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. 

 

 

On the 3-0 and the Lead Pass

That Sports Follow-up I Somewhat Promised

My concern for the Celtics' NBA Finals victory I had predicted was unfounded:  they won comfortably in Game 5 to wrap it up.  Next year will be a whole new thing, as the difficulty of defending the Association title will once again be demonstrated with top teams gearing their rosters to defeat the champions:  Exhibit A, the 76ers signing of Paul George. 

The 3-0 lead the Celtics had over the Mavericks, and the simultaneous 3-0 lead the Florida Panthers had over the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals, illustrated an interesting phenomenon in modern major sports seven-game series (Major League Baseball's World Series being the other one).  Marketing loves the seven-game series and, from a competitive aspect, it's a valid test for these teams.  The 3-0 lead, though, is bad for ratings. The drama is basically gone, with the final outcome all but assured.  The historic performance of teams down 0-3 is even worse than chance should allow.  Fortunately for ratings, that 3-0-leading team tends to slacken and lose, allowing for at least one more televised game.  I will not draw unseemly conclusions but comment that motivation truly does affect outcomes, and the underdog down 3-0 has strong motivation to avoid the embarrassment of a sweep.  Game 5 usually wraps it up, usually back at the home court of the favored and leading team (as with the Celtics' win), but if they drop that one Game 6 becomes a battle, and Game 7 a war.  Somehow, though, that team that led 3-0 almost always comes out on top (as happened with hockey's Panthers).

I have been loving the Euros, but the Copa America not so much (and not just because of Team USA's first-round flame-out).  It's been all too evident in both tournaments that well-disciplined defensive units can shut down most offensive efforts, and toward the end of the round-robin portion teams had little desire to expose their defenses with much offensive effort.  So my inerest lies in those teams that can rise above, offensively, and especially if they can do it more than just episodically.  Still, it has been the accidental goals, and the desperation ones at the end of game time, that have predominated.  The instinct of defenders to go back to help out when the ball is bouncing around inside the goalie box has been punished frequently.

A little complaint about how these random brackets are working:  The two best teams in the Euros' group stage, Germany and Spain, met yesterday in the quarterfinals.  Two of the three best teams in the Copa America, Brazil and Colombia, were in the same group!  The former produced a fantastic game, worthy of a final, while the Brazil-Colombia game occurred with both teams having clinched success in moving to the next round:  the only incentive was the marginal difference between playing Uruguay and the US-Panama survivor (it turned out to be Panama).*  The two rivals scrapped and kicked each other but did not have the real passion: that will be in their likely semifinal rematch. 

Copa America's tournament rules differ from the Euros' in one important facet--the Western Hemisphere one eschewed the "Extra Time" added on after a tie score in regulation, in favor of going immediately to a penalty kick shootout.  The results showed yesterday, as the Spain-Germany game was dramatically resolved in the final minutes of the 30 minutes of extra time through an sudden, unexpected goal.  The Canada-Venezuela game last night, probably the best so far in the Copa tournament, just went to the loaded-coin flip of penalty kicks, as did the Argentina-Ecuador one.   I preferred the Spain-Germany outcome, but recognize that, too often, the ET play is desultory, exhausted. 

As for the pre-tournament Euro favorites: as I write, exactly halfway through the quarterfinals, England will have to improve its game to defeat  Switzerland, and, in the next round, while France must better its game to defeat Spain. The really interesting game is later today, between Netherlands and Turkey.  The Dutch finished third in their group, and both teams have already raised their play to the level required for the knockout rounds.  

Go Long! 

 In soccer, most passes are directed at a stationary teammate, one with an opening to receive the ball.  The more beautiful passes, though, are to a place where a teammate has not yet arrived.  A stationary pass recipient will not generally have a "look" (as they say in basketball) at the goal, as defenders will move to block that view, or more to the point, the line of a shot toward goal.  The pass to a moving player, though, can create an opening.  It is a fine skill to place the ball where the teammate should be, without using your hands. For me, that aspect is what "the beautiful game" mode of playing soccer is all about. 

