Mr.TaterSalad

This to me is more encouraging than the actual overall poll numbers themselves . . .

But there is clearly a Johnson/Baldwin voter given the margins of what Baldwin won by. I do think Mandela Barnes is running a fairly good campaign from the looks of it. He's not trying to be a lite beer version of the Republicans nor trying to show you how conservative he too can be. He's solidly and unapologetically progressive on economics and healthcare and brands himself in a way that doesn't scare voters off with big government lingo (i.e. people like Bernie calling themselves a socialist). Wisconsin voters seem to accept a more progressive-minded candidates who takes, bold, left-of-center stances and votes on economic and healthcare issues, given the success Tammy Baldwin has had campaigning as a progressive in the past. I do think Barnes can win as well and am not saying it is a lock that Johnson wins. I am just skeptical at some of the polling margins we are seeing here and elsewhere for 2022 and am unsure how the divergence between issue trust and candidate plays out.

Why the divergence then from what voters care about and the candidates they are supporting? Voters say in poll after poll say inflation and gas prices are issues #1 and #2 that they care about. They also say they trust Republicans more on those two issues. So are those polls wrong? Are voters going to significantly diverge from the party they say they trust more to handle the issues that matter to them most?

I think we have some data that shows for whatever reason, at least to a small extent, Republicans and Trump voters are being under sampled in mainstream polling as 538 points out. My concerns is that polling in a general sense isn't capturing Republican enthusiasm, as it semi-failed to do in both 2016 and 2020. I worry they are underrepresented nationally by pollsters. I also worry that the polling on candidates doesn't correlate to issue-based polling that shows what voters care about. And when you dive into that, Democrats are losing on the issues by a decent margin, specifically the economy. I worry there is a big divergence between candidate and issue polling. I worry that issue-based polling is what will more accurately reflect the final results in 2022 and thus will be a bigger Republican victory, in both Congress and the Senate, than people believe.

Marquette University, the same poll that has Barnes up over Johnson here, also had Feingold up +11 at this point in time in 2016. They had Fiengold up +6 in early October and up +1 just days before the election on October 31st. They were way off in their early 2016 estimates with Feingold up +11 and off with their final tally as Ron Johnson ended up winning by 3.4%. Pardon me for being skeptical about polling that has consistently gotten it wrong.

I know I don't know that I believe any of the polling and think things will be way tighter than some of these polls are showing. When you look at the issue based polling around what people care about, inflation and gas prices are #1 and #2 on voters minds with abortion usually a distant third. When you look at who voters trust more on gas prices and inflation it's Republicans by a fairly wide margin. Democrats are going to win a few of the senate races, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and maybe Ohio, because of bad candidates on the GOP side. Say what you will about Ron Johnson, but I don't think is qualifies as a bad candidate in comparison to the likes of Masters or Oz.

I'm on Team Veggie Tray.

She's also anti-vax and promotes dangerous medical treatments. Its ironic given the situation we're in that the Democratic Party is so firmly in the camp of believing the science, yet after she gave a speech at an awards show, you had moderates on social media fawning over this women to run in 2020.

Cody Jinks is what country music sounded like before corporate record labels and media stole its soul away . . .

A lot of my Democratic and progressive friends frown upon the Lincoln Project, but I have to say, both in 2020 and today, they have the best overall messaging and ads. I think this ad below does a great job showing the contrast of Biden and the MAGA crowd, anger or results, making your life better or constantly airing your grievances about people. This is the type of sharp contrast that Democrats need to be drawing upon in their ads and messaging for individual candidates. You can effectively capture people's frustrations with the way things are while still showing them that you are getting stuff done to make their lives better. It doesn't have to be either extreme anger or status quo.

Oz is like the comic book or cartoon villain version of a Senate candidate. Oz is so comically out of touch, he reminds of when Mr. Burns ran for Governor and Marge served him up his own three-eyed fish to eat. If Oz beats Fetterman, Mr. White Working Class, then I have no hope anymore for Democrats ever regaining any significant ground with working class white voters.

