David Brooks and Peggy Noonan go in opposite directions today.

Noonan: “Barack Obama can be taken, and his adversaries haven’t even noticed. In fact, he will likely lose in 2012.”

Brooks: “It doesn’t take a genius to see that Obama is very likely to be re-elected.”

They can’t both be right–or can they!

Just as a straight-up statistical matter the odds of an incumbent politician in America being reelected, 19 months out from a general election, are always better than 50 percent. The advantages of incumbency are so large, and every other electoral factor so uncertain, that the most “likely” outcome of any given race is that the sitting pol wins.

That said, you could make a case that for a variety of factors, Obama’s likelihood of reelection might be smaller than the average. If–and I’m just making up numbers here to illustrate the point–the average incumbent 19 months out gets 60-40 odds of winning, Obama might well be closer to 55-45. Your numbers might differ, but I doubt many people looking objectively at the situation would argue that, at this point, Obama’s odds are better than the average incumbent POTUS.

So Brooks is judging by overall historical averages and Noonan is judging by the trend lines on this particular president. They’re both probably overstating their case, but (1) that’s what columnists do; and (2) they’re both probably closer in the analysis than they seem.

That said: The most interesting thing up on the web today concerning Obama is this little nugget from Kaus:

Cost doesn’t go into why Obama managed to get to the top of politics without being all that good at it. The answer is distressingly obvious: Obama’s the biggest affirmative action baby in history.  When other pols are trying, failing, learning, while climbing up the middle rungs of the ladder, he got a pass

I would hazard to say that for Obama this lens would mean big political trouble, if it came to be part of the sub rosa critique of his presidency. But I’m not sure that it could ever be tolerated as part of polite discussion.

Czabe has been all over NFL Films’ “Brady 6” show. It’s full of amazing stuff. For instance, Giovanni Carmazzi, the second QB selected in the Brady draft (Brady was the 7th, the 199th overall pick) isn’t just out of football: He’s a goat herder somewhere in northern California.

If you watch the video you see NFL types justifying why they didn’t pick Brady–you know, their problem was, they weren’t able to crack open his chest and look at his heart. Ugh.

But the idea of the Brady 6 gets the the very interesting (if Gladwell-ish) question of understanding and judging talent. And what talent is (and isn’t).

There are two types of errors in evaluating talent, over- and under-estimation. I’d guess that over-estimation (Ryan Leaf) is a lot more understandable mistake. You’re trying to out-smart everyone else. You’re guessing about hidden upside. You can see why people miss in that direction. Under-estimation is harder to explain. To a certain degree, there are going to be random errors that are just baked in the cake–no system of talent evaluation is perfect. So you’ll get Michael Jordan taken third. Or Joe Montana picked 82nd.

But Brady at #199?

The big question is whether that’s a systemic failure, or just normal random error in the process. I don’t understand enough about either Brady or the scouting process or the mechanics of football to know the answer, but I’d love to read the analysis of someone who does.

Galley Friend J.V. emails the following:

It’s not a state secret that most (all?) women’s college sports programs lose money for their schools. Because the same can be said for most men’s sports programs. The trick is that at big schools a few men’s programs can pay for everyone else.

So Dan LeBatard isn’t breaking news in general about women’s hoops, but he covers new territory in linking up the insane amounts of money that women’s basketball programs spend, and then putting that in context with how much they lose. For instance: UConn’s iconic women’s program lost $723,900 last year. Why? Because their coach was being paid in an $8M deal.

Hey–Mitt Romney is gonna run for president! Who knew? I never thought the American public would be able to haul this great servant back to stand for office again.

No matter what happens in 2012, the best part of the campaign is going to be watching the Romney hard-cases from 2008 try to wiggle out of having to go the barricades for him again. Especially if Rick Santorum gets into the race.

But the second best part of the campaign will be items like this one:

“Trump jumped from 10 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last month, with Romney dropping from 18 percent to 11 percent.”

