The Latest Straw

It comes to us from Jonathan Alter, though I have no doubt it originates from the fertile, devious mind of Mark Penn. Hillary has no rational path to winning the nomination (as her lead among superdelegates dissolves like a time-release cold capsule), but she should stay in because there's the chance Obama could lose to John McCain.

It's not impossible, I guess, but it is somewhat poorly supported by logic. Let's look at the three basic scenarios and how they play out:

1--HRC makes her best deal, bows out, and endorses Obama now (or soon--before the bitter end, which I see coming around the time of the Puerto Rico primary). A chance to heal properly by the convention, rally the Hispanics and women for Barack.
Results: 75% chance for B.O. to win; 2% HRC (some freakish combination occurrence which will not be named); 23% McCain.

2--HRC fights to the bitter end and loses. Whatever endorsement Barack Obama ends up with doesn't taste too good to Democrats or Independents. Obama is at a disadvantage--as he is right now--in the matchup with McCain.
Results: 50% chance for B.O.; 50% McCain. Don't fear too much, though, as the Democratic gains in Congress are going to be locked in anyway.

3--HRC fights to the end and somehow wins, or Obama has a major catastrophe and HRC wins the nomination because she's still in the game. Democrats are the weakest they could be coming out of the convention.
Results: 33% chance for HRC; 67% McCain.

Thus, if the outcome in November were at all a criterion, she would step out. Soon.

Alter said the Clintonista advisers aren't so Macchiavellian that their basic strategy is to seek Obama's downfall through strategy #2 (as opposed to #1 which takes her out of the picture in 2012, or #3, which is highly unlikely), but I'm not sure that's true. Hillary should ignore this bad advice and consider her options carefully. If she pulled out, she could get V.P., Gov. of New York, or Majority Leader of the Senate--all good launching pads if Obama should lose. In scenario #2, she'll be a pariah if Obama loses; in scenario #3, she's got a two-thirds chance of being toast.

Hillary's chances of becoming President by 2013

Option 1--The Sure Thing--2% in 2008; 2013: 40% X 23% (she would get her shot if McCain won, and would have a good chance against his failed administration in a re-election try, or his replacement if he died or didn't run); 5% of 75% if she makes nice with Obama and then he can't run in 2013 for whatever reason. Total: 14.95%

Option 2--The Macchiavelli Route--0% in 2008 (by definition); 2013: 2% (at best) X 50% if Obama wins; 20% (at best) X 50% if McCain wins. As I said, she'll be blamed--properly so. Total: 11%.

Option 3--The Real Long Shot--6.67% in 2008 (20% of taking it away X 33% in the general); 2013-- 10% (at best) X 67% for getting the nomination again and doing the Benjamin Harrison/Grover Cleveland or Ali/Frazier title switch in the rematch (regardless of the outcome in the 3rd go-round). Total: 13.33%

By my calculation, her best shot of getting the Presidency someday is to give up now.

Wall Street Journal Baseball Challenge and Responses

THE BASICS (point value in parentheses)
1. Which six teams will be division winners? (5 each)
2. Which two teams will win the wild cards? (5 each)
3. Which two teams will go to the World Series? (15 each)
4. Which team will win the World Series? (30)
5. Which team will have the best regular-season record? (10)
6. Which team will have the worst regular-season record? (10)
7. Who will win the AL and NL Cy Young awards? (10 each)
8. Who will win the AL and NL MVP awards? (10 each)
9. Who will win the AL and NL Rookie of the Year awards? (10 each)

TEAMS (all remaining questions 10 points each. All questions include regular-season games only.)
10. Which NL team will score the most runs? And which AL team? (5 points each)
11. Which NL team will give up the most runs? And which AL team? (5 points each)
12. Which team will have the most-improved record, measured in increase in total regular-season victories?
13. Which team will suffer the biggest decline, measured in decrease in total regular-season victories?
14. Rank these teams in order of regular-season wins, most to fewest: Nationals, Pirates, Orioles, Devil Rays, Royals.

INDIVIDUALS (Asterisk denotes partial credit will be given.)
15. Which manager will be first to no longer be managing his team (whether fired, retired, resigned or otherwise not managing) in 2008?
16. Who will be the highest-salaried player (based on 2008 salary) released or traded?
17. Which starting pitcher who’s changed teams (a group that includes Johan Santana and Dontrelle Willis) will earn the most wins?
18. Will anyone reach the 20-20-20-20 threshold (in doubles, triples, home runs and stolen bases) that Curtis Granderson and Jimmy Rollins reached last year? If yes, who?
19. How many home runs will Barry Bonds hit?*

WE’RE CURIOUS
20. Will average television ratings for the World Series go up or down from last year’s 10.6?

I’m going mostly chalk this year. Unlike most years, I see nothing wrong with a lot of the Conventional Wisdom. The big one for me is that the Reds are actually in the mix as a legitimate darkhorse in the NLC. I have to go for it.

1. Mets (to repeat—just kidding, he! He!), Reds, Rockies, BoTox, Tigers, Angels. Though I’m tempted to bail on LAA; eventually not getting past the first round will break a team.
2. Phillies, Yanks.
3. BoTox and Phillies. Reds contribute to the final outcome by eliminating the Mets in the first round for Phila and for the Griffer, probably in his last year in Cincy.
4. BoTox Dynasty, Phase I.
5. Mets. I’m looking for NY-Phila race to be a hot one with some 95 wins each and beat the NL Central teams up mercilessly. Boston and Yanks will run into some tougher opposition (TBR turns out to be a better idea than TBD, and the Rays will no longer obediently give each AL East bleeder 12 wins+ each. Orioles will now absorb that role.
6. A good question, indeed. I’ll go with Orioles, narrowly over the Twins and Pirates.
7. AL Cy Young: Mark Buehrle. NL Cy Young: Chris Young (PMar finishes second in the voting).
8. AL MVP: Miguel Cabrera. NL MVP: Jose Reyes (narrowly over Teixeira; Pujols plays about 100 games).
9. AL Rookie of the Year: At the risk of submitting a possibly illegal entry, Erick “Aqbar” Aybar. NL Rookie: Joey Votto.
10. Teams scoring the most-- NL: Brewers; AL: Yankees. Strangely, WSJ reverses league it asks for starting with this question. Please note for automated replies.
11. Give up the most—NL: Brewers (also). AL: Orioles.
12. Tampa Bay Rays. Give them a moment of glory!
13. Minnesota Twins.
14. Best to worst— Royals, Nationals, (F.D.) Rays, Pirates, Orioles.
15. First manager to go: Tony LaRussa (a guy can hope).
16. Highest-salaried player released or traded: Milton Bradley is a perennial choice.
17. “Which starting pitcher who’s changed teams (a group that includes Johan Santana and Dontrelle Willis) will earn the most wins?” Well, duh, Johan Santana.
18. No.
19. Bonds will hit four HR before his new indictment comes down; seven after. Total of 11.
20. Way, way up, as New York is reluctantly drawn into the Atlantic Seaboard drama of usedtobees Boston and Philadelphia. NL wins All-Star game (my most extreme prediction!) and Phillies lose game 7 at home.

I found the questions very pedestrian; not much imagination went into their framing this year.

Tourney Challenge Headline: ESPN Member Services Disappoints

I think ESPN's idea (or Disney's ad agency's, whichever of the two may deserve the credit) of the $1,000,000 payout in their Tourney Challenge for a perfect bracket (64 correct game-winning decisions out of 64) was a great one. I'm sure it brought in lots of additional entries and new members.

Unfortunately, their website service doesn't seem to be up to the task of managing the simple task of logging in members (except those who are "In" and pay up, of course). After logging in successfully and getting my picks in, I have had repeated experiences of failing to get my password accepted. I've gone through several rounds of requesting new passwords (even though I knew I was putting in the right ones) and then having those rejected. So, I can't see how I'm doing compared to my peers in such groups as "Fans of Louisville", "ESPN Sports Anchors," and "The Perfect Bracket" (my daughter's entry, more on that later).

Fortunately, I wrote down some of the basics of each entry, which I will now put "on record" (since ESPN's don't hardly count with me, since I can't see it)--each valid entrant gets up to 10 bracket entries:
Final Four /Championship game/Who?/Comment at time
1 U. of Louisville, Kansas U., Memphis U., UCLA/ MU over UL, 71-59/me/not bad
2 U. of North Carolina, USC, MU, Drake/MU over UNC, 89-84/me/Radical but grounded
3 UL, U. of Wisconsin, MU, UCLA/ UL over UCLA, 73-65/ me/wishful
4 Notre Dame, Georgetown U. , Stanford U., UCLA/ SU over GU, 70-76/my wife/I liked the 2 chalk/2 Wild Card strategy
5 UL, KU, MU, Duke U./ MU over UL, 83-80/for my daughter/for "The Perfect Bracket"
6 UNC, KU, MU, DU/ MU over KU, 82-79/my son/"chalky"
7 U. of Tennessee, UW, MU, UCLA/UCLA over UT, 89-75/me/boring
8 UL, GU, MU, UCLA/MU over GU, 71-63/me/maybe
9 ND, KU, U. of Kentucky, UCLA/KU over UCLA 77-75/balancing except UK
10 UL, USC, U. of Texas, UCLA/UCLA over USC, 69-62/me/interesting but outrageous.