Rolling Stone is saying their pulling money and ad buys from both Johnson in Wisconsin (hey that rhymes) and Masters in Arizona.

How does it feel knowing your dad had Kennedy killed?

It's too bad there wasn't a good guy with a gun there to stop him at a kid's football game.

They spent a lot of capital on improving the interior of this defensive line by trading for Michael Brockers and drafting both Levi and Alim. The interior of this line just has to look better once the season starts and they have the chance to play together. They have to, right?

I'm not going to make any judgements based on one game. That said, unimpressed by this defense so far in the game.

We need to stop giving credence to people that "too far to the left" is a serious concern that justifies voting for a MAGA candidate over a more progressive or liberal one. If one candidate wants universal healthcare through a government run system, a tax on carbon, equity for Trans people, and law that regulate big business earnings and another candidates is being supported by someone who says Jews have no place in the conservative movement, thinks raped women should be forced be bear a child, wants to seize voting machines, and believes Christianity should be a national religion, we cannot continue to accept those as equal concerns. We cannot allow the bothsidesm argument, nor be scared off from endorsing certain candidates because some random group of ignorant voters out there find them "too far to the left". We need to buck that argument and develop a good retort to it because if we give credence to that and allow people to scapegoat based on that argument, we're failing our democracy, our country, and the majority of people. Conversely, progressives need to reckon with the whole argument of "I didn't get everything I wanted, therefore I'm not voting" way of thinking. If one, more center or center-left candidate is giving you most of what you want or a decent amount and isn't going around railing against gays, trans people, Jews, minorities, women, the FBI, democratic values, then you have to vote for that person. We cannot allow progressive escapism either.

If we were one year ahead in our rebuild timeline and ready to be a playoff contender I would trade for him. I'd start by offering a 2nd round pick and if the Bears want more I'd offer a 2nd + 4th. We're not where we need to be yet to trade for a player like Smith and so presently, I would pass on trading for him.

Hey, Dan Orlovsky and Rodney Peete are in the hall of shame and wore #9. That's a hall isn't it?

Oh yeah, that was a lot of fun going to Wayne State when this team was competitive and being downtown then. It just sucked prior to that going to the ballpark and knowing they had no chance to win a thing from about 1994-2004.

I missed all the good Tigers years of the 1980's having been more in 1987. I only got to see the downside of Tram and Whitaker's respective careers. My earliest memories are going down to Tiger Stadium to watch Tigers vs. Indians and there would be more Cleveland fans in the stands than Tigers haha. While I want a Lions Super Bowl more, witnessing a Tigers Pennant is next on my list. I say all that about Randy Smith to say that I've lived through both some really good and really horrific times here as a Tigers fan. As we all have together. Most around my age never got the taste of a World Series Championship and our memories growing up are not watching Jack Morris on the mound and Gibby at the plate. We got to see Filipa Lira start and Paul Backo bat in the heart of the order. If Jeff Lunhow can come in and bring us a World Series Title, I'll be honest and selfish for a minute, that I'd be one of those fans celebrating and forgiving us his past sins. Sign stealing scandal aside, if he really is that much of a dirtbag towards others and created a truly toxic culture in Houston, where people felt harassed and threatened going into work each day, then I'm onboard with keeping him out of here. We as an organization have to evaluate that and the merit of any claims made against the way he operated or allowed his organization and team to operate. If Lunhow can help produce a winner here in Detroit, is someone that Hinch can collaborate well with, and it is deemed after our organizations assessment of his tenure with the Astros that he isn't the complete villain he's been made out to be, I think he deserves serious consideration. I won't write him off just because of sign stealing. While I want to build a consistent winner, I don't want to do it at the expense of creating a miserable and toxic work environment. I would drop him if he created a truly toxic culture in Houston.

Beto O'Rourke is awesome! He called this guy a mother fucker for laughing at kids being shot with AR 15s/

I think he's wrong. I would definitely want to have a nice, hearty burgundy and a good dinner and shoot the breeze with Elizabeth Warren on public policy and the progressive movement for a couple of hours. Is she a deity though, absolutely not.