 American football's great beauty in modern times is exactly that downfield pass with perfect timing, to catch that moment when the receiver will have a free direct line from the arm of the passer.  In either case it is the dynamism and flow in the lead pass which creates the drama; it also brings more risk, in the sense that a longer pass to a moving player is less sure to end up with its target.  That risk is why soccer coaches love the strategy of playing the ball forward from player to player rather than sending it long and American football coaches like the short "possession" pass or running plays.  But the long bomb is where it's at. .

The long pass in soccer works best when the receiver is unencumbered by a defender; then the receiver can bring it down or under control, ideally right in stride.  When it's contested on the receiving end, though, then it becomes a physical battle to meet the ball with the head.  That contact usually will send the ball away from the receiver and defender, so the skill is to direct the ball so a teammate can get "the second ball'.  Strategies are developed around that combination; I expect soon they will be developed around controlling "the third ball".  

Basketball is another game that combines the fixed point-to-point passing with some of the more dynamic plays (catch and shoot, alley-oop, pick and roll).  Hockey is a game where the players move so fast that the player with the puck must be thinking ahead always, to the next connection, physical contact, or deflection.  Baseball, on the other hand, is more with stationary points and less movement; when it has movement (the play is live) the ball's target is still a stationary one (with the exception of the rare rundown play, and in contrast with the kids' game of kickball, where you can throw out the runner by hitting them with the ball).

We are All Sinners, Now 

Tennis, and some other head-to-head sports, have an opposing method in dynamic passes in play with their rackets (or other tools), which is to send the ball in an arc away from its recipient, such that they can't get at it ("the passing shot"). 

Speaking of tennis, another bracket beef:  in the men's Wimbledon tournament, as with the French Open, the most critical match is likely to be, not the final but the semifinal between #1 seed Jannik Sinner and #3 seed Carlos Alcaraz.  I feel, though I may be proven wrong, that either Sinner or Alcaraz can handle their likely finals opponent, the mighty Novak Djokovic, who is beyond his peak but still able to compel submission from most. 

So why this #1 vs. #3 in the projected semifinal (and the #2 vs. #4--Zverev the #4 seems like a perfect foil for Djokovi in the semis)?  I prefer he NCAA basketball's approach, where #1 is projected against #4 (or #5) and #2 and #3 are set up to battle in the semifinal. 

At any rate, looking ahead to the renewal of the Sinner-Alcaraz rivalry, the grass surface of Wimbledon is a good challenge to each.  Sinner has shown remarkable improvement over the last 18 months to reach the top ranking, but despite that success he is only on par with prodigious Djokovic and prodigal Alcaraz.  I will be rooting for the Northern Italian, but I have to admire the variety of Alcaraz and his sunny disposition.  They appear to be embarked on a lengthy, profitable contestation; I hope so for the sake of us all. 

P.S.  The Netherlands-Turkiye game was all that I hoped for.  I will be rooting for the Dutch over England--which showed its character for about 5 minutes when behind but still seem less than present--and for Spain over France--which has looked just as listless as England.  And for Colombia, to top both Brazil/Uruguay and Argentina.

Official reminder that the Paris Olympics will start soon!  I will be a consumer and not a predictor.

*Not to disrespect Uruguay's team, and they may well defeat Brazil. * However, neither team was subject to the real penalty, which would have been to move over to the Argentina bracket.

Now, More Leisurely

Fearless. No panic here.  And I object to the term "bed-wetting"--find another term, preferably a one-word one already in the language.  I'm not going to help you. 

We are now, most likely, in the "Biden Weakened" scenario I covered back in September.  We are not yet in the "Biden Out" one.  And there is still a chance opinion will snap back magnetically to its poles, a reversion to the "Status Quo" of a 49-47 race, pick your leader. *  In fact, it's unclear whether we've moved from that in the general polling horserace question; the results so far are mixed, but with concerning signals from swing states.

