It's time for one of our favorite topics -- potential Big Ten expansion. How do Maryland and Rutgers strike ya?
ESPN.com first reported that the Big Ten was looking into expanding to 14 teams by adding Maryland and Rutgers.
The person says Maryland would have to be "the first domino to fall," but added that an agreement could be reached as soon as this week for both schools.
Text messages and phone calls to Maryland Athletic Director Kevin Anderson and Rutgers Athletic Director Tim Pernetti were not immediately returned.
Several officials with Big Ten schools, reached at football and basketball games on Saturday, declined to talk about the report.
Playing football since 1869, but not well
Football drives these discussions and neither of these teams has what you might call a glorious football history. At the moment, Rutgers is a pretty good team but historically they aren't too hot. Maryland is a basketball school.
The driver is money, of course, and that both schools have a following in the east. Maryland actually is a higher value target, I think, because they get regular coverage in both Baltimore and Washington DC. Rutgers garners some attention in New York and Philadelphia, but college football isn't the biggest thing in either market.
Eventually I would imagine the Big Ten would be looking at going to 16 teams. So if Maryland and Rutgers are coming, who should the other teams be? Here are a list of potential targets. Which ones make the most sense to you? Vote below -- I've set it up for multiple votes:
I've not seen the Washington Guardian website before, but they claim to be animated by the spirit of Jack Anderson and William Proxmire, names that meant something when I was a kid but not so much now. And they use Split Rock Lighthouse for their logo, so you have to love that.
U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.
Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.
Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.
So what was Susan Rice talking about on the Sunday chat shows? That's the question that no one seems willing to answer. Or ask, for that matter. There's a lot more at the link. I'm not sure it clears much up at this point, however. I will say this, though -- it's always made a lot more sense to me that the attack came as a reprisal for killing al-Libi than for any other reason.
Yeah, I'm actually here on a Friday night. No Sadies, no football, no parties. Just a man and his football picks. And his decrepit father.
Sounds like a wonderful opportunity for you.
Actually, you're not that bad as long as you maintain your steady dosage of Geritol. Meanwhile, my picks aren't going to be anemic this week. Watch me work!
Minnesota Golden Gophers (+20) vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers. Hey, there's a vote of confidence in the Gophers! Maybe Vegas remembers past games, particularly the 1983 Gopher/Nebraska game, in which the Gophers were edged 84-13. Good times, good times. This year should not be any different. Nebraska is good and they have a reason to keep their foot on the gas pedal, since if they win out they are guaranteed a date with the Badgers in the Big Ten Championship Game. As for our Gophers, they are bowl eligible and are trying to get a better record so they can avoid being in the Meineke Car Care Bowl. Johnny Rodgers 93, Rick Upchurch 0. Did you see Mom shaking her head at you, young fella?
I did.
I'll start shaking my head, too. I think Nebraska will win, but this isn't 1983. Nebraska is a good but not dominant team these days and the Gophers are at least competing a little bit. I even think the Gophs will cover the spread. Nebraska 37, Gophers 24. Ohio State Tattoos (+2.5) vs. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers. You have no idea how much I want the Badgers to beat Ohio State. Have I mentioned lately how much I despise the Buckeyes? Well, let me clue you in. The Buckeyes are evil. They are cheatin' weasels. They have a smug head coach and an overrated quarterback. They are ineligible for a bowl game this year because they were cheatin' weasels in the Jimmy Sweater Vest era, and now they've managed to find a guy who is even more insufferable than Jimmy Sweater Vest. Urban Meyer is a good coach, but you look at the guy and you just want to wipe that smug grin off his face. He knows his Xs and Os, but he doesn't realize that the Badgers have the X Factor -- a running game that is now clicking on all cylinders and 80,000 screaming fans who like to do this:
Word to your moms, Buckeyes. The Badgers came to drop bombs. Wisconsin 28, Ohio State 7. I'm not sure what to think about this one. The Badgers absolutely destroyed Indiana last week and the Buckeyes barely got out of Bloomington alive earlier in the year. The problem is that Badgers have been inconsistent this year and it's hard to say what will happen. The Bucks are motivated, but I think the Badgers are tough to beat at home. I think Vegas has it about right. Badgers 31, Buckeyes 28. Glorious Green Bay Packers (-3.5) vs. Detroit Motor City Kitties. Old dude, I saw this on Facebook:
And never will
Yeah. That's about it. The Lions are in trouble yet again. Matthew Stafford is running for his life, Calvin Johnson has a nerve issue that makes it hard for him to catch the ball and their secondary just got lit up by someone named Jarius Wright? If Jarius Wright can torch the Lions, would you like to think about what Jordy Nelson or Randall Cobb might do? I think the Lions will score a few points, but they'll give up more. A lot more. Packers 45, Lions 24. I think the 45 is possible, but I'm a little worried about this one, since Clay Matthews won't be playing. If you give Matthew Stafford time, he's trouble. And the Packers will be bringing a patchwork offensive line to Detroit this week. Still, I think the Pack is better and Aaron Rodgers really loves playing in domed stadiums. I mean, really loves it. Packers 42, Lions 31. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+5) vs. San Francisco Harbaughs. The old dude tells me that, once upon a time, many, many years ago, Jim Harbaugh was the quarterback of the Chicago Bears. I believe that was in between the the illustrious Mike Tomczak Era and the equally illustrious Peter Tom Willis Era. It's hard to be certain, since da Bearz have had many, many quarterback eras. And this week they won't have Jay Cutler available, since he's out with a concussion that he received from the Houston Texans. Now, the Bears get to go to San Francisco, where they will face an equally fierce defense and a hostile crowd. Can Gino's team survive? No. San Francisco 24, da Bearz 0. I remember the Peter Tom Willis Era. It was a magic time. He would come up to the line of scrimmage and his teammates would say this:
The Bears are offensively challenged most games, but the 49ers aren't exactly a genius-level offensive team, either. I just have a hunch about this one and I think Peanut Tillman is going to make a play. Call me crazy, but I say: Bears 17, 49ers 14.
Okay, old dude. I'll call you crazy. Yer nuts! Now, I must say that on Wednesday, I will be turning 17. Yes, hold your applause! Ben out!
Winning a National Book Award tends to give an author quite a lot of credibility. I don't know Andrew Solomon at all; it's entirely possible that most of his writing is backed up through meticulous research and a thoroughgoing desire to ensure that the narrative he presents is accurate in both fact and larger meaning.
I've known Jeff Hansen for nearly 30 years. He was a friend of mine in college and although I'd lost touch with him over the years, we've renewed that friendship in the past few years, once I discovered that he also lives in the Twin Cities. He's a brilliant guy and he's done some substantial work as a writer and educator. So I'll admit up front that I have a dog in the fight. And there is a fight, because Andrew Solomon wrote the following about Jeff:
"In the meanwhile, the family has also had to deal with Jeff's bipolar illness, which manifests itself from time to time in florid psychosis. Betsy has had to warn group-home staff that they can't assume Jeff will be sane at any given time."
This passage appears in Solomon's latest book, Far From the Tree, which has received favorable reviews in, among other places, the New York Times and the New Yorker. The problem is, the passage doesn't square with what I know to be true about Jeff. But we'll let Jeff explain:
National Book Award winner Andrew Solomon writes this about me in Far From the Tree, a book blurbed by Bill Clinton. He is discussing my ex-wife, Elizabeth Burns', and my relationship with our profoundly autistic daughter. Solomon cannot possibly have anything other than an ex-spouse's hearsay evidence for this extreme statement, because I have never been diagnosed as psychotic at all—not even close.
In fact, I almost solely supported my family financially and emotionally for the 20 years of my marriage. If you need evidence, I would be happy to provide it to you. Andrew didn't even bother to ask.
There's more, a lot more, at the link. I suggest you read it all.
I've met Betsy, but I don't know her well. I do know that there was more than a little contentiousness involved in her marriage to Jeff and its subsequent dissolution. And, as I said earlier, Jeff is my friend so I have a dog in this fight. I am not unbiased in this matter. Not in the least.
What I do know is this -- when a writer makes a claim of this importance in a book that is certain to reach a large audience, it would be a very good thing to get the other side. Solomon, for whatever reason, did not choose to do so in this instance. And as a result, he's wronged Jeff in a profound way. And the larger lesson? Do not assume that what you read is accurate, even if the author wins National Book Awards. Most narratives have a counter-narrative.
Fearing an increase in capital gains and dividend taxes, many of the rich are unloading stocks, businesses and homes before the end of the year.
Wealth advisors say that with capital-gains taxes potentially going to 25 percent from 15 percent, and other possible increases in the dividend tax, estate tax and other taxes, many clients are selling now to save millions in taxes.
“Under almost any scenario, it makes sense to take the gains this year,” said Gregory Curtis, chairman and managing director of Greycourt & Co. “Clients aren’t selling willy nilly. But if they can and they have a huge gain, they’re selling now.”
You and I can't do that, of course, as the invaluable John Hayward points out:
The great asset sell-off also illustrates a lesson that class warriors have always been slow to learn. The wealthy are not only different from middle-income Americans in terms of the money in their wallets. The more dramatic difference is that the wealthy have far more options for responding to government policies, particularly taxes and regulation, than the rest of us do. Middle-class people cannot dramatically re-arrange their lives in response to tax increases. They have to make do with less, of course, but that’s not the same thing – it’s a response to changing conditions, not a deliberate strategy chosen from among many options.
But people who own a large amount of tangible assets and stocks can take deliberate steps to minimize their exposure to tax increases. At the higher levels, and in response to the most dreadful government policies, they have realistic options for leaving the United States altogether, or at least moving their assets overseas. These avoidance strategies, as you can see right now, are less economically productive than what wealthy investors and their asset managers would prefer to do with their money. They are far better investors than the architects of the Solyndra debacle. Their expenses and investments produce more stable, healthy jobs than central government planning does.
Emphasis in original I would differ with Hayward on one point -- class warriors never learn this lesson. While we won't know if tax rates on "the rich" will be going up for a while, the amount of revenue that these tax rates delivers will not be commensurate with what is needed to solve the deficit problems we face. And as always, we'll be told that the results are "unexpected."
So far in the l'affaire Petraeus, we have the involvement of two generals and at least three women. Why not add a couple of senators, too:
Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned.
Allen, the four-star general top commander in Afghanistan, was revealed last night to have exchanged thousands of pages of of emails with Kelley, who went to the feds after receiving threatening e-mails from Paula Broadwell, the married mistress of Petraeus.
A judge noted in the file that Khawam "has attached letters from Gen. David H. Petraeus averring to her ability to appropriately parent the child, and is prepared to present corroborating testimony at trial."
And in court documents filed by Kelley's sister Natalie Khawam, she name-drops both Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who both have ties to a Providence, RI, lawyer/Democratic fundraiser who loaned a whopping $300,000 to Khawam.
If some of the underlying issues weren't so serious, the whole thing would be hilarious, so farcical has everything become. To move along the narrative, let's guess who is going to be the next person implicated. Time for a poll:
You might remember the mighty, titanic struggle that Mark Dayton waged on behalf of the People, in order that he might spend at least half a billion dollars we don't have to build Zygmunt Wilf and his associates a new pleasure palace. It was in all the papers.
Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday threatened to undo the historic and hard-fought deal to build a new Minnesota Vikings stadium if team owners insist on passing on to fans a portion of the team's share of the $975 million cost.
In a sternly worded letter to the team owners, the governor objected to a proposal to charge seat-licensing fees in exchange for premier seating choices, a move that could mean big-spenders boot longtime season-ticket holders to less desirable seats.
Fans of average means supported the stadium, "not just rich Minnesotans, because they believed the Vikings are also their team," Dayton wrote. "If a new stadium were to betray that trust, it would be better that it not be built." Dayton said he could urge lawmakers to open the contract to remove the option of seat licenses.
It's hardly surprising that the Vikings were quick to remind Dayton that he and his legislative pals gave the Vikings Wilf a green light to pursue seat licenses:
The team owners stood their ground on the issue, saying that seat licensing was included in the final agreement passed by the Legislature.
"Stadium builder's licenses were vetted by the Legislature, testified to by Vikings and state of Minnesota negotiators, and most importantly, specifically reflected in the stadium legislation that was passed and signed by the governor," the team said.
How do I put this? I'm going to try to be as delicate as possible. Mark Dayton is a moron. It gets worse, of course:
The stadium financing legislation approved last spring stipulates that revenue generated from the seat licenses would go toward the Vikings' share of the construction cost. The state and city of Minneapolis are contributing $498 million to stadium construction, with the team picking up the remainder through an NFL loan, stadium naming rights, sponsorships and, possibly, licensing fees.
Emphasis mine. A lot of us tried to explain this to anyone who would listen, not that anyone was listening. The game has always been this -- the NFL business model is that the teams get new stadiums without, whenever possible, having skin in the game. And it doesn't matter what Dayton thinks now -- this has always been the deal. If the Vikings Wilfs had any real responsibility for the cost of their new pleasure dome, the deal would not have been done.
What's even more pathetic? Consider this statement from our shrewd negotiator:
Dayton told the Wilfs in his letter that, "I am greatly distressed by these developments and the future they portend. We negotiated in good faith. Not surprisingly, given the project's magnitude and complexity, some details were not fully understood and some differences still remain. They must be resolved consistent with Minnesota standards and values."
Again, emphasis mine. You have to love the passive voice in that statement. "Some details were not fully understood," huh? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's your responsibility to know what's in an agreement before you sign it, Governor. You were had, huh? Governor Mark is an easy mark, apparently.
