by
Emanuel Derman and
Paul Wilmott
Preface
A spectre is haunting Markets – the spectre of illiquidity, frozen credit, and the failure of financial models.
Beginning with the 2007 collapse in subprime mortgages, financial markets have shifted to new regimes characterized by violent movements, epidemics of contagion from market to market, and almost unimaginable anomalies (who would have ever thought that swap spreads to Treasuries could go negative?). Familiar valuation models have become increasingly unreliable. Where is the risk manager that has not ascribed his losses to a once-in-a-century tsunami?
To this end, we have assembled in New York City and written the following manifesto.
Manifesto
In finance we study how to manage funds – from simple securities like dollars and yen, stocks and bonds to complex ones like futures and options, subprime CDOs and credit default swaps. We build financial models to estimate the fair value of securities, to estimate their risks and to show how those risks can be controlled. How can a model tell you the value of a security? And how did these models fail so badly in the case of the subprime CDO market?
Physics, because of its astonishing success at predicting the future behavior of material objects from their present state, has inspired most financial modeling. Physicists study the world by repeating the same experiments over and over again to discover forces and their almost magical mathematical laws. Galileo dropped balls off the leaning tower, giant teams in Geneva collide protons on protons, over and over again. If a law is proposed and its predictions contradict experiments, it's back to the drawing board. The method works. The laws of atomic physics are accurate to more than ten decimal places.
It's a different story with finance and economics, which are concerned with the mental world of monetary value. Financial theory has tried hard to emulate the style and elegance of physics in order to discover its own laws. But markets are made of people, who are influenced by events, by their ephemeral feelings about events and by their expectations of other people's feelings. The truth is that there are no fundamental laws in finance. And even if there were, there is no way to run repeatable experiments to verify them.
You can hardly find a better example of confusedly elegant modeling than models of CDOs. The CDO research papers apply abstract probability theory to the price co-movements of thousands of mortgages. The relationships between so many mortgages can be vastly complex. The modelers, having built up their fantastical theory, need to make it useable; they resort to sweeping under the model's rug all unknown dynamics; with the dirt ignored, all that's left is a single number, called the default correlation. From the sublime to the elegantly ridiculous: all uncertainty is reduced to a single parameter that, when entered into the model by a trader, produces a CDO value. This over-reliance on probability and statistics is a severe limitation. Statistics is shallow description, quite unlike the deeper cause and effect of physics, and can't easily capture the complex dynamics of default.
Models are at bottom tools for approximate thinking; they serve to transform your intuition about the future into a price for a security today. It's easier to think intuitively about future housing prices, default rates and default correlations than it is about CDO prices. CDO models turn your guess about future housing prices, mortgage default rates and a simplistic default correlation into the model's output: a current CDO price.
Our experience in the financial arena has taught us to be very humble in applying mathematics to markets, and to be extremely wary of ambitious theories, which are in the end trying to model human behavior. We like simplicity, but we like to remember that it is our models that are simple, not the world.
Unfortunately, the teachers of finance haven't learned these lessons. You have only to glance at business school textbooks on finance to discover stilts of mathematical axioms supporting a house of numbered theorems, lemmas and results. Who would think that the textbook is at bottom dealing with people and money? It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that every financial axiom is wrong, and that finance can never in its wildest dreams be Euclid. Different endeavors, as Aristotle wrote, require different degrees of precision. Finance is not one of the natural sciences, and its invisible worm is its dark secret love of mathematical elegance and too much exactitude.
We do need models and mathematics – you cannot think about finance and economics without them – but one must never forget that models are not the world. Whenever we make a model of something involving human beings, we are trying to force the ugly stepsister's foot into Cinderella's pretty glass slipper. It doesn't fit without cutting off some essential parts. And in cutting off parts for the sake of beauty and precision, models inevitably mask the true risk rather than exposing it. The most important question about any financial model is how wrong it is likely to be, and how useful it is despite its assumptions. You must start with models and then overlay them with common sense and experience.
Many academics imagine that one beautiful day we will find the 'right' model. But there is no right model, because the world changes in response to the ones we use. Progress in financial modeling is fleeting and temporary. Markets change and newer models become necessary. Simple clear models with explicit assumptions about small numbers of variables are therefore the best way to leverage your intuition without deluding yourself.
All models sweep dirt under the rug. A good model makes the absence of the dirt visible. In this regard, we believe that the Black-Scholes model of options valuation, now often unjustly maligned, is a model for models; it is clear and robust. Clear, because it is based on true engineering; it tells you how to manufacture an option out of stocks and bonds and what that will cost you, under ideal dirt-free circumstances that it defines. Its method of valuation is analogous to figuring out the price of a can of fruit salad from the cost of fruit, sugar, labor and transportation. The world of markets doesn't exactly match the ideal circumstances Black-Scholes requires, but the model is robust because it allows an intelligent trader to qualitatively adjust for those mismatches. You know what you are assuming when you use the model, and you know exactly what has been swept out of view.
Building financial models is challenging and worthwhile: you need to combine the qualitative and the quantitative, imagination and observation, art and science, all in the service of finding approximate patterns in the behavior of markets and securities. The greatest danger is the age-old sin of idolatry. Financial markets are alive but a model, however beautiful, is an artifice. No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to breathe life into it. To confuse the model with the world is to embrace a future disaster driven by the belief that humans obey mathematical rules.
MODELERS OF ALL MARKETS, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your illusions.
The Modelers' Hippocratic Oath
~ I will remember that I didn't make the world, and it doesn't satisfy my equations.
~ Though I will use models boldly to estimate value, I will not be overly impressed by mathematics.
~ I will never sacrifice reality for elegance without explaining why I have done so.
~ Nor will I give the people who use my model false comfort about its accuracy.
Instead, I will make explicit its assumptions and oversights.
~ I understand that my work may have enormous effects on society and the economy,
many of them beyond my comprehension.
Paul Wilmott
Emanuel Derman January 7 2009
I'll comment where I should--in the comments.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Tracking "The Nation"
I'm going to make an effort going forward to review articles and arguments from "The Nation". This is one way of saying I've decided to go ahead and fulfill my subscription past the 4-issue-free offer.
Like many a good entertainment, my experience with "The Nation" lately has been one of hit or miss. This works, from the point of view of commenting upon it for my blog. I really appreciate that they go for the big ones.
"Chicks dig the big taters"--that's what some baseball slugger (for some reason, I want to say George Scott) was quoted as saying, and it caught on.
It was either that, or the exciting new product, "Save-a-Blade" (comes with a full grooming kit for only 14.99, after the rebate). The economics thereof, and embed at the front lines of shaving.
Like many a good entertainment, my experience with "The Nation" lately has been one of hit or miss. This works, from the point of view of commenting upon it for my blog. I really appreciate that they go for the big ones.
"Chicks dig the big taters"--that's what some baseball slugger (for some reason, I want to say George Scott) was quoted as saying, and it caught on.
It was either that, or the exciting new product, "Save-a-Blade" (comes with a full grooming kit for only 14.99, after the rebate). The economics thereof, and embed at the front lines of shaving.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Value at Risk?
What a great name for a quantity! I prefer "stakes on the table", or "contribution to the pot". But, anyway, "Risk Mismanagement" by Joe Nocera in the Times on Sunday was a great contribution to the level of understanding which your normally well-educated person might gain of the crisis and what's behind it.
Clearly the understanding between the Risk Management function of the financial institutions and the business management went haywire. Whether it was bad communication or just willing suspension of belief (not to mention of disbelief) may have differed by the institution. What was needed was the ability to walk away from the conventional wisdom, and too few mustered it.
I thought risk management--in the traditional sense of credit risk management, to which Nocera refers briefly--got off way too easy in his assessment, though. The mortgage lenders never showed much serious interest in understanding the risk in their portfolios due to the possibility of falling real estate values. This, not the buildup of toxic assets, was the unexpected occurrence, and the balance sheet disaster just the snowballing result of it.
Great quotes from my good friend Aaron Brown, and I loved the writer's attempts to reason with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, or Nicholas the Terrible (NT for short).
Clearly the understanding between the Risk Management function of the financial institutions and the business management went haywire. Whether it was bad communication or just willing suspension of belief (not to mention of disbelief) may have differed by the institution. What was needed was the ability to walk away from the conventional wisdom, and too few mustered it.
I thought risk management--in the traditional sense of credit risk management, to which Nocera refers briefly--got off way too easy in his assessment, though. The mortgage lenders never showed much serious interest in understanding the risk in their portfolios due to the possibility of falling real estate values. This, not the buildup of toxic assets, was the unexpected occurrence, and the balance sheet disaster just the snowballing result of it.
Great quotes from my good friend Aaron Brown, and I loved the writer's attempts to reason with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, or Nicholas the Terrible (NT for short).
E.J. Dionne Had It Right
...with the title at least: "Coming Soon: The 21st Century". Jan, 2009 will be the true beginning of the Third Millennium, or, if you will, the Twenty-First Century. After a good lead, he didn't really go into it, surprisingly, instead rehearsing some commonplace wisdom about what's to come.
Basically, we had a false start in 2000 (or, for purists, in 2001). The 2000 election set the tone with total confusion being the winner, and progress denied. September 11, 2001 derailed the initial, tentative notions of the reality with which we finished the last decade, but it put nothing into place. Some thought for a time that the chaotic, sputtering, misdirected efforts which followed amounted to a direction, but the Bushite Recovery ended with complete exhaustion--morally, spiritually, and financially.
So now we begin anew and face the dangerous, but exciting future we have built for ourselves.
With the exception of the fact of overpopulation and resulting overconsumption of resources, we live in a manner not just befit for kings, but of which kings would only have dreamed three centuries ago.
It is time to begin to live the way we all know we should.
Basically, we had a false start in 2000 (or, for purists, in 2001). The 2000 election set the tone with total confusion being the winner, and progress denied. September 11, 2001 derailed the initial, tentative notions of the reality with which we finished the last decade, but it put nothing into place. Some thought for a time that the chaotic, sputtering, misdirected efforts which followed amounted to a direction, but the Bushite Recovery ended with complete exhaustion--morally, spiritually, and financially.
