The Forgotten Claim

Last week Barack Obama defeated John McCain to become the next president of the United States. Obama's victory seemed to many (at least to many of his supporters) foreordained. But no one should forget that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought tooth and nail in the Democratic primaries before Obama secured enough delegates to claim victory. Before Clinton conceded defeat, it seemed for a while that she might fight Obama all the way to the convention. Indeed, Clinton began intimating that she should be the nominee because she had (supposedly) won the popular vote during the primary season. Although it is the delegate count, rather than the popular vote count, that ultimately decides a presidential nomination, do Clinton's claims of having captured the popular vote hold water? No national news source, as far as I know, ever tackled this question.

There were 56 primaries, caucuses, and conventions in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination contest (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the ever-popular Democrats Abroad). In determining who captured the popular vote, Michigan stands as the biggest hurdle because Obama was not on the ballot. Fortunately, the media's exit polling included a query on voters' preference had all candidates appeared on the ballot. On that question, Senator Clinton led with 46%, Senator Obama had 35%, and John Edwards trailed with 12%. (Those numbers are very much consistent with the results from Florida, where Senator Clinton scored 50%, Senator Obama 33%, and Edwards 14%. One would expect Clinton to score slightly higher in the Hispanic-heavy Sunshine State and Edwards to benefit from his southern roots.) I feel it is fair to divide the Michigan vote according to the exit poll's result. It answers the Clinton campaign's call to count every vote, it acknowledges that she won the most votes in the state, and it awards many (but not all) "Uncommitted" ballots to Senator Obama. There were several other bookkeeping matters that required consideration. Three caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, and Maine) did not report popular vote totals. Again, media polling came to the rescue. Since Iowa and Nevada were very early on the calendar, there was a treasure trove of information on the voter's intentions as they entered the caucus sites. It is important to go with the entrance polls since weaker candidates are frequently eliminated from consideration and their supporters asked to realign with one of the leaders as the process unfolds. By the time Maine voted, it was a two-horse race and, therefore, no problem to apportion the vote. Washington state, Idaho, and Nebraska Democrats awarded delegates to the national convention through caucuses, but each state subsequently administered an advisory/nonbinding primary. Since more people participated in the primaries, I decided to use them instead of the caucus tallies. It would not be appropriate to use both since this would undoubtedly give some people two votes, which is an absolute no-no in my book. The Lone Star State used both a primary and a caucus to determine its delegation; only the primary was considered. Pundits referred to it as the "Texas Two-Step"; I said even worse things about it. At any rate, that is some of the procedural minutiae that allowed me to find my way in tallying the vote. Among the jurisdictions where the vote totals are absolutely certain, I have Senator Obama with 17.939 million and Senator Clinton with 17.873 million. For the guess-timate states, I have Senator Obama garnering roughly 83K from Iowa, 48K from Nevada, 26K from Maine, and 208K from Michigan. Senator Clinton counters with 65K from the Hawkeye State, 56K from the Silver State, 18K from the Pine Tree State, and 273K from the Wolverine State. By my calculation, that gives Senator Obama the victory by a final count of 18.304 million-18.285 million. Once he closed the deal in Indiana and North Carolina, Senator Obama pretty much left the field to his colleague from New York. She ran up huge margins in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. In short, Clinton did not entirely close the gap, but she came mighty close.

Pitiful Debate

Last night's presidential debate was easily the worst in years. The candidates began exceeding their time limits virtually from the start. Debate moderator Tom Brokaw should have taken preventive action by reminding the candidates BEFORE the debate that the lights around the stage signaled when their time was up. When the candidates exceeded their limits, Brokaw should have immediately cut them off. Instead, he repeatedly made snippy comments about the candidates' longwindedness. The candidates' verbosity and Brokaw's behavior made for a long, irksome evening.

In addition, none of the questions touched on any subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. Surely the thousands who submitted online questions and the audience in Nashville asked some good questions that dealt with something other than the economy, health care, and foreign affairs.

To this point in the campaign, the best debate was the Saddleback Church forum. The pastor asked some good, probing questions that touched on a variety of subjects. Brokaw could have learned some lessons if he had watched a tape of the program.

I have confidence that Bob Schieffer, who is professional and usually impartial, will ask good questions during the next debate. However, if he offers nothing new, I will turn off the TV.

McCain's Veepstakes

Now that Barack Obama has picked his running mate, it's time to take a closer look at those candidates who are on John McCain's short list for VP. Here they are (in no particular order):

1. Mitt Romney. Pros: Romney has executive experience, whereas Obama, Biden, and McCain do not. He is knowledgeable about economic issues, one of McCain's perceived weaknesses. In addition, he has a devoted following among Republican conservatives, and he is a master fundraiser. Cons: There is still a great deal of skepticism concerning Romney's membership in the Mormon Church. He has flip-flopped on more issues than John Kerry, including abortion, an issue held dear by conservatives. Moreover, he doesn't have the common touch. He appears aloof, unable to connect with average Joes. Finally, McCain and Romney displayed a palpable dislike for each other during the primaries. Political observers are not sure whether the two have put their hard feelings behind them.

