Thoughts on Jimmy Carter

by | Oct 1, 2024 | Political Commentary

Today, Jimmy Carter, who served a single term as the nation’s 39th president from 1977-81, turned 100 years old.

It has been said of President Carter that he was the best ex-president in U.S. history, and that is probably quite true. He is the first president of whom I have any memories, and I am sad to say that my impressions of him as a young child were the negative impressions that were passed on to me by my mother and stepfather and many of the people in our neighborhood.

By the time I was in first and second grade, Carter had become an object of national derision and ridicule, such that schoolkids were singing mocking jingles about him on the playground. (They sang, to the tune of the “Oscar Mayer” wiener song: “‘Cause Jimmy Carter has a way of screwing up the U.S.A.”) It should be noted that I grew up in a solidly Democratic, labor-union dominated corner of Indiana bordering on Chicago, and that Carter narrowly missed losing Lake County, Indiana in his 1980 reelection campaign. Only two Democrats–Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and George McGovern in 1972–have lost Lake County since 1928.

It would be fair to say that Carter’s presidency was largely unsuccessful, although it would also be fair to note that he had some key successes. The Camp David Accords, resulting in peace between Egypt and Israel, represented one of the finest diplomatic accomplishments of any president in U.S. history–right up there with Richard Nixon’s opening to China in 1972 and Theodore Roosevelt’s mediation of the Portsmouth, N.H. peace settlement between Japan and Russia in 1905. He also successfully negotiated the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviet Union and made the courageous, and morally correct, move of pardoning all Vietnam War draft evaders on his second day in office.

Sadly, Carter’s successes were few, and he fell victim to a number of events which he either mishandled or could not control. The Iran Hostage Crisis, in which 53 American citizens were held in captivity for more than 14 months, and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, both coming in 1979, reinforced the popular impression that Carter was weak. His tireless work to solve the crisis was undermined by the Ronald Reagan campaign’s secret promises to Iran that if the Iranians kept the crisis going through the 1980 election, ensuring Carter’s defeat, the Iranian theocratic regime would get a better deal from Reagan than it would from Carter. Although Carter ultimately secured the hostages’ freedom on his last day in office, he never really got the credit for it from the public. I remember Reagan supporters claiming that Iran freed the hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated because they were afraid Reagan would “get tough” with them.

Carter was also beset by an energy crisis that he did not cause but was unable to solve. His appearance on television wearing a sweater and urging Americans to conserve energy was at odds with the national mood; he was seen as weak and pessimistic, and the country went through a period of psychological “malaise.” The sunny, optimistic pronouncements of Reagan captured the nation’s imagination, and Carter lost all but six states when he failed to win a second term.

The night he conceded the 1980 election, Carter reminded Americans that he had promised, in his successful 1976 campaign, that he would never lie to them. In that spirit, he admitted he could not say that his landslide defeat that day didn’t hurt.

But Carter bounced back from the agony of his defeat and took on the rest of his life with gusto, earning well-deserved plaudits and praise from even his biggest political detractors for the work he did after leaving the White House. He established the Carter Center to fight for human rights around the globe and worked tirelessly around the world, conducting peace negotiations, monitoring elections, helping to fight devastating diseases. He also worked nonstop with Habitat For Humanity, helping build countless homes for the needy with his own hands. He refused to lay down and die after losing the presidency and spent more than 40 years simply doing good for his fellow human beings–all while living humbly in his tiny hometown of Plains, Georgia, where he taught Sunday School at his church until his health made it impossible for him to continue.

Perhaps Carter was not the most effective president, but we would be so much better off if all of our leaders cared about people as much as he does. And even if his message on energy conservation was not one that Americans wanted to hear, it was the truth. He was right.

Carter’s grandson said a few weeks ago that the former president said he is trying to hold on and live long enough to cast an absentee ballot for Kamala Harris for president. It is typical of Jimmy Carter that even as the end of his life draws near, he continues to live for his country and his fellow human beings.