So now we begin anew and face the dangerous, but exciting future we have built for ourselves.
With the exception of the fact of overpopulation and resulting overconsumption of resources, we live in a manner not just befit for kings, but of which kings would only have dreamed three centuries ago.
It is time to begin to live the way we all know we should.
King Powder Has Surely Come
On a base that was already solid and deep, we had an insane amount of powdery snow on Sunday. In town, about 12 inches; a couple of feet in the Taos Ski Valley. The fog is lifting to reveal incredible white vistas everywhere.
This will be one of the weeks that the aficionados talk about for years.
I can't go until Friday, and I have to make sure my knees and respiration (recent cold) are in full repair.
This will be one of the weeks that the aficionados talk about for years.
I can't go until Friday, and I have to make sure my knees and respiration (recent cold) are in full repair.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Israel-Hamas: Huffington Posted
I joined in the fracas on Mitchell Bard's posting (click on title above for link) stating that Hamas is responsible for the civilian casualties:
Mitchell,
I admire your writing and I'm, officially, "a fan". Mostly, I agree with this post but most heartily disagree with one statement you pose as a fact, without any support:
"The long-term answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two side-by-side states, each respecting the other and its right to exist."
First of all, it looks like the number of states we are now talking about is three, not two: Abbas and the PA have no real claim to authority over Gaza, and that reality is unlikely to change anytime soon.
The real argument, though, is that the famous "two-state solution" is not a long-term answer to the conflict. It will put in place implacable rivals which will prolong the rivalry (ed.: should've been "standoff") indefinitely.
The only long-term answer is a federation, bringing together a state which is one geographically, but with the various social and religious constituencies' rights and political representation guaranteed. Like Lebanon's formula, but bigger: it should include Lebanon! This is an outcome more difficult to achieve than the two-state solution, but it is a better one.
Keep these arguments in mind when the endless, fruitless diplomacy about the two-state solution begins anew, after this crisis reaches its inevitable end: Israelis withdraw partially; embittered Gazans rally around an underground Hamas, and no one party can speak for the Palestinians, while the Israelis have no clue what line of diplomacy can produce any results.
I got this reply from "shanghaislim"
So would that be the same model as IRAQ? Sunnis, Shiites, Christians all living side by side with a federation to rule across.
As Dr. Phil would say.......
...."How's that workin' for ya?"
Which I appreciated but had to demur:
No, not the same model at all. What they are attempting (emphasis--attempting) to do in Iraq is have a strong central government. Shiite parties are attempting to utilize their narrow majority to dominate the politics in the nation.
They have no choice but to live together--not side by side, but mingled complexly within the same land, under the law--or to war. The choice then in Iraq is the same as the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. I can hope for a better solution than that emerging in Iraq.
Mitchell,
I admire your writing and I'm, officially, "a fan". Mostly, I agree with this post but most heartily disagree with one statement you pose as a fact, without any support:
"The long-term answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two side-by-side states, each respecting the other and its right to exist."
First of all, it looks like the number of states we are now talking about is three, not two: Abbas and the PA have no real claim to authority over Gaza, and that reality is unlikely to change anytime soon.
The real argument, though, is that the famous "two-state solution" is not a long-term answer to the conflict. It will put in place implacable rivals which will prolong the rivalry (ed.: should've been "standoff") indefinitely.
The only long-term answer is a federation, bringing together a state which is one geographically, but with the various social and religious constituencies' rights and political representation guaranteed. Like Lebanon's formula, but bigger: it should include Lebanon! This is an outcome more difficult to achieve than the two-state solution, but it is a better one.
Keep these arguments in mind when the endless, fruitless diplomacy about the two-state solution begins anew, after this crisis reaches its inevitable end: Israelis withdraw partially; embittered Gazans rally around an underground Hamas, and no one party can speak for the Palestinians, while the Israelis have no clue what line of diplomacy can produce any results.
I got this reply from "shanghaislim"
So would that be the same model as IRAQ? Sunnis, Shiites, Christians all living side by side with a federation to rule across.
As Dr. Phil would say.......
...."How's that workin' for ya?"
Which I appreciated but had to demur:
No, not the same model at all. What they are attempting (emphasis--attempting) to do in Iraq is have a strong central government. Shiite parties are attempting to utilize their narrow majority to dominate the politics in the nation.
They have no choice but to live together--not side by side, but mingled complexly within the same land, under the law--or to war. The choice then in Iraq is the same as the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. I can hope for a better solution than that emerging in Iraq.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Wrathful Gripes (Two)
We are above all grateful as we enter the New Year, but let us now get the two greatest irritations of the season out of the way:
College Football--I'm with Obama all the way. It's impossible to make a coherent argument in support of the current approach except that it is, and that therefore it requires some initiative to change it. No one seems to know how to make that happen.
This year's outrage is the exclusion-by-accident of USC and Texas from the so-called Championship Game. These two teams lost a single game, narrowly and somewhat flukishly, as did the two Championship contenders, Oklahoma and Florida. I don't begrudge either its spot in the final--ultimately they came as winners of the Big 12 and SEC championship games (themselves being a great target for elimination when we go to a 3-round playoff).
Texas was excluded from that Big 12 game (Oklahoma against non-factor Missouri--there's a great argument for eliminating the conference championships, as it didn't even produce a game between the two best teams in the conference!) because of its lower ranking in one of the polls. SC had the misfortune of not being South Carolina, a longtime member of the SEC. As it turned out, Florida's opponent was #1-ranked-and-undefeated Alabama, which itself would've been in the C.G. The subsequent underwhelming performances of Alabama and Texas don't prove they didn't belong, really: they were playing in the Unpopular Bowl, parts 1 and 2. Alabama's loss came to undefeated Utah, yet another reason for an inclusive playoff (even if it's a longshot for a low seed to win through).
I'm flexible: I would even go for a 6-team playoff (with a couple of bye teams) if it became necessary to make a compromise which does not lengthen the season excessively. The basic idea is to move the crux of decisioning to a level lower among the leaders: between 6 and 7, say, or between 8 and 9. Now it's always between 2 and 3. But Something. Must. Be done.
I suggest Obama appoint George W. Bush to settle the matter, Bush-style. Contrary opinions from college presidents will be noted, then politely ignored (as should much of what they do). They (O.-Dubya.) can probably see eye to eye on this one.
If this doesn't happen, what are the remedies to us, those who must endure this? I'd recommend boycotting those games like Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, which are in the BCS Championships but don't mean #1 or #2. Of course, I'd never go to one of those, anyway. We should avoid talking about them, or even acknowledging the legitimacy of their existence. TV Ratings Matter Not?
Movie Release TimingThe basic concept here is to minimize the amount of time from general release to Oscar nomination (Jan. 22). That is, if there are nominations to be had. Voting for Oscars seems to have a halflife of about four weeks.
I feel the only way to counter that is to urge voting for those like "The Dark Knight" and "Tropic Thunder" that dared to open early--and make the money. There is an exception, which will be duly recognized on Oscar night: Heath Ledger will be invulnerable to the time decay calculations on voting, because Death is Forever. (screams: Movie Title!)
It's impossible for a layman to comment on the quality of nominations--the number of movies issued in the last week of the year would preclude my seeing the key ones before nominations are finalized, if the limited and localized relases (to those not Academy members) were not enough.
I did manage to catch "...Benjamin Button", and "Doubt". If it comes down to those two, I'll have no Doubt--Button is better. Lead actor, actress, direction, and best film. From "Doubt", I'd choose Amy Adams (over Viola Adams, also from the D-word-flick) as supporting actress. Ledger for S-Actor (of course).
For me, "...Benjamin Button" is more a throwback to "Little Big Man" than to the vastly inferior "Forrest Gump", the prizewinner to which it is often compared. Prosthetic makeup was basically given its first pioneering example in Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of the 110-year-old (or so) Sam Crabb. Of the two lead characters in "Button", I'd say Cate Blanchett's aged appearance is more award-worthy from the Best Actress point of view, but the movie will also be up for awards in technical creation, as in Brad Pitt's aged portrayal.
As for "Doubt", I thought a tense and interesting set-up had a fairly routine climax and denouement (particularly the latter, for which I thought Meryl Streep was a bit unconvincing).
College Football--I'm with Obama all the way. It's impossible to make a coherent argument in support of the current approach except that it is, and that therefore it requires some initiative to change it. No one seems to know how to make that happen.
This year's outrage is the exclusion-by-accident of USC and Texas from the so-called Championship Game. These two teams lost a single game, narrowly and somewhat flukishly, as did the two Championship contenders, Oklahoma and Florida. I don't begrudge either its spot in the final--ultimately they came as winners of the Big 12 and SEC championship games (themselves being a great target for elimination when we go to a 3-round playoff).
Texas was excluded from that Big 12 game (Oklahoma against non-factor Missouri--there's a great argument for eliminating the conference championships, as it didn't even produce a game between the two best teams in the conference!) because of its lower ranking in one of the polls. SC had the misfortune of not being South Carolina, a longtime member of the SEC. As it turned out, Florida's opponent was #1-ranked-and-undefeated Alabama, which itself would've been in the C.G. The subsequent underwhelming performances of Alabama and Texas don't prove they didn't belong, really: they were playing in the Unpopular Bowl, parts 1 and 2. Alabama's loss came to undefeated Utah, yet another reason for an inclusive playoff (even if it's a longshot for a low seed to win through).
I'm flexible: I would even go for a 6-team playoff (with a couple of bye teams) if it became necessary to make a compromise which does not lengthen the season excessively. The basic idea is to move the crux of decisioning to a level lower among the leaders: between 6 and 7, say, or between 8 and 9. Now it's always between 2 and 3. But Something. Must. Be done.
I suggest Obama appoint George W. Bush to settle the matter, Bush-style. Contrary opinions from college presidents will be noted, then politely ignored (as should much of what they do). They (O.-Dubya.) can probably see eye to eye on this one.
