03-20-2013, 09:16 AM
What's his deal?
I know....
03-20-2013, 09:27 AM
Every time the topic of attendance at sporting events comes up, I read about the overwhelming numbers of Cal alumni and casual Cal fans, compared to the miniscule numbers that Stanford has in comparison. Even though he is out of options, it must just be habit for the President to consider the number of potential voters involved.
Every time the topic of attendance at sporting events comes up, I read about the overwhelming numbers of Cal alumni and casual Cal fans, compared to the miniscule numbers that Stanford has in comparison. Even though he is out of options, it must just be habit for the President to consider the number of potential voters involved.
03-20-2013, 10:56 AM
Yes, I'm absolutely certain that the president decided to make his pick based on the possibility of losing the swing state of California.
03-20-2013, 11:20 AM
I'm sure he would have gotten it right, but, you know, with the sequester and all, he was probably forced to furlough his Asst. Undersecretary for Bracketology [Women's Division], who was the real expert on these things...
03-20-2013, 01:46 PM
He most likely delegated his bracket-making chores to some unpaid government intern. I doubt Obama really oversees the small beans like bracket-making, reddit AMA answering, or "personal replies" to correspondence. The office of POTUS can be pretty much a brand.
03-20-2013, 06:37 PM
Maybe it's a good thing.
Last year he picked St. John's to beat Stanford in the Regional Finals. Of course, St. Johns was killed by Duke 74 to 47 so they never played us. And we beat Duke 81 to 69.
Last year he picked St. John's to beat Stanford in the Regional Finals. Of course, St. Johns was killed by Duke 74 to 47 so they never played us. And we beat Duke 81 to 69.
Maybe it's a good thing.
Last year he picked St. John's to beat Stanford in the Regional Finals. Of course, St. Johns was killed by Duke 74 to 47 so they never played us. And we beat Duke 81 to 69.
Last year he picked St. John's to beat Stanford in the Regional Finals. Of course, St. Johns was killed by Duke 74 to 47 so they never played us. And we beat Duke 81 to 69.
03-20-2013, 08:06 PM
I think politicians' sports picks are usually done by their pollsters. I don't think you are going to see a political who is not an alumnus picking Stanford in a sporting competition very often. Given his track record, I'm feeling more confident of our team's success.
I think politicians' sports picks are usually done by their pollsters. I don't think you are going to see a political who is not an alumnus picking Stanford in a sporting competition very often. Given his track record, I'm feeling more confident of our team's success.
03-20-2013, 08:14 PM
(03-20-2013, 08:06 PM)82 Card link Wrote:I think politicians' sports picks are usually done by their pollsters.
Explaining his pick of that well-known swing state, Indiana.
(03-20-2013, 08:06 PM)82 Card link Wrote:I think politicians' sports picks are usually done by their pollsters.
Explaining his pick of that well-known swing state, Indiana.
03-20-2013, 08:33 PM
I got a little peeved at him last year, too. I wonder if the close connection between Condi Rice and Stanford WBB has caused him to shy away.Â
I thought it might have been politics, given that an association with an elite university in California carries no political benefit in most of the country. The Senator I once worked for had a Stanford Law degree but never advertised it and did everything possible to keep it out of the public eye, thinking that it would be a political liability in a poor intermountain state.Â
But politics cannot possibly explain this Barrack-e-tology (the President's term) miscue, given that he picked the 59ers, which would be even more unpopular than Stanford nearly everywhere to the right of California. Stanford has a lot of conservative credentials to go with its liberal credentials.
I thought it might have been politics, given that an association with an elite university in California carries no political benefit in most of the country. The Senator I once worked for had a Stanford Law degree but never advertised it and did everything possible to keep it out of the public eye, thinking that it would be a political liability in a poor intermountain state.Â
But politics cannot possibly explain this Barrack-e-tology (the President's term) miscue, given that he picked the 59ers, which would be even more unpopular than Stanford nearly everywhere to the right of California. Stanford has a lot of conservative credentials to go with its liberal credentials.
I got a little peeved at him last year, too. I wonder if the close connection between Condi Rice and Stanford WBB has caused him to shy away.Â
I thought it might have been politics, given that an association with an elite university in California carries no political benefit in most of the country. The Senator I once worked for had a Stanford Law degree but never advertised it and did everything possible to keep it out of the public eye, thinking that it would be a political liability in a poor intermountain state.Â
But politics cannot possibly explain this Barrack-e-tology (the President's term) miscue, given that he picked the 59ers, which would be even more unpopular than Stanford nearly everywhere to the right of California. Stanford has a lot of conservative credentials to go with its liberal credentials.
