Post-Pre- and Pre-: Stuff

Oscars Post-Mortem
I didn't follow my advice with the Oscars telecast; I watched it all. The most dramatic moment was Lady Gaga's song for survivors of sexual abuse, "Until It Happens to You"--which, surprisingly and disappointingly, did not win the award for best song (the winning song was an unspeakably sappy Sam Smith one). Chris Rock did the expected and skewered the Academy for the expression of its subtle racism in the absence of nominees for persons of color; he did it in ways both "kidding on the square" and outright humorous (the best was his interviews with filmgoers in Compton, none of whom had seen the movies nominated for the major awards).

As for the results, I hit a couple of the upsets--that of Mark Rylance for Supporting Actor and that "Revenant" might not be a sure thing for Best Picture (though I would've picked "The Big Short" rather than "Spotlight"). The predictwise.com bettors' picks would not have made much money if you had bet with them, as most of their winning picks were odds-on favorites, but they would have helped with your local pool. They had 17 of 24 correct, with three of the misses being in the random "Shorts" categories. In particular, they previewed correctly the sweep of many of the technical categories by the "Mad Max" movie; in that regard, the biggest surprise was the miss on the Visual Effects award--they had the "Star Wars" movie winning, over "Mad Max", but the winner was the (generally unviewed) artificial intelligence sci-fi pic "Ex Machina", which featured Alicia Vikander as the living robot--the same person who won for Supporting Actress in "Carol" (one that I missed).
Dump Drumpf Update
It seems, finally, that the effort to stop Donald Trump (or "Drumpf", as John Oliver recently disclosed Trump's original family name to be) is getting some traction.  And, it's not a moment too soon.  As I identified several months ago (back in September, though I had the principal antagonists wrong), if Trump takes the winner-take-all primary in Florida on March 15 (and the one in Ohio the same day), it will essentially be all over.

Last night's results showed that the latest affronts to common decency by Trump may have eroded his momentum--in the last, disastrously juvenile Republican debate, in his equivocating response to Klansman David Duke's support for his candidacy, or possibly as a result of sustained takedown attempts from Oliver, from 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, and others.  The benefit, at least last night, accrued to Ted Cruz, as he won caucuses in Kansas and Maine, and performed well above expectation in primaries in Louisiana and Kentucky.  The Maine result was the most surprising--Trump dismissed it with a good quip and dig at Cruz' citizenship status, that it was "because it's so close to Canada"--as he showed, for the first time, the ability to win outside of states bordering on Texas.  Cruz called for the other contenders in the race, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, to get out and let him--Cruz--take on Trump mano a mano.  Trump, also, suggested Rubio was toast and should get out, as he also longs for the singular showdown with Cruz.

Rubio and Kasich, understandably, are not taking their campaign advice from their rivals.  They will aim to win their respective home states' primaries on Mar. 15--they will be must-wins to sustain their candidacies--and to show some momentum for their own campaigns in the meantime.   Rubio will be looking for his second primary victory today in Puerto Rico, and Kasich is promising some improved result in Michigan on Tuesday.  They show some sign of understanding that the best chance to stop Trump is to split delegate allotments three or four ways, each of Trump's rivals focusing his efforts in the states where good results are most likely, and thereby keeping him from getting an absolute majority of delegates going into the party's convention.

Cruz, on the other hand, does not seem to be a party to the understanding.  To reinforce his anti-Rubio argument, he shows signs of making an effort to compete in Florida.  In doing so, he risks becoming defamed as the "Nader" of the Republicans' nomination campaign:  if his efforts, which are extremely unlikely to win the state's delegates, spoil Rubio's hopes to do so, it would knock Rubio out, but also make Trump's mathematical chances much more favorable.  Rubio's having a hard enough time in Florida as it is.  Ted may also try to "Cruz-ify" Kasich in Ohio with a similar, ultimately self-defeating strategy, one which is very much in keeping with his egomaniacal, antisocial nature.

Below is a screen scrape from predictit.org this morning, showing the status of a few of the headline markets, and applying my son's "Drumpfinator" software that he downloaded from John Oliver's website (it magically substitutes "Drumpf" for "Trump" anywhere it appears on your computer's screen)  Some of the formatting may be lost, but you may be able to click on the panels and link through to the original pages (which address, clockwise from the top left, the top two choices for Democratic nomination, Republican nomination, 2016 Presidential election winner, Michigan Democratic primary, Michigan Republican primary, and for the Maine Democratic caucuses, to be held tonight).

Featured Markets

These are popular political markets that receive a significant amount of attention from the press and the political community.

Who will be the 2016 Democratic nominee?

Top Predictions			6975
Clinton  685								86¢		1¢
Sanders  952								15¢		1¢

Who will be the 2016 Republican nominee?

Top Predictions			46751
Drumpf  2764								65¢		NC
Cruz  507								20¢		2¢

Who will win the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

Top Predictions			6393
Clinton  382								58¢		2¢
Drumpf  791								27¢		2¢

Who'll win the Maine Democratic caucuses?

Top Predictions			216
Sanders  6								97¢		3¢
Clinton								5¢		4¢

Who'll win the Michigan Republican primary?

Top Predictions			234
Drumpf  2								86¢		16¢
Cruz  1								10¢		3¢

Who'll win the Michigan Democratic primary?

Top Predictions			102
Clinton								91¢		1¢
Sanders  7								8¢		1¢

Prediction and Preference: stuff

Oscars
I admit that I am a sucker for the melodrama of those award shows.  I watched the Grammys a couple of weeks ago and, unlike the critics who hammered her, I was touched by Lady Gaga's salute to the late David Bowie; I enjoyed the Kendrick Lamar piece, and I was thrilled to see young (12 years old!) Joey Alexander playing solo jazz piano for the Grammy crowd.

The Oscars often get me worked up, too; the drama of the moment, the emotion (feigned or unfeigned, I often can't tell) of the winners.  Unfortunately, I think this year's Oscars will be one to put on the DVR and fast-forward through.  There may be some good performances, and I will want to see Chris Rock's rant in the first 15 minutes.  I don't think this has been a particularly stellar year, though.  There are worthy performances of various kinds, and the likelihood that the awards could be distributed fairly broadly (instead of concentrated on a single film), is for me a positive.

The big problem is that someone/everyone seems to know the winners of all the big awards, so there won't be much suspense.  I'm not referring to things like short films, or documentaries, which has some mystery because hardly anyone has seen the films.  If one goes to the "betting odds" on predictwise.com (mostly based on the non-US betfair betting site) and considers the 21 awards for feature films, there is one award (Costume Design) for which the betting favorite is at less than 50% likelihood, and three more at less than 65%.  Ten of them are at over 80%, with three of those over 95%.

My suggestion is to watch the first hour, which should have the Chris Rock intro and maybe a musical number, possibly the two supporting acting awards--which are among the most interesting ones--and fast-forward to the very last award, for Best Picture.  That is actually one of the ones for which the betting favorite is 64%, relatively low for this year's probabilities.

