Thoughts About Persuasion Checks

There are many times I can think of where I wished my real life experience was more like Dungeons and Dragons. For example, if my D&D character wants to convince a non-player character of something, the Dungeon Master might ask me to "make a Persuasion check." So if I can roll a high enough number on a 20-sided die (including bonuses for being Charismatic), the DM would inform me that I've successfully changed the NPC's mind. With a low number on the d20, however, the DM might explain that my character's arguments were simply not strong enough, or that they got nervous and said the wrong thing, for example, and the NPC remains unmoved.

In real life, the skill of persuasion is a lot more complicated than the randomness of a die-roll. First of all, you actually have to come up with the arguments you want to use, rather than leaving them to the imagination. At one time, that's what I thought was the most important part of getting someone to see your point of view: the arguments. I like to think of myself as a logical person (it's the blue mana in me), so putting myself in the opposite position, I think a clear, well-crafted argument based on facts would be the best way for someone else to change MY mind about something. However, a closer examination of this strategy shows that it's lacking a key component, one that's best summed up in the saying "it's not what you say, but how you say it."

When you come at someone with only logic and facts, it presents yourself as "the one who knows." This in turn presents the person who's mind you want to change as "the one with insufficient information and inferior/flawed reasoning." Even if your facts are impeccable and your arguments are perfect enough to convince someone that they are wrong about something, it can be extremely hard for that person to accept that they are wrong. A good persuasion check is not just a good argument, but also takes into account the mental state of the character who is the target of the check.

I realize now that my focus on the content of a position (philosophical, political, or otherwise) only looks at the end result: here is a position THAT I HOLD, and I want it to be a position THAT YOU HOLD. It completely ignores the process of TRANSITIONING from "the position you currently hold" to "the position I want you to hold." If someone holds an incorrect position, what was the method by which they arrived at that position? And what's the broader point of view of someone who holds that position? And what might that point of view tell me about the likelihood of that person's changing their mind? And why?

This is why in D&D there's additional modifiers that you add to your skill checks if you've trained in that particular skill. For example, a character who is "proficient in Persuasion" might have put a lot of thought into the above topics, and come up with some useful working theories. I haven't done a lot of training in this skill myself, and I wouldn't claim to be a naturally charismatic persuader. But one thing I'm reasonably sure of is that no one changes their mind by being bewildered. D&D has the Intimidation skill for that. Unfortunately, that's how many of the people with the most convincing facts/arguments tend to engage on platforms such as Twitter. Or, if you're a GOP lawmaker, on the floor of congress.

In the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," I would say the first step is to look at persuasion from the point of view of compassion, particularly self-compassion. Changing one's belief system is a difficult process, no matter for what reason. Once again putting myself in the opposite position, and thinking of what frame of mind would make me most likely to change my beliefs, it would be if the convincer had some compassion for the worldview-changing ordeal I would be going through. And then of course I would need to have some compassion for myself, not just for how hard it is to change one's opinion, but as a consolation for holding incorrect beliefs to begin with.

Of course there's the real danger of appearing condescending when striving for compassion; or alternatively, of beating yourself up when it comes to self-compassion. There's tips to avoiding those pitfalls and more in Kristin Neff's book "Self Compassion." The point is that in order to change someone's mind, you have to come at it from a position of caring about that person. Which is, come to think of it, how we should go about all communication, and much of everyday life in general. But convincing some people of that is a whole 'nother story.

Thoughts on Convincing People to Give Up Power

So much has changed since my last post. In the twelve days since I took a 10-year retrospective look at the Gemini Twins fantasy astrology baseball team of 2009, we've seen people in all 50 states (myself among them) take to the streets in protests against abhorrent police brutality against Black people, most recently the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. While these demonstrations have made it clear that Americans are ready for a complete reimagining of our country's approach to policing, they have also jolted me and many of my white friends into the (much too delayed) realization that we have been passively complicit in the systemic racism in our society. We have all started doing work, in our own ways, to get more informed and become better allies, in what will be an ongoing effort. 