With six teams left, entries 2, 6, and 9 are still alive with regard to the finalists and winner (respectively, Memphis over UNC, Memphis over Kansas, and Kansas over UCLA). All three of those are matchups of #1 seeds. I think my son's entry, which I labeled "chalky", has the highest score of the 10 at this point. None of the 10 have all four teams possibly correct.

This year certainly makes the selection of all four #1 seeds (a common and much-despised choice by people who don't know any better or care) look respectable.

I have to kick myself for not picking Davidson to beat Georgetown in one or two of the scenarios. I had a lot of good picks identified (like W. Va. in the second round, Louisville to win through a tough half-bracket, Duke out, the 1-2-3-4 Regional Semis in the Southern) but no systematically wise set of selections. I picked #8 ("Fans of New Mexico") for my official submission to the NRDC, but the Davidson-Georgetown fiasco (from the bracket's point of view) was deadly to my chances there.

Back to the $1 million

That was gone in the first round. I was very impressed to see a couple of folks had all 16 of the Sweet Sixteen, and that deserves, but will not get, some sort of prize.

ESPN may feel it has dodged a bullet with all the chalk in the late rounds, but it's really quite safe. They could insure against the million pretty cheaply and they have nothing else to worry about. I hope they bring it back, with a new website management team for next year.

Pivotal NCAA Game/Missed Prediction Opportunities

I haven't seen any yet of it (as I type this paragraph), but from the point of view of the championship and the dynamics of how it will play out, the critical game of the tournament is just underway--Louisville vs. U. of North Carolina.

I should have posted since I opined on "Spring Sports Excitement", but I've been away on vacation and haven't had a moment. What I would have said on an intermediate posting just before the tourney started:

1) Unlike some years, the 4-8 seeds looked seriously weak in relation to 1-3, so there shouldn't be too many upsets.
2) I saw an article saying essentially, "People often have #1 seeds facing each other in the Final Four. This is a bad play, as it has only happened once in the modern era of 64-65 teams, in the year that 3 #1's made the semis." I would say that there is a much better chance this year than normal for a showdown of #1's, particularly in the case that exactly two of them make the Final Four. I am personally featuring Memphis-UCLA in most of my brackets.
3) There are about 10 teams that can win it: they include all four of the #1's, #2's Georgetown, Tennessee, and Texas, and #3's Stanford, Louisville, and Wisconsin. Duke, while certainly a top team, doesn't look like Final Four material to me.
4) Davidson looks like the best mid-major contender for a surprise, but I don't like their second-round matchup indicated against Georgetown.

Now, what I'd say: North Carolina and Louisville look like the best teams in the tournament so far. I'd pick the winner of that one, narrowly, over Kansas, UCLA, or Memphis, which I thought was the best team of the regular season, and still improving, but may still have a fatal weakness at the line. Davidson-Georgetown, with Davidson's incredible second-half comeback, has set the tone for the entertainment value of the coverage. This is great, but different from the ultimate question of who will win the tourney.

As for the other sports mentioned in the previous link:

NBA: all 9 teams are still contending in the West and no one has broken clear. My early suggestion that Dallas or Golden State could be the odd one out (check that) now looks like the "smart bet" I often favor, that of the #2 and #3-probability contenders. The favorite was Denver and still is, but that's the one I'd tend to bet against, figuring the money on it was too short.

Boston's successful three-game sweep on the road in Texas has to be considered the wake-up call of the year, if anyone didn't believe how competitive this team could be in the postseason.

English soccer: It's looking now more clearly than ever a showdown between Chelsea and Man U. --definitely in the Premier League and quite possibly in the Champions League. Early season leader Arsenal (my wife's team) has fallen off the pace: their early-season super combo of Fabregas and Robin Van Persie hasn't resumed with Van Persie's return after a long injury. Fabregas/Agdebayor worked well in the interim, but now that Arsenal has both forwards it isn't working. Perhaps V.P. isn't 100%, but I think it's more Fabregas' wearing out.

Meanwhile both Man U. and Chelsea have had enough variety in scoring options that they have never gone cold.

Will Wright Hurt Obama?

I think the short answer is "yes". For those (white) Americans who liked Obama simply because he was a non-threatening black man, it will hurt. Obama could not keep those voters through the general election, though--not because he is threatening to white people--but because sooner or later, someone was going to find something that resonated with those people and told them, "Well, he is a black person who has some awareness of the racial history of injustice and understands that it applies to him, after all."

Those people are not ready for a black President; any black President short of an Uncle Tom.
Even Clarence Thomas has this understanding; it's just that Thomas's response to it has been intensely perverse. For that matter, those people are not ready for a President who doesn't treat them like children or gulls.

So, let it rage now and pass. Some people--and I hope it includes some who were not already in Obama's camp--appreciate him and The Speech for what he and it represent: wisdom, grace, and maturity.

Obama's Grandmother and Pastor

I missed The Speech today. I don't really need to be convinced of his good faith on race, or once again convinced of his superb ability to deliver a message through oratory. He had to put some political distance between himself and his preacher, Rev. Wright, who had excalimed "God damn America!" in a sermon being used to discredit Obama.

The key point was when he said the following: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” who showed Barack all the love, but expressed her fear of Negroes (and other somewhat racialist sentiments) to him on some occasions when he was growing up--which confused him immensely.

Some were looking for a stronger denunciation of his pastor (not just those sentiments he expressed which showed bitterness and racialist anger), but didn't get it. I don't need it. Some think that Obama's unique personal history will provide fodder for Republican attacks. I say, "Bring it on!" It's extremely well documented (the superb "Dreams from my Father") , entirely consistent with his persona, and totally defensible. Anyone who tries to attack it will end up losing ground.

Julius Spitzer

The Ides of March were not kind to (soon-to-be former) New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. He got his comeuppance, big-time, and the knives of cutthroat politicos and media types were fully in evidence as he fell. It was his prior demeanor and hypocrisy, rather than his sexual peccadilloes, which made his political position untenable. It seems as though he wasn't even given enough time to cop a plea.

I'd say that the fault was both within him and in the stars. Apparently he was unlucky that some of his bank transactions--fairly large ones, to pay for high-class hookers willing to engage in unsafe, covert sex--fit a pattern which caught the attention of snoops and flatfeet.

There's plenty of irony in his fate. As NY Attorney General, he helped develop the techniques of using these "structured" bank transactions (structured to avoid mandatory reporting) to develop cases against suspected criminals. He went after prostitution rings (like the one he got entangled with) and various other financial rip-offs, some of which crossed boundaries (as he did in his search for good hideouts for his compulsive behavior). His technique in high-profile cases was to throw a wall of charges publicly at his targets, forcing them to settle--just as he was made to do.

David Patterson (Lt. Governor, until Monday) has become the unlikely beneficiary of Spitzer's hubristic, tragic fall. It remains to be seen whether he will take on the role of Mark Antony (protegee, and defender of his predecessor's legacy), of Augustus (the guy who cleaned up in the end and ruled all), or merely Lepidus (the Third Man of the triumvirate, who makes an early exit from the competition for supreme power, but hung around as high priest). Unlike Patterson, I don't think history notes that any of the three were blind, so no clue there.

Once again, though, we see that those who pose as holier-than-thou are highly vulnerable to the greatest corruption, whether venal or, in this case, carnal.

Ferraro's Fatuity

Geraldine Ferraro said yesterday that Barack Obama is only in the position he's in because he's black (or words to that effect). It's only the novelty of his candidacy that attracts, she thinks.

She should know: if it were not for her status as a fellow "firster" (first woman on a major-party ticket), the three-term Congresswoman from Queens would be indistinguishable in history from the likes of other running mates to landslide losers, like Charles McNary (Wendell Wilkie's in 1940), William E. Miller (Goldwater's in 1964), Sargent Shriver (McGovern's second one, in 1972, though he also has starting the Peace Corps for his brother-in-law JFK on his slate), and, to be fair, FDR (running mate to James Cox in the Democrats' landslide defeat in 1920).

She should know, but unfortunately she doesn't. Obama is a rare talent, who possesses a sharp mind, unique oratorical skill, and apparently much greater ability in heading up a national campaign than his current opponent, Ferraro's choice, Hillary Clinton.