Meanwhile, Dayton is back to the one thing that's always been a hallmark of his career -- grandstanding.
"I strongly oppose shifting any part of the team's responsibility for those costs onto Minnesota Vikings fans," Dayton wrote in his letter to Vikings owners Zygi and Mark Wilf. "This private contribution is your responsibility. Not theirs. I said this new stadium would be a 'People's Stadium,' not a 'Rich People's Stadium.' I meant it then, and I mean it now."
Let's cut to the chase here. No one, least of all the Wilfs, gives a flying fig what you meant, then or now. The deal is in place and you signed it into law, Governor. They saw you coming a mile away.
The downfall of CIA Director David Petraeus demonstrates how easy it is for federal law enforcement agents to examine emails and computer records if they believe a crime was committed. With subpoenas and warrants, the FBI and other investigating agencies routinely gain access to electronic inboxes and information about email accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other Internet providers.
"The government can't just wander through your emails just because they'd like to know what you're thinking or doing," said Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at the Homeland Security Department who's now in private law practice. "But if the government is investigating a crime, it has a lot of authority to review people's emails."
Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor — not a judge — to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older. To get more recent communications, a warrant from a judge is required. This is a higher standard that requires proof of probable cause that a crime is being committed.
I have plenty of old email in my box that Sammy wouldn't find particularly interesting, but it's a word to the wise for the rest of you miscreants. And yet another reminder why we need to pay attention to the Justice Department.
Just like Vegas -- you have the big show, then you have the lounge act:
The Pentagon says the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, is under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with Jill Kelley, the woman who is said to have received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom former CIA Director David Petraeus had an extramarital affair.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the FBI referred the matter to the Pentagon on Sunday. Panetta says he ordered a Pentagon investigation of Allen on Monday.
I swear, we're going to look up and find out that Norman Schwarzkopf and Omar Bradley are implicated in this thing before we're done.
The federal agent who launched the investigation that eventually led to the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus was taken off the case during the summer over concerns that he "might have grown obsessed with the matter," The Wall Street Journal reports.
The FBI agent began the inquiry on behalf of a friend, Jill Kelley, who reportedly received about a half a dozen hostile emails from Petraeus' mistress Paula Broadwell.
The agent referred the matter to a cyber crimes unit but was prohibited from the any role in the investigation after the FBI found out that he sent shirtless photos of himself to Kelley, people familiar with the probe told The WSJ.
Emphasis mine. So lemme get this straight -- the FBI was investigating this in the summer, and the Obama administration only found out about it last week? And the FBI investigator is sending shirtless picture of himself to the source of the inquiry? I mean, what the hell? Maybe FBI director Robert Mueller ought to join Petraeus on the unemployment line.
Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that "there was a failure in the system."
Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title "Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell," now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.
Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief's In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.
Specifically, Broadwell apparently said the following at the University of Denver that day:
"They were requesting the – it's called the C-in-C's In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex. Now, I don't know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back. It's still being vetted.
"The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus is that in his new position, he's not allowed to communicate with the press. So he's known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."
Well, we haven't established that Broadwell's assertion is true, and we may never establish it for sure, but it would go a long ways toward explaining a potential motive for the attack. My guess is that any information about the goings-on at the CIA annex would have been classified and that if Broadwell's assertion is true, she committed a security breach that's far more troubling than, say, the outing of Valerie Plame. It's also interesting that Broadwell appears to be offering information that Petraeus wasn't allowed to share. On whose behalf was she doing this? Did her paramour share some pillow talk and she took matters into her own hands? Or was this a back-channel way for Petraeus to get the story out, should anyone want to connect the dots?
I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor, which essentially means that the simplest explanation (that accounts for the variables involved) is usually the best explanation. The Occam's Razor explanation would be this -- in the eternal turf war between the FBI and the CIA, the FBI got wind of the affair and saw an opportunity to lay their rivals low via this investigation. For a variety of reasons, they would have kept it on the down-low to keep things from exploding during the campaign -- and please understand that I'm not insinuating anything about the Obama administration's handling of the case, because I don't have reason to. Ideally, Petraeus would have been confronted quietly after the election and he would have simply retired without any further questions being asked. But between the shirtless FBI agent and Broadwell's overall deportment, it came out cockeyed (so to speak). That's also the most charitable explanation I can offer.
The thing is, if Broadwell did commit a security breach, she needs to be punished. We can't have that sort of thing. And if it goes to trial, all hell could break loose. I don't know what to think, though. I really don't. The whole thing is just too strange.
This picture is a publicity still from The Lady from Shanghai, an Orson Welles film from 1947 that featured a climactic shootout in a house of mirrors at a carnival. There's a lot of that house of mirrors sensation in the Petraeus kerfufflescandalincident situation.
If you try to understand the timing of the matter, it's important to note the timing of certain things involving the affair itself. It is pretty clear that things began, so to speak, while Paula Broadwell was an embedded reporter in Afghanistan. Paul Mirengoff makes an interesting observation:
[I]t seems that the affair started before Petraeus became the director of the CIA. The background check on Petraeus when he was being considered for the CIA job must have been incredibly thorough. And, since an affair with an embedded reporter would probably have been difficult to keep fully secret, even an ordinary investigation might well have uncovered word of it.
Thus, it may be that the White House knew of the General’s affair before he became the DCIA.
You'd certainly like to think that a background check would have revealed this, especially since the head of the CIA would be a prime target for blackmail.
The top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday that the length of the FBI's investigation into David Petraeus' extramarital affair raises serious questions about the government's response to potentially comprised intelligence.
Rep. Peter King, who made the remarks on CNN's "State of the Union," joined Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in expressing concern over how the FBI and other federal agencies handled the investigation into the former CIA director’s affair, and specifically why members of Congress with oversight over intelligence and homeland security weren't briefed on the discoveries.
"I have questions about the whole matter," Rep. Peter King told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley, pointing to reports that the White House first learned of the affair in a phone call from the FBI to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at 5 p.m. on election night.
You would think the White House would have known about this before that point, considering how serious a matter it is. At a minimum, it doesn't speak well of the FBI. There's more, of course:
On Saturday, questions arose about why congressional leaders were not informed of the investigation immediately.
According to a congressional aide familiar with the matter, the House and Senate intelligence committees weren't informed that there was an FBI investigation into Petraeus until Friday.
Feinstein said on “Fox News Sunday” she wished intelligence officials had briefed her and other members of her committee earlier in their investigation.
“We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt,” Feinstein said, adding she thought the Petraeus affair was “something that could have had an effect on national security.”
“I think we should have been told,” the California Democrat said.
I think so, too, Senator Feinstein. Rep. King makes the salient point:
"It just doesn't add up," King, R-New York, said on CNN. "You have this type of investigation. The FBI investigating e-mails, the e-mails leading to the CIA director, and taking four months to find out that the CIA director was involved. I have real questions about this. I think a timeline has to be looked at and analyzed to see what happened."