We may have better presidents in the years to come, but we will never have a better human being as our president than Jimmy Carter.

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

Democrats Must Make Plays in Florida, Texas and Ohio to Save the Senate

by | Mar 8, 2024 | Election Analysis

I was heartened to read in The Hill today that the Biden campaign is going to be sending surrogates to Florida, Texas and Ohio, among other states, in the wake of his triumphant, “Trumanesque” State of the Union speech.

Last night, after the president’s speech, I posted on Twitter (I refuse to call it anything else) that I thought President Biden should campaign in Ohio. I felt that his pro-union message, his fighting demeanor, and his status as the only sitting president to walk a picket line offered the potential to shrink his margin of defeat in the Buckeye State from the 8% rout he suffered at the hands of Donald Trump there in 2020.

I don’t have very high hopes for Biden actually contending in Ohio, but I think shrinking Trump’s margin might give Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) a puncher’s chance to survive this fall.

As I have noted, both on this site and on Twitter, ticket-splitting in presidential years between presidential and Senate candidates is at an all-time low. Voters have become highly polarized, and they have also come to understand that it makes no sense to vote for one party’s candidate for president, and then simultaneously vote for a Senate (or House) candidate who is going to block virtually everything that president wants to do.

The statistics bear this out. In 2016, every state that had a Senate race voted for the same party’s candidates for president and Senate. In 2020, there was only one exception to this trend, with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) prevailing despite Joe Biden winning her state. Even in that case, Collins had her closest race since she was first elected in 1996. That means 68 of the last 69 Senate races held during presidential election years have resulted in the same party winning both the presidential and Senate races in those states (a 1.4% split rate over the last two cycles). Statistically, the likelihood of Brown holding his seat while Biden loses Ohio is very low, and the larger Biden’s margin of defeat, the likelihood of Brown surviving gets even lower.

If Biden can shrink his margin of defeat in Ohio, Brown might be able to hold on to his Senate seat. But even then, Democrats are likely looking at losing the Senate by a seat, and that’s where Florida and Texas come into the picture.

I know that it is fashionable among Democrats these days to suggest that Democrats should forget Florida, but Florida, rich with electoral votes and House seats, remains one of the closest states in the country and one of its biggest electoral prizes. Conceding Florida is a mistake, especially with the Sunshine State having a Senate race on the ballot this year. Everyone understands that North Carolina is a better bet for the president than Florida is, but North Carolina has no Senate race on the ballot this year. It would be great for Biden to win North Carolina, but if he wins there, he almost certainly already has the election won irrespective of the results in that state. There’s really no benefit or added value to winning North Carolina in 2024. But winning Florida, or at least making it close, could help Democrats defeat Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) and get back to 50 seats in the Senate, if Sherrod Brown also wins.

Texas is also a state which I believe is not especially promising for Biden this fall, but again, if he can cut his margin in the Lone Star State, he could help Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred in his race against the unpopular Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Remember that Cruz only won his last race by about 2.5%, and while that was a midterm election in which Democrats overperformed nationally, Cruz clearly does have some electoral and political weaknesses.

None of these three states are especially good bets for Biden, but conceding them also means conceding the Senate. The likelihood of Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) overcoming a double-digit Biden loss in his state is very, very low. Don’t kid yourselves about that. Tester has never faced a race with these kinds of headwinds. Of his three previous races, two were in midterm elections, with no presidential race on the ballot to weigh him down, and the one time he won during a presidential election, in 2012, was when Barack Obama only lost Montana by about 10%. Biden lost Montana in 2020 by 16%. Tester has never won by a large margin, and if Biden loses Montana by double digits again–especially now, in a more polarized environment that 2012, with presidential/Senate ticket-splitting all but dead now–Tester is probably doomed. With the West Virginia Senate seat being vacated by Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), that seat is certain to flip Republican. Democrats have to hold Brown’s seat and, let’s be honest, find another seat to flip to guard against the likelihood that Tester will lose.

