This might be a bit off topic, but I just learned that Ty Cobb has been expelled from the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The decision to expel Cobb from the HOF is sure to make waves.  After all, Cobb holds the records for highest lifetime batting average and most batting titles.  He also has the second most hits all time, trailing only Pete Rose.  

The Baseball Writers' Association, however, overwhelmingly determined last week that the standards for the HOF should be changed immediately.  As one member of the Association stated today, "We determined that, in hindsight, things like batting average and career hits are poor metrics for baseball greatness.  The proper metric should always have been home runs.  In fact, we believe that the inventor of baseball, Abner Doubleday, should have recognized this 125 years ago.  We urge Commissioner Selig to immediately implement a rule that any hit that fails to clear the fence is an automatic out -- just like the rule for home run derby."  

Consistent with its new position, the Writers' Association is expected to induct slugger Dave Kingman to the HOF next year.  Although Kingman hit only .236 over the course of his 16-year career, he managed to slug 442 home runs and, under the Writers' Association's proposed new rules, would have been the top hitter of his generation.

The grandson of Ty Cobb lashed out at the Writers' Association's decision.  "Had my grandfather been informed that only home runs would count, he wouldn't have spent his career slapping doubles and triples.  Instead, he would have spent all his time swinging for the fences.  Sure, he would have struck out a hell of a lot, but he also would have hit just as many home runs as Kingman did."  

I am curious how people respond to the following thought experiment:

Assume that you have a crystal ball.  This crysal ball tells you certain things about the future.  The crystal ball is never wrong, and you know that it is never wrong.

Tomorrow morning, the crystal ball tells you that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would each defeat John McCain in Ohio by four points (52 to 48) in the general election.  The crystal ball tells you that it cannot and will not divulge any other information about the outcome of the general election.  

Later in the day, much to your surprise you are informed that you are a Democratic Party superdelegate (without any affiliation to any particular state).  You are told, however, that you must endorse either Clinton or Obama immedately.

Which candidate do you endorse,and why?

One meme that the Clinton campaign is trying to offer based on last night's results is that Clinton's win in Ohio -- which was a decisive one that should be congratulated -- demonstrates that she stands the best chance of winning 270 electoral college votes in November.

This meme has appeal to the extent that, had John Kerry or Al Gore won Ohio, they would have won the presidency.  Therefore, Democrats have an apparent notion that if they win Ohio, they will automatically win the presidency.  Although this notion is simplistic -- it assumes that it would be impossible for, say, Wisconsin or New Hampshire to flip red at the same time Ohio is flipping blue -- I recognize the appeal.

However, there needs to be a far more serious analysis about whether the results from a given state's primary election -- particularly in this unique year -- is actually a good indicator of general election viability.  A starting point for such an analysis is comparing the Democratic vote totals last night by county to George W. Bush's vote totals by county in the 2004 election.  

Just as Clinton won the Ohio popular vote decisively, so too did Barack Obama win the major populations centers of Cleveland, Cincinatti, and Columbus decisively.  Clinton's win was on the backs of extremely large victories in the smaller counties statewide.  In fact, a comparison of the 2004 general election results demonstrates that Clinton won Ohio by winning big in the counties that George W. Bush won decisively in the 2004 election.  So one question is whether Clinton could actually win those counties -- or keep them significantly closer than John Kerry did -- in the general election.

I don't have the time to go county by county, but let's take one -- Clermont County -- just for comparison sake.  I picked it at random, though it did have a pretty good sample.

March 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton = 15,850
Barack Obama = 9, 821
        TOTAL = 25,671

November 2004
George Bush = 62,949
John Kerry = 25,887

Now, 2.2 million votes were cast in the Democratic primary last night, as opposed to 2.7 million votes for John Kerry in 2004.  So, we can safely assume that the turnout last night -- while high -- was still lower than it will be for the general election.  Nevertheless, I find it striking that, notwithstanding her huge percentage victories in the smaller Ohio counties -- which collectively ran up her vote totals to an insurmountable number -- her total vote totals in these counties pale in comparison to the amount of votes that George Bush received from the same counties in 2004.  And, indeed, the total number of votes cast for Obama and Clinton combined in these counties were still far less than Bush received in 2004.

So what does this tell us?  We'd have to do a sophisticated regression analysis to be sure.  But I think that this is an interesting starting point for a discussion, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.