Gridiron Politics

Welcome to the 2008 season for college football! I can’t wait to watch games this year, and, as usual, I’ll make a series of wildly inaccurate guesses of how I might bet these games if I lived in Nevada, where sportsbetting is legal. A reminder of terms: the line is + or -. If I pick a team that’s + 5, for instance, that means that if I actually drove down to Las Vegas and put 10 bucks on that team, I would win that bet if the team won, or if the team lost by fewer than 5 points. If I pick a team that’s -5, that means that I win my bet if the team wins the game by more than 5 points, otherwise I lose the bet. If my favored team wins by exactly 5 points, or my underdog loses by exactly 5 points, it’s a tie and the bet is canceled. Sometimes I’ll speculate about a moneyline bet. This is a bet that simply picks one team to win, no matter how good or bad they are compared to their opponent. A moneyline of +400 means that if I bet $10 on that team, if they win I am paid $40 on my bet. A moneyline of -400 means that I must risk $40 to win $10. Next to the bets, I will list how confident I am by rating the number of units I would wager on the game, if I were able to place such a wager. Make sense? Now to the games.

Please note: Games I would hold off this week: Washington @ Oregon and Oklahoma State @ Washington State. The spread on Oregon is around 13, and I think that’s too many points for a team whose quarterback was just injured. Plus it’s a rivalry game and you never know how those will turn out. I’d stay away from the Cowboys because they’re playing in Pullman, which is a really unfriendly place for visiting teams. And Wazzu might be bad, but they can be unpredictable. Obviously if I had to bet it I’d take OSU but I think it’s smarter simply to stay away.

Well, the New York Times makes the blog two posts in a row! This time, the Grey Lady ran an op-ed from Geraldine A. Ferraro on why superdelegates know what’s best for the Democratic party. You might ask yourself, ‘Who is this woman and why do I care?’ Oh, well she was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1984, playing sidekick to Walter Mondale as the two offered themselves as sacrificial lambs to the Reagan juggernaut. You might think with her experience losing to a moderate Republican, she would be happy to note that voters have turned out in the primaries this year in record numbers. You would think she would be happy that independents and even some Republicans are casting their primary vote for a Democratic candidate.

Nope. She’d rather keep the Democratic party as an insular group of labor unions, feminists and activists instead of broadening the tent and giving a voice to people who are dissastisfied with the dishonesty and hubris of the Republican party. Ms. Ferraro, I changed my registration to Democrat this year after being a Republican since I turned 18. But apparently, I’m not good enough for your party. Luckily, the superdelegates will be able to take care of my vote. Here are some choice excerpts from her article:

… [T]he delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated. If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

Translation: While Obama is on a 11-0 winning streak, remember that some states that favor Hillary haven’t voted yet (can you tell she’s a Hillary supporter?) Oh, and despite incredible turnouts for state primaries this year, the people who have voted are unable to create a “grassroots mandate” because the poor people who didn’t bother to participate in the process are now disenfranchised. We continue …

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses. In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed. He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.

So Ferraro really believes that a candidate is stronger if you only allow people registered in your party to vote for them. Here’s a question for you: How can you possibly counter partisan politics and unite a country when your only measure of support until the day of the election is the votes of people who are voting for anyone with “Democrat” by their name, no matter how weak a candidate or whatever qualities he or she may have as an actual leader. I understand you don’t want your party’s agenda hijacked by an outsider; but even if you select a candidate through open primaries (like I wish Oregon did), a Democrat-In-Name-Only will never be selected in a Democratic primary because the voters themselves won’t select such a candidate.

Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton. And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken. I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

Ferraro’s problem here is she thinks elected officials (who comprise the majority of the 796 superdelegates) are better than the Democratic voters that elected them. Truly, she speaks wisdom: It would be a terrible thing for a Congressman to be voted out of office for overriding the wishes of his constituents, wouldn’t it?

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party. Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

Nice rhetorical finish. Remember in the last paragraph, Ferraro was talking about the dilemma of elected officials when they like one candidate but their constituents like a different one. If they REALLY want to represent their constituents, she says, they would fight to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated. What? Excuse me? So let’s say I’m a congressman from Georgia. It’s my job to make sure that Florida and Michigan get a full say in the process, even though their states broke party rules and Obama wasn’t even on the BALLOT in either state? Certainly, her suggestion is the epitome of democracy in action. Now, I agree, Florida and Michigan delegates SHOULD be seated … once those states actually hold a fair election where both candidates play by the rules. Have each state hold a caucus, or even a new election, and make it a fair contest. But don’t go whining in the New York Times that 1) Primary voters don’t represent the party, 2) Congresspersons are being held hostage by their constituents, 3) Make Florida and Michigan count by breaking the rules.

