Monopoly is one of those weird "family" games that just about everyone's played, but hardly anyone's ever actually finished. One problem with it is that it's a brutally long game, especially if you have six to eight players. Another is that, given that your goal is to drive all the other players into bankruptcy, it tends to be a fairly harsh game to play to completion. Once one player gets a solid lead, everyone else starts saying, "Screw this, let's find something else to do." But anyhow, there are several winning strategies. Some involve getting key color groups early. Another method involves first making sure that no one else can win. How do you do that, you ask? Well, first, you have to get one property in every color group. That ensures that no one else can develop a monopoly. Then, get one monopoly. It really doesn't matter which one, so long as you can afford to build it up. Then, it's a long slog of attrition.
Electopoly, the fine game the GOP is playing right now, is actually very similar. What brought Monopoly to mind is a new feature over on Nate Silver's site, the Romney Magic Numbers Calculator. Because the path to winning the GOP nomination -- indeed, any party's nomination -- entails doing three things. First, you must win enough delegates to ensure that no one else can gain a majority on the first ballot. Second, you must win enough delegates to ensure that you will win a plurality of delegates on that first ballot, thus making your case that much stronger on subsequent ballots. And here's the clincher -- the final goal is to win enough delegates to ensure that you win on the first ballot.
The race for the GOP nomination is just about over. Nate Silver estimates that Romney has a 100% chance of sewing up enough delegates to keep anyone else from a first-ballot victory, a 99% chance of guaranteeing himself a plurality of delegates, and a 91% chance of winning outright. It's taken three months, and we'll probably go through two more of going through the motions, but it's just about over at this point. And now, the numbers from Intrade, current as of 6PM Friday evening:
(By the way, Intrade has a spiffy new feature for primary-watchers: a scoreboard. This would have been nice to have three months ago, but still, better late than never. Hope they keep it for the general election...)
Mitt Romney, 93.1%: Sometimes, I wonder if the man truly wants the job. He does the damnedest things. Every time he gets ahead, he says something truly astounding to alienate either part of his base, or part of the electorate. "I was a severely conservative governor ... and by the way, I drove 1,200 miles with my dog in a box on top of my car. I'm against the individual mandate ... but you know, it's all like an Etch-A-Sketch, I'll just shake it up after the convention." I mean, what is this dude's major malfunction? Whether he wants it or not, he's liable to be the Republican nominee, try as he might to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. His opposition is so sad and pitiful that they won't be able to get out in front of him, no matter how hard he tries. He may as well get used to the idea.
Ron Paul, 1.1%: And it's a signal of just how sad and pitiful that they've gotten that Ron Paul is now in second place, probability-wise.
Rick Santorum, 1.0%: And here's the man who puts the "sad" in "sad and pitiful". Even if you gave him all of the delegates from the "pitiful" side of the race for Not-Romney, he still wouldn't be ahead. Both the "sad" and the "pitiful" sides of that race are pinning their hopes on a brokered convention. But first, they somehow have to pull enough delegates to keep Romney from winning outright, something I no longer believe either of them can do. Brokered conventions are to politics as bunch sprints are to professional cycling, and both tend to happen only when someone's screwed up. As much as Romney seems to keep trying to throw the race, no one seems to be able to capitalize.
Newt Gingrich, 0.3%: That's partly because Newt's kind of mailing it in at this point. Theoretically, he's also counting on a brokered convention. He's still touting his "debating" skills against Obama, which has always sounded kind of bizarre to me. Because, you see, the debates? They're not really debates. They're a weird kind of dual press conference where both guys have to answer the same questions put to them by a moderator. The rules of engagement don't allow them to speak directly to one another. So how do mad debating skills get you anywhere? Beats me. But Gingrich has always been full of strange ideas.
Veep Watch: I don't put much stock in Veep-guessing. But that's an important thing to watch. Once Romney has it well and truly sewn up, he'll start canvassing for a running mate, and he'll probably spring that on us the Friday before the GOP convention opens. As I've said before, it's important to watch because that's his first Presidential decision, and that will give us a huge window into his thought processes. Who he chooses, and why, will give us a better measure of the man than anything he's said so far.
And The Winner Is: The percentages are running 60.8% that the Democrats will keep the White House, versus 38.8% that the Republicans will take over. These have held steady for a while, and will probably stay there until the conventions. I'd still take 3-2 odds on Obama/Biden for the win.
Primary season isn't quite over, though. Lots of states haven't voted yet, and even if the Presidential nominee is just about a foregone conclusion, there are plenty of other races on the ballot. And if you've never attended a precinct caucus, this is as good a year to go as any. Remember, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Video Del Fuego, Part LIII
(or, Crazy Austrian Watch)
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force was developing aircraft capable of flying at extreme altitudes. While some of the aircraft had already been built, such as the U-2, and others were in production, the ability of a pilot to eject safely at such incredible operational altitudes wasn't yet firmly established. So, the Air Force undertook Project Excelsior. And on August 16, 1960, Captain Joseph Kittinger rode a helium balloon up to 102,800 feet above the desert, and then stepped out into the abyss. It was the longest distance a man had ever fallen, and lived to tell about it.
Now, an Austrian skydiver named Felix Baumgartner wants to kick it up a notch.
Why? Kittinger, who is a technical adviser to Baumgartner, says it's about building a better space suit. I'm thinking that's hogwash. Baumgartner wants the record, and the bragging rights that go with it. And Red Bull wants the publicity that will go along with nailing said record. They've built the suit, the chutes, and the balloon. Now, they're testing them out.
On March 15, 2012, Baumgartner made the first test jump from 71,000 feet. There will be another test jump from about 90,000 feet, before the Real Thing from 120,000 feet. While Baumgartner is known for risk-taking, he's not known for stupid risk-taking. Unless something weird happens, the record is liable to be his sometime this summer.
One thing is certain, though. The view on the way down is going to be spectacular no matter how it ends. And, maybe, that was the point all along.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force was developing aircraft capable of flying at extreme altitudes. While some of the aircraft had already been built, such as the U-2, and others were in production, the ability of a pilot to eject safely at such incredible operational altitudes wasn't yet firmly established. So, the Air Force undertook Project Excelsior. And on August 16, 1960, Captain Joseph Kittinger rode a helium balloon up to 102,800 feet above the desert, and then stepped out into the abyss. It was the longest distance a man had ever fallen, and lived to tell about it.
Now, an Austrian skydiver named Felix Baumgartner wants to kick it up a notch.
Why? Kittinger, who is a technical adviser to Baumgartner, says it's about building a better space suit. I'm thinking that's hogwash. Baumgartner wants the record, and the bragging rights that go with it. And Red Bull wants the publicity that will go along with nailing said record. They've built the suit, the chutes, and the balloon. Now, they're testing them out.
On March 15, 2012, Baumgartner made the first test jump from 71,000 feet. There will be another test jump from about 90,000 feet, before the Real Thing from 120,000 feet. While Baumgartner is known for risk-taking, he's not known for stupid risk-taking. Unless something weird happens, the record is liable to be his sometime this summer.
One thing is certain, though. The view on the way down is going to be spectacular no matter how it ends. And, maybe, that was the point all along.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Sesquicentennial, Part XX: The Tides Of Change
--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
It's a fairly common misconception that wars are times of rapid technological change. You'll often hear someone say that the submarine came out of World War I, or that jet engines and atomic energy came out of World War II, but that's not entirely true. Submarines and aircraft had been around for years prior to World War I. Jet engines had been invented immediately prior to World War II, and they had a fairly good idea of what atomic power could do, even if they didn't know exactly how to go about doing it.
