Backlash against Jeopardy! winner reveals Democrats hate winners (and number-crunchers)

If anyone wants to see what is wrong with journalists' and other Democrats' thought processes, they should read Charles Lane's (another genius from the Washington Post) writing about the Jeopardy! champion.  He thinks it is terrible that James Holzhauer seems to be much smarter than his opponents (it should be noted that he won by only $18 on Monday) and calls him a menace.  It is just so unfair.

Heaven forbid that Holzhauer plays by the same rules as everyone else but seem to be a better player and smarter.  Lane complains that we pay too much attention to numbers now.  I hope the Washington Post doesn't keep track of its circulation and that it doesn't charge advertisers based on number of papers sold.  I also hope Lane doesn't make more than other journalists.  That would be unfair.

I am one of the millions who are amazed and enjoying the winning streak. 

Somehow, Lane thinks it is unfair that: 

Like the number crunchers who now rule America's pastime, Holzhauer substitutes cold, calculating odds-maximization for spontaneous play. His idea is to select, and respond correctly to, harder, big-dollar clues on the show's 30-square gameboard first. Then, flush with cash, he searches the finite set of hiding places for the "Daily Double" clue, which permits players to set their own prize for a correct response — and makes a huge bet. Responding correctly, Holzhauer often builds an insurmountable lead before the show is half over.

I wonder why Lane hasn't figured out that the other players have the same opportunity to push their buzzer and answer the questions and run up their cash if they know the answers.

Maybe Lane thinks James needs to redistribute his winnings in the same way Democrats think we should redistribute money.  We certainly shouldn't reward success, unless, of course, it is politicians and others surrounding D.C. who get rich off the rest of us.  Then that is fair.

Charles Lane: 'Jeopardy!' has stopped being fun because James Holzhauer is a menace

To the multitudes who have rooted Holzhauer on, I have just one question: Do you not see that this guy is a menace?

The only thing more troubling, as a commentary on American culture, than his grinning, relentless, march to victory — regardless of when, or if, it ends — is that millions celebrated it.

People seemed not to care that Holzhauer's streak reflects the same grim, data-driven approach to competition that has spoiled (among other sports) baseball, where it has given us the "shift," "wins above replacement," "swing trajectories" and other statistically valid but unholy innovations.

Like the number crunchers who now rule America's pastime, Holzhauer substitutes cold, calculating odds-maximization for spontaneous play. His idea is to select, and respond correctly to, harder, big-dollar clues on the show's 30-square gameboard first. Then, flush with cash, he searches the finite set of hiding places for the "Daily Double" clue, which permits players to set their own prize for a correct response — and makes a huge bet. Responding correctly, Holzhauer often builds an insurmountable lead before the show is half over.

I do understand why Lane and other Democrats don't like people focusing on facts and numbers.  It is so much better for Americans to just spew forth regurgitated Democrat talking points.  Facts are inconvenient. 

We get people like Beto and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making up stuff about the climate.  They say we are all going to die if we don't take trillions from the public, and most of the media just go along.  It doesn't matter how many predictions like that have been made in the past, and that they have always been 100% wrong.

Joe Biden can say the middle class is suffering when it is doing better than any year when he and Obama were in charge, and the media will stay silent or support him. 

Biden and other Democrats will just repeat over and over again that only the rich benefited from the tax cuts.  We certainly don't want number-crunchers to correct these lies to the public. 

Colleges can make up whatever rules they want to admit students if they don't pay attention to scores and excellence.  Keeping score is so unfair.

It is sad when journalists complain about a person winning too much and call the person a menace just because he is smarter and plays the game better.

Pretty soon, we get a party that thinks it is entitled to confiscate a greater share from successful people who have worked hard and paid taxes throughout their lives for themselves to spend as they like. 

The word that is always used is "fair," and of course Democrats are the arbitrators of what the meaning of fair is.  They are greedy because they never can get enough for government — but if someone wins too much on Jeopardy!, that is unfair. 

I now understand why Democrats hate Trump and consider him a menace.  They can't stand the thought that Trump has been running up the economic score in the private sector.  Those damn number-crunchers have shown over 3% economic growth over a year now when the Democrats who don't like numbers say that couldn't happen.  He has been running up wages after years of stagnation with low inflation when we were told that couldn't happen.  The menace has been lifting up minorities and the less educated, and Democrats prefer that those people remain dependent on government and devoted to them. 

It is truly a menace to Democrats when they have to lie about the economy to scare the public.  They like to say how good the economy was under Obama when he and Biden gave the American people the slowest economic recovery in seventy years due to their stifling policies.

