Stoner: in your previous post, "Obama Disappoints",
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.
Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.
Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.
Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.
Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.
Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.
As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.
In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Obama Disappoints
It came as no surprise that Obama has rejected Fed funds for the general election campaign; to do otherwise would be to give up a huge advantage over John McCain. I wish he had not done so; to reject public campaign financing is close to a core issue that he has totally given up to his opponent. Since he was going to do so, though, he should have come clean, admitted it was a pragmatic move, and at least that way kept some of the high ground. Instead, his argument for rejecting it sounds weaselly--we know it is not perfect, what in the American system is?--and hypocritical.
I toy with the idea of giving Obama no more campaign contributions, after the one I have already committed to for him (54.40--a phrase from American History, as in "54-forty or fight", the rallying cry against Britain over the Oregon Territory from the 1840's--the Democrats eventually gave up that extremist, jingoist position). Obama campaign came up with some rationale for that one (not the historical one I just cited) , somehow, and I like that it distinguishes from the ordinary commitment amount. We'll see whether my financial ire passes, and whether he will need money, anyway.
I toy with the idea of giving Obama no more campaign contributions, after the one I have already committed to for him (54.40--a phrase from American History, as in "54-forty or fight", the rallying cry against Britain over the Oregon Territory from the 1840's--the Democrats eventually gave up that extremist, jingoist position). Obama campaign came up with some rationale for that one (not the historical one I just cited) , somehow, and I like that it distinguishes from the ordinary commitment amount. We'll see whether my financial ire passes, and whether he will need money, anyway.
Monday, June 16, 2008
More Real-Life Drama
Hollywood fodder is coming fast these days:
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
HuffPost Post
This was in response to a posting by Stephen Schlesinger, "Why the Democracy League Won't Work," and a comment supporting his general thesis, that a league of democracies isn't feasible as a stand-alone organization, apart from the United Nations.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five
I'd like to announce my new unofficial partnership with Rasmussen Reports and Rasmussen Markets.com. Two-forty-five is the magic number for McCain's electoral defeat this year--if we can hold him to that figure in the projections of state/Electoral College outcomes going into Election Day, then we will win. If it looks any closer than that, we will have an official nail-biter.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
Russert
I'm not going to take the obvious lesson of Tim Russert's sudden, shocking death by heart attack. Overwork seems to be the occupational hazard, the dangerous part, of the journalistic career he chose, and he took it on joyously.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
Euro 2008: Initial Impressions
I don't like the way the Olympics are organized. National Olympic committees raise the funds and send the athletes, and it's all around jingoistic national pride. Furthermore, it is totally inconsistent with the original (Greek) Olympiad, which was about individual honor and glory (not that we need more of that in today's society). If I had my way, all the team sports would be eliminated from the Olympics, the medal count by country would be an interesting incidental statistic (like the popular vote in the primaries), and the Opening Ceremony would no longer have people marching around the track organized by country (more like the Closing Ceremony, which is a lot of fun).
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Footprints Filled With Water
Everybody's buzz word this day is "footprint"--our mark on the world. We--most of us--are looking for ways to reduce our "carbon footprint", though I don't see much evidence that we are reducing the size of our physical footprint. One thing we did, and I think it will catch on very soon, with the huge rise in the cost of building materials, is to build on what's there, instead of building anew.
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
Massive Celtics' Win
Tonight in game 4 of the playoff finals, the Boston Celtics came back from a 20+ point deficit in the first half and won. As bad as they were in the first half is how good they were in the second. Congratulations to the Celtics on the key road win.
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
- 20% chance the Celtics wrap it on the road in Game 5;
- 60% chance they lose, but win at home in Game 6 and finish it;
- 15% chance they lose twice but suck it up to win Game 7; and
- 5% they lose three straight times.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Intervention Less Ordinary
Former Secretary of State Madeleleine Albright had an excellent editorial in today's New York Times called "The End of Intervention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11albright.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). In it, she makes the case that the Bushite invasion of Iraq has undermined the internationalists' case for intervening in the affairs of nation-states, no matter how awful they act (particularly when it relates to outrages within their borders).
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sports Update
Nothing is settled in the resumption of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry at the highest level. Not only is 2-0, two wins at home, not in any way conclusive, I don't think even the full series' result will settle things. This is going to go on for years, like in the '80's (and early '60's).
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Congrats to The Man
I've been a little negligent in congratulating Obama on clinching the nomination. I've gone through the standard gamut of reactions--anger at Hillary for not conceding gracefully on time, relief when she finally did, pleasure at the start of the bump in the polls I expect over the next few weeks. Nothing very original about that, but mostly I was just too busy. I was also pleased to be wrong in my prediction on the timing of achievement of the Magic Number (Remember the song "This Magic Moment"?) , as the Obama camp had lined up the enedorsements so he clinched the nod a day earlier than I thought.
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
Sunday, June 01, 2008
PR: Si Mi, FL/MI
On Fareed Zakaria's new show GPS, the E.U.'s Ambassador to the U.S. (who knew there was one?), an Irishman named John Bruton, said in a discussion about foreign views of the Presidential campaign that, speaking for the foreign community, "we have learned about new territorial units in the U.S. and their relation to the political process, of which we had never heard before."
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
3 Short Bits
A test to see whether I can overcome my prolixity:
Eve of the RBC
Of the various scenarios mooted, I see the outcome being FL/MI getting all pledged delegates seated with half-votes; SD's get their full votes (though a just decision would include a penalty on the voting of any of the SD's who made this mess possible, e.g. Carl Levin).
DemConWatch pegged this scenario a week ago (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html).
Based on their analysis then, the Magic Number is changed to 2130.5, and Obama would be 93 short, in terms of committed delegates, with 338 out there yet to be won. This outcome would not change the over/under on the day Obama would clinch; it would remain June 4. Given this fact, Obama should go along with this outcome, even though it temporarily would reduce his delegate lead from the current 200 by about 50. He would get most of them back as the Edwards/uncommitted/undeclared delegates shake out.
Electoral College Map 0.2
Rasmussen--Virginia is the third state currently in the toss-up range (40-60), along with Nevada and New Hampshire. I think the movement is due to the groundswell for Jim Webb as V.P. and some thought that would swing the state toward Obama. Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio are the ones more solidly expected to switch from the 2004 results. I've experienced too many Virginia elections to believe this one, though.
S.D., P.R. in Play?
Today there was some strong support for Hillary in South Dakota, and the expected value of her winning (that's what the state bet means) jumped from the .05-.07 range to the .10-.15 range. I don't see any reason for it, and bet against it yesterday at .115.
The Puerto Rico number for Obama remains low at about .035, which seems reasonable. He doesn't want to go after a win so much as a 40% kind of showing, which will get him sooner to the Magic Number, whatever it is or becomes. It's probably worth a visit down, and I hope he's got his thoughts together. In New York Urban Spanglish.
Eve of the RBC
Of the various scenarios mooted, I see the outcome being FL/MI getting all pledged delegates seated with half-votes; SD's get their full votes (though a just decision would include a penalty on the voting of any of the SD's who made this mess possible, e.g. Carl Levin).
DemConWatch pegged this scenario a week ago (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html).
Based on their analysis then, the Magic Number is changed to 2130.5, and Obama would be 93 short, in terms of committed delegates, with 338 out there yet to be won. This outcome would not change the over/under on the day Obama would clinch; it would remain June 4. Given this fact, Obama should go along with this outcome, even though it temporarily would reduce his delegate lead from the current 200 by about 50. He would get most of them back as the Edwards/uncommitted/undeclared delegates shake out.
Electoral College Map 0.2
Rasmussen--Virginia is the third state currently in the toss-up range (40-60), along with Nevada and New Hampshire. I think the movement is due to the groundswell for Jim Webb as V.P. and some thought that would swing the state toward Obama. Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio are the ones more solidly expected to switch from the 2004 results. I've experienced too many Virginia elections to believe this one, though.
S.D., P.R. in Play?
Today there was some strong support for Hillary in South Dakota, and the expected value of her winning (that's what the state bet means) jumped from the .05-.07 range to the .10-.15 range. I don't see any reason for it, and bet against it yesterday at .115.
The Puerto Rico number for Obama remains low at about .035, which seems reasonable. He doesn't want to go after a win so much as a 40% kind of showing, which will get him sooner to the Magic Number, whatever it is or becomes. It's probably worth a visit down, and I hope he's got his thoughts together. In New York Urban Spanglish.
A Game of Consequence
That was actually Game 4 of the Spurs-Lakers series, not tonight's finale. One of the major contending teams lost at home (the previous consequential game was San Antonio's Game 7 win at New Orleans).
The game turned on a non-call (at home!) on the final play, a surprising finish and one that doesn't fit with my overall assessment of how NBA games are officiated.
To set the scene, Spurs with the ball down two. Brent Barry faked a shot, got fouled on an over-reaction by Derrick Fisher. After a collision, Barry dodged him, then got off a desperation lunge for a potentially-winning 3-pointer which missed badly.
The NBA league office today admitted the play should have been called as a two-shot foul. That would be more in line with expected behavior, and it happens to be the correct call. What they need in the rules is the idea which is called "playing the advantage" in soccer. The referee raises his hand when the foul occurs, but does not blow the whistle and call the defensive foul until the play is complete, so as not to take away the advantage if the offense can overcome the foul and score.
Would this take away the "continuation play", the "and-one" that is so popular on the street these days? Not necessarily; the situation is different because of the high rate of conversion in basketball and the low rate in soccer.
The game turned on a non-call (at home!) on the final play, a surprising finish and one that doesn't fit with my overall assessment of how NBA games are officiated.
To set the scene, Spurs with the ball down two. Brent Barry faked a shot, got fouled on an over-reaction by Derrick Fisher. After a collision, Barry dodged him, then got off a desperation lunge for a potentially-winning 3-pointer which missed badly.
The NBA league office today admitted the play should have been called as a two-shot foul. That would be more in line with expected behavior, and it happens to be the correct call. What they need in the rules is the idea which is called "playing the advantage" in soccer. The referee raises his hand when the foul occurs, but does not blow the whistle and call the defensive foul until the play is complete, so as not to take away the advantage if the offense can overcome the foul and score.
Would this take away the "continuation play", the "and-one" that is so popular on the street these days? Not necessarily; the situation is different because of the high rate of conversion in basketball and the low rate in soccer.
Party of Lincoln Becomes That of Bushite
Or "Party of Bushites" (P.O.B.), if you're thinking individuals, as opposed to philosophy (or, more accurately, "Bushite" is a summary of practices as there is no philosophy involved).
To a much greater extent than the Democratic party has ceased to be the party of Jefferson and Jackson, the Republicans have yielded their claim to anything occurring before 1980. Part of that amnesiac process was throwing off the burden of Nixon. In the end, he dealt the party a severe blow, because his leadership within the party was entirely focused on himself, and he took the whole thing down with him when he left in shame. Same prospect with Dubya and the Bushites.
McCain's nomination should be viewed as what it is: a desperate act by a failed political party. Coming from the same elective position as the greatest Republican landslide loser since FDR, McCain has revived the maverick political stylings on a hard-right framework that was Barry Goldwater's formula for success.