There is one thing wartime does do, though: it greatly reduces institutional inertia. An active enemy tends to focus your attention closely. New ideas that had once butted up against an obstinately conservative Quartermasters' Corps would now fall on far more sympathetic ears. A case in point: ironclad warships.
Three technological trends were converging: steam power, high-power naval guns firing explosive shells, and iron armor. The first ship that combined all three was a French ship, La Gloire, launched in 1859. The new high-power guns proved to be a huge problem for purely wooden-hulled ships. This had been proven at the Battle of Sinope where a numerically-inferior Russian force annihilated a Turkish squadron, using their superior gunnery. Explosive shells could turn even the stoutest ship into kindling in fairly short order. The obvious answer would be to bolt iron armor onto the ship's exterior ... the problem being, sails couldn't move such a heavy ship very easily. Enter our third element, steam power. With the invention of the screw propeller in the 1840s, steam power became a practical method for warship propulsion. Coal-fired boilers could easily provide the raw power to shove hundreds of tons of iron plating through the waves.
But, as I mentioned, these were slow coming to the Western shores of the Atlantic. The U.S. Navy had adopted steam power, but was slow to combine all of the elements together. The secession of Virginia, and with it the loss of the Norfolk Naval Yards, began to force a re-evaluation of affairs.
Upon the secession of Virginia, orders were issued to destroy all useful items at the Naval Yards lest they fall into secessionist hands. Unfortunately, the orders were bungled, and the USS Merrimac partially sank into shallow water before she had burned completely. The Merrimac was salvageable, and could be put back into service. It was decided to rebuild her as an ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia. It would be an expensive undertaking. But the combination of steam propulsion, high-power guns, and sloped armor would make the Virginia more than a match for her blockaders.
Word of this conversion reached Washington in early summer of 1861, and was not received happily. The Union could not afford to fall behind in this kind of arms race. But, as I have said before, the Union was far more able to keep pace in this kind of competition than the Confederacy ever was. The Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, issued an order for a review of ironclad designs, and three were accepted. One of these was a ship designed by Swedish-born inventor John Ericsson, the USS Monitor, laid down on October 25, 1851, and completed 118 days later.
This would not be a day too soon.
On the 8th of March, CSS Virginia sallied forth to break the Union blockade. Ordinarily, it's foolish to think that a single ship can break a blockade ... but this was not an ordinary situation. The guns of the Union blockade squadron had almost no effect. The Virginia rammed and sunk the USS Chesapeake, and had forced the USS Congress to beach itself prior to hammering it into surrender with her own guns. The Virginia was not entirely unhurt, sustaining significant damage to her smokestack, and having several armor plates loosened. But her appearance had thrown the entire Union blockade into disarray. The first day of the Battle of Hampton Roads was over, and it looked like another Confederate victory was in the making.
During the night, the USS Monitor arrived from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the odds were evened out.
On paper, the Virginia had more guns than the Monitor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. While Virginia's guns were laid out in a standard fixed arrangement, the Monitor's guns were mounted in a turret. That meant that while Virginia would have to maneuver carefully to bring her guns to bear, the Monitor could fire upon anything she could see. This day's battle, the very first of ironclad-on-ironclad, would show which was better: more guns, or more easily aimable guns.
And the answer was a resounding "Beats Me."
Neither ship could get a conclusive advantage on the other. While either ship could reduce a wooden ship to kindling, neither one could score a telling hit upon the other. They pounded one another unmercifully for hours, to little avail. Hit after hit glanced off of stout iron plating, doing no real damage to the ship underneath. Virginia scored a brief advantage when a lucky turret shot temporarily blinded Monitor's captain, forcing Monitor to briefly withdraw. The day had already worn on towards late afternoon, so Virginia took this as an opportunity to withdraw, herself. She returned to her base, for badly-needed repairs.
On the one hand, the results of the Battle of Hampton Roads were inconclusive. The Union suffered far heavier losses and casualties, owing to Virginia's rampage on that first day. But on the other hand, the blockade wasn't broken. Within a month, two more Union ironclads would join the blockade, and within a month after that advancing Union troops would occupy Norfolk itself. But the conclusiveness or lack thereof was beside the point. Ironclad had fired upon ironclad, and naval warfare would never again be the same. Sailors had seen the future, and it was full of metal.
The days when "the ships were wood and the men were iron" were over.
It's a fairly common misconception that wars are times of rapid technological change. You'll often hear someone say that the submarine came out of World War I, or that jet engines and atomic energy came out of World War II, but that's not entirely true. Submarines and aircraft had been around for years prior to World War I. Jet engines had been invented immediately prior to World War II, and they had a fairly good idea of what atomic power could do, even if they didn't know exactly how to go about doing it.
There is one thing wartime does do, though: it greatly reduces institutional inertia. An active enemy tends to focus your attention closely. New ideas that had once butted up against an obstinately conservative Quartermasters' Corps would now fall on far more sympathetic ears. A case in point: ironclad warships.
Three technological trends were converging: steam power, high-power naval guns firing explosive shells, and iron armor. The first ship that combined all three was a French ship, La Gloire, launched in 1859. The new high-power guns proved to be a huge problem for purely wooden-hulled ships. This had been proven at the Battle of Sinope where a numerically-inferior Russian force annihilated a Turkish squadron, using their superior gunnery. Explosive shells could turn even the stoutest ship into kindling in fairly short order. The obvious answer would be to bolt iron armor onto the ship's exterior ... the problem being, sails couldn't move such a heavy ship very easily. Enter our third element, steam power. With the invention of the screw propeller in the 1840s, steam power became a practical method for warship propulsion. Coal-fired boilers could easily provide the raw power to shove hundreds of tons of iron plating through the waves.
But, as I mentioned, these were slow coming to the Western shores of the Atlantic. The U.S. Navy had adopted steam power, but was slow to combine all of the elements together. The secession of Virginia, and with it the loss of the Norfolk Naval Yards, began to force a re-evaluation of affairs.
Upon the secession of Virginia, orders were issued to destroy all useful items at the Naval Yards lest they fall into secessionist hands. Unfortunately, the orders were bungled, and the USS Merrimac partially sank into shallow water before she had burned completely. The Merrimac was salvageable, and could be put back into service. It was decided to rebuild her as an ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia. It would be an expensive undertaking. But the combination of steam propulsion, high-power guns, and sloped armor would make the Virginia more than a match for her blockaders.
Word of this conversion reached Washington in early summer of 1861, and was not received happily. The Union could not afford to fall behind in this kind of arms race. But, as I have said before, the Union was far more able to keep pace in this kind of competition than the Confederacy ever was. The Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, issued an order for a review of ironclad designs, and three were accepted. One of these was a ship designed by Swedish-born inventor John Ericsson, the USS Monitor, laid down on October 25, 1851, and completed 118 days later.
This would not be a day too soon.
On the 8th of March, CSS Virginia sallied forth to break the Union blockade. Ordinarily, it's foolish to think that a single ship can break a blockade ... but this was not an ordinary situation. The guns of the Union blockade squadron had almost no effect. The Virginia rammed and sunk the USS Chesapeake, and had forced the USS Congress to beach itself prior to hammering it into surrender with her own guns. The Virginia was not entirely unhurt, sustaining significant damage to her smokestack, and having several armor plates loosened. But her appearance had thrown the entire Union blockade into disarray. The first day of the Battle of Hampton Roads was over, and it looked like another Confederate victory was in the making.
