More Quick Hits

Strategy for Playoffs (Planning Them) 

If you read between the lines in my previous WC comments, I believe that, if they are going to keep this extra playoff round, they should make it more valid.

 Expand the Wild Card round to best-of-five, the Division Series to a full 4-of-7. That would fix it, in the way the NBA Playoffs ensure these contests have their completion (though I personally would advocate "calling it" in any best-of-7 when it's 3-0).

That would mean a long break for those two bye teams in each league, both for good and for ill. The next evolution would be toward a system in which the only bye team for the first round is the one with the best regular-season record in the league--the NFL once again setting the pace. 

Where do the days come from to do all this? By reverting to the traditional 154-game regular season (from the current 162).  Adding those four potential additional games to the length of the whole season (including playoffs) would need this adjustment, though the one I propose would also bring the chance for more off-days and make-up days.  Few would object to this change, except team owners.  So they would need some adjustment, perhaps in their precious cap limits. 

"College football" is in chaos, it seems to me, with professional college, inc. teams serving as money-making incubators for the NFL owners to cherry-pick. The 'conferences", and their championships? Don't make me laugh. There are two that matter (the SEC and the Big 10) for the new, over-expanded playoff system. Those championship games will be life-and-death battles, for seeding? It makes no sense except in the greed, cow-milking one. And I was one of the ones recommending the radical idea of an expanded round! (I meant, to six). 

4X4 for Kamala 

Post-Election Proposals for Popular (mostly non-Partisan) Reform 

1) Remove the income cap for Social Security tax--this will fix one problem, at least. The previous argument for the famous shut-off in midyear for the privileged, that Social Security is but an insurance policy, now paid for the year, is no longer sustainable, as the tide has gone out and we see our wet suits for what they are. It is pay-as-you-go, always has been, really, and this gap for income earners between $140K (or whatever the current calculation for when the tax stops, for the rest of the year), and $400k, which was the Biden going-nowhere proposal, with tax recurring above that, will have to go. Among other reasons, for equity. It can get bipartisan support, and the complete change will save the security-part of SSA. (Above 400k, it can increase, or whatever the system can allow...) She could even advocate this now, if she wanted to show some intelligent diversion from a straight Biden line, but it has risks. 

 2) Direct election of the Speaker of the House

 Yes, but--ARTICLE 1,-Section 2. The House shall chuse their Speaker.. 

So, it would be non-binding, in a different way from chusing our President. Get it? I'm sure the House would, and meaningful challenges to the will of the electorate would be rare. Any of that would importantly take the struggle away from the existential question of the ownership of the White House. The elected Speaker would be able to deal with the Senate and thus with the President as head of Congress, and pull back the legislative authority from the presidency. The over-empowered executive could then focus on its true, huge responsibility for global security, maybe? Yes, and administration, a la- Jimmy Carter (bless him!--his 1976 victory is the key to understanding this election). 

I'd suggest ranked-choice voting, runoff of top 3, low barrier to entry but short campaign (in years with Congressional elections, so every two years). 

Could Donald Trump win this, after he loses to Kamala? I'm willing to see it. 

 3) Do Away with States' Winner-Take-All (Conditionally) - This would be a compact of Congress that would support best practices and induce states voluntarily to switch away from giving all their Electoral Votes for President to the candidate getting the plurality in their state.  This would create more interest in turning out in the large states with partisan majorities, in spite of which there are always contrary pockets, usually in multiple Congressional districts. .

The other half of this would be independent certification that states are not excessively gerrymandering their districting.  Fair congressional districts are within our power to develop; AI could actually be useful here in developing a set of districts maximizing various objectives, in order to present decision-makers with a final choice. This reform would be targeted for the 2032 Presidential election.

4) Start a Federally-Supported Institute for Home Health Training - This is a favorite unopened envelope from the 2020 campaign. It is clear that the best health service for many, the one woman worth paying for, is at home, with varying levels of attention there, from periodic to full-time, depending on the needs and resources of the client.  It is very hard to find and keep active capable home healthcare workers.  A nationally-recognized certification program would allow these workers to move about, as many would like to do, and get work where they go.  So many will be needed.

