proposed would shorten the primary season, the election campaign as a whole, and hopefully move the country toward a true, national primary. 'Til then I'd gladly settle for the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday), as long as it's some months later in the year than the Super Bowl.
Hillary should announce her intentions in San Juan before the June 1 primary, devoting herself also to the democratic fairness issues of statehood for D.C. and for Puerto Rico (great idea for a pander, too!) With luck and Obama's support (and why shouldn't he--it would keep her busy), she could have all those revisions in by 2012, which should facilitate Democratic re-election.
If she really felt so strongly about it, she would dedicate herself, over the next four years, toward improvements in the American political process--particularly as relates to our Federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential).
In order to find a reed to hold onto, she has grasped the idea that popular vote should determine the Ddemocratic party's nominee (big- and small-d). Hear, hear!--though the count that favors her requires disregarding anyone who participated at a caucus and counts fully even Michigan, where the voters were denied any major candidate choice except Hillary.
Unfortunately for her, the nomination is decided purely by delegate numbers. Similarly, though one might want the leader of the free world decided by voluntary, universal adult suffrage, the President is the person chosen by state winner-take-all contests.
I find that Hillary can have no real beef with the process that has undone her this time around. Obama has beaten her fair and square, though she arguably had just as great support in the party throughout the campaign. The elected delegates of the party are the most true form of representative election to be found in this country; the superdelegates a mild attempt to preserve a modicum of party sanity. Caucuses are, indeed, less democratic, but we've left this to the states to decide, and so you get the patchwork.
I return to what would get this straightened out: in the general election, nothing less than abolition of the Electoral College by constitutional amendment. We need to junk this 18th-century artifact which was badly designed in the first place (look at the 1800 mess), never reformed to correspond to the advances in suffrage, and continues to show its ability to create mischief.
As for the parties, the DNC would announce its Unofficial National Primary Day a year or so ahead of the fact--it should be sometime in May or June. States that held their primaries on that day (or within a month afterward) would have their expenses paid by the national party, which would ensure that vote-counting standards were maintained (some state parties have not done so well on that, like my own NM this year). State parties could go up to 90 days before UNP Day if they paid the prices--some penalty in delegates (there is already some assessed in both parties), and covering the cost of the operation.
To facilitate this outcome, Congress should pass a law prohibiting state governments from paying for party primaries--these are essentially private affairs, and it is unfair to charge Independents any cost of their execution.
The Republicans would be forced by pragmatism and respect for the popular will to go along, though they could still count their delegates funny, with winner-take-all everywhere, or just in the states that they care about, or whatever. The Democrats should keep their system combining elected delegates and superdelegates (though encouraging the primary route, particularly on UNP Day). The changes I proposed would shorten the primary season, the election campaign as a whole, and hopefully move the country toward a true, national primary. 'Til then I'd gladly settle for the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday), as long as it's some months later in the year than the Super Bowl.
Hillary should announce her intentions in San Juan before the June 1 primary, devoting herself also to the democratic fairness issues of statehood for D.C. and for Puerto Rico (great idea for a pander, too!) With luck and Obama's support (and why shouldn't he--it would keep her busy), she could have all those revisions in by 2012, which should facilitate Democratic re-election.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Drogba Goes the Way of Zidane
In today's Champion's League final, Chelsea and Manchester United went all the way through extra time tied, 1-1, and Man U. won on penalties, 6-5 (each team had 7 penalty attempts, after finishing the first five at 4-4). It was tense, mostly pretty slow, though often filled with drama, and ultimately unfulfilling to me.
The pain was lessened by recognition of the enormous effort all had to give to resolve this marathon stalemate. The conditions at Moscow's Luzhniki Stadium, which took out its artificial turf and planted (poorly) sod grass for this event, were rainy, soggy, and generally unacceptable. This contributed to the nature of the second half and extra time; that 75 minutes had no goals, and few good opportunities.
There were a lot of big-name players, and with their undoubted big egos, many of them probably thought the whole thing revolved about his own contributions: Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, who scored the Man U. goal but failed to convert his penalty shot at the end; Terry, the Blues' captain, who saved a sure goal with a header over the bar in extra time, and then had the game-winning penalty shot at his feet, but slipped and missed it wide; the Devils' Carlos Tevez, who probably should've been red-carded (ejected) at one point, and imposed his will on the game several times to create chances to score, but could not get a break; Lampard, who probably thought his goal was due to divine intervention (it was certainly lucky), but then watched his game-winner strike squarely off the crossbar, then got no opportunity in the deciding shootout (why not? one must ask). The deeper reality is that, most of the game, the flow revolved around Michael Essian, who had the task to control Ronaldo and did so, with the exception of one play.
In the big picture, though, it was about Didier Drogba, no doubt playing his last game for Chelsea, and his coach Avram Grant. There was a great shot at one point, during a stoppage in play, when Grant had a hold on Drogba's jersey, trying to tell him what he was supposed to do. Drogba had generally a bad game, though he almost knocked in a winner (the ball fell at his feet while walking forward, and he nailed one off the crossbar from 20 yards).
In the end, Drogba fell victim to the same result as Zidane in the 2006 World Cup final (historical note: France lost to Italy on penalties, after Zidane was red-carded for his famous head-butt on Materazzi). Drogba got a red card for a mini-slap to the face of Man U. defender Vidic in the midst of some multi-layered player argument. As with Zidane, Drogba reacted to something that was not captured on screen and not seen by the referee. As a result, Drogba (Zidane) was not around for the critical penalty kick showdown, when depth of quality penalty-takers is supremely important (Drogba/Zidane being one of the best).
After the World Cup, Zidane retired (and everyone knew it was the case coming into the game). Similarly, everyone expected this would be Drogba's last game for Chelsea, and his actions no doubt clinched it.
As for Grant, the conventional wisdom is that he had to win the trophy to save his job. I think he did enough to be offered to keep his job, but more likely the team will declare an intention to revamp pretty thoroughly in the offseason and he will move on, largely by his own choice.
Chelsea 2007-08 was not a great team by historical standards of great European football squads, but by Chelsea standards it was a classic Chelsea team: always tough, battling, falling just short. Just making it to the Champions League final was breaking new ground for the club (just as the two titles they won in 2005 and 2006 were the first in nearly 50 years), but somehow this one trophy that escaped will make the whole billion-dollar gamble by Roman Abramovich feel less than successful to him. And that's just his problem, if that's the way he takes it. We long-term fans will patiently endure whatever spasms occur (I heard a rumor Leonel Messi--the only rival to Ronaldo as Best In World--may be coming over from Argentina!) and remember fondly the efforts and huge contributions of those, such as Lampard and Drogba (even Shevchenko!), who may be forced by circumstances to move on.
The pain was lessened by recognition of the enormous effort all had to give to resolve this marathon stalemate. The conditions at Moscow's Luzhniki Stadium, which took out its artificial turf and planted (poorly) sod grass for this event, were rainy, soggy, and generally unacceptable. This contributed to the nature of the second half and extra time; that 75 minutes had no goals, and few good opportunities.
There were a lot of big-name players, and with their undoubted big egos, many of them probably thought the whole thing revolved about his own contributions: Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, who scored the Man U. goal but failed to convert his penalty shot at the end; Terry, the Blues' captain, who saved a sure goal with a header over the bar in extra time, and then had the game-winning penalty shot at his feet, but slipped and missed it wide; the Devils' Carlos Tevez, who probably should've been red-carded (ejected) at one point, and imposed his will on the game several times to create chances to score, but could not get a break; Lampard, who probably thought his goal was due to divine intervention (it was certainly lucky), but then watched his game-winner strike squarely off the crossbar, then got no opportunity in the deciding shootout (why not? one must ask). The deeper reality is that, most of the game, the flow revolved around Michael Essian, who had the task to control Ronaldo and did so, with the exception of one play.
In the big picture, though, it was about Didier Drogba, no doubt playing his last game for Chelsea, and his coach Avram Grant. There was a great shot at one point, during a stoppage in play, when Grant had a hold on Drogba's jersey, trying to tell him what he was supposed to do. Drogba had generally a bad game, though he almost knocked in a winner (the ball fell at his feet while walking forward, and he nailed one off the crossbar from 20 yards).
In the end, Drogba fell victim to the same result as Zidane in the 2006 World Cup final (historical note: France lost to Italy on penalties, after Zidane was red-carded for his famous head-butt on Materazzi). Drogba got a red card for a mini-slap to the face of Man U. defender Vidic in the midst of some multi-layered player argument. As with Zidane, Drogba reacted to something that was not captured on screen and not seen by the referee. As a result, Drogba (Zidane) was not around for the critical penalty kick showdown, when depth of quality penalty-takers is supremely important (Drogba/Zidane being one of the best).
After the World Cup, Zidane retired (and everyone knew it was the case coming into the game). Similarly, everyone expected this would be Drogba's last game for Chelsea, and his actions no doubt clinched it.
As for Grant, the conventional wisdom is that he had to win the trophy to save his job. I think he did enough to be offered to keep his job, but more likely the team will declare an intention to revamp pretty thoroughly in the offseason and he will move on, largely by his own choice.