The poll’s real significance is in that last bit. I don’t know what’s scarier for Mitt — the idea that his support is so soft that it’ll melt from two weeks of the guy from “The Apprentice” talking about Obama’s birth certificate, or the possibility that his decline isn’t Trump-related at all and is apt to persist even when Donaldmania cools. CNN’s pollster notes that Romney’s support actually drops without Trump in the race, which points directly at the second theory, but I dunno. They are an awful lot alike in some ways…

Yowza.

Amidst all the government shutdown talk last week was a remark from President Obama that deserves a second look. Taking questions from a friendly audience, Obama was asked about gas prices:

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon–(laughter)–you may have a big family, but it’s probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? (Laughter.) Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then.”

A lot of people have pointed out that there are no hybrid vans. But the really telling part of this remark is the gas mileage. There are no consumer vehicles in production that get 8 mpg. According to fueleconomy.gov, the worst performing vehicles sold today are the Chevy Suburban 4WD and GMC Yukon 4WD, which get 10 mpg–a full 25 percent more than Obama alleges. How could Obama have possibly known? Well, because fuel economy is in large part dictated by CAFE standards imposed by the organization which Obama is in charge of.

Is it fair to expect Obama to know every little nuance about something as obscure as CAFE standards? Well, yes. After all, he’s the one who told people,

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

The cherry on top, however, is that Obama is just projecting. Because it turns out that there is a car which only gets 8 mpg–the limo for the president of the United States.

Update: In the comments, Steve Sailer leaves this little nugget:

“A Chrysler 300C owned by Obama until 2007 is currently for sale on eBay.  The list price?  Well, it’s a little over the $15,100 Kelley Blue Book says a 2005 300C in good condition should fetch.  About $85,000 over.

“The listing’s starting price sits at $100,000.   As of this morning, there are no bids.

“The seller (eBay username stdrum5) explains, “As stated in the title, this 300c was previously driven by Barack Obama 2004 through 2007.”  The car features a leather interior, a navigation system, a sunroof and, the listing helpfully points out, is still under warranty – you know, in case you total Barack Obama’s old car.

“Obama sold the car, we should point out, shortly after he began to run for President.  It seems that the 300’s 5.7-liter V8 struck some Democratic primary voters as a bit excessive, and dependent on foreign oil.”

The 2005 300C weighed 4066 pounds and got 15 mpg city / 23 highway (and I think that was on the old, exaggerated mpg rating system).

Courtesy of Galley Friend M.W., Ferguson takes it to the Twitter Revolution types:

In short, Google’s pro-democracy Wael Ghonim is probably a less significant figure than Fouad X, the head of IT for Hizbullah in Lebanon, who tells Joshua Ramo (at the beginning of his superb book The Age of the Unthinkable) that “our email is flooded with CVs” from Islamist geeks wanting to “serve a sacred cause.”

So the Atlanta cops pulled over Allen Iverson and a pal in Iverson’s Lamborghini, discovered the car’s tags were expired, and impounded it. So far, so good. The cops then also claim that Iverson cursed at the officer and demanded to know, “Do you know who I am?” Etc.

Two problems: (1) Because the incident occurred in the parking lot of a Ruth’s Chris (Iverson and his buddy were picking up a to-go order; who knew?) there were lots of witnesses, many of whom are disputing the officer’s account; (2) The key part of the officer’s account puts a quotation in Iverson’s mouth that’s, at best, implausible. The officers alleges that Iverson said:

“Take the vehicle, I have 10 more,” he told Durham, according to her report. “Police don’t have anything else [expletive] to do except [expletive] with me. . . . Do you know who I am?”

“Take the vehicle“? You think Iverson would use the word “vehicle” in talking about his Lamborghini? I kind of doubt it. You know who reflexively says “vehicle” whenever they’re talking about a car, truck, SUV, etc.? Cops. The only way this quote could be more made-up is if the cop then had Iverson say, “Do you know what particular individual I am?”