In terms of betting, if you are in a small pool, go for the favorites and take your chances with a more-or-less random bet on the documentary and live-action shorts.  In a larger pool, you have to take some chances if you want to win.  I suggest consideration of Rooney Mara, for Supporting Actress in "Carol", and Mark Rylance, for Supporting Actor in "Bridge of Spies".  The favorites are Alicia Wikander and Sylvester Stallone, but I think Mara has paid more dues, while Stallone's Golden Globes acceptance was an embarrassment I think Oscar will choose to avoid, while Rylance was outstanding (as an oddball Communist spy, the kind of performance that wins this award).

With regard to the "major" awards, I accept that this is Leo DiCaprio's year--he certainly went the extra mile for it in "Revenant"--and Oscar will continue the habit of giving Best Actress to a "woman in extreme distress in a nearly unwatchable film"--this year, to Brie Larson in "Room".  I would not quibble with the pick of Alejandro Inarritu for Director (he's an 87% favorite) if he had not won for "Birdman" last year:  maybe the fix is in, but I wouldn't be overly suprised if George Miller pulled an upset for "Mad Max".  Cinematography will indeed be, and should be, the Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki Award for the third year running (94%, for "Revenant"), while the favorites for screenplay, "Spotlight" and "The Big Short", for original and adapted (89% and 85%, respectively), seem correct and likely.

Best Picture:  "Revenant" is "only" a 64% favorite; the other two major alternatives are "Spotlight" (24%) and "The Big Short" (10%).  I can't (or won't) say whether I think there will be an upset here--I wouldn't exclude the possibility--but I will say that my vote would have been for "The Big Short" as Best Picture, for the remarkable achievement of an entertaining film on a very important, but seemingly uninteresting, subject.  Credit goes to the author of the original nonfiction book, Michael Lewis, for the design and research of the case studies which are at the heart of it, and to the director, Adam McKay, and cast, for making it fun.   "Spotlight", for me, was a journalism procedural, a good performance by Mark Rufalo (nominated, but not viewed as a likely winner by the bettors on Supporting Actor), not much suspense, and really not much better than another journalism procedural, "Truth", which got little recognition.

And "Revenant"?  A very intense, moral movie; I respect it, and admire the film-making technique, which I would describe as one part "The Master" (Paul Thomas Anderson's movie about a Scientology-type cult), one part "The New World" (Terence Malick's 1600's-Virginia story, cinematography by Lubezki), and one part "Unforgiven".   I think viewers in general will be more shocked by the violence than impressed by the message.  It is a historical fiction piece, from a period most would rather not think too much about (1823), due to the injustices of the time (quite evident in the movie).  There is a true incident that the "novel" which inspired the movie is based upon--my conclusion is that the movie is 95% invention, and my reaction to much of it was like the classic line of The Chief in "Get Smart":  "I find that hard to believe."  "Revenant" has the chance for a huge night, with 12 nominations, but it is favored for only four.  I'd say it is more likely that it will get five or six than only two or three.

Sports: Parity Makes for Interesting Gaming
First, I should mention NCAA basketball, for which I will not quote any betting odds--you must go to Las Vegas to bet legally.  The point is that this year will be one of the best ever for March Madness, because there is not a single, dominant team.   The top five spots in the polls have been shifting around continuously among 10-15 teams; they have been knocking each other off, and there have been a lot of games in which teams who are more like #50-150 have been beating teams in the top 10. As of today, there are two Division I teams with less than four losses (#5 Xavier, 24-3, and #1 Villanova), and they are playing each other tonight.   I would go with Kansas, Villanova, Oklahoma, and North Carolina as the most consistent teams with the best NCAA chances, but there at least 10 more who could win it--and don't forget last year's top team, Kentucky (no losses until the NCAA semifinal) and champion (Duke)--both were decimated by the NCAA draft, rebuilt with strong but overrated freshman recruiting, suffered early, but are now coming on strong.

Next, the NBA.  Golden State's regular-season has been record-making, and they are sitting at a shockingly good 50-5 mark, but San Antonio is only 3 1/2 games behind them in the West, and Cleveland has been dominant in the East (though Toronto is giving them a surprisingly good run in the standings, now only three games behind).  Oklahoma City and the Los Angeles Clippers are also conceded to have the potential to run the table in the West, but you have to hope for a Spurs-Warriors Western Conference final, which could be a classic.  In the East, Cleveland is the odds-on pick, but if I had to go for a darkhorse pick, though, I would go with Indiana, which is about 100-1 on predictwise to win the title, but they could pull a surprise against the Cavaliers in the second round.  (Predictwise's quoted probabilities for the title:  GSW 45%; Cleveland 24%, S. Antonio 16%; OKC 4%; Raptors and Clippers 2% each; "the field" 7%.)

It's early for baseball, as teams have just reported, but after a busy offseason there appears to be some significant realignment vs. last year (to refresh your memory, Royals defeated Mets in the World Series).  The long-suffering Chicago Cubs are the actual favorite, at 10%, to win the World Series--the outcome of the short series in the playoffs and W.S. being something of a crapshoot which levels the odds among the teams favored to make the playoffs (the NBA, though it has the same format, is much less likely to have significant surprises).   After that, it is quote close for teams two through twelve, all at 5-6% (rounded).   The teams currently second and third in the betting did not make the playoffs last year (Washington Nationals and Boston Red Sox), while the fourth, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Cubs were eliminated in the first round.  The Royals and Mets are at 7th and 8th, while 5th is the Giants, who have won the championship in the last three even-numbered years, and 6th is the Astros, who many see as the AL's rising powerhouse team.

Finally, the English Premier League is having its most interesting and competitive race for the title in a decade, due primarily to the weakness of last year's champion, Chelsea, and that of usual contenders Manchester United and Liverpool. Leicester City (pronounced "Lester"), which barely avoided being sent down (as one of the three worst teams) last year, has a two-point lead in the league over London teams Tottenham and Arsenal, with Manchester City (the 2014 champion) now fourth and barely in serious contention.  I think it will come down to the final weeks and the top three--Man City seems content for fourth and is focused on its chances in the Champions League, while the other three do not/will not have that as a distraction, after Barcelona completes its elimination of Arsenal in a couple of weeks--with Chelsea and the two Manchester teams having home games which may allow them to serve as potential spoilers down the stretch. My guess for the title winner would be Tottenham, which has looked the most consistent in recent weeks.  The oddsmakers currently favor Arsenal (41%) over Tottenham (25%) and Leicester (22%), but don't forget that the big-city bettors may favor the London teams unequally.

The Political Game
My strategy on predictit.org since the real electoral contests began has changed: I have completely dropped buying any shares on outcomes of polls and of debate-related questions. With regard to short-term trading, my strategy has been to buy on Clinton, Kasich, and Rubio when the odds have been favorable and short Trump, Cruz, and Sanders, when the money was too much in their favor, hedging when appropriate and when markets have provided opportunities.    So, for example, I have been buying or selling Clinton Yes on the final Presidency and Yes on "Female elected President" when the prices have diverged; I lost some on Trump winning New Hampshire and South Carolina, but won on Kasich and Rubio finishing second (and on Cruz to finish 3rd in SC).  In Nevada's Republican caucus, I got cheap prices early on each of the Big Three; I sold off the Trump shares for profits and took small losses on the other two.