What's worse for them is the double-bladed consequence of McCain's nomination this year:
1) he's unlikely to last eight years if he wins; and
2) based on the primary campaign, there's no bench strength.
People talk about how Obama is a risk: McCain is the only thing standing between the party and the abyss of permanent minority status (among other things--like every issue, at present--the demographics will work against them in the future). It's a crap shoot, and the Republicans are trying to make snake eyes.
To a much greater extent than the Democratic party has ceased to be the party of Jefferson and Jackson, the Republicans have yielded their claim to anything occurring before 1980. Part of that amnesiac process was throwing off the burden of Nixon. In the end, he dealt the party a severe blow, because his leadership within the party was entirely focused on himself, and he took the whole thing down with him when he left in shame. Same prospect with Dubya and the Bushites.
McCain's nomination should be viewed as what it is: a desperate act by a failed political party. Coming from the same elective position as the greatest Republican landslide loser since FDR, McCain has revived the maverick political stylings on a hard-right framework that was Barry Goldwater's formula for success.
What's worse for them is the double-bladed consequence of McCain's nomination this year:
1) he's unlikely to last eight years if he wins; and
2) based on the primary campaign, there's no bench strength.
People talk about how Obama is a risk: McCain is the only thing standing between the party and the abyss of permanent minority status (among other things--like every issue, at present--the demographics will work against them in the future). It's a crap shoot, and the Republicans are trying to make snake eyes.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hillary's RFK Thing
I go along with Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, who basically ascribes it to fatigue, arguing convincingly (on Meet the Press--way to go, Ruth!) that Hillary had no self-interest play whatsoever in her mentioning this. And she knows from self-interest.
In particular, who says Hillary would get the nomination if Obama were to be assassinated, anyway? We should remember that the core of RFK supporters avoided commitments to Humphrey and McCarthy, allowing George McGovern to make his dramatic appearance on the national stage in his bid for their votes.
I see it as basically a sentence fragment, in which she failed to finish her thought
...when RFK was assassinated in June, 1968 the nomination was by no means assured for any candidate. "
(Italicized parts added)
Which is a fact, as is the fact RFK was assassinated in June, 1968, and that politically, we can't seem to get over it. 2008 presents yet one more opportunity to finally get it right and get past it. Let's hope it's the last.
And, while I'm plugging the Post, here's an absolutely brilliant analysis by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom of the failures of Bushite policy toward Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html
In particular, who says Hillary would get the nomination if Obama were to be assassinated, anyway? We should remember that the core of RFK supporters avoided commitments to Humphrey and McCarthy, allowing George McGovern to make his dramatic appearance on the national stage in his bid for their votes.
I see it as basically a sentence fragment, in which she failed to finish her thought
...when RFK was assassinated in June, 1968 the nomination was by no means assured for any candidate. "
(Italicized parts added)
Which is a fact, as is the fact RFK was assassinated in June, 1968, and that politically, we can't seem to get over it. 2008 presents yet one more opportunity to finally get it right and get past it. Let's hope it's the last.
And, while I'm plugging the Post, here's an absolutely brilliant analysis by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom of the failures of Bushite policy toward Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html
Dramas of World-Changing Events
Oftentimes, when watching action movies that pride themselves in the accuracy of their simulations, I think that they are asking us to believe in events that, if true, would each be the greatest event in modern history, with the hero rising into the heights through a blizzard of tickertape. Think of a Die Hard, Speed, Indiana Jones, or even a Rocky (in the real world, he'd run for Governor--Pennsylvania, I guess--and win!) Why go to so much trouble for a story that couldn't possibly be real in this world?
No, I don't get it.
Anyway, there are some stories out there that really are of world-historical importance. Let's look at how a couple of them play out as dramatic fodder.
Recount
This made-for-TV debuted on HBO over the weekend. In spite of the significance of the events, Gore v. Bush is not terrain which has been mined excessively.
The hero of this well-casted dramatization was Ron Klain, former chief of staff for VP Gore, who became the Gore campaign's chief lawyer in Florida (played by Kevin Spacey). This is Klain's story: Election-night, including catching the VP stageside that night in Nashville to stop him from publicly conceding, is told mostly in arcs moving outward from his point of view, and his POV predominates in the remainder as well. There are some scenes set within the Republican camp which are honest attempts but appear founded on guesswork.
As reported elsewhere (and in real life), it's Laura Dern as Katherine Harris who steals the show and provides comic relief. Tom Wilkinson provides an excellent Jim Baker. The movie tastefully keeps both Gore and Bush out of the line of the camera, and its editing brings in plenty of real news spots (maybe too many, on re-thinking). David Boies' role was very accurately included in the story as the brilliant hired-gun lawyer who gave the Democratic case its best shot with the Supreme Court. So, overall, I'd rate it very highly as docudrama--plausible, if not unbiased.
I respect the screenwriters' efforts to explain the context of the Court's decision within the flow of the principal story, which related to the counting of ballots in Florida and Klain's leadership in keeping the Gore campaign's fight going. The moral Klain finally accepts, spoken verbatim at some point, is: "At some point you have to admit you can't win--even if you win." That advice could hardly be more timely for a certain leading lady of the currently-running drama.
They had a little trouble with the Epilogue, a doubtful event (as in, I doubt it occurred) in which Klain and Baker meet on the airport tarmac before each boards his hired jet to go back home. A little better would be a little scrutiny of how each of the Supremes now views his/her role in this fiasco, including Scalia's "Get over it".
Aye, there's the rub.
The Drama of Lincoln
I think Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a 700-page "treatment" for a movie script, and she knows it. If I were a producer I'd have already commenced negotiations with her, though I don't imagine she'll yield the rights easily.
The basic story frame of Team of Rivals is the four principal candidates for the 1860 nomination: former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, Judge Edward Bates of Missouri, Senator William Henry Seward of New York, and Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. They come together, at Lincoln's persistent invitation, into key roles in his Cabinet--a fractious bunch brought together to personify Lincoln's intention to hold together various party blocs, as he went into the crisis which started immediately upon his taking office with the Southern state secessions. The emphasis is on their family lives, how events brought them into the same arena at that crucial time, and the events of the Civil War through their perpectives.
She supplies all the ingredients for that, including numerous anecdotes humorous and tragic and easy-to-follow shooting sequences. There's even a scene where Lincoln dreams of himself, out of body, viewing his own tomb. The assassination itself includes a simultaneous assault on Seward in his home (cut back and forth as John Wilkes Booth silently closes on Ford Theater's Presidential box). An intruder brazenly comes to the Seward's house pretending to bear medicine (Seward had been injured badly in a carriage accident recently), then pulls out his pistol and knife and takes on all comers. Seward was badly slashed in the face, and his son Fred nearly killed by pistol-whipping.
Oh. I just consulted IMDb (International Movie Data Base) to see what movies on Lincoln's drama have been made. The good news: nothing since the 1940's Abraham Lincoln of Illinois (Henry Fonda as the Young Abe Lincoln).
The bad news--real bad--which I found when I dug a bit deeper, is this listing:
Lincoln (2009).
Directed by Steven Spielberg [no less].
Liam Neeson in the lead role.
Writers: Doris Kearns Goodwin (biography); Tony Kushner (screenplay).
Well, nothing really bad about any of that. Except that they were so far ahead--"Been there--done that" far ahead--of me.
Spielbergian excess, usually a bit over the top, will be merely appropriate to this tale. Just think of this ending, straight from the book: Elderly Leo Tolstoy, visiting remote Northern Caucausus tribesmen in the early 20th century, telling dramatic tales of the past--Napoleon, and Caesar. They ask, though, for him to tell them of "that great ruler of the world," Lincoln. Tolstoy's answer includes this quote from an interview he gave later in New York to The World (February, 1908):
... Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country--bigger than all the Presidents together...we are still too near to his greatness, but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.
So, one more reason to look forward to 2009.
As for Tolstoy, not shabby praise coming from the guy who still probably gets the most votes as #1 on the all-time novelist list.
Born a Unionist Democrat from Kaintuck', I've always objected to the Illinois license plate: "Land of Lincoln" (Lincoln's birthplace log cabin being, of course, in Kentucky). Now I see that I was wrong all along to feel that way: All of America is "Land of Lincoln", and we all have claim to a piece of his legacy (which, as the book carefully shows, was the whole point of Lincoln's career: Legacy. Legacy. Legacy.)
Barack Obama (I love the recent bit he offered about how his first name is, essentially, the same as the Hebrew "Baruch") has just as much claim to being Abraham's progeny as anyone not directly descended from Robert Todd Lincoln (Abe's only child surviving to make it to adulthood).
No, I don't get it.
Anyway, there are some stories out there that really are of world-historical importance. Let's look at how a couple of them play out as dramatic fodder.
Recount
This made-for-TV debuted on HBO over the weekend. In spite of the significance of the events, Gore v. Bush is not terrain which has been mined excessively.
The hero of this well-casted dramatization was Ron Klain, former chief of staff for VP Gore, who became the Gore campaign's chief lawyer in Florida (played by Kevin Spacey). This is Klain's story: Election-night, including catching the VP stageside that night in Nashville to stop him from publicly conceding, is told mostly in arcs moving outward from his point of view, and his POV predominates in the remainder as well. There are some scenes set within the Republican camp which are honest attempts but appear founded on guesswork.
As reported elsewhere (and in real life), it's Laura Dern as Katherine Harris who steals the show and provides comic relief. Tom Wilkinson provides an excellent Jim Baker. The movie tastefully keeps both Gore and Bush out of the line of the camera, and its editing brings in plenty of real news spots (maybe too many, on re-thinking). David Boies' role was very accurately included in the story as the brilliant hired-gun lawyer who gave the Democratic case its best shot with the Supreme Court. So, overall, I'd rate it very highly as docudrama--plausible, if not unbiased.
I respect the screenwriters' efforts to explain the context of the Court's decision within the flow of the principal story, which related to the counting of ballots in Florida and Klain's leadership in keeping the Gore campaign's fight going. The moral Klain finally accepts, spoken verbatim at some point, is: "At some point you have to admit you can't win--even if you win." That advice could hardly be more timely for a certain leading lady of the currently-running drama.
They had a little trouble with the Epilogue, a doubtful event (as in, I doubt it occurred) in which Klain and Baker meet on the airport tarmac before each boards his hired jet to go back home. A little better would be a little scrutiny of how each of the Supremes now views his/her role in this fiasco, including Scalia's "Get over it".
Aye, there's the rub.
The Drama of Lincoln
I think Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a 700-page "treatment" for a movie script, and she knows it. If I were a producer I'd have already commenced negotiations with her, though I don't imagine she'll yield the rights easily.
The basic story frame of Team of Rivals is the four principal candidates for the 1860 nomination: former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, Judge Edward Bates of Missouri, Senator William Henry Seward of New York, and Senator Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. They come together, at Lincoln's persistent invitation, into key roles in his Cabinet--a fractious bunch brought together to personify Lincoln's intention to hold together various party blocs, as he went into the crisis which started immediately upon his taking office with the Southern state secessions. The emphasis is on their family lives, how events brought them into the same arena at that crucial time, and the events of the Civil War through their perpectives.
