Watch here:

The recipient of $25 billion in TARP funds in 2008, Morgan is by far the worst offender. Its guide to the tournament, produced by the bank’s “quants” (yes, that’s the same term used for the math wizards whose models utterly failed to predict the collapse of the housing market), expects the U.S. to lose to England on Saturday, follow that up with a loss to unheralded Slovenia on June 18, then finally salvage some pride with a win over Algeria on June 23 — which would be too little, too late to advance to the tournament’s knockout stage. And just like that, the Yanks would head home, losers, along with the likes of New Zealand, Paraguay and North Korea.

Goldman’s team, in its report (PDF), wasn’t that much more generous to the nation that’s treated the firm so well over the years. “Group C looks very friendly to England, and in an effort to help boost the game in the U.S., let’s assume they come second!” the Goldman analysis says. “Both Algeria and Slovenia may have good grounds to question this.” In other words, the bank doesn’t really expect the U.S. to advance to the round of 16, but since this whole thing is just a silly exercise designed to get them publicity (you’re welcome, Goldman), the writers threw U.S. Soccer a bone. Then again, while Goldman did get $10 billion in TARP funds a couple of years ago to stay in business, it’s had a more tumultuous relationship with the government since then. Maybe if the SEC hadn’t sued the bank, they would have picked the U.S. to win it all!

Meanwhile, the Swiss bankers at UBS — who didn’t take any money from the U.S. government (but did get a bailout from their own taxpayers) — appear to predict that the U.S. will, at least, advance from the group stage to the single-elimination round. (Though only barely, and their chart ranks South Africa, Mexico, France and Uruguay — who can’t all make it, because only two teams from their common group will advance — as likelier to move on.) But they give the U.S. less than a 13 percent chance of winning their first knockout game, in which the Americans would likely face Germany.

Yes, I realize I’m taking these predictions more seriously than they’re intended to be taken, and that the reports are — as you might expect for a research document prepared by investment firms — larded up with disclaimers about past performance and statistical models being no guarantee of future returns. Still. This is the World Cup! It’s serious business! And for these Wall Street bankers to blithely write off the U.S. cause as hopeless — or worse, as Goldman does, a charity case — is downright un-American.

So if they don’t like America, which nation’s citizens do these cold-hearted bankers think will be dancing in the streets after the July 11 finals? UBS picked Brazil, five-time winners already. Goldman put Brazil in the final — but in a rare nod to style over mathematical models, picked Spain to beat them: “Here we are going to go against history and stick with flair.” And JP Morgan, picking Slovenia to make it all the way to the semifinals after edging out the U.S. for a spot in the knockout rounds, predicts England will beat Spain — on penalties — for its second-ever World Cup title. (For what it’s worth, I don’t expect the U.S. to win the tournament; I do expect them to advance to the second round, behind England, and maybe win another game if they get lucky. Spain will probably win, which would be fine with me, but I’m really rooting for Argentina, and I wouldn’t mind the Netherlands winning, either.)

These reports, then, should give anyone in America plenty of motivation to watch the U.S.-England game on Saturday: Not only is the U.S. the underdog, but Wall Street is rooting for the English. No, an upset win this weekend won’t fix the economy and undo the damage years of corporate influence have had on our politics. But it might help humble some smug bankers somewhere. And if that’s not a victory, what is? U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

With the 2012 Republican presidential primary set to start on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm elections, Romney has been busy endorsing candidates all over the country, and especially in early primary states like Nevada. Last night was a good one for one of his picks, Nikki Haley, who fell just short of winning the GOP gubernatorial nod in South Carolina and seems sure to win a runoff. But Romney hadn’t gotten involved in the Nevada race up to now — which was probably wise, since the GOP establishment backed loser Sue Lowden, and endorsing Angle before she won the nomination might have made Romney look a bit too enthusiastic about the Tea Party set.

Still, it’s not exactly a profile in political courage to endorse your party’s nominee against the very vulnerable sitting Senate majority leader. Romney took a similarly bold stand in the Florida Senate race a week before Gov. Charlie Crist quit the party — and well after it was obvious that Rubio was going to wipe the floor with Crist if he stayed in. Those risk-averse political instincts, though, could help Romney win the nomination as the safe choice this time around. After John McCain in 2008, Republicans have probably had enough of self-styled mavericks.

Then again, the folks Angle beat to win the nomination weren’t exactly world class politicians, either. Establishment pick Sue Lowden — who Tea Party activists in Nevada hated because, as party chairwoman, she had dared to cross Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential primary campaign — was leading for months. Until she collapsed suddenly, after babbling about people bartering chickens for healthcare and drawing legal challenges over a campaign bus. Businessman Danny Tarkanian never managed to get any buzz for his own race, which seemed to be grounded entirely in the fact that his father had coached the UNLV Runnin’ Rebels.

Still, it says a lot that given a choice between Angle and the Republican who endorsed chickens for healthcare, Reid’s team preferred Angle. (And in fact, his statement on the race didn’t even mention his opponent, as he aimed for the high road instead.) Reid’s performance in poll after poll in Nevada has been abysmal, with barely a third of voters approving of the way he does his job. But aides have said for months that the race would sharpen once it settled into a contest between Reid and an actual opponent. And Angle’s record, which didn’t get much exposure during the GOP primary, gives them some good ammunition to work with.

