gehringer_2

The thing that most depresses me however is that no system can work with a populace that has lost the collective common sense to self-govern. In the ME we see this in populations where religious loyalties make democratic governance impossible. And in the US we are beginning to see a population descend into a level of plain ignorance - inability to process facts and reality - that if it leads as far as Trump's re-election, will pretty much prove that the US is no longer a fit population for democracy. So if Trump II ends up being the end of democracy as we have known it, it will just be the inevitable having come to pass.

I'd argue it's not even the EC per se, but the population imbalance of the states - which creates an impact in the Senate at least as serious as the presidential elections. But even that is something that can be mitigated within the current Constitution. Admit DC as a state and increase the HOR to 500 and you'd mitigate something like half the current EC imbalance.

The one thing out there sort of on the horizon is ranked choice non-party primaries. It's a system that CA is the test case for. If that caught on it would change the dynamic a lot. But the biggest thing we could do in the US to change things is publicly fund elections. In both these cases it's not even the basic constitution that is failing*, is the accessories that have accumulated around it that we have no good reason to be so attached to. *I reject that we can blame the founders or any text actually in the Constitution for the asinine view of 5 SCOTUS appointments that money=speech.

LOL -if Biden wins, it's a good chance (~20%) Harris would be running as the incumbent...... ..just sayin' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I thought in the end the GOP was going to be short more than just Scalise anyway? - he may to find another vote or two if the timing is even going to matter.

Yeah - I think Newsome would be strong contender. Maybe he has weaknesses to be exposed but I think he could take Harris out of the nomination. It's hard to evaluate the party division issue because party ID is so much stronger than used to be. Certainly in '68 when LBJ dropped out the divisions in the Dem party gave Nixon a huge leg up. But the difference between then and now is that in this world not many voters are going to change parties no matter who either party nominates. All that matters in recent elections is each side getting their people to the polls, and I think a Newsome would attract as many or turn off as few as Harris.

Also - Isiah had 4 yrs in the league playing losing parks and recreation style ball with Tripucka before Joe joined the team, so he knew the league and he was ready to learn a new set of tricks that could win more games. Ivey and Cade have have each played one season and only 1/2 a season together. Which is why Wiliams needs to have them out there together learning how to play off each other as much as is reasonable.

Petzold with piece on JHM today. Greatest thing since sliced bread etc., etc. Even ignoring whether he has turned himself into a passable OF over the off-season, IMO there are two large grains of salt to take JHM. He had a high OPS but wasn't a great average hitter last season (277) because a big piece of his OPS last season was walks. Plate discipline is great of course, but MLB pitchers simply are not likely to walk him at near the rate MiLB pitchers did. And ironically maybe, the fact that his eye at the plate is apparently very good is going to work against him going from AAA last season to the minors. Last season he was able to challenge and win enough strike calls he didn't agree with to impress his teammates and manager, but good luck for a rookie against MLB umpires he disagrees with.

If Weaver's been kneecapped then hanging onto him seems dumb. I suppose it could just be because they don't want to make a mid-season move. I guess the answer to that question should be clear about April 15.

1st back to back wins since game 2/3 of the season.

Part of it is poor coaching, part of it is players who get to the NBA without ever having learned much about playing the game, but you wouldn't think in a league with so much money and resource that just getting a team to where it can play the game with some intelligence and awareness would be such a hard thing.

Sounds like Putin even had Tucker scratching his head... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/tucker-carlson-putin-interview-released/

Speaking of Kershaw,, not expected to pitch for LA before July or August. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39486404/dodgers-clayton-kershaw-happy-offseason-decisions-eyes-july-return

Should be interesting. How do you manage a union with members that here and gone in 5 or less years - sometimes only 2 and all that money on the table? The 'low stakes' unions at the University of other short term employees like GSIs don't seem to function very well, at least IMHO.

and yet that's just what you want to get to: a situation where the defense has to choose between two players they both 'need' to double. All you need is a coach who can put it together.....oh, wait...well....

The other thing is the pacing. They play a faster game when Ivey has the ball. Aside from all scheme and strategy differences, faster gives the other team less time to do whatever they are trying to do. I don't know how you keep that pace with the ball in Cade's hands, he just doesn't move at Ivey's speed. Now if the Pistons were an all 'round precision kind of team, maybe they can break down other teams without the speed, but right now I think the speed helps. And so it goes back to whether the FO actually has some kind of consistent vision of what kind of team they are trying to build and a workable plan how to get there.

as long as NIL is the thing, a single big donor is going to be able have a big impact - which is one of the reasons that at any given time, most the teams want to see the NIL system end in favor of something they can better control. But even with big donors, most want themselves memorialized, and NIL is an ephemera - it's paid and gone; there is no remembrance, so I think the number of guys doing what Knight is doing is probably going to fall as the novelty wears off.

True - Cade can get hemmed in as the primary ball carrier. Once that happens nothing good often happens.

Could well be. Ivey certainly not likely to produce like this in a game *with* Cade in the current set-up. But by the next time they play they will have shuffled a bunch of pieces so maybe the whole set-up changes.

Development is great, but is that a sustainable advantage? I don't see any built in reason to say M is likely to stay better at it than their competition. It seem like just a passing property of a particular coaching staff, and coaching staffs turn over pretty fast.

Neither Vierling nor Ibanez may be able to hold down 3rd on a regular basis - it's yet to be determined. We may yet see Vierling back in an OF corner, Ibanez at 2nd and Keith at 3rd - esp maybe later in the season if Keith's arm is trending positive. Or even Kreidler if he finds any hit.

It's all about the money Buddha. And under NIL the U can't even spend its own money on the athletes - that's the absurdity of if. It's not like the Regents can put $20M in a pot (even if they wanted to) that the coaches can dole out, they have go through the dog and pony show of paying more people in development to go out and rustle up outside donors of those funds. It's pretty clear why and OSU or Alabama is already better at doing that. Plus the State of Michigan isn't silicon valley - the business $ pool in MI is a lot thinner here than it used to be in the glory days of the big three. But it's even more than that. Even under direct payments - which are probably coming, the 'U' is going to make a calculation about whether they get a real return on the money they put out or not. If they get just as much ticket and media revenue at 9-4 with little prospect of winning another championship but without spending another $20-30M as they do with top recruiting teams and the occasional trip to the playoff, don't expect them to value wins over dollars. That's the real "Michigan Difference" - that they their eye firmly on the bottom line. Maybe Ono is a big enough sports fan that could shift, but that has been the real tradition. They will only play to win if it's profitable. It may be but under the current system it may also not be.

If I were forecasting it, I'd wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see Lipcius or Sands at all, and I think Ibanez will play more than McKinstry and Jake will get >400 AB,

well, that's one version of Congressional Collegiality.

Casey Mize asking "What am I? Chopped liver?" The Tigers are so young that other than Canha and Baez all the other likely regular position player are still on the upward performance part of their career arc, as opposed to being on the downside. That's going to be a source of greater uncertainty in projection.