Besides Florida and Texas, there are no other Republican-held seats on the ballot this fall where Democrats have any chance to win. The other nine Republican Senate seats up in this year’s election are in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska (where both seats are on the ballot due to a special election). Unless something extremely weird happens (like a Roy Moore situation), Democrats don’t have a prayer in a single one of those nine races.

In short, if Democrats want to hold the Senate, they have to win two out of four seats in Florida, Montana, Ohio, and Texas, and despite Tester’s incumbency and unusual strength for a Democrat in his state, his prospects are by far the worst.

That is why I wrote, over a year ago, that Biden needs to devote significant resources to these four states even if it appears unlikely that he can actually win them.

So I’m heartened by the fact that the campaign is clearly targeting three of those states–the three where Democrats have the best chance to win. If Democrats don’t win two of those seats, the Senate is all but gone. That means even if a Supreme Court seat comes open, Biden likely won’t get to fill it, even if he himself is reelected.

It’s not just the right move–it’s the only move.

30 Scenarios For The 2023 College Football Playoff

by | Nov 28, 2023 | Sports

SCENARIO 1: All four undefeated teams win.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Florida State (13-0)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)

SCENARIO 2: Three unbeatens win, Washington loses to Oregon.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Oregon (12-1)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)

SCENARIO 3: Three unbeatens win, Florida State loses to Louisville, Texas wins.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)

SCENARIO 4: Three unbeatens win, Michigan loses to Iowa, Texas wins.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)

SCENARIO 5: Three unbeatens win, Georgia loses to Alabama, Texas wins.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)

SCENARIO 6: Georgia and Michigan win, Texas wins, Washington and Florida State lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 7: Georgia and Florida State win, Texas wins, Michigan and Washington lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 8: Georgia and Washington win, Texas wins, Michigan and Florida State lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)

SCENARIO 9: Michigan and Washington win, Texas wins, Georgia and Florida State lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)

SCENARIO 10: Michigan and Florida State win, Texas wins, Georgia and Washington lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)

SCENARIO 11: Florida State and Washington win, Texas wins, Georgia and Michigan lose.

  1. Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)

SCENARIO 12: Georgia wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
  2. Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 13: Michigan wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Oregon (12-1)
  2. Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 14: Washington wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 15: Florida State wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Florida State (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 16: All four unbeatens lose, Texas wins.

  1. Texas (12-1) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 17: Three unbeatens win, Florida State loses to Louisville, Texas loses.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)

SCENARIO 18: Three unbeatens win, Michigan loses to Iowa, Texas loses.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)

SCENARIO 19: Three unbeatens win, Georgia loses to Alabama, Texas loses.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)

SCENARIO 20: Georgia and Michigan win, Texas loses, Washington and Florida State lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
  2. Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 21: Georgia and Florida State win, Texas loses, Michigan and Washington lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 22: Georgia and Washington win, Texas loses, Michigan and Florida State lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)

SCENARIO 23: Michigan and Washington win, Texas loses, Georgia and Florida State lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 24: Michigan and Florida State win, Texas loses, Georgia and Washington lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 25: Florida State and Washington win, Texas loses, Georgia and Michigan lose.

  1. Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)

SCENARIO 26: Georgia wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
  2. Oregon (12-1) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)

SCENARIO 27: Michigan wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 28: Washington wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)

SCENARIO 29: Florida State wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.

  1. Florida State (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
  2. Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

SCENARIO 30: All four unbeatens lose, Texas loses.

