On the way out, I passed mile 99,000. Just 1,000 more to that very exciting arbitrary round number.
And in a not-so-random shameless plug for Mark Ireland for Judge, I met a couple people from Minnesota today. Woohoo.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
9/05/2010
1,000 miles to go
In becoming more like a local St. Louisan this weekend, I commuted from Warrenton to church this morning! Yay cabin.
On the way out, I passed mile 99,000. Just 1,000 more to that very exciting arbitrary round number.
And in a not-so-random shameless plug for Mark Ireland for Judge, I met a couple people from Minnesota today. Woohoo.
On the way out, I passed mile 99,000. Just 1,000 more to that very exciting arbitrary round number.
And in a not-so-random shameless plug for Mark Ireland for Judge, I met a couple people from Minnesota today. Woohoo.
9/22/2009
toys
Excitement on the home front. New toys have come in. Now it's off to move things around, install some software, test everything, and hand things out. The laptop is going to my sister, and the desktop is off on loan to Julie. I think they must have expedited the shipping, because there was a problem with the credit card yesterday. Apparently buying stuff from all over the country set off Discover Card's fraud detection system and both Discover and MacMall called me. So I was a little surprised when my ground shipping that just went out yesterday afternoon was in my condo today when I got home from work!
P.S. To all our Fearless Leaders and Powers that Be: I am doing everything humanly possible to stimulate the economy. My roommate and I moved into a new condo. My little car has requested multiple expensive repairs. And now there is much shuffling of electronics to get to various peoples.
Now, please do your part! We need healthcare reform that eliminates the inefficiencies of the health insurance industry and ends the job bondage of employer-based healthcare. We need unemployment insurance that actually covers people who are unemployed, not just people laid off under certain limited circumstances. We need financial companies taken over, management fired, insolvent companies put through bankruptcy, decades-old regulations re-instituted, and new regulations implemented. We need, in short, policy aimed to benefit all Americans, not just a few.
/rant
Okay, optimistic Nate back. Yay toys!
P.S. To all our Fearless Leaders and Powers that Be: I am doing everything humanly possible to stimulate the economy. My roommate and I moved into a new condo. My little car has requested multiple expensive repairs. And now there is much shuffling of electronics to get to various peoples.
Now, please do your part! We need healthcare reform that eliminates the inefficiencies of the health insurance industry and ends the job bondage of employer-based healthcare. We need unemployment insurance that actually covers people who are unemployed, not just people laid off under certain limited circumstances. We need financial companies taken over, management fired, insolvent companies put through bankruptcy, decades-old regulations re-instituted, and new regulations implemented. We need, in short, policy aimed to benefit all Americans, not just a few.
/rant
Okay, optimistic Nate back. Yay toys!
4/07/2009
congratulations mayor slay
(P) I know the polls are open another half hour, but I feel pretty confident calling it. To be fair, I've never thought anybody had a chance against Slay. But my experience this evening adds a little more specificity to that thought.
Upon arriving at my polling place about 6:15pm, I was greeted by two folks with the 26th Ward Democratic party. They had two pamphlets, both of which a more cynical person might conclude were almost purposefully designed to undersell Mayor Slay, as if the fact his name is on the ballot is an afterthought. The first one, the 26th Ward sample ballot, includes names of five Democrats. Only one of them, Mayor Slay, is running for a contested position. The other one highlights President Obama, Senator McCaskill, oh yeah, and our Mayor.
Then, I was greeted by a gentleman with the Green Party. Now, as an aside, the Green Party has always fascinated me in St. Louis. Urban politics is not my native tongue, and it's particularly confusing for a 'third' party to actually be the second party in your town. We suburbanites are trained from an early age to accept that there are two major parties and these parties compete with each other for voters. The actual truth, that regionally in many rural and urban areas, there is one major party and several minor parties, is a lot messier and thus not introduced to confuse us white kids from the suburbs. If we're told that the Libertarian Party believes in smaller government and the Green Party believes in universal healthcare, it raises sticky questions about what exactly the Republican and Democratic Parties believe.
Anyway, back to tonight, the Green Party rep had one flyer, and this was specifically for their Mayoral candidate (they are not running a candidate against Darlene Green). It sported the basic message, 'a new day' on one side [ie, a new day from Slay, gotta love those implied marketing slogans], and more detailed policy information on the other.
I was not greeted by anyone from the Coleman or what's-his-name camps (addendum, I of course looked up the Libertarian's name, Robb Cunningham, but I thought it fair to admit that 20 minutes after staring at his name on the ballot, I couldn't recall it).
This is of course informal, unscientific, and only reflective of my precinct after work. It's much like the initial impression you get from a marketing campaign, when you first hear that slogan or see the packaging or something. Gut instincts aren't always right, and they certainly aren't rigorously researched. But if Coleman was counting on enough anybody-but-Slay voters, I think McCowan did a good enough job of earning votes in his own right that even if there's more organized opposition to the Mayor than at first glance, I think Slay walks away with this pretty easily. At about 6:20pm, I cast ballot 165 in my precinct. That's about how many people were waiting in line at 6:00am for the general last fall.
I of course could be wrong. But the Mayor elected my freshman year in college looks to be headed for his third term. Which, interestingly, has actually been very rare. Only three St. Louis Mayors have served three or more terms since about the Civil War. The stuff you learn.
Speaking of stuff you learn, one last tidbit I feel almost embarrassed to have just discovered today. Apparently, McCowan's family van was attacked by an arsonist last week. I don't have any reason to doubt Mr. Rainford's assurances that Mayor Slay had nothing to do with it, but it's very interesting to say the least. I read about it today on CounterPunch when I was googling the race. You'd think that would be big news, particularly since it's not like anyone's scared McCowan could actually win the race, but in fairness, I suppose it is hard to compete with the Women's Final Four, Opening Day, and that airplane-stealing Canadian.
Upon arriving at my polling place about 6:15pm, I was greeted by two folks with the 26th Ward Democratic party. They had two pamphlets, both of which a more cynical person might conclude were almost purposefully designed to undersell Mayor Slay, as if the fact his name is on the ballot is an afterthought. The first one, the 26th Ward sample ballot, includes names of five Democrats. Only one of them, Mayor Slay, is running for a contested position. The other one highlights President Obama, Senator McCaskill, oh yeah, and our Mayor.
Then, I was greeted by a gentleman with the Green Party. Now, as an aside, the Green Party has always fascinated me in St. Louis. Urban politics is not my native tongue, and it's particularly confusing for a 'third' party to actually be the second party in your town. We suburbanites are trained from an early age to accept that there are two major parties and these parties compete with each other for voters. The actual truth, that regionally in many rural and urban areas, there is one major party and several minor parties, is a lot messier and thus not introduced to confuse us white kids from the suburbs. If we're told that the Libertarian Party believes in smaller government and the Green Party believes in universal healthcare, it raises sticky questions about what exactly the Republican and Democratic Parties believe.
Anyway, back to tonight, the Green Party rep had one flyer, and this was specifically for their Mayoral candidate (they are not running a candidate against Darlene Green). It sported the basic message, 'a new day' on one side [ie, a new day from Slay, gotta love those implied marketing slogans], and more detailed policy information on the other.
I was not greeted by anyone from the Coleman or what's-his-name camps (addendum, I of course looked up the Libertarian's name, Robb Cunningham, but I thought it fair to admit that 20 minutes after staring at his name on the ballot, I couldn't recall it).
This is of course informal, unscientific, and only reflective of my precinct after work. It's much like the initial impression you get from a marketing campaign, when you first hear that slogan or see the packaging or something. Gut instincts aren't always right, and they certainly aren't rigorously researched. But if Coleman was counting on enough anybody-but-Slay voters, I think McCowan did a good enough job of earning votes in his own right that even if there's more organized opposition to the Mayor than at first glance, I think Slay walks away with this pretty easily. At about 6:20pm, I cast ballot 165 in my precinct. That's about how many people were waiting in line at 6:00am for the general last fall.
I of course could be wrong. But the Mayor elected my freshman year in college looks to be headed for his third term. Which, interestingly, has actually been very rare. Only three St. Louis Mayors have served three or more terms since about the Civil War. The stuff you learn.
Speaking of stuff you learn, one last tidbit I feel almost embarrassed to have just discovered today. Apparently, McCowan's family van was attacked by an arsonist last week. I don't have any reason to doubt Mr. Rainford's assurances that Mayor Slay had nothing to do with it, but it's very interesting to say the least. I read about it today on CounterPunch when I was googling the race. You'd think that would be big news, particularly since it's not like anyone's scared McCowan could actually win the race, but in fairness, I suppose it is hard to compete with the Women's Final Four, Opening Day, and that airplane-stealing Canadian.
1/20/2009
it's finally here
Some people have been waiting all weekend for this! And some have been waiting for months. Some of us have spent the last 8 years in anticipation of today.
And of course, some folks have been waiting for this moment all their lives.
It is good to have things to anticipate. It is also good for those moments to arrive.
We approach today from a variety of angles, of perspectives, of needs, of hopes, of places, but we come to this place united, indivisible, seeking liberty and justice for all.
And of course, some folks have been waiting for this moment all their lives.
It is good to have things to anticipate. It is also good for those moments to arrive.
We approach today from a variety of angles, of perspectives, of needs, of hopes, of places, but we come to this place united, indivisible, seeking liberty and justice for all.
11/03/2008
one more day
That's all I'm going to say. After like two years of this, tomorrow is it.
One more day!
One more day!
10/17/2008
about time
I would highly encourage reading of the letter the Obama campaign sent to Attorney General Mukasey regarding the Republicans' fussing about 'voter fraud', as if the Democrats are the ones trying to disenfranchise people.
It's pretty fundamental stuff. If people are kept from voting, and if the legal system is politicized, then we lose confidence in the outcome of elections, destroying the very democracy that supposedly governs our society.
It's very exciting to see Obama wading into the discussion.
It's pretty fundamental stuff. If people are kept from voting, and if the legal system is politicized, then we lose confidence in the outcome of elections, destroying the very democracy that supposedly governs our society.
It's very exciting to see Obama wading into the discussion.
1/29/2008
go john
(P) I'm not really the cheerleader type. I'd never be one of those people asked to warm up the crowd at a pep rally or before a speech. But hey, that doesn't mean I don't get excited. So since we're next (finally), I thought I'd give a try at being concise in my thoughts leading up to Feb 5.
In the spirit of brevity, I am going to keep this to three reasons. Here goes.
1) Edwards has been out ahead on the issues. I like his detail and his timeliness. The issues seem to matter with his campaign, he's talking about the right issues, and it seems like the advisers around him are the most open to the full range of policy options. Poverty, healthcare, the environment, trade policy, minimum wage, Iraq, torture, and so forth. The only candidate who seems able to use the word accountability to modify the word corporate. In a national landscape so thoroughly dominated by corporate interests, a willingness to call the problem by its name is greatly appreciated. And deserving of a vote.
2) Edwards has been driving the debate. Perhaps this has special appeal to me as a debater and debate coach. The way Edwards has influenced the language and proposals of the other candidates suggests to me a president who will take advantage of the opportunity to guide the national discourse in important new directions. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, his very presence and the clarity of his more populist message has had an impact on whatever platform the ultimate nominee assembles.
3) The Edwards candidacy represents a different approach within the Democratic party. I think it's time to have a Democrat who hasn't been in Washington the past few years, who hasn't been within the party establishment. In fact, Edwards had a chance to be the establishment candidate. He was, after all, the more energetic half of Kerry/Edwards 04. Yet, he left DC and has been out doing things on poverty and education and healthcare and such. Instead of being Kerry in 2008, he's actually Dean in 2008, but, I think, with a message that's even more openly populist.
There are also a few tactical things I thought I'd point out.
1) None of the candidates are 'anti-war'. It's unfortunate, but all three seem to have bought into the basic premise that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on military activities. While Clinton is most directly hawkish, Obama is clearly under a lot of influence in the Senate. In the past three years, he hasn't been a leader on stopping the war, he hasn't supported censure or impeachment efforts, he hasn't been able to stop torture or the suspension of habeus corpus or anything else the Bush Administration has been up to. He supported primary candidates in 2006 that were more pro-war than the challengers they were running against. He continues to talk about increasing the size of the military. And Obama won't promise that US troops will leave Iraq before the end of his first term. What could be a powerful antiwar campaign of Obama in 2002 is reduced to a hope that Obama in 2008 wouldn't be quite as bad as Clinton. Or Lieberman (whom Obama endorsed in 2006 over anti-war challenger Lamont).
2) If you are not wanting Clinton to win, or you don't like the idea of backing someone who's a longshot to win, the primary process is different than the general election. The Democratic party has a proportional representation system, not a winner take all system. If you lean Edwards, you don't need to feel like you have to vote for Clinton or Obama in order to make your vote count. Edwards can pick up delegates even if he finishes third in a state. Delegates are how the party platform and the nominee will get decided in Denver.
3) It is not bad to have a lengthy nomination process. In fact, quite the opposite. It gives the candidates longer to talk to the public, and it allow them more time to develop their specific policy positions. A rush to crown a nominee, followed by months of relative media silence, is much less effective. Competition is good.
4) Vote :) Vote for Clinton. Vote for Obama. Vote for Edwards. Write in Kucinich. Do whatever. But whatever you do, go to the polls on February 5th. The best way to influence all politicians is to show them that the citizenry is energized, paying attention, and willing to take action.
In the spirit of brevity, I am going to keep this to three reasons. Here goes.
1) Edwards has been out ahead on the issues. I like his detail and his timeliness. The issues seem to matter with his campaign, he's talking about the right issues, and it seems like the advisers around him are the most open to the full range of policy options. Poverty, healthcare, the environment, trade policy, minimum wage, Iraq, torture, and so forth. The only candidate who seems able to use the word accountability to modify the word corporate. In a national landscape so thoroughly dominated by corporate interests, a willingness to call the problem by its name is greatly appreciated. And deserving of a vote.
2) Edwards has been driving the debate. Perhaps this has special appeal to me as a debater and debate coach. The way Edwards has influenced the language and proposals of the other candidates suggests to me a president who will take advantage of the opportunity to guide the national discourse in important new directions. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, his very presence and the clarity of his more populist message has had an impact on whatever platform the ultimate nominee assembles.
3) The Edwards candidacy represents a different approach within the Democratic party. I think it's time to have a Democrat who hasn't been in Washington the past few years, who hasn't been within the party establishment. In fact, Edwards had a chance to be the establishment candidate. He was, after all, the more energetic half of Kerry/Edwards 04. Yet, he left DC and has been out doing things on poverty and education and healthcare and such. Instead of being Kerry in 2008, he's actually Dean in 2008, but, I think, with a message that's even more openly populist.
There are also a few tactical things I thought I'd point out.
1) None of the candidates are 'anti-war'. It's unfortunate, but all three seem to have bought into the basic premise that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on military activities. While Clinton is most directly hawkish, Obama is clearly under a lot of influence in the Senate. In the past three years, he hasn't been a leader on stopping the war, he hasn't supported censure or impeachment efforts, he hasn't been able to stop torture or the suspension of habeus corpus or anything else the Bush Administration has been up to. He supported primary candidates in 2006 that were more pro-war than the challengers they were running against. He continues to talk about increasing the size of the military. And Obama won't promise that US troops will leave Iraq before the end of his first term. What could be a powerful antiwar campaign of Obama in 2002 is reduced to a hope that Obama in 2008 wouldn't be quite as bad as Clinton. Or Lieberman (whom Obama endorsed in 2006 over anti-war challenger Lamont).
2) If you are not wanting Clinton to win, or you don't like the idea of backing someone who's a longshot to win, the primary process is different than the general election. The Democratic party has a proportional representation system, not a winner take all system. If you lean Edwards, you don't need to feel like you have to vote for Clinton or Obama in order to make your vote count. Edwards can pick up delegates even if he finishes third in a state. Delegates are how the party platform and the nominee will get decided in Denver.
3) It is not bad to have a lengthy nomination process. In fact, quite the opposite. It gives the candidates longer to talk to the public, and it allow them more time to develop their specific policy positions. A rush to crown a nominee, followed by months of relative media silence, is much less effective. Competition is good.
4) Vote :) Vote for Clinton. Vote for Obama. Vote for Edwards. Write in Kucinich. Do whatever. But whatever you do, go to the polls on February 5th. The best way to influence all politicians is to show them that the citizenry is energized, paying attention, and willing to take action.
1/08/2008
time for another election
This pains me deeply to say. I almost can't bear it. But here goes.
The political coverage about New Hampshire is actually better than the sports coverage found in the AP and USA Today Polls.
I find myself wanting to strangle somebody. And not because of some new scandal in the Bush Administration.
There are some legitimate points of debate. How to rank BYU, for example, is tough, since they beat a lot of teams with winning records, but they were all midmajor conferences. There's no signature win. Ditto for Hawaii, with the problem that Hawaii has quite the signature loss.
But some are just stupid. It's like, which is worse; that voters were ignorant and they just didn't care, or that they are so enamored with certain teams they willfully overlook pesky things like wins and losses? How in the world do you rank Florida ahead of Michigan (and Auburn in one of the polls)? It makes a good little Baptist boy want to swear hard enough to make Mel Gibson and Michael Richards blush. And speaking of Auburn, really? Ahead of two 10-3 teams!?!
I have an APB out for South Florida. Let's see, all they did was beat West Virginia. Oh, and somehow they beat a team from the superhuman ego conference, too. One that goes by the name of Auburn, who somehow got a 14 and a 15. Hmm, nothing to see here folks, move along. The SEC is all-powerful. They don't lose to anybody, even if the score board has some kind of malfunction and shows them having fewer points.
Now we get on to the really fun stuff, both because these are the best teams and because I personally care more. It's one thing for a team like Florida to be ranked above the team they lost to in the bowl game, or for a team like 9-4 Auburn to be ranked ahead of 10-3 teams Cincinnati and Arizona State. I don't follow any of those teams closely. But when teams I do follow more closely get disrespected, or more accurately this year, simply ignored, it makes me quite animated. Looking at how the voters decided the top ten, I really think the most rational response is to just ignore the polls. They must have used some alien formula more secret than FICO scoring. And it must have about as much precedent as the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore.