Hillary and her husband have been going around suggesting what a good VP candidate (and, presumably, VP office-holder) Obama would make, prompting some to note what a contradiction that makes with their suggestions that he's not quite ready for prime time. Not that I'm trying to help them figure out what they should be saying (and we know they'll say whatever is necessary), but a more intelligent formulation that would not be self-contradictory would be a simile: Obama is like a newly-bottled fine wine--we should buy it, and put it away until it is ready to be consumed. That would at least do justice to the Clintons' deserved reputations as connoisseurs of political talent.

Alternatively, one could say that being an African-American (in a more literal sense than most, notwithstanding his white mother) does, in part, make him what he is. In Obama, we have someone whose candidacy presents a unique opportunity:
-- to American voters to redeem themselves (collectively, not individually) for forty-some years of bad decisions in national elections (I'm including Bill Clinton, who I'd say in fairness was the best we could expect, given our poor methods of Presidential selection, but whose eventual political decline should have been readily foreseen given our full knowledge of his flawed character when we elected him);
--to repair our poor reputation in the world, resulting from our miserable foreign and military policies;
--to bring political participation at the most basic levels (voting, electoral organizing, running for public office) back into respectability, and even to make it "cool"; and
--to mark a definitive end to Bushite Misrule and Bush/Clinton dynastic leadership.

As for Ferraro and her fatuous remark, the most amazing thing is that she is "standing by" it. With her, they make a fine couple of inanities.

Spring Sports Excitement

My focus has been on three areas: the NBA, college (men's) hoops, and England's Chelsea Football Club.

Starting with the college game, this appears to be another banner year for freshmen about to turn pro (although one of the "diaper dandies", Love of UCLA, seems to be sticking around). Not only that, though, this season is shaping up as a wide-open contest. I see 10 or more teams who could win the championship, and no clear favorite. As usual, I will eschew Duke and N.C., and I will predict a finals matchup of Memphis and UCLA (it's been done before). Despite their weak free throw shooting, I think Memphis may actually have the horses this year.

The NBA, similarly, has 11 teams capable of winning the championship. Nine of them are competing for eight spots in the Western Conference playoffs (the other two are Detroit and Boston). The mad scramble in the West is basically just to make the playoffs; seedings are not going to count as much as in the past given the parity that exists (recall Golden State over Dallas last year, the first time #8 ever beat #1).

New Orleans has been a huge surprise and is legitimately a contender; Houston has surprised and maintained its momentum since the injury to Yao. Some really good team is going to get eliminated, though: right now, I'd go with Phoenix or Golden State. Denver's the team looking in right now, but I expect them to get it together (with their broad talent) and squeak through.

In English football, Chelsea lost today in one of the most thrilling matches I've seen, on the road in the the 6th round (quarterfinals) of the F.A. Cup, 0-1 at Barnsley (a team--nicknamed the "Tykes"--that's one level down in league play). The F.A. has had a series of big upsets, driven partly by the fact that the top 4 teams in English soccer (Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal) are focused on the Champions' League and the Premiership itself--now none of them will make the final four. Of the six teams left, two are middle-level Premier squads (Portsmouth, and Middlesbrough, which has underperformed this year), three are in the "Championship" (Barnsley, Cardiff, and West Brom), and one is in "League One" (the third level)--Bristol Rovers.

In today's game Chelsea could push Barnsley all over but couldn't put it in. It looked like pinball for most of the last 10 minutes. Chelsea coach Evran Grant will get reamed for taking the risk by not playing some of his top players (Drogba, Lampard, Ashley Cole, first-string goalie Petr Cech), but I think he was right: he's got to put some of these others out there, in a game of importance, and see what they can do. Some looked up to the challenge (Essian, Terry, Joe Cole), others tried hard with little success (Wright-Phillips, Ballack, late reserves Kalou and Pizarro), and some looked as though they'd rather have been elsewhere (Malouda, Anelka, Carvalho).

Chelsea can now focus on the big games coming up in the Champions' League (through to the final eight) and the Premier League (home games coming up against both teams ahead of them in the standings, Man U. and Arsenal, which will give them a shot at a come-from-behind title.

It's Called a "Coalition"

I must've been more down than I seemed, in order to have suggested, The Morning After Ohio and Texas (a/k/a The Unofficial National Primary, Democratic side, part 2A), that Obama might end up giving up the top spot despite leading in delegates. The key is that in the title I accepted the less-than-efficient "Obamamania" instead of my preferred "Obamania".

I do think there's an answer to Why would he ever do it? It would set the Democrats up for a big win, he would get executive experience (should insist upon it), and get the Clintons out of the way once and for all. I suspect the 2009-2013 term is going to be a bummer for whoever gets it--Clinton, McCain, or Obama. There's a real question whether either candidate can win a fight to the finish without being irreparably damaged, and this would certainly avoid that. It would certainly be a break from the "winner take all" rules which prevailed in much of pre-Obama America.

Still, there are huge issues. Could he possibly preserve his Movement, if he yielded to Hillary? Could he trust her not to run again? What about "the urgency of now"?

Probably this is an option that should be reserved for the worst case scenario: the one that has Hillary improbably closing the gap through a 60-40 type win in Pennsylvania, a reversal of some kind on Florida delegates (which would cost Obama 20-30 delegates) and some sort of unfavorable outcome in Michigan, and erosion of his position on superdelegates.

Power That Be

I have to admit that I was unfamiliar with Samantha Power, the Yalie and Harvard professor who was adviser to Obama on foreign policy.

The more I read about her, and about the episode that caused her to resign from his campaign, the more impressed I am with her. Of course, it was a mistake to refer to Her Royal Clinton-ness as a "monster"; no matter how monstrous some of her campaign's distortions, she is still recognizably human. At least most of the time. This was something for which Power should have been able to apologize and move on.

The other quote from her that the media are hammering, the one in which she said Obama will have to adapt his plan once he gets into office (so that his withdrawal intentions are subject to modification!), is really just common sense. His Iraq position still far outstrips any other candidate still in the race for its clarity and determination to end the occupation (except Ron Paul's; technically he is still running, though he's much more concerned about keeping his day job as a Texas Congressman these days).

The problem is that Obama maintains a higher moral plane for his campaign than Clinton, and those who want to be associated with it have to help maintain it. Far from being too nice to Obama, the media are holding him to it, and he is living up to it.

David Brooks says that "all Obama has is new politics". That's all he needs.

As for the awesome Power, I think she can easily be invited back to the future Obama Administration if she learns the rules for modern-day "Gotcha!" journalism and behaves herself accordingly.

Big State Nonsense

This idea being promoted, in order to sway undecided superdelegates, that Hillary should be nominated because she can win the big states and Obama can't is total nonsense.

First of all, one could argue whether she won Texas this week. One should certainly argue that she didn't "win" Michigan or Florida. Obama won Illlinois, big time.

Hillary's campaign is certainly wrong if they believe they can ignore all the "little states" in the general election, as she has tried to do (after losing them) in the primaries. Obama has taken the lead by doing the hard work, state by state, building organization and turning out voters. Caucuses may favor his voters and disadvantage Hillary's to some extent, but generally the outcomes in the caucuses haven't even been close. Hillary's reputation in this campaign turns mostly on a couple of victories by microscopic margins in Texas and in New Hampshire.

The real point is, Obama will be running against John McCain with a united Democratic party behind him. Whether the popular vote in these big states has been for Obama or Clinton, Obama's always gotten more votes than McCain (OK, when he was on the ballot--he wasn't in Michigan). I suspect that Obama has outpolled ALL of the Republicans (not just McCain) combined in most of these big-state primaries.

Obama in San Antonio

The following are the great words--totally overlooked in the evening--of Obama's speech, from barackobama.com. This was his general election framing; the press thought it was arrogant, with the nomination not sewn up and all. Obama tried to re-frame the evening's big news as the definitive victory of McCain, and they weren't buying it.

Well, we are in the middle of a very close race right now in Texas, and we may not even know the final results until morning. We do know that Senator Clinton has won Rhode Island, and while there are a lot of votes to be counted in Ohio, it looks like she did well there too, and so we congratulate her on those states. We also know that we have won the state of Vermont. And we know this – no matter what happens tonight, we have nearly the same delegate lead as we did this morning, and we are on our way to winning this nomination.

You know, decades ago, as a community organizer, I learned that the real work of democracy begins far from the closed doors and marbled halls of Washington.

It begins on street corners and front porches; in living rooms and meeting halls with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have it within our power to remake the world as it should be.

It is with that hope that we began this unlikely journey – the hope that if we could go block by block, city by city, state by state and build a movement that spanned race and region; party and gender; if we could give young people a reason to vote and the young at heart a reason to believe again; if we could inspire a nation to come together again, then we could turn the page on the politics that's shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle. We could write a new chapter in the American story.