The president should have been alerted far sooner if sensitive information had been compromised, King said, particularly since the investigation involved the nation's top intelligence chief.
"Obviously this was a matter involving a potential compromise of security, and the president should have been told about it at the earliest state. That's really all I'm saying."
It's difficult to argue that point. We'll get the answers eventually, but there's a lot that's troubling about what we know. You don't have to invent a scandal out of the particulars, because it's easy enough to imagine that the longtime rivalry between the FBI and the CIA might have had much to do with how things played out -- the two agencies have been sandbagging each other since the 1940s. I'd like to know the timeline.
Sorry, I can't suss this one out. Too strange, especially the timing. Could be random stupidity or it could be an American version of the Profumo scandal.
If it's true that his mistress was his biographer, the book title is pretty interesting. As is the subtitle, "The Education of David Petraeus." It would appear that school is still in session.
With a title like that, you know what's happening, right? The Badgers must be playing Indiana! Let's cue the R. Dean Taylor and get it out of the way!
By the way, sorry I'm late, but I had pressing social engagements.
That would be the Sadie Hawkins dance, right?
Yes. An Irondale tradition! But enough of my social life -- watch me work!
Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (-7) vs. Indiana R. Dean Taylors. Lord, the Badgers can go back there, because they've won 5 of the last 6 times they've visitied Bloomington. But, this time the game actually means something. Somehow Indiana has won enough games to have a chance to jump the Badgers in the Leaders Division standings if they win the game today. I expect Indiana to come out hot early, but if recent history means anything, the Badgers will eventually pound the Hoosiers into submission. The last two scores in this series were as follows: in 2011, it was Wisconsin 59, Indiana 7. In 2010, it was Wisconsin 83, Indiana 20. It will be a lot closer this time. Wisconsin 35, Indiana 28. It's tough to read the Badgers this year -- they've looked very good at times and terrible at other times. I think this one will go well. Wisconsin 42, Indiana 24. Minnesota Golden Roadkill (-3) vs. Illinois Fighting Cheatin' Weasels. The Illini really suck this year. Not sure why, but they are, as our old friend Charles Barkley would say, turrible. The Gophers haven't won a Big Ten road game in a while, but the last one they won was in Champaign. History repeats itself. Gophers 10, Illini 0. Actually, that could happen. I think the Nelson kid is going to be a pretty good quarterback and the Illini are a mess. Minnesota 24, Illinois 13.
Our beloved Packers are on bye this week, so we'll give attention to the other teams in the division, two of which are conveniently playing each other. This analysis will be noticeably free of HYYYYYYPPPPPPE! Because I'm serious these days.
Detroit Motor City Kitties (-2) vs. Minnesota Vikings. So let's "ponder" this one. Earlier in the year, the Vikings went into Detroit and beat them like a rented mule. Now, the Lions come back to Minnesota as a favorite? What's up with that? I'll tell you why -- Minnesota has come crashing down to earth. It's becoming less clear that Christian Ponder is the right guy to lead this team. If he continues to underperform, he'll probably lose Samantha Steele and find himself dating a significantly less desirable sideline reporter. If that's not incentive enough for our man Ponder, I don't know what is! Lions 35, Vikings 7. Uh, no. While I'll agree that the prospect of trading in Samantha Steele for Craig Sager is pretty terrifying, there's one thing you can count on with the Lions, which is inconsistency. They're due to screw up and this is the week. Vikings 24, Lions 17. Houston Texans (+1) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Ooh, it's a titanic defensive struggle, with the opportunistic Bears defense dealing with Arian Foster, while the Texans match wits with Jay Cutler. The Bears are due for a loss and Arian Foster will help me win my fantasy matchup this week. Houston 79, da Bearz 10. Uh, no. Bears fans hate it when everyone says they win by luck. This year, it hasn't been luck at all. They are playing very, very well, especially on defense. If they've had any luck at all, it's that they've largely stayed healthy and put their best players on the field, week after week. Peanut Tillman is an amazing player, by the way. The key here is whether the Texans are willing to change up their base defense. You might remember that the Packers crushed the Texans because they refused to get out of their single high safety coverage. The Bears have the weapons to defeat that defense, too. If the Bears can at least slow down J. J. Watt, they'll win, perhaps easily. Bears 34, Texans 28.
Sorry we didn't have more time, but my stellar social life matters. And be glad that we didn't actually post the picture of Craig Sager. Ben out!
We'll get back to the recriminations in the next day or two. I do want to address a different issue, however, that I think will be especially interesting to consider in the coming months -- will the Obama administration try to overrun popular state level initiatives, especially in the West? And is the 10th Amendment a dead letter?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We're likely to see this challenged, sooner than later. First, let's look at state moves in re Obamacare:
Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming voted to reject Obamacare's insurance mandate, following the lead of what voters in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma did in 2010. A similar measure this year in Florida failed. Missouri voters took their Obamacare protest one step further this year, approving a measure to prohibit the governor from setting up insurance exchanges unless voters or the state legislature approves. But none of the measures are anything but symbolic; states can't override the insurance mandate, and if Missouri fails to set up the exchanges the federal government will just do it instead.
Emphasis mine. I pulled this from Mother Jones, so you can take the emphasized portion as opinion. How specifically will the federal government enforce the individual mandate if states refuse to set up the health care exchanges that are part of the law? It will be interesting to see if (a) the Obama administration tries to roll over the states and (b) whether the Supreme Court will let it do so.
An equally interesting question comes from what happened in Colorado and Washington state on Tuesday:
Colorado became the first state to legalize marijuana outright last night, followed an hour later by Washington. The question now is how far the federal government will go to crack down on the historic new laws. Another legalization measure in Oregon failed, in large part due to concerns that the law would have been overly broad. Meanwhile, voters legalized medical marijuana in Massachusetts but rejected it in Arkansas, and in Montana approved a measure that tightens restrictions on the state's existing medical marijuana laws.
There are a lot of people who are social libertarians and liberalish on other issues who really, really want marijuana to be legalized, and many of them (a) have expended considerable effort to pass these ballot initiatives and (b) have been dutiful supporters of the president. In his youth, Barack Obama was a prodigious pot smoker, but he's been just like all his predecessors when it comes to using the power of the federal government against people who use marijuana. In some respects, he's been worse than his predecessors, as Rolling Stone reported earlier this year:
Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.
But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multiagency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush's record for medical-marijuana busts. "There's no question that Obama's the worst president on medical marijuana," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. "He's gone from first to worst."
Medical marijuana is one thing, but what Colorado and Washington have chosen goes well beyond that. They have essentially legalized marijuana, in clear contravention of federal law. It's worth remembering that both Colorado and Washington are states that have gone for Obama twice. Will Obama tread lightly now that these friendly states have taken this action? Or will his administration continue to crack down?