Of course, there's also the struggle to be an "effective" ally, rather than just a "good" ally. And now I'm reading certain things that say allies are not what's needed, and we're NOT supposed to call ourselves allies? I guess that makes sense - "being an ally" sounds like something that one can achieve, rather than describing the lifelong process of learning, growing, and acting effectively. So much is changing so fast, including perceptions. And before I get bogged down with the labels of what I'm trying to become, I'll say that first and foremost I'm trying to learn more about the issues at stake here and be a more effective citizen in general.

Like many of us white people, I've started reading more material by Black writers, including Ta-Nehisi Coates. One line from "We Were Eight Years In Power" stood out to me as especially relevant: "What people anywhere on this earth has ever, out of a strong moral feeling, ceded power?" I feel like this applies particularly to the police, an institution that has its roots in exerting power over Black bodies. Even as someone who has been personally anti-police for many years, it took me WAY too long to learn that our current model of policing rose out of slave patrols (and colonial anti-insurrectionist tactics and violent strike-breakers). In addition, police departments have been given a tremendous amount of power in recent times, through reliance on them for an increasingly varied tasks (for which they are NOT suited), and inflated government budgets that reflect this reliance. 

Calls to defund or abolish the police have gained national attention in the wake of protests against police brutality, with one major city already taking steps to disband their police department, and transition to community-based approach to public safety, rather than the severe focus on crime and punishment. But while the situation in Minneapolis is heartening for sure, that's just one of the roughly 18,000 individual police departments in the country. So for everywhere else, my question now is, how do we get the police - or rather, the people in power who benefit from the destructive actions of the police - to give up this power?

Sure, studies have shown that the police as an institution are relatively inadequate when it comes to preventing crime, and that in many cases, their presence in communities actually makes those communities less safe. But for most people, it's not enough to assume that they will be willing to change their life-long conceptions about how society works when presented some data points, no matter how convincing or well-researched they may be. This is especially true if these people have something to gain from the status quo remaining in place; i.e. if they enjoy the protection by the police rather than suffer from persecution by them (i.e. if they are white and/or own property). Going back to the Coates quote above about ceding power, it's unreasonable to believe that city councils across the country will vote to do the right thing for their communities, if there's even the slightest belief that doing so will be a threat to their ability to maintain power.

But going beyond the intellectual realm of agreeing on and adopting policy, even if communities vote to disband their police departments and go through all the proper channels to make it a reality, who's going to physically relieve the police of the power they've accumulated? It's like the gun rights fanatics, even some elected officials, who respond with threats of violence to measured proposals to remove unnecessarily deadly weapons from our streets -- how do you think the police themselves will respond to policies that promise to reduce their personal power? Do you think they'll just hand over their guns, tanks, riot gear, tear gas, and rubber bullets just because some politicians think it will be safer for their constituents? It's not like police across the country have ever hesitated to act in ways that prove the case against themselves, time and time again.

Of course, we won't have to worry about this particular doomsday endgame scenario for a long long time, not until many people are convinced of the need to abolish police and agree on the best methods to make that a reality. And I'm the long process to come will include effective plans about how to transition to a police-free state in a way that leaves everybody satisfied. But that's the problem with a good compromise: it tends to have the opposite effect.

I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: after having read just the first two chapters of Beyond Policing by Alex Vitale (being offered as a free ebook on Verso), I'm naturally going to have a lot more questions than answers. I'm hoping to find some of these answers in later chapters of the book, or in some of the resources offered by MPD150, as they work with the city of Minneapolis to disband their police department. But either way, I know that I won't be discouraged by the difficult nature of the questions I'm now beginning to consider. I'll use that very difficulty as motivation to learn more and fight harder. Because it's now starting to become clear that the future welfare of our communities is what's at stake here.

Thoughts About Super Tuesday 2020

In early 2016, Donald Trump was gaining momentum in the Republican presidential primary. Trump presented himself as an outsider who could shake things up: with no political experience whatsoever, he was known as a charismatic yet mostly failed business tycoon and a moderately successful reality TV star. By all appearances, the Republican establishment was not happy with Trump’s presence in the presidential race: for example, take Lindsey Graham’s oft-retweeted warning:

If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016

However, Trump’s message apparently appealed to voters, he got the nomination, and the Republicans were not destroyed (except in the sense of being morally compromised, but that’s nothing new for politicians).

I am not a practiced political thinker, but I have developed two primary theories for how this happened. The first theory is that the GOP machine truly attempted to block Trump, but was too inept to stop his rise. Maybe everyone in the party who criticized and opposed Trump did so genuinely, but whether because of excessive pride or inadequate dealmaking efforts, nobody was able to do anything about him. The second theory is more sinister: Republicans secretly supported Trump all along, and they deliberately railed against him publicly to bolster his "renegade" image. Proponents of this theory would likely refer to the above-quoted tweet as an instance of Lindsey Graham playing "4D chess," but I prefer to call it good old-fashioned deception. Again, nothing new where politicians are concerned.

Fast forward to late February 2020. Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum in the Democratic presidential primary. Like Trump, Bernie was seen as an outsider in his party, but unlike Trump - whose message was based on hate, fear, and mockery - Bernie espoused progressive policies like universal healthcare, fair taxation of the super wealthy, and combating the climate crisis. Also, in an across-the-aisle mirror of the 2016 Republican primary, the Democratic establishment was nervous of Bernie's rise, as his socialist leanings threatened to upend how the political machine traditionally operated. But unlike the GOP in 2016, moderate Democrats were able to successfully consolidate against Bernie and hand him a defeat on Super Tuesday.

I've heard a lot of talk about how support for Joe Biden comes from the belief that he's the only candidate who can win the general election against Trump in November. But to me (and according to the polls that I've read), that rings patently false. We've been sold the "vote for you HAVE TO vote for in November" idea back in 2016, and yet Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. It's not that voters are just petulantly deciding to stay home because their favorite candidate isn't on the ballot; it's that many voters simply have no faith that the political party establishment - the one that determines which candidate you HAVE TO vote for - knows what it takes to win.

The fact is that Bernie has the very same "outsider" status and outspoken persona that helped Trump achieve power in his own party. And yet the Democratic party brass are not embracing this strategy that proved successful for their opponents, choosing to rally behind the established party figurehead. To me, this strategy has less to do with "electability" and more to do with a fear of progressive ideas that I've seen best expressed in this tweet by Nando Vila:

The Democratic Party is more committed to stopping mild social democracy than to stopping fascism. They would rather lose to Trump than give the citizens of this dying, decrepit empire the same basic rights the average European citizen takes for granted.

— Nando (@nandorvila) March 3, 2020

Do I think Joe Biden would make a better president than Donald Trump? Absolutely. Do I think a Biden presidency would usher in the types of changes that our country needs to adequately support the middle class and reverse the seemingly inevitable climate disaster our world is facing? Not as presently presented. And certainly not more than the presidency of a progressive like Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (who was consistently the most capable and prepared candidate in the Democratic field, but institutional sexism and misogyny is a subject for another post).

That said, I would happily* vote for Biden in November, IF I thought he had the best chance to beat Trump. The thing is, I haven't seen any evidence that Biden is the more "electable" candidate, which makes the actions of the Democrats that much more confusing. I will for sure vote for any candidate running against Trump, and a lot can change between now and November. But as of now, these are some reasons why Super Tuesday 2020 has left me feeling depressed.

All-MLB Player Union Rep Team 2019-20

In honor of Netflix's The Irishman - which, if you haven't defied Martin Scorsese and streamed it on your phone yet, centers on Jimmy Hoffa's tenure atop the International Brotherhood of Teamsters - I'm going to take a deep dive into the players at the forefront of Major League Baseball's collective bargaining union: the MLB Player's Association. The terrific website MLB Trade Rumors dot com recently profiled the known player representatives for each team, with the caveat that some information is incomplete and/or subject to change. But given this snapshot, I thought it would be fun to organize these labor-minded players into a projected roster and see what it might look like. Here's the list, with player entries taken from my MLB 2019 database, sorted by position:

The first thing to notice is the abundance of shortstops in the player pool. What, a guy is named the "captain of the infield," and all of a sudden he thinks he can speak for his team in labor matters? The next thing I want to mention are the six stray players at the bottom. The first group is former player reps who no longer play for the team that they once represented. The second group are pension committee reps (with one alternate) who aren't also affiliated with a team. So without further ado, let's analyze a potential All-Player's Union Roster!