She supplies all the ingredients for that, including numerous anecdotes humorous and tragic and easy-to-follow shooting sequences. There's even a scene where Lincoln dreams of himself, out of body, viewing his own tomb. The assassination itself includes a simultaneous assault on Seward in his home (cut back and forth as John Wilkes Booth silently closes on Ford Theater's Presidential box). An intruder brazenly comes to the Seward's house pretending to bear medicine (Seward had been injured badly in a carriage accident recently), then pulls out his pistol and knife and takes on all comers. Seward was badly slashed in the face, and his son Fred nearly killed by pistol-whipping.
Oh. I just consulted IMDb (International Movie Data Base) to see what movies on Lincoln's drama have been made. The good news: nothing since the 1940's Abraham Lincoln of Illinois (Henry Fonda as the Young Abe Lincoln).
The bad news--real bad--which I found when I dug a bit deeper, is this listing:
Lincoln (2009).
Directed by Steven Spielberg [no less].
Liam Neeson in the lead role.
Writers: Doris Kearns Goodwin (biography); Tony Kushner (screenplay).
Well, nothing really bad about any of that. Except that they were so far ahead--"Been there--done that" far ahead--of me.
Spielbergian excess, usually a bit over the top, will be merely appropriate to this tale. Just think of this ending, straight from the book: Elderly Leo Tolstoy, visiting remote Northern Caucausus tribesmen in the early 20th century, telling dramatic tales of the past--Napoleon, and Caesar. They ask, though, for him to tell them of "that great ruler of the world," Lincoln. Tolstoy's answer includes this quote from an interview he gave later in New York to The World (February, 1908):
... Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country--bigger than all the Presidents together...we are still too near to his greatness, but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.
So, one more reason to look forward to 2009.
As for Tolstoy, not shabby praise coming from the guy who still probably gets the most votes as #1 on the all-time novelist list.
Born a Unionist Democrat from Kaintuck', I've always objected to the Illinois license plate: "Land of Lincoln" (Lincoln's birthplace log cabin being, of course, in Kentucky). Now I see that I was wrong all along to feel that way: All of America is "Land of Lincoln", and we all have claim to a piece of his legacy (which, as the book carefully shows, was the whole point of Lincoln's career: Legacy. Legacy. Legacy.)
Barack Obama (I love the recent bit he offered about how his first name is, essentially, the same as the Hebrew "Baruch") has just as much claim to being Abraham's progeny as anyone not directly descended from Robert Todd Lincoln (Abe's only child surviving to make it to adulthood).
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Popular Process: Get it Now!
Hillary is being rigorous in adhering to the point of view that all her votes in Florida and Michigan should count. Her self-interest is transparent: The issue will help her prolong her race another couple of weeks (until enough Superdelegates shift to the Unofficial Presumptive Nominee to make FL/MI moot).
If she really felt so strongly about it, she would dedicate herself, over the next four years, toward improvements in the American political process--particularly as relates to our Federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential).
In order to find a reed to hold onto, she has grasped the idea that popular vote should determine the Ddemocratic party's nominee (big- and small-d). Hear, hear!--though the count that favors her requires disregarding anyone who participated at a caucus and counts fully even Michigan, where the voters were denied any major candidate choice except Hillary.
Unfortunately for her, the nomination is decided purely by delegate numbers. Similarly, though one might want the leader of the free world decided by voluntary, universal adult suffrage, the President is the person chosen by state winner-take-all contests.
I find that Hillary can have no real beef with the process that has undone her this time around. Obama has beaten her fair and square, though she arguably had just as great support in the party throughout the campaign. The elected delegates of the party are the most true form of representative election to be found in this country; the superdelegates a mild attempt to preserve a modicum of party sanity. Caucuses are, indeed, less democratic, but we've left this to the states to decide, and so you get the patchwork.
I return to what would get this straightened out: in the general election, nothing less than abolition of the Electoral College by constitutional amendment. We need to junk this 18th-century artifact which was badly designed in the first place (look at the 1800 mess), never reformed to correspond to the advances in suffrage, and continues to show its ability to create mischief.
As for the parties, the DNC would announce its Unofficial National Primary Day a year or so ahead of the fact--it should be sometime in May or June. States that held their primaries on that day (or within a month afterward) would have their expenses paid by the national party, which would ensure that vote-counting standards were maintained (some state parties have not done so well on that, like my own NM this year). State parties could go up to 90 days before UNP Day if they paid the prices--some penalty in delegates (there is already some assessed in both parties), and covering the cost of the operation.
To facilitate this outcome, Congress should pass a law prohibiting state governments from paying for party primaries--these are essentially private affairs, and it is unfair to charge Independents any cost of their execution.
The Republicans would be forced by pragmatism and respect for the popular will to go along, though they could still count their delegates funny, with winner-take-all everywhere, or just in the states that they care about, or whatever. The Democrats should keep their system combining elected delegates and superdelegates (though encouraging the primary route, particularly on UNP Day). The changes I proposed would shorten the primary season, the election campaign as a whole, and hopefully move the country toward a true, national primary. 'Til then I'd gladly settle for the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday), as long as it's some months later in the year than the Super Bowl.
Hillary should announce her intentions in San Juan before the June 1 primary, devoting herself also to the democratic fairness issues of statehood for D.C. and for Puerto Rico (great idea for a pander, too!) With luck and Obama's support (and why shouldn't he--it would keep her busy), she could have all those revisions in by 2012, which should facilitate Democratic re-election.
If she really felt so strongly about it, she would dedicate herself, over the next four years, toward improvements in the American political process--particularly as relates to our Federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential).
In order to find a reed to hold onto, she has grasped the idea that popular vote should determine the Ddemocratic party's nominee (big- and small-d). Hear, hear!--though the count that favors her requires disregarding anyone who participated at a caucus and counts fully even Michigan, where the voters were denied any major candidate choice except Hillary.
Unfortunately for her, the nomination is decided purely by delegate numbers. Similarly, though one might want the leader of the free world decided by voluntary, universal adult suffrage, the President is the person chosen by state winner-take-all contests.
I find that Hillary can have no real beef with the process that has undone her this time around. Obama has beaten her fair and square, though she arguably had just as great support in the party throughout the campaign. The elected delegates of the party are the most true form of representative election to be found in this country; the superdelegates a mild attempt to preserve a modicum of party sanity. Caucuses are, indeed, less democratic, but we've left this to the states to decide, and so you get the patchwork.
I return to what would get this straightened out: in the general election, nothing less than abolition of the Electoral College by constitutional amendment. We need to junk this 18th-century artifact which was badly designed in the first place (look at the 1800 mess), never reformed to correspond to the advances in suffrage, and continues to show its ability to create mischief.
As for the parties, the DNC would announce its Unofficial National Primary Day a year or so ahead of the fact--it should be sometime in May or June. States that held their primaries on that day (or within a month afterward) would have their expenses paid by the national party, which would ensure that vote-counting standards were maintained (some state parties have not done so well on that, like my own NM this year). State parties could go up to 90 days before UNP Day if they paid the prices--some penalty in delegates (there is already some assessed in both parties), and covering the cost of the operation.
To facilitate this outcome, Congress should pass a law prohibiting state governments from paying for party primaries--these are essentially private affairs, and it is unfair to charge Independents any cost of their execution.
The Republicans would be forced by pragmatism and respect for the popular will to go along, though they could still count their delegates funny, with winner-take-all everywhere, or just in the states that they care about, or whatever. The Democrats should keep their system combining elected delegates and superdelegates (though encouraging the primary route, particularly on UNP Day). The changes I proposed would shorten the primary season, the election campaign as a whole, and hopefully move the country toward a true, national primary. 'Til then I'd gladly settle for the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday), as long as it's some months later in the year than the Super Bowl.
Hillary should announce her intentions in San Juan before the June 1 primary, devoting herself also to the democratic fairness issues of statehood for D.C. and for Puerto Rico (great idea for a pander, too!) With luck and Obama's support (and why shouldn't he--it would keep her busy), she could have all those revisions in by 2012, which should facilitate Democratic re-election.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Drogba Goes the Way of Zidane
In today's Champion's League final, Chelsea and Manchester United went all the way through extra time tied, 1-1, and Man U. won on penalties, 6-5 (each team had 7 penalty attempts, after finishing the first five at 4-4). It was tense, mostly pretty slow, though often filled with drama, and ultimately unfulfilling to me.
The pain was lessened by recognition of the enormous effort all had to give to resolve this marathon stalemate. The conditions at Moscow's Luzhniki Stadium, which took out its artificial turf and planted (poorly) sod grass for this event, were rainy, soggy, and generally unacceptable. This contributed to the nature of the second half and extra time; that 75 minutes had no goals, and few good opportunities.
There were a lot of big-name players, and with their undoubted big egos, many of them probably thought the whole thing revolved about his own contributions: Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, who scored the Man U. goal but failed to convert his penalty shot at the end; Terry, the Blues' captain, who saved a sure goal with a header over the bar in extra time, and then had the game-winning penalty shot at his feet, but slipped and missed it wide; the Devils' Carlos Tevez, who probably should've been red-carded (ejected) at one point, and imposed his will on the game several times to create chances to score, but could not get a break; Lampard, who probably thought his goal was due to divine intervention (it was certainly lucky), but then watched his game-winner strike squarely off the crossbar, then got no opportunity in the deciding shootout (why not? one must ask). The deeper reality is that, most of the game, the flow revolved around Michael Essian, who had the task to control Ronaldo and did so, with the exception of one play.
In the big picture, though, it was about Didier Drogba, no doubt playing his last game for Chelsea, and his coach Avram Grant. There was a great shot at one point, during a stoppage in play, when Grant had a hold on Drogba's jersey, trying to tell him what he was supposed to do. Drogba had generally a bad game, though he almost knocked in a winner (the ball fell at his feet while walking forward, and he nailed one off the crossbar from 20 yards).
In the end, Drogba fell victim to the same result as Zidane in the 2006 World Cup final (historical note: France lost to Italy on penalties, after Zidane was red-carded for his famous head-butt on Materazzi). Drogba got a red card for a mini-slap to the face of Man U. defender Vidic in the midst of some multi-layered player argument. As with Zidane, Drogba reacted to something that was not captured on screen and not seen by the referee. As a result, Drogba (Zidane) was not around for the critical penalty kick showdown, when depth of quality penalty-takers is supremely important (Drogba/Zidane being one of the best).
After the World Cup, Zidane retired (and everyone knew it was the case coming into the game). Similarly, everyone expected this would be Drogba's last game for Chelsea, and his actions no doubt clinched it.
As for Grant, the conventional wisdom is that he had to win the trophy to save his job. I think he did enough to be offered to keep his job, but more likely the team will declare an intention to revamp pretty thoroughly in the offseason and he will move on, largely by his own choice.