We were told this wasn't possible. We were told the climb was too steep. We were told our country was too cynical – that we were just being naïve; that we couldn't really change the world as it is.

But then a few people in Iowa stood up to say, "Yes we can." And then a few more of you stood up from the hills of New Hampshire to the coast of South Carolina. And then a few million of you stood up from Savannah to Seattle; from Boise to Baton Rouge. And tonight, because of you – because of a movement you built that stretches from Vermont's Green Mountains to the streets of San Antonio, we can stand up with confidence and clarity to say that we are turning the page, and we are ready to write the next great chapter in America's story.

In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And tonight, I called John McCain and congratulated him on winning the Republican nomination.

But in this election, we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century. Because John McCain may claim long history of straight talk and independent-thinking, and I respect that. But in this campaign, he's fallen in line behind the very same policies that have ill-served America. He has seen where George Bush has taken our country, and he promises to keep us on the very same course.

It's the same course that threatens a century of war in Iraq – a third and fourth and fifth tour of duty for brave troops who've done all we've asked them to, even while we ask little and expect nothing of the Iraqi government whose job it is to put their country back together. A course where we spend billions of dollars a week that could be used to rebuild our roads and our schools; to care for our veterans and send our children to college.

It's the same course that continues to divide and isolate America from the world by substituting bluster and bullying for direct diplomacy – by ignoring our allies and refusing to talk to our enemies even though Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done just that; because strong countries and strong leaders aren't afraid to tell hard truths to petty dictators.

And it's the same course that offers the same tired answer to workers without health care and families without homes; to students in debt and children who go to bed hungry in the richest nation on Earth – four more years of tax breaks for the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don't need them and aren't even asking for them. It's a course that further divides Wall Street from Main Street; where struggling families are told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because there's nothing government can do or should do – and so we should give more to those with the most and let the chips fall where they may.

Well we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in and this is not the future we want. We want a new course for this country. We want new leadership in Washington. We want change in America.

John McCain and Senator Clinton echo each other in dismissing this call for change. They say it is eloquent but empty; speeches and not solutions. And yet, they should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It began with words that were spoken on the floors of factories in Ohio and across the deep plains of Texas; words that came from classrooms in South Carolina and living rooms in the state of Iowa; from first-time voters and life-long cynics; from Democrats and Republicans alike.

They should know that there's nothing empty about the call for affordable health care that came from the young student who told me she gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't pay her sister's medical bills.

There's nothing empty about the call for help that came from the mother in San Antonio who saw her mortgage double in two weeks and didn't know where her two-year olds would sleep at night when they were kicked out of their home.

There's nothing empty about the call for change that came from the elderly woman who wants it so badly that she sent me an envelope with a money order for $3.01 and a simple verse of scripture tucked inside.

These Americans know that government cannot solve all of our problems, and they don't expect it to. Americans know that we have to work harder and study more to compete in a global economy. We know that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children – that we need to spend more time with them, and teach them well, and put a book in their hands instead of a video game once in awhile. We know this.

But we also believe that there is a larger responsibility we have to one another as Americans.

We believe that we rise or fall as one nation – as one people. That we are our brother's keeper. That we are our sister's keeper.

We believe that a child born tonight should have the same chances whether she arrives in the barrios of San Antonio or the suburbs of St. Louis; on the streets of Chicago or the hills of Appalachia.

We believe that when she goes to school for the first time, it should be in a place where the rats don't outnumber the computers; that when she applies to college, cost is no barrier to a degree that will allow her to compete with children in China or India for the jobs of the twenty-first century.

We believe that these jobs should provide wages that can raise her family, health care for when she gets sick and a pension for when she retires.

We believe that when she tucks her own children into bed, she should feel safe knowing that they are protected from the threats we face by the bravest, best-equipped, military in the world, led by a Commander-in-Chief who has the judgment to know when to send them into battle and which battlefield to fight on.

And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world, and someone should ask her where she is from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers "I am an American."

That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for. You can call it many things, but you cannot call it empty.

If I am the nominee of this party, I will not allow us to be distracted by the same politics that seeks to divide us with false charges and meaningless labels. In this campaign, we will not stand for the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon.

I owe what I am to this country I love, and I will never forget it. Where else could a young man who grew up herding goats in Kenya get the chance to fulfill his dream of a college education? Where else could he marry a white girl from Kansas whose parents survived war and depression to find opportunity out west? Where else could they have a child who would one day have the chance to run for the highest office in the greatest nation the world has ever known? Where else, but in the United States of America?

It is now my hope and our task to set this country on a course that will keep this promise alive in the twenty-first century. And the eyes of the world are watching to see if we can.

There is a young man on my campaign whose grandfather lives in Uganda. He is 81 years old and has never experienced true democracy in his lifetime. During the reign of Idi Amin, he was literally hunted and the only reason he escaped was thanks to the kindness of others and a few good-sized trunks. And on the night of the Iowa caucuses, that 81-year-old man stayed up until five in the morning, huddled by his television, waiting for the results.

The world is watching what we do here. The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?

Can we come together across party and region; race and religion to restore prosperity and opportunity as the birthright of every American?

Can we lead the community of nations in taking on the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and climate change; genocide and disease?

Can we send a message to all those weary travelers beyond our shores who long to be free from fear and want that the United States of America is, and always will be, 'the last best, hope of Earth?'

We say; we hope; we believe – yes we can.

Unlike "Change We Can Believe In", "yes we can" may sound ungrammatical but is not. It's about ability; the part about permission--"yes we may"--can not be implied (because it would be ungrammatical) and would certainly never be stated, because it's too wishy-washy. The acceptable political formulation is with Hillary's "Yes we will" last night (although most of her audience was saying "Yes, SHE will" in a thoroughly white-and-disjointed-sounding call-and-response), or even better, "Yes we shall", in which the "shall" is emphatic in its reversal with the normal "will".

Obamamania--The Morning After

(I've gone with the predominant, easier-to-pronounce neologism in the title)


Coming Down Syndrome was described nicely by Brooks in the NYT. Democratic Convention Watch (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) has gone to bed. It goes on.

I admire Obama's willingness to stick to the high road and to believe it will pay off in the end. Thus my faith leads to the irrational conclusion that Obama will get the nomination in the end. (Delphi says 74% he will get it somehow while losing Pennsylvania, also at 74%). The pledged delegate lead is around 140, according to CNN. Clinton's Superdelegate lead, now at 40-45, will expand to about 75 in the next couple of weeks. That seems to be about all that will happen.

I also feel that Obama is willing to accommodate Hillary at an appropriate time (which will be after Pennsylvania, and probably after North Carolina confirms that she will not be able to close the gap). The metaphor has shifted, and "Hillary's lifeline" is right on target. He will throw her a life preserver if she's not too crazy while still drifting free.

Meanwhile, the polls will duly reflect her latest resurrection vs. McCain and Obama will drop sharply. He has got to throw some elbows, but keep it clean, and the Tax Return issue (brought forward by Carl Bernstein, thank you) will probably work.

The only way out from this bloodshed is for Hillary to be co-opted into Obama's Movement, and the only way to do that is to give her the Presidency. For one term only, witnessed by both spouses and signed in blood. Whether they choose to tell everyone is their business.

Barring that, he's got to war to the end. "Yes We Can" will defeat "Yes She Will".

UNP-D (2A)

We have had yet another abrupt turn in the Argument. My predictions were on target, though the drop in Ohio was a bit sharper than I expected. Doing as well as he did in Texas was quite an accomplishment.

Obama's speech was dynamite (his tone--the world is watching, let's be adults--was perfect, though his delivery was a bit strained: he looks angry) and the realpols on the telecast ignored it entirely. They've heard it before and they want to see the beef.

Obama's got the beef, but has to find the method of communicating his wonkish side without being too professorial. I recommend a businesslike approach with something like Power Point--people are inordinately impressed with it. Just ask Al Gore.

It's great that Hillary's "just getting started" and all, but there's one problem: about 85% of the US has now had its chance.

UNP-D (Part 2A): Rasmussen Markets

Going by the Offer on the contracts (more reliable than the last strike price, from my observation), Clinton is at 57% to win in Ohio and 27% to win in Texas. If we assume these are accurate and independent, that means she has about 15-16% chance of winning both.

We can compare these with the 12% she's at to win the nomination in the trading, the 21% chance she's now given in Pennsylvania, and the 11% for her to win the "Lifeline" parley of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Essentially, this means that if she were to win both, her chances in PA would shift from 20-80 against to 80-20 in favor.

Given my predictions (that she can win both OH and TX and lose the nomination; surely PA's outcome is most likely to ratify the nomination winner), I have to bet against this combination of expectations.