In the next round of primaries, after the South Carolina Democratic one, for which the outcome is a foregone conclusion (Clinton is now at 98%), there is an abundance of choice, but little to choose from.  On the Republican side, with the exception of Texas, where Cruz is favored slightly in the market (and by me), Trump is an odds-on favorite in all the Super Tuesday states (the markets on Florida, and on Ohio, which are the two most interesting March primary states, are not yet opened). Betting against him on all is a loser, and betting for Trump to win them is not interesting in most of them (it ties up money with little to gain when the odds are 80/90% favorable)--the key is to pick a few where an upset is a live possibility and try to get a good payoff.   I have gone with Cruz in Oklahoma and Arkansas, with Rubio in Georgia, and with Rubio and Kasich in Minnesota, Virginia, and Vermont.  Clearly, not all these will pay out, but if half of them do (including either Rubio or Kasich in the last three) I will profit.

On the Democratic side, I have made some gains from bets on Hillary I have made on some of the upcoming states when Bernie was riding higher, before the Nevada voting; however, I am not putting much in for now.  I am looking to build up a little more to see if it makes sense to make a little larger play on some particular Stop Trump movement on the Republican side; so far, I am not impressed by the division of efforts among his rivals in upcoming states.

Rubio would do well to swear off Texas, for example, to give Cruz a clear shot there, and Kasich and Cruz should acknowledge that Rubio will need to stop Trump in Florida.  Rubio should sound out Kasich to see if he will commit to staying in for the Ohio primary on March 15 and hold him to it (and stay out); if he won't, he's got to go in there, too. The smart play is not to abandon the race to one rival, as that eliminates all chance for those who give up; it is to keep as many delegates as possible away from Trump and go for a contested convention.  I just don't think--based on the evidence so far--the Republicans are smart enough to see the danger and take the appropriate gaming maneuvers, whereas Trump's strategy is simple and effective enough:  attack anyone who gets in his way.

Update:  I have been tracking the post-mortem of the Spanish parliamentary elections held in December of last year, as they try to form a new government (they have not yet done so).  I have participated at a fairly low level in the predicit.org markets for the next Prime Minister.  My approach has been to avoid the previous incumbent and his party (Mariano Rajoy, and the PP, which translates as "Popular Party"), as his party was reduced in its share--though it is still the largest single party--and all the other parties have announced they would not join with them in a coalition.  That strategy is working so far; I have made some money on the leader of his chief historical rival, the Socialist party, and then have reinvested it when the price came down.  I've also got some of the alternatives covered.  The main question is whether it will ever be resolved.  The market has been a great one for prices bouncing up and down with the latest stories, with multiple sides, and thin trading.  
 

This Dust Just Won't Settle

The latest stir is the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, aged 79, on a quail hunting trip at a luxury ranch in Texas.  Scalia, appointed during the Reagan administration, was the justice with the longest tenure on the Court, and he was the intellectual leader of the extreme right-wing faction (with Alito and Thomas).   He had an acerbic pen in his opinions and a sharp tongue in the oral arguments; no one needed to doubt where he stood on any subject. I will say that he was--mostly--sharp in his thinking as well, and that he did not have any significant integrity issues; some who knew him also attested to his personal qualities.  He was dead certain about his interpretation of the Constitution, and, generally, dead wrong.  Now, he's just dead, and, I hope, so are his mistaken, outdated ideas.  We offer our condolences to his family on his sudden passing.

His departure from the Court comes at a sensitive time, near the end of a session in which critical cases have come before it and are awaiting decision.  Because so many of the key cases in recent years have been decided by 5-4 decisions, until his seat is filled there could be a 4-4 vote for many of them.  In that event, the lower court ruling being appealed would normally stand.  Among the cases pending are ones on the legality of requiring public sector workers to contribute to unions, on the affirmative action program used by the University of Texas (that one may be resolved by a clear majority of seven voting justices, as Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself), a case testing the "one person, one vote" principle in drawing legislative districts, and a suit challenging the implementation of President Obama's executive order blocking (or better said, de-prioritizing) some deportations of undocumented immigrants.

The vacancy on the Court created by Scalia's death will provide additional intensity to the Presidential race now fully underway.  President Obama could go through the exercise of considering candidates to fill the seat and even nominate someone, and it it is certainly theoretically possible that a nominee could be vetted in committee and considered by the full Senate during this session of Congress, and before Obama's administration ends.  The problem is that the Senate is now controlled by the Republicans, and they would not cooperate with confirmation of someone who would substantially change the delicate balance of the Court (previously a right-leaning majority with 4 liberals, 3 extreme conservatives, and 2 less-extreme conservatives), and I know Obama would not want to nominate someone who would follow down Scalia's arch-conservative line of thought.  We shall see, but I think Obama--quite properly--will choose to announce that he will leave the task of nominating Scalia's successor to his own successor.  If he does try, it will provoke yet another knock-down, dragged-out war of words (with no resolution) in Washington, which would probably benefit anti-Washington candidates like Trump or Cruz.

Then There Were Six--and Two
Well, between their electoral failures in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've gotten rid of Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Paul, and Fiorina (Stage direction:  Exeunt all of them.)  That's progress.   The race still has one superfluous candidate--Carson, who has enough funds to stay as long as he wants, but really has no purpose, given that his principal goal at this point would be revenge against Cruz, and he's too nice to attack him directly. Though he may have a couple percent of diehard support, we can disregard him going forward.

So, it looks like it will be Trump, Cruz, and Rubio--if Marco doesn't self-destruct--as the top three candidates for the next round of primaries and caucuses, with Bush and Kasich attempting to establish some legitimacy as contenders.  The hostility with which the top three are attacking each other is shocking; one can only hope that the Republican primary voters will reject them all, for their own (and the country's) sake.  We can be temporarily encouraged by the revival of Kasich's candidacy in New Hampshire, until we consider that his second-place finish there was probably due only to the influence of independent voters who were permitted to vote there; his appeals for decency and compromise are likely to continue to fall on deaf Republican ears elsewhere.

The contrast presented by the respectful, sensible, content-filled debate presence of the remaining Democratic candidates, on the other hand, is inspiring.  I honestly feel that the Sanders-Clinton debates (or Clinton-Sanders, if you prefer) will be remembered well and celebrated, long after the Republican party as we know it rots in the dumpster of history.  If I can draw a parallel with the most famous debates in American history, in the 1858 Illinois senatorial contest between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Lincoln had the winning arguments but Douglas won the election.  I think it may be similar this year, with Sanders in the Lincoln role.  This is not to say that Sanders will be President in the next election cycle, but that the inheritors of his ideas may be the leaders of our nation in the next 20 years.