The Institute should be located in South Florida (this is the partisan part).  That's closest to where the greatest portion of eventual work will be, and it is a good area to recruit future home healthcare workers. 

These are proposals for a Harris administration that could actually be accomplished in a hostile, or hopelessly split (at best) partisan Congress.  Doing any of these would radically change the dialogue and push toward 21st-century-suitable processes to manage one of the most important aspects of our society. If, on the other hand Harris loses, I got nothing for you, US. 

 These would not require constitutional amendments, which are not possible at this time.  Some may need to wait until after the expected post-Trumpian collapse of the Republican party as a viable competitor for national office (as opposed to the Senate, where they will linger on).

Quick Hits

 WC Round

(Baseball) 

By this I do mean messy, needing maintenance, perhaps an entry key.  But it is a facility that can be used. 

2 out of 3 for the lower-seeded team in these major-league basball playoffs is essentially just winning a series on the road against a good team.  They have all done it, and it doesn't create unusual pressure--except to win the first game.  

The Tigers showed it best with their quick sweep of the team I picked as part of my (un-bet) quinella for the World Series, the Houston Astros.  The 'stros run of 7 straight appearances in the ALCS (the League final series) ended quickly to a team that just didn't care. 

Contrast that a bit with the struggles of the Orioles to do anything in the post-season, despite dominant performance in the regular season. They definitely seem a bit overwhelmed, once again, in a pressure situation before the home crowd, a reward they earned with a strong second-place finish. (Game in progress at this moment). 

The other team I had in the proposed bet (at something like 15-1, with a huge margin for the house vs. the implied odds) was the San Diego Padres, a team not quite as hot as the Tigers (or the Astros were, for that matter) but one that finally may have its act together, healthwise.  They were the only team of the four home teams across the two leagues to win their critical first game. 

If the Royals complete their two-game sweep of the Orioles, it will be #5 vs. #2 (Cleveland) and #6 (Tigers) vs. #1 Yankees in the ALDS (Division Series, or league semifinal series).  These will at least be 3 out of 5, with home-field advantage only really in a decisive Game 5--not too many go that far, usually.  One would think with those one-sided seeding matchups the winners of that next round would be predictable.  I doubt it--I still think there will be a team that doesn't get a bye (i.e., not #1 or #2 in their league) that will make the World Series--but my hypothetical bet is already in the WC toilet (to repeat myself0.

V.P. Debate

Vance put a bandage on his ticket's bleeding. Walz got ifinn a potential knockout blow at the end, keeping J.D. from a 15-round win on points, dodging the whole time. It happens. .
Best line of the night for Walz: "Fact-check Donald Trump".

Michael Steele called Vance "Blue", which was a cute sort of insult, but I have to say he should be addressed as "Yo Disk!"

Regarding the "mexican gun cartels" comment, that was actually an opening Walz missed. The gun trafficking is primarily in the opposite direction, to Mexico, because the US has more access to them. Vance slipped it in unchallenged.

--My comment on Political Wire, 11 pm.  

EBK-PRB

In 1963, Pete Rose was my favorite baseball player.  Radio was the primary way I was experiencing the game, and Rose was the hit of the broadcasts--taking an extra base, finding the hole for a base hit, filling the hole on defense (at second base)--he seemed to be everywhere for the team, which was experiencing a high point (not quite World Series level, though).  

In the 70's, he was an integral component of the historically successful Big Red Machine, now at third base due to the essential addition of Joe Morgan.  During this time, it became apparent to me that his quirks (flat-top haircut, running to first after a walk) were part of a sociopathic nature, shown also by his affinity for the likes of Nixon, Marge Schott, etc. 