2. Mike Huckabee. Pros: Huckabee appeals to the Evangelical base of the Republican Party, and he has executive experience. He is a great debater who would more than old his own against Biden. Cons: He may be too conservative for moderate Republicans and undecided Democrats.

3. Tim Pawlenty. Pros: He does not have any skeletons in his closet (as far as we know), and he is a popular governor of Minnesota. Cons: He suffers from a lack of name recognition, and, to be blunt, he is not the most exciting campaigner in the world.

4. Sarah Palin. Pros: Strongly pro-life, extremely popular Alaskan governor, and she would appeal to women voters. Cons: She has served as governor for less than two years; in short, she has less political experience than Obama. Republican observers rightfully worry that she may not be ready for the political "big show."

3 Keys...

...if the Miami Hurricanes want to go 8-4 this year:

1. Find a Quarterback...any Quarterback. In spite of a poisonous locker room and an almost complete lack of effort for most of the season, the Canes would have won 7-8 regular season games last year (instead of five) if either Kyle Wright or Kirby Freeman had been even passable behind center. The Georgia Tech game would have been a win. Miami would have completed a monumental comeback in Chapel Hill. The most obvious case, of course, was the overtime loss to a terrible NC State team in the Orange Bowl. Had ANYONE completed more than ONE pass, the Canes would have put the Pack away. Look for Shannon to go with the hot hand this year. In spite of a complete lack of experience at the position, expect the QBs to perform better than last year - simply because Coach Shannon has more options.

2. BLITZ!!! Miami built its reputation in the 1980s and early 1990s on the backs of tough, aggressive defenses. Miami's defensive coaches became quite passive over the past few years - content to "out-talent" the other team's offense. As other teams caught up, however, rushing four and dropping everyone else into coverage was no longer sufficient (see last year's UVA game). Look for Bill Young, the new Defensive Coordinator, to mix things up a bit and bring pressure from more places than just the front four.

3. Don't get down. Any self-aware Miami fan will admit that, with trips to Gainesville and College Station early on, the Canes could easily start the season 1-2. With an exceptionally young and inexperienced squad, it will be supremely important for Shannon and his staff to keep the kids focused and confident. Coach will need to sell the early losses as learning experiences. This should not be an impossible task as winning the conference (or at least the division) should be the overriding goal for the 2008 Canes.

Political Cluelessness

Libertarian presidential hopeful Bob Barr is hoping to gain ballot access in the Mountain State. To do so, the Barr campaign must collect and submit over 15,000 signatures on state-approved petitions by August 1. Recently, a Barr petitioner posted an article on Barr's campaign Web site lamenting the difficulty of gathering signatures in the state for a third party. The petitioner ascribed the difficulty to West Virginia's love affair with the Democratic Party, and, get this, Barack Obama. The author might as well have written that the earth is flat.

While it is true that West Virginia was once a Democratic stronghold, it voted for George Bush by substantial margins in both 2000 and 2004. Moreover, if West Virginians are in love with Barack Obama, they sure hid their infatuation well in the Democratic primary. Voters awarded Hillary Clinton a crushing 31 point victory over Obama. If that is love, it must be the tough kind.

Will the Real Conservatives Please Stand Up!?!?

I have been known to describe myself as a conservative first and a Republican second. Any allegiance I have given to the GOP over the past decade or so has been based largely on the fact that I truly believed that the Republicans were more closely aligned with the ideals of true conservatism - balanced budgets, self-reliance, limited government, minimal foreign entanglements, measured and patient social reform.

Unfortunately, these past few years have so tried my patience that I am about ready to jump the GOP ship. Quite simply, the current crop of Republican politicians wouldn't know true conservatism if it smacked them in the face with the force of a Ronnie Reagan one-liner. The list of modern GOP crimes against conservatism is as endless as my patience is nonexistent: amnesty for illegal immigrants, corporate and investment banking bailouts, predatory lender bailouts, massive tax "rebates" that do not go to the people who can truly stimulate the economy and are financed by assuming even more Chinese debt, an intractable and seemingly endless (not to mention unnecessary) war - and now, another record budget shortfall!!!

Worst of all, when these pseudo-Conservative sellouts do not get their way on legislation that would fit quite comfortably in a Clinton or even Roosevelt presidency (see the amnesty bill), they pitch a fit - condescendingly blaming and demonizing the very constituency who voted them in!!!

Will the real conservatives please stand up!?!?

Week Two Picks

While it may not look like it on paper, week 2 is important for every single one of our teams. In one way or another, we all have something to prove (or disprove) this weekend.

