How a Poker Player Would Analyze Picking Biden
By L. Russell Allen - Aug 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pmI know Texas Hold-Em is so 2004, but, please, bear with me.
When the poker craze was dominating television coverage on ESPN, I, like many other college students, got hooked. I got so hooked that I actually went out and purchased a book by a highly regarded poker professional, Dan Harrington. I picked Harrington’s book because he is considered a more conservative player (in terms of playing style, not politics) and because he was wearing a Red Sox hat on the cover. I am not hard to please.
One important lesson the book offers is that it’s foolish to just play your cards against what you assume your opponent is holding. That’s nothing but guesswork. It makes more sense to take your position on the table, your chip count, your pot odds (the ratio of how much you could win to how much you bet), your playing style, your opponent’s playing style, and other factors that make up a hand. Each aspect should be listed as unfavorable or favorable and if one outnumbers the other, you know whether to call a big bet or to fold and live to see another day.
I was rereading the book when Barack Obama picked Joe Biden to be his running mate and I couldn’t help but to use this type of analysis when considering whether Biden was a good or bad selection.
Senator Biden has a long and distinguished history as a public official: Very Favorable.
It’s not exactly news that Obama has only been on the national stage since 2004. And, frankly, his legislative record is thin. His claim to fame is not being in the Senate when the Authorization of Use of Military Force in Iraq came up for a vote. Selecting Biden helps deflect the charge of inexperience and Biden would be an able President of the Senate who should be of great value pushing through Obama’s legislative priorities if he takes the White House.
Senator Biden voted for the AUMF: Unfavorable.
When a presidential candidate claims he was using great judgment when opposing the AUMF (Obama was a state senator at the time, and gave a now-famous speech against the act), it’s awfully odd to select a running mate that didn’t share that same great judgment.
Senator Biden’s greatest strength is considered foreign relations: Favorable.
The Democrats are still seen as the Mommy Party. They’ll help you raise the minimum wage and get better health care, but when it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to fighting, it’s time for the Republicans, the Daddy Party, to shine.
Whether it’s accurate or not, Obama and McCain fit into that Mommy and Daddy mold. Selecting Biden is an attempt to take that mold and shatter it. It could neutralize what is perceived as McCain’s greatest strength.
If elected, Biden will no longer be a Senator: Unfavorable.
If Biden is no longer a senator, Representative Michael Castle (R-DE) should be considered a favorite to obtain Biden’s old position. That would, in essence, replace a progressive official with a conservative one. This will not help a Obama advance his legislative agenda and could present problems if an Obama presidency isn’t well-received and the midterm election has Republicans gaining seats in Congress.
Senator Biden is prone to gaffes: Unfavorable
“You can not go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent.”
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
How many more of those during a high stakes election can Obama afford?
So I have the standings at one very favorable, two favorables, and three unfavorables. In other words, about even. Which makes sense. Biden is a very safe pick. And since I, like Dan Harrington, am a more conservative poker player, I can respect that. As long as Biden doesn’t say anything spectacularly stupid, this selection won’t hurt the ticket. Obama isn’t trying to hit this one out of the ballpark. With his money and polling advantages, he probably doesn’t have to. It’s low risk, low reward. Which is optimal if you think you’re winning.
Post a Comment