He became a justifiable target for targets and jokes in his latter career, when he could no longer command a league-leading level of batting average, and his Sixties ambition of being "the first $100,000 singles hitter" had transformed into the quest to win one of the league records then viewed as untouchable:  Ty Cobb's 4,191 safe hits.  Ty Cobb, the similarly behaviorally-challenged star hitter of the early 20th-century (not the former Trump lawyer--no relation, I hear?).  Rose hung on in active duty several years as a replacement-level player to get there, but at least he could choose his hitting matchups for himself as player-manager some of the time during the end. 

That was the period when he screwed the pooch, his gambling habit becoming an addiction that sent him way over the line into prohibited behavior--betting on any baseball game.  He was rightly banned from active participation in the game after that--for life.  For Rose, who had little real value in his life beyond baseball and betting, it hurt a lot. 

Worse for him in the longer run was being eliminated from participation in the voting of the writers for the Baseball Hall of Fame.  This somewhat exclusive club--those inducted, the writers (a floating bunch, over time) who vote on its members, and those ad hoc groups which pick others who never get voted in (the Negro Leagues representatives being the most prestigious of those sets of selected members).*--chose to abide by the decision that Rose's behavior was disqualifying. 

Rose has passed away now. I recognize that my own view is biased:  I have long advocated for his induction, and even for more serious consideration of some other Hall-worthy players "cancelled" from membership (due to steroid use, admitted or alleged) despite clearly having met the performance levels.  I would now say it is time for him to be admitted in, posthumously.  Despite his unique (an once again, seemingly unchallengeable) record, he's not one of the all-time greatest, but he would qualify as the 25th-man, the utility guy, on the all-time team.  The "lifetime" ban has expired!

More Online Odds Discussion

Comparison of my odds on outcomes political vs. PredictIt:  Harris 65-35 vs. PI's 55-58 to 45-48 (!); Democrats winning the House 55%, PI (no entry); Democrats holding the Senate 18%, PI (no entry).  Perhaps the subject of a later posting will be that it is not now so clear to me there will be an (overall) strong turnout result, though it will be strong in many areas.  NY/CA drive is probably more specific than statewide.

*Of course, they are not officially of the same level, but the Executive Board and the writers are really the ones with control.

On the Killing of the Six Hostages

I have been thinking about this horror which I heard about only last night, and I am going to write what I think is going on, in blunt terms. 

The report is that the Israeli forces found the hostages already dead, and they estimated that they had been killed three or four days before.  Although the chances Israeli assaults might accidentally kill hostages are high, I find this report credible, if unproven.  

Let's go with that report and what it means.  Israel has had to send out warnings to evacuate from areas they are considering for attack in the very short term.  Not doing so would multiply civilian deaths beyond their already outrageous levels.  My supposition is that Hamas has developed a new strategy:  kill the hostages held in those areas with known risk of assault, before the IDF can get there. 

It has a cold-hearted logic, and the implications for Israeli offensive actions against Hamas are clear:  attack, and they die.  The chances for Israeli surprise rescue assaults, I would suspect, are now very few.  They are left with no good reason to continue with their generally unsuccessful posture of attacking as the best way to get the hostages free, in the context of Hamas intransigence.  I am sure they don't have any good leads about how to take out the top Hamas leaders, regardless of the cost, or they would have done so.

It is time for Israel to declare a unilateral cease-fire, for a period of a couple of weeks or so, with the expectation Hamas would move during that time to make the cease-fire continue by releasing their hostages or making commitments to do so immediately.  If they do that, Israel would not renew hostilities so long as Hamas does not do so. 

I see no risk whatsoever for Israel to do that, beyond the damage Hamas will likely cause when they break the cease-fire with Israel still mobilized for active defense.  It won't even require Netanyahu to resign, if he can pull it off.  If Hamas refuses to release their hostages (something they have offered to do, but under relaxed security conditions Israel would not accept at the time) they would just go back to killing each other--nothing has been lost.  Israel would have to be somewhat stoic with their unilateral cease-fire until Hamas/Islamic Jihad violations inevitably cool down and avoid retaliation, or make that retaliation extremely limited and targeted.  They have the ability to do that.