If this doesn't happen, what are the remedies to us, those who must endure this? I'd recommend boycotting those games like Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, which are in the BCS Championships but don't mean #1 or #2. Of course, I'd never go to one of those, anyway. We should avoid talking about them, or even acknowledging the legitimacy of their existence. TV Ratings Matter Not?
Movie Release TimingThe basic concept here is to minimize the amount of time from general release to Oscar nomination (Jan. 22). That is, if there are nominations to be had. Voting for Oscars seems to have a halflife of about four weeks.
I feel the only way to counter that is to urge voting for those like "The Dark Knight" and "Tropic Thunder" that dared to open early--and make the money. There is an exception, which will be duly recognized on Oscar night: Heath Ledger will be invulnerable to the time decay calculations on voting, because Death is Forever. (screams: Movie Title!)
It's impossible for a layman to comment on the quality of nominations--the number of movies issued in the last week of the year would preclude my seeing the key ones before nominations are finalized, if the limited and localized relases (to those not Academy members) were not enough.
I did manage to catch "...Benjamin Button", and "Doubt". If it comes down to those two, I'll have no Doubt--Button is better. Lead actor, actress, direction, and best film. From "Doubt", I'd choose Amy Adams (over Viola Adams, also from the D-word-flick) as supporting actress. Ledger for S-Actor (of course).
For me, "...Benjamin Button" is more a throwback to "Little Big Man" than to the vastly inferior "Forrest Gump", the prizewinner to which it is often compared. Prosthetic makeup was basically given its first pioneering example in Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of the 110-year-old (or so) Sam Crabb. Of the two lead characters in "Button", I'd say Cate Blanchett's aged appearance is more award-worthy from the Best Actress point of view, but the movie will also be up for awards in technical creation, as in Brad Pitt's aged portrayal.
As for "Doubt", I thought a tense and interesting set-up had a fairly routine climax and denouement (particularly the latter, for which I thought Meryl Streep was a bit unconvincing).
Monday, December 08, 2008
Traps: Maximalism and Underperformance
I understand the frustration of progressives as they see moderate after centrist trotted out. Where is our bone? they cry plaintively--if indeed they are willing to settle for bones. Some are so bold as to think they can set President-elect Obama's priorities for the first 100 days or first 10 days or whatever.
They can "set" the controls, as long as they set them to the desired specifications: focus like a laser on the economy while the foreign policy team gets rapidly up to speed.
Reach out to most every country with meetings at appropriate levels. Meet first with closest allies, and set up Presidential face time by mid-year for the most important ones with which we are less closely allied (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq (when they're ready), India, China, and--I'd argue they belong in this category, though they are allied with us--Turkey). With Russia, a more subtle approach aimed at defusing tensions on NATO expansion, missile defense, and Russia's energy bullying of Europe, with the payoff being active cooperation on Iran.
The grand strategy should be to bring all nations out of "failing state" status. This is a progressive objective of the first order. First term, Obama should focus on Asia; in the second term, Latin America and Africa. "Security, Health, and Livelihood" should be the objectives of a program to get the one billion or so people in nations on the edge away from the abyss.
They can "set" the controls, as long as they set them to the desired specifications: focus like a laser on the economy while the foreign policy team gets rapidly up to speed.
Reach out to most every country with meetings at appropriate levels. Meet first with closest allies, and set up Presidential face time by mid-year for the most important ones with which we are less closely allied (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq (when they're ready), India, China, and--I'd argue they belong in this category, though they are allied with us--Turkey). With Russia, a more subtle approach aimed at defusing tensions on NATO expansion, missile defense, and Russia's energy bullying of Europe, with the payoff being active cooperation on Iran.
The grand strategy should be to bring all nations out of "failing state" status. This is a progressive objective of the first order. First term, Obama should focus on Asia; in the second term, Latin America and Africa. "Security, Health, and Livelihood" should be the objectives of a program to get the one billion or so people in nations on the edge away from the abyss.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
HOF: From the Yahoo! Bballgroup
Re: Hall of Fame Ballot/vets
"A little bit soft" is understating it: apart from Rickey (the
exclusion that proves the rule, as we now see the wisdom of his last,
barnstormin' days) this is a cast of newcomers for which I can find no
one even to make a case.
The secondary drama of the balloting (Rickey first year? Yes We Can!)
will be Jim Rice's last-ditch effort to make it, having come so close.
I bet yes, but withhold my endorsement of it.
Bert By 'Eleven? Stay tuned. Maybe next year he could be the Jim
Rice of '10. Which might be one year early for the slogan, but
otherwise OK by me.
My ardor for some of the other returning heroes has cooled. I am
tempted by Tim Raines in this year in which stealing bases gets a
little respect. Perhaps Henderson's first-year landslide will edge
the Grey Ink regression slightly in Raines' favor next year.
From the active ballot, I vote for Henderson, Blyleven, Raines and Lee
Smith.
I'm one who doesn't feel Trevor Hoffman's numbers diminish Smith's
candidacy, though all are mere prologue to the thunderous election a
few years hence of Mariano Rivera, the Rickey Henderson of Saves.
I'll fill out my ballot with Veterans: Dick Allen, Luis Tiant, Joe
Torre (pre-emptive induction as player), Maury Wills (in the Year of
Rickey), Jim "Mudd" Kaat, and, a personal favorite--Bucky Walters.
As a minor public service,
Here's the info on the Veterans Committee, from Baseball reference:
Veteran's Committee Results Announced Dec. 8
Post-1943 Ballot: All are on the ballot as players:
* Dick Allen, 1B-3B, RoY, 1972 MVP, 7 A-S, 351 HR, .292 BA, 156 OPS+
* Gil Hodges, 1B, 8 A-S, 3 GG, 370 HR, .273 BA, 120 OPS+
* Jim Kaat, P, 283-237, 3 A-S, 16 GG, 1966 TSN AL Pitcher of Year
* Tony Oliva, RF-DH, RoY,2x 2nd in MVP, 8 A-S, 1 GG, 3 BA Titles,
.304 BA, 220 HR, 131 OPS+
* Al Oliver, CF-1B, 7 A-S, .303 BA, 219 HR, 121 OPS+
* Vada Pinson, CF, 2 A-S, 1 GG, .286 BA, 256 HR, 110 OPS+
* Ron Santo, 3B, 9 A-S, .277 BA, 342 HR, 125 OPS+
* Luis Tiant, P, 229-172, 3 A-S, 2 ERA Titles
* Joe Torre, C-1B-3B, 9 A-S, 1 GG, 1971 MVP & BA title, .297 BA,
252 HR, 128 OPS+
* Maury Wills, SS, 1962 MVP, 5 A-S, 2 GG, 20 HR, .281 BA, 586 SB,
88 OPS+
Living Hall of Famers may vote for up to four. 75% required for
induction.
Pre-1943 Ballot: All are on the ballot as players:
* Bill Dahlen, SS, 1891-1911, 2457 H, 547 SB, .272 BA, 109 OPS+
* Wes Ferrell, P, 1927-1941, 193-128, 2 A-S, 1935 2nd in MVP, 116 ERA+
* Joe Gordon, 2B, 1938-1943&1946-1950, 1942 MVP, 9 A-S, 1530 H,
.268 BA, 120 OPS+
* Sherry Magee, LF, 1904-1919, 2169 H, 441 SB, .291 BA, 136 OPS+
* Carl Mays, P, 1915-1929, 207-126, 120 ERA+
* Allie Reynolds, P, 1942-1954, 182-107, 110 ERA+, 6 A-S
* Vern Stephens, SS, 1941-1955, 1859 H, .286 BA, 119 OPS+, 8 A-S
* Mickey Vernon, 1B, 1939-1943&1946-1960, 2495 H, 172 HR, .286 BA,
116 OPS+, 7 A-S, 2x BA Title
* Bucky Walters, P, 1931-1950, 6 A-S, 1939 MVP and TrplCrwn, 2x
ERA title, 3.30 ERA, 115 ERA+
* Deacon White, 3B-C, 1871-1890, 2066 H, .312 BA, 127 OPS+, 2x BA
Title
Committee of writers, execs and HOFers (12 total) may vote for up to
four. Nine votes required for induction.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Catch Muhammad Cohen in Asia Times: www.atimes.com and The Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/muhammadcohen
>
> Hong Kong On Air -"TV news, love, betrayal, high finance, and cheap
> lingerie"
> Now available everywhere: www.hongkongonair.com
>
"A little bit soft" is understating it: apart from Rickey (the
exclusion that proves the rule, as we now see the wisdom of his last,
barnstormin' days) this is a cast of newcomers for which I can find no
one even to make a case.
The secondary drama of the balloting (Rickey first year? Yes We Can!)
will be Jim Rice's last-ditch effort to make it, having come so close.
I bet yes, but withhold my endorsement of it.
Bert By 'Eleven? Stay tuned. Maybe next year he could be the Jim
Rice of '10. Which might be one year early for the slogan, but
otherwise OK by me.
My ardor for some of the other returning heroes has cooled. I am
tempted by Tim Raines in this year in which stealing bases gets a
little respect. Perhaps Henderson's first-year landslide will edge
the Grey Ink regression slightly in Raines' favor next year.
From the active ballot, I vote for Henderson, Blyleven, Raines and Lee
Smith.
I'm one who doesn't feel Trevor Hoffman's numbers diminish Smith's
candidacy, though all are mere prologue to the thunderous election a
few years hence of Mariano Rivera, the Rickey Henderson of Saves.
I'll fill out my ballot with Veterans: Dick Allen, Luis Tiant, Joe
Torre (pre-emptive induction as player), Maury Wills (in the Year of
Rickey), Jim "Mudd" Kaat, and, a personal favorite--Bucky Walters.