Chelsea 2007-08 was not a great team by historical standards of great European football squads, but by Chelsea standards it was a classic Chelsea team: always tough, battling, falling just short. Just making it to the Champions League final was breaking new ground for the club (just as the two titles they won in 2005 and 2006 were the first in nearly 50 years), but somehow this one trophy that escaped will make the whole billion-dollar gamble by Roman Abramovich feel less than successful to him. And that's just his problem, if that's the way he takes it. We long-term fans will patiently endure whatever spasms occur (I heard a rumor Leonel Messi--the only rival to Ronaldo as Best In World--may be coming over from Argentina!) and remember fondly the efforts and huge contributions of those, such as Lampard and Drogba (even Shevchenko!), who may be forced by circumstances to move on.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Electoral College Math 0.1
The polls at this point in time give a good indication of how the Electoral College math might stack up if the general election comes down to a tactical result.
Basically, you can think of any Presidential election result (with two major parties splitting the Electoral votes) as coming down to three types:
Strategic result--"a landslide"--over 10% lead in popular vote; an Electoral College win over 100.
Decisive result--a lead of 4-10% in the popular vote and a safe Electoral College win (think Carter over Ford, or Clinton over Dole).
Tactical result--a lead of less than 4% in the popular vote and a "close race" in the Electoral college.
Right now, the national polls show the projected popular vote to be a virtual tie. This may not be at all the case at some points in the general election campaign just now beginning. I expect Obama to get a major bump from the Democratic convention and have an 8-10% lead at that point (around Labor Day). What happens afterwards depends on how well McCain and the Republicans respond to the situation, and whether they can dislodge Obama and the Democrats from the roll they would be on if that occurred. If they muck it up too much (like get Bush and Cheney involved in the campaign), such a lead could even expand to the strategic (wouldn't that be nice!)
I see only one reason to think McCain & Co. could succeed, then--this is the American electorate we are talking about. They will be selling fear, and there may be buyers. In that case, the decisive lead could shrink to an insignificant one, in which the vagaries of the Electoral College will be decisive (just like '00 and '04).
At any rate, recent polls give a good indication which will be the key states (not necessarily the same as always, surprisingly!) and what the final score might look like. Rasmussen is coy about it in their forecast, showing large numbers of leaners and a reluctance to move states from their '04 results (understandably), and CQ will be the same.
We have no obligation to be coy, Roy; so we will go out there now with our prediction for a tactical outcome: 293-245 Obama.
We have the following states changing from the 252-286 loss Kerry had to Dubya in '04: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. That's it.
We're going against the direction of the most recent polling on New Hampshire (currently showing a significant McCain lead), Ohio (on the strength of the Republican party collapse shown in '06), Michigan (like New Hampshire, still processing some Obama resentment), and surprisingly, Wisconsin. We're only going against the Rasmussen Market opinion in NH, where it's pretty much even, as it is for Nevada (looks like a tough slog to win that one for Obama). There are a lot of states looking close right now, though: 14 of the 34 or so states with polls recently published have raw margins less than 5% (so none of them would be considered "statistically significant" by the pollsters).
New Hampshire turns out to be important, because with it, Obama doesn't lose if he falters in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin. New Mexico we have to assume will go to Obama, and Colorado, too.
Techy: My bets on states--Old ones: against Republicans in NJ at 17%; for Democrats in NM at 63%; for Democrats in Ohio at 60.4; against Republicans in ME at 19%; for Dems in Kansas at 12.5% (looking for Sebelius here!).
New bets/bids: for an upset in Alaska at 6%; sell vs. Republicans looking for an upset in CA at 8.9% (easy money); Buy MO at 37.4% (I'm going to regret that one; hopefully I'll sell it for a small profit and regret that, rather than the usual practice of holding onto the end there and losing); and sell NH vs. Republicans in NH at 48.2 (again, going against the current polling).
Basically, you can think of any Presidential election result (with two major parties splitting the Electoral votes) as coming down to three types:
Strategic result--"a landslide"--over 10% lead in popular vote; an Electoral College win over 100.
Decisive result--a lead of 4-10% in the popular vote and a safe Electoral College win (think Carter over Ford, or Clinton over Dole).
Tactical result--a lead of less than 4% in the popular vote and a "close race" in the Electoral college.
Right now, the national polls show the projected popular vote to be a virtual tie. This may not be at all the case at some points in the general election campaign just now beginning. I expect Obama to get a major bump from the Democratic convention and have an 8-10% lead at that point (around Labor Day). What happens afterwards depends on how well McCain and the Republicans respond to the situation, and whether they can dislodge Obama and the Democrats from the roll they would be on if that occurred. If they muck it up too much (like get Bush and Cheney involved in the campaign), such a lead could even expand to the strategic (wouldn't that be nice!)
I see only one reason to think McCain & Co. could succeed, then--this is the American electorate we are talking about. They will be selling fear, and there may be buyers. In that case, the decisive lead could shrink to an insignificant one, in which the vagaries of the Electoral College will be decisive (just like '00 and '04).
At any rate, recent polls give a good indication which will be the key states (not necessarily the same as always, surprisingly!) and what the final score might look like. Rasmussen is coy about it in their forecast, showing large numbers of leaners and a reluctance to move states from their '04 results (understandably), and CQ will be the same.
We have no obligation to be coy, Roy; so we will go out there now with our prediction for a tactical outcome: 293-245 Obama.
We have the following states changing from the 252-286 loss Kerry had to Dubya in '04: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. That's it.
We're going against the direction of the most recent polling on New Hampshire (currently showing a significant McCain lead), Ohio (on the strength of the Republican party collapse shown in '06), Michigan (like New Hampshire, still processing some Obama resentment), and surprisingly, Wisconsin. We're only going against the Rasmussen Market opinion in NH, where it's pretty much even, as it is for Nevada (looks like a tough slog to win that one for Obama). There are a lot of states looking close right now, though: 14 of the 34 or so states with polls recently published have raw margins less than 5% (so none of them would be considered "statistically significant" by the pollsters).
New Hampshire turns out to be important, because with it, Obama doesn't lose if he falters in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin. New Mexico we have to assume will go to Obama, and Colorado, too.
Techy: My bets on states--Old ones: against Republicans in NJ at 17%; for Democrats in NM at 63%; for Democrats in Ohio at 60.4; against Republicans in ME at 19%; for Dems in Kansas at 12.5% (looking for Sebelius here!).
New bets/bids: for an upset in Alaska at 6%; sell vs. Republicans looking for an upset in CA at 8.9% (easy money); Buy MO at 37.4% (I'm going to regret that one; hopefully I'll sell it for a small profit and regret that, rather than the usual practice of holding onto the end there and losing); and sell NH vs. Republicans in NH at 48.2 (again, going against the current polling).
Friday, May 16, 2008
NM: Lens Image of the National Election
Lens image, as different from a mirror image (reversed left-to-right). This one instead is upside down.
In the New Mexico Senate race (opened up by Pete Domenici's retirement for health reasons), we have a situation in which we have had a presumptive Democratic nominee for months (Tom Udall), while the two leading Republicans (Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce) battle fiercely on roughly even terms. Although there is more difference in the policy views of Wilson and Pearce than between Clinton and Obama (more comparable to the differences between McCain and Dubya), the race is similar in the sense of powerful, distinct blocs within the party going up against each other. At some times, furiously.
If we are looking for the impact of the prolonged Clinton-Obama primary duel on the general election race, we can see the reverse writ small in New Mexico, the better to identify exactly how large the effect (if any).
New Mexico has tons of intrinsic reasons to be of particular interest in the Obama-McCain match-up.
They start with the indisputable fact that it has been the closest of all the swing states in the last two elections (and was the closest in the primaries this year, too--at least in the Demo races, I'll have to check re: McCain's big winner-take-all in MO). As usual, the state looks to be competitive in the Presidential race. That's less unusual this year, when there seems to be a lot more swing in play, turnout being another dimension of surpassing interest this particular year. The Democrats should have the advantage, but are far from a lock.
Second, if one's looking at the Hispanic vote as one of the key dynamic areas of the Obama-McCain race demographics, look no further: NM has the highest percentage of the 50 states.
I believe the Hispanic vote this year ended up a little closer between Clinton-Obama (here, on UNP-Day) than most of the reported Hispanic vote percentages in primary states, but I don't think that's the real issue in the general election question. Rather, it's that McCain's bravado appeals to many Hispanic voters, and not incidentally, that McCain's from neighboring AZ.
Third, due in no small part to the Republican battle, this has become one of the best chances the Democrats have to pick up a seat. The general election picture is far from settled--the latest poll data I saw had Pearce up over Wilson, 49-46, so it's too early to handicap that race accurately (as, I would argue, is the case for Obama-McCain).
On the other hand, the ads these have been buying have generally hardened opposition to both of them, and Udall has moved from something like a 50-50 race to a 60-40 lead over either. Things are looking really good for him to pick up a Senate seat here, and that is worth big-time national money.
That should be enough, but the peculiar dynamics of the NM Senate race have driven all three of its Representatives to give up their seats and go for it. 100% of the state's House races have no incumbent!
This has provided a major employment opportunity in the state, both for candidates and for low-paid political operatives. Why not?