I'm betting against Clinton on the parley, though I really don't know which state(s) she will lose. I have ridden Obama's odds on TX upward to a potential fat profit (though I'd have to sell before Tuesday night to secure it with certainty).

Less proudly, I am also showing a considerable loss on HRC's nomination chances, which I put some fake money behind when she was around a 60-40 favorite (that calculation persisted right through the UNP until the Obama sweep in the Potomac Primary outcomes became clear to forecasters). So I'm also trying to sell her contracts and limit my loss on that one, asking about 12%.

Taos: Proud Host of the Congressional District Convention

The Taos News trumpeted the "coup" of Our Town's being named the site for the Democratic Convention for this Congressional district.

In a confused and confusing story, it was revealed that our County Democratic Committee has been thrown a bone by our equally suspicious state party leadership. At least our guys locally didn't appear to have overtly favored either candidate in the closely contested, massively turned out, incompetently-planned-and-executed primary. That is, once Bill Richardson upset all the original planning and bowed out.

What exactly is supposed to happen in this convention, and whether it will do more than rubber stamp other results, is unfortunately less than clear. Everyone seems to know that Clinton won 14 delegates and Obama 12 in the state, so does it really matter what happens here?

There is still a very raw feeling among county Democrats over the manner of the movida which gave the current county party leaders their positions. It will be more than interesting to see if this emerges in some way connected to the convention.

Pro-Retro-spective Look at UNP-D (2A)

I think this is the part of the TV program where they try to raise our interest just before going to a commercial. The ending that comes afterward may be just what we expected, but at least we kept watching for the commercial.

The networks aren't too sure if there will be one more big primary show or if this is it, but at least they want to get good ratings on Tuesday. They have enjoyed promoting the notion that the winner of the two primaries will have the momentum, and the one who has less popular votes in Texas and Ohio will have evitability. All the time they're secretly hoping for a split decision, and another ratings payday in Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island has been perhaps the most interesting part of this drama. First, the Clinton campaign spins that Obama can only clinch the nomination by sweeping the four primaries Tuesday (thus holding Rhode Island as their secure fallback). Obama's campaign responds by going on the attack in Providence. This puts Clinton, Inc. into a tizzy: do they dare keep faith in their data, which shows them clearly ahead, or counter with a visit themselves?

I like the Obama Rhode Island move for other reasons. One is that moving from 30-something percent to 40-something there could pick up a couple delegates (are there actually geographical divisions within the state?) The second is the consistent principle of the Obama campaign to contest everywhere. The third is his defiance of conventional thinking: the answer to Ohio or Texas? is Rhode Island!

Finally, if we look at the highly-touted Clinton "firewall" strategy, I would describe the reality as as more analogous to New Orleans in recent years: the levee only had to break once, somewhere, and the storm waters came rushing in to inundate the City of Hillary. Rhode Island is one more place the Clintons may have to put their finger (cigar?) in. So to speak.

Report from the Spillway Watch

The polls in Texas have showed Obama has closed and it's 2C2C, while Ohio still shows a slight Clinton lead. The conventional thinking would thus identify Texas as the target for Obama to break through. I think the NAFTA issue--on which his stance is more clearly perceived than Hillary's very similar one-- is working in his favor in Ohio (and against him in Texas), and so does the Huckabee Factor (fictionalized form: The Hudsucker Proxy): Potential McCain Voters in Ohio may as well turn out for Obama, as the Republican race is over there. The word hasn't filtered down to everyone in Texas, though.

The best answer for Obama may be the complex one: heavy TV in Texas, followed up by intensive tactical support for the second step caucuses later on in the evening of Su-22 (sounds like a Russian fighter plane, but it is supposed to mean "Super Tuesday Too"); ground organizing in Ohio in preparation for the general election. Winning Ohio--a state which should, by all rights, swing to the Democrats this year--is huge for the Electoral College outcome, whereas the chances for the Democrats in Texas in November are negligible, or none. Furthermore, I think the Obama campaign management has thoroughly figured all this out.

Predictions: Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas by 2-4%; Obama keeps R.I. close, edges Clinton in Texas delegates, and ends up the night increasing his lead in pledged delegates (now about 150) by a half-dozen.

The Wednesday meeting of the Clinton campaign presents her and Bill with a stark forecast: despite delivering narrow victories in both of the key primaries, she still has virtually no chance of winning. She at least has the small consolation of firing her advisers before she decides to quit by the weekend.

Despite taking advantage of the Texas Two-Step nonsense, Obama makes a note to abolish the elitist practice from allowed party methods of delegate selection for next time around.

CHANGE We Can Believe In

This is the singular message of the Obama campaign--on the official campaign boards, it takes a much higher billing than the actual name of the candidate. History is sure to note this slogan--but will history note that it is ungrammatical?

"Change In Which We Can Believe"--to be correct grammatically, that's how it should be said; just ask any English teacher. One doesn't end a clause with a preposition. That's how it was, but even then, it didn't sound right: the teachings were belied by our ears. That's the Professor Obama we might start hearing more of, if those who plead for less histrionics and more substance are listened to. You know what I mean. I think he's been there, and he's not going back. Vernacular rules!

It's not Ebonics; the denial of this rule in our daily speech is widespread. Secular, even.

Academy Awards Winner as Predictor of Presidential Elections

Here's the data point for tonight:
(one would suppose it's Best Picture, but I also recommend close study of Film Editing+) :

Juno--represents the key Obama constituency, the millennials. Their turnout in Iowa and footsoldier role in all the many state victories since is his core strength.

There Will Be Blood--to me, it's Clintonesque. There is determination to take one's chance and dare destiny, which applies to anyone foolhardy enough to run. But I see it as the direct challenger to its key opponent:

No Country for Old Men--Obama. A preview of the general election. Hillary's the Woody Harrelson character.

Michael Clayton--Who? I'd say McCain, vs. either HRC or BHO.

Atonement--The key group, the swing group. (Not that Obama will need any help with No Country on its behalf.) The application to the subject at hand is very interesting. Briony, the girl who told falsely, is clearly Dubya, and it's he (she, in the movie) who has much of the key to the general election.





+The Film Editing Oscar is highly predictive of the BP outcome and tonight can be read (or misread) either way if the Coens win it under a false name (and thus, the tension should be released early. Also, dispensing with mentioning the word "election" (I have a bet on a low value on the CNN channel).

Letter to Roger Cohen, IHT

RU Down w/ R2P?
See "Change You Can Believe In",
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/opinion/edcohen.php

I applaud your bringing forward the idea of "responsibility to protect" as a limitation on national sovereignty. It is an idea whose time has been long overdue.

I'm sorry the dictates of your format require a lead paragraph (and I quibble: Barack Obama didn't become a serious contender in the last week). I would suggest a better lede would have been how the "internal" issue of Darfur has become an international one with the violence in Chad--and how that happens all the time (think of the connection of Rwanda and the war in the Congo area). Such an argument is more likely to convince the hard-headed pragmatists that this expansion of international law is necessary.

More On (Moron?) Supers

My view that Move On! and other Obama-supporting groups are wrong in urging superdelegates to hang back and declare support en masse for the National Primary Popular Vote Winner (or some other imaginary decisive conceptual outcome) comes from three fundamental perceptions:
1) The race is basically a tie and will be even more so after the last three big states vote;
2) There's a natural predisposition among some of the party hacks and elected officials toward Clinton; to overcome that would require a much more decisive Obama victory than is likely to be possible; and
3) The only outcome that would truly be a disaster would be a bunch of party officials proclaiming themselves to be the arbiters and, acting in concert, throwing the contest to one side or the other in the months after the primaries and before the convention.

I think it's important to point out that 3) would be a disaster for the party no matter which way they threw it, or based on whatever evidence they chose to cite.

The best solution is to have as many superdelegates as possible announce their intentions sooner, rather than later. If they want to wait for popular validation of their leanings, fine, do it after Ohio/Texas, or after Pennsylvania. Not that those are really going to decide anything. It would be better if more of them declare earlier; that way, the voters can react to superdelegate endorsements at the ballot box--in at least a couple of states.

If the number of uncommitted delegates going into the last month before the convention is very small, the chances that neither candidate (in a two-candidate race) could get a majority will be very small. (From statistics: The probability of any particular point outcome in a continuous distribution is 0--this is discrete but with such a high number of "observations", it's close to being continuous.) If, by some chance, it comes out 2024-2024, with 1 for Kucinich (guess who?), OK, we'll take another ballot. It would be the most fascinating thing to happen in a convention in at least 40 years, hardly a disaster. One must avoid the appearance of a fixed outcome at all costs, unless it goes multiple ballots, in which case a backroom deal is a necessity. Again, this should not happen unless there is a significant number for some third nominated candidate, which does not seem likely (there are apparently about a dozen Edwards delegates still committed to him).