  1. Alabama (12-1) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
  2. Georgia (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)

Keep Calm And Stop Paying Attention To Polls

by | Nov 6, 2023 | Election Analysis

The recent set of swing state polls by the New York Times—the world’s most overrated media company and one of the world’s most overrated institutions, period—have cued up a whole line of Democratic bedwetters to scream and cry and shout that the sky is falling. Despite the fact that the poll results are so laughably off-base (Trump +11 in Nevada and winning Las Vegas?) that anybody who takes them seriously clearly knows nothing about politics, that hasn’t stopped a cavalcade of panicky Democrats from seriously suggesting that Joe Biden ought to forego another run.

Folks, the first thing you need to do is grab a paper bag and breathe into it until you stop hyperventilating. Then you need to sit down with a stiff drink, or some weed if that’s your thing, and let Uncle Cliston tell you a bedtime story.

In a land called America a long time ago, there was a fellow named Michael Dukakis. I’m told some of his friends called him Mike. He came out of the Democratic convention less than four months before the 1988 election leading George Bush by 17 percentage points. But when November came, Mike lost 40 states to George, who then became America’s president.

George eventually took America into a war and saw his approval ratings reach 91%. The Democrats were terrified, and almost no leading Democrat chose to run against him in 1992 because he clearly could not be beaten. But a brave, if unknown, soul from Arkansas named Bill Clinton took a gamble, and a year and a half later, Bill won big and became the next president.

Things went sour for Bill quickly, and his party was crushed in the 1994 midterm elections. It was obvious that there would be no second term for Billy Boy, whose polling was in the toilet. Yet, in 1996, he won in a landslide that surpassed his 1992 election. Nobody has won by as large of a margin since!

Then, along came a man named Barack Obama, who fell behind John McCain in the polls in 2008 with less than two months to go before the election. Yet he somehow won a landslide that carried in crushing majorities for his party in Congress.

Much like Bill, Barack had a short honeymoon after becoming president. His party was creamed in the midterm elections, and his approval ratings almost never even sniffed 50%. Many polls said a man named Mitt Romney would defeat him in 2012. The leading pollster of them all had Mitt ahead all the way up to election day! And yet, Barack beat Mitt like a drum in almost every swing state and even won Florida, which it was believed was too Republican for him to win a second time.

Four years later, Bill’s wife Hillary ran for president, and her prospects were so certain that nobody believed she could lose to her opponent, an orange-haired clown named Bozo. She was so far ahead in the crucial state of Wisconsin that it clearly made no sense at all for her to waste precious time and money visiting that state. And yet, when the circus ended, Bozo had won, and the clowns were now running the circus.

Look, I get it, folks. You’re scared. Because Democrats are ALWAYS scared, and it’s annoying and completely not a good look, but it is what it is. But one of the reasons you’re scared is because you lack perspective—especially if you’re in your 20s and you haven’t seen 35 years of embarrassing polling mistakes or quick, crazy shifts in the electorate the way Uncle Cliston has.

Now, kiddos, I’m not going to promise you that Story Time with Uncle Cliston is going to have a happy ending. There’s no way in hell Joe Biden is losing all these states, and certainly not by the margins these ridiculous polls say he is, but it is absolutely possible that he could lose several of them and Bozo could become president again. We have to be honest with ourselves about that.

But freaking out and flailing around like unhinged lunatics every time a poll comes out doesn’t do any of us any good. The upcoming election is going to be close. It could go either way. What we need to do right now is to get ahold of ourselves, stay steady and courageous, and see this thing through.

And with any luck, we’ll all live happily ever after.

The End.

Fixing the College Football Realignment Mess–Update

by | Sep 26, 2023 | Sports

Since my earlier post on this topic, there have been several more moves, and the long and the short of it is that the Power 4 conferences now have 67 teams. If you add the last remaining vestiges of the Pacific-12 (Oregon State and Washington State) and Notre Dame, that would be 70 schools.

So, taking my “Premier League” concept, with a 70-team superconference structure, it is plainly obvious what needs to happen here: seven conferences of 10 teams each, geographically based, in which every conference member plays each other, and the seven conference champions, plus one at-large team, go to the playoffs.

Here’s how this idea would shake out:

ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest.

