Why I'll Vote for Mitt ...

The RedState blog has a current entry that castigates Mitt Romney as presaging the end to the Conservative movement after he loses to The Barry next year (see: Red State Blog.)  Mitt Romney seems to have legions of detractors within the Republican party: Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson (of the RedState blog), Howie Carr, Michael Graham, etc.  There even is a movement called  "Anyone But Mitt".  Most of this distaste arises from serious doubts about his Conservative credentials.  He was for abortions before he was against them; he ushered Romneycare into Massachusetts as a precursor to Obamacare;  etc.  However valid these doubts are, there is one reason, I'll vote for Romney -- he has the best chance of fixing this country's economic malaise.  And I believe that he will assemble around him the kind of people who understand how our economic engine is assembled and what it takes to bring about its overhaul. All else is, for the nonce, unimportant.

Yes, there will be fusillades of opposition TV ads attacking Romney next year (assuming he gets the nomination) about his vacillating on these issues, his Wall Street ties, and many Latter-Day-Saints innuendos.  After all, how will The Barry spend his billion dollar political war chest?  (A friend in the know has even suggested that Romney may have trouble buying TV spots leading up to the election ... since Obama, with all his campaign funds, will have reserved all the premium TV-spot buys.)  But, I have not, nor will I give up on Romney as I think, if he is elected, he will do what it takes to fix things ... like he did with the 2002 Winter Olympics.  Interestingly, David Brooks likes him too for President (see: David Brooks Endorsement) ... perhaps it's, once again, the crease in his pants?  And I also kind of doubt that there will be a Romney bimbo eruption eleven months hence.

By the bye, has anyone noticed the juxtaposition possibilities between Mitt Romney and Stephen Colbert?  Put a pair of rimless glasses on Romney and he could host the Colber(t) Repor(t).

$330 Million

Tonight’s Mega Millions jackpot is estimated at $330 million (I suspect it will be bigger). The odds of winning on a single $1 ticket are 176 million to one. Thus, according to a game-theory construct, buying a ticket in this lottery is worthwhile since the expected return is almost $2 for a $1 bet (330/176). So today I bought $20 worth of tickets which makes my odds of winning 8.8 million to one (176/20) … still pretty long odds but a bit of an improvement. In fact, one might compare the odds of winning on the purchase of one ticket to the chance of you trying to contact an old friend (who you know lives in the U.S. but not where) by picking up the phone and punching in 10 random numbers after hitting “1.” If, when this phone call is answered, it is your old friend, then you have won the equivalent of the Mega Millions lottery.

It actually would make more sense to buy 176 million tickets since winning $330 million (more or less) would be almost assured. (However, I doubt if you could find a convenience store that would accommodate such a request.) Although not exactly the same analogy, Michael Graham on local talk radio makes the salient point that, if you had bought every Mega Millions ticket sold over the last 15 picks, you still wouldn’t have won since this is the number of consecutive no-winner drawings.  He adds that he never buys lottery tickets since the lottery is effectively a tax on the stupid.  I guess I have now moved with both feet into this category.