This is subject to change, of course. But for now, here's what I think the proper response should be, at various levels of government, for conservative-minded people, at least in Minnesota:
I'm increasingly convinced that what happens at the local level matters. At the local level, you actually have the chance to talk to people and explain what works and what doesn't work. We have an excellent example of how this works here in New Brighton. We have elected and re-elected Gina Bauman to the city council in recent years. Gina has served New Brighton very well on the council, always keeping her eye on the ball and looking for ways to improve how city government responds to its constituents without simply funneling more money. Her ideas are spot-on and she would have made a tremendous state senator, because the principles she espouses have universal application. I consider Gina a friend and it's been tough to watch her lose twice to a candidate who is as fundamentally unserious as Barb Goodwin, who will return to St. Paul as the state senator for District 41 for another four years. As conservatives, we need to do a better job of supporting people like Gina, who stand for fiscal responsibility and who are willing to enter the arena. Enough people in the city know what Gina does for them to keep her in her current office, but that isn't necessarily enough to get to the next level. And we need to encourage more people to make the same choice and sacrifice that Gina has been willing to make on our behalf. The DFL never has a problem finding candidates, because it's nifty and cool to play Santa Claus with public funds and because busybodies are a growth industry in this state. We'll talk more about that in a coming post, especially as it concerns District 41.
At the state level, at least in Minnesota, we are looking at two very grim years with DFL control of the entire governmental apparatus. We now have, for what it's worth, the "Better Minnesota" that Alida Messinger, Mark Dayton's heiress ex-wife, was willing to bankroll. In losing both houses of the legislature, we not only failed to elect quality candidates like Gina and April King in the neighboring 42nd district, but we also lost the services of people like King Banaian, the brilliant economist and teacher who was defeated in his new House district in the St. Cloud area. There will be calls from the DFL for bipartisanship in the upcoming legislative session. Those calls should, at this point, be rejected. Mark Dayton and the highly unimpressive group of people who will make up DFL leadership in the lege should have the opportunity to own the higher taxes that they will impose, and more importantly to own the results of it. The job of the GOP, at the state level, will be to offer vocal, principled opposition to stupidity, but to also realize that stupidity is in the saddle. A lot of people voted DFL in this cycle without understanding the full implications of what complete control will look like. Unfortunately, the only way a lot of people are going to learn is to be on the business end of what's about to happen here. In the meantime, I wish state GOP chair Pat Shortridge the best of luck as he continues to clean out the Augean stables left behind by his predecessors. I think Pat is the right guy to get things fixed, but there were too many problems to face in this cycle, especially with the aftermath of the Amy Koch/Michael Brodkorb mess.
We'll get to the proper response on the national level in the next post.
I don't want to spill too much ink on this, but I do want to make essentially one point: postmortems on the right today are circling the idea that the demographics of the country have changed, and the GOP has failed to respond adequately to that. Both of these things are true, but I think they point to a more fundamental truth.
Obama won this election because he was running to be president of the country that actually exists. Romney lost because he was running to be president of a country that does not.
There's more at the link, of course. And you should read it. You may not agree with some of Brian's observations, but you'd be well advised to consider them carefully.
The larger question is this -- could the country that doesn't exist ever exist again? Because if it can't ever exist again, we have much to think about.
Minnesota is a different place today. That's the main takeaway from last night's vote. How so:
For the first time in the 20 years I've lived in the state, the DFL will have total control. They will now control both houses of the legislature and all of the executive branch offices -- governor, secretary of state, attorney general. The Republican Party has nothing. Will the DFL use its power wisely? I know how I'm betting on that one.
I'm especially surprised that the Voter ID amendment failed, since it's clearly the right thing to do. I suspect the ad that featured Gov. Dayton and our quisling former Governor Arne Carlson was especially effective. They told Minnesota to "send it back to the legislature." Of course, with the legislature we're going to have, it won't see the light of day. The DFL has no interest in ensuring voter integrity, so we won't have any chance of seeing it in Minnesota until 2017 at the earliest. While the GOP could flip the executive offices and the house in 2014 back to its control, the senate will stay in DFL hands until the 2016 cycle.
Taxes are going to go up, potentially a lot. Dayton and his pals have big plans and they aren't going to be able to pursue any of them unless they get rich people to pay their fair share, or so they think. Rich people have options, and one of the options is to get out of Dodge. While Mark Dayton is incapable of learning that lesson, the rest of us are likely to find out why the mobility of capital has implications for this state, sooner rather than later.
The failure of the marriage amendment is less surprising. Bottom line is we'll have gay marriage in Minnesota, probably within a year -- the pending court case in Hennepin County will see to that. I really dislike it when these sorts of questions are decided by the judiciary, because it really never settles the issue. Forty years on, we're still arguing about Roe v. Wade. There's a right way to do these things and we've now pretty much assured that we won't get a clean resolution, unless the all-DFL state government decides to make gay marriage the law of the state. And I'm guessing they won't do that.
Various people have called Ohio for President Obama and that means it's over. Barack Obama will remain as president of the United States. What have we learned? A bunch of brief thoughts, although we'll have a lot more time to pick at these bones in the coming days.
Nate Silver apparently knows more about politics than Michael Barone. While that result surprises me, it appears to be the case. You have to give Silver the nod. I had asked whether numbers mattered more than observation. In this cycle at least, they did.
The Republicans closed the gap significantly in this election from 2008, but aren't back to where they thought they were. There will be all manner of recriminations as to what happened, especially in the closing days, but I think the problem is something that goes beyond the standard-bearer. Fundamentally, the country has changed in ways that are going to be increasingly problematic for everyone. We are reaching the point the debt we've accumulated is going to make it damn near impossible to get much done. We are also at a point where Obamacare is going to greatly exacerbate that particular issue. More on that in a minute.
I don't really have much to say about Mitt Romney that is negative. I thought he ran an excellent campaign and he was a hell of a lot more formidable candidate than many people thought he would be. He's not likely to be the nominee again in 2016, but he'll continue to have a role in the party going forward. I came to dislike him during the primary season, but I changed my mind during the general election -- he's a very good man and of the candidates in this cycle, he was by far the best one available for a general election run. Unfortunately, not quite enough of my countrymen saw it the same way.
It remains possible that Romney will end up winning the popular vote. It would be better -- far better -- for the country if somehow Obama ended up winning the popular vote. Obama's margin for error is so small that we don't need grumbling about a president elected by a minority of the electorate.
In some respects, not much has changed. The House of Representatives will, it appears, remain solidly in Republican control. That means that the purse strings belong to that party. I will expect them to use their control to keep Obama and his team from doing things that will be ruinous.