So let's break this down. I think the most helpful way to analyze this is to remove the school names. You then see quite plainly that many voters made decisions based not on the performance of the teams on the field this year but rather on performances in prior years or biases about certain programs or conferences. First, here's what the two polls have after the season ended.
Without the schools, here's what the AP did:
1. 12-2
2. 11-2
3. 11-2
4. 12-2
5. 11-2
6. 11-2
7. 12-1
8. 11-3
9. 11-3
10.10-3
That makes no sense. Absolutely none. So, let's try this method. Here are the number of wins the team had against another top ten opponent (bigger is better).
1. 2
2. 0
3. 0
4. 1
5. 0
6. 1
7. 1
8. 3
9. 0
10.0
I repeat myself, that makes no sense. So, let's try the reverse. These are the number of losses to teams not in the top ten (smaller is better).
1. 2
2. 2
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 1
10.2
Well, you know the drill. So, let's try the number of teams they beat which beat a top ten team (bigger is better).
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1
4. 7
5. 0
6. 1
7. 3
8. 2
9. 1
10.1
Now let's look at another number where smaller is better, the number of losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins.
1. 2
2. 1
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 0
10.2
Again, very interesting. Is there any number that makes sense? I haven't found it yet if there is. Maybe the answer is that the teams rated highly won their conference (or division of conference).
1. conf champ
2. none
3. conf champ
4. div champ
5. conf champ
6. conf champ
7. none
8. conf champ
9. conf champ
10.none
Hmmm, guess not. So let's put this together in the form of [wins-losses], [top ten wins-losses to teams not in top ten], [wins against teams with a top ten win-losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins], [conference position]. The AP voters say:
1. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
2. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
3. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
4. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
5. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
6. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
Here's how I rank them (note, this sets aside the rule that the winner of the national championship is the automatic number one).
1. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
2. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
3. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
4. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
5. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
6. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
This completes the more objective analysis of the day. I am quite eager to turn into a fan and really argue this case. Let's put some names on those numbers.
1. Missouri
2. Kansas
3. LSU
4. West Virginia
5. Georgia
6. USC
7. Ohio State
8. Oklahoma
9. Virginia Tech
10. Texas (although, this is really Boston College for me; I vote Texas 11 and BC 10)
When you look at the 2007-2008 college football season, I am quite convinced that the national championship game was not played in New Orleans between LSU and Ohio State, but rather in Kansas City between Missouri and Kansas. They have quality wins and they avoided bad losses. In a season where the top teams are all very close, that combo is very important. The worst team that the Big 12 combo of MU/KU lost to was...Oklahoma; they had not a single loss to a team outside the top ten. That is almost unbelievable. Only three of the top ten teams won 12 games, yet only one of them was ranked in the top three. Kansas only lost one game all season, while Missouri beat seven teams who were good enough to themselves beat a top ten team, more than LSU (0), Georgia (1), and USC (1) combined! The teams Missouri beat were themselves responsible for beating the SEC Champion, the ACC Champion, the Big 12 Champion, and the Big Ten Champion. That is a monstrous season.
Let's move on to Georgia. What would be required of teams like Missouri, Kansas, and West Virginia to get voted ahead of Georgia? All three had more wins against top ten teams than Georgia even played! Missouri, unlike Georgia, won its division, not to mention winning more games. Georgia's schedule was as soft as Kansas' was; Kansas came out with a better record. West Virginia won the Big East, having the same record as Georgia. Basically, the AP voters are saying a team would have to go undefeated to be better than a two loss Georgia team whose best win of the entire season was against a four loss team and whose worst loss was to a team that didn't even play in a bowl game. The two teams Georgia lost to had a combined 10 losses. The three teams that Missouri and Kansas lost to (together) had total combined losses of eight games. Just think about that. Georgia's rank is so ridiculous you can't even argue with it. You just laugh at the voters and give them zero credibility.
Then there's USC. At least they won their conference. Their main problem, however, is that they have a bad loss. A very bad one. USC lost at home to a team that finished the season 4-8. Stanford's victory over USC ranks not just among the season's all-time upsets, but among the greatest upsets in the history of college football. Now, if the Pac 10 had been a strong conference this year, that might be forgivable, if USC had some great wins. They don't have any, though. Their only win against a team with 10 or more wins was against Arizona State, which was manhandled by the Big 12's fourth team, Texas. Their second best win was against Illinois, which, oh, Missouri also beat, in a location a lot closer to Champaign than the Rose Bowl. Like Georgia, USC didn't even play a top ten team!
It's also important to understand that, aside from ranking either team highly, ranking both USC and Georgia highly is only consistent if the criteria is the national recognition of the program. In other words, it has nothing to do with this football season. You can't claim the SEC is a great conference to vote for Georgia #2, then vote a team from a weak conference #3. You can't vote USC #3 because winning conference championships are important, then vote for a #2 team that didn't even win their division, let alone their conference. You can't talk about how good the conference is when the teams you are talking about (like Florida and Arizona State) lose bowl games against teams ranked lower than them, while other teams get blown out by a higher ranked team (think Arkansas).
So my #1 choice is finally ranked at #4. But that still leaves me upset about Kansas and West Virginia.
How Ohio State is ranked #5 is a mystery beyond mysteries. It's so bizarre. Either they should be ranked higher for winning a conference, or they should be ranked lower for not being a very good team. Unlike Georgia and USC, Ohio State did play a top ten team. They lost, though. Overall, I think their season was a little better than USC, but since USC won its bowl and the team it beat was responsible for Ohio State's other loss, then I think USC should probably be a notch higher than Ohio State. How the AP voters rank them higher than Kansas and West Virginia, though, is probably classified above top secret.
Interestingly, once we make it down to the 8, 9, and 10 slots, I have no quarrel with the AP.
So join me in recognizing the Missouri Tigers as your national champions. Or at least join me in mocking the voters.
And I don't mean the New Hampshire ones.
One final update, here's the bowl predictions I made by conference vs the actual result.
Prediction/Actual: difference
Big 12: 5-3/5-3: exact
Pac 10: 4-2/4-2: exact
SEC: 5-4/7-2: two off
ACC: 4-4/2-6: two off
Big East: 2-3/3-2: one off
Big Ten: 4-4/3-5: one off
The political coverage about New Hampshire is actually better than the sports coverage found in the AP and USA Today Polls.
I find myself wanting to strangle somebody. And not because of some new scandal in the Bush Administration.
There are some legitimate points of debate. How to rank BYU, for example, is tough, since they beat a lot of teams with winning records, but they were all midmajor conferences. There's no signature win. Ditto for Hawaii, with the problem that Hawaii has quite the signature loss.
But some are just stupid. It's like, which is worse; that voters were ignorant and they just didn't care, or that they are so enamored with certain teams they willfully overlook pesky things like wins and losses? How in the world do you rank Florida ahead of Michigan (and Auburn in one of the polls)? It makes a good little Baptist boy want to swear hard enough to make Mel Gibson and Michael Richards blush. And speaking of Auburn, really? Ahead of two 10-3 teams!?!
I have an APB out for South Florida. Let's see, all they did was beat West Virginia. Oh, and somehow they beat a team from the superhuman ego conference, too. One that goes by the name of Auburn, who somehow got a 14 and a 15. Hmm, nothing to see here folks, move along. The SEC is all-powerful. They don't lose to anybody, even if the score board has some kind of malfunction and shows them having fewer points.
Now we get on to the really fun stuff, both because these are the best teams and because I personally care more. It's one thing for a team like Florida to be ranked above the team they lost to in the bowl game, or for a team like 9-4 Auburn to be ranked ahead of 10-3 teams Cincinnati and Arizona State. I don't follow any of those teams closely. But when teams I do follow more closely get disrespected, or more accurately this year, simply ignored, it makes me quite animated. Looking at how the voters decided the top ten, I really think the most rational response is to just ignore the polls. They must have used some alien formula more secret than FICO scoring. And it must have about as much precedent as the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore.
So let's break this down. I think the most helpful way to analyze this is to remove the school names. You then see quite plainly that many voters made decisions based not on the performance of the teams on the field this year but rather on performances in prior years or biases about certain programs or conferences. First, here's what the two polls have after the season ended.
Without the schools, here's what the AP did:
1. 12-2
2. 11-2
3. 11-2
4. 12-2
5. 11-2
6. 11-2
7. 12-1
8. 11-3
9. 11-3
10.10-3
That makes no sense. Absolutely none. So, let's try this method. Here are the number of wins the team had against another top ten opponent (bigger is better).
1. 2
2. 0
3. 0
4. 1
5. 0
6. 1
7. 1
8. 3
9. 0
10.0
I repeat myself, that makes no sense. So, let's try the reverse. These are the number of losses to teams not in the top ten (smaller is better).
1. 2
2. 2
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 1
10.2
Well, you know the drill. So, let's try the number of teams they beat which beat a top ten team (bigger is better).
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1
4. 7
5. 0
6. 1
7. 3
8. 2
9. 1
10.1
Now let's look at another number where smaller is better, the number of losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins.
1. 2
2. 1
3. 2
4. 0
5. 1
6. 2
7. 0
8. 2
9. 0
10.2
Again, very interesting. Is there any number that makes sense? I haven't found it yet if there is. Maybe the answer is that the teams rated highly won their conference (or division of conference).
1. conf champ
2. none
3. conf champ
4. div champ
5. conf champ
6. conf champ
7. none
8. conf champ
9. conf champ
10.none
Hmmm, guess not. So let's put this together in the form of [wins-losses], [top ten wins-losses to teams not in top ten], [wins against teams with a top ten win-losses to teams with fewer than 10 wins], [conference position]. The AP voters say:
1. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
2. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
3. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
4. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
5. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
6. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
Here's how I rank them (note, this sets aside the rule that the winner of the national championship is the automatic number one).
1. 12-2, 1-0, 7-0, div champ
2. 12-1, 1-0, 3-0, none
3. 12-2, 2-2, 0-2, conf champ
4. 11-2, 1-2, 1-2, conf champ
5. 11-2, 0-2, 1-1, none
6. 11-2, 0-2, 1-2, conf champ
7. 11-2, 0-1, 0-1, conf champ
8. 11-3, 3-2, 2-2, conf champ
9. 11-3, 0-1, 1-0, conf champ
10.10-3, 0-2, 1-2, none
This completes the more objective analysis of the day. I am quite eager to turn into a fan and really argue this case. Let's put some names on those numbers.
1. Missouri
2. Kansas
3. LSU
4. West Virginia
5. Georgia
6. USC
7. Ohio State
8. Oklahoma
9. Virginia Tech
10. Texas (although, this is really Boston College for me; I vote Texas 11 and BC 10)
When you look at the 2007-2008 college football season, I am quite convinced that the national championship game was not played in New Orleans between LSU and Ohio State, but rather in Kansas City between Missouri and Kansas. They have quality wins and they avoided bad losses. In a season where the top teams are all very close, that combo is very important. The worst team that the Big 12 combo of MU/KU lost to was...Oklahoma; they had not a single loss to a team outside the top ten. That is almost unbelievable. Only three of the top ten teams won 12 games, yet only one of them was ranked in the top three. Kansas only lost one game all season, while Missouri beat seven teams who were good enough to themselves beat a top ten team, more than LSU (0), Georgia (1), and USC (1) combined! The teams Missouri beat were themselves responsible for beating the SEC Champion, the ACC Champion, the Big 12 Champion, and the Big Ten Champion. That is a monstrous season.
Let's move on to Georgia. What would be required of teams like Missouri, Kansas, and West Virginia to get voted ahead of Georgia? All three had more wins against top ten teams than Georgia even played! Missouri, unlike Georgia, won its division, not to mention winning more games. Georgia's schedule was as soft as Kansas' was; Kansas came out with a better record. West Virginia won the Big East, having the same record as Georgia. Basically, the AP voters are saying a team would have to go undefeated to be better than a two loss Georgia team whose best win of the entire season was against a four loss team and whose worst loss was to a team that didn't even play in a bowl game. The two teams Georgia lost to had a combined 10 losses. The three teams that Missouri and Kansas lost to (together) had total combined losses of eight games. Just think about that. Georgia's rank is so ridiculous you can't even argue with it. You just laugh at the voters and give them zero credibility.
Then there's USC. At least they won their conference. Their main problem, however, is that they have a bad loss. A very bad one. USC lost at home to a team that finished the season 4-8. Stanford's victory over USC ranks not just among the season's all-time upsets, but among the greatest upsets in the history of college football. Now, if the Pac 10 had been a strong conference this year, that might be forgivable, if USC had some great wins. They don't have any, though. Their only win against a team with 10 or more wins was against Arizona State, which was manhandled by the Big 12's fourth team, Texas. Their second best win was against Illinois, which, oh, Missouri also beat, in a location a lot closer to Champaign than the Rose Bowl. Like Georgia, USC didn't even play a top ten team!
It's also important to understand that, aside from ranking either team highly, ranking both USC and Georgia highly is only consistent if the criteria is the national recognition of the program. In other words, it has nothing to do with this football season. You can't claim the SEC is a great conference to vote for Georgia #2, then vote a team from a weak conference #3. You can't vote USC #3 because winning conference championships are important, then vote for a #2 team that didn't even win their division, let alone their conference. You can't talk about how good the conference is when the teams you are talking about (like Florida and Arizona State) lose bowl games against teams ranked lower than them, while other teams get blown out by a higher ranked team (think Arkansas).
So my #1 choice is finally ranked at #4. But that still leaves me upset about Kansas and West Virginia.