Chelsea 2007-08 was not a great team by historical standards of great European football squads, but by Chelsea standards it was a classic Chelsea team: always tough, battling, falling just short. Just making it to the Champions League final was breaking new ground for the club (just as the two titles they won in 2005 and 2006 were the first in nearly 50 years), but somehow this one trophy that escaped will make the whole billion-dollar gamble by Roman Abramovich feel less than successful to him. And that's just his problem, if that's the way he takes it. We long-term fans will patiently endure whatever spasms occur (I heard a rumor Leonel Messi--the only rival to Ronaldo as Best In World--may be coming over from Argentina!) and remember fondly the efforts and huge contributions of those, such as Lampard and Drogba (even Shevchenko!), who may be forced by circumstances to move on.
The pain was lessened by recognition of the enormous effort all had to give to resolve this marathon stalemate. The conditions at Moscow's Luzhniki Stadium, which took out its artificial turf and planted (poorly) sod grass for this event, were rainy, soggy, and generally unacceptable. This contributed to the nature of the second half and extra time; that 75 minutes had no goals, and few good opportunities.
There were a lot of big-name players, and with their undoubted big egos, many of them probably thought the whole thing revolved about his own contributions: Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, who scored the Man U. goal but failed to convert his penalty shot at the end; Terry, the Blues' captain, who saved a sure goal with a header over the bar in extra time, and then had the game-winning penalty shot at his feet, but slipped and missed it wide; the Devils' Carlos Tevez, who probably should've been red-carded (ejected) at one point, and imposed his will on the game several times to create chances to score, but could not get a break; Lampard, who probably thought his goal was due to divine intervention (it was certainly lucky), but then watched his game-winner strike squarely off the crossbar, then got no opportunity in the deciding shootout (why not? one must ask). The deeper reality is that, most of the game, the flow revolved around Michael Essian, who had the task to control Ronaldo and did so, with the exception of one play.
In the big picture, though, it was about Didier Drogba, no doubt playing his last game for Chelsea, and his coach Avram Grant. There was a great shot at one point, during a stoppage in play, when Grant had a hold on Drogba's jersey, trying to tell him what he was supposed to do. Drogba had generally a bad game, though he almost knocked in a winner (the ball fell at his feet while walking forward, and he nailed one off the crossbar from 20 yards).
In the end, Drogba fell victim to the same result as Zidane in the 2006 World Cup final (historical note: France lost to Italy on penalties, after Zidane was red-carded for his famous head-butt on Materazzi). Drogba got a red card for a mini-slap to the face of Man U. defender Vidic in the midst of some multi-layered player argument. As with Zidane, Drogba reacted to something that was not captured on screen and not seen by the referee. As a result, Drogba (Zidane) was not around for the critical penalty kick showdown, when depth of quality penalty-takers is supremely important (Drogba/Zidane being one of the best).
After the World Cup, Zidane retired (and everyone knew it was the case coming into the game). Similarly, everyone expected this would be Drogba's last game for Chelsea, and his actions no doubt clinched it.
As for Grant, the conventional wisdom is that he had to win the trophy to save his job. I think he did enough to be offered to keep his job, but more likely the team will declare an intention to revamp pretty thoroughly in the offseason and he will move on, largely by his own choice.
Chelsea 2007-08 was not a great team by historical standards of great European football squads, but by Chelsea standards it was a classic Chelsea team: always tough, battling, falling just short. Just making it to the Champions League final was breaking new ground for the club (just as the two titles they won in 2005 and 2006 were the first in nearly 50 years), but somehow this one trophy that escaped will make the whole billion-dollar gamble by Roman Abramovich feel less than successful to him. And that's just his problem, if that's the way he takes it. We long-term fans will patiently endure whatever spasms occur (I heard a rumor Leonel Messi--the only rival to Ronaldo as Best In World--may be coming over from Argentina!) and remember fondly the efforts and huge contributions of those, such as Lampard and Drogba (even Shevchenko!), who may be forced by circumstances to move on.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Electoral College Math 0.1
The polls at this point in time give a good indication of how the Electoral College math might stack up if the general election comes down to a tactical result.
Basically, you can think of any Presidential election result (with two major parties splitting the Electoral votes) as coming down to three types:
Strategic result--"a landslide"--over 10% lead in popular vote; an Electoral College win over 100.
Decisive result--a lead of 4-10% in the popular vote and a safe Electoral College win (think Carter over Ford, or Clinton over Dole).
Tactical result--a lead of less than 4% in the popular vote and a "close race" in the Electoral college.
Right now, the national polls show the projected popular vote to be a virtual tie. This may not be at all the case at some points in the general election campaign just now beginning. I expect Obama to get a major bump from the Democratic convention and have an 8-10% lead at that point (around Labor Day). What happens afterwards depends on how well McCain and the Republicans respond to the situation, and whether they can dislodge Obama and the Democrats from the roll they would be on if that occurred. If they muck it up too much (like get Bush and Cheney involved in the campaign), such a lead could even expand to the strategic (wouldn't that be nice!)
I see only one reason to think McCain & Co. could succeed, then--this is the American electorate we are talking about. They will be selling fear, and there may be buyers. In that case, the decisive lead could shrink to an insignificant one, in which the vagaries of the Electoral College will be decisive (just like '00 and '04).
At any rate, recent polls give a good indication which will be the key states (not necessarily the same as always, surprisingly!) and what the final score might look like. Rasmussen is coy about it in their forecast, showing large numbers of leaners and a reluctance to move states from their '04 results (understandably), and CQ will be the same.
We have no obligation to be coy, Roy; so we will go out there now with our prediction for a tactical outcome: 293-245 Obama.
We have the following states changing from the 252-286 loss Kerry had to Dubya in '04: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. That's it.
We're going against the direction of the most recent polling on New Hampshire (currently showing a significant McCain lead), Ohio (on the strength of the Republican party collapse shown in '06), Michigan (like New Hampshire, still processing some Obama resentment), and surprisingly, Wisconsin. We're only going against the Rasmussen Market opinion in NH, where it's pretty much even, as it is for Nevada (looks like a tough slog to win that one for Obama). There are a lot of states looking close right now, though: 14 of the 34 or so states with polls recently published have raw margins less than 5% (so none of them would be considered "statistically significant" by the pollsters).
New Hampshire turns out to be important, because with it, Obama doesn't lose if he falters in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin. New Mexico we have to assume will go to Obama, and Colorado, too.
Techy: My bets on states--Old ones: against Republicans in NJ at 17%; for Democrats in NM at 63%; for Democrats in Ohio at 60.4; against Republicans in ME at 19%; for Dems in Kansas at 12.5% (looking for Sebelius here!).
New bets/bids: for an upset in Alaska at 6%; sell vs. Republicans looking for an upset in CA at 8.9% (easy money); Buy MO at 37.4% (I'm going to regret that one; hopefully I'll sell it for a small profit and regret that, rather than the usual practice of holding onto the end there and losing); and sell NH vs. Republicans in NH at 48.2 (again, going against the current polling).
Basically, you can think of any Presidential election result (with two major parties splitting the Electoral votes) as coming down to three types:
Strategic result--"a landslide"--over 10% lead in popular vote; an Electoral College win over 100.
Decisive result--a lead of 4-10% in the popular vote and a safe Electoral College win (think Carter over Ford, or Clinton over Dole).
Tactical result--a lead of less than 4% in the popular vote and a "close race" in the Electoral college.
Right now, the national polls show the projected popular vote to be a virtual tie. This may not be at all the case at some points in the general election campaign just now beginning. I expect Obama to get a major bump from the Democratic convention and have an 8-10% lead at that point (around Labor Day). What happens afterwards depends on how well McCain and the Republicans respond to the situation, and whether they can dislodge Obama and the Democrats from the roll they would be on if that occurred. If they muck it up too much (like get Bush and Cheney involved in the campaign), such a lead could even expand to the strategic (wouldn't that be nice!)
I see only one reason to think McCain & Co. could succeed, then--this is the American electorate we are talking about. They will be selling fear, and there may be buyers. In that case, the decisive lead could shrink to an insignificant one, in which the vagaries of the Electoral College will be decisive (just like '00 and '04).
At any rate, recent polls give a good indication which will be the key states (not necessarily the same as always, surprisingly!) and what the final score might look like. Rasmussen is coy about it in their forecast, showing large numbers of leaners and a reluctance to move states from their '04 results (understandably), and CQ will be the same.
We have no obligation to be coy, Roy; so we will go out there now with our prediction for a tactical outcome: 293-245 Obama.
We have the following states changing from the 252-286 loss Kerry had to Dubya in '04: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. That's it.
We're going against the direction of the most recent polling on New Hampshire (currently showing a significant McCain lead), Ohio (on the strength of the Republican party collapse shown in '06), Michigan (like New Hampshire, still processing some Obama resentment), and surprisingly, Wisconsin. We're only going against the Rasmussen Market opinion in NH, where it's pretty much even, as it is for Nevada (looks like a tough slog to win that one for Obama). There are a lot of states looking close right now, though: 14 of the 34 or so states with polls recently published have raw margins less than 5% (so none of them would be considered "statistically significant" by the pollsters).
New Hampshire turns out to be important, because with it, Obama doesn't lose if he falters in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin. New Mexico we have to assume will go to Obama, and Colorado, too.
Techy: My bets on states--Old ones: against Republicans in NJ at 17%; for Democrats in NM at 63%; for Democrats in Ohio at 60.4; against Republicans in ME at 19%; for Dems in Kansas at 12.5% (looking for Sebelius here!).
New bets/bids: for an upset in Alaska at 6%; sell vs. Republicans looking for an upset in CA at 8.9% (easy money); Buy MO at 37.4% (I'm going to regret that one; hopefully I'll sell it for a small profit and regret that, rather than the usual practice of holding onto the end there and losing); and sell NH vs. Republicans in NH at 48.2 (again, going against the current polling).
Friday, May 16, 2008
NM: Lens Image of the National Election
Lens image, as different from a mirror image (reversed left-to-right). This one instead is upside down.
In the New Mexico Senate race (opened up by Pete Domenici's retirement for health reasons), we have a situation in which we have had a presumptive Democratic nominee for months (Tom Udall), while the two leading Republicans (Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce) battle fiercely on roughly even terms. Although there is more difference in the policy views of Wilson and Pearce than between Clinton and Obama (more comparable to the differences between McCain and Dubya), the race is similar in the sense of powerful, distinct blocs within the party going up against each other. At some times, furiously.
If we are looking for the impact of the prolonged Clinton-Obama primary duel on the general election race, we can see the reverse writ small in New Mexico, the better to identify exactly how large the effect (if any).
New Mexico has tons of intrinsic reasons to be of particular interest in the Obama-McCain match-up.
They start with the indisputable fact that it has been the closest of all the swing states in the last two elections (and was the closest in the primaries this year, too--at least in the Demo races, I'll have to check re: McCain's big winner-take-all in MO). As usual, the state looks to be competitive in the Presidential race. That's less unusual this year, when there seems to be a lot more swing in play, turnout being another dimension of surpassing interest this particular year. The Democrats should have the advantage, but are far from a lock.
Second, if one's looking at the Hispanic vote as one of the key dynamic areas of the Obama-McCain race demographics, look no further: NM has the highest percentage of the 50 states.