Second terms rarely go as well as first terms -- in my lifetime Nixon was forced from office, Reagan was dogged with scandal, Clinton was impeached and Bush 43 slid into stasis. We haven't had a successful second presidential term in this country since Eisenhower and even that one had issues. I don't really know what Obama is going to do to be more effective in his second term, but he's got issues that go well beyond what faced some of his predecessors. I am almost certain that we are headed into a recession and things will be increasingly grim in 2013 and 2014. If Obama wants to have any positive legacy, he'd be wise to start compromising right now and try to get something, anything, out of Congress. If he misreads this election, he'll really hate 2015 and 2016 and so will his party. And so will the rest of us, I might add.
This also means that Obamacare is going to be implemented. We'll see how that goes. Unless I miss my guess, that will be a decision that haunts the Democrats for years to come.
In some respects, the man to watch in Washington will be Darrell Issa, the California congressman who will be almost certainly remain in charge of Congressional oversight and investigations. Issa is a ruthless dude and he'll have a lot of bones to chew on in the coming days. Benghazi is not going to go away as a story, for one thing. And as more of the reporting on the story that should have happened in recent days becomes clear, it will not help the president's narrative.
In other respects, the man to watch in Washington will be Harry Reid, who likely will remain Majority Leader. He's been worse than useless for the last three years. That can't continue.
Locally, it's still too soon to tell what happened in some of the key races, although I'm sure we'll know more in the morning. The two state senate candidates that are in my area, Gina Bauman and April King, were both terrific candidates but it appears they both fell short. That's too bad. It also appears that Sue Jeffers will fall short in her run for the Ramsey County Board.
In addition, it looks possible that Michele Bachmann may lose tonight. That would be an amazing result. That one won't be decided until the morning. And at that point, I'll be back.
While preachers preach of evil fates Teachers teach that knowledge waits Can lead to hundred-dollar plates Goodness hides behind its gates But even the president of the United States Sometimes must have to stand naked
-- Bob Dylan, "It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding"
Today is the day. Get out and vote. We'll talk about it all later on.
With less than a week to go before Election Day, campaigns and other organizations are emptying their coffers to fund a barrage of last-minute political ads. One such blitz, which featured a full-page spread in last Sunday’s New York Times, is led by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and urges Americans to “vote for biblical values.” Graham’s face appears in the ad with the following text:
“On Nov. 6, the day before my 94th birthday, our nation will hold one of the most critical elections in my lifetime. We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman, protect the sanctity of life and defend our religious freedoms. The Bible speaks clearly on these crucial issues. Please join me in praying for America, that we will turn our hearts back toward God.”
The ad, which first appeared about a week after Graham and his son Franklin met with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in North Carolina, has also run in the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and more than a dozen newspapers altogether, according to the Huffington Post.
And, as of yesterday, also in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune. It's worth remembering that a lot of evangelicals sat things out in 2008. There is reason to believe that they will be back tomorrow.
Spurred on by President Obama's debate pledge to push for an assault weapons ban and possibly limits on handgun ownership, the National Rifle Association is ending the presidential campaign season with its most "targeted" election effort in its 141 years.
NRA officials told Secrets that they've expanded their campaign against Obama in some cases by over 500-times what the Second Amendment lobby did in the 2010 elections that brought the conservative Tea Party to Washington. An official said the effort was on par with what the NRA did in 2000 when George W. Bush edged Al Gore in the Electoral College in part because of an unexpected GOP swing in gun states.
While early into his administration Obama didn't seem a threat to gun-owners, thus making it difficult to assail the president on gun issues, the president over the past year has hinted support for restrictions and during a debate with GOP challenger Mitt Romney for the first time fully endorsed a renewed assault weapons ban and even raised the spectre of handgun controls.
That spurred a new round of online advertising by the NRA and increased efforts on the ground to warn gun owners that a second Obama term would see limits on weapons ownership and a potentially more liberal Supreme Court should Obama get another chance to appoint a justice.
It's easy to forget the NRA is out there, especially when recent Supreme Court decisions have been largely favorable on Second Amendment considerations. The NRA does not forget that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
So, as early voting began this month, Catholic publications, dioceses and individual parishes began distributing millions of pieces of literature advising members, in the words of Philadelphia's Archbishop Charles Chaput, "to make sure that they're Catholic prior to being Democrat or Republican."
In an interview with EWTN the Global Catholic Network, the archbishop said, "We do believe in the separation of church and state. But we don't believe in the separation of faith from political life. It's very important for Catholics to make distinctions when voting that they never support intrinsic evils like abortion, which is evil in all circumstances."
You can distribute 'em, but you can't make people read them. There's more:
One piece of widely-distributed literature given to church members on recent Sundays carries the photograph of Pope Benedict XVI and the title: "Voting and the Non-Negotiable Moral Principles."
Faithful parishioners are given lengthy excerpts from the Republican and Democrat party platforms and left to choose, using their Catholic values:
"Life. The protection and dignity of every human life from conception to natural death. The framework within and against which every other issue must be measured."
2012 Democratic Platform: 'The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. (p. 18)'
'President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans. (p. 18)'
2012 Republican Platform: 'Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.' (p. 13-14)
'We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. (p. 13-14)'
Archbishop John Nienstedt has become a highly controversial figure in the Twin Cities because he's actually on board with this sort of thing and he's been highly visible on the Marriage Amendment as well. The Church is betting that Catholics will be Catholics first. I'm not entirely confident that will happen.
By the way, remember the name Charles Chaput. You'll be hearing more about him some day.
I made the following prediction back in October. And I stand by it:
Still the same
The most likely states to flip, at this point:
Ohio to Obama
Iowa to Obama
Wisconsin to Obama -- if Obama gets Wisconsin and Ohio, he wins
New Hampshire to Obama
Pennsylvania to Romney -- if so, it's a rout
Minnesota to Romney -- not likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility
Nevada to Romney -- slightly more likely than Minnesota
I made the point earlier about turnout and it's key. The state polls assume that the success of Obama's GOTV efforts will be close to what they were in 2008. I'm not seeing it, which is why I think Romney will win.
You can make your picks at this website. If you make a map, email it to me (contact info is on my profile page) and I'll add it to this post. Otherwise, give me the skinny in the comments.
I will make a donation to the favorite charity of the commenter who comes closest to the actual result. We'll settle that up later. Play on, playas!
****
UPDATE (9 a.m., 11/3): Two more potential maps. First -- ace prognosticator Benster weighs in:
If this one comes through, it will be the genius pick of all time, as I'd wager that Benster is the only pundit out there who senses an Obama surge in Nebraska. The interesting thing here -- some pundits have said that Romney needs an "alternative path" should Ohio not go his way. Benster provides one and says that path includes Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. I like it -- gutsy stuff, young fella!
Meanwhile, here's Picklesworth's prognostication:
More optimistic than I am, in that he gives Romney PA, NV and the rogue Maine district. This would be close to the best-case scenario. We'll take more picks -- send 'em in!