During the night, the USS Monitor arrived from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the odds were evened out.
On paper, the Virginia had more guns than the Monitor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. While Virginia's guns were laid out in a standard fixed arrangement, the Monitor's guns were mounted in a turret. That meant that while Virginia would have to maneuver carefully to bring her guns to bear, the Monitor could fire upon anything she could see. This day's battle, the very first of ironclad-on-ironclad, would show which was better: more guns, or more easily aimable guns.
And the answer was a resounding "Beats Me."
Neither ship could get a conclusive advantage on the other. While either ship could reduce a wooden ship to kindling, neither one could score a telling hit upon the other. They pounded one another unmercifully for hours, to little avail. Hit after hit glanced off of stout iron plating, doing no real damage to the ship underneath. Virginia scored a brief advantage when a lucky turret shot temporarily blinded Monitor's captain, forcing Monitor to briefly withdraw. The day had already worn on towards late afternoon, so Virginia took this as an opportunity to withdraw, herself. She returned to her base, for badly-needed repairs.
On the one hand, the results of the Battle of Hampton Roads were inconclusive. The Union suffered far heavier losses and casualties, owing to Virginia's rampage on that first day. But on the other hand, the blockade wasn't broken. Within a month, two more Union ironclads would join the blockade, and within a month after that advancing Union troops would occupy Norfolk itself. But the conclusiveness or lack thereof was beside the point. Ironclad had fired upon ironclad, and naval warfare would never again be the same. Sailors had seen the future, and it was full of metal.
The days when "the ships were wood and the men were iron" were over.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Election 2012: Spring Is Coming
The second month of the 2012 Presidential primary season has drawn to a close, and we've narrowed it down to a four-man race on the Republican side. As much as everyone's saying that this primary is dragging on far longer than it should, I have to remind them of that one salient fact: This IS only the second full month of voting. Most states haven't even weighed in yet. Now, if we get into April and it's still a three- or four-man race, things could get ... interesting. I expect a bit of a down-select to happen come Super Tuesday. (As always, figures from Intrade.com, current as of Friday afternoon.)
The Year Of The Super-PAC: The various Super-PACs aren't a party per se, but they're having a huge effect on this campaign. It's difficult to over-state the effect that they're having this year. Without Super-PACs, Newt Gingrich would have sank without a trace months ago. Without Super-PACs, Rick Santorum might well have done likewise, or would at least be struggling for support. With Super-PACs, both candidates are struggling for the coveted "Not-Romney" spot ... and don't forget that Romney has that particular card up his sleeve, as well.
There are both good things and bad things associated with this. On the positive side, it's going to cause the campaign to go on longer than it might have otherwise. That's a good thing, because it gives the voting public more time to get to know these men, and to examine their strengths and weaknesses in some detail. But that also touches on a down side ... maybe the voters get to know them a little too well. The longer and more negative the campaign becomes, the farther to the right the candidate has to shift to win the nomination, and the harder it becomes to tack back to the center for the general election. That's going to be a hard pivot for the Republican nominee, whoever that ends up being. That's going to be more like a slight veer for the Democratic nominee, who will be ... well, let's just get on with it:
The Democrats: Yes, we all know it's over. It's just about official, now. Over here, Megan McArdle has an article about an upcoming Obama fundraiser. Said fundraiser's promotional e-mail has this picture as a logo:
That sure seems to settle it. Vegas seems to have caught up, giving Barack Obama a 96.7% chance of re-nomination, with only a handful (3.0%) of holdouts backing Hillary Clinton. And for the VP spot, Biden isn't quite getting that much love, with only an 91.0% chance. A full 10.0% are still betting on Hillary Clinton for VP, even though we all know that ain't gonna happen. Biden's on the campaign literature, people. It's a done deal. As I've said all along, unless one of them takes a ride on a tornado, it'll be Obama/Biden in November for the Democrats.
The Republicans: But on the other side of the aisle, the four-way knife-fight in a phone booth continues in full force. Only one man will be left standing, but he cannot fairly be said to have won, only to have lost less severely than his opponents. They're running to the right so fast, the winner will have a very hard time tacking back to the center for the general election.
Mitt Romney, 83.0%: Vegas still loves him, although he's got some hard sledding between here and the acceptance speech. And, some sources are hinting at money problems for the Romney campaign. It turns out that there's a disadvantage to hitting up the deep pockets first, for the maximum amount ... once they're tapped, they're tapped. If you draw less than the maximum from a broader pool, you can hit them up again later. Plus, as I've said before, Romney has a pair of serious problems that stand between him and the nomination. First, health care reform. I'm not saying Obama swiped his plan ... actually, I am. When someone does have a good idea, you should steal it shamelessly. The problem is, the GOP electorate remembers this, and will probably hold it against Romney to some extent. Also, there's the problem that a fair number of Southern Evangelicals aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christian. That will also come into play down South. Still, Romney still has money and organization, and those are two nice friends to have.
Rick Santorum, 6.1%: I was spectacularly wrong last time about Santorum's prospects. He has indeed found traction with the religious fundamentalist wing of the GOP, and is the current front-runner in the "Not-Romney" subclass of this year's Republican primary. He's not doing too badly on the fundraising front, either. As I mentioned above, if you collect smaller amounts from a larger donor pool, you can go back to that well again and again. That was a good strategy for Obama in 2008, and it's proving to be a good one for Santorum in 2012. The betting public isn't sold on his nomination prospects, but that could easily change with a strong showing down South. He could hit it big on Super Tuesday. If he does, then the fight could go all the way to the convention floor.
Newt Gingrich, 3.6%: While Romney has both money and organization, and while Santorum is finding lots of funding, Newt Gingrich has neither. His campaign has rather spectacularly deflated since his early surge. He's pinning his hopes on a big Super Tuesday showing, especially since his biggest base of support is in the South. But he's failed to get on several ballots, including Virginia's, so his organization's basic ineptitude is liable to do him in, if his mouth doesn't beat them to it. Right now, I'd lay odds that Gingrich punches out after Super Tuesday, but I'm not sure I'd put money on it.
Ron Paul, 2.3%: Now, I'd bet an arbitrarily large amount on Ron Paul's candidacy going all the way to the convention. Dr. Paul isn't leaving the race until they pry his candidacy from his cold, dead fingers. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he's not running to the right like the other candidates. He's saying the same things he's said all along. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, but you know where he stands. He's stark staring blazing-midday-Sun-on-Mercury crazy, but at least he's dependably consistent about it. To an extent, I respect that.
And The Winner Is... As of Friday afternoon, they're giving the Democrats a 60.1% chance of keeping the White House, versus the Republican Party's 38.8% to take it away. If you can find someone willing to give you 3-2 odds, Obama/Biden for the win would be a good bet.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
The Year Of The Super-PAC: The various Super-PACs aren't a party per se, but they're having a huge effect on this campaign. It's difficult to over-state the effect that they're having this year. Without Super-PACs, Newt Gingrich would have sank without a trace months ago. Without Super-PACs, Rick Santorum might well have done likewise, or would at least be struggling for support. With Super-PACs, both candidates are struggling for the coveted "Not-Romney" spot ... and don't forget that Romney has that particular card up his sleeve, as well.