In our Congressional district, #3, there are 10 candidates running--6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 2 Independents. I think the Albuquerque district (Heather Wilson's old one--#1) has a similar number going. In the current district we have up north, it's all about winning the Democratic nomination. Ben Ray Lujan is the clear favorite, with Don Wiviott the leading challenger. I like best what I've seen from Benny Shendo, but both Lujan and Wiviott have respectable records and should cream any Republican.
The key district, once again, will be Wilson's, and should be a clear opportunity for the Democrats to pick up the seat this time.
From a Peculiar Angle of Refraction
As with Clinton-Obama, and the 2008 election more generally, there is a major 2012 election issue out here in New Mexico not being discussed. If I read the cards correctly, NM is due to pick up a fourth seat after the 2010 census (unless Republican "get the vote outta here!" tactics are used in tabulating resident citizens). That should take effect in the 2012 election, and the form that expansion will take (to be determined by a Democratic-led legislature) is certainly not clear. My guess is that a natural expansion would be to create a new district from parts of the two Northern ones. I'd suggest the idea of one composed of Albuquerque Northern suburbs (the fastest growing area, I'd say) and Santa Fe county (with the sparsely populated land between). This one would be competitive but lean Democratic.
The rump of the district formerly dominated by Santa Fe (and represented by Udall) would be created: one with a more rural, minority composition: with a very high Hispanic population, very significant Native American population, and no large city. It would initially be Lujan's district, one could foresee. Certainly Democratic.
The Albuquerque district would remain largely that, but with some of the richer areas removed. It would be a prime candidate for someone like Mayor Chavez. If all this is true, New Mexico would go from 1-2 to 3-1 by 2012, with its 6 electoral votes ever more firmly in the Democratic camp. Part of a general national swing toward the party now clearly in the majority, one can only pray.
Nationally, the 2012 issue is out there, but not yet under consideration (for example: whither Hillary, after she loses?). It will start getting the media's attention no later than mid-2009. If McCain won I would have to give him no better than a 50-50 chance to make it (alive) through a hypothetical re-election campaign, and the Obama-relives-Carter fear is definitely out there among some.
I have already seen a lot of polling interest in us from some blogs (including a direct appeal from the Committee for a Democratic Majority). This is, without doubt, primarily a marketing technique, but I think it's the forerunner of a whole lot of attention to the state. I've encouraged my wife to speak her mind--that's good politics, from every point of view. As for me, I aspire to be the Kevin Costner character in "Swing State" (check title).
Techy comment on NM's 5 electoral votes: I think you can put McCain down for 35-45% of the 40% Hispanic voters in the state, which, after you factor in the African-American vote, puts McCain at 33-43% of the 42% Hispanic or African-American voters. The Native American vote, now, that's another, important story, some 8-10% of voters, I expect. Put McCain down for a similar 33-43% of them and you've got McCain getting only 17-22% of his total from the non-white half. This would mean he'd need 58-66% of the white vote; I'd call that unlikely. All of this relies on a really strong turnout effort from the Obama campaign--which I totally expect, and that is the whole point of this post.
NM poll at http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/nmsen_r/
Thursday, May 15, 2008
General Election Preview I
There's a lot to be said--even now--about individual state races as they look in this early stage. The polltakers are finding a lot more states in play than there usually are, with the electoral votes in the Undecided category way up compared to the last two elections. This time, though, I want to look at the strategic aspect.
The strategic theme for Obama will be to present a unified front--campaign and party--against a two-pronged Republican attack: the national party and affiliated smearmeisters driving one prong, and Gentleman John McCain the other.
The key thrust of the national Republican campaign on behalf of John McCain will be merely to suppress turnout. That is not something McCain will want to pursue directly: he will be trying to maximize the number willing to pull his lever (or the electronic equivalent), and his method will be to characterize Obama as green and black. Or brown. Or any color other than red, white, and blue, which are reserved exclusively for McCain.
OK, green is somewhat in play, I guess, if you're thinking environmentally. Personally, I think it's no contest, but some may question that. Actually, though, I meant green as in "inexperienced, in a bad way". As for The Black Thing (TBT), there are hundreds of ways to remind voters of it without saying it, and doing it that way is the more effective approach.
The problem is, Obama is too smart for that stuff. So, McCain's attack angle will end up having to be something different, in the end: Obama's an elitist intellectual. Meanwhile the national party will bring out whatever it has that can help reduce turnout (including all types of "non-tariff barriers" to voting) and also go negative from the start.
Obama, too, is facing a likely midcourse correction in strategy. He's coming out of the box looking to run against George W. Bush. This is a good start--it will help solidify the core, which is certainly desirable at this time--but I don't think it will get him to the finish line.
The problem with that line of attack is that McCain, while as much a "conservative hawk" as Dubya, is no Bushite. This recognized distinction is what kept him alive in the dog days of 2007: there was hope for him as the most un-Bushite national figure the party had, even if he didn't know how to lead a winning campaign operation. Eventually he got the right leadership working for him, and he got lucky with the dynamics of the primary races.
This all adds up to McCain being able to dodge the Bushite association to some extent. He will have to endure the hug on the convention platform, and he will have the dubious value of the President's support through his inappropriate public comments on the race in progress. But, like Obama with Jeremiah Wright, the Nominee will be able to shrug off any great effect from the eccentric comments of the Unavoidably Associated.
So Obama will have to find success in a more specific area then merely equating McCain with George Bush. He wants to take McCain on, to outpoint him on foreign policy (easy) and military policy (less easy). This is the right thing to do, as Obama realizes that these roles are the truly pre-eminent ones for Presidents (along with Supreme Court nominations). Politically, though, he will find that, inarticulate as McCain sometimes is, he will not lose the battle on this terrain.
The winning tack will be the correct formulation of his domestic policy package, and Obama has a vital interest in preserving the integrity of his platform at the convention. The positions he backs, he can defend well, but he would have more trouble with any areas where the platform varies with his policies. Revanchist Clintonistas may introduce troublesome resolutions for something like mandated health insurance, for example; it will be interesting to see how the disciplined, focused Obama campaign team deals with them.
Is Iraq An Issue?
This one will be fascinating to watch, and no definitive answer to that question may be clear even up until the last week of the campaign. To some extent, we will be captive to events over there, and atrocities or ambushes could make a momentary impact on the war's significance. Depending on the moment, that could be huge.
If it matters, it should help Obama. In the absence of major events there, though, it probably just helps solidify the gender and age gaps and is relatively neutral. It's conceivable that McCain will hit upon the "We are Winning; Therefore we should Continue Withdrawals" policy that could help make for an electoral upset, and Obama needs to watch for that, though it seems so out of character for McCain to take on board.
Bad Things Happening in Iraq will also hurt McCain, though we hope that they will happen less down the stretch. In particular, this will keep the focus on domestic issues where Obama should have the edge.
There was a very interesting vote today in the House that suggests much. It was on an amendment to the funding for Iraq--note the tallies:
H R 2642 YEA-AND-NAY 15-May-2008 3:30 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1
BILL TITLE: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
This one was hailed by Move On as a vote to prevent a rubber-stamp approval of the Iraq funding, but it looks like a shrewd tactical win for the Republicans to me. Clearly, the Republican leadership arranged for this one to fail, when they had the votes to pass it. This allowed those who had qualms about the current execution of policy to step aside--the Senate will lead in giving Bush his number, and the House will have to fall in--or those who wanted to "support the troops" could do so, while opposition to that proposition was reserved for Democratic troublemakers.
Getting long for one post. We'll take on the Winning Domestic Angle in Part 2, and the decisive role turnout will play this time in Part 3.
The strategic theme for Obama will be to present a unified front--campaign and party--against a two-pronged Republican attack: the national party and affiliated smearmeisters driving one prong, and Gentleman John McCain the other.
The key thrust of the national Republican campaign on behalf of John McCain will be merely to suppress turnout. That is not something McCain will want to pursue directly: he will be trying to maximize the number willing to pull his lever (or the electronic equivalent), and his method will be to characterize Obama as green and black. Or brown. Or any color other than red, white, and blue, which are reserved exclusively for McCain.
OK, green is somewhat in play, I guess, if you're thinking environmentally. Personally, I think it's no contest, but some may question that. Actually, though, I meant green as in "inexperienced, in a bad way". As for The Black Thing (TBT), there are hundreds of ways to remind voters of it without saying it, and doing it that way is the more effective approach.
The problem is, Obama is too smart for that stuff. So, McCain's attack angle will end up having to be something different, in the end: Obama's an elitist intellectual. Meanwhile the national party will bring out whatever it has that can help reduce turnout (including all types of "non-tariff barriers" to voting) and also go negative from the start.
Obama, too, is facing a likely midcourse correction in strategy. He's coming out of the box looking to run against George W. Bush. This is a good start--it will help solidify the core, which is certainly desirable at this time--but I don't think it will get him to the finish line.
The problem with that line of attack is that McCain, while as much a "conservative hawk" as Dubya, is no Bushite. This recognized distinction is what kept him alive in the dog days of 2007: there was hope for him as the most un-Bushite national figure the party had, even if he didn't know how to lead a winning campaign operation. Eventually he got the right leadership working for him, and he got lucky with the dynamics of the primary races.
