A blog about Cycling, Politics, Life and Economics.
Endorsements for PruDogBlog:
"My advice. Don't read this blog. Oh, and instead of writing or reading a blog...go train!" - RS Seattle
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
For those of you wondering why the low number of posts. Well, according to the bean counter at the bottom of this page you guys prefer it when I don't post. This seems to be borne out by the fact I got 7 comments on a 1 word post and none on the previous one.
I doubled my ride time for the month by finally getting on my bike and heading down to Seward at lunch yesterday. Felt great until I got home. Then I felt really tired and loopy. Does antibiotics have that effect on anyone else but me?
Flandis has taken his positive doping case to CAS, which will deliver a ruling in June. Given my sterling track record of predictions I probably should stay away from this one. But, I am also a cyclist which means I am not very smart so here it goes.
CAS upholds Positive Dope ruling.
Why? Well earlier I dissected the arbitors 2-1 ruling that Flandis had indeed doped. While they tossed the results of the test for T:E ratio that started the brouhaha they allowed the results of the test for sythetic testoterone.
The cornerstone of Flandis' defense against the allowed test was that a) it was not a scientifically validated test and b) the test was conducted based on a previous test's false positive and therefore shouldn't have even been conducted.
I think argument b) is a loser in general. It's a legal, not scientific, procedural issue. It does not impact whether the results are valid or not.
Argument a) is much better. It's a scientific issue, and it is clear that Flandis is correct. The test has not been scientifically validated. The problem is that the previous ruling was based on a previous CAS decision to grant the test "scientifically validated" status. Now, Flandis will rightly argue that CAS doesn't get to decide what is valid or not. But, that seems like a losing argument to me since CAS has already decided they do have that power.
I think Flandis' only real chance of "victory" is take the case to a civil court for wrongful termination. The problem there is that a lot of Flandis' own dirty laundry is likely to get aired and the victory may be pyhrric.
All of this is great news for Flandis since I am batting something like 1-19 on predictions.
I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman. He may be caustic and shrill, but he also tends to be right. He is not a huge Obama fan and seems to prefer Hillary (his preferred candidate was Edwards). Likewise, John Edwards just can't seem to bring himself to endorse Obama and is actually considering expending his political image on endorsing Hillary.
But here's the thing. Hillary can't win. I keep hearing people say that she has a 20% chance of winning the nomination. No she doesn't. She can make it close, she can make it painful and she can drag out any sense of finality. But unless Obama completely implodes she cannot win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination unless she wins all the remaining contests by something like 30% over Obama.
Now I understand that her strategy isn't to win on pledged delegates. It's to keep it close enough to give the Superdelegates political cover to vote for her even if Obama wins the "popular" delegate total. Again, in order for that to work, she would have to take something like 70% of the remaining unpledged superdelegates. And how is that going to happen exactly? She doesn't have that kind of lead now. And looking at it from the Superdelegates point of view, what are the incentives to vote for her? If they vote for her they will be percieved as "old-guard" and bucking the will of the people. If she loses the general they will be blamed for it. And from an even more selfish point of view most of the super-delegates need the 50-state program to continue. Clinton is an unabshed 50%+1. That means that if Obama gets the nod, Howard Dean will either continue as chair or someone similar will replace him and money and resources will continue to flow to them. If Hillary is nominated then Dean is out and money and resources will flow to states that she feels *she* needs. So were's the incentive?
And the campaign spin that she will win the popular vote is based on pretty cynical spinning of the situation in Florida & Michigan. The video below (with the bald guy and the woman being John Edwards and Obama) sums up Hillary's argument perfectly.
Now, this may work on low-information voters who don't know the details of how MI and FL's primaries went down. But that isn't the target audience here. It's the superdelegates. And they do.
All of which brings me too, what's the endgame? There is a logic behind issues candidates staying in a race. Guys like Gravel, Hukabee, Ron Paul... they have no chance of winning. Rather, their goal is to accumulate delegates that they hope they can trade to a candidate in exchange for promises of a position in the administration or policy promises.
But Hillary is a viable candidate. And she has every right to continue her campaign. But again, what's the endgame for her. Yes she can still win states, but Obama doesn't need her. All she does at this point is make enemies. With the exception of the 3am ad and the implications that McCain is more qualified than Obama, I don't buy the argument that he hurts him, even by pounding on race. The reality is McCain will do that anyway so he might as well take the hit now. Were is does hurt Obama is that it prevents him from taking advantage of his money to attack McCain (who is almost broke until after the convention due to campaign finance laws) and more importantly it prevent Team Democrat from going after McCain.
The best I can come up with is that Hillary has either convinced herself she can win and is therefore delusional or she is angling for 2012 and has decided her best alternative to being the nominee is for McCain to win in '08.
This is my blog and I demand that you people stop trying to blame Strangeliver's poor bike handling skills for Tuesdays massive 90 rider stack at Circe de PR. Instead, let's keep the baseless allegations aimed at Gary Brown, were they belong.
You can stop trying to pin the crash at PR on WoW. In a frank, honest conversation last night DT Brown admitted it was his fault:
"Hello" "Hey Gary, it's PDizzle" "How'd you get this number?" "That's not important Gary..." "Yes it is. YOu better not be outside my house again or I'll call the cops" "Gary, listen, I am sorry about that fire.. how was I supposed..." "Go away" ................
See, irrefutable proof of Gary's guilt. Sad really.
My immune system has betrayed me yet again, interrupting my incredible cycling comeback (tm). I am not sure what I have (sore throat, no appetite, chills) but amazingly PruPuppy doesn't have it. Mrs. PDog does and man is she grumpy when sick.
So how did PIR go? Did the fields manage to get in each others way again? What's the haps?