If We're the Front-Runner...

...why doesn't it feel like we're winning?

This week's primaries in Washington ("beauty" only), Wisconsin, and Hawaii should all go to Obama. Wisconsin's getting the attention because it's close, but the other two will be more significant. A large Obama win in Hawaii should help pad his lead (to about 100 delegates, by most counts), and the narrow outcome likely in Wisconsin will really only matter to those counting state victories or imagining that there is some kind of momentum shift going on.

There is no momentum--this race has basically been a tie for a month or more. Obama's recent win streak is just playing out his advantages in these states--advantages which were apparent to all. He does have a small edge in delegates, but after this week things get tougher.

Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania--those are the big states left (though there are a couple of medium-sized ones worth mentioning, like North Carolina and Kentucky). The conventional wisdom is that Hillary needs to win all three to get the nomination, but that she would indeed get it if she did so. The argument is not that she would make up the ground in pledged delegates by winning them, but that she would then be able to claim wins in all the big states (basically true, except for Obama's Illinois) and that would bring enough superdelegates around to her in the end to win.

The part I don't like about this is that Obama--now that he's the "frontrunner"--is being set up for being taken down a notch. This is the game the media have been playing all along--build them up, so you can cut them down. Ohio and Texas each show something like a 15-point margin for Hillary today (Pennsylvania is closer). If the only way a candidate can win his nomination is by making up huge deficits, that doesn't sound like much of a front-runner.

The Huckabee Factor

Conspiracy theorists should like this one (sounds like a thriller title, no?) The hypothesis is that McCain's campaign people should actually like the fact that Huck, who's really no threat to defeat McCain and win the nomination, is staying in the race. Here's why:

Think of a population of 10% or so of the general election voters who we can call "Potential McCain Voters" (or PMV's). These people are mostly independents, and the hypothesis (which actually seems quite likely) is that their second choice would be Barack Obama. In an open primary (which is the case in both Ohio and Texas), they can go either way.

Now look at the Texas poll results released last week showing McCain leading only 45-41 over Huckleberry. If you were a PMV, and you were thinking you'd go ahead and vote for Obama because the Republican race were over, that might give you cause to re-think and show up for Johnny Mac on March 4. This could cut something out of Obama's vote and tend to give the edge in the Texas Democratic vote to Hillary. Which is what McCain & Co. want. Q.E.D.

The same argument does not apply as well in Ohio, where McCain has a seemingly safe 50-33 lead over Huckabee in the most recent polling. Here one would expect PMV's to consider voting for Obama as the surest way to stop Hillary.

Ohio or Texas?

This must be the question vexing the Obama campaign leadership at this time. I don't think it's the same for the HRC campaign, where it's got to be both.

These two states pose very different problems for Obama. Ohio is, of course, a key swing state, with a very strong tradition for electing moderates in its statewide elections. The Democrats are ascendant for now, with a moderate Democratic governor (Clinton-supporting) and the suburban blue-collar vote predominates.

When you think of "prominent Texas Democrat" you think of...nobody who's alive today. It's unclear what kind of character, if any, the state's party presents. I would say that Obama should win the two largest cities, Houston and Dallas, fairly handily, while Clinton should win most of the 200 or so other counties (I don't exaggerate). To me, the swing areas that could determine the outcome are the heavily Hispanic cities of San Antonio and El Paso. Again, based on prior voting patterns from other states, an uphill battle. And then there's that Huckabee Factor.

In the debates leading up to these primaries, then, Obama needs to come across as a credible centrist challenger to Clinton, avoiding being categorized as a left-winger. He needs to put his vaunted ground game into play to counteract party machine forces going against him in both states. He has the money to buy TV in both. He should make a late decision to focus on one or the other, based on any late trends presenting an opportunity. I'd look particularly to see if Huckabee's support in Texas falls as news seeps in that he, in fact, has no chance and no business staying in the race--if so, plunge there.

Expiration Date: March 4 2008

In my last post on the horserace, I suggested that this would seem to be the time to sell.

That might still be the case, but that window will close with Ohio and Texas. If Her Royal Clinton-ness can pull off the combo win in those two biggies, I think she will still finish with the nomination, weakened as she is.

(Weakness: Today's Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with an insane 49-37 lead over Clinton. John Edwards better swallow hard before he goes the wrong way on this...)

Otherwise, with a split decision between OH and TX seeming to be the most probable outcome (don't ask me which of the two to Clinton and which to Obama, as I wish to preserve "strategic ambiguity"!) , it will fall to my man to clinch the deal in the rugged mountains of western Pennsylvania and with the suburban hausfrau of Philly. Possible, though never easy.
His recent numbers suggest he is getting through to a more diverse audience, and that will make all the difference.

(link to follow)

Twilight of the Baby Boom?

Thus (without the question mark) was titled the Jonathan Alter piece in this week's Newsweek. I think it made some very important points, and its thesis of a political and sociological divide between the Early Boomers and Late Boomers was right on target.

Like me, he's actually right from the peak years which were neither Early nor Late Boom. He seems to feel that if you're not Early, you're Late, but no matter: I think he's way too pessimistic and dismissive of the boomers--as only a boomer should be. Obama--clearly representative of Late Boomer thinking (though no "late bloomer"!) represents only the beginning of the end of boomer political dominance (especially Early Boomer) ; these are the earliest expressions of post-boomer politics.

As I've said before, while I love the term "post-partisan", and it does fit, in the sense that Obama is clearly "post-" something, I don't think anyone should think the future's politics will not be partisan. Just that the cleavages will be somewhat different from those in the cycle now ending with the final days of Bushite Misrule.

This would seem to be the time to sell

if one wanted to sell one's Obama shares. The bid number on his winning the nomination is up to 72; on the Presidency itself it's up to 49.5.

The wins tonight were of the crushing variety; the Clinton campaign looks to be panicking; however, they had already retreated behind their fallback position to hold Texas, in order to go on and battle in Pennsylvania. If she can win both of these, I think she could still resist the Obama momentum and prevent his getting a clear majority.

Those are both tough states for Obama and states where the politics can be rough and crude. I pray for his safety.

Superdelegates, Come On!

Democratic political veteran Tad Devine (of the Mondale and Gore general election campaigns, among others) opines in the Times today that he wants the Democratic superdelegates (elected and party officials guaranteed a seat at the convention) to avoid committing to any candidate, so that they can react to the final primaries and push someone over the top, thus avoiding a convention deadlock ("Superdelegates, Back off"-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html).

This, Devine says, is what he helped Mondale do in '84--called in enough superdelegate chits to get Mondale to assured nomination status the day after Hart beat Mondale in California.

I disagree that waiting for this kind of call to decide after the last primary is what superdelegates should do. These people were given convention seats because of their presumed political expertise, specifically so that they could use their judgment to select the best candidate for the nation and party. That's what they should do.

I also disagree with the notion that superdelegates should be compelled or coerced to pledge their vote in agreement with the judgment of the primary electorate. Leaving aside the question of how that would be decided (national or local popular vote, national or local pledged delegates), they should determine for themselves the constituency they represent and do what they think best.

What I do want is the opposite of what Mr. Devine suggests. That is, they should announce their decision when they come to it, rather than holding back for one, two, or X more primary results. Once they have announced their pledges (or, if they truly cannot decide, announced their intention to remain uncommitted until a) something specific happens or b) some policy position is resolved), then the voters in the remaining primaries can decide what they think of the decisions of the superdelegates and whether they want to follow the Supers' leadership.

Finally, I question the premise Devine suggests, that Mondale had outpolled Hart in '84, and more generally, that it was a good thing that Mondale got the nomination. With all respect to Walter Mondale, a fine American and a fine Democratic senator and Vice President, does anyone think Hart would've done worse than Fritz in the '84 smackdown with Reagan? Mondale won 13 electoral votes.

Four Things for Sure When we Vote Here,,,

... in New Mexico. I'm talking contested national elections.

1. It will be close. Real close.
2. Results will be late.
3. Rio Arriba County will be mixed up with some monkey business.
and, of course,
4. "There Will Be Blood".

We're fulfilled on the first three, so we're up watching for the outbreak of number 4.

Seriously, though, New Mexico did prove that Obama's appeal can reach to Latinos. We felt here that Obama could do well, if people knew that the campaign was alive and well and reaching out to them. Our local group raised funds to buy radio ads on various stations, including ones we recorded in Spanish and in Tewa. The results here (roughly 50-45 for Obama) were good, though one can not deny there was a strong women's vote for Hillary.

The voter lists were foul--blame of whom? The frequency of provisional ballots was unusually high (I estimated about 10% at the precinct where I observed most of the day). The number to be counted far exceeds the current margin (though I heard it's up to about a thousand, favor of HRC), so it's still 2C2C.