At the front of the starting rotation, Max Scherzer has not only been one of the most successful player of the last decade (because all-decade stuff is cool for another four days, right?), but also one of the most outspoken, making him a good leader for both on and off-field issues. Following him is recently-acquired Yankees lefty James Paxton, the man known as "Big Maple," due to his large stature and Canadian ancestry, who provides the perspective of a north-of-the-border hurler. Another pair of lefties, Marco Gonzales, of Paxton's former Mariners team, and Andrew Heaney, who plays in Anaheim, are just starting to come into their own. It would be a lot easier to round out this rotation if we could dip into the former player reps - Chase Anderson used to represent the Brewers, but he was traded to the Blue Jays this offseason. Otherwise we'd have to bank on a super-early return to health for Pirates once and future ace Jameson Taillon's elbow.

The pool for the all union bullpen (can we just start calling this team the Unions?) is made up of 75 percent Geminis. Matt Barnes was once considered the Red Sox closer heir-apparent, after the departure of Craig Kimbrel, but before the emergence of Brandon Workman. Andrew Miller was once considered one of the game's top lefty relievers, but could his chronic overuse in the 2016 postseason have hampered his future potential? There's no choice but to draw from the Executive Sub-Committee here, where Collin McHugh adds some length to the staff, as he has had both starting and relief experience in his career with the Astros. However, McHugh is only an Alternate member of the Pension Committee; full member Cory Gearrin was little more than a bit player in terms of 2019 fantasy points.

Not only do the Unions have access to three catchers, but the top two are uniquely suited to a platoon arrangement - Tucker Barnhart is a left-handed hitter known for his defensive prowess, while Tyler Flowers is a bat-first righty. Rounding out Gearrin's co-rep on the pension sub-committee, veteran free agent Chris Iannetta would be great to have in the proverbial labor minor leagues - or just as a third catcher. A roster can have a little third catcher, as a treat. Going by POS and PTS, Phillies slugging first baseman Rhys Hoskins would be the best bet to put up the most points at his customary position. You'll notice that there are technically no qualified second basemen in the player pool, but we can draw from our bumper crop of shortstops. My best solution would be to move Athletics MVP candidate, and highest-scoring All-Union player, Marcus Semien to the keystone, with Indians trade candidate Francisco Lindor remaining at short.

Speaking of Lindor, the Puerto Rican-born "Mr. Smile" is one of only three Latin American born players in the All-Union talent pool. The other two: both Venezuelan shortstops: Rangers veteran Elvis Andrus (from Maracay) and Marlins superutility type Miguel Rojas (Los Teques). Moving around the horn to third base, Kris Bryant is the top eligible point scorer there (no matter when he eventually becomes a free agent), but if you've skipped ahead to the dearth of outfield options, you'll see that he's needed in the grass. The good news is that leaves the hot corner for Justin Turner, whose 2020 position could be in flux, depending on whether the Dodgers score a big trade for an infielder. (Maybe Lindor, anyone? What would be the competitive advantage of hoarding player union reps?)

At the end of the official team reps, you'll see Michael Conforto of the Mets, the only eligible primary outfielder - who luckily also has secondary eligibility in center field, where he needs to play. Bryant can occupy another corner (let's call it right field), but how do we round out the outfield mix? Should we return to shortstop? Surely either Andrus or defensive whiz Nick Ahmed has the athletic ability to handle left field, despite a TOTAL lack of MLB experience for each one. We could look at Hoskins's 2018 as the primary left fielder in Philadelphia, but  we can all agree that experiment didn't go too well - even though that arrangement would leave 1B in the capable hands of the veteran lefty Daniel Murphy. But a more traditional solution lies in the former player reps. Gold Glove left fielder Alex Gordon used to speak for the Royals, before he hit free agency, and the consensus is that he'll either retire, or re-sign with Kansas City, in which case he would presumably return to his union rep role because why not? I hope the Aquarius outfielder comes back, because, to paraphrase Hanibal Lector, the league's more interesting with Gordon in it.