There are both good things and bad things associated with this. On the positive side, it's going to cause the campaign to go on longer than it might have otherwise. That's a good thing, because it gives the voting public more time to get to know these men, and to examine their strengths and weaknesses in some detail. But that also touches on a down side ... maybe the voters get to know them a little too well. The longer and more negative the campaign becomes, the farther to the right the candidate has to shift to win the nomination, and the harder it becomes to tack back to the center for the general election. That's going to be a hard pivot for the Republican nominee, whoever that ends up being. That's going to be more like a slight veer for the Democratic nominee, who will be ... well, let's just get on with it:
The Democrats: Yes, we all know it's over. It's just about official, now. Over here, Megan McArdle has an article about an upcoming Obama fundraiser. Said fundraiser's promotional e-mail has this picture as a logo:
That sure seems to settle it. Vegas seems to have caught up, giving Barack Obama a 96.7% chance of re-nomination, with only a handful (3.0%) of holdouts backing Hillary Clinton. And for the VP spot, Biden isn't quite getting that much love, with only an 91.0% chance. A full 10.0% are still betting on Hillary Clinton for VP, even though we all know that ain't gonna happen. Biden's on the campaign literature, people. It's a done deal. As I've said all along, unless one of them takes a ride on a tornado, it'll be Obama/Biden in November for the Democrats.
The Republicans: But on the other side of the aisle, the four-way knife-fight in a phone booth continues in full force. Only one man will be left standing, but he cannot fairly be said to have won, only to have lost less severely than his opponents. They're running to the right so fast, the winner will have a very hard time tacking back to the center for the general election.
Mitt Romney, 83.0%: Vegas still loves him, although he's got some hard sledding between here and the acceptance speech. And, some sources are hinting at money problems for the Romney campaign. It turns out that there's a disadvantage to hitting up the deep pockets first, for the maximum amount ... once they're tapped, they're tapped. If you draw less than the maximum from a broader pool, you can hit them up again later. Plus, as I've said before, Romney has a pair of serious problems that stand between him and the nomination. First, health care reform. I'm not saying Obama swiped his plan ... actually, I am. When someone does have a good idea, you should steal it shamelessly. The problem is, the GOP electorate remembers this, and will probably hold it against Romney to some extent. Also, there's the problem that a fair number of Southern Evangelicals aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christian. That will also come into play down South. Still, Romney still has money and organization, and those are two nice friends to have.
Rick Santorum, 6.1%: I was spectacularly wrong last time about Santorum's prospects. He has indeed found traction with the religious fundamentalist wing of the GOP, and is the current front-runner in the "Not-Romney" subclass of this year's Republican primary. He's not doing too badly on the fundraising front, either. As I mentioned above, if you collect smaller amounts from a larger donor pool, you can go back to that well again and again. That was a good strategy for Obama in 2008, and it's proving to be a good one for Santorum in 2012. The betting public isn't sold on his nomination prospects, but that could easily change with a strong showing down South. He could hit it big on Super Tuesday. If he does, then the fight could go all the way to the convention floor.
Newt Gingrich, 3.6%: While Romney has both money and organization, and while Santorum is finding lots of funding, Newt Gingrich has neither. His campaign has rather spectacularly deflated since his early surge. He's pinning his hopes on a big Super Tuesday showing, especially since his biggest base of support is in the South. But he's failed to get on several ballots, including Virginia's, so his organization's basic ineptitude is liable to do him in, if his mouth doesn't beat them to it. Right now, I'd lay odds that Gingrich punches out after Super Tuesday, but I'm not sure I'd put money on it.
Ron Paul, 2.3%: Now, I'd bet an arbitrarily large amount on Ron Paul's candidacy going all the way to the convention. Dr. Paul isn't leaving the race until they pry his candidacy from his cold, dead fingers. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he's not running to the right like the other candidates. He's saying the same things he's said all along. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, but you know where he stands. He's stark staring blazing-midday-Sun-on-Mercury crazy, but at least he's dependably consistent about it. To an extent, I respect that.
And The Winner Is... As of Friday afternoon, they're giving the Democrats a 60.1% chance of keeping the White House, versus the Republican Party's 38.8% to take it away. If you can find someone willing to give you 3-2 odds, Obama/Biden for the win would be a good bet.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, February 17, 2012
Sesquicentennial, Part XIX: Man In Motion, Cont'd
--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
From antiquity, prime campaigning season has always been from the spring thaw through harvest time. It is by no mere coincidence that the first month of Spring was named by the Romans for their god of war. March was the month in which the Legions would take up their implements and, well, march. As technology improved, the "season" broadened somewhat, but not by much. You still had to keep your troops fed, and marching troops around in the winter snow wasn't the easiest thing in the world. Major winter campaigns were very rare indeed, and the successful ones were successful mostly by virtue of surprise. So, not a whole lot happened between November and February.
"Not a whole lot" didn't mean "nothing", although it wasn't immediately obvious to a casual observer. The United States Navy was slowly extending its blockade southward down the Atlantic coast. By December 1861, the blockade had been extended down past the Carolina coast. By the month, the Confederacy had fewer and fewer ports with which to receive and ship foreign goods. And while the blockade inched its way down the Atlantic coast, the Union Army was making its way down the Mississippi River.
Which brings us back to Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, encamped in Cairo, Illinois. When we last left General Grant, he had been preparing to sally forth to meet the Confederates at Belmont. It was an inconclusive affair. While General Grant was able to take the Confederate fort, he did not have enough men with him to keep it. When General Gideon Pillow arrived with reinforcements, Grant was forced to retire back to his base of operations at Cairo. But this was only a temporary setback. The battle had given Grant and his volunteer force a much-needed jolt of confidence. Plus, Grant had gotten some reinforcements of his own. Flag Officer Andrew Hull Foote had shown up, with some brand-new U.S. Navy gunboats, and Grant decided that this was a good time to introduce the Confederates to what combined arms could do.
Basically, when asked "Shall we attack by land, or by sea?" Grant answered, "Why not both?"
It was with this in mind that, in early February, General Grant set forth out of Cairo, and marched down the Tennessee River, towards the Confederate-held Fort Henry. Fort Henry had eleven guns trained on the river to prevent unfriendly traffic. Only six were positioned to guard against a landward assault. Although hastily constructed, Fort Henry could probably have withstood one or the other. Grant gambled that they couldn't handle both. On February 4th, he landed his troops about three miles downriver, and deployed to prevent the garrison's escape, and also to prevent its reinforcement. Within two days, he had all the approaches covered, and his main attack began on the 6th, with a sustained bombardment by the Union Navy gunboats. The battle lasted a little more than an hour before the Confederate garrison surrendered.
The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River to Union shipping and gunboats all the way into Alabama. But that wasn't all that Grant had in mind for this campaign. Nearby, on the Cumberland River, was another Confederate stronghold, Fort Donelson. He marched his troops twelve miles overland, while Flag Officer Foote sailed his gunboats down the Tennessee River, then up the Cumberland, in order to fire on the fort. Fort Donelson's gunners had better luck, or better aim, than their counterparts at Fort Henry, and Foote's gunboats had to withdraw. But the real damage had been done. Grant had Fort Donelson surrounded, by the evening of February 14th. The next day, on the 15th, General Floyd made a breakout attempt that was almost successful. Only almost. This left General Floyd in a bit of a pickle.
Because, you see, General Floyd is a man we've met before. John Floyd, you may remember, was President Buchanan's Secretary of War. The Union might just want to have a few words with him about some of his deployment orders, two years or so ago. So, General Floyd resigned his command, and handed things over to General Pillow. General Pillow, in turn, handed his command over to General Buckner, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. General Buckner remained, and attempted to negotiate surrender terms with General Grant.