Yes, it's true -- the Badgers are on bye this week. But as the old movie line went, "we don't need no stinkin' Badgers!"
Uh, I think that was "badges," not "badgers."
What, you're a published poet and you don't understand poetic license, old dude? What the heck? When did you get so literal minded?
Oh. Yeah. Sorry.
This is my bit, Geritol Fan! You need to get with the program here and start bringing the HYYYYYYYYYPPPPPPE! Now, we have games to pick, so watch me work!
Meesheegan Wolverines (-12) vs. Minnesota Golden Gophers. Ah, the Little Brown Jug returns to Minnesota. Will it stay here? Let's think about this. Last year the Wolverines edged the Gophers 58-0, so you'd think that it should be easy. Except, not quite. Denard Robinson is injured and is the poster child for the problems of a mobile quarterback. What I mean is this -- he is such a good runner that doesn't always have his focus on passing and as a result he throws some really dumb passes, which are usually picked off. The Gophers are getting better on defense and have some confidence after drilling Purdue last week on this same field. Thus, if Denard Robinson runs more than he passes, the Gophers win, because they'll stuff the box and force him to throw eventually. And Denard has never beaten a team with just his arm. Gophers 35, Meesheegan 10. Well, cool -- we get that "uh, no" thing out of the way right off the bat! Michigan is not a great team, but they're better than the Gophers. That may change eventually, but not yet. Philip Nelson played very well for the Gophers last week against Purdue, but he'll have growing pains. This week will be one of them. Michigan 27, Gophers 14. Alabama Crimson Tide (-9) vs. LSU Bayou Bengals. And now, time for a rant. I am sick and tired of hearing how good the SEC is. These two teams played in the national championship last year and it's clear that Alabama only won because they were given a free pass into New Orleans. Alabama did not even win their division in the SEC, but somehow they were playing in the Big Game. Why? Because of SEC Hype, which is not nearly as much fun as Benster HYYYYYYPPPPPPE! The dirty little secret of the SEC is that they are not balanced. It's just one or two very good teams and a few decent ones, and to make matters worse, nobody calls the SEC out for playing down. We hear all the time how the Big Ten plays down, but let's consider some of the teams on Alabama's schedule this year: they are playing such powerhouses as Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and the frightening Western Carolina Catamounts. Catamounts? As our friend John McEnroe would say -- you cannot be serious! The defending national champions are playing Catamounts? That's not how it works! You play up to your level! LSU is no better -- they've scheduled such giants of the college game as the Idaho Vandals and the (wait for it) Towson Tigers! What -- they couldn't get St. Olaf on the schedule? This needs to stop! Anyway, as for the game -- LSU wins. End of story. And the SEC will not win the national championship this year. LSU 3, Alabama 0. Pitchers' duel, eh? Well, I probably should point out that Alabama did play Michigan this year. Then again, you think the Gophers are going to beat Michigan, so maybe that doesn't mean much. I agree with your general point on weak sister nonconference opponents, but that's the college game these days. Anyway, LSU is an awfully tough place to win, but I think this Alabama team is awfully good. Alabama 17, LSU 10. Minnesota Vikings (+5) vs. Seattle Seabags. The good news for the Vikings is that there are no replacement officials likely to be in attendance at the game this week, which should prevent Seattle's miscreant wide receiver Golden (Hand of God) Tate from pushing off Vikings defensive backs for a winning touchdown/interception. Actually, I'd like to see Tate fight it out with Harrison Smith -- a little Notre Dame on Notre Dame action! The Vikings kinda stunk last week against Tampa Bay, but they've had 10 days to recover from their nationally televised embarrassment (not that anyone actually watches the NFL Network, but I digress). Perhaps Christian Ponder might be well served to spend less time thinking about his sideline reporter girlfriend Samantha Steele and more time checking out the playbook. Then again, I can see why he's interested in Miss Steele. Doubt me?
Far preferable to Sal Paolantonio
Eat your heart out, boys! By the way, we still love you, Russell Wilson. It's your buddy Tate that we have an issue with. Vikings 49, Seabags 45. Hmmm. I've never had to fit my pick next to a sideline reporter before. Well, I hope this works out. I think Seattle plays very good defense and Seattle is a tough place to win. I think the Vikes will do better this week, but it may not be good enough. Seattle 27, Vikings 24. Arizona Cardinals (+11) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. For those of you that live in the Twin Cities metro market, you might not like Channel 9's decision to put a Premier League soccer game on instead of the Packers. Especially since the game involves hated Liverpool, the archrival of my beloved Everton side. So instead of seeing the artistry of Aaron Rodgers, you'll get to see the treachery of Luis Suarez, who dives more than Greg Louganis, although Louganis had an excuse because he was supposed to be diving, unlike the evil Suarez. But anyway, as for the game, the Packers have some injury problems remaining -- it looks like Jordy Nelson may not play again this week, which means maybe it's time to bring back Bill Schroeder or something. Or maybe they could borrow Jared Abbrederis from the Badgers, who has nothing going on this weekend. Anyway, the Packers are playing okay right now and they get their bye next week, which will allow them to get healthier and prepare them for the steady diet of Bears, Lions and Vikings that is to come. Packers 27, Cardinals 17. What, no Tottenham? I am aghast! I think the Packers will play better this week. The Cardinals are pretty beat up and I understand they might be going with Neil Lomax as their quarterback this week. Packers win, ugly. Green Bay 24, Arizona 16. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (-3.5) vs. Tennessee Tuxedos. Yes, we're still picking the Bears games because Gino needs love. His Bears are playing the best defense since 2010. Do you remember 2010? Yes, we do here at Benster and D. We remember this play in particular:
I think that's payback for the Fridge. Da Bearz win this game, but it gets harder from here on out. Da Bearz 45, Tennessee 0. Jay Cutler has a nice game this week. That's all I have to say about it. Bears 34, Titans 14.
That's all we have time for today. For the record, I am not dating Samantha Steele, but for any young ladies reading this feature, I am single and I will bring the HYYYYYPPPPPPPE! Ben out.
Following up on a post from Tuesday in which we discussed Barack Obama's iPod, and at least one gratuitous (but hilarious) cheap shot by Gino at Ace Commenter's taste in music, I said the following:
Might be time to do a iPod check post to compare and contrast iPod music.
And so here goes. I'm posting ten songs in a row that played on my iTunes at work on Tuesday, with an indulgence in the middle because I want to give my musician cousin some props. Do you think any of these would help either candidate's demographic?
First, Eno, from Another Green World:
Next, some straight up jazz from Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers from 1964:
Then, some guy from Hibbing:
And because I can, a cover version of the song by my cousin, who performs under the stage name Janet Planet:
One of the more interesting questions that will get resolved in this political cycle is whether or not Nate Silver has this election correct. He has remained quite bullish on Barack Obama's campaign and has been saying, despite what would seem to be a significant amount of countervailing evidence, that Obama's chance of winning are greater than 70%. As I write, he has it at 79% and has Obama winning 300 electoral votes.
