Oh. Oh no. How did that happen? (Prices redacted so as to keep this post sfw.)

One of the more surprising lessons I’ve learned about electoral politics over the years is that political conventions play very differently depending on the vantage point. In 2004, for instance, I left Boston and New York convinced that the Democrats had put on an incredibly slick, highly effective production while the Republicans looked tired and ineffectual. That’s what I took away from watching them in person. Watching from the vantage point of TV, viewers seemed to think differently. And stepping back even further, to the point of the broader, less-engaged political audience, John Kerry actually lost a point or two in the polls following his convention while Bush ticked upwards.

These things just look different depending on how you’re seeing them.

So for whatever it’s worth, in the room last night, Artur Davis gave a heck of a stemwinder that people loved and Chris Christie executed a really difficult task–giving a rah-rah speech about deficit reduction that subtly tied our collective fiscal unseriousness to the unserious 2008 election. I thought it played very well. But I’m curious to see what the (more important) reaction will be from TV viewers.

Please retire the slogan “We want (It’s time to take) our country back.”

It’s un-American. Who is the “we” in this formulation? Who will we be taking it back from? Do we really think any group or team can own America in such a way that the country no longer belongs to other groups?

“Take our country back” is the type of construct you’d expect to hear in a tribal, riven state like Serbia. It’s not fitting for America.

I don’t know who started this ugly trope, but both parties use it these days and it’s time to stop.

Blogging will probably be light this week as I’m off doing other work.

However, my gift to you is this unbelievably beautiful Jody Bottum / Alan Davison essay on Strat-o-Matic. Sample majesty:

Despite its enthusiasts’ claims, Strat-O-Matic’s influence on Major League diamonds is indirect, at best, flowing through the interest in statistical analysis that the board game awakened.

But awaken that interest the game did—and something more as well. Deep in the psyche of boys lies a hunger for order and a world that makes sense, an intelligible universe of rankings and meaning. Deep in the psyche of girls too, maybe, although girls were alien creatures, at best, and we didn’t know any who played Strat-O-Matic when we were young. Besides, the inner lives of adolescent males hold other things—monsters and nightmares—that need to be starved even while the blessèd rage for order is fed on numbers. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of boys? But some of it, surely, wasted away from inattention during the hours spent deciding the best way to set the batting lineup of the 1961 Tigers.

Print it and read it outside sitting with a cup of coffee and all will be right with the world.

I agree with nearly all of the analysis which says that Todd Akin should drop out of his Missouri senate race: Akin is likely to lose; his presence could drag down other Republicans on the ticket; that seat should be winnable for a competent candidate; etc.

The only bit I don’t agree with is the notion that Akin should get out for his own good. James Taranto, for example, says that Akin is probably getting bad advice from people such as Mike Huckabee.

Sure, it would be better for the GOP, Mitt Romney, and all of America for Akin to get out of the race. But from Akin’s perspective, would dropping out be good for Todd Akin?

There are three possible outcomes:

(1) Akin drops out like everyone wants him to.

(2) Akin stays in and loses.

(3) Akin stays in and wins.

Under scenario #1, it’s not clear what Akin gets out of the deal. I suppose he avoids the calumny of #2, but he’s so radioactive it’s not like the Missouri GOP is ever going to do him a favor down the line. If he drops out, his politically career is over.

Under #2, his political career is also over. Maybe there’s more bitterness on the part of his fellow Republicans. But at the end of the day, there’s not much less than zero.

Which leaves us with #3. Let’s say the chances of Akin winning are really, really short. Maybe 1-in-10 or 1-in-20. Well if he somehow does win, all of a sudden he becomes basically a Republican in good standing again. After all, he’ll be a United States senator, with quite a lot of power, and the GOP will need his vote. Look how Lisa Murkowski was welcomed back inside the tent after she defied the party by pursuing a write-in campaign against the GOP. Once you win, the leverage completely shifts–the party needs you as much as you need it.

So if you’re Akin, maybe it makes sense to take the really, really long shot because while the odds are terrible, the payoff is big and the practical difference between losing and leaving is negligible.

Again, none of this is to argue that Akin should stay in the race. (If I were his consigliere I’d tell him that there are worse things than failing at electoral politics.) It’s only to suggest that doing so may not be the product of bad advice or a misunderstanding of his strategic options.

Entirely predictable. Emotionally manipulative in the extreme. And basically impossible to resist. Just cry already.

Joel Engel on the passing of a surf legend.

So Ben Reid at “Redmond Pie” is reporting that the Playstation 4 may support 4K resolution. Or something. It’s kind of hard to tell because the story is basically illiterate. Try to decode the following:

* “The company is set to bring forth an 80-inch XBR LED TV with 4K resolution, and from then on will begin to push 4K into the market, sans 3DTV a couple of years back.”

* “Sony is the first of the electronics companies to move towards 4K, and it wouldn’t be naïve to presume other outfits will follow suit.”

* “Blu-ray benefitted majorly from the PlayStation 3, helping the format see off HD DVD (remember that?) in the battle of the high-def media, and it may just be that same company that again sees 4K hit the ground running in the fast-paced world of technology. Those with little knowledge of tech now find themselves with mass Blu-ray collections, and Sony will be hoping it can push 4K resolution under the noses of PlayStation 4 users.”

* “The effect it could have on sales of 4K television sets cannot be stipulated enough, since those with a device capable of playing 4K resolution media will find themselves being unwittingly groomed for the next-generation in television viewing.”

Really?