Sure, its a bit early to take a look at the 2008 election. I personally thought it ridiculous when Wolf Blitzer was dedicating a segment of his show to analyzing polls for an election 21 months away.
So understanding that things will almost certainly change, I think one of the initial observations one can glean from the early, early stages of the campaign is what may turn out to be a huge problem for the Republicans: enthusiasm.
If there is one thing that is true about U.S. elections these days, it's that they're close. Bush 43's majority in 2004 was 51% to Kerry's 49%. He didn't win a majority (or a plurality) in the well-scrutinized 2000 election. Clinton never won a majority. Bush 41 won 53% in 1988. So for the past twenty years, the difference in elections has been mainly about two things: winning the independents and turning out your base.
Disregarding the fact that the 2006 election showed that independents are leaning Democrat these days, the GOP may be setting itself up for a large turnout problem in 2008.
If you look closely at the top three Democratic candidates right now - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards - along with the top three Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney - an interesting pattern emerges.
All of the candidates have their flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton is too cold and calculated, Obama too inexperienced, and Edwards has been out of office for two years. With the Republicans, Giuliani is too liberal, McCain too wrong on the war (at least currently), and Romney a Mormon - not a flaw of course but sadly more of a problem in the eyes of the evangelical Christian Republican base than, say, Clinton's being a woman or Obama's being black is to the Democratic base.
The difference comes down to the fact that despite their "flaws," each of the Democratic candidates seems to elicit an enthusiasm among the Democratic base that the Republican candidates do not. All of the Democratic primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can overcome the overwhelming support of the other two. All of the Republican primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can garner any Republican support at all.
Obama and Edwards voters may not support Hillary in the primary, but they will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she be the candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, it's harder to see supporters of the more socially conservative Romney voting for him rather than just staying home, and visa versa.
Essentially we have a reversal of the 2004 election, magnified. John Kerry was not a candidate who could excite Democrats who would otherwise stay home to vote. Bush, on the other hand, rallied his conservative base to the polls and they carried him to victory. Bush was thus able to win despite even the fact that independents leaned slightly towards Kerry.
Again, it's important to remember that a lot can change in 21 months. But if enthusiasm continues to be a problem for the Republican candidates, give an early advantage to the Democrats in 2008.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Three strikes, Bonds is out!
Bonds reportedly failed amphetamine test - Baseball - MSNBC.com:
People on the East Coast have often asked me how I feel about Barry Bonds. I don't know how they know I'm a Giants fan. Could be the Giants calendar that's been in my office since August. Or the bobblehead that sits on my desk. Whatever. Anyway, I've always told them, "conflicted." I thought, I would say, that he was guilty of taking steroids. But then again, I would add, so were a good deal of other players and it was unfair to single Bonds out. Besides, he's on my team. Laker's fans root for Kobe, right? The French still adore Zinedine Zidane, right? Actually they could hate him. I didn't full fact check that one. I digress.
But as for Bonds and I, no more.
Apparently he tested positive for amphetamines. Strike one. Now, amphetamines aren't steroids. They're little pills that pep you up. Take them before a game, give you good energy. Like coffee, but without the peeing and upset stomach. Players have been using them for years. Even Willie Mays was known to have them. That doesn't make them right, but like the first strike, it's not too harsh of a count against a player.
He tested positive for them last season, after they were banned by MLB. Strike two. Bonds showed a flagrant disregard for the rules of baseball on this one. Taking the pills before they were banned is one thing. Taking them after they were banned, especially after one has denied any and all baseball wrongdoing before, is a sign of one who believes he is so great as to be above the rules.
Bonds was in a tough position here. An 0-2 count can be precarious. The public is willing to throw a few outside the zone, but one miss and its back to the dugout.
Bonds then proceeded to blame an innocent team mate, Mark Sweeney, for providing him with the pills. Ladies and gentlemaen, a big, BIG, swinging strike three. Barry could have gained back some of his lost respect by owning up to what he had done and facing the consequences. Maybe his career would have been done, maybe he wouldn't ever get Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, but he would still have a good shot at the Hall of Fame. Nothing counts more against a great player's entry into baseball's shrine than character. Ask Pete Rose.
No, instead of owning up to his mistakes, Bonds said that he stole a bottle out of Sweeney's locker and took what was inside without knowing what they were. You get the idea.
Dante reserves the lowest circle of hell for those who betrayed friends. Judas, Brutus, and the lot. Nothing is lower in sports than trying to turn your own team mate into a scapegoat. Few thought Barry could sink lower in terms of personal character. Barry just lowered the bar for them.
If someone asks me now what I feel about Barry Bonds, I think I have a more clear-cut answer. I want him out of baseball. I want him off my team. The Giants still haven't finalized their $16 million contract with him. If they have any respect for the integrity of the game, they'll end negotations and force Bonds to fruitlessly look elsewhere, effectively forcing him into retirement.
Bonds has had a long career, one full of more successes than most players dream of. He got a lot of cheers from me. But not anymore. He may have over 700 long-balls in his career, but this time he's struck out big time.
"NEW YORK - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday.
When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney%u2019s locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.
"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night."
People on the East Coast have often asked me how I feel about Barry Bonds. I don't know how they know I'm a Giants fan. Could be the Giants calendar that's been in my office since August. Or the bobblehead that sits on my desk. Whatever. Anyway, I've always told them, "conflicted." I thought, I would say, that he was guilty of taking steroids. But then again, I would add, so were a good deal of other players and it was unfair to single Bonds out. Besides, he's on my team. Laker's fans root for Kobe, right? The French still adore Zinedine Zidane, right? Actually they could hate him. I didn't full fact check that one. I digress.
But as for Bonds and I, no more.
Apparently he tested positive for amphetamines. Strike one. Now, amphetamines aren't steroids. They're little pills that pep you up. Take them before a game, give you good energy. Like coffee, but without the peeing and upset stomach. Players have been using them for years. Even Willie Mays was known to have them. That doesn't make them right, but like the first strike, it's not too harsh of a count against a player.
He tested positive for them last season, after they were banned by MLB. Strike two. Bonds showed a flagrant disregard for the rules of baseball on this one. Taking the pills before they were banned is one thing. Taking them after they were banned, especially after one has denied any and all baseball wrongdoing before, is a sign of one who believes he is so great as to be above the rules.
Bonds was in a tough position here. An 0-2 count can be precarious. The public is willing to throw a few outside the zone, but one miss and its back to the dugout.
Bonds then proceeded to blame an innocent team mate, Mark Sweeney, for providing him with the pills. Ladies and gentlemaen, a big, BIG, swinging strike three. Barry could have gained back some of his lost respect by owning up to what he had done and facing the consequences. Maybe his career would have been done, maybe he wouldn't ever get Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, but he would still have a good shot at the Hall of Fame. Nothing counts more against a great player's entry into baseball's shrine than character. Ask Pete Rose.
No, instead of owning up to his mistakes, Bonds said that he stole a bottle out of Sweeney's locker and took what was inside without knowing what they were. You get the idea.
Dante reserves the lowest circle of hell for those who betrayed friends. Judas, Brutus, and the lot. Nothing is lower in sports than trying to turn your own team mate into a scapegoat. Few thought Barry could sink lower in terms of personal character. Barry just lowered the bar for them.
If someone asks me now what I feel about Barry Bonds, I think I have a more clear-cut answer. I want him out of baseball. I want him off my team. The Giants still haven't finalized their $16 million contract with him. If they have any respect for the integrity of the game, they'll end negotations and force Bonds to fruitlessly look elsewhere, effectively forcing him into retirement.
Bonds has had a long career, one full of more successes than most players dream of. He got a lot of cheers from me. But not anymore. He may have over 700 long-balls in his career, but this time he's struck out big time.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Tres holidays
It's been awhile since I've posted. I guess when you fall out of habit of blogging it's hard to get back into it. So what's happened to me the past five weeks? Mary's come and gone, twice. The LVs have come, the JVs have come. I've spent Thanksgiving in New Jersey, Christmas in California, and New Year's Eve in Brooklyn. Where to start?
Mary and I have certainly been spoiled by the holidays. We had five straight days together over Thanksgiving weekend and ten total days together over the Christmas break. I think being in a long-distance relationship that works can be, while painful, really good for the relationship in a sense. You don't really appreciate how much someone means to you until you have to live without them for weeks at a time. I don't know how long-distance relationships worked before cell phones, e-mail and instant messanger.
The same way goes, I feel, for home - both the loved ones at home and the place itself. I was amazed by how much I appreciated being "home" in the college sense. That is, you know you don't live there anymore but you still feel so comfortable there. I quickly forgot that I had an apartment, a job, and a whole life 3,000 miles away. Zach Braff described the seemingly haphazard plot of "Garden State" as being just like actually going home: there's no set order to what happens, you just seem to bounce from place to place to place without a plan. It's both saddening and comforting those brief hours (or minutes) you see old friends. Saddening to realize that you can only really connect with these people once or twice a year, comforting to know that the friendship is strong enough to suffer because of that.
Likewise, coming back to New York wasn't that big of a deal. Like going home, there was no "well, I'm home" or "I can't believe I live so far away" or anything like that. As small and cluttered my apartment is, it's my new home and I feel comfortable there as well.
I never thought I'd have a chance to experience New Year's Eve in Times Square. I never thought I'd pass it up to go to Brooklyn. I'm glad I did. The Jesuit Volunteers are a fun bunch, and I hope to get to know better the ones who live here in New York City. It was all so simple: some Chinese food, a few beers, and a rooftop with a clear view of the Manhattan skyline on a clear night were all that were needed to ring in 2007.
Besides, Mary and I decided to save Times Square for next year.
So after an eventful week and a half, it will be weird to start the normal routine again tomorrow. I really don't know how productive I'm going to be at work tomorrow (sorry Kevin). I'm going to try to post more often, but I want to get past this "here's what I did today" phase. Have any ideas on something to write about?
Mary and I have certainly been spoiled by the holidays. We had five straight days together over Thanksgiving weekend and ten total days together over the Christmas break. I think being in a long-distance relationship that works can be, while painful, really good for the relationship in a sense. You don't really appreciate how much someone means to you until you have to live without them for weeks at a time. I don't know how long-distance relationships worked before cell phones, e-mail and instant messanger.
The same way goes, I feel, for home - both the loved ones at home and the place itself. I was amazed by how much I appreciated being "home" in the college sense. That is, you know you don't live there anymore but you still feel so comfortable there. I quickly forgot that I had an apartment, a job, and a whole life 3,000 miles away. Zach Braff described the seemingly haphazard plot of "Garden State" as being just like actually going home: there's no set order to what happens, you just seem to bounce from place to place to place without a plan. It's both saddening and comforting those brief hours (or minutes) you see old friends. Saddening to realize that you can only really connect with these people once or twice a year, comforting to know that the friendship is strong enough to suffer because of that.
Likewise, coming back to New York wasn't that big of a deal. Like going home, there was no "well, I'm home" or "I can't believe I live so far away" or anything like that. As small and cluttered my apartment is, it's my new home and I feel comfortable there as well.
I never thought I'd have a chance to experience New Year's Eve in Times Square. I never thought I'd pass it up to go to Brooklyn. I'm glad I did. The Jesuit Volunteers are a fun bunch, and I hope to get to know better the ones who live here in New York City. It was all so simple: some Chinese food, a few beers, and a rooftop with a clear view of the Manhattan skyline on a clear night were all that were needed to ring in 2007.
Besides, Mary and I decided to save Times Square for next year.
So after an eventful week and a half, it will be weird to start the normal routine again tomorrow. I really don't know how productive I'm going to be at work tomorrow (sorry Kevin). I'm going to try to post more often, but I want to get past this "here's what I did today" phase. Have any ideas on something to write about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)