If Hamas does not agree, it is time for the women of Gaza to slit the throats of their oppressors while they sleep. 

Inflection Point

 President Biden (praise be!) would typically cite the phrase in speeches in discussion of the US' place in history and of the status of elections in our constitutional republic.  I think that, typically, the phrase was not really getting across to the public in that fashion, and especially to those swing voters he was trying to attract.  

An inflection point can be described as a change in the direction of a graphical curve. In a broader sense, it means a turning point. Biden believes that 2024's election is such a turning point.  I suggested something similar in my rant about the "precipice" at the beginning of the year.  This election can clearly be seen as the climax of something, this battle of our political norms vs. Trumpism. On behalf of all, even the Trumpists, there is a belief that this election will be decisive.  

I can clearly see an inflection point, and it is not on Election Day (at least not yet, it could still happen) but it already happened, on July 21, when Biden chose to announce he would end his campaign for re-election and suggest Vice-President Harris for the party's nomination. Before that, Biden's standing v. Trump was trending downward, slowly, but seemingly without any positive inflection in sight (first derivative negative, second derivative=0).  Since then, a month with a favorable sequence of events, all evidence shows steady improvement in the public's view of the Democrats' ticket.

Where does Kamala's trend go from here?   My estimate of the gain since 7/21 is 3-5%, from down 1-2% (Biden or Harris vs. Trump) to up 2-3%.  One change that contributed to the gain since 7/21 was the collapse of RFKJR's candidacy, which, along with Harris replacing Biden, has made this much more a head-to-head, two-person race. Roughly speaking, the popular vote now looks to be about 48-46 Harris-Walz over Trump, with some 3% insisting on another individual and 3% undecided.

Those 3% are probably more like "don't know", meaning that they don't know anything about it that they will admit to knowing.  Those particular folks may not end up voting, unless something really grabs their attention (like a war threat).  Regardless, some combination of changes will bring the numbers up to 100% total (with the 3% 'other').  There isn't more than that amount (3%) of downside to the current percentages I suggested, for either candidate, if that much.  Trump's popular vote floor I would say is 43%, and Harris' 45%, which is where Biden was when he stopped.  I will say, though, that a 3% downward move for either from the current level would absolutely lead to a landslide.  So, the time is one of vulnerability, avoiding harm, even as Harris may gain even a bit more during her campaign's post-convention afterglow. Another debate looms; another inflection point is likely before November, though that could be an acceleration (less likely), a reversal--let's hope not, a plateauing (most likely). Or maybe not, just a steady increase, all the way. Sounds good.

 

Graph of the Predictit market for Democrats winning Presidential election by 35-64 Electoral Votes, from May 26 to August 25, 2024.

Is National Popular Vote Irrelevant?

Clearly I don't think so, as that's what I've been discussing--using its estimator, the polling averages.

I often see it suggested as being meaningless by Republicans who are on the defensive because they would lose by that measure every time these days.  (2004 the only recent exception)  I would argue that, instead, it is a measure for which there is ample data and one that, broadly speaking, can be used to provide a key measure useful to predict outcome in the critical states. .     

If we look at the percentage vote for one of the parties in the Presidential elections within these states, it is not at all static.  It rises up and down with the relative fortunes of the party.  However, there is less movement relative to the overall popular vote, and even moreso if one looks at the order of these states on that measure.  

To take an example, North Carolina's popular vote percentage margin for Democratic presidential candidates, as compared to the overall US popular vote margin, resulted the following in the last four elections:  -7.0 (2008), -5.9 (2012), -5.8 (2016), and -5.9 (2020).  (Note:  2008, the worst of the four data points, was the one when the Democrats won the state!)  So, you could estimate that the US Democratic margin nationally should be above 6% to favor their chances. 