Miami-Oklahoma
I won't always lead off with my Canes, but they have the biggest matchup this weekend. I remember telling my UM friends 3 or 4 years ago that there were going to be years where the Canes (gasp!) would not necessarily contend for a national title. They all laughed at me and told me to shut up. Three years later, we are still without so much as an ACC title. This recent lack of success has not, however, changed expectations in Coral Gables. UM people still expect to win national titles. If Miami wants to compete nationally this year, they must leave Norman with a win. Unfortunately, I think the Canes are a year away from competing (at least nationally). Oklahoma's D bottles up the Miami O just enough to win.
Oklahoma 21 Miami 14

Clemson-ULM
The Tigers are notorious for riding the focus roller coaster - it's what ruined their season last year. If the Tigers want to go to JAX, they must show that they can retain intensity from week to week. This game against Monroe is the first step towards this goal. Tigers focus enough to run a clearly inferior ULM team off the field.
Clemson 38 ULM 7

Georgia-South Carolina
Georgia looked good last weekend. However, if the Dawgs want to win the SEC this year, they need to pick up home wins against SEC rivals. Carolina looks a little suspect, and Darth Visor's decision to start Blake Mitchell makes the Dawg D's job a little easier. Georgia wins in surprisingly easy fashion between the hedges.
UGA 28 Carolina 10

Free Shoes-UAB
Honestly, the Noles looked terrible on Monday night. As I have told a number of my FSU friends, the Jimbo Fisher hire was nice, but it's not going to pay immediate dividends. Much like the Kyle Wright/Kirby Freeman two-headed monster, FSU's Weatherford/Lee combo is frighteningly bad right now. In addition (with the possible exception of the last 1/3 of the game), FSU looked listless and downright lazy on offense and defense - they also looked pretty slow at times. The Noles need to hammer UAB this weekend and prove that they aren't going to fold like last year. Noles get well for a week and hammer a bad UAB team.
FSU 35 UAB 7

Week One Picks

Miami 28 Marshall 17

Clemson 21 FSU 20

WVU 38 Western Michigan 24

Georgia 28 Olahoma State 27

This week's lesson: home-field advantage means everything early on in the season.

Glavine and 300

New York Mets lefthander Tom Glavine recently became the 23rd pitcher in big league history to win 300 games. Some baseball experts argue that Glavine will be the last pitcher to reach the cherished milestone. Randy Johnson has 284 wins, but he has suffered nagging injuries the last two seasons and he is approaching 44, an age at which most starting pitchers are already in their rocking chairs. Moreover, the 5-man rotation and the game's emphasis on relief pitching has significantly reduced starting pitchers' chances of winning 15 games, let alone 20, in a single season.

But let us not forget that Tom Glavine came up in 1987, when 5-man rotations and managers' love affair with relievers were already well entrenched. Glavine has never started more than 36 games in any season, and for his career he has averaged about 33-34 starts per campaign in non-strike years. He has also never pitched more than 246 2/3 innings in any season. And let us not forget too that Glavine pitched most of his career under Braves manager Bobby Cox, who is notorious for yanking starters at the first hint of trouble.

Sure, it was easier to win 300 games when pitchers started 40 games a year and routinely completed 20 of them. But if Glavine can achieve 300 wins in this day and age, there is no reason another pitcher will not one day reach the 300 mark. All it takes is consistency.

Let us not forget that baseball experts also made the same prediction about the demise of 300 games winners in the 1980s and early 1990s when the likes of Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, and Nolan Ryan reached the hallowed milestone. Baseball writers contended then, as they do now, that the current crop of starting pitchers would not be able to match their predecessors' feat because they rarely started more than 35 games or pitched more than 250 innings. (With the exception of Sutton, the others had started more than 40 games and pitched more than 300 innings several times in their careers.) Citing monster salaries, writers also claimed that pitchers would not have any incentive to hang around long enough to win 300.

Well, these predictions fell by the way side. Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine have all won 300 since the writers of the 80s and early 90s made their prognostications, and each of them have played more than 20 years. The echoes of the past should be remembered when the current crop of baseball experts declare that Glavine will be the last to join the 300 win club.

The Producers, Baseball Style

Bud Selig (quite possibly the worst commissioner of any professional sports league in the history of organized sports) recently commented that he is happy with the current economic system in Major League Baseball. For those of you who don't know, baseball is different from all the other pro leagues in America. Instead of a salary cap, MLB uses revenue sharing to bring competitive balance to the game.

In theory, larger-market teams kick millions of dollars back to smaller-market teams so that these also-rans can sign better players and invest more in their player development programs.

This sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? Everybody (at least nowadays) likes parity in professional sports.

The problem is that small-market teams have figured out that, like Max and Leo in The Producers, it pays to lose. Why spend the revenue-sharing money on better players or facilities when you can basically pocket the money (which is a gross misappropriation of these funds per MLB), put a terrible team on the field, play in front of 3000 fans, and make a pretty penny?

Here are a few examples from the 2006 Forbes report on the business of baseball:

The Devil Rays (my AL team) finished 61-101 (36 games behind first place) last year. They made a profit of $20.3 million.

The Nationals finished 71-91 (26 GB) last year. They made $27.9 million.

The Royals finished 62-100 (34 GB) last year. They made $20.8 million.

In essence, teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are subsidizing the premeditated (and quite profitable) failure of teams like the Devil Rays and Royals. This is out and out fraud and something must be done to force small-market teams to use these funds to put a better product on the field.