If you take into account Taillon's injury, which will likely keep him out of action until the summer, there are exactly enough confirmed union-related MLB'ers to make a 25-player roster. (Never mind that the limit is going up to an even (yet somehow infinitely less satisfying) 26 players next year.) I have no idea how a team like this would perform in a simulation against the rest of the league. (I recently had to uninstall MLB19 to make room on my PS4 for MK11, so I can't run the numbers myself.) But with so many players accustomed to life at the negotiating table, I'll bet the clubhouse chemistry would be off the charts... in one direction or another.

If the Season Ended Today 2018 Runners Up

When I started the 2018 version of "If the Season Ended Today," it was understood that "Today" would refer to "the All-Star Break." However, the momentum has shifted in a couple of key playoff races between then and now, and I thought it would only be proper to highlight that here in an additional post. Entering play today (the REAL today, Monday, August 6), the Diamondbacks are tied with the Dodgers for the NL West lead, and the Athletics have overtaken the Mariners for the AL's second Wild Card spot. Since division titles are more highly prized in today's system (even though, if the season actually ended today, the co-leaders would be subject to another one-game playoff, although this one would be called "Game 163" rather than a Wild Card Game), let's start with the D-Backs.

Sticking with the All-Star theme, even though it's been nearly three weeks since the All-Star Game, Arizona sent three representatives to Washington for this year's festivities. Slugging Virgo first baseman Paul Goldschmidt was selected to the roster by MLB, and ended up batting cleanup as the DH - right in front of fellow slugging Virgo first baseman Freddie Freeman... who was himself subbed out later in the game for yet a THIRD slugging Virgo first baseman Joey Votto. Nobody said fantasy astrology baseball was fair. The other two ARI All-Stars were pitchers: Patrick Corbin was another MLB selection, while Zack Greinke was picked as a replacement for Jon Lester, although neither actually made it into the game.

In terms of injuries, they're responsible for Jake Lamb's depressed point total - he missed time earlier in the year and recently went back on the disabled list. But one player's crisis is another's opportunity, as utility infielder Daniel Descalso had a chance to shine while filling in for him. A couple of outfielders acquired in the offseason were also hit by the injury bug: Jarrod Dyson (495 points as of the break, 7.4 points per game) is still on the DL as of this writing, while Steven Souza Jr. (112 / 4.9) is active, but the amount of time he missed so far has all but made him a non-factor; plus it opened the door for the trade for Jon Jay. The rotation was bolstered by another oft-injured midseason acquisition - this one by way of a minor league deal - in Clay Buchholz, who has rediscovered some of his old form with 423 points and 60.4 PPG. He was activated a week after the ASG, in a transaction that saw Matt Koch return to the minors.

Moving on to trades made after the All-Star Break, the Diamondbacks made plenty of them, and by plenty, I mean four. The only post-break offensive upgrade sought by GM Mike Hazen was to pick up slugging Twins infielder Eduardo Escobar (1,100 / 12.2) basically as a way to answer Jake Lamb's struggles. The other three swaps were made with an eye toward improving the Snakes' bullpen: a week before the deadline saw them snag long relief specialist / spot starter Matt Andriese (382 / 14.7) from the Rays, then deadline day saw Arizona land a pair of setup arms in their own former closer Brad Ziegler (512 / 10.9) from the Marlins, and colon-less lefty Jake Diekman (348 / 8.5) from the Rangers. However, the most significant bullpen addition might have been when T.J. McFarland (598 / 17.6) was activated from his own DL stint, the day before Buchholz made it back to the active roster. We'll see if this group can hold off the Dodgers and the Rockies for division lead, as all three teams currently trail the two NL Wild Card contenders.