Let's look at that measure, which also shows some distinctive trends in individual states vs. the national voting, and some conclusions that may be drawn from it: 

 

State	2008	2012	2016	2020	Comment
Nevada	+5.2	+2.8	+0.3	-2.1	Negative trend; projects to -4
Michigan	+9.1	+5.6	-2.3	-1.7	Projects to -2
Pennsylvania	+3.0	+1.5	-3.1	-3.3	Projects to -3
Wisconsin	+6.6	+3.0	-2.9	-3.9	Projects to -3 or -4
Arizona	-15.8	-12.9	-5.6	-4.2	Improved rapidly; projects to -3
Georgia	-12.5	-11.7	-7.2	-4.3	Changing rapidly toward D; projects -3 to -1
Florida	-4.5	-3.0	-3.3	-7.7	Not out of reach if Dems +4; 2020 looks like an outlier

In terms of rank order of this measure, GA, AZ, and NC have consistently been lowest, MI at or near the highest, and PA right in the middle.  With all these swing states below the national average in 2020--a high turnout year like 2008, and like 2024 is likely to be, it is clear that those who say Harris-Walz will need a clear lead in the popular vote, like 3 or 4%, have the recent data on their side.  At the same time, though, a lead of 5-6% might lead to an Electoral Vote "landslide" of 100 EV or more, and much more if FL flips. 

This model doesn't take into account specific variations and their possible causes; I would suggest the outlook in Wisconsin looks more favorable than this because of the Walz effect.  Turnout nationally, and its effect on the US national popular vote, will be up for Democrats because New York and California are so critical for regaining control of the House and will get extra attention, which will boost the Democratic vote margin, without doing much in some of the swing states. 

With a 50-45 popular vote margin, which I think is quite likely, this projects to a 297-219 lead for Harris-Walz, with Nevada and North Carolina too close to call and Georgia, once again, somehow on the Democrats' side.  On the other hand, if it finishes 49-47,by this model Harris would lose Pennsylvania, where Democratic turnout totally matters, and most likely the election as well.  The margins are fine. 

Unfortunately, though exit polls might help, the popular vote takes days to assume its final shape.  So we are left to lean upon the unwieldy support of the polling averages. That is, if we don't want to go by the even more inconsistent measure of polling averages in the several states.

 

 

The Politics of Joy

You will surely hear the phrase more times as journalists try to chronicle the sensational roll-out of the Harris-Walz ticket through the Democratic party convention.  It is accurate, and Walz has presented it to us in his praise of VP Harris' gift of joy in rising to meet her great challenge.  I don't think he's declared the phrase as such, either, so let's get that out of the way. 

We shouldn't take it too far, though:  after all, it is the theme given to the failed candidacy of another VP nominee selected under special circumstances, the "happy warrior" Hubert Horatio Humphrey (HHH).  That itself is a title which both VP Harris and Gov. Walz would gladly assume. 

It's the emotion of the season, and there's plenty of need for it. Wall Street failed to intrude upon it with a sizable single-day drop, Trump and Vance flail ineffectively in the face of it, collapse of the peace initiative in the Mideast cannot break through it, though it may try. 

 We must resolve, in the face of it all, to

 Learn from history and elect Humphrey, not Nixon, this time.

 Do not let the tragedy of '68 become the farce of '24.

There is no better, nor easier, way to express politically this long-awaited euphoria than through the high drama of the summer Olympics we have been able to experience right now. There is almost too much--even if we just limit ourselves to gold medal winners just from Team USA.   There is no reason to limit our excitement just to the winners of gold, nor just those competitors from our country. 

That nationalism--the inevitable need to take our side, to the detriment of the other--is the part of the Olympics I like least, despite my pride and my rooting interest for our team.  At least I can say that they have been so busy on the network they haven't had time to bore us with the national anthem, over and over again. Though I'm glad I have some chance to avoid it,  I have some sympathy for those who have to cover it, anyway.  I would choose to exempt everyone from enduring it until the final day of the meet, in the case of swimming, gymnastics, track and field.   That would be something, hearing all the different national anthems of the various countries of the winners, with all the medal winners present. 

