An Analogy; baseball and Presidential race

[AuH2O]

Perhaps it is not worthwhile, but nonetheless I will explain via an analogy how I see the 2004 election. It will only make sense to baseball fans, and maybe not even them, but here it goes:

The American League Central. The year is 2003. The Twins (George W Bush) won the division the previous year and are considered the early favorites. The White Sox (John Kerry) are thought to be their main opponent, while the rest of the division will be of little consequence.

But then something odd happens. The Kansas City Royals (Howard Dean) win their first 9 games. Everyone is surprised by this- even the Royals! They are led by the new manager, Tony Pena (Joe Trippi?) who is widely hailed. While the other teams struggle with inconsistency, the Royals maintain their poise and enter the All-Star break with a solid lead over the Sox and the Twins.

However, things begin to unravel for the Royals when the second half begins. Their pitching staff (Dean's GOTV in Iowa) cannot match unreasonable expectations, and the Royals lose their lead, and then their position as the main challenger to the previous champs, the Twins. The White Sox step into that role, and the two teams are nearly even by late summer.

At this point, either team is in position to win. However, one thing was working against the White Sox: The Twins were the better team. When the two met in a September showdown, the Sox drew first blood- winning 2 straight and putting the Twins' hopes in question. But the Twins responded by winning the final 2 games, establishing a small lead and a large amount of momentum.

The White Sox simply did not have it in them. The team that had demeaned the Twins for years (and continue to this day, even as the Twins stomp them into the ground) fell apart, and was swept in their final head-to-head series. They didn't have the cohesiveness of the Twins. Carl Everett (Tony Cuehlo?) wished the Twins 1st baseman luck in a critical game after he had reached base... he told the Twin the race was over, and the Sox had lost. Not mathematically, not statistically... but in their hearts.

There was even Phil Rogers (Dan Rather), naysaying the Twins to almost the bitter end. But, eventually, he had to admit he was wrong.




Perfect? No. But this is how I see it. A better team, a united team, with a lead. What more could you ask?

[zorkpolitics]

Baseball also works well as an analogy for the Electoral College.
The United States is a Federal Republic with power shared between states and the federal government.  Hence states should play a role in selecting the President.

In Baseball who wins the World Series?  the team that scores the most runs  or the team that wins the most games?  Obviously the team that wins the most games.

So in the Electoral College it is the candidate that wins the most Electoral Votes by winning many differnet states, not the candidate who gets the most popular votes, that wins the election.

[Giant Saguaro]

This might be carrying it off topic a bit far, but somehow I remember a Monday Night Football historic trend. It goes something like on the Monday Night game before the election, if the home team wins the incumbent always wins or maybe it's vice versa. I might have it backwards, but it's like that. Seems like I always hear them talk about it on an election year and I remember hearing about it in 2000. Of course, MNF hasn't exactly been around since Abe Lincoln, but it's an interesting statistic.

Monday, Nov. 1 is Miami Dolphins at NY Jets, BTW. I'm not even going to try to predict that one!

[Nym90]

Baseball also works well as an analogy for the Electoral College.
The United States is a Federal Republic with power shared between states and the federal government.  Hence states should play a role in selecting the President.

In Baseball who wins the World Series?  the team that scores the most runs  or the team that wins the most games?  Obviously the team that wins the most games.

So in the Electoral College it is the candidate that wins the most Electoral Votes by winning many differnet states, not the candidate who gets the most popular votes, that wins the election.

Except that the individual games of the World Series are played on different days...whereas the Presidential Election is held on the same day. I would say the World Series is more like the Presidential Primaries (except that some primaries aren't winner take all). I would argue that for the primaries, it makes more sense to use delegates rather than total nationwide popular vote since the elections aren't all held the same day, thus you can't just combine them into one total...they aren't all one election, they are all seperate elections, but the Presidential Election is one contest, not 50 seperate contests.

[Nym90]

This might be carrying it off topic a bit far, but somehow I remember a Monday Night Football historic trend. It goes something like on the Monday Night game before the election, if the home team wins the incumbent always wins or maybe it's vice versa. I might have it backwards, but it's like that. Seems like I always hear them talk about it on an election year and I remember hearing about it in 2000. Of course, MNF hasn't exactly been around since Abe Lincoln, but it's an interesting statistic.

Monday, Nov. 1 is Miami Dolphins at NY Jets, BTW. I'm not even going to try to predict that one!

I know that this didn't hold in 2000, because the Green Bay Packers won at home in the MNF game the day before the election.

The one that I had heard was that if the Washington Redskins win their last game before the election, the incumbent party wins, and if they lose, the incumbent party loses....the Redskins play host to the Packers this year the week before the election.

Just one more reason for me to cheer for my beloved Packers.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Monday, Nov. 1 is Miami Dolphins at NY Jets, BTW. I'm not even going to try to predict that one!

The Jets WIPED THE FLOOR with the Dolphins.  The final score was 41-14 but in reality it was 41-7.  The Dolphins scored on the last play of the game.

[George W. Hobbes]

That was an excellent analogy, in hindsight.

[RJ]

Hmm, the Twins(Bush-GOP) fade badly in 2005 after that AL Central race 2 years prior. The White Sox(Kerry-Democratic Party) race out to a big lead, almost blow it, then right the ship, winning their final 5 Regular Season games en route to winning 10 of 11 Playoff and World Series games, setting a record with a .909 winning percentage with a minimum 10 games in a single postseason.

Is this an accurate analogy in how the 2006 mid term elections will go?

[Gustaf]

This might be carrying it off topic a bit far, but somehow I remember a Monday Night Football historic trend. It goes something like on the Monday Night game before the election, if the home team wins the incumbent always wins or maybe it's vice versa. I might have it backwards, but it's like that. Seems like I always hear them talk about it on an election year and I remember hearing about it in 2000. Of course, MNF hasn't exactly been around since Abe Lincoln, but it's an interesting statistic.

Monday, Nov. 1 is Miami Dolphins at NY Jets, BTW. I'm not even going to try to predict that one!

I know that this didn't hold in 2000, because the Green Bay Packers won at home in the MNF game the day before the election.

The one that I had heard was that if the Washington Redskins win their last game before the election, the incumbent party wins, and if they lose, the incumbent party loses....the Redskins play host to the Packers this year the week before the election.

Just one more reason for me to cheer for my beloved Packers.

But this didn't work out for 2004. I remember CNN collecting some of these "predictions". THe Redskin one predicted Kerry.