As a minor public service,
Here's the info on the Veterans Committee, from Baseball reference:
Veteran's Committee Results Announced Dec. 8
Post-1943 Ballot: All are on the ballot as players:
* Dick Allen, 1B-3B, RoY, 1972 MVP, 7 A-S, 351 HR, .292 BA, 156 OPS+
* Gil Hodges, 1B, 8 A-S, 3 GG, 370 HR, .273 BA, 120 OPS+
* Jim Kaat, P, 283-237, 3 A-S, 16 GG, 1966 TSN AL Pitcher of Year
* Tony Oliva, RF-DH, RoY,2x 2nd in MVP, 8 A-S, 1 GG, 3 BA Titles,
.304 BA, 220 HR, 131 OPS+
* Al Oliver, CF-1B, 7 A-S, .303 BA, 219 HR, 121 OPS+
* Vada Pinson, CF, 2 A-S, 1 GG, .286 BA, 256 HR, 110 OPS+
* Ron Santo, 3B, 9 A-S, .277 BA, 342 HR, 125 OPS+
* Luis Tiant, P, 229-172, 3 A-S, 2 ERA Titles
* Joe Torre, C-1B-3B, 9 A-S, 1 GG, 1971 MVP & BA title, .297 BA,
252 HR, 128 OPS+
* Maury Wills, SS, 1962 MVP, 5 A-S, 2 GG, 20 HR, .281 BA, 586 SB,
88 OPS+
Living Hall of Famers may vote for up to four. 75% required for
induction.
Pre-1943 Ballot: All are on the ballot as players:
* Bill Dahlen, SS, 1891-1911, 2457 H, 547 SB, .272 BA, 109 OPS+
* Wes Ferrell, P, 1927-1941, 193-128, 2 A-S, 1935 2nd in MVP, 116 ERA+
* Joe Gordon, 2B, 1938-1943&1946-1950, 1942 MVP, 9 A-S, 1530 H,
.268 BA, 120 OPS+
* Sherry Magee, LF, 1904-1919, 2169 H, 441 SB, .291 BA, 136 OPS+
* Carl Mays, P, 1915-1929, 207-126, 120 ERA+
* Allie Reynolds, P, 1942-1954, 182-107, 110 ERA+, 6 A-S
* Vern Stephens, SS, 1941-1955, 1859 H, .286 BA, 119 OPS+, 8 A-S
* Mickey Vernon, 1B, 1939-1943&1946-1960, 2495 H, 172 HR, .286 BA,
116 OPS+, 7 A-S, 2x BA Title
* Bucky Walters, P, 1931-1950, 6 A-S, 1939 MVP and TrplCrwn, 2x
ERA title, 3.30 ERA, 115 ERA+
* Deacon White, 3B-C, 1871-1890, 2066 H, .312 BA, 127 OPS+, 2x BA
Title
Committee of writers, execs and HOFers (12 total) may vote for up to
four. Nine votes required for induction.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Catch Muhammad Cohen in Asia Times: www.atimes.com and The Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/muhammadcohen
>
> Hong Kong On Air -"TV news, love, betrayal, high finance, and cheap
> lingerie"
> Now available everywhere: www.hongkongonair.com
>
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
No Mas--this time, for sure
In February, 2006, I cited the famous quote from boxer Roberto Duran (when he quit in the 8th round of his rematch with Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980), suggesting that our mayor, Bobby Duran, give it a rest.
Duran failed to heed my advice and won a 20-vote victory that month over Gene Sanchez, giving him his first full term as Taos mayor.
Now Bobby has taken up the notion and announced he is quitting. "No mas!"
He has enjoyed being quoted saying that he always said he would stay in politics here as long as it was "fun, challenging, and I enjoy the people I'm working with--now two out of three are missing". I guess he's still challenged.
Duran failed to heed my advice and won a 20-vote victory that month over Gene Sanchez, giving him his first full term as Taos mayor.
Now Bobby has taken up the notion and announced he is quitting. "No mas!"
He has enjoyed being quoted saying that he always said he would stay in politics here as long as it was "fun, challenging, and I enjoy the people I'm working with--now two out of three are missing". I guess he's still challenged.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Obama Leadership--Early Impressions
There have been a number of editorials about whether Obama should lead our country to the center, the center-left, the left, or even the center-right. I think all those arguments are directionally challenged.
If we look at what Obama is doing in terms of his selections for Cabinet positions, his involvement in the Senate deliberations on punishing rogue Senator Joe Lieberman, and his policy positions and their more detailed elaborations, I would say that Obama is trying to get the largest amount of support possible, to lead the country where he wants to go, which is FORWARD.
This may not seem a very specifc azimuth, but compared to the direction of Bushite Misrule, which could be characterized as leading us backwards, multi-directionally confused, or just plain unrealistically (into Spaceland?), it is refreshing.
In terms of specific Cabinet appointments and who's been named (albeit through news reports only), the only one I've gotten right so far is today's news that Timothy Geithner is for Treasury. I think it's a great choice: after Hillary Clinton has been confirmed as destined for State, I wanted to say (but didn't) "basta!" with the Clintonistas. I preferred Bill Richardson for State, but I can live with HRC, as long as she promises to toe the Administration line (i.e., no "going rogue"), and I know she can if she wants, and that she will, as long as Obama's leadership is popular. If that condition no longer obtains, she will split and start preparing to run in a mindless, futile challenge in '12.
Bill Richardson for Commerce (I've also heard Penny Pritzker for it--perhaps Trade Rep?) seems a bit disappointing to me (perhaps to him, too) in terms of being one of the less critical and central positions, but it is one that this expert schmoozer should handle well. We should review his history of policy statements on trade; once again, he should be expected to follow Administration policy, unclear as it may be on this particular issue.
A few other comments on the selections: I very much buy the argument that Obama should get exactly the people he wants, as long as they can survive the vetting-and-confirmation gauntlet, and we should swallow our narrow criticism. I think Janet Napolitano was a very good choice for Homeland Security, Robert Gates (in the short-run) superb for Defense--he has really impressed with his willingness to be his own man in the unitary Bushite executive, and he should have whoever he trusts most as Attorney General (so, I guess that's Eric Holder). Chris Dodd should be near-disqualified for resigning and taking a Cabinet position because there's a Republican Governor in Connecticut.
Last Bits
My position on Joe Lieberman has been consistent for years: I don't mind Lieberman being considered a Democrat, as long as I don't have to listen to his boring speeches. Chairman of Homeland Security is probably a good place for him toward that purpose.
Obama needs to put forward his policy on exactly what type of auto bailout (from what I've seen, it's one heavily oriented toward demanding commitment from the automakers that they will move to a new paradigm of autos produced, featuring plug-in hybrids). If he does, he can still get it, sooner than his new Adminsitration, and it will help rally the markets. That is, of course, unless Dubya digs in his bootheels and vetoes it, to his everlasting shame.
If we look at what Obama is doing in terms of his selections for Cabinet positions, his involvement in the Senate deliberations on punishing rogue Senator Joe Lieberman, and his policy positions and their more detailed elaborations, I would say that Obama is trying to get the largest amount of support possible, to lead the country where he wants to go, which is FORWARD.
This may not seem a very specifc azimuth, but compared to the direction of Bushite Misrule, which could be characterized as leading us backwards, multi-directionally confused, or just plain unrealistically (into Spaceland?), it is refreshing.
In terms of specific Cabinet appointments and who's been named (albeit through news reports only), the only one I've gotten right so far is today's news that Timothy Geithner is for Treasury. I think it's a great choice: after Hillary Clinton has been confirmed as destined for State, I wanted to say (but didn't) "basta!" with the Clintonistas. I preferred Bill Richardson for State, but I can live with HRC, as long as she promises to toe the Administration line (i.e., no "going rogue"), and I know she can if she wants, and that she will, as long as Obama's leadership is popular. If that condition no longer obtains, she will split and start preparing to run in a mindless, futile challenge in '12.
Bill Richardson for Commerce (I've also heard Penny Pritzker for it--perhaps Trade Rep?) seems a bit disappointing to me (perhaps to him, too) in terms of being one of the less critical and central positions, but it is one that this expert schmoozer should handle well. We should review his history of policy statements on trade; once again, he should be expected to follow Administration policy, unclear as it may be on this particular issue.
A few other comments on the selections: I very much buy the argument that Obama should get exactly the people he wants, as long as they can survive the vetting-and-confirmation gauntlet, and we should swallow our narrow criticism. I think Janet Napolitano was a very good choice for Homeland Security, Robert Gates (in the short-run) superb for Defense--he has really impressed with his willingness to be his own man in the unitary Bushite executive, and he should have whoever he trusts most as Attorney General (so, I guess that's Eric Holder). Chris Dodd should be near-disqualified for resigning and taking a Cabinet position because there's a Republican Governor in Connecticut.
Last Bits
My position on Joe Lieberman has been consistent for years: I don't mind Lieberman being considered a Democrat, as long as I don't have to listen to his boring speeches. Chairman of Homeland Security is probably a good place for him toward that purpose.
Obama needs to put forward his policy on exactly what type of auto bailout (from what I've seen, it's one heavily oriented toward demanding commitment from the automakers that they will move to a new paradigm of autos produced, featuring plug-in hybrids). If he does, he can still get it, sooner than his new Adminsitration, and it will help rally the markets. That is, of course, unless Dubya digs in his bootheels and vetoes it, to his everlasting shame.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Palin in '12!
We be Palin'.
In the increasingly hostile internecine battle in the Republican Party--they look almost like Democrats, these days!--we have to side with the base purists who look to Sarah Palin as their standard-bearer for 2012.
A Palin-Huckabee ticket would be a very pure expression of social conservatism, and it would be a voter-friendly, not an angry, expression. It won't play well with the Bushite party Establishment, but they've earned their ticket to nowhere. As in, who cares what they think? Karl Rove, this means you.
Yes, it should lose--big time, 45-47% national vote kind of support, kind of Bob Dole-ish--unless the Obama Administration falls flat (and I see only one reason why it would: the impossible nature of the combined domestic and international challenges it will face).