Examining that data, leaked via Puck from a polling report done for a Biden PAC,  I will explain exactly what happened from the debate.  The document shows a comparison of answers, from May to post-debate, to the question whether

 "Biden should step aside and suspend his campaign so a different Democrat can
run against Donald Trump"

vs. the opposite, that he should continue.  That went from 43-38-19 (step aside-continue-not sure) to 52-32-16.  That tracks to 9 of the previous 19% "Not Sure" moving to "Step Aside" and 6 of the previous 38% "Continue" moving to "Not sure".  Count me as among those 6%. 

"I...Finally...Beat...Medicare"

Yes, I was one of those 60 million or so who witnessed live (on TV) those immortal words. Actually, I do know what he meant,++ but that's a different discussion.  His performance that night was, in a word, pitiful.  It was really that bad, from the opening hoarse cough to the failed opportunity in his closing, when he mumbled statistics of achievements instead of offering a vision for the future.  He seemed to be a case of too much cramming of information and too little meditation or sleep.  Or the wrong medication, of course--he did have that strange look in his eyes.

But I also mean that word "pitiful" in the sense that I have pity for him.  First of all, with regard to the alleged jet-lag, I am sympathetic, having just gone through it. Your rhythms are disrupted due to transoceanic travel, and they don't necessarily respond the way you want.  When you get older, the things that go first are recovery and stamina--that's authoritative from me.  Second, there is the fact that this is the hardest job in the world, requiring the most of the office-holder, but giving them overwhelming power and responsibility.  There is no way around this fact, for the present.  He has done four years, and should be able to cheerfully go off into the sunset ("Silver Rider").  Things can go quickly, at that age, but I'm not convinced that has happened.

The reason he has not even fully considered the thought is the monster who was across the stage from him, who was busy saying monstrous things while trying not to appear quite as monstrous, this time. I briefly considered Trump's implied offer when he said, in effect, "the only reason I am running at all is because he (Biden) has done so badly".  Does he mean that he would drop out of the race, if only Biden would?  Then I realized:  Trump has to run, and win, or go to prison after the election. So, that wouldn't work. 

The third reason I pity him is that now, after this debate, he must go out on the campaign trail, in a serious way (my wife sagely recommends Townhalls, in which he has done well) for days, or at least a week or so, in which he will be examined microscopically.  As Speaker Pelosi said, it's now fair game.   After that, with additional data, he can make the considered, unhurried decision:  do I want to go through 3+ more months of this?  I will live with that decision. 

The deadline, apparently, is a few days before the party's National Committee has scheduled a "meeting" later this month to "nominate" Biden, so that he will be on the ticket in Ohio.  If they don't do it by some date, one that is before the convention which would formally nominate him, then there will not be the Democratic nominee on the ballot in Ohio, an unacceptable result (even to Sherrod Brown, who once again has the challenge of his career to hold the seat).   So, this was already set, a moment that could be decisive, though it was supposed to be a formality (like January 6, 2021, say).   

I will say right now that I hope that Biden is up to the challenge, takes it head on, and wins.  If he decides, after a few days of doing it, that he can not keep on doing that for 3+ more months, I hope that he suspends his campaign and endorses VP Kamala Harris to lead the ticket.  Others can throw their hats into the ring, but I'm OK with a quick, decisive outcome (and someone like Secy. Buttigieg as the VP nominee, Harris willing).  All those Democratic Governors can continue to work on how to take the country forward for their 2028 campaigns, which is what they have already been doing. 

*I estimated the probabilities of the seven scenarios just in April as: 

1-Trump Collapse - 30%, 2- Biden Weakened 5%; 3-Chaos - 10%; 4/5/6 Trump/Biden/Both Out - 5%; 7 - "Status Quo" 50% . 

But  at this moment I would say: 

        1 - 5%;  2- 50%; 3- 10%; 4, 6  <1%; 5 - (Biden Out) - 20%; Status Quo 15%.   

The scenario in which we are currently residing is probably the worst for the Democrats' chances in the election, from top to bottom. 

++He was talking about defeating the entrenched bureaucracy around Medicare to lower the cost of insulin.  You're welcome.