It is a great mercy that Geraldine Ferraro never got a chance to serve a heartbeat away from the presidency. And with a little luck, the party elite she claims to represent won’t get a chance to ignore the voters and prop up Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

So the New York Times put out a big hit on McCain earlier this evening, giving conservatives a new reason to hate him and giving new life to Mike Huckabee’s Quixotic quest for the Republican nomination. This piece by the Times about McCain’s relationship with lobbyists hints at a sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Which is fine if you’re John McCain the maverick U.S. Senator, but less fine when you’re trying to run for President, solidify your Republican base and reach out to independents so they don’t accidentally vote for Barack Obama.

The possibility of illicit sex probably won’t stop independents from voting for McCain, but close ties to a lobbyist and the subsequent favors he performed on her behalf might give them pause.

The close relationship with a lobbyist won’t be a problem for conservatives, but the prospect of
out of wedlock sex might send the Religious Right scurrying ever closer to Holy Huckabee.

But really, unless there are more developments, this story isn’t likely to be much of a problem in the immediate future for anyone not named Cindy McCain. By the way, Mrs. McCain, are you still proud of America now?

Now the piece by the Times doesn’t say as much as it implies. It appears from reading the story that the paper has been trying to get at this issue since December but has had to do extensive fact checking. It feels a bit rushed — Josh over at Talking Points Memo speculates that the Times had to get this before any other paper landed it. But there is quite a bit said about McCain and his questionable ethics, and it’s guaranteed to put the spotlight on the Republican frontrunner just as his party was ready to crown him king.

World Sports Exchange still has $100 shares of Huckabee selling for 0 dollars and $100 McCain shares trading at $93. But give it a few days and the Iseman story might grow new legs on Mike Huckabee’s campaign.

Obama crushed Clinton in the Potomac last night, winning DC with 75 percent of the vote to Hillary’s 24 percent; Maryland 59 to 36 and Virginia 64 to 35 percent. These are cheerful numbers if you’re an Obamaphile, and they spell trouble for Hillary unless she can eke out a win in Wisconsin or capture both Texas and ohio.

Over on World Sports Exchange, where you can buy and sell $100 futures on presidential candidates, Obama is selling for $71 and Clinton is at $24. What this means, in betting terms: For Obama, you risk $71 in order to win a $100 contract, or in other words, a profit of $29. So you’re risking $71 to win $29. In practical terms, then, Obama is more than a 2:1 favorite over Clinton that this point. For Clinton, you risk $24 to win $100, in other words, a gain of $76 if she pulls it off. To turn this into odds, it’s $24/$76; Hillary is a 3 to 1 underdog. These numbers obviously don’t match up because World Sports Exchange has to make a profit somewhere. But what it means is Obama is somewhere between a 2:1 to 3:1 favorite to win the Democratic Nomination.

According to NBC News, Obama has 1128 delegates and Clinton has 1009. This number is not including superdelegates, but the political wisdom here dictates that superdelegates will be hard pressed to line up behind a candidate who has a minority share of “regular” state delegates. In other words, if we get all the way to June and Obama has a 250 delegate lead on Obama, those 796 superdelegates will probably all throw their support behind Obama, rather than alienate the Democratic base by picking Clinton just because the party insiders like her more.

These all important superdelegates will also be swayed by which candidate has a larger share of actual votes gained from the electoral contests thus far. According to MSNBC’s blog First Read, Obama has 9.4 million votes so far, or 50 percent, while Hillary is at 8.7 million, or 46 percent. If you add in the votes of Florida and Michigan, whose delegates were stripped by the national party after they held their primaries before February 5 in violation of party rules, Obama has 9.94 million votes and Clinton has 9.86 million, or a 47 to 47 percent tie.

So in other words, Obama is ahead no matter whose numbers you go by. The general buzz this morning on political blogs is this race is Obama’s to lose at this point, unless Hillary sweeps Texas and Ohio by comfortable margins. In that scenario, the fight goes all the way to the convention and the two candidates get to bicker over whether Florida and Michigan get their delegates back and superdelegates decide who to throw their support to and John Edwards plays kingmaker and hands off his 26 delegates to the winner in exchange for the vice presidency. Fun for us, not so fun for the Democratic Party.