I suppose there is some sort of moderate, 21st-century expression of opposition to the rampaging Democratic majority that could emerge, though I can't imagine why people of that persuasion would choose the Republican party as its vehicle. Nor do I see them taking on Obama & Co. in 2012; if they were really smart they'd wait until 2016.
In the increasingly hostile internecine battle in the Republican Party--they look almost like Democrats, these days!--we have to side with the base purists who look to Sarah Palin as their standard-bearer for 2012.
A Palin-Huckabee ticket would be a very pure expression of social conservatism, and it would be a voter-friendly, not an angry, expression. It won't play well with the Bushite party Establishment, but they've earned their ticket to nowhere. As in, who cares what they think? Karl Rove, this means you.
Yes, it should lose--big time, 45-47% national vote kind of support, kind of Bob Dole-ish--unless the Obama Administration falls flat (and I see only one reason why it would: the impossible nature of the combined domestic and international challenges it will face).
I suppose there is some sort of moderate, 21st-century expression of opposition to the rampaging Democratic majority that could emerge, though I can't imagine why people of that persuasion would choose the Republican party as its vehicle. Nor do I see them taking on Obama & Co. in 2012; if they were really smart they'd wait until 2016.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bailout: FAQ Revisited
I thought I was done ranting about Bushite Misrule, but there's at least one more bone I have to pick and bonk them with.
Before (Sept. 23, the day after Secy. Paulson announced the outlines of the original bailout plan), we addressed these questions:
1) Who is to blame for this mess?--Answer: Originators, RATING AGENCIES (thoroughly confirmed through the hearings), Investment houses, Consumers of the securitized mortgage products, and all us folks chasing those extra 20 basis points of return.
2) What should be done to keep from blowing the taxpayers' huge investment? I argued that Treasury should spearhead a revolutionary change in the risk management of the practice of mortgage securitization, and that "what we can and should expect from this exercise is that there will be a functioning market for this stuff, that it will be priced properly for its risk and that the risk will be better understood. We can expect that the most egregious actions will be punished, and that our initiatives will make a recurrence impossible and that the Bile Bubble will not simply be pushed onto the next weak spot in the financial industry." More on this later.
3) What legislation should be passed right now? OK, I advocated for the bailout, and in the terms requested, though the amount of money to be spent by the Bushites needed to be severely limited.
Now, Hank comes back to us to say that actually buying the mortgage-backed security assets, the "toxic sludge", in order to build a market for them and allow the banks to eventually pass them through their constipated systems, was "too slow". Or too hard (as in, constipated hard and it would take too long to figure out the appropriate laxative).
Instead, Paulson listened to those who said the banks simply needed an infusion of capital. It's true that there were many leading economists (including our new Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman) who said this would do the job. I didn't get it, but I'm not expert on banks' capital structures (as I am on toxic sludge). The way I saw it, giving the banks more capital just meant they weren't so badly under-capitalized for the assets they had. Whatever; clearly--as we are seeing--it didn't clear out the hardened sludge blockage and get the banks' bowels moving again.
So, here we are. Paulson & Co. have picked their winners and losers--the winners get assistance, the losers are swallowed up. $300 billion later, and it's time to come back and note that their mission has changed. At least--I think--they won't be given license to spend the rest of it.
It will be left to Paulson's successors to apply the power of the federal government to force out the information and bring to bear the discipline necessary to crack this problem. It's still needed.
The Bile bubble hasn't moved on, but it has expanded--to the auto industry, to credit cards, and now it's moving to high-tech investment.
Note for the proposed auto bailout: I'm in favor of allocating $15 billion or so. It should have one--very thick--string attached: the money should be used, exclusively, for development and rollout of workable plug-in hybrid vehicles. If the auto companies don't want it, they don't have to (though they do have to make their fuel efficiency targets). We saw earlier this decade the huge bump Toyota and Honda got from coming out with improved fuel-efficient cars; this next bump could belong to one or more of the Big Three, if they've got the brains and guts. If they make satisfactory progress, the cash flow will take care of itself.
Before (Sept. 23, the day after Secy. Paulson announced the outlines of the original bailout plan), we addressed these questions:
1) Who is to blame for this mess?--Answer: Originators, RATING AGENCIES (thoroughly confirmed through the hearings), Investment houses, Consumers of the securitized mortgage products, and all us folks chasing those extra 20 basis points of return.
2) What should be done to keep from blowing the taxpayers' huge investment? I argued that Treasury should spearhead a revolutionary change in the risk management of the practice of mortgage securitization, and that "what we can and should expect from this exercise is that there will be a functioning market for this stuff, that it will be priced properly for its risk and that the risk will be better understood. We can expect that the most egregious actions will be punished, and that our initiatives will make a recurrence impossible and that the Bile Bubble will not simply be pushed onto the next weak spot in the financial industry." More on this later.
3) What legislation should be passed right now? OK, I advocated for the bailout, and in the terms requested, though the amount of money to be spent by the Bushites needed to be severely limited.
Now, Hank comes back to us to say that actually buying the mortgage-backed security assets, the "toxic sludge", in order to build a market for them and allow the banks to eventually pass them through their constipated systems, was "too slow". Or too hard (as in, constipated hard and it would take too long to figure out the appropriate laxative).
Instead, Paulson listened to those who said the banks simply needed an infusion of capital. It's true that there were many leading economists (including our new Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman) who said this would do the job. I didn't get it, but I'm not expert on banks' capital structures (as I am on toxic sludge). The way I saw it, giving the banks more capital just meant they weren't so badly under-capitalized for the assets they had. Whatever; clearly--as we are seeing--it didn't clear out the hardened sludge blockage and get the banks' bowels moving again.
So, here we are. Paulson & Co. have picked their winners and losers--the winners get assistance, the losers are swallowed up. $300 billion later, and it's time to come back and note that their mission has changed. At least--I think--they won't be given license to spend the rest of it.
It will be left to Paulson's successors to apply the power of the federal government to force out the information and bring to bear the discipline necessary to crack this problem. It's still needed.
The Bile bubble hasn't moved on, but it has expanded--to the auto industry, to credit cards, and now it's moving to high-tech investment.
Note for the proposed auto bailout: I'm in favor of allocating $15 billion or so. It should have one--very thick--string attached: the money should be used, exclusively, for development and rollout of workable plug-in hybrid vehicles. If the auto companies don't want it, they don't have to (though they do have to make their fuel efficiency targets). We saw earlier this decade the huge bump Toyota and Honda got from coming out with improved fuel-efficient cars; this next bump could belong to one or more of the Big Three, if they've got the brains and guts. If they make satisfactory progress, the cash flow will take care of itself.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Getting it Right on Missile Defense
CNN has just reported that Obama has rebuffed the argument that the rightist Polish PM made that he (Obama) will continue the missile defense system deployment in Poland.
Obama's spokesman stated that he has not changed his position: that he may deploy it once the technology is workable.
This is a good start toward defusing a ridiculous tempest about nothing that was developing with respect to Russia and this missile defense question.
I've posted on this before (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-will-defend-us-from-star-wars.html): the argument about protecting Europe from Iran is phony; it's a provocation to Russia, and an unnecessary one because everyone knows the damn thing don't work. And, even if it worked, it wouldn't work.
I suppose someone will criticize Obama for "letting the cat out of the bag" that it doesn't work. Unfortunately, the bag is wide open and the cat can get out anytime it wants. Poland shouldn't depend on it--for anything--Russia will no longer be able to use it as an excuse for provocations of its own, and--hopefully--we'll save a few billion a year that we'd otherwise totally waste.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect!
Obama's spokesman stated that he has not changed his position: that he may deploy it once the technology is workable.
This is a good start toward defusing a ridiculous tempest about nothing that was developing with respect to Russia and this missile defense question.
I've posted on this before (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-will-defend-us-from-star-wars.html): the argument about protecting Europe from Iran is phony; it's a provocation to Russia, and an unnecessary one because everyone knows the damn thing don't work. And, even if it worked, it wouldn't work.
I suppose someone will criticize Obama for "letting the cat out of the bag" that it doesn't work. Unfortunately, the bag is wide open and the cat can get out anytime it wants. Poland shouldn't depend on it--for anything--Russia will no longer be able to use it as an excuse for provocations of its own, and--hopefully--we'll save a few billion a year that we'd otherwise totally waste.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect!
Nebraska Pitches In One EV
I saw this tonight--click on title for link to the daily kos article.
One of Nebraska's Congressional Districts has been declared for Obama, which will earn him one additional electoral vote and bring him to 365.
Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate electoral votes to the winner of each Congressional district, with two going to the statewide winner.
I advocate this change for all states, particularly those that are not swing states, as an attempt to make Presidential elections a bit more democratic and less subject to manipulation by state election administration authorities. It's a small reform compared to what I really advocate, which is the abolition of the institution of the Electoral College in its entirety.
I posted on this previously--see "Anxious in NM", and a more lengthy discussion last month on 538.com: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/omaha-nebraskas-one-electoral-vote-is.html
One of Nebraska's Congressional Districts has been declared for Obama, which will earn him one additional electoral vote and bring him to 365.
Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate electoral votes to the winner of each Congressional district, with two going to the statewide winner.
I advocate this change for all states, particularly those that are not swing states, as an attempt to make Presidential elections a bit more democratic and less subject to manipulation by state election administration authorities. It's a small reform compared to what I really advocate, which is the abolition of the institution of the Electoral College in its entirety.
I posted on this previously--see "Anxious in NM", and a more lengthy discussion last month on 538.com: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/omaha-nebraskas-one-electoral-vote-is.html
State of Play
To start, here is an extract (I did my best to edit) from the Rasmussen Markets web site, showing the most actively traded issues today:
Issue Bid Ask Last Change
08.SENATE.DEM.51-55 32.0 40.0 32.0 0
AK.SENATE08.DEM 42.0 52.0 49.9 +4.9
08.SENATE.DEM.56-60 60.2 65.0 60.2 -7.7
MN.SENATE08.DEM 30.1 35.8 35.8 +0.9
08.VOTER.TURNOUT.>60% 10.4 11.4 10.4 0
MISSOURI.REP 95.1 98.0 95.2 -0.8
I will now interpret these.