I say, "attempted." Buckner's request for an armistice, and terms for surrender, prompted this reply from Grant:
Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.
Buckner was left with the unappealing choice of either accepting unconditional surrender, or attempting to defend his now-undefendable position. Buckner chose the former. Fort Donelson surrendered to the Union on February 16, 1862.
The news of this victory shot through the Union like a lightning bolt.
On the one hand, it's easily understandable: this was, after all, the first major victory by Union forces against the Confederates. It went a long way towards erasing the sting of the ignominious defeat at Bull Run. But on the other hand, it was a very small matter, far away from what most people thought was the more important theater of war, back in the East. But on the other other hand, a very important goal had been achieved. Union gunboats, supply boats, and troops could now freely navigate the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Free navigation of same had also been denied to Confederate forces, whose transportation network wasn't all that good to begin with.
And, overnight, Ulysses S. Grant had become a national hero. His victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson won him not only fame, but a promotion to Major General. He wouldn't rest on his laurels, though. He wasn't quite finished in the Tennessee River valley just yet. He aimed to push his troops as far up the Tennessee River as he could possibly go.
Up ahead was a sleepy little town that few had heard of yet, called Shiloh.
From antiquity, prime campaigning season has always been from the spring thaw through harvest time. It is by no mere coincidence that the first month of Spring was named by the Romans for their god of war. March was the month in which the Legions would take up their implements and, well, march. As technology improved, the "season" broadened somewhat, but not by much. You still had to keep your troops fed, and marching troops around in the winter snow wasn't the easiest thing in the world. Major winter campaigns were very rare indeed, and the successful ones were successful mostly by virtue of surprise. So, not a whole lot happened between November and February.
"Not a whole lot" didn't mean "nothing", although it wasn't immediately obvious to a casual observer. The United States Navy was slowly extending its blockade southward down the Atlantic coast. By December 1861, the blockade had been extended down past the Carolina coast. By the month, the Confederacy had fewer and fewer ports with which to receive and ship foreign goods. And while the blockade inched its way down the Atlantic coast, the Union Army was making its way down the Mississippi River.
Which brings us back to Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, encamped in Cairo, Illinois. When we last left General Grant, he had been preparing to sally forth to meet the Confederates at Belmont. It was an inconclusive affair. While General Grant was able to take the Confederate fort, he did not have enough men with him to keep it. When General Gideon Pillow arrived with reinforcements, Grant was forced to retire back to his base of operations at Cairo. But this was only a temporary setback. The battle had given Grant and his volunteer force a much-needed jolt of confidence. Plus, Grant had gotten some reinforcements of his own. Flag Officer Andrew Hull Foote had shown up, with some brand-new U.S. Navy gunboats, and Grant decided that this was a good time to introduce the Confederates to what combined arms could do.
Basically, when asked "Shall we attack by land, or by sea?" Grant answered, "Why not both?"
It was with this in mind that, in early February, General Grant set forth out of Cairo, and marched down the Tennessee River, towards the Confederate-held Fort Henry. Fort Henry had eleven guns trained on the river to prevent unfriendly traffic. Only six were positioned to guard against a landward assault. Although hastily constructed, Fort Henry could probably have withstood one or the other. Grant gambled that they couldn't handle both. On February 4th, he landed his troops about three miles downriver, and deployed to prevent the garrison's escape, and also to prevent its reinforcement. Within two days, he had all the approaches covered, and his main attack began on the 6th, with a sustained bombardment by the Union Navy gunboats. The battle lasted a little more than an hour before the Confederate garrison surrendered.
The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River to Union shipping and gunboats all the way into Alabama. But that wasn't all that Grant had in mind for this campaign. Nearby, on the Cumberland River, was another Confederate stronghold, Fort Donelson. He marched his troops twelve miles overland, while Flag Officer Foote sailed his gunboats down the Tennessee River, then up the Cumberland, in order to fire on the fort. Fort Donelson's gunners had better luck, or better aim, than their counterparts at Fort Henry, and Foote's gunboats had to withdraw. But the real damage had been done. Grant had Fort Donelson surrounded, by the evening of February 14th. The next day, on the 15th, General Floyd made a breakout attempt that was almost successful. Only almost. This left General Floyd in a bit of a pickle.
Because, you see, General Floyd is a man we've met before. John Floyd, you may remember, was President Buchanan's Secretary of War. The Union might just want to have a few words with him about some of his deployment orders, two years or so ago. So, General Floyd resigned his command, and handed things over to General Pillow. General Pillow, in turn, handed his command over to General Buckner, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. General Buckner remained, and attempted to negotiate surrender terms with General Grant.
I say, "attempted." Buckner's request for an armistice, and terms for surrender, prompted this reply from Grant:
Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.
Buckner was left with the unappealing choice of either accepting unconditional surrender, or attempting to defend his now-undefendable position. Buckner chose the former. Fort Donelson surrendered to the Union on February 16, 1862.
The news of this victory shot through the Union like a lightning bolt.
On the one hand, it's easily understandable: this was, after all, the first major victory by Union forces against the Confederates. It went a long way towards erasing the sting of the ignominious defeat at Bull Run. But on the other hand, it was a very small matter, far away from what most people thought was the more important theater of war, back in the East. But on the other other hand, a very important goal had been achieved. Union gunboats, supply boats, and troops could now freely navigate the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Free navigation of same had also been denied to Confederate forces, whose transportation network wasn't all that good to begin with.
And, overnight, Ulysses S. Grant had become a national hero. His victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson won him not only fame, but a promotion to Major General. He wouldn't rest on his laurels, though. He wasn't quite finished in the Tennessee River valley just yet. He aimed to push his troops as far up the Tennessee River as he could possibly go.
Up ahead was a sleepy little town that few had heard of yet, called Shiloh.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Video Del Fuego, Part LII
I used to love building model airplanes, right up to the point when I didn't. I'm not exactly sure how that happened. Mostly, I think I just lost the patience for detail work and painting. So basically, I was out of the modelling hobby before I discovered the various kinds of radio-controlled flying models.
That's probably for the best. If I'd discovered that this sort of thing was available, I'd have never gotten any productive work done. Ever.
The ingenuity of the truly dedicated hobbyist is astounding. It's hard to believe some of the things they've come up with. There are flyable models of just about every aircraft you've ever heard of. They can get pretty big. Especially since there's no way to make a small flyable model of a B-36:
And while you can make a smaller flying model of a Spitfire, some things are easier when you go big:
But you haven't seen anything yet ... Back in the day, they used to sell radio-controlled models of "jets", which were models that kind of looked like jets, with propellers on the front. Not very interesting. So naturally, someone figured out how to make a really small jet engine. And behold:
Actually that one sounds like a ducted fan, as opposed to a real jet. But never fear, those do exist.
The problem with real jet engines? When things go wrong, they can get really explodey, really fast. Which is why just about everyone carries a fire extinguisher:
But what if that's not enough to slake your need for speed? Scale modelers like Steve Eves take it to the next level, with a flying 1/10 scale model of a Saturn V. (Yes, that Saturn V.)
Which leads us to these guys, who built a rocket of their own design, and punched it up to 121,000 feet.
Which just about defies description. Bear in mind, this is what our hobbyists do. On their own time. For fun. Now, imagine what our professionals could do, given clear direction...