This alignment would restore the original ACC, plus Virginia, Florida State and Georgia Tech. Rivalries restored would include North Carolina-South Carolina and Maryland-Virginia.

BIG TEN CONFERENCE: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin.

This would get us back to the Big Ten that existed from 1953-1991, after Michigan State took the spot vacated by the University of Chicago and before the addition of Penn State started all the realignment dominoes.

BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE: Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah.

This would restore six members of the original Big Eight and add western rivals BYU and Utah, along with eastern rivals Cincinnati and Louisville, none of whom have any other sensible place to land. Despite being widespread, it would still be more or less geographically contiguous, as Utah borders on Colorado and Kentucky borders on Missouri. I’d like to see it change its name (maybe something like the Heartland Conference). This alignment would restore the Kansas-Missouri rivalry and the Colorado-Nebraska rivalry.

EASTERN CONFERENCE: Boston College, Central Florida, Miami, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

This would be the conference that the original Big East football conference always should have been. It would restore the tradition of eastern football and bring Notre Dame into its natural footprint as well. Despite its Midwestern location, Notre Dame’s fan following in the northeast, and its traditional rivalries with Boston College and Miami, makes it a natural to round out this eastern league. On a 12-game schedule, it could keep its rivalries with USC and Stanford. (Unless the Irish and their fans just can’t get enough of playing Marshall and East Tennessee State.) Should Notre Dame balk and decide to stay independent, the league could plug in another former Big East member (Connecticut, South Florida or Temple) or stay at nine schools. Rivalries restored would include West Virginia vs. Pittsburgh, Penn State, Syracuse and Virginia Tech; Penn State vs. Pittsburgh and Syracuse; Miami vs. Notre Dame.

PACIFIC TEN CONFERENCE: Arizona, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern California, Stanford, Washington, Washington State.

Another conference that would be restored to its moorings (and senses), the Pac-10 would return to what it was from the 1970s to the addition of Colorado and Utah.

SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC would be restored to what it was from 1966 until the addition of Arkansas and South Carolina, both of whom would also return to their traditional homes (see SWC, ACC).

SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE: Arkansas, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Texas Tech.

This alignment would restore the traditional SWC (minus Rice) and add in the Oklahoma schools–the best of the old SWC and Big XII. Rivalries restored would include Oklahoma-Oklahoma State; SMU-TCU; and everybody vs. Texas.

Four bowls would become “playoff bowls,” with the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions once again squaring off in the Rose Bowl, as it should be. The SEC champion would once again go to the Sugar Bowl. The Big XII or Heartland champion would take the Big Eight’s traditional spot in the Orange Bowl, and the Southwest Conference champion would take that league’s traditional spot in the Cotton Bowl. The ACC and Eastern Conference champions, as well as one at-large team (the highest-ranked team that failed to win a conference title), would fill out the other three spots, possibly on a rotating basis or based on rankings. The four playoff bowl champions would be seeded 1-4, with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3.

But what about TV revenue? Simple. Put the Big Ten Network in charge of the whole thing, since it is clearly the most successful conference network in history, and dole out equal revenues to all 70 teams. Schools can make additional dollars marketing their merchandise independently, so Notre Dame and other leading programs would be able to pull down their outsized shares of money that way.

While schools could naturally schedule whichever three nonconference opponents they like, some nonconference rivalries really should be played every year:

Arkansas-LSU

Arkansas-Missouri

Florida-Florida State

Georgia-Georgia Tech

Illinois-Missouri

Indiana-Kentucky

Iowa-Iowa State

Iowa-Nebraska

Kentucky-Louisville

LSU-Texas A&M

Maryland-West Virginia

Miami-Florida

Nebraska-Oklahoma

Notre Dame-USC

Notre Dame-Stanford

Virginia-Virginia Tech

Nobody can tell me that this wouldn’t be a superior solution compared to the mess we’ve got now.