Anyway, Cole Hacker. Katie Ledecky.  LeBron James. Quincy Hall. Leon Marchand. Kenneth Rooks.  Grant Holloway. Noah Lyles. Simone Biles. Mijan Lopez Nunez.  Daniel Roberts. Grant Fisher. Kristen Faulkner. Hampton Morris. Rai Benjamin  Shinnosuke Oka. Matt Anderson. and Roje Stona, of course.  Those were just the ones whose exploits I saw, live (or I thought so:  those network guys are tricky, but nothing in prime time was live). 

To sum up this year's Olympics experience, I would use the words greater depth and breadth.  More sports have more competitive teams or individuals.  Similarly, the USA team broadened the range of events in which they were competitive.  And, of course, Paris.  The Olympics should settle upon a set of 8-10 cities with all the facilities and history of hosting (maybe adding one in Africa, somewhere safe?), and Paris should be one of them. 

What's Missing in this Olympics? 

Well, baseball.  Also softball.  Partly, the problem is that the Olympics event is in the middle of the baseball season, but the Winter Olympics manages it with ice hockey, and  MLB could be induced to allow international players to take a couple weeks off. 

 I watched some of several of the less-celebrated sports:  Archery showed amazing skill, table tennis matches were long but often dramatic, with great audience support. Water polo is a brutal game, like wrestling but underwater, and it is one of the games in which the shooter has the edge over the goalie.  Same is true of team handball, which is a lot like basketball but with a much bigger goal. The other extreme is hockey (also known as field hockey), where the ball hugs the ground and the sticks are great for ball control but not for beating the goalie.Tennis (also known as lawn tennis, though they played on clay in Paris) got a raw deal from the network.  Yes, matches are long, but there were a lot of channels with very little of interest going on.  (The best TV of the Olympics was in these off-channels, where they would use as filler after events some shots from the pool of critical moments in matches, and then with interviews with medal winners, without narration.)

As one who loves the long, lead pass, team handball sometimes has some nice ones, but it seems that mostly it is breaking down defenses in set positions.  Water polo has some nice one-touch cross-pool passes, executed with one hand above the surface, but the long passes just kind of end up sitting on the water.  The sport which would please me most if it were added for the Los Angeles Olympics would be Ultimate Frisbee.  It's a lot like some of the other sports (like soccer) where skllful passing moves the "ball" down the field.  Because of the frisbee's aerodynamic qualities, it lingers in the air longer, allowing some incredible lead passes. Like in football, just as long, but better.

A Little More on Baseball

 About 30% of the regular season remains.  Enough time for a lot to happen, but the scope of possible outcomes is limited by performance year-to-date. 

It's now understood that, in the current expanded playoff format, just making it into the final 12 (six in each league) is the main task.  Any of those teams can make it into the World Series by getting hot and getting some good starting pitching in short playoff series.  The bye and home-field advantage that the top two division winners get don't seem to provide much advantage against a hot wild-card team that has already taken a series. 

Still, it's better to be safely in the playoffs; the teams with their spot booked can experiment with lineup changes and get their pitching rotation exactly as they want.  Not many teams are in that position, though: the Phillies, Brewers and the Dodgers have division leads in the NL which should hold up, while the two  top AL records,  AL East teams the Yankees and Orioles, should have safe berths, though the division title remains a close contest.. That's about it .

Recent weeks have produced some hot teams that may monopolize most of the remaining wild card slots.  In the NL West, the Padres have the team and have emerged as the leading wild-card candidate, with last year's World Series runner-up, the Diamondbacks, close behind.  That would leave one spot, and about seven or eight teams trying to get it.  The Braves should be favored for it, but the Mets could take it.  NL Central also-rans the Cardinals and Pirates are getting attention for rebounding from poor 2023 seasons and playing at least .500 ball (winning half their games), but they will probably need to be 8-10 games above to make it.  In the AL Central, the Royals and Twins are the teams that have emerged as leaders for the second and third wild cards, even challenging the Guardians (nee Indians), who've led the division by a goodly margin most of the season.  In the AL West, surprisingly weak performance means only one team is likely to make it, and that team is surely going to be the Houston Astros, with early leaders the Mariners and last year's World Series champion Rangers left out. 