I believe the Hispanic vote this year ended up a little closer between Clinton-Obama (here, on UNP-Day) than most of the reported Hispanic vote percentages in primary states, but I don't think that's the real issue in the general election question. Rather, it's that McCain's bravado appeals to many Hispanic voters, and not incidentally, that McCain's from neighboring AZ.
Third, due in no small part to the Republican battle, this has become one of the best chances the Democrats have to pick up a seat. The general election picture is far from settled--the latest poll data I saw had Pearce up over Wilson, 49-46, so it's too early to handicap that race accurately (as, I would argue, is the case for Obama-McCain).
On the other hand, the ads these have been buying have generally hardened opposition to both of them, and Udall has moved from something like a 50-50 race to a 60-40 lead over either. Things are looking really good for him to pick up a Senate seat here, and that is worth big-time national money.
That should be enough, but the peculiar dynamics of the NM Senate race have driven all three of its Representatives to give up their seats and go for it. 100% of the state's House races have no incumbent!
This has provided a major employment opportunity in the state, both for candidates and for low-paid political operatives. Why not?
In our Congressional district, #3, there are 10 candidates running--6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 2 Independents. I think the Albuquerque district (Heather Wilson's old one--#1) has a similar number going. In the current district we have up north, it's all about winning the Democratic nomination. Ben Ray Lujan is the clear favorite, with Don Wiviott the leading challenger. I like best what I've seen from Benny Shendo, but both Lujan and Wiviott have respectable records and should cream any Republican.
The key district, once again, will be Wilson's, and should be a clear opportunity for the Democrats to pick up the seat this time.
From a Peculiar Angle of Refraction
As with Clinton-Obama, and the 2008 election more generally, there is a major 2012 election issue out here in New Mexico not being discussed. If I read the cards correctly, NM is due to pick up a fourth seat after the 2010 census (unless Republican "get the vote outta here!" tactics are used in tabulating resident citizens). That should take effect in the 2012 election, and the form that expansion will take (to be determined by a Democratic-led legislature) is certainly not clear. My guess is that a natural expansion would be to create a new district from parts of the two Northern ones. I'd suggest the idea of one composed of Albuquerque Northern suburbs (the fastest growing area, I'd say) and Santa Fe county (with the sparsely populated land between). This one would be competitive but lean Democratic.
The rump of the district formerly dominated by Santa Fe (and represented by Udall) would be created: one with a more rural, minority composition: with a very high Hispanic population, very significant Native American population, and no large city. It would initially be Lujan's district, one could foresee. Certainly Democratic.
The Albuquerque district would remain largely that, but with some of the richer areas removed. It would be a prime candidate for someone like Mayor Chavez. If all this is true, New Mexico would go from 1-2 to 3-1 by 2012, with its 6 electoral votes ever more firmly in the Democratic camp. Part of a general national swing toward the party now clearly in the majority, one can only pray.
Nationally, the 2012 issue is out there, but not yet under consideration (for example: whither Hillary, after she loses?). It will start getting the media's attention no later than mid-2009. If McCain won I would have to give him no better than a 50-50 chance to make it (alive) through a hypothetical re-election campaign, and the Obama-relives-Carter fear is definitely out there among some.
I have already seen a lot of polling interest in us from some blogs (including a direct appeal from the Committee for a Democratic Majority). This is, without doubt, primarily a marketing technique, but I think it's the forerunner of a whole lot of attention to the state. I've encouraged my wife to speak her mind--that's good politics, from every point of view. As for me, I aspire to be the Kevin Costner character in "Swing State" (check title).
Techy comment on NM's 5 electoral votes: I think you can put McCain down for 35-45% of the 40% Hispanic voters in the state, which, after you factor in the African-American vote, puts McCain at 33-43% of the 42% Hispanic or African-American voters. The Native American vote, now, that's another, important story, some 8-10% of voters, I expect. Put McCain down for a similar 33-43% of them and you've got McCain getting only 17-22% of his total from the non-white half. This would mean he'd need 58-66% of the white vote; I'd call that unlikely. All of this relies on a really strong turnout effort from the Obama campaign--which I totally expect, and that is the whole point of this post.
NM poll at http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/nmsen_r/
Thursday, May 15, 2008
General Election Preview I
There's a lot to be said--even now--about individual state races as they look in this early stage. The polltakers are finding a lot more states in play than there usually are, with the electoral votes in the Undecided category way up compared to the last two elections. This time, though, I want to look at the strategic aspect.
The strategic theme for Obama will be to present a unified front--campaign and party--against a two-pronged Republican attack: the national party and affiliated smearmeisters driving one prong, and Gentleman John McCain the other.
The key thrust of the national Republican campaign on behalf of John McCain will be merely to suppress turnout. That is not something McCain will want to pursue directly: he will be trying to maximize the number willing to pull his lever (or the electronic equivalent), and his method will be to characterize Obama as green and black. Or brown. Or any color other than red, white, and blue, which are reserved exclusively for McCain.
OK, green is somewhat in play, I guess, if you're thinking environmentally. Personally, I think it's no contest, but some may question that. Actually, though, I meant green as in "inexperienced, in a bad way". As for The Black Thing (TBT), there are hundreds of ways to remind voters of it without saying it, and doing it that way is the more effective approach.
The problem is, Obama is too smart for that stuff. So, McCain's attack angle will end up having to be something different, in the end: Obama's an elitist intellectual. Meanwhile the national party will bring out whatever it has that can help reduce turnout (including all types of "non-tariff barriers" to voting) and also go negative from the start.
Obama, too, is facing a likely midcourse correction in strategy. He's coming out of the box looking to run against George W. Bush. This is a good start--it will help solidify the core, which is certainly desirable at this time--but I don't think it will get him to the finish line.
The problem with that line of attack is that McCain, while as much a "conservative hawk" as Dubya, is no Bushite. This recognized distinction is what kept him alive in the dog days of 2007: there was hope for him as the most un-Bushite national figure the party had, even if he didn't know how to lead a winning campaign operation. Eventually he got the right leadership working for him, and he got lucky with the dynamics of the primary races.
This all adds up to McCain being able to dodge the Bushite association to some extent. He will have to endure the hug on the convention platform, and he will have the dubious value of the President's support through his inappropriate public comments on the race in progress. But, like Obama with Jeremiah Wright, the Nominee will be able to shrug off any great effect from the eccentric comments of the Unavoidably Associated.
So Obama will have to find success in a more specific area then merely equating McCain with George Bush. He wants to take McCain on, to outpoint him on foreign policy (easy) and military policy (less easy). This is the right thing to do, as Obama realizes that these roles are the truly pre-eminent ones for Presidents (along with Supreme Court nominations). Politically, though, he will find that, inarticulate as McCain sometimes is, he will not lose the battle on this terrain.
The winning tack will be the correct formulation of his domestic policy package, and Obama has a vital interest in preserving the integrity of his platform at the convention. The positions he backs, he can defend well, but he would have more trouble with any areas where the platform varies with his policies. Revanchist Clintonistas may introduce troublesome resolutions for something like mandated health insurance, for example; it will be interesting to see how the disciplined, focused Obama campaign team deals with them.
Is Iraq An Issue?
This one will be fascinating to watch, and no definitive answer to that question may be clear even up until the last week of the campaign. To some extent, we will be captive to events over there, and atrocities or ambushes could make a momentary impact on the war's significance. Depending on the moment, that could be huge.
If it matters, it should help Obama. In the absence of major events there, though, it probably just helps solidify the gender and age gaps and is relatively neutral. It's conceivable that McCain will hit upon the "We are Winning; Therefore we should Continue Withdrawals" policy that could help make for an electoral upset, and Obama needs to watch for that, though it seems so out of character for McCain to take on board.
Bad Things Happening in Iraq will also hurt McCain, though we hope that they will happen less down the stretch. In particular, this will keep the focus on domestic issues where Obama should have the edge.
There was a very interesting vote today in the House that suggests much. It was on an amendment to the funding for Iraq--note the tallies:
H R 2642 YEA-AND-NAY 15-May-2008 3:30 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1
BILL TITLE: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
This one was hailed by Move On as a vote to prevent a rubber-stamp approval of the Iraq funding, but it looks like a shrewd tactical win for the Republicans to me. Clearly, the Republican leadership arranged for this one to fail, when they had the votes to pass it. This allowed those who had qualms about the current execution of policy to step aside--the Senate will lead in giving Bush his number, and the House will have to fall in--or those who wanted to "support the troops" could do so, while opposition to that proposition was reserved for Democratic troublemakers.
Getting long for one post. We'll take on the Winning Domestic Angle in Part 2, and the decisive role turnout will play this time in Part 3.
The strategic theme for Obama will be to present a unified front--campaign and party--against a two-pronged Republican attack: the national party and affiliated smearmeisters driving one prong, and Gentleman John McCain the other.
The key thrust of the national Republican campaign on behalf of John McCain will be merely to suppress turnout. That is not something McCain will want to pursue directly: he will be trying to maximize the number willing to pull his lever (or the electronic equivalent), and his method will be to characterize Obama as green and black. Or brown. Or any color other than red, white, and blue, which are reserved exclusively for McCain.
OK, green is somewhat in play, I guess, if you're thinking environmentally. Personally, I think it's no contest, but some may question that. Actually, though, I meant green as in "inexperienced, in a bad way". As for The Black Thing (TBT), there are hundreds of ways to remind voters of it without saying it, and doing it that way is the more effective approach.
The problem is, Obama is too smart for that stuff. So, McCain's attack angle will end up having to be something different, in the end: Obama's an elitist intellectual. Meanwhile the national party will bring out whatever it has that can help reduce turnout (including all types of "non-tariff barriers" to voting) and also go negative from the start.
Obama, too, is facing a likely midcourse correction in strategy. He's coming out of the box looking to run against George W. Bush. This is a good start--it will help solidify the core, which is certainly desirable at this time--but I don't think it will get him to the finish line.
The problem with that line of attack is that McCain, while as much a "conservative hawk" as Dubya, is no Bushite. This recognized distinction is what kept him alive in the dog days of 2007: there was hope for him as the most un-Bushite national figure the party had, even if he didn't know how to lead a winning campaign operation. Eventually he got the right leadership working for him, and he got lucky with the dynamics of the primary races.
This all adds up to McCain being able to dodge the Bushite association to some extent. He will have to endure the hug on the convention platform, and he will have the dubious value of the President's support through his inappropriate public comments on the race in progress. But, like Obama with Jeremiah Wright, the Nominee will be able to shrug off any great effect from the eccentric comments of the Unavoidably Associated.
So Obama will have to find success in a more specific area then merely equating McCain with George Bush. He wants to take McCain on, to outpoint him on foreign policy (easy) and military policy (less easy). This is the right thing to do, as Obama realizes that these roles are the truly pre-eminent ones for Presidents (along with Supreme Court nominations). Politically, though, he will find that, inarticulate as McCain sometimes is, he will not lose the battle on this terrain.