The Next 30 Days (Political Drama 2016:  Act II, Scene 3)
My predictions for the last scene were correct for the most part on both parties' side, but I underestimated the degree to which New Hampshire provided Bernie's Big Night.  The next 30 days will not be so kind to him, I think; he may win a couple of states (besides his home state of Vermont). The next test for the Democrats is the caucuses in Nevada on the 20th (the same night the Republicans will have their primary in South Carolina, which will probably gain more attention). Clinton historically has not done so well in the caucuses, though she should have some natural advantage in the composition of the voters there; I expect another narrow victory for her there, then a whopping margin in South Carolina a week later, and a dominant share of the delegates awarded on March 1, which are centered (though not exclusively) in the South.   The score is now 1-1, caucuses or primaries won; by March 15, I would predict it will be 19-5 (counting American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Democrats Abroad), and, barring some catastrophe in the Clinton campaign, it should be clear she will be the eventual nominee.

The forecast on the Republican side is much more hazy, due to the multiple candidates, the likelihood that some of them will exit, and the fact that voters' loyalties are still very fluid.  Trump leads in the polls taken so far in most of the states (though many do not yet have a reliable base of polls taken), often by large amounts, but rarely does his support exceed 40%, so that his path to a quick victory will require either continued confusion among those who oppose him or his proving an ability to go beyond the rabidly loyal base he has maintained--despite all the outrageous things he has said--thus far.  The core of support he has is not likely to desert him, come what may; the risk is that his opponents combine effectively, either uniting behind a single challenger, or defeating him piecemeal by dividing up the states and ceding the challenge when theirs is not the best.  For example, Ted Cruz could take Trump 1-on-1 in Texas and more or less directly in some Super Tuesday states like Arkansas or Oklahoma, Rubio could be the focus of the challenge in Georgia and Virginia, and Kasich (if he survives probable bad results in SC on the 20th and in Nevada three days later) or Bush in some Midwestern or New England states.   By my count, 1149 delegates are at stake in the next 30 days, but with no winner-take-all states, Trump's share--even if he wins pluralities in most of them--is not going to exceed half of the delegates awarded.  I expect that after the contests following Super Tuesday in the week of March 6-12, he will have about 500, with Cruz 100-200 behind, and Rubio--who may not win first place in any of the states--in third with about one-third Trump's total to that point, with Bush and Kasich dividing the remaining 10-15% of the delegates.

Then we will come to the main event of Act II:  I expect the primaries of March 15 to identify the likely final nominee. Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio will vote that day, with Florida and Ohio being winner-take-all for the delegates, North Carolina being a very representative state for the national composition of the party, and the open primaries in Illinois and Missouri providing a test to demonstrate appeal beyond the party's base.  If Trump can win Florida and Ohio his path to the nomination will be cleared, as it would appear to me that, though Cruz is a formidable debating opponent and just as unprincipled as he is, Trump can beat him head to head.  Florida, in particular, will be critical, and will present Trump a chance to deliver the knockout blow to Bush and Rubio, if they are still in the race (and Ohio, to Kasich, if applicable). Right now, Trump leads in the polls in both states, but that is partly due to the crowded field.

I still find it incredible that Trump can be considered seriously as suitable Presidential material by anyone, but there is no substitute for celebrity, and his populist appeal is genuine--if disgusting.

Super Bo' L

I begin with my one and only Super Bowl story.  I attended XXIX, in 1996  (in Miami, San Francisco over San Diego, 49-26, in what is generally considered one of the worst, if not the very worst, of all the many bad Super Bowl contests--it was something like 28-0 after the first quarter).  In one of the stores near the stadium, I was picking through the mementos, and I found a commemorative cap for the game.  On the back part, it said, among other things, "Super Bo".  I thought that production error was quite appropriate (especially for a game played in the South), and I purchased the cap, which I have long since lost.  (There was also a seat cushion, at the stadium, that was tacky and fell apart, but I used for the seat of my car for some 20 years.)  The game was a circus, not worth watching, and filled with distractions, but it did help fill out my roster of championships. (That's for another time.) It's actually the only NFL game I have ever attended.

My relationship with professional football (American) is unlike that which I have with any other sport.  I have watched the game my whole life, but somehow I have always managed to avoid a lasting emotional attachment to any team.  In that, I was fortunate that the Cincinnati Bengals--one of the more disappointing franchises--started the year after I moved away from the Ohio River valley, so I never became ensnared (as I did with the Cincinnati Reds--also a story for another time).  In the '60's, I liked Don Meredith, in the '80's/'90's the 49ers of Bill Walsh.  I hated Vince Lombardi, and for a long time I rooted for any team playing the Packers (I have managed to overcome that aversion fairly recently).   Now, I watch a handful of regular-season games and those postseason ones that fit my schedule, without investing much emotional capital. It's plenty.

Today's game (it's wrapping up as I type), was a typically lousy Super Bowl contest, and it illustrated some of the most severe problems of the league.  It was a series of people stripping the ball from runners' and quarterbacks' hands, referee-call-dominated, the usual blurry decisioning (with the questionable help of the replay officials) about whether a catch was a catch, a fumble a fumble, a pass a pass, annoying announcers. (By the way, Phil Simms, Cam Newton had an opportunity to recover the fumble, despite not risking his neck and diving headfirst onto the loose ball--it squirted right by him.)  Basically, they keep playing with the rules to keep the offenses a step ahead of the defenses, and the defenses (of the best teams) keep improving faster than they can change the rules.  I was impressed by Carolina's regular season, but I am little surprised that the team with the prior Super Bowl experience was better able to handle the madness that is the AFL-NFL Championship game.

The First 50 -- Team by Team
There have been 100 appearances, and with 32 teams, an average team would have been in three Super Bowls, winning 1.6 of them.  There is a significant adjustment, though, as several of the teams have not been around for the full 50 years.  I recommend the Wikipedia site of the NFL timeline of all the franchises--it's full of potential trivia-winning information.

One example:  the San Diego Chargers are faced with the difficult decision whether to join the relocated Rams in Los Angeles, for which they have received a very attractive offer, or to challenge the voters of San Diego to put out big money to build them the dream stadium which would keep them there.  When I ridiculed the Chargers for looking to bail on their hometown, I was not aware that the Chargers actually played their first year in the old AFL as the Los Angeles Chargers (in 1960).

Denver's win brings their Super Bowl record to 3-5--they share with Dallas, Pittsburgh, and New England the highest number of appearances, at 8.  It brings AFL/AFC teams to 24-26 in the big game--that's according to the official league standings.  Measuring by the original (post-1960) league of the franchises, though, the AFL's record is less impressive, as they were "given" the franchises of Pittsburgh, Baltimore (which became Indianapolis),* and Cleveland (which became, sort of, the Baltimore Ravens),* which have a combined 10-3 record for the AFC.  For the NFC's part, they were given AFC-expansion franchise Seattle, and its 1-2 SB record.  Thus, by my reckoning, "original" AFL teams (including AFC-expansion teams) are 15-25, and "original" NFL teams (including expansions) are 35-25.