Ultimately, the outcome of the statewide race will mean one delegate's fate. Even that's worth getting right, though, if somehow that can be done with this mess.

I'm More Than Willing To Be Proven Wrong

This is the post in which I have to admit that I predicted that Barack Obama's underdog bid would come down to the result of the Feb. 5 California primary.

Victory, said I, would come down to three areas: delegate count, the CA outcome (in delegates and in popular vote), and the unofficial national popular vote. I was glad CNN came out with the latter, though they waited until midnight or so to mention it. It was a tie, as was delegates (mas o menos). So the outcome of The Big One didn't matter so much.

Both candidates labor on. I do believe those who now estimate that the key contests appear to be Ohio and Texas--Hillary and Obama will be nearly tied going into those--with Pennsylvania to follow and validate any decision-like behavior to emerge from those two. Ohio and Texas will be tough challenges for Obama, but if he can win them he will be hard to stop. Even if he did lose California.

The California defeat (201-169 in delegates, according to my favorite tracking blog: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) resulted from a carefully considered Obama strategy. The campaign sent its troops of organizers out into flyover territory and relied on media buys in California. The results have to be judged largely successful.

Still, to go for a stale boxing analogy, he failed to land a knockout blow though she's hurt badly; this could go 15. I don't see a brokered convention, though, except in the form of a credentials challenge on the Florida and Michigan delegates. It is incumbent on Howard Dean to move to defuse this one before the convention. Otherwise, as the unknown delegates become known and the superdelegates identify their interests with one or the other, there should be no more than a handful of uncommitted going into the convention. Somebody's got to have the edge, and the spread is more likely to be greater than that uncommitted number.

In the days following her Marginal Super Tuesday Win, Clinton's Rasmussen Markets numbers have dropped sharply, probably on the news of the financing of Hillary's campaign. The offer of a debate a week from the Clintonites is a good attack angle, with Obama losing if he accepts and looking weak if he doesn't. His response has been cagey, which is wise: it would make sense for him to agree to only a couple more debates with HRC, on location in Columbus, Dallas, and/or Philadelphia. The lesson from California is that Obama does have to lend his physical presence in a committed way for the magic to happen.

I find the numbers on Rasmussen showing Obama with the highest probability of becoming our next president to be way too optimistic. He's at 37, McCain at 36.6, and Hillary at 27. (Huckabee is at 0.7, which I suppose represents the real possibility that he could be the beneficiary as running mate if McCain should die before November). I don't want to sell on my guy, so I'm staying out of that market for now, but still...

UNP: Evening in Review--II

We are waiting breathlessly here for final outcome in NM, but it looks extremely good. The reporting was delayed tremendously by a combination of ice, snow, turnout, and bad planning. The third, in particular, is a good omen for Obama, while the last may end up hurting Bill Richardson the most. The ice and snow, ultimately, were not a factor--we here in Taos turned up consistently, all day. Did not get the local results, though--will post those here later as a comment.

I was poll observer for the Obama campaign in the main polling place in town. All of the problems were ones caused by unexpectedly large turnout.


From the Obama point of view, this can all be only good news.


From the Rasmussen Markets point of view, a successful outcome in NM is key to a successful night. My expectations were very accurate, but my trading execution was not. I lost $400 on the CA primary when I tried to hedge my winning position on Obama tonight (his value had gone way up) and I ended up going the wrong direction on the Clinton account (selling her, when I should have picked a convenient price and bought her winning). We had a sizable winner on MN, a smaller one on DE, a well-priced loss on MA (I thought) , and a very small loss on NJ (going for the pricing on the longshot).


Obama's narrow loss in CA did overshadow his later victory in MO and the impressive one here in NM.

UNP: Evening in Review--I

I loved the CNN graphic on the national vote--combined with delegates won on the night--but it took them until after midnight EST to bring it out. It showed HRC ahead "49-48", though actually she was only ahead by 100,000 votes on 12 million (0.1% lead, instead of 1%). I wonder if they got the people behind the numbers in the caucuses...

I think things are on target for very close to a draw on delegates won for the night.

Even CNN is not even close to keeping up with projections on the CD-level delegates; with 76% of the popular vote in (as they had on that graphic), they had only assigned about half the delegates won for the night. In order to keep up with the vote, one would have to use prior elections to project CD's and use Chi-squared-type monitoring to see whether there's enough data to reject the null--for most of the delegates--and then look closer (systematically, with a program) at the tie-breaking rules and how they would play out in each individual case.

UNP--Final Preview Notes

I did the spreadsheet analysis on delegates. It turns out, that if one assumes that both HRC and BHO compete in all or most states, each winning a few, and a couple big (i.e., IL for Obama, NY for Clinton) the proportional representation provisions are going to drive toward a very close result on the night. For the record, I came up with Clinton 843-818 in my exercise. Then I stopped.

The move in overall preferences in the last few days suggests that using formulas on the demographics in each state won't help that much. Also, the trend seems to be toward Obama for some of the smaller states (like Idaho, Delaware).

It should be interesting, and California, still, will decide the night. In both parties: McCain will have a slam-bang evening which Romney could throw off with a win there.

UNP Predictions--Pt I

Posted as a comment on CNN article citing the recent Field Poll (allegedly post-Edwards) showing Clinton over Obama with a statistically insignificant 36-34 lead ("with 18% undecided"--does that mean 12% committed to Others? Seems unlikely.):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/03/poll-suggests-obama-clinton-in-dead-heat-in-california/#comment-450480


I'm doing a more serious spreadsheet analysis for tomorrow, but I'll go with some intuitive prediction (based on a national 46-46 tie, with 8% "OTHER" or "True Undecided" (subject to decision in the last day) after Edwards votes are allocated:

Unofficial National Primary popular vote: 50-47 Clinton
Feb. 5 delegates won: Obama 870-810 (one undecided)
States won (popular vote): Clinton 14-8

(not counting Amer. Samoa, Americans Abroad)

Given this split decision,
the key to claiming a Perceived Victory is California. Obama will edge Clinton there, 48-46, and win the delegate count 205-165. By a narrow margin, Obama will be perceived to have the edge coming of Super Tuesday, though this will not be established until well into Super Wednesday (EST).

The eight states I'm coming up with, a priori, for Obama are:
Open primaries: AL, IL, and GA; Closed primary: NM; and Semi-open primary CA.
Open caucuses ND and MN; and Closed caucus KS.

The only ones I would consider to be upsets are NM for Obama and CO (Closed caucus) for Clinton.

Rasmussen MKTS Update on UNP-D; Some of my Bets

CA still looks like a bargain to bet on Obama, with the current prices at 63-35 HRC vs. 60-40 on the overall nomination. I would want to look more closely at the delegate allotments per district there, but I don't buy the argument that Obama's pattern of likely results (big wins in some African-American districts, narrow losses in the rest) means he will not get his fair share of delegates at the end of the day: so far he's been drawing delegates above his popular vote %. If a district has an even number of delegates, he'd still get half in a close race that he loses.

In terms of states, the new states in the Rasmussen betting pool have mostly sorted themselves out (and they've added NY finally). It looks like this:

2 States Decisive Clinton (80% or more for, with Obama less than 20%): OK, NY
7 Probable Clinton (67% or more for; Obama less than 33%, so 2-1 odds or more): NJ, AZ, AR, MA (borderline, at 67-31), NM (84-29), TN (83-25--has clarified, "like buddah"), UT.
3 Leaning Clinton: MO 67-39, DE 73-35, CA 63-35.
6 More or less even (both 40+): AL, CO, CT, MN, AK, ID (all except MN with 10-25% edges currently to Obama).
1 Probable Obama: KS (25-80)
3 Decisive Obama: GA, IL, and the surprising ND (17-84).

So the CNN bet on which candidate will win the most states--meaningless as it is--looks like a probable win for HRC: 9-4, 12-4, or 13-9, depending on how much precision you assign to these odds.

I've been playing CA successfully (against the Obama nomination odds) and playing around with some of the other bets. The one I like best is on the number of seats the Democrats will hold (I believe that would exclude both Independents--the Democrat Sanders of VT and the future Republican Lieberman of CT). To me, it's a close call whether to go with 51-55 Dems or 56-60. Unlike the other races, which are driven away from the unstable 50-50 position as the day of decision nears, there are many 0-1 "random" variables at play in this one, which makes it likely this could remain a close bet--and thus a little more interesting--all the way to the end.


The new arbitrage play I recommend is on the Pennsylvania primary, which is absurdly late and for some reason has been out there to bet upon for a long time. One has to assume that a primary that late and that major will go for the presumptive nominee if there is one, which means it can be played against the overall nominee odds. The chances of a brokered convention for the Democrats are now pegged at 13%, which seems way too high for a two-way (excuse me, 3-way) Democratic race. You can bet I'm betting against that outcome.