The winning tack will be the correct formulation of his domestic policy package, and Obama has a vital interest in preserving the integrity of his platform at the convention. The positions he backs, he can defend well, but he would have more trouble with any areas where the platform varies with his policies. Revanchist Clintonistas may introduce troublesome resolutions for something like mandated health insurance, for example; it will be interesting to see how the disciplined, focused Obama campaign team deals with them.
Is Iraq An Issue?
This one will be fascinating to watch, and no definitive answer to that question may be clear even up until the last week of the campaign. To some extent, we will be captive to events over there, and atrocities or ambushes could make a momentary impact on the war's significance. Depending on the moment, that could be huge.
If it matters, it should help Obama. In the absence of major events there, though, it probably just helps solidify the gender and age gaps and is relatively neutral. It's conceivable that McCain will hit upon the "We are Winning; Therefore we should Continue Withdrawals" policy that could help make for an electoral upset, and Obama needs to watch for that, though it seems so out of character for McCain to take on board.
Bad Things Happening in Iraq will also hurt McCain, though we hope that they will happen less down the stretch. In particular, this will keep the focus on domestic issues where Obama should have the edge.
There was a very interesting vote today in the House that suggests much. It was on an amendment to the funding for Iraq--note the tallies:
H R 2642 YEA-AND-NAY 15-May-2008 3:30 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1
BILL TITLE: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 85 | 147 | 3 | |
| Republican | 56 | 2 | 132 | 9 |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 141 | 149 | 132 | 12 |
This one was hailed by Move On as a vote to prevent a rubber-stamp approval of the Iraq funding, but it looks like a shrewd tactical win for the Republicans to me. Clearly, the Republican leadership arranged for this one to fail, when they had the votes to pass it. This allowed those who had qualms about the current execution of policy to step aside--the Senate will lead in giving Bush his number, and the House will have to fall in--or those who wanted to "support the troops" could do so, while opposition to that proposition was reserved for Democratic troublemakers.
Getting long for one post. We'll take on the Winning Domestic Angle in Part 2, and the decisive role turnout will play this time in Part 3.
Endgame 2.1
Edwards' endorsement wraps it, as far as most anyone not on Hillary's campaign can see. A brief spike in his fortunes to be VP; more likely winning bet is on AG (Atty. Gen.)--if you can find a market for that one.
I'm reading Team of Rivals (Doris Kearns Goodwin's historical piece on Lincoln and his selection of his party rivals for the nomination for principal Cabinet posts), and I like the idea as it applies to Barack Obama. His approach seems to be to take personal involvement in selecting his staff and advisors. Besides Edwards, it would make sense for him to draw heavily from the pool of his Democratic campaign competitors:
o Richardson for EPA;
o Biden for State (though Lugar is probably a better bet);
o Dodd for Supreme Court justice (Edwards also worth consideration--he could be John Roberts' nemesis--his "man marker" as they say in English footie--for the next 40 years!);
o Hillary for ??? (Education and/or HHS would be slam dunks, but I think she's headed to run for Governor if Obama wins, and to start her 2012 organization in 2009 if she loses);
o Dennis Kucinich (yes!) for Labor;
o Finally, Wes Clark (who never declared, went early for Hillary this time around) for Defense.
Who am I forgetting?
I do like the idea, which has been strongly mooted on the blogs recently, of Sen. Jim Webb (VA) as the VP choice. I also like Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS) or Clark, either of which should mollify at least one camp in the Clinton constellation of support, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN), if they want to go the "Dick Cheney" eminence grise route. Obama should prioritize military affairs or executive experience, along with helping in a normally red state, to further his strategic approach of challenging McCain in all 50 states and thus stretching McCain to the breaking point.
Hillary v. Penn
It looks like (I hope) Hillary has finally shucked the bad advice she's been getting from Mark Penn this time around. Or maybe he's actually given some good advice, finally--occasionally, one gets something right by accident. Anyway, she's making the smart play at this point by toning down, setting the stage for a graceful concession which will keep her future options open.
I knew Penn and would easily recognize him if I saw him anywhere (he wouldn't recognize me, but that's because he's a social slug). I used to work for Penn & Schoen on the Upper East Side (mid-'80's), part-time evenings. Mostly I was their ace data inputter (theirs was mostly one-finger typing, and some open-ended texts, though I did like operating their match-merge manual interface), but also I did a fair number of their phone surveys (pretty tough conditions).
It was very clear from doing their surveys what the approach was. See how far you could push the preference numbers by trying out slanted "framing" of the opposition. Run everything possible up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes anything. The technique has clearly been visible in the HRC campaign, particularly in its latter stages.
Penn was the Nerd-king at the time, Doug Schoen the smooth-talking counselor. There were "intern nerds" Penn scooped from Poli Sci programs who designed individual surveys to facilitate their pitch to candidates. It was pretty much non-ideologic, middle-of-the-road conventional wisdom triangulation. No doubt it works, both commercially and electorally, and they are both extremely wealthy as a result (particularly Penn). Schoen (whose contributions I read on Rasmussen) has managed to retain more dignity, if that counts.
I'm reading Team of Rivals (Doris Kearns Goodwin's historical piece on Lincoln and his selection of his party rivals for the nomination for principal Cabinet posts), and I like the idea as it applies to Barack Obama. His approach seems to be to take personal involvement in selecting his staff and advisors. Besides Edwards, it would make sense for him to draw heavily from the pool of his Democratic campaign competitors:
o Richardson for EPA;
o Biden for State (though Lugar is probably a better bet);
o Dodd for Supreme Court justice (Edwards also worth consideration--he could be John Roberts' nemesis--his "man marker" as they say in English footie--for the next 40 years!);
o Hillary for ??? (Education and/or HHS would be slam dunks, but I think she's headed to run for Governor if Obama wins, and to start her 2012 organization in 2009 if she loses);
o Dennis Kucinich (yes!) for Labor;
o Finally, Wes Clark (who never declared, went early for Hillary this time around) for Defense.
Who am I forgetting?
I do like the idea, which has been strongly mooted on the blogs recently, of Sen. Jim Webb (VA) as the VP choice. I also like Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS) or Clark, either of which should mollify at least one camp in the Clinton constellation of support, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN), if they want to go the "Dick Cheney" eminence grise route. Obama should prioritize military affairs or executive experience, along with helping in a normally red state, to further his strategic approach of challenging McCain in all 50 states and thus stretching McCain to the breaking point.
Hillary v. Penn
It looks like (I hope) Hillary has finally shucked the bad advice she's been getting from Mark Penn this time around. Or maybe he's actually given some good advice, finally--occasionally, one gets something right by accident. Anyway, she's making the smart play at this point by toning down, setting the stage for a graceful concession which will keep her future options open.
I knew Penn and would easily recognize him if I saw him anywhere (he wouldn't recognize me, but that's because he's a social slug). I used to work for Penn & Schoen on the Upper East Side (mid-'80's), part-time evenings. Mostly I was their ace data inputter (theirs was mostly one-finger typing, and some open-ended texts, though I did like operating their match-merge manual interface), but also I did a fair number of their phone surveys (pretty tough conditions).
It was very clear from doing their surveys what the approach was. See how far you could push the preference numbers by trying out slanted "framing" of the opposition. Run everything possible up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes anything. The technique has clearly been visible in the HRC campaign, particularly in its latter stages.
Penn was the Nerd-king at the time, Doug Schoen the smooth-talking counselor. There were "intern nerds" Penn scooped from Poli Sci programs who designed individual surveys to facilitate their pitch to candidates. It was pretty much non-ideologic, middle-of-the-road conventional wisdom triangulation. No doubt it works, both commercially and electorally, and they are both extremely wealthy as a result (particularly Penn). Schoen (whose contributions I read on Rasmussen) has managed to retain more dignity, if that counts.
Games of Near-Consequence
We need to explain a bit better what makes this NBA season so special. Most years, there are 2-3 teams which really have a chance to challenge seriously for the title. If two of those teams meet in the finals, it can be climactic and exciting, but more often than not, they don't.
This has been the case many recent seasons; last year's finals provide a good example. The Cavaliers knocked out in the Conference Finals the one Eastern team which had a chance to compete with the Western Conference winner (i.e., Detroit). So, it was 4-0 West in the Finals.
This year, I would say that there were no less than eight teams with a real chance to contend. Boston and Detroit in the East, and six of the eight teams that made the playoffs in the West (excluding only Denver, which doesn't play defense, and Houston, because they had no chance without Yao in the lineup).
Two teams of consequence were thus eliminated in the first round: they were the ones which made the controversial moves to bring big-time, proven stars and champions to their teams at the trade deadline--Phoenix (with Shaq coming over) and Dallas (with Kidd). Their teams were unlucky to end up playing tough first-round opponents (Spurs and Hornets, respectively), and it really was luck, given the scramble for spots that happened in the West, going down to the last week for spots 3-9 (of the 8 available).
Our key prediction, brought out initially in a comment to our posting "NBA update", was of the Final Four, all of which I expected to be teams of consequence, capable of going all the way: Celtics-Pistons in the East, and Spurs-Lakers in the West.
Tonight's games were of great significance because they were potential home defeats of Final Four teams in critical Game 5 encounters. The Celtics were seriously challenged at home by the Cavaliers, who had LeBron going wild in the first half and led Boston by double-digits. Then, later, the Utah Jazz made a serious second-half run at the Lakers.
Neither game ended up being consequential in the end. My man Rajan Rondo, Fourth Man in the Celtics' Big 3 (they actually do get to play five at a time), came up big as I thought he would do at some point in the playoffs. Quality point guard play being critical to success, he had to.
In the Jazz-Lakers game, the Jazz spotted a real opportunity because Kobe was hobbled by back injury and so could not dominate in the way he normally does. With the Jazz having someone nearly as talented and competitive as Bryant, their point guard Deron Williams, there was a question whether the Lakers could answer the Jazz' best shots yet (by far) at a road win in L.A., which would likely have been fatal given the Jazz' tremendous success at home.
Pau Gasol saved the Lakers tonight. He was the third big trade just before the deadline. Unlike Kidd and Shaq, Gasol has no championship rings nor even any significant playoff experience before this year (any at all?) The move was the best of the three, though, and he provided immediate benefits--more than Kidd or Shaq--and has continued to do so.
Gasol did alot tonight, but he made two big plays that made the difference. Both were offensive rebounds that led to Laker scores down the stretch. On both occasions he was pushing off a Jazz player who had better position, but no foul was called.
These were the most egregious homer calls by the refs in the Laker game, but they were not the only ones. I saw Jazz coach Jerry Sloan ripping the officials afterwards, but I'm guessing he will forego the public posturing and paying fines and, rather, try to plant the seed that perhaps they could be a little less favorable to the Lakers in Game 7, if Utah can make it back there.
The TNT broadcasters are fond of exclaiming about how home teams are 19-1 so far in this round of the playoffs. This game gave a good indication why. In the postgame wrap, Kenny Smith did comment that "that was an offensive foul" about the second, decisive one, but no one heeded the point and followed up. Instead, there was a cute comment by guest commentator Avery Johnson about, "What's his name, again?" referring to the "POW!" he gave Okur on the play. I liked that; that's about as far as one can go without giving offense to the refs (Avery may want to coach again someday, like next year!) or undermining "the product" the network must back at all costs.