When I wrote about the Phillies in my 30 Teams in 30 Days feature earlier this year, I talked about how teams are often most exciting to watch at the time when they're set to emerge from a period of rebuilding. While that's usually true, another, perhaps even more exciting time to be a fan of a particular team is when, like the 2018 A's, they were not at all expected to contend, and yet something just clicks. All-Stars Jed Lowrie and Blake Treinen lead a very impressive offense and an unexpectedly lights-out bullpen, respectively, but Oakland has had worse injury luck in their rotation than basically any team except their cross-state rival Angels: no fewer than four projected starters have undergone the dreaded Tommy John surgery this year (Kendall Graveman, Jharel Cotton, Daniel Gossett, and prospect A.J. Puk), and that doesn't include currently DL'd starters Paul Blackburn and Andrew Triggs. But the current group of spare parts, including a combination of former A's can't-miss prospects (Cahill and Anderson) and journeyman reclamation projects (Edwin Jackson) have held their own just fine.

The rotation had been so effective that Oakland's front office braintrust of GM David Forst and President of Baseball Operations Billy Beane decided not to add any starters at the deadline. In fact, the only addition the team made before July 31st was former Mets closer Jeurys Familia (with a very strong total of 929 points at the break, at a rate of 23.2 points per game), who presents a bit of a moral quandary for an A's fan to root for, given that he does have a domestic violence suspension on his resume. Speaking of embattled relievers (although not on nearly the same scale), just yesterday the Athletics picked up Shawn Kelley (345 / 11.1) after he was designated for assignment by the Nationals due to attitude problems - specifically "act(ing) like a baby" in a recent appearance. But these cases pale in comparison to the most controversial bullpen trade at the deadline. UPDATE: Just moments ago, the news broke that Forst & Co. claimed on waivers, and then swung a trade with the Tigers for, starting pitcher Mike Fiers (818 / 45.4), a deal that had erroneously been reported to have happened at the deadline. But now back to what I was talking about before.

I did a lot of reading on the subject of Jeurys Familia when he was acquired by the A's. On Halloween night 2016, Familia was arrested on a domestic violence charge, after his wife called the police claiming that he was "drunk" and "going crazy." In the ensuing month and a half, his wife dropped the charges and the case was dismissed. I am aware that there can be mitigating, sometimes sinister, circumstances that can lead to a victim close to their abuser choosing not to pursue such a case further, but it nevertheless sheds some light on the circumstances. Despite the case's resolution, the Commissioner's Office suspended Familia for the first 15 games of the next season, and that was the end of the story. I'm ashamed to say that I had actually forgotten about this whole saga until Familia's name surfaced in trade rumors this year.

The case of former Blue Jays closer Roberto Osuna has played out significantly differently this year. While details of his case have not been made public, at the time of his acquisition by the Astros, Osuna was still in the midst of a 75-game suspension, the second-longest such suspension issued for domestic assault. (The longest, an 82-game ban, was served by Hector Olivera, who hasn't returned to affiliated ball since.) It's important to note that these types of suspensions are at the discretion of the Commissioner, and thus have no legal basis, and tend to be quite reactionary in nature. But it's just as important to note that the assault charges against Osuna have decidedly NOT been dropped and the case against him is still ongoing - his attorneys represented him at a hearing on August 1, two days after the trade went down, and he's scheduled to be in court again September 5, right in the middle of the stretch run.

It's almost surreal to be talking about baseball playoff implications within the framework of domestic violence, but that remains a grim reality, given that a player suspended in this manner is still eligible to compete in the MLB postseason. This is not the case for players suspended for use of performance enhancing drugs, which to me seems like a glaring moral lapse on the part of MLB. It's basically an admission that the organization does not care one bit about a player's character, so long as their actions didn't directly affect their play on the field. But beyond that, it's perhaps an even more glaring lapse on the part of Houston's front office to willingly acquire such a player and put him in the national spotlight of a playoff race. Before the trade, Osuna would have languished on Toronto's restricted list, safely out of contention for the rest of the year, but now the defending World Series champions have abandoned any semblance of pretending to foster a positive clubhouse environment, and laid bare their cold, calculating, win-at-all-costs mentality... which, in fairness, is likely shared by all major sports teams, and all big businesses in general. But that doesn't mean that it's not going to impact the fans (or, in fact, the players) in a negative way.