It's been an exciting season, with two standout slugging performers:  Aaron Judge for the Yanks and Shohei Ohtani for the Dodgers.  Many records are in danger from those two. 

I will close with mention of Billy Bean, a former major leaguer who became a groundbreaking baseball team General Manager.  He helped bring serious statistical approaches to the management of major-league baseball teams.  I will leave the fuller eulogies for Bob Costas, or better, Michael Lewis, who studied his accomplishments more. 

Note:  Some updates added in Comment 8/24....

Biden Out...For Real!

 First, I refer all to my previous post from last September, "Biden Out", if you haven't already looked upon it. It was a good effort at creative prognostication: I had some things right and some wrong; most notably I never thought President Biden could be convinced that someone else would have a better chance than he to defeat Trump, which was the critical consideration.  Though it would seem at this moment that it is clear which scenario we will have all the way to November, and I certainly don't expect Biden to return to active campaigning for the nomination, it  is still possible for a "Trump Collapse" to occur, for Trump to join Biden on the sidelines, or for "Chaos" to take over the campaign (as it might have done if Crooks' bullet had found its presumed mark, or if the Democrats' attempt to improvise a Harris bandwagon loses its wheels). 

Next, I give full credit to our President for realizing that the dynamics were pushing him inevitably toward dropping out.  The poll numbers did not move immediately after his debate failure, but they were moving, consistently, and his deficit was getting beyond the margin of error.  He commissioned polling on VP Harris to run against Trump, and I'm guessing it was a couple points better than his numbers.  Then, to top it off, he got back out on the campaign trail and immediately came down with Covid, which was being stubborn and which no doubt changes one's mood.  The rebellion of insecure Democratic Congresspeople paused for a few days but was once again mobilizing against his continuing on. In spite of all this, he deserves a huge salute for being willing to do the right thing, and for immediately endorsing his VP. 

There will be a process, and some fool may even stand up to oppose Harris' nomination, but she will get it. There's no time for developing any organized resistance, there's no sign of it yet, and there's no real reason for it.  She can go out and "prosecute the case against Trump" (as everyone has noted, indirectly referring to the prosecutor jobs which made her career) while Biden continues on as President.  I see no chance he will not complete his term unless he has a total physical collapse; he really wants to nail down the end to the carnage in Gaza. 

Initially, she will only get a small bump, if any, but the downward momentum will stop. The campaign will generate a lot of new money, which will make a difference down the road.  I see a lot of potential to bounce right over Trump in the popular vote, though the Electoral College is still going to be a great challenge, and the Senate even more so.  The change will help in particular the desperate effort to get control of the House, the only vestige of Federal power the Democrats are likely to have unless they can defeat Trump. It wouldn't be much, but it would keep some very bad laws from coming into effect.  (If laws even matter, if Trump wins.  I'm trying not to think that way, though, at least today.)

I'd like to see Kamala make a statement Biden was never willing to make (though some falsely accused him of saying it) and announce that she would only serve the one term from 2025-2029.  That would first of all ensure that those hungry Democratic governors who were planning to run in 2028 would not make the mistake of challenging her now; it would keep the focus on defeating Trump, and it would put a finite end on the Obama/Biden/Harris succession and provide some fresh air for the future campaign (which would begin in 2025, no doubt). 

Personally, I have been advocating for candidates for President to show a willingness to serve one term only.  The evidence is pretty strong that second-terms bring poor government; the self-limiting nature of such a decision as President Biden has made is a perfect example for the future.  Generally, anyone who wants to be President all that much (as Trump does, frankly to keep himself out of prison) should never be considered. I would support a constitutional amendment to make the Presidency a single term, of five or six years, and further to create a permanent office with significant powers able to investigate any of the branches of the Federal government, independent of the Department of Justice.  (The New FBI?)