This all adds up to McCain being able to dodge the Bushite association to some extent. He will have to endure the hug on the convention platform, and he will have the dubious value of the President's support through his inappropriate public comments on the race in progress. But, like Obama with Jeremiah Wright, the Nominee will be able to shrug off any great effect from the eccentric comments of the Unavoidably Associated.
So Obama will have to find success in a more specific area then merely equating McCain with George Bush. He wants to take McCain on, to outpoint him on foreign policy (easy) and military policy (less easy). This is the right thing to do, as Obama realizes that these roles are the truly pre-eminent ones for Presidents (along with Supreme Court nominations). Politically, though, he will find that, inarticulate as McCain sometimes is, he will not lose the battle on this terrain.
The winning tack will be the correct formulation of his domestic policy package, and Obama has a vital interest in preserving the integrity of his platform at the convention. The positions he backs, he can defend well, but he would have more trouble with any areas where the platform varies with his policies. Revanchist Clintonistas may introduce troublesome resolutions for something like mandated health insurance, for example; it will be interesting to see how the disciplined, focused Obama campaign team deals with them.
Is Iraq An Issue?
This one will be fascinating to watch, and no definitive answer to that question may be clear even up until the last week of the campaign. To some extent, we will be captive to events over there, and atrocities or ambushes could make a momentary impact on the war's significance. Depending on the moment, that could be huge.
If it matters, it should help Obama. In the absence of major events there, though, it probably just helps solidify the gender and age gaps and is relatively neutral. It's conceivable that McCain will hit upon the "We are Winning; Therefore we should Continue Withdrawals" policy that could help make for an electoral upset, and Obama needs to watch for that, though it seems so out of character for McCain to take on board.
Bad Things Happening in Iraq will also hurt McCain, though we hope that they will happen less down the stretch. In particular, this will keep the focus on domestic issues where Obama should have the edge.
There was a very interesting vote today in the House that suggests much. It was on an amendment to the funding for Iraq--note the tallies:
H R 2642 YEA-AND-NAY 15-May-2008 3:30 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1
BILL TITLE: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 85 | 147 | 3 | |
| Republican | 56 | 2 | 132 | 9 |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 141 | 149 | 132 | 12 |
This one was hailed by Move On as a vote to prevent a rubber-stamp approval of the Iraq funding, but it looks like a shrewd tactical win for the Republicans to me. Clearly, the Republican leadership arranged for this one to fail, when they had the votes to pass it. This allowed those who had qualms about the current execution of policy to step aside--the Senate will lead in giving Bush his number, and the House will have to fall in--or those who wanted to "support the troops" could do so, while opposition to that proposition was reserved for Democratic troublemakers.
Getting long for one post. We'll take on the Winning Domestic Angle in Part 2, and the decisive role turnout will play this time in Part 3.
Endgame 2.1
Edwards' endorsement wraps it, as far as most anyone not on Hillary's campaign can see. A brief spike in his fortunes to be VP; more likely winning bet is on AG (Atty. Gen.)--if you can find a market for that one.
I'm reading Team of Rivals (Doris Kearns Goodwin's historical piece on Lincoln and his selection of his party rivals for the nomination for principal Cabinet posts), and I like the idea as it applies to Barack Obama. His approach seems to be to take personal involvement in selecting his staff and advisors. Besides Edwards, it would make sense for him to draw heavily from the pool of his Democratic campaign competitors:
o Richardson for EPA;
o Biden for State (though Lugar is probably a better bet);
o Dodd for Supreme Court justice (Edwards also worth consideration--he could be John Roberts' nemesis--his "man marker" as they say in English footie--for the next 40 years!);
o Hillary for ??? (Education and/or HHS would be slam dunks, but I think she's headed to run for Governor if Obama wins, and to start her 2012 organization in 2009 if she loses);
o Dennis Kucinich (yes!) for Labor;
o Finally, Wes Clark (who never declared, went early for Hillary this time around) for Defense.
Who am I forgetting?
I do like the idea, which has been strongly mooted on the blogs recently, of Sen. Jim Webb (VA) as the VP choice. I also like Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS) or Clark, either of which should mollify at least one camp in the Clinton constellation of support, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN), if they want to go the "Dick Cheney" eminence grise route. Obama should prioritize military affairs or executive experience, along with helping in a normally red state, to further his strategic approach of challenging McCain in all 50 states and thus stretching McCain to the breaking point.
Hillary v. Penn
It looks like (I hope) Hillary has finally shucked the bad advice she's been getting from Mark Penn this time around. Or maybe he's actually given some good advice, finally--occasionally, one gets something right by accident. Anyway, she's making the smart play at this point by toning down, setting the stage for a graceful concession which will keep her future options open.
I knew Penn and would easily recognize him if I saw him anywhere (he wouldn't recognize me, but that's because he's a social slug). I used to work for Penn & Schoen on the Upper East Side (mid-'80's), part-time evenings. Mostly I was their ace data inputter (theirs was mostly one-finger typing, and some open-ended texts, though I did like operating their match-merge manual interface), but also I did a fair number of their phone surveys (pretty tough conditions).
It was very clear from doing their surveys what the approach was. See how far you could push the preference numbers by trying out slanted "framing" of the opposition. Run everything possible up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes anything. The technique has clearly been visible in the HRC campaign, particularly in its latter stages.
Penn was the Nerd-king at the time, Doug Schoen the smooth-talking counselor. There were "intern nerds" Penn scooped from Poli Sci programs who designed individual surveys to facilitate their pitch to candidates. It was pretty much non-ideologic, middle-of-the-road conventional wisdom triangulation. No doubt it works, both commercially and electorally, and they are both extremely wealthy as a result (particularly Penn). Schoen (whose contributions I read on Rasmussen) has managed to retain more dignity, if that counts.
I'm reading Team of Rivals (Doris Kearns Goodwin's historical piece on Lincoln and his selection of his party rivals for the nomination for principal Cabinet posts), and I like the idea as it applies to Barack Obama. His approach seems to be to take personal involvement in selecting his staff and advisors. Besides Edwards, it would make sense for him to draw heavily from the pool of his Democratic campaign competitors:
o Richardson for EPA;
o Biden for State (though Lugar is probably a better bet);
o Dodd for Supreme Court justice (Edwards also worth consideration--he could be John Roberts' nemesis--his "man marker" as they say in English footie--for the next 40 years!);
o Hillary for ??? (Education and/or HHS would be slam dunks, but I think she's headed to run for Governor if Obama wins, and to start her 2012 organization in 2009 if she loses);
o Dennis Kucinich (yes!) for Labor;
o Finally, Wes Clark (who never declared, went early for Hillary this time around) for Defense.
Who am I forgetting?
I do like the idea, which has been strongly mooted on the blogs recently, of Sen. Jim Webb (VA) as the VP choice. I also like Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS) or Clark, either of which should mollify at least one camp in the Clinton constellation of support, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN), if they want to go the "Dick Cheney" eminence grise route. Obama should prioritize military affairs or executive experience, along with helping in a normally red state, to further his strategic approach of challenging McCain in all 50 states and thus stretching McCain to the breaking point.
Hillary v. Penn
It looks like (I hope) Hillary has finally shucked the bad advice she's been getting from Mark Penn this time around. Or maybe he's actually given some good advice, finally--occasionally, one gets something right by accident. Anyway, she's making the smart play at this point by toning down, setting the stage for a graceful concession which will keep her future options open.
I knew Penn and would easily recognize him if I saw him anywhere (he wouldn't recognize me, but that's because he's a social slug). I used to work for Penn & Schoen on the Upper East Side (mid-'80's), part-time evenings. Mostly I was their ace data inputter (theirs was mostly one-finger typing, and some open-ended texts, though I did like operating their match-merge manual interface), but also I did a fair number of their phone surveys (pretty tough conditions).
It was very clear from doing their surveys what the approach was. See how far you could push the preference numbers by trying out slanted "framing" of the opposition. Run everything possible up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes anything. The technique has clearly been visible in the HRC campaign, particularly in its latter stages.
Penn was the Nerd-king at the time, Doug Schoen the smooth-talking counselor. There were "intern nerds" Penn scooped from Poli Sci programs who designed individual surveys to facilitate their pitch to candidates. It was pretty much non-ideologic, middle-of-the-road conventional wisdom triangulation. No doubt it works, both commercially and electorally, and they are both extremely wealthy as a result (particularly Penn). Schoen (whose contributions I read on Rasmussen) has managed to retain more dignity, if that counts.
Games of Near-Consequence
We need to explain a bit better what makes this NBA season so special. Most years, there are 2-3 teams which really have a chance to challenge seriously for the title. If two of those teams meet in the finals, it can be climactic and exciting, but more often than not, they don't.
This has been the case many recent seasons; last year's finals provide a good example. The Cavaliers knocked out in the Conference Finals the one Eastern team which had a chance to compete with the Western Conference winner (i.e., Detroit). So, it was 4-0 West in the Finals.
This year, I would say that there were no less than eight teams with a real chance to contend. Boston and Detroit in the East, and six of the eight teams that made the playoffs in the West (excluding only Denver, which doesn't play defense, and Houston, because they had no chance without Yao in the lineup).