Announcing her campaign last year, Angle told the Reno Gazette-Journal that families with two working parents “dilute” healthcare and retirement benefits. Unlike many politicians in Nevada, she’s fine with the idea of trucking nuclear waste into the state to bury it at Yucca Mountain. In the state Assembly, she once voted against tougher penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders — but also said alcohol should be illegal. She says custodial work is something “Americans just won’t do.”

Besides Reid, some very conservative people were pleased with the results Tuesday, too. Angle’s win is another victory for the Club for Growth, the rabidly anti-tax (and, essentially, anti-government) group that endorsed her, as well as Utah Republican Mike Lee, who knocked off Sen. Bob Bennett last month. The Tea Party Express, an Astroturf group that held a big rally in Reid’s hometown in March, claimed another win, too; they spent millions of dollars supporting Angle, helping her offset Lowden’s stronger fundraising.

National Republicans tried to put a brave face on the news. “With Sharron Angle’s nomination today, I am confident that this seat will be a prime pick-up opportunity for our party in November,” GOP Senate campaign chief John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. “Sharron Angle has earned Nevada’s trust and respect through her long record of public service as a teacher, school board member, businesswoman, and state assemblywoman.” Michael Steele chimed in, too, with a promise of financial resources for the various GOP candidates in the state.

Angle will need a lot of  financial help against Reid. Last month, Reid reported having $9 million in the bank — compared to Angle’s $138,000. That can pay for a lot of ads about banning booze.

Ever since the Tea Party arrived on the scene last year, Republicans have been happy to ride along with its nutty members and their eccentric ideas. Just about all the energy in the GOP, after all, comes from Tea Party anger. Angle’s win Tuesday, though — and Rand Paul’s, in Kentucky — might represent the flip side of that energy.

Could she still win in the fall? Sure. Very few incumbents recover from political situations like Reid’s. But by nominating the candidate sitting farthest out on the right wing fringe, the GOP base — and especially the Tea Party chunk of it — may have thrown Reid a lifeline.

“The vote of this senator is not for sale, and neither is the vote of the people of Arkansas,” Lincoln told supporters at her victory party Tuesday night — a party that, until the returns started coming in, was widely expected to be a farewell. “This is about us. This is about who we are as Arkansans and what we want to do.”

For all the support from the left, Halter wasn’t exactly the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He said he would have voted for healthcare reform if he had Lincoln’s job last year, and he would have opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the original Wall Street bailout. But beyond that, the main differences between them throughout the campaign had to do with tone and style. Halter — who hasn’t worked in Washington since a stint in the Clinton administration — played the outsider perfectly, railing against a broken government even though his own party controls it. Lincoln, meanwhile, was stuck taking the brunt of both a general anti-incumbent ire and a specific grudge against her by some Democrats who think she too readily abandons the party to prove her centrist credentials.

But the primary challenge seemed to have sharpened Lincoln’s campaign instincts. Arkansas insiders told Salon the buzz in the state was that the incumbent had started visiting and calling people she hadn’t talked to in a while; the prospect of losing helped shake her into doing the stuff politicians need to do as a matter of course to avoid getting into trouble in the first place. Halter pushed her to the left on Wall Street reform — the tough language cracking down on derivative trading that she backed probably would have been jettisoned immediately if Lincoln didn’t have Halter to worry about. That may have put her on better footing for the general election, as well; it gives her a populist message to hammer away at through the fall against Republican Rep. John Boozman.

In the last couple of weeks, Lincoln really hit a new stride as the embattled Arkansan, under fire from the forces that control politics. It’s not easy for an incumbent seeking a third six-year Senate term to play the outsider, but the union ads gave Lincoln a foil. She paired that with a steady stream of reminders that she was the first Arkansas lawmaker to chair the Agriculture Committee, emphasizing the clout that comes along with incumbency. Lincoln also leaned heavily on Bill Clinton, who came to campaign for her and appeared in her closing TV ads — warning Arkansans not to let outside forces “use” them to send a message.

The Washington Democratic establishment was always sure Lincoln was a better candidate for November, and they couldn’t resist gloating a bit Tuesday.

“Blanche has proven once again she is a true independent voice for the people of Arkansas, but she is also a fighter for what she believes in and will never stop standing-up for her convictions or for her state,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Bob Menendez said.

The GOP was set to paint Halter as a captive of liberals, unions and other scary boogiemen that don’t play that well in an Arkansas general election. But Boozman still starts the race as the favorite. Privately, some of the establishment Democrats who backed Lincoln — in part because they prefer incumbents, even conservative ones, because they usually have an easier time winning elections — fumed that labor and the Netroots wasted money on Halter’s race that other Democratic candidates might wish they had on their side come November. Spending millions of dollars (and forcing Lincoln to draw down her own bank account) on a losing challenge won’t be easy to spin.