The question is whether his model will work. Ace commenter Brian, writing over at his place, has confidence that it will. In the comments section over at his blog, he said the following:
Well, the way I see it, Silver's (apparently radical) approach to predicting who people are going to vote for is...looking at every possible data set asking people who they are going to vote for.
He nailed it last time around. If he does it again, a lot of people who run their mouths for a living--and who base their predictions on things like their memories and impressions of campaigns past, intangibles like "enthusiasm", etc.--are going to have to contend with the fact that their intuitions just don't seem to matter very much. And there will be strong empirical evidence of that.
I had taken the view that you have to pay attention to the behavior of the campaigns and, from my perspective, the Obama campaign has been acting in a way that is strongly reminiscent of the way the George H. W. Bush campaign was acting in 1992 -- lotsa personal attacks, anger and scrambling around. Meanwhile, Romney's campaign has been moving forward and contesting a number of states that had been assumed unavailable, including Minnesota.
In a longish but very good article over at RedState, Dan McLaughlin makes what I think is a very important observation about the limitations of Silver's polling, using an example that I personally experienced:
Mathematical models are all the rage these days, but you need to start with the most basic of facts: a model is only as good as the underlying data, and that data comes in two varieties: (1) actual raw data about the current and recent past, and (2) historical evidence from which the future is projected from the raw data, on the assumption that the future will behave like the past. Consider the models under closest scrutiny right now: weather models such as hurricane models. These are the best kind of model, in the sense that the raw data is derived from intensive real-time observation and the historical data is derived from a huge number of observations and thus not dependent on a tiny and potentially unrepresentative sample.
Yet, as you watch any storm develop, you see its projected path change, sometimes dramatically. Why? Because the models are highly sensitive to changes in raw data, and because storms are dynamic systems: their path follows a certain logic, but does not track a wholly predictable trajectory. The constant adjustments made to weather models ought to give us a little more humility in dealing with models that suffer from greater flaws in raw data observations, smaller sample sizes in their bases of historical data, or that purport to explain even more complex or dynamic systems – models like climate modeling, financial market forecasts, economic and budgetary forecasting, or the behavior of voters. Yet somehow, liberals in particular seem so enamored of such models that they decry any skepticism of their projections as a “War on Objectivity,” in the words of Paul Krugman. Conservatives get labeled “climate deniers” or “poll deniers” (by the likes of Tom Jensen of PPP, Markos Moulitsas, Jonathan Chait and the American Prospect) or, in the case of disagreeing with budgetary forecasts that aren’t really even forecasts, “liars.” But if history teaches us anything, it’s that the more abuse that’s directed towards skeptics, the greater the need for someone to play Socrates.
Consider an argument Michael Lewis makes in his book The Big Short: nearly everybody involved in the mortgage-backed securities market (buy-side, sell-side, ratings agencies, regulators) bought into mathematical models valuing MBS as low-risk based on models whose historical data didn’t go back far enough to capture a collapse in housing prices. And it was precisely such a collapse that destroyed all the assumptions on which the models rested. But the people who saw the collapse coming weren’t people who built better models; they were people who questioned the assumptions in the existing models and figured out how dependent they were on those unquestioned assumptions. Something similar is what I believe is going on today with poll averages and the polling models on which they are based. The 2008 electorate that put Barack Obama in the White House is the 2005 housing market, the Dow 36,000 of politics. And any model that directly or indirectly assumes its continuation in 2012 is – no matter how diligently applied – combining bad raw data with a flawed reading of the historical evidence.
Emphasis mine. As regular readers of this feature know, I was a program analyst for Bank of America during the mortgage boom of the mid 2000s, and for our line of business (corporate relocation) one of my tasks was to estimate the value of future business opportunities. We used a mathematical model that frankly green-lighted every venture that a sales manager proposed, because we assumed we'd get and convert a certain number of mortgages because, well, we would. We always had.
In 2005, the model worked very, very well. I left B of A in 2006 when the office relocated -- the office left me, I guess. In the subsequent years, many of my colleagues who went out to Oregon ended up losing their jobs there when the overall market changed and -- crucially -- when B of A acquired Countrywide.
The problem with the model we used in 2005 was that we didn't have enough historical data to test the validity of the model longitudinally. And we couldn't have seen that our parent company would make what in retrospect was a ridiculous mistake in acquiring Countrywide, which was hip-deep in the mess but looked like a going concern at the time.
I don't have a lot of time for this post, so I don't want to oversimplify things, but McLaughlin sums up what I think Silver's problem is going to be in this cycle:
Poll toplines are simply the sum of their internals: that is, different subgroups within the sample. The one poll-watchers track most closely is the partisan breakdowns: how each candidate is doing with Republican voters, Democratic voters and independent voters, two of whom (the Rs & Ds) have relatively predictable voting patterns. Bridging the gap from those internals to the topline is the percentage of each group included in the poll, which of course derives from the likely-voter modeling and other sampling issues described above. And therein lies the controversy.
My thesis, and that of a good many conservative skeptics of the 538 model, is that these internals are telling an entirely different story than some of the toplines: that Obama is getting clobbered with independent voters, traditionally the largest variable in any election and especially in a presidential election, where both sides will usually have sophisticated, well-funded turnout operations in the field. He’s on track to lose independents by double digits nationally, and the last three candidates to do that were Dukakis, Mondale and Carter in 1980. And he’s not balancing that with any particular crossover advantage (i.e., drawing more crossover Republican voters than Romney is drawing crossover Democratic voters). Similar trends are apparent throughout the state-by-state polls, not in every single poll but in enough of them to show a clear trend all over the battleground states.
If you averaged Obama’s standing in all the internals, you’d capture a profile of a candidate that looks an awful lot like a whole lot of people who have gone down to defeat in the past, and nearly nobody who has won. Under such circumstances, Obama can only win if the electorate features a historically decisive turnout advantage for Democrats – an advantage that none of the historically predictive turnout metrics are seeing, with the sole exception of the poll samples used by some (but not all) pollsters. Thus, Obama’s position in the toplines depends entirely on whether those pollsters are correctly sampling the partisan turnout.
Emphasis in original. This is why I've been squawking throughout this cycle about D +7 models: you have to assume that voter enthusiasm on the Obama side is at the same level as 2008, or even exceeding it, for the toplines to make any sense. Based on my instincts and nearly 40 years of observing these things, I don't see anything like that out there. Perhaps Obama's team can squeeze every conceivable vote out of his own coalition in numbers sufficient to counter the Republican efforts, and in sufficient numbers to counteract the evidence that independents are supporting his opponent. We'll likely know in six days.