So, It's Down to a 3-Way Race...

...that's Hillary, Obama, and Gravel.

Edwards' move to withdraw is the most dramatic event to occur so far in this final, hectic week before the Unofficial National Primary.

It has put a large element of unpredictability in the overall Democratic results we can expect for Feb. 5. The polls without Edwards in them are few and far between--at least the ones being quoted; however, I can well imagine the direct Clinton-Obama matchup has been tested for weeks by the candidates' pollsters, including Edwards'. How else could Edwards assess the math and determine that his most significant impact would be to withdraw and endorse no one?

I feel that his strategy at this point is to let events take their run in the UNP; then, if Obama wins CA, to endorse him.

....And 4 in the Boring Race...
by my count (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul).

What's really boring about the Republicans is their quest for conformity, their obvious pack behavior. McCain's winner-take-all triumph in Florida has started a landslide of the Republican establishment that can end only one way. So far, it's the "moderates", like Rudy and Arnold, but eventually those who see themselves as "mainstream Republican" fish will all swim with the other minnows to the Only Candidate Who Can Prevent Disaster. A few outliers will remain outside McCain's eddy to be scooped up by Ron Paul's 3rd party bid, Obama if he wins, or just Stay Home. Sounds like a plan.

Rasmussen Mkts on UNP States

Rasmussen opened up trading this week on a whole bunch of new states involved in the Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5. Up until then, they only had California and, for some reason, New Jersey (thought to be competitive?)

This week they added 15 more states and trading on who will win those--for some reason not NY (and I'm assuming it's not because it's too one-sided--they have IL).

New Ones

A few showed big momentum after Obama's win in SC yesterday. In most he moved up. CO actually had a poll out today showing Obama in a slight (statistically insignificant) lead, which threw that state's trading into turmoil. He also rose a lot, or Clinton dropped a lot (but not necessarily both) in some of the Southern states: AL (both), AR (Clinton drop), TN (Clinton drop).

When the races are contested, the sum of the trading values (considered to be like probabilities) can add up to a lot more or less than 100--which should be a temporary condition driven by a few traders with strong ideas. The contracts are traded independently, though no doubt many traders work both sides for both candidates.

Obama clearly leading: AL 70-26, GA 82.6-35, IL 95-5.

Contested:

• CO 60-65 (!),
• KS 75-45 (Obama way up to day--perhaps it was discovered his mother was from there),
• MA 36-85 (Obama down 14 today; state in flux with Kennedy about to announce his endorsement),
• MN 75-40 (big movement up for Obama and down for Clinton today),
• MO 67-70 (Obama up 22, Clinton down 15 today, which still adds up to over 130%),
• NM 50-70 (very unstable),
• TN 47-55 (very interesting; Clinton down 27 today).

Clinton still with convincing leads:
AZ 30-75, AR 17-67, CT 7-87, OK 21-65, NJ 25-82 (despite some firming for Obama today),
UT 42-70 (with 25 for "Field"--an Edwards stronghold? Or Mitt-mania spilling over to the Dems?)

Summary: Despite some interesting movement, HRC is still deemed likely to win a plurality of the 16 states above. By my count, 7 to 3 with four races' markets (NM, MO, MN, and KS) in chaos and two (TN and CO) judged to be very close.

The Main Event

Clinton to win CA is now at 80(%), Obama at 22. Last night Obama closed at 30, and today it traded between 18 and 25 for the most part.

This is a big disconnect with the probability for Obama to win the nomination, which is at 37.6 (Clinton at 62), up quite a bit from yesterday's average trade of around 31, and up a little less from the opening trading today at 35.

As I've suggested before, either that number is too high (and I'm not believing it is anymore) or the CA number for Obama is too low/Clinton's too high, or I'm completely wrong and a Democrat can actually win the nomination without winning CA. I'm betting on the middle case, not taking much risk on the nomination itself yet. Looking at the Order Book, there is some support for selling Obama in CA if he gets up to 40%, which makes sense to me.

The Non-Event

Trading in the Republican states, particularly the ones just added to the list of markets available, has been light so far, and most states have way over 100%--which means to me that a few partisan traders have entered their opinions, but most have no clue what's going on. Include me among those: I have no knowledge about state party races for the Republicans.

I think trading on these new markets will be very light until after the Florida vote on Tuesday. Then, perhaps, some ideas will clarify about whether McCain or Romney is winning the overall race (FL trading is spirited for both right now, with Romney leading on the basis of the most recent polls with him ahead), and whether Giuliani is still around, and whether Huckabee is still a serious factor in the Southern states.

Overall, the McCain for President number has gone up a bit too much (at 22, vs. Clinton at 38 and Obama at 20; I bought some of him at 15 a week ago), and I think I'm going to short him a bit. He hasn't proven he can win a closed Republican primary yet, and he will need to in order to get the nomination. After Florida, if he wins I'll reduce my risk on the best terms available; if he loses his price will plummet and I will take my profit.

Note that the penalty the Republicans imposed on early unauthorized states (of 1/2 their delegates) doesn't seem to have prevented competition in those states, whereas the Democrats' unyielding (but untenable) position in FL and MI has worked (except for HRC wanting to change the rules at this late date).

New York Times, feh!

I hear the NYT has endorsed Hillary while dissing Obama; endorsed McCain while dissing Giuliani.
Rather than a link to such a pernicious screed, I refer the wise reader to my memorably titled posting, "Democratic Prez Endorsement Pt. 2" (subtitled, "Tactical Endorsement". Lame!)

The reasoning is all the more validated, though, by the evident decision, forced by the Iowa primary results, that Mark Penn and the Clintons made to employ tag-team mud-wrestling as their tactic of choice. So, that gives my "tactical endorsement" more clarity--I don't like their tactics, I do like his!

http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/11/democratic-prez-endorsement-pt-2.html

Michigan/Florida Delegates Don't Matter

...and I can prove it.


HRC has said she will back the Michigan delegates (and presumably those coming out of the Florida primary as well) and TPM tHead Josh Marshall has blown his stack. He should chill.

Obama and Edwards should register their objection to the delegates coming out of the Michigan and Florida primaries, and that should be that. The only way they'd be seated is if Hillary gets a majority of the 4045 remaining delegates (excluding those two).

If Obama has a majority of the 4045, he would logically be generous and allow the Clintonites of the two states (the notable ones like Ben Nelson, Debbie Stabenow) a fair share of the actual seats in the final delegations. A fair share would not be the same as the allocation coming out of the (illegal) primary and would be such that it could not possibly upset the majority he would bring to Denver. So, if his margin is shaky, he would be less generous to Clinton (and more generous to, say, Edwards).

If it doesn't get to the convention, then it didn't matter anyway. If it does, its resolution could be a proxy for the real thing, and in that sense could be decisive, but it could never change the allocation of forces from what it is without Michigan and Florida represented.

I actually consider this something of a bizaree Win/Win for the DNC and the states themselves (as long as they are smart enough to make up at the end, and I assume they will be). The DNC did not want to let renegade states create future chaos in the primary schedule, and these two states are indeed punished. As I say, their delegates can not change the outcome, no matter what their fate. The two states seem desperate for attention, and they got some. Not much, though. The state leaders who pushed it are appropriately chastised.

Of course, it could end up being a Lose/Lose, fitting into the improbable theme now developing: How the Democrats Blew a Sure Thing!

As the Bushites to Swiftboating....

...the Clintons are to "Whitewater Rafting"!

That's the phrase I suggest we can use to refer informally to their mud tag-team wrestling tactics.

It gets them in a tender spot, and it conveys such a great visual image of HRC and Hubby going down the river, going wherever the stream best floats their boat.

More Advice for Brother Barack

Obviously, I think the key to Obama winning is an effective media barrage in California, and I'd add especially in Northern California.

In the meantime, I'd like to suggest an unorthodox idea--a photo op scheduling visit to former President Jimmy Carter. Not to get his endorsement (though of course if it's forthcoming that would be great); more to get him to say something to the effect of, "It's unseemly for a former President to take such an active partisan role, even on behalf of his wife, but particularly to engage in negative attacks."

Carter's well-deserved reputation as "a great Ex-President" would give whatever statement he might give some resonance. I think Barack and Michelle on the lawn with Jimmy and Rosalynn would be a superb video bit.

While he's there, Barack Obama should talk to Jimmy about his experiences as President. Could save us all a lot of trouble down the road.

I think there is huge affinity between Obama's experience and Carter's. While there is no precedent for much of what is happening this year, I think references to 1976 are more relevant than those of 1992, Clinton's year. Nineteen seventy-six was the last time when the national Republicans' prestige was so low, and the Democrats produced a candidate of relatively short political experience who gained national attention through a hopeful message for change and retail politicking.