Here's a classification, by what league the team comes from, the beginning of their franchise (if post-1960), and their SB record:
NFL Teams
Distinguished:  San Francisco (5-1), Green Bay (4-1), NJ Giants (4-1), Pittsburgh (6-2).
Commendable:  Dallas (5-3), Washington (3-2).
Average:  Baltimore/Indianapolis (2-2, 0-1 in the NFL), Chicago (1-1), LA/St.L. Rams (1-2)
Have Some Excuse/Insufficient Data:  Atlanta '66 (0-1), Tampa Bay '76 (1-0), Carolina '95 (0-2), New Orleans '67 (1-0).
Special Case:*  Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens (2-0, all for the AFC).
No Excuse, But At Least They've Showed Up: Minnesota (0-4), Philadelphia (0-2), St.L./Arizona (0-1).
No Excuse Whatsoever:  Detroit (0-0).
AFL Teams
Good, Considering They're AFL Teams:  Oakland/LA Raiders (3-2), Miami '66 (2-3), Patriots (4-4), Broncos (3-5).
Insufficient Data (which isn't really very good):  NJ Jets (1-0), KC Chiefs (1-1), Chargers (0-1), Oilers/ Titans (0-1).
Have Some Excuse:  Jaguars '95 (0-0), Texans '02 (0-0), the reincarnated Browns '99* (0-0), Seahawks '76 (1-2, all for the NFC).
No Excuse, But at Least They've Showed Up:  Bills (0-4), Bengals (0-2).

Bloviating America's Favorite Game

*Here, for the particular benefit of our younger readers, we must explain, and point toward the two worst (but connected) episodes in the modern (post-merger) league.  The villain of part one was Baltimore Colts' owner Robert Irsay:  He arranged to relocate his team (the former NFL team, which had been shifted over to the AFC in the merger shortly after their historic loss to the Jets in the third Super Bowl game) from Baltimore to Indianapolis to get a better stadium deal.  To settle the uproar, he agreed to support a new team in Baltimore.  The team that became the Baltimore Ravens was moved there by the villain of part two, Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns.  Because of his dissatisfaction with his stadium deal, he got approval in 1996 to "discontinue" the Browns and "start" a new franchise in Baltimore.  Eventually, to satisfy the uproar from that betrayal, a new Cleveland Browns franchise was started a couple of years later.  I am treating the Ravens as the true inheritors of the old Browns, and the new Browns as an expansion franchise, which is at odds with the official NFL history.  

This scandalous owner behavior tops by a slight amount the sordid story of the Los Angeles teams, their betrayals of their fans--in Los Angeles, in Oakland, now in St. Louis, and possibly in San Diego. The NFL's behavior with regard to mental health has been properly eviscerated in the new movie "Concussion", and their labor practices have always been the worst in professional sport. The NFL is such a monstrous commercial success--it has now expanded its schedule to Thursday and to Saturday, beyond its traditional ownership of Sunday and Thanksgiving, and its previous conquest (45 years ago) of Monday night--that nothing seems to be able to derail its hold on the American public (at least most of the male portion of it). I will say, despite the ongoing Los Angeles fiasco that will soon be resolved in some way, that the league is much more stable in its past 20 years than its previous history.

My feeling, though, is that the game's defects are so egregious that it is headed for disaster.  My recommendations for it are radical:  The helmets, reinforced with further interior padding, should include, for all ball-using positions (eligible receivers and backfield), neck braces to protect the head against traumatic head shocks.  Wage insurance should be provided to all players signed to contracts; most football players can be cut at any time, and those who suffer disabling injuries are particularly susceptible.  The video challenge rules, the rules about pass receptions, about holding, about pass interference, and, worst of all, celebration limitation all detract from the pure enjoyment of the game and need additional reform. Finally, something must be done about the increasing trend to train defensive players to go after the ball instead of the ballcarrier--to punch at the ball whenever possible:  I'm thinking that the uniforms could include a ball-shaped "protection pocket" where the ball could be placed and carried, which would be proof against intentionally-created fumbles, and to protect further the passer's arm from interference while in the act of throwing.

Yeah, I know--these would change the game.  I say to that, it's about time.

The Artist Who Fell to Earth

I've had to take some time to express my thoughts on the passing of David Bowie (Jan. 10).  One reason is that it came suddenly; I had heard the buzz for the song "Blackstar", which had been released a couple of weeks in anticipation of the album of the same name.  I didn't imagine that Bowie would die two days after the album's release; he clearly did, and integrated the approach of death and its occasion into his final work of art.

Blackstar:  Bowie's Self-Written Obituary
There are only seven tracks on this album, but no one should feel cheated by its length, over 40 minutes.  Along with his parting thoughts and emotions, told from several points of view, it provides something of a recapitulation of his music from the last 25 years, a period when he generally gave up on commercial acceptance and pursued his own eccentric artistic directions.  Nevertheless, "Blackstar" did the impossible and bumped Adele's "25" from the position as the top-selling album in America.   A few comments on each song:
Blackstar--This is the most experimental song, with a very odd drumbeat, a ghostly tone, and mysterious lyrics (and, if you see it, a strange and otherworldly video).  I interpret it as Bowie looking from the outside at his funeral ("Ormen" an English-accented variation on "allmen"?) and the rise of his spirit after death.  With the drum styling, the use of horns and synthesizer, and the three-part extended format, it recalls early King Crimson (which, for me, means still ahead of the curve). The recurrent line, "I am a Blackstar" (and not  "a filmstar... a popstar... a gangstar") is vague, but I think Bowie is choosing to place himself in the heritage of the stream of African-American music and its influence on modern popular music.
'Tis a Pity She Was a Whore --I presume this title is Bowie's sense of humor--he is referring to his own past (as a "she", a common practice for many gay people), and not to one of his loves, and to the things he did to try to achieve fame and money earlier in his career. The title is also a literary reference, to a 17th-century English play. Its style recalls the '90's album "Black Tie, White Noise", with a lot of orchestration, jazzy horns and drumbeat.  OK, I have no idea what the line "That was patrol" means.
Lazarus - This is a more accessible song; its tone (a mix of Joy Division and Psychedelic Furs, I'd say) is consistent with the mournful one generally throughout, and it's about his afterlife again, but it has an upbeat close--he's flying, free, like the bluebird.
Sue (Or in a Season of Crime) - This song was released two years ago, so it doesn't quite fit into the album's overall context of impending death, but its message, it seems, is a reflection about a lost love. This one has the drum 'n bass sound he picked up on and popularized in the late '90's.  And a repeated use of a vulgarism that one wouldn't normally expect from the flamboyant, flagrant, but usually polite Bowie.
Girl Loves Me -  The weirdest cut on a strange album; recalls "Outside", the chiliastic pre-millennial album about "art-crime" that freaked a lot of people out.
Dollar Days - I think this song may have the most durable appeal from the album, a pensive , passionate reflection on his life in America, that also realls his more successful ballads of the '70's and '80's. A beautiful jazz saxophone solo, also.
I Can't Give Everything Away - Again a tune which features well his flair for passionate vocals. I would opt away from the more crass interpretation, of his figuring out in public what to do with his wealth when he dies, and more towards its being a plea for understanding from the public for his desire to preserve some privacy in the latter stage of his life.

A Few Fan Notes; Bowie and "Fame"
 I was not a fan of glam; I came to Bowie rather late, in the mid-'70's, though I do have some favorites from the early days.  I became impressed with his ability to change with the times, starting with his mid-'70's funky period and continuing through the '80's, when he reached his peak of critical and popular fame, and I stayed with his sound through the slower, less fertile decades since then (though I would admit that not all of those experiments were successful; probably he would have, as well).  His talent took many forms; I was most impressed by his vocals, the variety of voices he could employ, but he could play instruments when the moment served, his acting (both on stage, and in the films in which he performed) was excellent, and his songwriting and the creativity he applied to recording technique were near to the best of his era.

