A mayoral candidate, perhaps tipsy from a few drinks, advances to the runoff against the heavy favorite. She makes a brash--some would say vulgar--prediction. Should I print it?
I think an interesting issue that this raises is today's state of politics, where guarantees are folly because voters don't really respond to individual candidates but just pull the lever of their party. I guess in a primary it's different, but my sense is that entrenched factors still basically decide the outcome, and it's far from a level playing field for all. Browne was probably speaking from that sense that a lot of kids have when they run for student government, that inordinate confidence that they can make the sale, and get people to like them. I very much have mixed feelings about the value of having that kind of talent. I try not to consider popularity these days. But that political campaigns are being decided on not much of anything is very disturbing. I would even rather they were decided on something meretricious.
I would say the most ballsy predictions come in individual sports or games, where you absolutely CAN control the outcome, and where your win is really a win, and your loss a loss. So Ali and Bobby Riggs are the exemplars. Someone who does this puts enormous pressure on himself. I think the pressure is almost as great if you make a guarantee about someone else, or about a team, where you don't control what happens at all, or maybe are haunted by the 5% you can control, and worry that your guarantee has messed things up and not let nature take its course. Browne's guarantee (or, more properly assertion) -- well, no reasonable person could have expected it to turn out, could have taken it seriously. So I don't think she put much pressure on herself. But I do think in the moment she said it to you, she believed it.
I do find pure politics and campaigns pretty fascinating. Politicians are a different breed, and it's a shame we've gotten away from the importance of door-to-door campaigning. I do admire the ambition that the best of the old politicans had. The deep dive on each of the candidates profiled in "What It Takes" is interesting. I am gaining similar insight from reading the Jimmy Carter biography.
I think an interesting issue that this raises is today's state of politics, where guarantees are folly because voters don't really respond to individual candidates but just pull the lever of their party. I guess in a primary it's different, but my sense is that entrenched factors still basically decide the outcome, and it's far from a level playing field for all. Browne was probably speaking from that sense that a lot of kids have when they run for student government, that inordinate confidence that they can make the sale, and get people to like them. I very much have mixed feelings about the value of having that kind of talent. I try not to consider popularity these days. But that political campaigns are being decided on not much of anything is very disturbing. I would even rather they were decided on something meretricious.
I would say the most ballsy predictions come in individual sports or games, where you absolutely CAN control the outcome, and where your win is really a win, and your loss a loss. So Ali and Bobby Riggs are the exemplars. Someone who does this puts enormous pressure on himself. I think the pressure is almost as great if you make a guarantee about someone else, or about a team, where you don't control what happens at all, or maybe are haunted by the 5% you can control, and worry that your guarantee has messed things up and not let nature take its course. Browne's guarantee (or, more properly assertion) -- well, no reasonable person could have expected it to turn out, could have taken it seriously. So I don't think she put much pressure on herself. But I do think in the moment she said it to you, she believed it.
I do find pure politics and campaigns pretty fascinating. Politicians are a different breed, and it's a shame we've gotten away from the importance of door-to-door campaigning. I do admire the ambition that the best of the old politicans had. The deep dive on each of the candidates profiled in "What It Takes" is interesting. I am gaining similar insight from reading the Jimmy Carter biography.