National Engineers Week is February 19th through the 25th. Remember, if you can read this, thank a teacher; but if you're reading this on a computer, thank an engineer.
That's probably for the best. If I'd discovered that this sort of thing was available, I'd have never gotten any productive work done. Ever.
The ingenuity of the truly dedicated hobbyist is astounding. It's hard to believe some of the things they've come up with. There are flyable models of just about every aircraft you've ever heard of. They can get pretty big. Especially since there's no way to make a small flyable model of a B-36:
And while you can make a smaller flying model of a Spitfire, some things are easier when you go big:
But you haven't seen anything yet ... Back in the day, they used to sell radio-controlled models of "jets", which were models that kind of looked like jets, with propellers on the front. Not very interesting. So naturally, someone figured out how to make a really small jet engine. And behold:
Actually that one sounds like a ducted fan, as opposed to a real jet. But never fear, those do exist.
The problem with real jet engines? When things go wrong, they can get really explodey, really fast. Which is why just about everyone carries a fire extinguisher:
But what if that's not enough to slake your need for speed? Scale modelers like Steve Eves take it to the next level, with a flying 1/10 scale model of a Saturn V. (Yes, that Saturn V.)
Which leads us to these guys, who built a rocket of their own design, and punched it up to 121,000 feet.
Which just about defies description. Bear in mind, this is what our hobbyists do. On their own time. For fun. Now, imagine what our professionals could do, given clear direction...
National Engineers Week is February 19th through the 25th. Remember, if you can read this, thank a teacher; but if you're reading this on a computer, thank an engineer.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
One Of These Days, Alice...
Recently, Newt Gingrich caused a stir in the run-up to the Florida GOP primary by suggesting that, by 2020, a Gingrich Administration would set up a permanent base on the Moon. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's a good idea ... Actually, never mind, that's a good discussion to have. There are several good reasons why we want to do that, eventually. But there are several equally good reasons that there's just no way in Hell we're going to get there from here by 2020.
One reason is radio astronomy. The biggest problem with radio astronomy is interference. We use radio for everything. We use it to talk to each other, to share pictures and music, to share information. We use it to find out how far airplanes are from one another, and to keep passenger airplanes from running into mountains. Our power lines leak radio frequency energy, even though we'd really rather they didn't. All of this makes radio astronomy, the science of exploring the universe by analyzing the radio frequency radiation coming at us from deep space, a very tricky discipline indeed. Wouldn't it be nice, if you could put a radio telescope somewhere that was shielded from all of Earth's radio frequency output?
Another reason is clean energy, albeit indirectly. If you were to put farms of solar power panels in geosynchronous orbit, you could beam clean energy down from space 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building them is a fairly tall order, and it would be cheaper to haul the building materials up from the Moon than it would be to haul them up from the Earth.
You're free to disagree with me on this, of course, but I'm convinced that an outpost on the Moon is a good idea for our long-term future, not just as a nation but as a species. But it's vitally important that we do it right. And there's just no way to do it right in only nine or ten years. Let's make a quick outline of what needs to be done in order to get there from here.
First, you need a mature transportation infrastructure. The longest pole in this tent is efficient, reusable transportation to and from low Earth orbit for both crew and cargo. You're going to be moving a lot of cargo both up and down, so you need to be able to do it cheaply, and on a reliable, dependable schedule. You also need to be able to develop the technology for in-space refueling, so that you can store fuel and supplies at an orbital supply depot. You'd also like to have really efficient engines for space propulsion, so that you can be as miserly with that fuel as possible. Finally, you will need to develop closed-loop life support, so that your base can be as self-sufficient as possible. Now, where have we heard this before? (Hold on to that thought. We'll come back to it later.)
Given all of that, here's how you'd need to proceed:
(1) Stockpile some fuel and supplies in low Earth orbit.
(2) At the same time, haul up some parts, and assemble a couple of cislunar freighters.
(3) Load the freighters with fuel, supplies, and parts.
(4) Once they arrive in Lunar orbit, they will assemble a second fuel and supply depot.
(5) Once back in Earth orbit, load the freighters with fuel, supplies, parts, and a couple of lunar landers.
(6) Once back in Lunar orbit, the landers will take the parts down to the surface, and begin construction.
This way, you have a sustainable supply chain to keep the project going for as long as you need to. And there's no way to do this in only ten years. Oh sure, if we already had all of the enabling technologies, we could make it happen. But we don't. And therein lies the problem. Some of us learned the wrong lessons from Project Apollo.
Project Apollo left us with an awesome legacy. Six flags and twelve sets of footprints stand in eternal testimony to what we can do as a nation when we plant our feet, fix our eyes on the ball, and swing for the fences. But it also leaves a false impression that we can do anything -- literally anything -- with only nine years' notice. And that's not necessarily true.
We have a lot of hard work to do before we're ready to undertake the challenge of building a permanent outpost on the Moon. We've barely begun that work. If we undertake the "Flexible Path" option outlined in 2009's Augustine Commission report, we will have done the lion's share of the preparation by 2020. Then, and only then, can we realistically undertake the task.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, crazy, or just delusional. Although in Gingrich's case, it may well be all of the above.
One reason is radio astronomy. The biggest problem with radio astronomy is interference. We use radio for everything. We use it to talk to each other, to share pictures and music, to share information. We use it to find out how far airplanes are from one another, and to keep passenger airplanes from running into mountains. Our power lines leak radio frequency energy, even though we'd really rather they didn't. All of this makes radio astronomy, the science of exploring the universe by analyzing the radio frequency radiation coming at us from deep space, a very tricky discipline indeed. Wouldn't it be nice, if you could put a radio telescope somewhere that was shielded from all of Earth's radio frequency output?
Another reason is clean energy, albeit indirectly. If you were to put farms of solar power panels in geosynchronous orbit, you could beam clean energy down from space 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building them is a fairly tall order, and it would be cheaper to haul the building materials up from the Moon than it would be to haul them up from the Earth.
You're free to disagree with me on this, of course, but I'm convinced that an outpost on the Moon is a good idea for our long-term future, not just as a nation but as a species. But it's vitally important that we do it right. And there's just no way to do it right in only nine or ten years. Let's make a quick outline of what needs to be done in order to get there from here.
First, you need a mature transportation infrastructure. The longest pole in this tent is efficient, reusable transportation to and from low Earth orbit for both crew and cargo. You're going to be moving a lot of cargo both up and down, so you need to be able to do it cheaply, and on a reliable, dependable schedule. You also need to be able to develop the technology for in-space refueling, so that you can store fuel and supplies at an orbital supply depot. You'd also like to have really efficient engines for space propulsion, so that you can be as miserly with that fuel as possible. Finally, you will need to develop closed-loop life support, so that your base can be as self-sufficient as possible. Now, where have we heard this before? (Hold on to that thought. We'll come back to it later.)
Given all of that, here's how you'd need to proceed:
(1) Stockpile some fuel and supplies in low Earth orbit.
(2) At the same time, haul up some parts, and assemble a couple of cislunar freighters.
(3) Load the freighters with fuel, supplies, and parts.
(4) Once they arrive in Lunar orbit, they will assemble a second fuel and supply depot.
(5) Once back in Earth orbit, load the freighters with fuel, supplies, parts, and a couple of lunar landers.
(6) Once back in Lunar orbit, the landers will take the parts down to the surface, and begin construction.
This way, you have a sustainable supply chain to keep the project going for as long as you need to. And there's no way to do this in only ten years. Oh sure, if we already had all of the enabling technologies, we could make it happen. But we don't. And therein lies the problem. Some of us learned the wrong lessons from Project Apollo.