Two teams of consequence were thus eliminated in the first round: they were the ones which made the controversial moves to bring big-time, proven stars and champions to their teams at the trade deadline--Phoenix (with Shaq coming over) and Dallas (with Kidd). Their teams were unlucky to end up playing tough first-round opponents (Spurs and Hornets, respectively), and it really was luck, given the scramble for spots that happened in the West, going down to the last week for spots 3-9 (of the 8 available).
Our key prediction, brought out initially in a comment to our posting "NBA update", was of the Final Four, all of which I expected to be teams of consequence, capable of going all the way: Celtics-Pistons in the East, and Spurs-Lakers in the West.
Tonight's games were of great significance because they were potential home defeats of Final Four teams in critical Game 5 encounters. The Celtics were seriously challenged at home by the Cavaliers, who had LeBron going wild in the first half and led Boston by double-digits. Then, later, the Utah Jazz made a serious second-half run at the Lakers.
Neither game ended up being consequential in the end. My man Rajan Rondo, Fourth Man in the Celtics' Big 3 (they actually do get to play five at a time), came up big as I thought he would do at some point in the playoffs. Quality point guard play being critical to success, he had to.
In the Jazz-Lakers game, the Jazz spotted a real opportunity because Kobe was hobbled by back injury and so could not dominate in the way he normally does. With the Jazz having someone nearly as talented and competitive as Bryant, their point guard Deron Williams, there was a question whether the Lakers could answer the Jazz' best shots yet (by far) at a road win in L.A., which would likely have been fatal given the Jazz' tremendous success at home.
Pau Gasol saved the Lakers tonight. He was the third big trade just before the deadline. Unlike Kidd and Shaq, Gasol has no championship rings nor even any significant playoff experience before this year (any at all?) The move was the best of the three, though, and he provided immediate benefits--more than Kidd or Shaq--and has continued to do so.
Gasol did alot tonight, but he made two big plays that made the difference. Both were offensive rebounds that led to Laker scores down the stretch. On both occasions he was pushing off a Jazz player who had better position, but no foul was called.
These were the most egregious homer calls by the refs in the Laker game, but they were not the only ones. I saw Jazz coach Jerry Sloan ripping the officials afterwards, but I'm guessing he will forego the public posturing and paying fines and, rather, try to plant the seed that perhaps they could be a little less favorable to the Lakers in Game 7, if Utah can make it back there.
The TNT broadcasters are fond of exclaiming about how home teams are 19-1 so far in this round of the playoffs. This game gave a good indication why. In the postgame wrap, Kenny Smith did comment that "that was an offensive foul" about the second, decisive one, but no one heeded the point and followed up. Instead, there was a cute comment by guest commentator Avery Johnson about, "What's his name, again?" referring to the "POW!" he gave Okur on the play. I liked that; that's about as far as one can go without giving offense to the refs (Avery may want to coach again someday, like next year!) or undermining "the product" the network must back at all costs.
This round, the default result is for the favored home team to win the series, and no team of consequence has lost at home. This may be tested in a few days, if the Spurs win Game 6 and go to New Orleans for Game 7. The Hornets pushed back the Spurs' road challenge brilliantly in their Game 5 home win, so they have earned the right to play at home in the decisive game with a chance to knock out the defending champs and everyone's favored team (including mine). We know the Spurs will not shirk from the challenge; yet they can be beaten. In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Hornets--tremendous over-achievers for their first time at this altitude in the playoffs--come up with that rare road win themselves in San Antonio.
As for my predicted Eastern champ, the Celtics continue to do enough at home to get by. Kevin Garnett is right when he says they must find the ability to do better on the road, but it's not to the point that they actually have to win there, and it may never be. They do have the home-court advantage all the way through the finals.
This has been the case many recent seasons; last year's finals provide a good example. The Cavaliers knocked out in the Conference Finals the one Eastern team which had a chance to compete with the Western Conference winner (i.e., Detroit). So, it was 4-0 West in the Finals.
This year, I would say that there were no less than eight teams with a real chance to contend. Boston and Detroit in the East, and six of the eight teams that made the playoffs in the West (excluding only Denver, which doesn't play defense, and Houston, because they had no chance without Yao in the lineup).
Two teams of consequence were thus eliminated in the first round: they were the ones which made the controversial moves to bring big-time, proven stars and champions to their teams at the trade deadline--Phoenix (with Shaq coming over) and Dallas (with Kidd). Their teams were unlucky to end up playing tough first-round opponents (Spurs and Hornets, respectively), and it really was luck, given the scramble for spots that happened in the West, going down to the last week for spots 3-9 (of the 8 available).
Our key prediction, brought out initially in a comment to our posting "NBA update", was of the Final Four, all of which I expected to be teams of consequence, capable of going all the way: Celtics-Pistons in the East, and Spurs-Lakers in the West.
Tonight's games were of great significance because they were potential home defeats of Final Four teams in critical Game 5 encounters. The Celtics were seriously challenged at home by the Cavaliers, who had LeBron going wild in the first half and led Boston by double-digits. Then, later, the Utah Jazz made a serious second-half run at the Lakers.
Neither game ended up being consequential in the end. My man Rajan Rondo, Fourth Man in the Celtics' Big 3 (they actually do get to play five at a time), came up big as I thought he would do at some point in the playoffs. Quality point guard play being critical to success, he had to.
In the Jazz-Lakers game, the Jazz spotted a real opportunity because Kobe was hobbled by back injury and so could not dominate in the way he normally does. With the Jazz having someone nearly as talented and competitive as Bryant, their point guard Deron Williams, there was a question whether the Lakers could answer the Jazz' best shots yet (by far) at a road win in L.A., which would likely have been fatal given the Jazz' tremendous success at home.
Pau Gasol saved the Lakers tonight. He was the third big trade just before the deadline. Unlike Kidd and Shaq, Gasol has no championship rings nor even any significant playoff experience before this year (any at all?) The move was the best of the three, though, and he provided immediate benefits--more than Kidd or Shaq--and has continued to do so.
Gasol did alot tonight, but he made two big plays that made the difference. Both were offensive rebounds that led to Laker scores down the stretch. On both occasions he was pushing off a Jazz player who had better position, but no foul was called.
These were the most egregious homer calls by the refs in the Laker game, but they were not the only ones. I saw Jazz coach Jerry Sloan ripping the officials afterwards, but I'm guessing he will forego the public posturing and paying fines and, rather, try to plant the seed that perhaps they could be a little less favorable to the Lakers in Game 7, if Utah can make it back there.
The TNT broadcasters are fond of exclaiming about how home teams are 19-1 so far in this round of the playoffs. This game gave a good indication why. In the postgame wrap, Kenny Smith did comment that "that was an offensive foul" about the second, decisive one, but no one heeded the point and followed up. Instead, there was a cute comment by guest commentator Avery Johnson about, "What's his name, again?" referring to the "POW!" he gave Okur on the play. I liked that; that's about as far as one can go without giving offense to the refs (Avery may want to coach again someday, like next year!) or undermining "the product" the network must back at all costs.
This round, the default result is for the favored home team to win the series, and no team of consequence has lost at home. This may be tested in a few days, if the Spurs win Game 6 and go to New Orleans for Game 7. The Hornets pushed back the Spurs' road challenge brilliantly in their Game 5 home win, so they have earned the right to play at home in the decisive game with a chance to knock out the defending champs and everyone's favored team (including mine). We know the Spurs will not shirk from the challenge; yet they can be beaten. In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Hornets--tremendous over-achievers for their first time at this altitude in the playoffs--come up with that rare road win themselves in San Antonio.
As for my predicted Eastern champ, the Celtics continue to do enough at home to get by. Kevin Garnett is right when he says they must find the ability to do better on the road, but it's not to the point that they actually have to win there, and it may never be. They do have the home-court advantage all the way through the finals.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Endgame 2.0
Obama turned the page last night, as the light at the end of the tunnel finally shows itself clearly. His speech was personally crafted by him to address the weaknesses he showed in recent weeks; it marks, in his mind at the very least, the beginning of the general election campaign by the now Unofficially Presumptive Nominee (UPN).
CNN Coverage News: A New Conventional Wisdom in the Making (Live)
Clinton backer Lanny Davis desperately tried to put up the defense for his candidate last night. His most signal failure was his attempt to substitute the number 2209 (I think it was) for 2025 (or perhaps, more accurately, 2024.5) ; the larger number being the required number of delegates to clinch victory if Michigan and Florida are seated at the full strength they would initially have been given.
Donna Brazile (who will gladly move over to the UPN sometime just after the end of the month) dissented strongly. As a member of the Rules Committee, she has tried to maintain some perspective, publicly and privately, and last night she clarified that her official position is "Undeclared"--i.e., she knows who she supports but has not seen fit to say so. She pointed out that, right now, Michigan and Florida have no delegates. She also alluded to a proposal the committee expects to consider, which I am interpreting to mean a partial seating of the delegations. With a reduced weight, Obama can agree to seating proportions based upon the "beauty contest" results, but modified (watered down) with some appointed delegates, and the primary-result based delegates, with the size of their pool reduced.