Notes on some of my favorite Bowie songs might illustrate my point of view better than generalizations:

• "Panic in Detroit" (Aladdin Sane) - Bowie had great collaborations through the years, particularly in locating hot lead guitarists.  It's Mick Ronson here, great reverb guitar sound. This one refers vaguely to crazy events going on in the US at the time, such as the Patty Hearst kidnapping by the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Remember that one? 
• "TVC15" (Station to Station)  -- Pretty much indecipherable in terms of meaning (TVC should be a TV station, I suppose), but an irresistible swing and chorus. 
• "Five Years" (Ziggy Stardust) -- Bowie's passion, expressed for a fictional death-of-humanity situation on how people would react to it. 
• "Cat People (Putting Out Fires with Gasoline)" (Let's Dance EP) - A peak in the popularity of Bowie's career, as he concedes space to disco, but does it his way.  One of the best guitar solos ever, courtesy of Stevie Ray Vaughan. 
• "Fascination" (Young Americans) -- The phenomenon of sexual attraction, and what it does to one.  Came out at a time that I was particularly susceptible to second that emotion. 

Finally, I mention "Hallo Spaceboy", from "Outside".  It was a go-to song for much of his later career, when he made occasional guest performances (his touring days were pretty much over by 1990).  "Outside" was a controversial album, but "Spaceboy" was an infectious but somewhat creepy hit-single-type song (the album, even more creepy), except for the line "Do you like altar boys?" showing that scandalous behavior in the religious context was observed well before the events of "Spotlight".  

The references to space travel and to aliens are frequent throughout Bowie's career, from "Space Oddity" to "Earthling" and also in "Blackstar"; of course, there is his starring role in the movie, "The Man Who Fell to Earth".   His recurring role as some sort of space-going humanoid both recognized the fact that his generation was the one that first lived with real travel through space, and provided a vehicle to deflect his "unusual" tendencies.  I note that another artist who utilized space-as-metaphor was Elton John, who, with Bowie, were the two major rock stars who came out as gay or bisexual during the era.  Both had huge success, but the arc of their careers differed enormously, to the credit more of Bowie than of Sir Elton. 

Bowie's relation with celebrity was a love-hate one.  He needed and lusted after fame in the early years and, as the current song above notes, was willing to stoop greatly for it, but he literally wrote its number long ago ("Fame", on "Young Americans").   He claimed to "reject it first", but it was "far too cool to fool".  Later, he made his peace with Fame and found the artistic space to work within it, then ultimately found a way to hide from it, except when he chose to return, briefly, to the spotlight.   His final act was a brilliant bit of stage management, planned, Bowie-style, to the greatest detail. 

More Briefly Noted

Paul Kantner - (Jan. 28) - One of the founding members of San Francisco's psychedelic-era band Jefferson Airplane, who stayed on for most of its fractious duration, and then returned for Jefferson Starship.  He was not particularly noted as either vocalist or instrumental soloist, but played rhythm and helped write many songs, particularly the ones with vocal harmonies or strong political viewpoints.  

More grounded than his beatnik/hippie bandmates, his politics were evident and radical. He wrote most of the songs on "Bathing at Baxter's", probably their second-most appreciated album, and shared song credit on a couple of Woodstock classics:  "Wooden Ships", with David Crosby and Graham Nash, who performed the song there with Stephen Stills; and "Volunteers", the JA song he co-wrote with Marty Balin.  Also written by Kantner, and notable:  "Crown of Creation", "We Can Be Together", "The Ballad of You and Me and Pooneil", and "Won't You Try/Saturday Afternoon". He was 74. 

Glenn Frey (Jan. 18) - A founding member of the Eagles, the largest-selling US rock band ever.  Frey was with the band for over 25 years, and wrote many of their most successful songs--the more country-flavored ones, I would say.  The Eagles' initial claim to fame was in developing the country-rock genre, for which Frey's contribution was central. 

I give him credit for going along with the band's change in direction to more standard American-style rock, which was critical for the continued success of the band, and in particular, for adding guitarist Joe Walsh, someone with a very different personal style to Frey's, who added a lot to their stage presence.  Frey and drummer Don Henley wrote the lyrics to their most famous song, "Hotel California" (guitarist Don Welder, who later had a nasty split with Frey and Henley, wrote the music and performed the legendary lead guitar interplay with Walsh).  Frey was 67. 

(Somewhat) Current Events

The "Alien vs. Predator"  Kind
What to do when both choices are bad ones?  Let's examine a few recent cases, looking for strategies, winners and losers.

As an intro, "Alien vs. Predator" is a classic action picture concept in which the humans' best strategy is as a bystander, letting the two types of evil extraterrestrials destroy each other. Another type from popular culture is the "Kobayashi Maru", from the Star Trek series, in which any strategy you choose is a loser (Captain Kirk beat it by hacking the simulator and changing the rules)--it was designed to measure the type of response rather than the outcome.  Some religious folks have suggested that is how our God works, when asked to explain his mysterious behavior.  "Morton's Fork" is the term used to describe the situation in which, whatever your choice, the outcome is the same.

Then there are those which only seem to be lose-lose choices, but are really not. For example, Bush v. Gore, from the Naderites' point of view; Sanders vs. Clinton (which kind of win do you prefer?);  the Ukraine government vs. the Putinite rebels (false equivalence), and then, that ridiculous notion for a movie, "Superman vs. Batman" (you know they will work it out in the end).

Now we can examine some true lose-lose cases. "Between a rock and a hard place" was the classic American cliche for this situation, but the bad choices involving "Iraq" have made that a bad journalistic staple, though I really haven't heard ISIS' dilemma--of being "between Iraq and Assad"--described in those precise terms, attractive and alliterative as that seems.  Let's shift our geography just slightly: 

Iran vs. Saudi Arabia - As if things in the Middle East were not going badly enough, the rivalry between the the central nations of the Shiite world and the Sunni world heated up in recent days. Already proxy forces from the two battle for control of Yemen and in Syria (the Saudis providing various support to any Sunni forces fighting the Assad regime, while the Iranians back Assad); there were hard feelings in Iran when a crowd stampede during the haj in Mecca ended up with a disproportioate share of Iranians among the casualties.

A recent political escalation was caused by a more intentional provocation from Saudi Arabia.  Among a group of convicted criminals and terrorists executed together was a dissident Shiite Saudi priest, Sheikh al Nimr.  His crimies were political ones--wishing ill for the the Saudi monarchy, advocating resistance--thoughfrom what I have read, apparently not actively advocating violence. A riot ensued in Tehran, and the Saudi embassy in the Iranian capital was set ablaze.  Unlike 1979, though, the Iranian leaders did not endorse the violation of diplomatic norms.The US wisely is urging restraint on both sides; we don’t need to get choose sides there, or in Yemen, and open conflict between the two would be unhelpful.  A distraction that came up since then was a small US Navy’s ship that accidentally drifted into Iranian waters.  Iran captured them, then released them the next day.  Our improved relations with Iran, stemming from the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, no doubt contributed to the moderate forces there having the upper hand and this remaining a minor incident.