Project Apollo left us with an awesome legacy. Six flags and twelve sets of footprints stand in eternal testimony to what we can do as a nation when we plant our feet, fix our eyes on the ball, and swing for the fences. But it also leaves a false impression that we can do anything -- literally anything -- with only nine years' notice. And that's not necessarily true.
We have a lot of hard work to do before we're ready to undertake the challenge of building a permanent outpost on the Moon. We've barely begun that work. If we undertake the "Flexible Path" option outlined in 2009's Augustine Commission report, we will have done the lion's share of the preparation by 2020. Then, and only then, can we realistically undertake the task.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, crazy, or just delusional. Although in Gingrich's case, it may well be all of the above.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Election 2012: The Winter Of Our Discontent
OK, now we've had one caucus and two elections, and we've had three different candidates win them so far. It's been a wild ride so far, and there's no indication that things will settle down anytime soon. So, let's brush off our crystal ball, and see what it portends. As always, our numbers are courtesy of Intrade, and are current as of this Friday afternoon.
Democratic Party: Seriously, I need to stop doing this. But I am an engineer, and it offends me to leave anything out. Still: all of the important filing dates have passed, and no one worth mentioning has stepped up to try to unseat Barack Obama within his own party. Also, despite the pundits constantly trying to whip up a controversy, Obama's not going to dump Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential nominee. It's going to be Obama/Biden for the Democrats this fall, unless a crate of bricks falls on either or both. (Which ain't gonna happen.) So I'm not even going to bother looking the numbers up. This one's a lock.
Republican Party: This has truly been a spectacle to behold. Three races, three different winners, with Florida on deck next week. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Still, Vegas does have one clear favorite.
Mitt Romney, 86.2%: His polls have been up and down more than a speed freak on a jet-powered pogo stick, but the wagering public still thinks very highly of Romney's chances to win the nomination. But I wonder if he's overpriced at this early date in the process. After all, he does have several serious problems as a candidate. For one, he seems very out of touch economically with the average Republican voter. For another, as I've said before, Obamacare is Romneycare with the serial numbers filed off. And, here's the thing that's really going to hurt him in the South, a lot of evangelical Christians aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christians. So, until the campaign swings through several Southern states, it's early days yet to anoint Romney as the inevitable nominee. All that said, he's got funding and organization, and plenty of it. Those will help him out. Especially since one or more of his opponents are liable to have spectacular melt-downs in coming months.
Newt Gingrich, 5.2%: Speaking of melt-downs ... Newt is fueled by emotion, primarily rage. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master. More than that, without a friendly audience to bounce off of, his debating style is significantly hampered. He got a big bounce off his South Carolina win, and will probably get a significant bounce out of his next Southern win. It'll come. He's got a strong base of support down South. It looks like he's the winner of the "not-Romney" primary, although there are still a few minor contenders for that crown. But I don't think he'll win the nomination. Conservatives like him somewhat, but he's disorganized, prone to rage, and has a propensity for spouting off weird ideas. And speaking of weird ideas...
Ron Paul, 3.0%: Some die-hards are still plugging for the old guy. He had a brief surge a while back. But we all know that the NFL will open an expansion team in Ulan Bator before Dr. Paul comes within shouting distance of the nomination. Which is probably just as well: some of his ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back on the Gold Standard, are just plain nuts.
Rick Santorum, 2.5%: After Iowa, I had predicted that Santorum would be the go-to candidate for the social conservatives. This ... hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Santorum looks like he's skipping Florida entirely, and is taking the weekend off. That's probably a prelude to punching out of the campaign entirely, if he fails to find traction in the Bible Belt. He'll probably stick around for Super Tuesday, but may not last much longer than that.
The Rest: No one else is above 1%. Since our last check, we've lost Rick Perry, who endorsed Newt Gingrich. Perry goes back home to Texas, where he pretends to run the state while Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst does all the heavy lifting. In two years' time, we'll see if Rick Perry runs for another term as Governor or not. And in four years' time, we'll see if he reloads for another go at the brass ring in 2016. He just might. He's got four years to undo the damage this goat-rope of a campaign has done. Don't underestimate this man: his political skills are first-rate, he just wasn't ready for the national stage. He will be ready next time.
And the winner is... Intrade gives the Democrats the edge, 53.7% versus 44.3% for the Republicans. The economy is starting to look up, just a little, which makes it harder for a challenger to unseat an incumbent.
Bonus Feature! Our man Newt has big ideas. One of those big ideas is to award a prize for building a Moonbase. Normally, I'd be all over that like a cheap suit, but I don't think we can get there from here just right now. But, just so you can see what sort of swinging pad Newt has in mind, here's a fine bit of television from the 1970s. It's got Barbara Bain in a jumpsuit, so it can't be all bad.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Democratic Party: Seriously, I need to stop doing this. But I am an engineer, and it offends me to leave anything out. Still: all of the important filing dates have passed, and no one worth mentioning has stepped up to try to unseat Barack Obama within his own party. Also, despite the pundits constantly trying to whip up a controversy, Obama's not going to dump Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential nominee. It's going to be Obama/Biden for the Democrats this fall, unless a crate of bricks falls on either or both. (Which ain't gonna happen.) So I'm not even going to bother looking the numbers up. This one's a lock.
Republican Party: This has truly been a spectacle to behold. Three races, three different winners, with Florida on deck next week. This isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Still, Vegas does have one clear favorite.
Mitt Romney, 86.2%: His polls have been up and down more than a speed freak on a jet-powered pogo stick, but the wagering public still thinks very highly of Romney's chances to win the nomination. But I wonder if he's overpriced at this early date in the process. After all, he does have several serious problems as a candidate. For one, he seems very out of touch economically with the average Republican voter. For another, as I've said before, Obamacare is Romneycare with the serial numbers filed off. And, here's the thing that's really going to hurt him in the South, a lot of evangelical Christians aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christians. So, until the campaign swings through several Southern states, it's early days yet to anoint Romney as the inevitable nominee. All that said, he's got funding and organization, and plenty of it. Those will help him out. Especially since one or more of his opponents are liable to have spectacular melt-downs in coming months.
Newt Gingrich, 5.2%: Speaking of melt-downs ... Newt is fueled by emotion, primarily rage. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master. More than that, without a friendly audience to bounce off of, his debating style is significantly hampered. He got a big bounce off his South Carolina win, and will probably get a significant bounce out of his next Southern win. It'll come. He's got a strong base of support down South. It looks like he's the winner of the "not-Romney" primary, although there are still a few minor contenders for that crown. But I don't think he'll win the nomination. Conservatives like him somewhat, but he's disorganized, prone to rage, and has a propensity for spouting off weird ideas. And speaking of weird ideas...
Ron Paul, 3.0%: Some die-hards are still plugging for the old guy. He had a brief surge a while back. But we all know that the NFL will open an expansion team in Ulan Bator before Dr. Paul comes within shouting distance of the nomination. Which is probably just as well: some of his ideas, like abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back on the Gold Standard, are just plain nuts.
Rick Santorum, 2.5%: After Iowa, I had predicted that Santorum would be the go-to candidate for the social conservatives. This ... hasn't quite turned out to be the case. Santorum looks like he's skipping Florida entirely, and is taking the weekend off. That's probably a prelude to punching out of the campaign entirely, if he fails to find traction in the Bible Belt. He'll probably stick around for Super Tuesday, but may not last much longer than that.