The key point is the same it has always been, since the two rogue states executed their unsanctioned votes: the delegations' key characteristics will be determined by the candidate who controls 2025 delegates ex MI/FL. So they took themselves out of the picture. And, as it turned out, needlessly--they sought influence, and would've had much more if they'd kept their original dates. Particularly Michigan.
Lanny went hard at CNN for its coverage bias against HRC (Paul Begala was not in the theater, I think by design, in order to contribute to that impression). He was working some tired lines of argument from the Talking Points for SD memo. The problem with the "Michigan, Florida, and did I mention the Big Swing States" argument is that there are no more big swing states to win. Indiana and North Carolina were neither big nor swing. The future prospects are even worse, though: the ones left are small, not medium-sized like IN/NC, no swing, some are not even states (PR is large, among those left). The primary campaign is over, except some dying embers.
Clinton Campaign Post-Mortem
The good news for the Clinton campaign leadership is that Hillary need not loan it any more money. Money hasn't done that much for her, anyway, nor has it for Obama (McCain is a different story).
They can use all remaining fundraising to pay off the campaign's debts (those to the Clintons being fairly high up in the chain of creditors, I'd imagine, and those to Mark Penn not so high).
Keeping any momentum going on that front is Hillary's mission, at this point. That requires continuing to speak her point of view, with conviction.
The great thing about Hillary is that she can do that--until the cows come home. If the advisers want toughness, tears, saber-rattling, sarcasm, whatever, she can perform it. As a Democratic Presidential candidate, I think Hillary rates in the top quartile from my lifetime--up there with her husband, way above most of the losing general election nominees.
Obama is different, and therein lies the true distinction. Obama sets the tone for the campaign through personal involvement in his trademark speeches. What he says has been given careful consideration and is accurate. (As I wrote that, Hillary was saying that she had come from "8% or so behind" to win Indiana--she did no such thing; and I remember, an hour ago, how McCain had been raving to his unconvinced audience that "governments matters" over and over.) Obama doesn't just take the lead in drafting and wording, he memorizes his speeches and delivers them, word-perfect, in spite of any shouted interruptions. With good expression, reasonable eye-contact, a powerful, inflected voice.
Hillary rambles along through a ton of points, for which she has near-instant recall, and delivers with largely grammatical vernacular. She's good.
I think she was let down by her strategists. The commentators have pointed out how she missed the "Change" theme early, going for the second-rated "Experience". There's some truth in that, and through that error she missed a chance to close out all her party rivals early. In the Long Campaign vs. Obama, though, the deciding factor was Obama's integrated turnout machine and their strategic focus on winning caucuses. Ironically, the Machine Candidate was out-gunned by a superior machine.
Bill was a mensch and took on the heavy role, which allowed Hillary to preserve some decency in her arguments (if not respectability--that was capital that she spent, judiciously, in various panders). It did damage--fortunately not too much of it permanent--but could not overcome the tactical lead Obama put together in the run of victories just after Super Tuesday. That superior tactical planning--I worked in a Super Tuesday primary, and I had no idea how much the Obama campaign had planned after that day--built the pledged delegate lead that offset Clinton's SD lead, and which has stood up since as the candidates traded blows.
The Clintonistas, on the other hand, had pinned everything on winning enough in the Early Quadriliateral (IA/NH/NV/SC) and putting it away on UNP Day. Their Plan B didn't emerge until Plan C time.
Obama has already accomplished something this year: he has led the finest primary campaign in history, exhibiting quality in political content, execution, his dignified posture, and of course setting a whole new plane of achievement on the Internet. He doesn't need to do nearly as well in the general election campaign to win.
CNN Coverage News: A New Conventional Wisdom in the Making (Live)
Clinton backer Lanny Davis desperately tried to put up the defense for his candidate last night. His most signal failure was his attempt to substitute the number 2209 (I think it was) for 2025 (or perhaps, more accurately, 2024.5) ; the larger number being the required number of delegates to clinch victory if Michigan and Florida are seated at the full strength they would initially have been given.
Donna Brazile (who will gladly move over to the UPN sometime just after the end of the month) dissented strongly. As a member of the Rules Committee, she has tried to maintain some perspective, publicly and privately, and last night she clarified that her official position is "Undeclared"--i.e., she knows who she supports but has not seen fit to say so. She pointed out that, right now, Michigan and Florida have no delegates. She also alluded to a proposal the committee expects to consider, which I am interpreting to mean a partial seating of the delegations. With a reduced weight, Obama can agree to seating proportions based upon the "beauty contest" results, but modified (watered down) with some appointed delegates, and the primary-result based delegates, with the size of their pool reduced.
The key point is the same it has always been, since the two rogue states executed their unsanctioned votes: the delegations' key characteristics will be determined by the candidate who controls 2025 delegates ex MI/FL. So they took themselves out of the picture. And, as it turned out, needlessly--they sought influence, and would've had much more if they'd kept their original dates. Particularly Michigan.
Lanny went hard at CNN for its coverage bias against HRC (Paul Begala was not in the theater, I think by design, in order to contribute to that impression). He was working some tired lines of argument from the Talking Points for SD memo. The problem with the "Michigan, Florida, and did I mention the Big Swing States" argument is that there are no more big swing states to win. Indiana and North Carolina were neither big nor swing. The future prospects are even worse, though: the ones left are small, not medium-sized like IN/NC, no swing, some are not even states (PR is large, among those left). The primary campaign is over, except some dying embers.
Clinton Campaign Post-Mortem
The good news for the Clinton campaign leadership is that Hillary need not loan it any more money. Money hasn't done that much for her, anyway, nor has it for Obama (McCain is a different story).
They can use all remaining fundraising to pay off the campaign's debts (those to the Clintons being fairly high up in the chain of creditors, I'd imagine, and those to Mark Penn not so high).
Keeping any momentum going on that front is Hillary's mission, at this point. That requires continuing to speak her point of view, with conviction.
The great thing about Hillary is that she can do that--until the cows come home. If the advisers want toughness, tears, saber-rattling, sarcasm, whatever, she can perform it. As a Democratic Presidential candidate, I think Hillary rates in the top quartile from my lifetime--up there with her husband, way above most of the losing general election nominees.
Obama is different, and therein lies the true distinction. Obama sets the tone for the campaign through personal involvement in his trademark speeches. What he says has been given careful consideration and is accurate. (As I wrote that, Hillary was saying that she had come from "8% or so behind" to win Indiana--she did no such thing; and I remember, an hour ago, how McCain had been raving to his unconvinced audience that "governments matters" over and over.) Obama doesn't just take the lead in drafting and wording, he memorizes his speeches and delivers them, word-perfect, in spite of any shouted interruptions. With good expression, reasonable eye-contact, a powerful, inflected voice.
Hillary rambles along through a ton of points, for which she has near-instant recall, and delivers with largely grammatical vernacular. She's good.
I think she was let down by her strategists. The commentators have pointed out how she missed the "Change" theme early, going for the second-rated "Experience". There's some truth in that, and through that error she missed a chance to close out all her party rivals early. In the Long Campaign vs. Obama, though, the deciding factor was Obama's integrated turnout machine and their strategic focus on winning caucuses. Ironically, the Machine Candidate was out-gunned by a superior machine.
Bill was a mensch and took on the heavy role, which allowed Hillary to preserve some decency in her arguments (if not respectability--that was capital that she spent, judiciously, in various panders). It did damage--fortunately not too much of it permanent--but could not overcome the tactical lead Obama put together in the run of victories just after Super Tuesday. That superior tactical planning--I worked in a Super Tuesday primary, and I had no idea how much the Obama campaign had planned after that day--built the pledged delegate lead that offset Clinton's SD lead, and which has stood up since as the candidates traded blows.
The Clintonistas, on the other hand, had pinned everything on winning enough in the Early Quadriliateral (IA/NH/NV/SC) and putting it away on UNP Day. Their Plan B didn't emerge until Plan C time.
Obama has already accomplished something this year: he has led the finest primary campaign in history, exhibiting quality in political content, execution, his dignified posture, and of course setting a whole new plane of achievement on the Internet. He doesn't need to do nearly as well in the general election campaign to win.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Endgame 1.2
What are these states that are left here at the end of the process? They are the ones that couldn't, or wouldn't, spend the money to move earlier. Probably their broad primary election date was mandated by their state or territorial government; to go earlier would put the burden on the party, and these are the ones that have weak parties.
The Democratic party chairmen of Indiana and North Carolina must find it hilarious that they have gained a turn in the spotlight. I hope they are profiting from the fickle attentions of the media and national political culture. I don't expect either Democratic candidate to seriously challenge for the Electoral votes of either in November.
The media keeps looking for drama in these outcomes, but there hasn't been any since the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday I, Feb. 5). You could put these states in any order and the results would be similar. The Obama campaign has had them (the expected results) in their calculators for months.
We're predicting a 52-47 win for Clinton in Indiana, and 55-44 for Obama in North Carolina. There will be no significant change in delegates on the night (+/- 2). It will be clearer still that it's time to Move On.
Stephanopoulos Cut Again
Our state's leading ABC affiliate, KOAT, once again joined the network program "This Week" in progress, this time 30 minutes into what appeared to be a debate with one participant, Hillary Clinton (the coveted 4:30-5 p.m. slot, poorly used--home shopping stuff would be much more cost-effective).
I never heard the rationale for this travesty of a sham: Why did ABC go along with producing it? Are they trying to make amends for their dismal performance at the last one? If so, this hardly seemed to do it. Maybe the local station knows what it's doing, after all.
Anyway, there was a chance for Hillary to follow up the talk of "obliterating Iran". Instead of going for the high road, educating the American people that the provocations we can expect from Iran over the next few years don't include a nuclear missile fired from there onto Israeli soil, HRC showed her claws with relish. Obama had properly called her out for "saber rattling". This answer, to me, is a smoking gun that Hillary, like McCain, could easily fall into the next Middle East war trap. As with Gas-Tax-Scam, she and McCain fail the "significantly better than Dubya" test on Iran (two-tailed).
Election Betting News
Indiana: On Rasmussen, it's been Clinton, 85-15. 75-25 on CNN. I've been unwinding since I took a small pro-Obama position when it was 55-45.
North Carolina: 92-8 on Rasmussen.
I've been taking advantage of some rise in Clinton support for the nomination, getting some additional bets on Obama to win the nomination at 73% (a momentary flutter; it's back to around 77%). I've had the bids out there for months while the nomination (and the less-traded Obama-McCain parley, which I bought at 14%) has been stuck at 80-20. I feel good about these: getting an eventual winning bet cheap.
The most interesting betting is on who will have the most superdelegates (SD). Clinton, of course, has had the lead in announced SD since the 20th century, but the betting has been over 50% for Obama for months. The key to this one is its expiration date: August 1. At that point, the nomination should be wrapped up, if it's going to be, pre-convention.
Still, though, there seems trepidation on this bet on both sides: a large Bid-Ask gap, with the sum of the Bid percentage for both sides only about 95%. Obama is closing the SD Gap with Hillary, very slowly, but when the graph will cross 0 seems to have a high degree of uncertainty about it. It probably won't be until June, and when it hits 0 it could keep going very fast (as uncertainty about "the presumptive nominee" ends). Not like a landslide, but it is like an avalanche.
The Democratic party chairmen of Indiana and North Carolina must find it hilarious that they have gained a turn in the spotlight. I hope they are profiting from the fickle attentions of the media and national political culture. I don't expect either Democratic candidate to seriously challenge for the Electoral votes of either in November.
The media keeps looking for drama in these outcomes, but there hasn't been any since the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday I, Feb. 5). You could put these states in any order and the results would be similar. The Obama campaign has had them (the expected results) in their calculators for months.
We're predicting a 52-47 win for Clinton in Indiana, and 55-44 for Obama in North Carolina. There will be no significant change in delegates on the night (+/- 2). It will be clearer still that it's time to Move On.
Stephanopoulos Cut Again
Our state's leading ABC affiliate, KOAT, once again joined the network program "This Week" in progress, this time 30 minutes into what appeared to be a debate with one participant, Hillary Clinton (the coveted 4:30-5 p.m. slot, poorly used--home shopping stuff would be much more cost-effective).
I never heard the rationale for this travesty of a sham: Why did ABC go along with producing it? Are they trying to make amends for their dismal performance at the last one? If so, this hardly seemed to do it. Maybe the local station knows what it's doing, after all.
Anyway, there was a chance for Hillary to follow up the talk of "obliterating Iran". Instead of going for the high road, educating the American people that the provocations we can expect from Iran over the next few years don't include a nuclear missile fired from there onto Israeli soil, HRC showed her claws with relish. Obama had properly called her out for "saber rattling". This answer, to me, is a smoking gun that Hillary, like McCain, could easily fall into the next Middle East war trap. As with Gas-Tax-Scam, she and McCain fail the "significantly better than Dubya" test on Iran (two-tailed).
Election Betting News
Indiana: On Rasmussen, it's been Clinton, 85-15. 75-25 on CNN. I've been unwinding since I took a small pro-Obama position when it was 55-45.
North Carolina: 92-8 on Rasmussen.
I've been taking advantage of some rise in Clinton support for the nomination, getting some additional bets on Obama to win the nomination at 73% (a momentary flutter; it's back to around 77%). I've had the bids out there for months while the nomination (and the less-traded Obama-McCain parley, which I bought at 14%) has been stuck at 80-20. I feel good about these: getting an eventual winning bet cheap.
The most interesting betting is on who will have the most superdelegates (SD). Clinton, of course, has had the lead in announced SD since the 20th century, but the betting has been over 50% for Obama for months. The key to this one is its expiration date: August 1. At that point, the nomination should be wrapped up, if it's going to be, pre-convention.
Still, though, there seems trepidation on this bet on both sides: a large Bid-Ask gap, with the sum of the Bid percentage for both sides only about 95%. Obama is closing the SD Gap with Hillary, very slowly, but when the graph will cross 0 seems to have a high degree of uncertainty about it. It probably won't be until June, and when it hits 0 it could keep going very fast (as uncertainty about "the presumptive nominee" ends). Not like a landslide, but it is like an avalanche.
Gas-Tax-Trophe or Ga-Scam?
It's a big hoax--nothing will happen, and nothing should. The windfall tax on oil company profits will be a 2009 legislative issue, and it will depend on whether economic demagogues will be looking for a scapegoat for lack of recovery. Otherwise there will not be the will to sustain such an initiative.
The gas tax should have been a dollar, rather than 16.5 cents, the last 10 years. If that had been true, we would've saved billions of gallons of oil and would now be much further along in developing our arena of fuel and power supplies. The question of windfall taxes would not be so urgent, either. As our demand for an ever-expanding highway system (in a no-longer expanding geography) reduces, we could then cut the tax and let fossil fuels compete with the emerging ones. But where we are now, it is totally the wrong policy to reduce the fuel tax.
I like the tactical adaptation of an attempted McCain initiative by Hillary. What the heck, let's give it a week and see if it moves the masses!
Obama is, as he is so often, right in his argument and reasons behind it. Which may or may not be good politics. In this case, it provides an object lesson in the Post-Whatever Politics he espouses.
The gas tax should have been a dollar, rather than 16.5 cents, the last 10 years. If that had been true, we would've saved billions of gallons of oil and would now be much further along in developing our arena of fuel and power supplies. The question of windfall taxes would not be so urgent, either. As our demand for an ever-expanding highway system (in a no-longer expanding geography) reduces, we could then cut the tax and let fossil fuels compete with the emerging ones. But where we are now, it is totally the wrong policy to reduce the fuel tax.
I like the tactical adaptation of an attempted McCain initiative by Hillary. What the heck, let's give it a week and see if it moves the masses!
Obama is, as he is so often, right in his argument and reasons behind it. Which may or may not be good politics. In this case, it provides an object lesson in the Post-Whatever Politics he espouses.
Spring Sports Monitor
NBA
These were my predictions:
Rockets, Lakers, Mavs, Spurs; Lakers-Spurs; Spurs.
Also-Ran Conference:
Celtics, Pistons, Wizards, Raptors (want and think); Celtics-Pistons; Celtics.
Those looking for a Celtics-Lakers rematch (last of the many was some 15 years ago?) will have to wait until Andrew Bynum reaches his full power (2010?)
And in the Finals: Celtics over Spurs, Celtics over anyone else, then Spurs, Pistons, and Hornets.
None of the important picks lost--the fact they were challenged means nothing negative, really. The ones I got wrong (half of them) didn't figure to be important. Have to give a tip of the hat to the Rockets and Hawks, who came back strong after early setbacks to make their defeats contested ones. No tip to Raptors or Mavericks; Wizards showed some signs of life until Arenas pulled out.
Chelsea
The Blue Lions (never heard them called that, though there is a lion in the picture on their seal) grind on with a 2-0 road win over Newcastle (not really so easy). ManU. can still wrap up the Premiership through the tiebreaker with a win at Wigan (who I believe is now safe from relegation) in the last game. So that second-place finish looks pretty likely.
There may still be some serious consolation in Moscow--better be, if you're an Avram Grant fan. I think the team has ended up playing pretty well for him after a difficult start, when Mourinho pulled out in the midst of the early season. Immediately the team had to go to Manchester and lost to the Devils, in the rain, 2-0. It's been a long way back uphill since then, and they're within sight of the summit. Just getting to the Champions League final this year breaks new ground for the club.
Baseball
Through about one-sixth of the season, nothing has happened, except the Diamondbacks have been pretty insistent about pointing out how I overlooked them, unreasonably, in my preseason forecasts. Nobody else really has shone or permanently damaged their chances. Parity seems to be the order of the day, perhaps this year in both leagues. Good for them--it certainly seems to be working in the pro basketball league.
These were my predictions:
Rockets, Lakers, Mavs, Spurs; Lakers-Spurs; Spurs.
Also-Ran Conference:
Celtics, Pistons, Wizards, Raptors (want and think); Celtics-Pistons; Celtics.
Those looking for a Celtics-Lakers rematch (last of the many was some 15 years ago?) will have to wait until Andrew Bynum reaches his full power (2010?)
And in the Finals: Celtics over Spurs, Celtics over anyone else, then Spurs, Pistons, and Hornets.
None of the important picks lost--the fact they were challenged means nothing negative, really. The ones I got wrong (half of them) didn't figure to be important. Have to give a tip of the hat to the Rockets and Hawks, who came back strong after early setbacks to make their defeats contested ones. No tip to Raptors or Mavericks; Wizards showed some signs of life until Arenas pulled out.
Chelsea
The Blue Lions (never heard them called that, though there is a lion in the picture on their seal) grind on with a 2-0 road win over Newcastle (not really so easy). ManU. can still wrap up the Premiership through the tiebreaker with a win at Wigan (who I believe is now safe from relegation) in the last game. So that second-place finish looks pretty likely.
There may still be some serious consolation in Moscow--better be, if you're an Avram Grant fan. I think the team has ended up playing pretty well for him after a difficult start, when Mourinho pulled out in the midst of the early season. Immediately the team had to go to Manchester and lost to the Devils, in the rain, 2-0. It's been a long way back uphill since then, and they're within sight of the summit. Just getting to the Champions League final this year breaks new ground for the club.
Baseball
Through about one-sixth of the season, nothing has happened, except the Diamondbacks have been pretty insistent about pointing out how I overlooked them, unreasonably, in my preseason forecasts. Nobody else really has shone or permanently damaged their chances. Parity seems to be the order of the day, perhaps this year in both leagues. Good for them--it certainly seems to be working in the pro basketball league.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Big Win for Blues
Chelsea's 3-2 win over Liverpool (1-1 in regular time, 4-3 aggregate) puts them in the final against Manchester United. The heroes were many, but most prominent were Drogba, Lampard, Ballack, Terry, Makalele.
This win, combined with the one over Manchester United over the weekend, should make this season a qualified success. Major wins against big teams in the clutch, that's the mark of a great team. Still, there will be those who insist that Chelsea must win "hardware"--trophies. The Champions League one looks like a better shot, and one they can actually have some control over. The Premiership championship depends on Man U. faltering against lesser teams, so don't count on it. The Champions League trophy also seems to be the one the owner covets above all else.
Will Roman Abramovich show in Moscow? Is he likely to be arrested or something if he does? He was conspicuously absent in the Manchester United game over the weekend (and I saw no shots of him at the rainy match today at Stamford Bridge).
I think it's May 21. Key day. There's nothing better than seeing Chelsea win and Manchester United lose at the same time, and that's what will motivate me--not the "hardware" or the fate of our coach.
This win, combined with the one over Manchester United over the weekend, should make this season a qualified success. Major wins against big teams in the clutch, that's the mark of a great team. Still, there will be those who insist that Chelsea must win "hardware"--trophies. The Champions League one looks like a better shot, and one they can actually have some control over. The Premiership championship depends on Man U. faltering against lesser teams, so don't count on it. The Champions League trophy also seems to be the one the owner covets above all else.
Will Roman Abramovich show in Moscow? Is he likely to be arrested or something if he does? He was conspicuously absent in the Manchester United game over the weekend (and I saw no shots of him at the rainy match today at Stamford Bridge).
I think it's May 21. Key day. There's nothing better than seeing Chelsea win and Manchester United lose at the same time, and that's what will motivate me--not the "hardware" or the fate of our coach.
The Wright Stuff
I have watched this thing rise up again with a sense of acute distaste. At first, Rev. Wright's comments were not too provocative, but, as if someone was goading him to break through into pure audacity, he then has to say the bit questioning Obama's sincerity, suggesting that Obama really believes AIDS was a racist plant to attempt genocide, but that he can't admit it because he's running for President.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Endgame: 1.1
According to the most scientific counts I can find, there are 408 pledged delegates yet to be chosen from the 8-10 territorial entities yet to vote. Short of a dramatic move (like Obama somehow making a successful play to the Puerto Rican Democratic voters, like pledging to work for statehood--which I personally recommend--see If I were Running Things, Pt. 1), it seems conservative and reasonable to expect that he will win at least 45% of these contested delegates. This would bring him, by the latest counts, to 1909, with 2024 needed. He would thus need to pick up 115 of the 302 uncommitted superdelegates (or net out to that number of additional pledges, if some switch candidates). Hillary, with the same assumptions (i.e., 55% of the remaining pledged from primaries and caucuses) would need 207 of those 302. Thus, the expectation that Obama will ultimately win the nomination.
Considering the Michigan and Florida mess, and its impact, makes it a clear imperative that those states' delegations composition will not be considered until after the nominee is determined. As it stands even today, the count with those two states suggests only an 11-delegate lead for Obama, with 55 pledged delegates from the "uncommitted" line in the Michigan primary (I've read about half are Obama supporters), and an extraordinarily high percentage (some 63%) of superdelegates from the two states uncommitted. There are several booby traps there, blasting caps--"Don't touch 'dem!" as Willie Mays used to say to us kids in the TV commercial.
I have three top choices for Obama's VP nomination--I assume he will do the right thing and formally offer the spot on the ticket to Hillary, once he is absolutely certain she will decline--who I've got to name:
1) Sen. Jim Webb (VA)--yes, I bought the Kool Aid. Counters McCain's Defense enthusiasms with someone who knows the military reality from the inside.
2) Ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN)--The major figure from this newly-pivotal state who has endorsed Obama. He's also the most knowledgeable and experienced generalist on national security in the party, who has only enhanced the reputation he earned by taking a leading role in winning the Cold War in the years since his Congessional retirement in 2001 by leading up resolutely non-partisan efforts to diagnose 9/11's failures and to help the Bushites from the Iraq morass (of course, the latter assistance was politely ignored).
3) Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS)--that's Kansas' initials, I think. Executive experience desired.
Each brings help in a very interesting state, one that fits perfectly into the Obama general election strategy, which I see as applying real pressure to McCain (and his inferior financial status) in as many states as possible, looking for cracks. The key is if he can deliver the increased Democratic enrollment in November that seems to have been present throughout the primary season. This means, at a minimum, a decent convention (apart from some generally-ignored platform battles, maybe) and a strong endorsement, with no monkey business, from Edwards and HRC.
If it works, he could win without Ohio or Florida (or Michigan or Pennsylvania, though certainly not without any of them). Obama can compete in states like Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, even Kansas, Indiana, and Montana, that have been written off before the election started in the recent past. This will bring Presidential Electoral College politics into the 21st Century (contradiction as that may seem: bringing the 19th century into the 21st!)
I think the smartest move would be Sebelius: she looked very impressive (though diminutive) the couple of times I've seen her on national TV, and it would be the best way to assuage any hurt feelings among Hillary's supporters. Bill Richardson might've done as well for him, but he has lost favor with the Clintonistas.
Once again, kudos to "2008 Democratic Convention Watch", which dares to name names on all the committed and uncommitted-but-named superdelegates (see Superdelegate Endorsement List). This fact of this kind of accountability gives some hope for a respectable outcome to a disreputable process.
A Friend of the Earth: Pt 1
I got my hands on a short novel by T. Coraghessan Boyle (T.C. afterwards), A Friend of the Earth, published 2000. It was already overdue when I found it, so I read it in somewhat of a hurry.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Chelsea Rule OK!
That would be the traditional graffiti and side-comment cheer for the Blues, at least in its modern-day expression (exclamation point is optional). Links rule, e.g., http://forums.skysports.com/members/posting.aspx?s=1&b=2&c=2&f=20&t=28196&m=316357&p=1&q=y#post, not to mention the well-titled canonical variation "Chelsea Rules. OK?" (http://toksie.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Post-PA Alignment
PA--Exactly as before, more or less as predicted (9.4% margin instead of 7%).
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Eve of PA
We're predicting a Clinton win, 53-46. 2% Std Dev. on that, so 90% chance Obama's will be between 42-50. The consensus of polls (with one or two exceptions) is around a 5-7 point lead for HRC. Obama will exceed the turnout of young people, blacks that the polls have, but Clinton will get more from the late white male deciders. The margin of delegates for HRC will be negligible.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
John Adams: An Inspiration for Our Times?
Great miniseries on HBO: last episode on Sunday (preceded by telecasting of the previous six). Kudos for the casting, virtually throughout, and ranging from Washington (David Morse with Marlon Brando cheeks); Jefferson (a lengthy, excellent performance by Stephen Dillane, giving a key depiction of the Great One from the point of view of someone who had a unique perspective--as friend, counsel, and rival over 50 years--of which the last episode will need to cover 26 years; Franklin (Tom Wilkinson--looked and sounded perfect); and, in the last episode, soon-to-be Chief Justice for All Times John Marshall (amazingly, not credited on the iMDB site!). This, of course, beside the excellent choices of the lead characters Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
NBA update
The NCAA tourney is over--I feel robbed that Memphis didn't win the title it deserved--but the other two contests I've been following the last couple of months (see stoner: Spring Sports Excitement) are as hot as ever.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Bad Day for George
George Stephanopoulos must have gotten short-changed on sleep before taping his show for this weekend.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
What, Me Bitter?
Here's the text of Obama's gaffe, as reported by semi-hostile Mayhill Fowler on Huff Post:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Diana: My First and Last Words
No, it's not that I intend that the name of the late Princess of Wales' name, the goddess of the hunt, be my final utterance before I join her in Heaven. It's that I've never discussed the subject before seeing today's story
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/07/international/i083611D38.DTL)
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