This was a tough day for Joe Biden, but a good day for America.  And that means a bad day for Trump-Vance. 

This Is The Day...

 of our maximum discontent.

There is literally nothing I will allow myself to watch tonight, so I have sworn not to turn it on.  (That includes streaming, which I basically don't do anyway.)

Not even the All-Star Game, which in baseball terms is something less than the real thing--that was over a couple nights ago, providing a few moments of relief.  Regular baseball action starts back up tomorrow.   

The Cups--of Europe and of the Western Hemisphere--of soccer have concluded--congratulations to Spain and Argentina.  It was a big test, before the World Cup in 2026, for coaches' ability to put functional teams together.  Some passed the test, others will lose their jobs. 

Wimbledon is over.  Alcaraz established himself as King of the Hill, though there will be a multi-sided effort to dethrone him at the US Open in a couple of months.  Sinner is still the points leader, but Carlos is on the warpath.  On the women's singles side, chaos continues to reign at Wimbledon.  Swiatek hasn't figured the grass out quite yet, and Sabalenka bowed out. The title went to Barbora Krejcikova of Czechia, for her this was not her first chaotic rodeo victory. 

The Olympics - not yet. I'm not so hardcore that I have to watch NBA Summer League. MLS (Major League Soccer) doesn't tend to hold my interest for long. 

And then there's the news, which I am strenuously avoiding, all week.  Not interested in watching the selected Republican bootlickers, nor in seeing the nominee's speech, or the discussion of it before, during, or afterwards.  I am certain that Trump profiled his new con:  pretending to be a normal political candidate in a constitutional republic.  Don't believe it. 

As for President Biden, he took up the challenge to go out on the road and campaign actively for a few days, as I suggested.  The result was Covid, and I am now of the opinion that it is time for him to admit his limitations and bow out of the race (though he does not need to resign his position). He should vigorously endorse his VP Kamala Harris and offer his ongoing counsel to the Democrats, particularly should they win and hold the White House.  With our thanks.  

I have thought a bit about the attempted assassination of Trump over the weekend.  As for the young Republican incel gun nut who shot at him, nicking Trump's ear but killing one in the audience and wounding two others, he was following in the footsteps of other fools who think their act of stochastic violence would provoke a general mass uprising.  It's failed many times before.  Clearly, there was a slip-up by the Secret Service and local authorities allowing someone with a long rifle to post up less than 200 yards from the stage. 

Say, Hey!

The photo here is of the 1964 Strat-o-Matic card for the great baseball star Willie Mays, who died recently at the age of 93.  The card, frankly, was the main way I knew him:  he was playing on the West Coast then, and the Game of the Week (the only game on TV) was usually the Yankees and someone, and the SF Giants came around to Cincinnati (my team) about once a year.  1964 was a very good year for him, near his top (1965 was his second Most Valuable Player year), as he led the league in homers with 47.  His .296 batting average was near his lifetime average.  He was consistently at the top of the league from 1954 (when he returned from military service) until the late '60's.  

We saw more of him later, as he began to decline.  He was in a race with Henry Aaron for the second-most home runs for a while, but he retired and Aaron stayed on for several more years, eventually catching Babe Ruth for the all-time lead.  On the subject of the All-Stars, he was named 20 times to it. Certainly one of the greatest of our lifetimes. 

I will mention here the comedian Bob Newhart, who passed away even more recently at the age of 94.  I remember the early version of him, when he did a sort of nerdy, white-guy stand-up comedy (air-traffic controller sketch?).  What most will remember of him, though, was his starring role in the Bob Newhart Show, much later, when he played a normal guy reacting with good humor to his unusual neighbors (in Maine, was it?). His deadpan, accompanied by laugh track, was a good formula for situation comedy for several years.