The most interesting question is whether the number of Democrats in the new Senate will be between 51-55, or between 56-60. My interpretation of the status of the "independents"--Lieberman and Bernie Sanders--for this purpose is that they are not counted as Democrats, though there doesn't appear to be anything on the site that officially says, one way or the other. However, if either were considered a Democrat, they would definitely have 56 or more, what with the decision for Merkley in the Oregon race.
The quotes suggest that more people feel the probability is with 56-60 Dems, meaning that one of the remaining races (Georgia, Alaska, or Minnesota) will go to them.
In terms of my bets, I went with both in the stretch run to the election, about evenly, as I saw that 55-56 (as defined here) was right at the cusp of where things should come out. On Wednesday, I upped my stake on 51-55, and overall sentiment was shooting up on that one. It has since corrected downward, so I'm now in a slightly losing position on that one. I got whipsawed, a bit.
Turning to one of the cases, Minnesota Senate Dem at 35.8 (bid 30.1; ask 35.8; last trade 35.8) means that Al Franken is currently given about a one-third chance of winning. The large gap means that sentiment in his favor isn't that strong, though the last trade was on the high end of the gap--probably someone closing out his position against Al. On the other side of the fence, the less-traded one, the bid for Coleman's winning is 63.2 and the ask 69.9, last trade 69.8, which means roughly the same thing: there isn't a strong reason to take a position either way, because it's so close it's hard to be sure how it's going to come out.
I really sat on the fence on this one, on Rasmussen. I had a small position on each side (I bought a few shares of Coleman a week or two before the election, when sentiment was running very strong Franken would win--I didn't believe it), and was looking to perhaps make a buck by trying to buy low and trading off at some point. As far as guilt about "buying Coleman", frankly he isn't that awful, just kind of phony, and I thought Minnesotans would go for the guy they thought "more serious" in the end.
Voter turnout >60% was one that I did bet on, not too heavily, and looks like a loser. It's close enough to that total, or at least is perceived to be so, that the number is at 10, not way down at 0. I could close out my position and take my loss, but it's not significant for me. My expectations for a high turnout were not fully met.
Missouri Rep.--"the market" gives about 95% likelihood to the Republicans' winning that state. With about a 6000-vote margin right now, presumably just waiting to complete absentee ballots and so forth, that seems reasonable. I never had any skin in this game, at least since July or so, as I expected a Republican win and didn't want to profit from it.
As for the other two races of significance that could be bet upon--Alaska and Georgia--I never had any position. I didn't trust the Alaska voters to throw Stevens out--correctly--nor did I expect Georgia voters to throw out the nearly-as-infamous Saxbe Chambliss.
For the record, there's a huge bid-ask gap on Alaska Dem, 42 to 60 (except for one lonely seller at 52)--not much betting support for Begich at present, and there's some support on the Stevens side at 50-55% (and some resistance at 70% or so). It's close to 50-50, but the market is unstable. Georgia's a very different situation--stable at about 80-20 in favor of the Republican, but a runoff seems near-certain, so this one will not be resolved for a month or so.
If Alaska ends up with Stevens and Minnesota with Coleman, then the probabilities on the Dem 51-55/Dem 56-60 question will end up riding on the outcome of the Georgia runoff (and should switch toward 80-20 in favor of the lower number of Dem seats). Based on that expectation, I'm holding on to my longer position for the lower number.
The House may have several seats yet to be decided, but 95% of the probability on Rasmussen lies with the range 251-260 Democratic seats. That's the one I had bet on, actually.
Rasmussen will go on beyond the election and its aftermath, I think, though it may need to find some other items for people to bet on to maintain interest. My initial stake of $10k was halved back on Super Tuesday (poorly-timed bets by this newbie on the California and New Mexico primaries, as I recall), and I've gradually worked it back to near where I started. I had small wagers that won on states like Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina--I didn't believe but wanted to profit if Obama could pull them out--and a much larger, more successful one on Nevada, where I did believe. I made a bunch on Obama--mostly from early days, when I "bought him" at 30% or so, and betting against McCain--I was short on him averaging about 30-40% (I increased my stake in September when he briefly got up to 50% or so), but most of those gains were "marked to market" and showed up in my account a month or so ago.
My success on CNN's market game has been much greater--my $5k is up to $12k, and I'm in the top 3% of traders--but the interest level is lower. The markets there always had a heavy Democratic bias, so I was mostly reduced to shopping here and there for bargains (again, I did well betting on Nevada). I did OK on some of the individual House races, but missed a few as well. There are no open markets, so I suspect CNN may shut it down (rather than open betting on, say, who will get Cabinet posts).
Issue Bid Ask Last Change
08.SENATE.DEM.51-55 32.0 40.0 32.0 0
AK.SENATE08.DEM 42.0 52.0 49.9 +4.9
08.SENATE.DEM.56-60 60.2 65.0 60.2 -7.7
MN.SENATE08.DEM 30.1 35.8 35.8 +0.9
08.VOTER.TURNOUT.>60% 10.4 11.4 10.4 0
MISSOURI.REP 95.1 98.0 95.2 -0.8
I will now interpret these.
The most interesting question is whether the number of Democrats in the new Senate will be between 51-55, or between 56-60. My interpretation of the status of the "independents"--Lieberman and Bernie Sanders--for this purpose is that they are not counted as Democrats, though there doesn't appear to be anything on the site that officially says, one way or the other. However, if either were considered a Democrat, they would definitely have 56 or more, what with the decision for Merkley in the Oregon race.
The quotes suggest that more people feel the probability is with 56-60 Dems, meaning that one of the remaining races (Georgia, Alaska, or Minnesota) will go to them.
In terms of my bets, I went with both in the stretch run to the election, about evenly, as I saw that 55-56 (as defined here) was right at the cusp of where things should come out. On Wednesday, I upped my stake on 51-55, and overall sentiment was shooting up on that one. It has since corrected downward, so I'm now in a slightly losing position on that one. I got whipsawed, a bit.
Turning to one of the cases, Minnesota Senate Dem at 35.8 (bid 30.1; ask 35.8; last trade 35.8) means that Al Franken is currently given about a one-third chance of winning. The large gap means that sentiment in his favor isn't that strong, though the last trade was on the high end of the gap--probably someone closing out his position against Al. On the other side of the fence, the less-traded one, the bid for Coleman's winning is 63.2 and the ask 69.9, last trade 69.8, which means roughly the same thing: there isn't a strong reason to take a position either way, because it's so close it's hard to be sure how it's going to come out.
I really sat on the fence on this one, on Rasmussen. I had a small position on each side (I bought a few shares of Coleman a week or two before the election, when sentiment was running very strong Franken would win--I didn't believe it), and was looking to perhaps make a buck by trying to buy low and trading off at some point. As far as guilt about "buying Coleman", frankly he isn't that awful, just kind of phony, and I thought Minnesotans would go for the guy they thought "more serious" in the end.
Voter turnout >60% was one that I did bet on, not too heavily, and looks like a loser. It's close enough to that total, or at least is perceived to be so, that the number is at 10, not way down at 0. I could close out my position and take my loss, but it's not significant for me. My expectations for a high turnout were not fully met.
Missouri Rep.--"the market" gives about 95% likelihood to the Republicans' winning that state. With about a 6000-vote margin right now, presumably just waiting to complete absentee ballots and so forth, that seems reasonable. I never had any skin in this game, at least since July or so, as I expected a Republican win and didn't want to profit from it.
As for the other two races of significance that could be bet upon--Alaska and Georgia--I never had any position. I didn't trust the Alaska voters to throw Stevens out--correctly--nor did I expect Georgia voters to throw out the nearly-as-infamous Saxbe Chambliss.
For the record, there's a huge bid-ask gap on Alaska Dem, 42 to 60 (except for one lonely seller at 52)--not much betting support for Begich at present, and there's some support on the Stevens side at 50-55% (and some resistance at 70% or so). It's close to 50-50, but the market is unstable. Georgia's a very different situation--stable at about 80-20 in favor of the Republican, but a runoff seems near-certain, so this one will not be resolved for a month or so.
If Alaska ends up with Stevens and Minnesota with Coleman, then the probabilities on the Dem 51-55/Dem 56-60 question will end up riding on the outcome of the Georgia runoff (and should switch toward 80-20 in favor of the lower number of Dem seats). Based on that expectation, I'm holding on to my longer position for the lower number.
The House may have several seats yet to be decided, but 95% of the probability on Rasmussen lies with the range 251-260 Democratic seats. That's the one I had bet on, actually.
Rasmussen will go on beyond the election and its aftermath, I think, though it may need to find some other items for people to bet on to maintain interest. My initial stake of $10k was halved back on Super Tuesday (poorly-timed bets by this newbie on the California and New Mexico primaries, as I recall), and I've gradually worked it back to near where I started. I had small wagers that won on states like Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina--I didn't believe but wanted to profit if Obama could pull them out--and a much larger, more successful one on Nevada, where I did believe. I made a bunch on Obama--mostly from early days, when I "bought him" at 30% or so, and betting against McCain--I was short on him averaging about 30-40% (I increased my stake in September when he briefly got up to 50% or so), but most of those gains were "marked to market" and showed up in my account a month or so ago.
My success on CNN's market game has been much greater--my $5k is up to $12k, and I'm in the top 3% of traders--but the interest level is lower. The markets there always had a heavy Democratic bias, so I was mostly reduced to shopping here and there for bargains (again, I did well betting on Nevada). I did OK on some of the individual House races, but missed a few as well. There are no open markets, so I suspect CNN may shut it down (rather than open betting on, say, who will get Cabinet posts).
Thursday, November 06, 2008
What Now, My Love?
Now that the election is over, my blog will need to find a new focus (and I, for it).
I'm thinking about starting to rant on a regular basis about our litigious society. Forty years after George Wallace's third-party run and Nixon's own rants, we've got plenty of "Law and Order" (even a TV show by that name), but not much effort being expended toward justice.