If anyone wants to see what is wrong with journalists' and other Democrats' thought processes, they should read Charles Lane's (another genius from the Washington Post) writing about the Jeopardy! champion.  He thinks it is terrible that James Holzhauer seems to be much smarter than his opponents (it should be noted that he won by only $18 on Monday) and calls him a menace.  It is just so unfair.

Heaven forbid that Holzhauer plays by the same rules as everyone else but seem to be a better player and smarter.  Lane complains that we pay too much attention to numbers now.  I hope the Washington Post doesn't keep track of its circulation and that it doesn't charge advertisers based on number of papers sold.  I also hope Lane doesn't make more than other journalists.  That would be unfair.

I am one of the millions who are amazed and enjoying the winning streak. 

Somehow, Lane thinks it is unfair that: 

Like the number crunchers who now rule America's pastime, Holzhauer substitutes cold, calculating odds-maximization for spontaneous play. His idea is to select, and respond correctly to, harder, big-dollar clues on the show's 30-square gameboard first. Then, flush with cash, he searches the finite set of hiding places for the "Daily Double" clue, which permits players to set their own prize for a correct response — and makes a huge bet. Responding correctly, Holzhauer often builds an insurmountable lead before the show is half over.

I wonder why Lane hasn't figured out that the other players have the same opportunity to push their buzzer and answer the questions and run up their cash if they know the answers.

Maybe Lane thinks James needs to redistribute his winnings in the same way Democrats think we should redistribute money.  We certainly shouldn't reward success, unless, of course, it is politicians and others surrounding D.C. who get rich off the rest of us.  Then that is fair.

Charles Lane: 'Jeopardy!' has stopped being fun because James Holzhauer is a menace

To the multitudes who have rooted Holzhauer on, I have just one question: Do you not see that this guy is a menace?

The only thing more troubling, as a commentary on American culture, than his grinning, relentless, march to victory — regardless of when, or if, it ends — is that millions celebrated it.

People seemed not to care that Holzhauer's streak reflects the same grim, data-driven approach to competition that has spoiled (among other sports) baseball, where it has given us the "shift," "wins above replacement," "swing trajectories" and other statistically valid but unholy innovations.

Like the number crunchers who now rule America's pastime, Holzhauer substitutes cold, calculating odds-maximization for spontaneous play. His idea is to select, and respond correctly to, harder, big-dollar clues on the show's 30-square gameboard first. Then, flush with cash, he searches the finite set of hiding places for the "Daily Double" clue, which permits players to set their own prize for a correct response — and makes a huge bet. Responding correctly, Holzhauer often builds an insurmountable lead before the show is half over.

I do understand why Lane and other Democrats don't like people focusing on facts and numbers.  It is so much better for Americans to just spew forth regurgitated Democrat talking points.  Facts are inconvenient. 

We get people like Beto and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making up stuff about the climate.  They say we are all going to die if we don't take trillions from the public, and most of the media just go along.  It doesn't matter how many predictions like that have been made in the past, and that they have always been 100% wrong.

Joe Biden can say the middle class is suffering when it is doing better than any year when he and Obama were in charge, and the media will stay silent or support him. 

Biden and other Democrats will just repeat over and over again that only the rich benefited from the tax cuts.  We certainly don't want number-crunchers to correct these lies to the public. 

Colleges can make up whatever rules they want to admit students if they don't pay attention to scores and excellence.  Keeping score is so unfair.

It is sad when journalists complain about a person winning too much and call the person a menace just because he is smarter and plays the game better.

Pretty soon, we get a party that thinks it is entitled to confiscate a greater share from successful people who have worked hard and paid taxes throughout their lives for themselves to spend as they like. 

The word that is always used is "fair," and of course Democrats are the arbitrators of what the meaning of fair is.  They are greedy because they never can get enough for government — but if someone wins too much on Jeopardy!, that is unfair. 

I now understand why Democrats hate Trump and consider him a menace.  They can't stand the thought that Trump has been running up the economic score in the private sector.  Those damn number-crunchers have shown over 3% economic growth over a year now when the Democrats who don't like numbers say that couldn't happen.  He has been running up wages after years of stagnation with low inflation when we were told that couldn't happen.  The menace has been lifting up minorities and the less educated, and Democrats prefer that those people remain dependent on government and devoted to them. 

It is truly a menace to Democrats when they have to lie about the economy to scare the public.  They like to say how good the economy was under Obama when he and Biden gave the American people the slowest economic recovery in seventy years due to their stifling policies.