I thought it might have been politics, given that an association with an elite university in California carries no political benefit in most of the country. The Senator I once worked for had a Stanford Law degree but never advertised it and did everything possible to keep it out of the public eye, thinking that it would be a political liability in a poor intermountain state.Â
But politics cannot possibly explain this Barrack-e-tology (the President's term) miscue, given that he picked the 59ers, which would be even more unpopular than Stanford nearly everywhere to the right of California. Stanford has a lot of conservative credentials to go with its liberal credentials.
03-20-2013, 08:38 PM
I think it's amusing everyone seems to be resisting the hypothesis that this what he actually thinks will happen in the tournaments.
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
I think it's amusing everyone seems to be resisting the hypothesis that this what he actually thinks will happen in the tournaments.
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
03-20-2013, 09:29 PM
(03-20-2013, 08:38 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I think it's amusing everyone seems to be resisting the hypothesis that this what he actually thinks will happen in the tournaments.Nicely put. Another theory is that he just copied the ESPN crowd, 3/5 of whom (sadly) said exactly the same thing.
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
(03-20-2013, 08:38 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I think it's amusing everyone seems to be resisting the hypothesis that this what he actually thinks will happen in the tournaments.Nicely put. Another theory is that he just copied the ESPN crowd, 3/5 of whom (sadly) said exactly the same thing.
Weird, I know, but try the theory out. It explains a lot!
03-21-2013, 12:15 AM
I considered the possibility that O's picks reflect what he thinks and rejected it as highly improbable. I'm not nocking the guy. But he is a politician and politicians are even less likely to say what they really think than diplomats and ministers.
Why pick low APR U over Stanford when low APR U has negative image in some quarters? It's a state school and the negative image is an ancient artifact that is mostly prevalent in sectors that would never vote for a D anyway. Also, there's probably more low APR U alumni than Stanford alumni in the White House, chatting up their school's specious posturing as the people's school.
Why pick low APR U over Stanford when low APR U has negative image in some quarters? It's a state school and the negative image is an ancient artifact that is mostly prevalent in sectors that would never vote for a D anyway. Also, there's probably more low APR U alumni than Stanford alumni in the White House, chatting up their school's specious posturing as the people's school.
I considered the possibility that O's picks reflect what he thinks and rejected it as highly improbable. I'm not nocking the guy. But he is a politician and politicians are even less likely to say what they really think than diplomats and ministers.
Why pick low APR U over Stanford when low APR U has negative image in some quarters? It's a state school and the negative image is an ancient artifact that is mostly prevalent in sectors that would never vote for a D anyway. Also, there's probably more low APR U alumni than Stanford alumni in the White House, chatting up their school's specious posturing as the people's school.
Why pick low APR U over Stanford when low APR U has negative image in some quarters? It's a state school and the negative image is an ancient artifact that is mostly prevalent in sectors that would never vote for a D anyway. Also, there's probably more low APR U alumni than Stanford alumni in the White House, chatting up their school's specious posturing as the people's school.
03-21-2013, 07:58 AM
and don't forget that when Obama was elected, the 22nd Amendment was abolished.
03-21-2013, 09:00 PM
(03-21-2013, 07:58 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:and don't forget that when Obama was elected, the 22nd Amendment was abolished.
Governing these days involves a permanent campaign. OFA did not fold up its tent after the last election. Poll results still matter.
03-22-2013, 05:34 PM
(03-22-2013, 05:01 AM)garvin link Wrote:WIM also doesn't believe in the grassy knoll, thinks Neil Armstrong was actually on the moon, and doesn't even detect the whiff of sulfur in Procter & Gamble products.
So, are you saying that a politician making a politically convenient pronouncement is as far fetched as faking a moon landing? I find it improbable that an executive would be intimately familiar with each team in both the men's and women's tournaments. So most of the picks are going to be based on some other criteria. That's not very. Different from most office pool participants. Most don't know the teams very well and do it just to not be cut out of the office chat sessions.
(03-22-2013, 05:01 AM)garvin link Wrote:WIM also doesn't believe in the grassy knoll, thinks Neil Armstrong was actually on the moon, and doesn't even detect the whiff of sulfur in Procter & Gamble products.
So, are you saying that a politician making a politically convenient pronouncement is as far fetched as faking a moon landing? I find it improbable that an executive would be intimately familiar with each team in both the men's and women's tournaments. So most of the picks are going to be based on some other criteria. That's not very. Different from most office pool participants. Most don't know the teams very well and do it just to not be cut out of the office chat sessions.
03-22-2013, 08:28 PM
Features the lyric "I know" repeated several times, so close enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdIqbv7SPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdIqbv7SPo
Features the lyric "I know" repeated several times, so close enough:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdIqbv7SPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdIqbv7SPo
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »