Skip to main content

View Diary: Reanimated Corpse of Romney Campaign Returns Having Learned Nothing (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The sports fans out there have heard this... (4+ / 0-)

    a million times.

    Let me paraphrase:

    He trounced Barack Obama in debatefrom the three-point line. He defended the free-enterprise systempaint and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economicsimportance of playing old-fashioned, fundamental basketball.

    There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberalaggressive and too dependent on minoritiesthe pick-and-roll. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory.

    Stuart Stevens is the coach of the losing team at the post-game press conference describing his side's moral victory, where you lose to a clearly stronger opponent but stilll score some points and "play your game."  With the dozens of statistics kept in sports, even a team that gets trounced can point to some areas where it was superior (e.g., we lost but hit 90% of our free throws).  There is always a bright spot if you look closely enough.  Same goes in politics now with increasingly detailed exit polls (e.g., we won whites earning more than $100,000!).

    But a synonym for "moral victory" is "loss."  Well done, Stuart Stevens.  Good job, good effort!

    •  +1 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chicago Lawyer, Tinfoil Hat

      You can slice up the electorate a million ways but the idea is to get more votes than the other guy right?  I could be wrong though.  

      What am I thinking.  I'll never make it as a political consultant with these crazy ideas.

      •  We focus on the Romney camp's... (4+ / 0-)

        statements about Obama's winning with support from minorities as simply being racist.  Those statements are racist, of course.  But that's not entirely---or even primarily---what's going on.  Identifying the two or three key points that enabled your opponent to win is a long-time (and logically fallacious) strategy to make sports teams and their fans feel better after a loss.  The idea is that explaining how the other team won somehow belittles the win.

        In football, for example, you will hear losing coaches prattle on about time of possession, how they "controlled the football" but the other team "made some quick (read: garbage/fluky) scores."  But this is a completely irrelevant statistic not correlated at all with winning or losing games.  Kind of like winning or losing debates.

        You'll also hear nonsense about how if you take away the winning team's three or four longest plays, yardage would have been dead even and the losing team might have won.  Obviously this is stupid, since every play counts---and where was the loser's defense on those three or four plays?  Kind of like hypothesizing how the election would have looked with lower turnout among Latinos or something.

        In baseball, a losing starting pitcher will be praised for providing a "quality start" (i.e., he allowed three or fewer earned runs over the first six innings).  But there are two sides to the game, and this is completely irrelevant if his own hitters didn't perform.  Kind of like firing up your base and having enthusiastic rallies---completely irrelevant if the other side does the same thing.

        •  He picthed a helluva game (0+ / 0-)

          except for the 4 run homer in the 5th inning

          "People who see a contradiction between science and the bible don't really understand either." PvtJarHead

          by Tinfoil Hat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:06:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site