This round, the default result is for the favored home team to win the series, and no team of consequence has lost at home. This may be tested in a few days, if the Spurs win Game 6 and go to New Orleans for Game 7. The Hornets pushed back the Spurs' road challenge brilliantly in their Game 5 home win, so they have earned the right to play at home in the decisive game with a chance to knock out the defending champs and everyone's favored team (including mine). We know the Spurs will not shirk from the challenge; yet they can be beaten. In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Hornets--tremendous over-achievers for their first time at this altitude in the playoffs--come up with that rare road win themselves in San Antonio.
As for my predicted Eastern champ, the Celtics continue to do enough at home to get by. Kevin Garnett is right when he says they must find the ability to do better on the road, but it's not to the point that they actually have to win there, and it may never be. They do have the home-court advantage all the way through the finals.
This has been the case many recent seasons; last year's finals provide a good example. The Cavaliers knocked out in the Conference Finals the one Eastern team which had a chance to compete with the Western Conference winner (i.e., Detroit). So, it was 4-0 West in the Finals.
This year, I would say that there were no less than eight teams with a real chance to contend. Boston and Detroit in the East, and six of the eight teams that made the playoffs in the West (excluding only Denver, which doesn't play defense, and Houston, because they had no chance without Yao in the lineup).
Two teams of consequence were thus eliminated in the first round: they were the ones which made the controversial moves to bring big-time, proven stars and champions to their teams at the trade deadline--Phoenix (with Shaq coming over) and Dallas (with Kidd). Their teams were unlucky to end up playing tough first-round opponents (Spurs and Hornets, respectively), and it really was luck, given the scramble for spots that happened in the West, going down to the last week for spots 3-9 (of the 8 available).
Our key prediction, brought out initially in a comment to our posting "NBA update", was of the Final Four, all of which I expected to be teams of consequence, capable of going all the way: Celtics-Pistons in the East, and Spurs-Lakers in the West.
Tonight's games were of great significance because they were potential home defeats of Final Four teams in critical Game 5 encounters. The Celtics were seriously challenged at home by the Cavaliers, who had LeBron going wild in the first half and led Boston by double-digits. Then, later, the Utah Jazz made a serious second-half run at the Lakers.
Neither game ended up being consequential in the end. My man Rajan Rondo, Fourth Man in the Celtics' Big 3 (they actually do get to play five at a time), came up big as I thought he would do at some point in the playoffs. Quality point guard play being critical to success, he had to.
In the Jazz-Lakers game, the Jazz spotted a real opportunity because Kobe was hobbled by back injury and so could not dominate in the way he normally does. With the Jazz having someone nearly as talented and competitive as Bryant, their point guard Deron Williams, there was a question whether the Lakers could answer the Jazz' best shots yet (by far) at a road win in L.A., which would likely have been fatal given the Jazz' tremendous success at home.
Pau Gasol saved the Lakers tonight. He was the third big trade just before the deadline. Unlike Kidd and Shaq, Gasol has no championship rings nor even any significant playoff experience before this year (any at all?) The move was the best of the three, though, and he provided immediate benefits--more than Kidd or Shaq--and has continued to do so.
Gasol did alot tonight, but he made two big plays that made the difference. Both were offensive rebounds that led to Laker scores down the stretch. On both occasions he was pushing off a Jazz player who had better position, but no foul was called.
These were the most egregious homer calls by the refs in the Laker game, but they were not the only ones. I saw Jazz coach Jerry Sloan ripping the officials afterwards, but I'm guessing he will forego the public posturing and paying fines and, rather, try to plant the seed that perhaps they could be a little less favorable to the Lakers in Game 7, if Utah can make it back there.
The TNT broadcasters are fond of exclaiming about how home teams are 19-1 so far in this round of the playoffs. This game gave a good indication why. In the postgame wrap, Kenny Smith did comment that "that was an offensive foul" about the second, decisive one, but no one heeded the point and followed up. Instead, there was a cute comment by guest commentator Avery Johnson about, "What's his name, again?" referring to the "POW!" he gave Okur on the play. I liked that; that's about as far as one can go without giving offense to the refs (Avery may want to coach again someday, like next year!) or undermining "the product" the network must back at all costs.
This round, the default result is for the favored home team to win the series, and no team of consequence has lost at home. This may be tested in a few days, if the Spurs win Game 6 and go to New Orleans for Game 7. The Hornets pushed back the Spurs' road challenge brilliantly in their Game 5 home win, so they have earned the right to play at home in the decisive game with a chance to knock out the defending champs and everyone's favored team (including mine). We know the Spurs will not shirk from the challenge; yet they can be beaten. In fact, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Hornets--tremendous over-achievers for their first time at this altitude in the playoffs--come up with that rare road win themselves in San Antonio.
As for my predicted Eastern champ, the Celtics continue to do enough at home to get by. Kevin Garnett is right when he says they must find the ability to do better on the road, but it's not to the point that they actually have to win there, and it may never be. They do have the home-court advantage all the way through the finals.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Endgame 2.0
Obama turned the page last night, as the light at the end of the tunnel finally shows itself clearly. His speech was personally crafted by him to address the weaknesses he showed in recent weeks; it marks, in his mind at the very least, the beginning of the general election campaign by the now Unofficially Presumptive Nominee (UPN).
CNN Coverage News: A New Conventional Wisdom in the Making (Live)
Clinton backer Lanny Davis desperately tried to put up the defense for his candidate last night. His most signal failure was his attempt to substitute the number 2209 (I think it was) for 2025 (or perhaps, more accurately, 2024.5) ; the larger number being the required number of delegates to clinch victory if Michigan and Florida are seated at the full strength they would initially have been given.
Donna Brazile (who will gladly move over to the UPN sometime just after the end of the month) dissented strongly. As a member of the Rules Committee, she has tried to maintain some perspective, publicly and privately, and last night she clarified that her official position is "Undeclared"--i.e., she knows who she supports but has not seen fit to say so. She pointed out that, right now, Michigan and Florida have no delegates. She also alluded to a proposal the committee expects to consider, which I am interpreting to mean a partial seating of the delegations. With a reduced weight, Obama can agree to seating proportions based upon the "beauty contest" results, but modified (watered down) with some appointed delegates, and the primary-result based delegates, with the size of their pool reduced.
The key point is the same it has always been, since the two rogue states executed their unsanctioned votes: the delegations' key characteristics will be determined by the candidate who controls 2025 delegates ex MI/FL. So they took themselves out of the picture. And, as it turned out, needlessly--they sought influence, and would've had much more if they'd kept their original dates. Particularly Michigan.
Lanny went hard at CNN for its coverage bias against HRC (Paul Begala was not in the theater, I think by design, in order to contribute to that impression). He was working some tired lines of argument from the Talking Points for SD memo. The problem with the "Michigan, Florida, and did I mention the Big Swing States" argument is that there are no more big swing states to win. Indiana and North Carolina were neither big nor swing. The future prospects are even worse, though: the ones left are small, not medium-sized like IN/NC, no swing, some are not even states (PR is large, among those left). The primary campaign is over, except some dying embers.
Clinton Campaign Post-Mortem
The good news for the Clinton campaign leadership is that Hillary need not loan it any more money. Money hasn't done that much for her, anyway, nor has it for Obama (McCain is a different story).
They can use all remaining fundraising to pay off the campaign's debts (those to the Clintons being fairly high up in the chain of creditors, I'd imagine, and those to Mark Penn not so high).
Keeping any momentum going on that front is Hillary's mission, at this point. That requires continuing to speak her point of view, with conviction.
The great thing about Hillary is that she can do that--until the cows come home. If the advisers want toughness, tears, saber-rattling, sarcasm, whatever, she can perform it. As a Democratic Presidential candidate, I think Hillary rates in the top quartile from my lifetime--up there with her husband, way above most of the losing general election nominees.
Obama is different, and therein lies the true distinction. Obama sets the tone for the campaign through personal involvement in his trademark speeches. What he says has been given careful consideration and is accurate. (As I wrote that, Hillary was saying that she had come from "8% or so behind" to win Indiana--she did no such thing; and I remember, an hour ago, how McCain had been raving to his unconvinced audience that "governments matters" over and over.) Obama doesn't just take the lead in drafting and wording, he memorizes his speeches and delivers them, word-perfect, in spite of any shouted interruptions. With good expression, reasonable eye-contact, a powerful, inflected voice.
Hillary rambles along through a ton of points, for which she has near-instant recall, and delivers with largely grammatical vernacular. She's good.
I think she was let down by her strategists. The commentators have pointed out how she missed the "Change" theme early, going for the second-rated "Experience". There's some truth in that, and through that error she missed a chance to close out all her party rivals early. In the Long Campaign vs. Obama, though, the deciding factor was Obama's integrated turnout machine and their strategic focus on winning caucuses. Ironically, the Machine Candidate was out-gunned by a superior machine.
Bill was a mensch and took on the heavy role, which allowed Hillary to preserve some decency in her arguments (if not respectability--that was capital that she spent, judiciously, in various panders). It did damage--fortunately not too much of it permanent--but could not overcome the tactical lead Obama put together in the run of victories just after Super Tuesday. That superior tactical planning--I worked in a Super Tuesday primary, and I had no idea how much the Obama campaign had planned after that day--built the pledged delegate lead that offset Clinton's SD lead, and which has stood up since as the candidates traded blows.
The Clintonistas, on the other hand, had pinned everything on winning enough in the Early Quadriliateral (IA/NH/NV/SC) and putting it away on UNP Day. Their Plan B didn't emerge until Plan C time.
Obama has already accomplished something this year: he has led the finest primary campaign in history, exhibiting quality in political content, execution, his dignified posture, and of course setting a whole new plane of achievement on the Internet. He doesn't need to do nearly as well in the general election campaign to win.
CNN Coverage News: A New Conventional Wisdom in the Making (Live)
Clinton backer Lanny Davis desperately tried to put up the defense for his candidate last night. His most signal failure was his attempt to substitute the number 2209 (I think it was) for 2025 (or perhaps, more accurately, 2024.5) ; the larger number being the required number of delegates to clinch victory if Michigan and Florida are seated at the full strength they would initially have been given.
Donna Brazile (who will gladly move over to the UPN sometime just after the end of the month) dissented strongly. As a member of the Rules Committee, she has tried to maintain some perspective, publicly and privately, and last night she clarified that her official position is "Undeclared"--i.e., she knows who she supports but has not seen fit to say so. She pointed out that, right now, Michigan and Florida have no delegates. She also alluded to a proposal the committee expects to consider, which I am interpreting to mean a partial seating of the delegations. With a reduced weight, Obama can agree to seating proportions based upon the "beauty contest" results, but modified (watered down) with some appointed delegates, and the primary-result based delegates, with the size of their pool reduced.
The key point is the same it has always been, since the two rogue states executed their unsanctioned votes: the delegations' key characteristics will be determined by the candidate who controls 2025 delegates ex MI/FL. So they took themselves out of the picture. And, as it turned out, needlessly--they sought influence, and would've had much more if they'd kept their original dates. Particularly Michigan.