Trump vs. Cruz - None of the current Republican state polls have anyone besides these two in the lead, which suggests that, as things stand, they may be able to emerge quickly as the only possible choices for the nomination.  I don’t have much of a dog in this hunt, but there are several candidates running on the Republican side who would be far preferable to either of them, so I just urge those others, who are firmly opposed to those two, and not just because they want to win themselves, to figure out a path toward uniting behind an alternative, and soon.  Otherwise, recall Paul Simon's words in "Mrs. Robinson":  "Going to the candidates' debate/ Laugh about it  shout about it/ When you've got to choose/ Anyway you look at it you lose."

Assad vs. Daesh+ - Syria is being destroyed, city by city, province by province.  Those areas which seem safe now will not be safe in the future.  The autocratic minority regime of Assad suppressed dissent during the Arab Spring with violence, thus starting the civil war there.  Daesh rose from rejection of Assad, and from Shiite government repression of Sunnis in Iraq, and advanced through filling a vacuum of legitimate control in areas in those countries and imposed its own local rule.   Though it may trace its rise from legitimate offenses, Daesh’s barbarism rivals Assad’s.  Unfortunately, the track record in this civil war of third forces in the country is generally unsuccessful.  It seems that anything that we can do to weaken Daesh will help Assad, and removing Assad would only increase the level of anarchy.  

A difficult problem, and one the US can not solve by itself.  The strategy of containing Daesh, systematically defeating it with a coalition of forces is slow but will be effective—unlike some other terroristic forces, the fact their strategy relies on holding territory makes them more identifiable targets.  At the same time, though, Assad’s regime can not be allowed back into liberated areas, and the US can lead diplomatic efforts to remove international support for the Assad regime, currently being propped up by Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces, Without that support, it will fall. 

Bengals vs. Steelers –Not the same level of significance, by any means, but the wild-card game illustrated some of the big problems with our nation’s favorite sport. As the game built toward its climax, one could see the frustrations mounting on both sides, with rules interpretations that allowed blind hits and gang-tackles that allow “fumbles’ to be created by ripping the ball from defenseless players. Unfortunately, players ready to explode remained on the field, and coaches got involved, too. It was an ugly game, a plague on both their houses, though in the end there was a winner—who should not have won—and a loser—who deserved to lose.


North Korea's New Nuke
On January 5, North Korea announced that it had detonated a thermonuclear weapon.  It was an announcement and action that probably were predictable, as their policy is, when they are not being noticed sufficiently, to do something dangerous to remind everyone how bad they are.  Also, it was apparently the birthday of their young, erratic President.

On the online odds site in which I participate, the market had been posed whether North Korea would detonate a thermonuclear device by the end of 2016.  The price of this market shot up overnight from about 10-15 cents (on 100) to the 60's and 70's, as it seemed like the answer to that question had been answered affirmatively.  However, the questions arose very quickly, because the rules of the market specify that the "thermonuclear" nature of the device need be confirmed by the Comprehensive Test Ban monitoring organization.  The seismic readings for the shock wave of the detonation--which did occur--were too low for the standard of most hydrogen bombs.  So, the value of the market did not go to maximum, but remained open and returned toward the same low level in the days following. 

What is the moral of the story?  North Korea will remain a dangerous nuisance, even a menace.  We can not expect China to restrain them effectively; only the deterrent that the US presents can prevent nations like Japan and South Korea from needing to develop their own nuclear weapons.  The Middle East may be a total calamity, but the threat to world peace presented by this regime is unsurpassed anywhere.  And that is what they wanted to remind us.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refugees
Leaving aside the question of the lawlessness of the Bundy family and their followers, the armed libertarian types occupying a rural Federal property in Oregon--a wildlife refuge building--are wrong on the fundamental question.  They seem to believe that the Federal government, which has legal title to the land, is unfair in charging ranchers for permits to graze on the land.  The fact is that Federal policy has subsidized this "free range" grazing for decades.

The correct strategy is to besiege the protest without creating a violent confrontation--at some point, no one should be allowed in or out (especially journalists providing the group with free publicity). Eventually they will give up.

El Corrido del Chapo Guzman
The capture of the leader of the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel could eclipse Cosby as the 24/7 criminal justice story of the year.  Guzman will have the best lawyers fighting extradition to the US; it is a proven fact that he can corrupt the Mexican prison system and they can not hold him or disrupt his activity while under their roof.  So, I think it makes sense for the Mexican government to do its part to send him to the US, as it has indicated it will do, and for the US to pursue it.

I don't think the Sean Penn interview had anything to do with his capture; and his story was upstaged by it.  It may be that Guzman wanted to codify his status as a folk legend, as there are reports he had begun discussions about making a movie, and that the interception of those gave the Mexican authoritites clues as to his whereabouts after his last, audacious escape from prison.

+I'm switching over from calling the terror would-be state "ISIS"--which I liked because it is also the name of a pagan (Egyption/Babylonian) god--to "Daesh", which comes from the initials in Arabic of the group.  For some reason this bothers them even more, so I will adopt it until I hear otherwise.

Political Drama Act II, Scene 2

The curtain rises to reveal the stage split in two parts:  on the left, the fields and grain elevators of Iowa (under snow); on the right, woods and a church steeple (also snow) typical of New England: New Hampshire.  Both sides feature giant screens on which TV ads for the various candidates are projected continuously. 

Early Primary Preview
We can expect some genuine early drama out of the first two in the schedule, the Iowa caucuses on February 1 and the New Hampshire primary on February 9.   There is uncertainty on the outcome of both, and in both parties, and it is unlikely that uncertainty about any of the four will be resolved before the actual events.  There will be plenty of polls, and the polls will suggest outcomes that are likely or probable, but any number of polls (apart from the unreliability these days of these small-sample, single-state polls, which is a separate question) can not answer critical unknowns.  In Iowa, it is about the ability of candidates' organizations to generate the turnout and loyalty of supporters in the local caucus, supporters ready to spend a whole evening and advocate to others for their candidate. Then there's New Hampshire, which takes pride in the indpendence of its decisions from those in Iowa, and the track record that suggests voters there may consciously seek to go in a different direction.

In Iowa, current polls have Ted Cruz with a small lead over Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton with a somewhat larger lead over Bernie Sanders.  The question that is out there for Clinton is whether her strong support among the state's politicians will prove a stronger draw on the night than Sanders' enthusiastic backers will doubtlessly provide.  As for the Republican contest,  one might expect that Cruz' Iowa support, concentrated particularly among the evangelicals, would be solid, with a strong likelihood to turn out; however, much of his support seems to have come at the expense of Ben Carson in this campaign, and from past supporters of previous Iowa winners Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.  All three are still in the race, and Carson has funds, a newly-rebuilt campaign staff, and one should expect all three of them to go after those who (in polls) now support Cruz.  And as for Trump, who can know?  He has plenty of support, the profile of his supporters tends toward groups with low historical turnout, but it is possible that they were just waiting for the right candidate.