Roberto Osuna was reinstated from his suspension yesterday, but didn't appear for Houston in their 3-2 loss to the Dodgers. Honestly, the best case scenario for the Astros might be that he pitches poorly for the next month and is subsequently shipped off to Canadian prison in September, effectively removing a potential postseason PR disaster from the table. But part of me wonders if the damage hasn't already been done.

Thoughts About Primaries...

Last night, CNN hosted the final debate to take place before the Florida Republican Primary, which is on Tuesday 1/31.  The debate featured the four remaining candidates: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum - a pool that has been significantly narrowed over the previous three contests in the primary process.  By all accounts Romney, the once and future frontrunner, stood his ground against Newt Gingrich, who is generally considered the better debater.  Each candidate's performance in the debate says a lot about their chances of winning the Republican nomination for President, and about their chances of challenging incumbent Barack Obama.  But rather than picking apart their responses to questions about the hot-button issues or analyzing their speech patterns and facial expressions for insight into such crucial intangibles as confidence and leadership qualities, let's take a look at how they all got here.

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the only two holdover candidates from the 2008 Republican primaries.  Last election cycle, Romney had some epic clashes with eventual nominee John McCain during the debates, and eventually dropped out of the race in early February.  The former Massachusetts Governor can be recognized by his decidedly Mormon family (an endless stream of smiling, healthy-looking offspring, all dressed in white) and his eerily Manchurian Candidate-esque appearance and mannerisms.  Ron Paul resembles your friend's hip grandpa: he's the oldest candidate on the ballot (even a year older than McCain, although he doesn't look it), he wears a lot of sweaters, and he's never shy about rambling on about his crazy ideas.  The former gynecologist's politics lean more towards Libertarian than Republican, but the GOP has been kind to him during his 20+ years serving in the House of Representatives for Texas, so he remains on the party's ticket.

In his first ever presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich was surging after his double digit victory in last weekend's South Carolina primary, but after last night's debate, pundits are quick to announce that his momentum is waning.  Gingrich served as speaker of the House during the Clinton administration, and is quick to take a bunch of credit for the period of peacetime and economic expansion that Clinton presided over during that time, the longest in the country's history.  Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is still hanging in this race, refusing to throw in the towel mostly based on his win in Iowa.  He won by just 34 votes over Romney, and the contest would have instantly been headed to recount-town were it anything but a non-binding caucus.

The most talked-about candidate who didn't even make it to the primaries has to be Herman Cain, he of the questionable sexual history and policy plans taken straight out of a videogame.  Michele Bachmann took her haunting stare out of the race after Iowa, and Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman followed suit after New Hampshire (despite the latter candidate garnering a strong 3rd place finish with 17% of the vote).  Huntsman - who was a member of a band called The Wizards while growing up in Palo Alto, CA - endorsed fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, while Texas Governor Perry endorsed Gingrich, setting the stage for their all-out battle in South Carolina.

Pundits claimed that South Carolina primary voters pride themselves on voting for the eventual nominee.  With Romney looking like the clear favorite leaving New Hampshire, it's interesting that they didn't jump on the bandwagon and effectively wrap this thing up before Florida.  The fact that they picked Gingrich says a lot about the importance of debates and drives home the point that a poor or effective performance can make or break an election - as if Nixon didn't teach us that lesson effectively enough back in 1960.  But with Romney leading in delegates and in the polls, coupled with his triumph at last night's debates, puts him in a pretty darn good position going forward.  That is, unless the Ron Paul Revolution spreads across the nation (as we all know is inevitable, even if it takes a different name).  If you live in Florida, make sure to vote this coming Tuesday.  And if you hail from anywhere else, just clap your hands if you believe...