How Ohio State is ranked #5 is a mystery beyond mysteries. It's so bizarre. Either they should be ranked higher for winning a conference, or they should be ranked lower for not being a very good team. Unlike Georgia and USC, Ohio State did play a top ten team. They lost, though. Overall, I think their season was a little better than USC, but since USC won its bowl and the team it beat was responsible for Ohio State's other loss, then I think USC should probably be a notch higher than Ohio State. How the AP voters rank them higher than Kansas and West Virginia, though, is probably classified above top secret.
Interestingly, once we make it down to the 8, 9, and 10 slots, I have no quarrel with the AP.
So join me in recognizing the Missouri Tigers as your national champions. Or at least join me in mocking the voters.
And I don't mean the New Hampshire ones.
One final update, here's the bowl predictions I made by conference vs the actual result.
Prediction/Actual: difference
Big 12: 5-3/5-3: exact
Pac 10: 4-2/4-2: exact
SEC: 5-4/7-2: two off
ACC: 4-4/2-6: two off
Big East: 2-3/3-2: one off
Big Ten: 4-4/3-5: one off
7/31/2007
how much evidence is enough
(P) One of the fundamental issues I am most passionate about deals with the process of voting. Now, it's not particularly exciting in and of itself; in fact, it's rather mundane and boring, when all goes well. But when all does not go well, it throws off the whole system. It's impossible to have representative government when the official tallies don't represent the will of the people. In fact, it's more sinister than that. It's impossible to have representative government when there is the impression that the official results are illegitimate, even if they do accurately reflect the results of an election.
There are a number of ways over the years that American democracy has been susceptable to manipulation, with perhaps the most famous cases being political bosses, or machines, in major cities, whose tactics were basically to persuade lots of people to vote a certain way through less than fair means. What's interesting about the voting issues of the past few years compared to prior periods is that the defining characteristic is no longer trying to manipulate people into voting. Rather, it's about trying to prevent certain groups of people from voting, or, if you can't stop them, prevent their votes from being counted accurately. It's also worth noting that men from New York to KC ended up being convicted and incarcerated for various crimes. Election fraud is a serious issue, and there is much precedent in our history for prosecuting it aggressively. Just like Al Capone, a common tactic was going after tax evasion if the evidence couldn't be collected for a conviction related to illegal election activity.
Now, none of the above will strike anybody as particularly controversial, as it's safely in the past and primarily dealt with urban Democratic bosses. It gets really interesting, however, when we raise questions about current GOP operatives. All of a sudden, it's treasonous, insane conspiracy theorizing to pose questions when something smells fishy (my favorite line from back in November of 2004 from the mainstream media is courtesy of the Washington Post: "spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists"). We all know how irrational accountants, engineers, and statisticians tend to be.
There are lots of places to read about specific problems in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, and elsewhere. The unfolding story about White House political involvement in US Attorney selection certainly will shed additional light on GOP voter suppression tactics. Some people have already been convicted and/or forced to resign their positions in the following years. What's perhaps most suspicious, though, prompted this particular post.
Under state law and a specific court order, Ohio election officials were required to secure results from the 2004 election for further study. Guess what? The documents have been destroyed or are missing from over half the counties in Ohio.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
There are a number of ways over the years that American democracy has been susceptable to manipulation, with perhaps the most famous cases being political bosses, or machines, in major cities, whose tactics were basically to persuade lots of people to vote a certain way through less than fair means. What's interesting about the voting issues of the past few years compared to prior periods is that the defining characteristic is no longer trying to manipulate people into voting. Rather, it's about trying to prevent certain groups of people from voting, or, if you can't stop them, prevent their votes from being counted accurately. It's also worth noting that men from New York to KC ended up being convicted and incarcerated for various crimes. Election fraud is a serious issue, and there is much precedent in our history for prosecuting it aggressively. Just like Al Capone, a common tactic was going after tax evasion if the evidence couldn't be collected for a conviction related to illegal election activity.
Now, none of the above will strike anybody as particularly controversial, as it's safely in the past and primarily dealt with urban Democratic bosses. It gets really interesting, however, when we raise questions about current GOP operatives. All of a sudden, it's treasonous, insane conspiracy theorizing to pose questions when something smells fishy (my favorite line from back in November of 2004 from the mainstream media is courtesy of the Washington Post: "spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists"). We all know how irrational accountants, engineers, and statisticians tend to be.
There are lots of places to read about specific problems in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, and elsewhere. The unfolding story about White House political involvement in US Attorney selection certainly will shed additional light on GOP voter suppression tactics. Some people have already been convicted and/or forced to resign their positions in the following years. What's perhaps most suspicious, though, prompted this particular post.
Under state law and a specific court order, Ohio election officials were required to secure results from the 2004 election for further study. Guess what? The documents have been destroyed or are missing from over half the counties in Ohio.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)