Lanny went hard at CNN for its coverage bias against HRC (Paul Begala was not in the theater, I think by design, in order to contribute to that impression). He was working some tired lines of argument from the Talking Points for SD memo. The problem with the "Michigan, Florida, and did I mention the Big Swing States" argument is that there are no more big swing states to win. Indiana and North Carolina were neither big nor swing. The future prospects are even worse, though: the ones left are small, not medium-sized like IN/NC, no swing, some are not even states (PR is large, among those left). The primary campaign is over, except some dying embers.
Clinton Campaign Post-Mortem
The good news for the Clinton campaign leadership is that Hillary need not loan it any more money. Money hasn't done that much for her, anyway, nor has it for Obama (McCain is a different story).
They can use all remaining fundraising to pay off the campaign's debts (those to the Clintons being fairly high up in the chain of creditors, I'd imagine, and those to Mark Penn not so high).
Keeping any momentum going on that front is Hillary's mission, at this point. That requires continuing to speak her point of view, with conviction.
The great thing about Hillary is that she can do that--until the cows come home. If the advisers want toughness, tears, saber-rattling, sarcasm, whatever, she can perform it. As a Democratic Presidential candidate, I think Hillary rates in the top quartile from my lifetime--up there with her husband, way above most of the losing general election nominees.
Obama is different, and therein lies the true distinction. Obama sets the tone for the campaign through personal involvement in his trademark speeches. What he says has been given careful consideration and is accurate. (As I wrote that, Hillary was saying that she had come from "8% or so behind" to win Indiana--she did no such thing; and I remember, an hour ago, how McCain had been raving to his unconvinced audience that "governments matters" over and over.) Obama doesn't just take the lead in drafting and wording, he memorizes his speeches and delivers them, word-perfect, in spite of any shouted interruptions. With good expression, reasonable eye-contact, a powerful, inflected voice.
Hillary rambles along through a ton of points, for which she has near-instant recall, and delivers with largely grammatical vernacular. She's good.
I think she was let down by her strategists. The commentators have pointed out how she missed the "Change" theme early, going for the second-rated "Experience". There's some truth in that, and through that error she missed a chance to close out all her party rivals early. In the Long Campaign vs. Obama, though, the deciding factor was Obama's integrated turnout machine and their strategic focus on winning caucuses. Ironically, the Machine Candidate was out-gunned by a superior machine.
Bill was a mensch and took on the heavy role, which allowed Hillary to preserve some decency in her arguments (if not respectability--that was capital that she spent, judiciously, in various panders). It did damage--fortunately not too much of it permanent--but could not overcome the tactical lead Obama put together in the run of victories just after Super Tuesday. That superior tactical planning--I worked in a Super Tuesday primary, and I had no idea how much the Obama campaign had planned after that day--built the pledged delegate lead that offset Clinton's SD lead, and which has stood up since as the candidates traded blows.
The Clintonistas, on the other hand, had pinned everything on winning enough in the Early Quadriliateral (IA/NH/NV/SC) and putting it away on UNP Day. Their Plan B didn't emerge until Plan C time.
Obama has already accomplished something this year: he has led the finest primary campaign in history, exhibiting quality in political content, execution, his dignified posture, and of course setting a whole new plane of achievement on the Internet. He doesn't need to do nearly as well in the general election campaign to win.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Endgame 1.2
What are these states that are left here at the end of the process? They are the ones that couldn't, or wouldn't, spend the money to move earlier. Probably their broad primary election date was mandated by their state or territorial government; to go earlier would put the burden on the party, and these are the ones that have weak parties.
The Democratic party chairmen of Indiana and North Carolina must find it hilarious that they have gained a turn in the spotlight. I hope they are profiting from the fickle attentions of the media and national political culture. I don't expect either Democratic candidate to seriously challenge for the Electoral votes of either in November.
The media keeps looking for drama in these outcomes, but there hasn't been any since the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday I, Feb. 5). You could put these states in any order and the results would be similar. The Obama campaign has had them (the expected results) in their calculators for months.
We're predicting a 52-47 win for Clinton in Indiana, and 55-44 for Obama in North Carolina. There will be no significant change in delegates on the night (+/- 2). It will be clearer still that it's time to Move On.
Stephanopoulos Cut Again
Our state's leading ABC affiliate, KOAT, once again joined the network program "This Week" in progress, this time 30 minutes into what appeared to be a debate with one participant, Hillary Clinton (the coveted 4:30-5 p.m. slot, poorly used--home shopping stuff would be much more cost-effective).
I never heard the rationale for this travesty of a sham: Why did ABC go along with producing it? Are they trying to make amends for their dismal performance at the last one? If so, this hardly seemed to do it. Maybe the local station knows what it's doing, after all.
Anyway, there was a chance for Hillary to follow up the talk of "obliterating Iran". Instead of going for the high road, educating the American people that the provocations we can expect from Iran over the next few years don't include a nuclear missile fired from there onto Israeli soil, HRC showed her claws with relish. Obama had properly called her out for "saber rattling". This answer, to me, is a smoking gun that Hillary, like McCain, could easily fall into the next Middle East war trap. As with Gas-Tax-Scam, she and McCain fail the "significantly better than Dubya" test on Iran (two-tailed).
Election Betting News
Indiana: On Rasmussen, it's been Clinton, 85-15. 75-25 on CNN. I've been unwinding since I took a small pro-Obama position when it was 55-45.
North Carolina: 92-8 on Rasmussen.
I've been taking advantage of some rise in Clinton support for the nomination, getting some additional bets on Obama to win the nomination at 73% (a momentary flutter; it's back to around 77%). I've had the bids out there for months while the nomination (and the less-traded Obama-McCain parley, which I bought at 14%) has been stuck at 80-20. I feel good about these: getting an eventual winning bet cheap.
The most interesting betting is on who will have the most superdelegates (SD). Clinton, of course, has had the lead in announced SD since the 20th century, but the betting has been over 50% for Obama for months. The key to this one is its expiration date: August 1. At that point, the nomination should be wrapped up, if it's going to be, pre-convention.
Still, though, there seems trepidation on this bet on both sides: a large Bid-Ask gap, with the sum of the Bid percentage for both sides only about 95%. Obama is closing the SD Gap with Hillary, very slowly, but when the graph will cross 0 seems to have a high degree of uncertainty about it. It probably won't be until June, and when it hits 0 it could keep going very fast (as uncertainty about "the presumptive nominee" ends). Not like a landslide, but it is like an avalanche.
The Democratic party chairmen of Indiana and North Carolina must find it hilarious that they have gained a turn in the spotlight. I hope they are profiting from the fickle attentions of the media and national political culture. I don't expect either Democratic candidate to seriously challenge for the Electoral votes of either in November.
The media keeps looking for drama in these outcomes, but there hasn't been any since the Unofficial National Primary (a/k/a Super Tuesday I, Feb. 5). You could put these states in any order and the results would be similar. The Obama campaign has had them (the expected results) in their calculators for months.
We're predicting a 52-47 win for Clinton in Indiana, and 55-44 for Obama in North Carolina. There will be no significant change in delegates on the night (+/- 2). It will be clearer still that it's time to Move On.
Stephanopoulos Cut Again
Our state's leading ABC affiliate, KOAT, once again joined the network program "This Week" in progress, this time 30 minutes into what appeared to be a debate with one participant, Hillary Clinton (the coveted 4:30-5 p.m. slot, poorly used--home shopping stuff would be much more cost-effective).
I never heard the rationale for this travesty of a sham: Why did ABC go along with producing it? Are they trying to make amends for their dismal performance at the last one? If so, this hardly seemed to do it. Maybe the local station knows what it's doing, after all.
Anyway, there was a chance for Hillary to follow up the talk of "obliterating Iran". Instead of going for the high road, educating the American people that the provocations we can expect from Iran over the next few years don't include a nuclear missile fired from there onto Israeli soil, HRC showed her claws with relish. Obama had properly called her out for "saber rattling". This answer, to me, is a smoking gun that Hillary, like McCain, could easily fall into the next Middle East war trap. As with Gas-Tax-Scam, she and McCain fail the "significantly better than Dubya" test on Iran (two-tailed).
Election Betting News
Indiana: On Rasmussen, it's been Clinton, 85-15. 75-25 on CNN. I've been unwinding since I took a small pro-Obama position when it was 55-45.
North Carolina: 92-8 on Rasmussen.
I've been taking advantage of some rise in Clinton support for the nomination, getting some additional bets on Obama to win the nomination at 73% (a momentary flutter; it's back to around 77%). I've had the bids out there for months while the nomination (and the less-traded Obama-McCain parley, which I bought at 14%) has been stuck at 80-20. I feel good about these: getting an eventual winning bet cheap.
The most interesting betting is on who will have the most superdelegates (SD). Clinton, of course, has had the lead in announced SD since the 20th century, but the betting has been over 50% for Obama for months. The key to this one is its expiration date: August 1. At that point, the nomination should be wrapped up, if it's going to be, pre-convention.
Still, though, there seems trepidation on this bet on both sides: a large Bid-Ask gap, with the sum of the Bid percentage for both sides only about 95%. Obama is closing the SD Gap with Hillary, very slowly, but when the graph will cross 0 seems to have a high degree of uncertainty about it. It probably won't be until June, and when it hits 0 it could keep going very fast (as uncertainty about "the presumptive nominee" ends). Not like a landslide, but it is like an avalanche.
Gas-Tax-Trophe or Ga-Scam?
It's a big hoax--nothing will happen, and nothing should. The windfall tax on oil company profits will be a 2009 legislative issue, and it will depend on whether economic demagogues will be looking for a scapegoat for lack of recovery. Otherwise there will not be the will to sustain such an initiative.
The gas tax should have been a dollar, rather than 16.5 cents, the last 10 years. If that had been true, we would've saved billions of gallons of oil and would now be much further along in developing our arena of fuel and power supplies. The question of windfall taxes would not be so urgent, either. As our demand for an ever-expanding highway system (in a no-longer expanding geography) reduces, we could then cut the tax and let fossil fuels compete with the emerging ones. But where we are now, it is totally the wrong policy to reduce the fuel tax.
I like the tactical adaptation of an attempted McCain initiative by Hillary. What the heck, let's give it a week and see if it moves the masses!
Obama is, as he is so often, right in his argument and reasons behind it. Which may or may not be good politics. In this case, it provides an object lesson in the Post-Whatever Politics he espouses.
The gas tax should have been a dollar, rather than 16.5 cents, the last 10 years. If that had been true, we would've saved billions of gallons of oil and would now be much further along in developing our arena of fuel and power supplies. The question of windfall taxes would not be so urgent, either. As our demand for an ever-expanding highway system (in a no-longer expanding geography) reduces, we could then cut the tax and let fossil fuels compete with the emerging ones. But where we are now, it is totally the wrong policy to reduce the fuel tax.
I like the tactical adaptation of an attempted McCain initiative by Hillary. What the heck, let's give it a week and see if it moves the masses!
Obama is, as he is so often, right in his argument and reasons behind it. Which may or may not be good politics. In this case, it provides an object lesson in the Post-Whatever Politics he espouses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