Legal types typically confound the two (or three), and the government even has a Cabinet department by that name, but they are not the same thing. Justice is when equity prevails. What is prevailing now is the power of money and job security for lawyers. Also for correction officials, construction of jails, judges of various levels of seriousness and specializations, and, worst of all, TV programming about all this wasted effort.
I'm thinking about starting to rant on a regular basis about our litigious society. Forty years after George Wallace's third-party run and Nixon's own rants, we've got plenty of "Law and Order" (even a TV show by that name), but not much effort being expended toward justice.
Legal types typically confound the two (or three), and the government even has a Cabinet department by that name, but they are not the same thing. Justice is when equity prevails. What is prevailing now is the power of money and job security for lawyers. Also for correction officials, construction of jails, judges of various levels of seriousness and specializations, and, worst of all, TV programming about all this wasted effort.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
It's Over: Hurrah! and Hallelujah!
As often happens, the Electoral College magnified a narrow Popular Vote majority, so it looks like a landslide. Here are my predictions (posted as a comment for Huffington Post's competition) with the current state of affairs:
Obama 318 McCain 220
It looks as though Obama will end up winning 364-174. I missed on Ohio, for sure (was amazed it was called so early), Indiana (in the biggest surprise of the Presidential contest, a very narrow win) and, it looks like, North Carolina. The polls were surprisingly accurate, on the whole, and my discounting of them was punished a bit.
Popular Vote: Obama 51.3 McCain 46.7 (rounds to 51-47)
The number I'm seeing is rounded to 53-46. Approximately a five-percent shift--one in 20 voters--from 2004's 51-48 Republican edge, and it moved all these nine states: NM (15% win!), NV (12% win), IA (9%), CO (7%), VA (5%), OH (4%), FL (2%), IN (1%), and, if it holds, NC (0.4%).
Senate: 56-43-1 (Lieberman not counted as a Dem, Bernie Sanders yes)
The six-seat pickup for the Dems I predicted looks about as good as any estimate at this point. Definite wins were CO, NM, VA, NC (bigger win than expected!), and NH. Democrat Merkley has a microscopic lead in OR, but Franken trails by even a smaller margin in MN, GA will be a runoff but with Republican Chambliss the favorite, and AK somehow seems to be going for Stevens, very narrowly. It makes you wonder what a Republican has to do to lose in Alaska. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell held on by a 52-48 margin in Kentucky, the sly dog.
House: 257-178
Right now, CNN has it 254-173, with 8 undecided, so that estimate also looks as good as any other. Our state of New Mexico went from 1 of 3 Democrats to all 3. The shocker was in the Southern district, heavily Republican, which had Democrat Harry Teague pull out a 10-point margin.
Minnesota Senate: Coleman 46 Franken 43 Barkley 11
It's likely, but not certain, that I at least picked the right winner. Current results round to 42-42-15.
Overall, a good night, in terms of results and of predictive accuracy. We are celebrating New Mexico's moving from a total swing state to a thoroughly blue state: Besides the 15-point win for Obama, we now have two Democratic Senators (Udall winning by 20+ percent), a Democratic Governor, and 3 of 3 Democratic Congressmen.
Locally, Taos County went 82-17 for Obama, 13,327 to 2,824, exceeding our expectations, and the highest percentage win for any county in the state. Yeah!
Obama 318 McCain 220
It looks as though Obama will end up winning 364-174. I missed on Ohio, for sure (was amazed it was called so early), Indiana (in the biggest surprise of the Presidential contest, a very narrow win) and, it looks like, North Carolina. The polls were surprisingly accurate, on the whole, and my discounting of them was punished a bit.
Popular Vote: Obama 51.3 McCain 46.7 (rounds to 51-47)
The number I'm seeing is rounded to 53-46. Approximately a five-percent shift--one in 20 voters--from 2004's 51-48 Republican edge, and it moved all these nine states: NM (15% win!), NV (12% win), IA (9%), CO (7%), VA (5%), OH (4%), FL (2%), IN (1%), and, if it holds, NC (0.4%).
Senate: 56-43-1 (Lieberman not counted as a Dem, Bernie Sanders yes)
The six-seat pickup for the Dems I predicted looks about as good as any estimate at this point. Definite wins were CO, NM, VA, NC (bigger win than expected!), and NH. Democrat Merkley has a microscopic lead in OR, but Franken trails by even a smaller margin in MN, GA will be a runoff but with Republican Chambliss the favorite, and AK somehow seems to be going for Stevens, very narrowly. It makes you wonder what a Republican has to do to lose in Alaska. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell held on by a 52-48 margin in Kentucky, the sly dog.
House: 257-178
Right now, CNN has it 254-173, with 8 undecided, so that estimate also looks as good as any other. Our state of New Mexico went from 1 of 3 Democrats to all 3. The shocker was in the Southern district, heavily Republican, which had Democrat Harry Teague pull out a 10-point margin.
Minnesota Senate: Coleman 46 Franken 43 Barkley 11
It's likely, but not certain, that I at least picked the right winner. Current results round to 42-42-15.
Overall, a good night, in terms of results and of predictive accuracy. We are celebrating New Mexico's moving from a total swing state to a thoroughly blue state: Besides the 15-point win for Obama, we now have two Democratic Senators (Udall winning by 20+ percent), a Democratic Governor, and 3 of 3 Democratic Congressmen.
Locally, Taos County went 82-17 for Obama, 13,327 to 2,824, exceeding our expectations, and the highest percentage win for any county in the state. Yeah!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Alternative Futures, Echoes of Pasts
Some astute commentators have pointed out that McCain's campaign looks toward the past, while Obama's looks to the future; further, that the future-oriented Presidential campaigns win.
While all of that may be true, I'd like to look at the other side of the argument.
John McCain and Our Future
Beyond cutting pork out of our governmental diet, victory with honor in Iraq, and making permanent the Bushite tax cuts, what are the real proposals, and what is likely to happen if McCain wins?
There's the spending freeze, which I will give some credit to McCain for coming up with during the debate when both candidates were challenged to name something they would cut to deal with the economic crisis. The only two problems with that idea were that the exceptions (military, veterans, and a few other programs, not to mention the entitlements) pretty much cover all the major spending areas, and the second is that Congress is supposed to legislate expenditures. True, McCain could choose not to spend some money that was allocated on certain programs if their budget authorizations were not written such that the President was directed to spend all the money. Cosmetically, it's an attractive idea, but not one that is going to bring the budget into balance.
There's the health care initiative, which if I understand it right, would require a Congressional approval of a tax credit for purchase of health insurance, which would be offset for many by taxation of health care benefits received from employers. I can't see that one going anywhere.
Neither is there any chance for extending the Bushite tax cuts, barring some shocking reversal in 2010 putting the Republicans back in control in the House. My understanding is that legislative action would be required for them to persist, which is part of the beauty of Obama's promise to increase the taxes for the highest earners--he need do nothing for that part of the tax plan, and woe to those who oppose the tax cuts for the middle class.
In fact, there are hardly any initiatives John McCain would be able to get through a heavily-Democratic House or Senate. He would be in the position of reacting to legislation generated in Democratic-led committees. He could bring out that crusty old pen and veto everything, and most of those vetoes would stick--if, and it's a big if, he doesn't alienate his own party's Congressional caucus too much.
There might be a chance for a couple of bipartisan initiatives: a watered-down cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases (in his version, polluters would be grandfathered to current levels), approval of defense budgets no one dares oppose, and supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (similar argument, a la Bushite Misrule), maybe even a new stab at funding Social Security and Medicare (if he doesn't alienate either party's caucus).
This scenario--governance through lack of action--actually does appeal to many Americans as a way to restrain our elected representatives from going overboard. In a time of strong growth, when inflation might loom large, this would make more sense. With deep recession all around, though, this negative vision hardly excites anyone.
Obama and the Past
On daily kos I posted a poll, way back on September 14, on the closest parallel in US election history to the current one. The clear winner was 1932: FDR's win over Herbert Hoover was the election readers of my diary selected as the one most like this one in its framing and result. I was somewhat surprised by that result, but as the days passed the group's wisdom has become more apparent--both the severity of the economic crisis as backdrop, and the possibility of a landslide.
1992 also recommends itself--a Bush goes down, "it's the economy, stupid"--and it's recent enough that most of us may actually remember the event. Both 1992 and 1932 were wins over Republican incumbents, not the case here.
I remember 1976, where Carter defeated Ford. Technically, Ford was the incumbent, but like this election, the hapless Republican candidate was really only the repository of the anger at the failures of his predecessor. As I've said before, Obama would do really well to speak at length with Jimmy Carter. I understand why he wouldn't have done it before the election, but (assuming he wins, of course) now would be the time.
In 1828, there was a call for vindication after a stolen previous election: John Q. Adams had taken it from Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives (basically, due to the assistance of the 3rd-place candidate in the general election, Henry Clay). If/when Obama wins, there will be a similar feeling of redemption to Jackson's landslide in 1828. The difference being, of course, that it was really the 2000 election that was stolen, the vindication should've been in 2004, and it should've been Al Gore (or maybe Hillary Clinton) running.
One election I omitted from my list of 10 or so elections to consider for comparison in my poll (including a couple that Republicans won) was 1860, when a lanky, transplanted Illinoisan came from political nowhere to capture first, the nomination, then the general election, in a bitterly divided nation. This one, I hope, will be different in the follow-up: though I do expect some nasty sentiments to be expressed among the supporters of the losing candidate, I don't expect immediate calls for secession from the Union.
For those who expect Obama to parallel Lincoln's Team of Rivals, I'd point out that the only Democrat named to his cabinet was Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, that he was basically a token, and it was mainly his rivals for the nomination that Lincoln invited in (still a break from tradition). Biden he's already taken care of--look for Richardson, Dodd, and Hillary to get invites (also Kucinich, maybe?), and a variety of Republicans. Most of the Republicans and Hillary will decline; I'm thinking Richard Lugar may take a senior job.