In New Hampshire, the uncertainties multiply. In addition to possible reaction to the as-yet-unknown Iowa results, the polls in the Democratic race are very close, and in the Republican race's polls, while Trump has a significant lead, there is something like a four-way tie for second place (Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and John Kasich),  Finally, we should not be suprised if onetime leader Jeb Bush's PAC supporters spend hugely in both states to try to salvage his faltering campaign's chances.

Then, before the broader canvass of March 1, with 13 states having primaries or caucuses, several of which from the Southeast, come #3 and #4, Nevada and South Carolina (though the Democratic and Republican soundings are not the same day there).  March 15 brings the first winner-take-all primaries, with the one in Florida shaping up as one which can make or break the candidacies of Florida residents Rubio, Bush, and which could define either Trump or Cruz as a clear front-runner.

With all of the minor news stories of the 24/7 coverage we should expect of the nomination races, we should keep in mind a few central questions which will be answered in the next 60 days:

1)  Will Trump's support materialize, in anything like his polled level, at the election booths and caucuses? 

2) Will any third candidate break through the current leadership of Trump and Cruz in any of the earliest four states?  If not, will it then be too late to consolidate the opposition to those two and block the race coming down to a choice between two candidates totally unacceptable to most of the Republican establishment?

3) On the Democratic side, can Clinton's major advantage be derailed by Sanders winning one or both of the first two contests?

Caution would suggest that, with so many unknowns, the wise pundit would eschew prediction at this point.  Clearly I am not one of those.  I will provide my answers to those three, as follows:  1) Yes; 2) Yes; 3) No.   My predictions for the first two primaries:  Cruz narrowly over Trump in IA, but Cruz finishing 4th in NH (behind Trump, Rubio, and Kasich); Clinton narrowly over Sanders in IA, Sanders with a narrow win in NH (that will not seriously disturb the Clinton campaign's path toward nomination).

Online Market Odds on 2016 Outcomes
I have to say, my predictions do not quite equate with my betting strategies in the online market.   In particular, because the odds have shifted so strongly toward Ted Cruz in Iowa (70% or so), I am taking the contrarian view, with a small amount in favor of Trump's chances (around 30%) and against Cruz'.  To be honest, I haven't a clue how New Hampshire would then break if Trump pulled the upset in Iowa, but I don't feel the reaction would favor Cruz.

The most interesting markets--with multiple options and dynamic odds--in the online market at predictit.org in which I spend some time (much more than my investment dollar justifies) are:

• second place in GOP for New Hampshire (I have positive positions on Rubio at 28%, Christie at 16%, Kasich at 6% and Jeb at 7%, negative on Trump--who I expect to win--at 76% and Cruz at 80%);  
• a 50-50 proposition on whether Rubio will break 12% in the poll average (realclearpolitics) at the end of the month (right now, I'm tentatively on the No side); 
• the Republican VP nominee pool (a recent strong move in favor of Nikki Haley; I'm positive on that notion, along with Cruz--in the scenario as running mate for Trump--Kasich, and Rubio:  there are no strong favorites, nor are there for the Democratic VP nod); 
• and, on the international side, whether Brazil President Dilma Roussef will survive in the job through 2016 (I'm buying No, when the odds are favorable); and, of course
• the name of the next Prime Minister of Spain (see previous discussion).  I'm going against the favorite, Rajoy, whose odds are bouncing up and down daily, and in favor of "None of the Above". The site has announced that new elections will not close the market--they will keep it open until a Prime Minister is confirmed. 

The odds on some of the bigger items, like who will get the Presidential nominations and who will be elected President, are more settled for the time being (though Cruz and Trump are rising slowly for the GOP nom, and Rubio sinking).  Hillary is holding at about 58% for the White House.  The market for individual Senate races and for control of Congress haven't heated up as yet.

What Hillary Needs to Do
I am not yet ready to endorse Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency, though I expect I may do so before long.  What she needs to do to ensure my support is simply to establish herself as the candidate who will win a decisive victory this November.  Namely, convince those who are not beyond convincing (e.g., Democrats supporting Sanders, independents not irrevocably opposed to Democrats) that she is not some sort of lying, corrupted, evil, power-mad b-word.  This is not just a matter of seeming nice, speaking pleasantly, smiling, talking with average people--I think she's really doing fine with all that, though she needs to continue.

It's more about establishing trust with a broader segment of the population--not the haters, who are beyond reason.  There are a number of people who suspect her motives, about things like her emails as Secretary of State or her accepting contributions from the fat cats.  These are my suggestions:

Come clean on the emails.  My guess is that she used the private server because she wanted to have some privacy in her dialogues with colleagues and friends.  For a globe-trotting emissary, that can be hard to arrange on secure communications devices issued by a big institution.  At the end of the day, she failed to achieve that objective very well.  It's really not a big deal, in the national security sense: no harm, no foul.

Do more than pay lip service to overturning Citizens United.  As I recall, the original C.U. case was brought by supporters of her candidacy in 2008 during the long battle against Sen. Obama for the nomination.   If this is affecting her position, she should discard that, as it's not about the original group, it is about the unlimited spending on campaigns going on and its deleterious effects.  Obama opposed the decision but never did anything about it, and he rejected public financing for his general election campaign, with the argument that he should not financially disarm unilaterally.  Clinton should not use this argument.  Its validity is unchanged, but she will not need or want the big money for the general election.  On this issue, she needs to emulate more the positions of Bernie Sanders--yes, and Donald Trump.  Besides, her PAC, over which "she has no control" will still be out there with tons of money if needed.

Make clearer what she is about in running for President.  This she can do over some months--there is no need to reveal her hand in detail before the convention.  I still recommend that she couch her policy proposals--the ones now, and the ones she will gradually bring out--all as things that can be achieved in the first term, with a sufficiently smashing defeat of the Republicans in the national election.  If she is going to raise a boatload of cash, she should do it supporting the DNC, the DCCC, and, if they aren't backing too many Blue Dogs, the DSCC.  The theme:  "Vision 20/20"!  Of course, if things get too sticky and she can't accomplish her objectives, she can change her mind and run for re-election, but frankly, if she does it right, there should not be the need.  She should choose a VP nominee that will be someone who can take over leadership of the party and the nation in four years.+
Soften the hawkish tone, when the opportunity presents itself.  The two biggest reservations good Democrats have to her candidacy are her Iraq vote to authorize force for the Bushite administration (regretted now many times) and her Wall Street connections.  Leftists tend to conflate the two, and focus on the campaign finance deficiency.  If she takes care of that, and if she clearly points out she will not write checks for unlimited military adventure (anymore), she can unify the party behind her. And this she must do.


+This goes against my betting in the Predictit.org on the VP nominee--I'm going for a longshot choice, former Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Popular centrist, and a white male--that's where she needs to make up ground, and making Indiana competitive, as Obama did, helps stretch the Republicans and weaken them.  There will also be a Senate race, and a governor race there, and picking up one or both would be very big.  There are plenty of other ways to go, and plenty of time to focus group-test names.  I'm sure she will.