The Rest: No one else is above 1%. Since our last check, we've lost Rick Perry, who endorsed Newt Gingrich. Perry goes back home to Texas, where he pretends to run the state while Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst does all the heavy lifting. In two years' time, we'll see if Rick Perry runs for another term as Governor or not. And in four years' time, we'll see if he reloads for another go at the brass ring in 2016. He just might. He's got four years to undo the damage this goat-rope of a campaign has done. Don't underestimate this man: his political skills are first-rate, he just wasn't ready for the national stage. He will be ready next time.
And the winner is... Intrade gives the Democrats the edge, 53.7% versus 44.3% for the Republicans. The economy is starting to look up, just a little, which makes it harder for a challenger to unseat an incumbent.
Bonus Feature! Our man Newt has big ideas. One of those big ideas is to award a prize for building a Moonbase. Normally, I'd be all over that like a cheap suit, but I don't think we can get there from here just right now. But, just so you can see what sort of swinging pad Newt has in mind, here's a fine bit of television from the 1970s. It's got Barbara Bain in a jumpsuit, so it can't be all bad.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, January 06, 2012
Election 2012: Raucous Caucus
Well, that was certainly interesting.
The first official results of the 2012 election are in, and the first blood has been drawn. As it turns out, not even Iowa would vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes, and thus endeth the Bachmann campaign. Incidentally, this is why I'm an engineer by trade, and not a professional pundit: I really thought her ground game and virtual "hometown" status would have meant more. But instead, she becomes an object lesson, along with Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich in the deadly peril of peaking too soon.
You know who didn't peak too soon, at least for Iowa? Rick Santorum. His was the great good fortune to rise in the polls just as Gingrich was sinking. His wave crested at precisely the right moment, and he rode it to a second-place finish, just behind Romney. The interesting thing is that each of the top three finishers represents one of the GOP's three major blocs, who aren't always on speaking terms with one another.
Back in 1980, there were also three blocs, just not the same three. You had the "old guard" Republicsns, you had the social conservatives, and you had the anti-Communists. There was some overlap. Enough, in fact, that Ronald Reagan was able to forge a durable alliance amongst them that lasted for ... well, long enough that the label "anti-Communist" would become dated. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet Union's demise.
Today, the first two blocs are still there, broadly speaking. The third has changed. Some call them libertarians, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that label. But as I said, the top three finishers in Iowa each tapped into one of those constituencies: Romney is the choice of the Old Guard, Santorum is the current flavor-of-the-month for the social conservatives, and Ron Paul has galvanized the libertarians.
But even more so than thirty years ago, the three factions aren't necessarily on speaking terms. There isn't as much overlap as there once was. Which means that this race is, among other things, a struggle for control of the party. To wit: which faction, or coalition of factions, is in charge?
Iowa settled nothing, but it exposed an interesting question. The lead, and the eventual nominee, will provide the answer. If Romney is the nominee, it means that the Old Guard has reasserted its authority, or at a minimum that it has forged a coalition, most likely with the social conservatives. If it's Santorum, or even Perry, it means that the social conservatives have seized control. A Ron Paul candidacy would mean the libertarians are in charge, but come on, we all know that Satan will drive to work in a snowplow before that happens.
The next few contests won't clarify much. I do expect that we'll see clear leaders emerge for each faction. We will also probably see a down-select to a two-way race by March ... Which is another way of saying, one of the three factions will basically be edged out.
One way or another, we'll find out what these Republicans are made of.
Remember, vote early, and vote often!
The first official results of the 2012 election are in, and the first blood has been drawn. As it turns out, not even Iowa would vote for someone with Marty Feldman eyes, and thus endeth the Bachmann campaign. Incidentally, this is why I'm an engineer by trade, and not a professional pundit: I really thought her ground game and virtual "hometown" status would have meant more. But instead, she becomes an object lesson, along with Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich in the deadly peril of peaking too soon.
You know who didn't peak too soon, at least for Iowa? Rick Santorum. His was the great good fortune to rise in the polls just as Gingrich was sinking. His wave crested at precisely the right moment, and he rode it to a second-place finish, just behind Romney. The interesting thing is that each of the top three finishers represents one of the GOP's three major blocs, who aren't always on speaking terms with one another.
Back in 1980, there were also three blocs, just not the same three. You had the "old guard" Republicsns, you had the social conservatives, and you had the anti-Communists. There was some overlap. Enough, in fact, that Ronald Reagan was able to forge a durable alliance amongst them that lasted for ... well, long enough that the label "anti-Communist" would become dated. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet Union's demise.
Today, the first two blocs are still there, broadly speaking. The third has changed. Some call them libertarians, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that label. But as I said, the top three finishers in Iowa each tapped into one of those constituencies: Romney is the choice of the Old Guard, Santorum is the current flavor-of-the-month for the social conservatives, and Ron Paul has galvanized the libertarians.
But even more so than thirty years ago, the three factions aren't necessarily on speaking terms. There isn't as much overlap as there once was. Which means that this race is, among other things, a struggle for control of the party. To wit: which faction, or coalition of factions, is in charge?
Iowa settled nothing, but it exposed an interesting question. The lead, and the eventual nominee, will provide the answer. If Romney is the nominee, it means that the Old Guard has reasserted its authority, or at a minimum that it has forged a coalition, most likely with the social conservatives. If it's Santorum, or even Perry, it means that the social conservatives have seized control. A Ron Paul candidacy would mean the libertarians are in charge, but come on, we all know that Satan will drive to work in a snowplow before that happens.
The next few contests won't clarify much. I do expect that we'll see clear leaders emerge for each faction. We will also probably see a down-select to a two-way race by March ... Which is another way of saying, one of the three factions will basically be edged out.
One way or another, we'll find out what these Republicans are made of.
Remember, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Video Del Fuego, Part LI
I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's site, and it was just too good to keep.
I have two dogs of my own, a Chiweenie (Dachshund/Chihuahua mix) and an Australian Shepherd (who we think is also part Labrador). I don't have any movies of them, although Duke (the Aussie) does periodically try to help me with my typing.
And I had some more serious ideas knocking around in my head, but none of them are jelling worth a damn just right now. So, more puppies:
These guys are just adorable. They'd hate it down here, though... We used to have a Sheltie/Husky mix, who we'd have to shave down to a "crew cut" in the summertime. She loved it when it got cold. And snowy. It's a damn shame she didn't live long enough to see last February's snowfall.
Speaking of snow:
Watching puppies did teach me something profound. I now know why God created us. Paradoxically, there's one thing that an omniscient being can never know, except vicariously. And that's the thrill of discovery.
Have a safe and happy New Year, everyone!
I have two dogs of my own, a Chiweenie (Dachshund/Chihuahua mix) and an Australian Shepherd (who we think is also part Labrador). I don't have any movies of them, although Duke (the Aussie) does periodically try to help me with my typing.
And I had some more serious ideas knocking around in my head, but none of them are jelling worth a damn just right now. So, more puppies:
These guys are just adorable. They'd hate it down here, though... We used to have a Sheltie/Husky mix, who we'd have to shave down to a "crew cut" in the summertime. She loved it when it got cold. And snowy. It's a damn shame she didn't live long enough to see last February's snowfall.
Speaking of snow:
Watching puppies did teach me something profound. I now know why God created us. Paradoxically, there's one thing that an omniscient being can never know, except vicariously. And that's the thrill of discovery.
Have a safe and happy New Year, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