Finally, for those who believe in the parallels with the Roman Empire (I'm one, for sure), I recommend consideration of the ascension to the royal toga of Emperor Hadrian, the first non-Italian-born ruler of the Empire. OK, Obama was born in the US (contrary to some stupid rumor-mongering I've seen on the Web), but it was Hawaii, and he is ethnically quite different from all the white European males who've preceded him (again, I've seen some pretty crazy Internet postings suggesting there have been three or four predecessors with African-American blood). Hadrian was actually the third of "the good Emperors", whereas, at best, Obama would be the first (Nerva was the first "good one", according to the history books). What I'm hoping is that he won't be the last.
Poised at The Edge of History
That is our guy, for sure. Obama is in a position to make history, and he sure is poised. I feel he is entirely worthy of the position he is in, but I'm not quite as sure about what will be the content of the history which is to follow.
We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain. It's best we accept that now and come to terms with that reality.
If he doesn't win, though, there is going to be major strife. The effort to dampen expectations on the size of his lead has largely failed; our hope is that no one dares meddle with the result, not that no one is able to do so.
While all of that may be true, I'd like to look at the other side of the argument.
John McCain and Our Future
Beyond cutting pork out of our governmental diet, victory with honor in Iraq, and making permanent the Bushite tax cuts, what are the real proposals, and what is likely to happen if McCain wins?
There's the spending freeze, which I will give some credit to McCain for coming up with during the debate when both candidates were challenged to name something they would cut to deal with the economic crisis. The only two problems with that idea were that the exceptions (military, veterans, and a few other programs, not to mention the entitlements) pretty much cover all the major spending areas, and the second is that Congress is supposed to legislate expenditures. True, McCain could choose not to spend some money that was allocated on certain programs if their budget authorizations were not written such that the President was directed to spend all the money. Cosmetically, it's an attractive idea, but not one that is going to bring the budget into balance.
There's the health care initiative, which if I understand it right, would require a Congressional approval of a tax credit for purchase of health insurance, which would be offset for many by taxation of health care benefits received from employers. I can't see that one going anywhere.
Neither is there any chance for extending the Bushite tax cuts, barring some shocking reversal in 2010 putting the Republicans back in control in the House. My understanding is that legislative action would be required for them to persist, which is part of the beauty of Obama's promise to increase the taxes for the highest earners--he need do nothing for that part of the tax plan, and woe to those who oppose the tax cuts for the middle class.
In fact, there are hardly any initiatives John McCain would be able to get through a heavily-Democratic House or Senate. He would be in the position of reacting to legislation generated in Democratic-led committees. He could bring out that crusty old pen and veto everything, and most of those vetoes would stick--if, and it's a big if, he doesn't alienate his own party's Congressional caucus too much.
There might be a chance for a couple of bipartisan initiatives: a watered-down cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases (in his version, polluters would be grandfathered to current levels), approval of defense budgets no one dares oppose, and supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (similar argument, a la Bushite Misrule), maybe even a new stab at funding Social Security and Medicare (if he doesn't alienate either party's caucus).
This scenario--governance through lack of action--actually does appeal to many Americans as a way to restrain our elected representatives from going overboard. In a time of strong growth, when inflation might loom large, this would make more sense. With deep recession all around, though, this negative vision hardly excites anyone.
Obama and the Past
On daily kos I posted a poll, way back on September 14, on the closest parallel in US election history to the current one. The clear winner was 1932: FDR's win over Herbert Hoover was the election readers of my diary selected as the one most like this one in its framing and result. I was somewhat surprised by that result, but as the days passed the group's wisdom has become more apparent--both the severity of the economic crisis as backdrop, and the possibility of a landslide.
1992 also recommends itself--a Bush goes down, "it's the economy, stupid"--and it's recent enough that most of us may actually remember the event. Both 1992 and 1932 were wins over Republican incumbents, not the case here.
I remember 1976, where Carter defeated Ford. Technically, Ford was the incumbent, but like this election, the hapless Republican candidate was really only the repository of the anger at the failures of his predecessor. As I've said before, Obama would do really well to speak at length with Jimmy Carter. I understand why he wouldn't have done it before the election, but (assuming he wins, of course) now would be the time.
In 1828, there was a call for vindication after a stolen previous election: John Q. Adams had taken it from Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives (basically, due to the assistance of the 3rd-place candidate in the general election, Henry Clay). If/when Obama wins, there will be a similar feeling of redemption to Jackson's landslide in 1828. The difference being, of course, that it was really the 2000 election that was stolen, the vindication should've been in 2004, and it should've been Al Gore (or maybe Hillary Clinton) running.
One election I omitted from my list of 10 or so elections to consider for comparison in my poll (including a couple that Republicans won) was 1860, when a lanky, transplanted Illinoisan came from political nowhere to capture first, the nomination, then the general election, in a bitterly divided nation. This one, I hope, will be different in the follow-up: though I do expect some nasty sentiments to be expressed among the supporters of the losing candidate, I don't expect immediate calls for secession from the Union.
For those who expect Obama to parallel Lincoln's Team of Rivals, I'd point out that the only Democrat named to his cabinet was Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, that he was basically a token, and it was mainly his rivals for the nomination that Lincoln invited in (still a break from tradition). Biden he's already taken care of--look for Richardson, Dodd, and Hillary to get invites (also Kucinich, maybe?), and a variety of Republicans. Most of the Republicans and Hillary will decline; I'm thinking Richard Lugar may take a senior job.
Finally, for those who believe in the parallels with the Roman Empire (I'm one, for sure), I recommend consideration of the ascension to the royal toga of Emperor Hadrian, the first non-Italian-born ruler of the Empire. OK, Obama was born in the US (contrary to some stupid rumor-mongering I've seen on the Web), but it was Hawaii, and he is ethnically quite different from all the white European males who've preceded him (again, I've seen some pretty crazy Internet postings suggesting there have been three or four predecessors with African-American blood). Hadrian was actually the third of "the good Emperors", whereas, at best, Obama would be the first (Nerva was the first "good one", according to the history books). What I'm hoping is that he won't be the last.
Poised at The Edge of History
That is our guy, for sure. Obama is in a position to make history, and he sure is poised. I feel he is entirely worthy of the position he is in, but I'm not quite as sure about what will be the content of the history which is to follow.
We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain. It's best we accept that now and come to terms with that reality.
If he doesn't win, though, there is going to be major strife. The effort to dampen expectations on the size of his lead has largely failed; our hope is that no one dares meddle with the result, not that no one is able to do so.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Filling the Straight
Several pundits have suggested that McCain's attempt to win Pennsylvania, and thereby the election, is the electoral equivalent of the losing poker play, trying to "fill the inside straight".
It's actually worse than that: McCain is trying to get a straight in draw poker with the 4, 6, 7, drawing two cards. Getting the unlikely "5"--Pennsylvania--would still require him to get a 3 or 8 to win.
Here's why, and starting from our 291-200, with 47 (FL/OH) toss-up scenario. McCain would have to do all the following, starting from the most likely:
1) Win all those states like MT, GA, ND that he should be winning and is narrowly ahead.
2) Win those three big perennially-red states that I call "leaning McCain"--IN, NC, and MO--but are polling about even.
3) Win both Ohio and Florida, the two (large) states that look like true toss-ups to me still today. They are historically close, both parties have fully mobilized, and the polls are consistently close this time around, too. Both have shown narrow leads for Obama in recent days, Ohio's maybe a tad larger, but somewhat more unreliably.
4) Win Pennsylvania. The polling gap has closed from safe Obama to slightly nervous Obama--a lead of about 7 points, just about the margin of error in these polls.
All four of these successes would leave McCain at 268 Electoral Votes, to Obama's 270. McCain would still need:
5) To steal a state which has a lead for Obama larger than the margin of error. Most likely candidates would be NV, VA, CO, or NH.
If it were just 5), this would hardly be impossible--probably a 25% chance for one of them. However, winning Pennsylvania is about like drawing a '5'--a 1-in-13 chance. Combined, a 1-in-52 chance, about 2%--it makes the 9-10% odds for McCain on Rasmussen or CNN Markets look way overstated.
As for the cards, getting a '5' and a '3' or '8' (independent of the cards already dealt out) would be a 1/13 * 2/13 * 2 (cause the order could be either). That's 4-in-169, or about 2.4%.
It's actually worse than that: McCain is trying to get a straight in draw poker with the 4, 6, 7, drawing two cards. Getting the unlikely "5"--Pennsylvania--would still require him to get a 3 or 8 to win.
Here's why, and starting from our 291-200, with 47 (FL/OH) toss-up scenario. McCain would have to do all the following, starting from the most likely:
1) Win all those states like MT, GA, ND that he should be winning and is narrowly ahead.
2) Win those three big perennially-red states that I call "leaning McCain"--IN, NC, and MO--but are polling about even.
3) Win both Ohio and Florida, the two (large) states that look like true toss-ups to me still today. They are historically close, both parties have fully mobilized, and the polls are consistently close this time around, too. Both have shown narrow leads for Obama in recent days, Ohio's maybe a tad larger, but somewhat more unreliably.
4) Win Pennsylvania. The polling gap has closed from safe Obama to slightly nervous Obama--a lead of about 7 points, just about the margin of error in these polls.
All four of these successes would leave McCain at 268 Electoral Votes, to Obama's 270. McCain would still need:
5) To steal a state which has a lead for Obama larger than the margin of error. Most likely candidates would be NV, VA, CO, or NH.
If it were just 5), this would hardly be impossible--probably a 25% chance for one of them. However, winning Pennsylvania is about like drawing a '5'--a 1-in-13 chance. Combined, a 1-in-52 chance, about 2%--it makes the 9-10% odds for McCain on Rasmussen or CNN Markets look way overstated.
As for the cards, getting a '5' and a '3' or '8' (independent of the cards already dealt out) would be a 1/13 * 2/13 * 2 (cause the order could be either). That's 4-in-169, or about 2.4%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
