gehringer_2

Lelonde was throwing cold water on a Thursday return. But then again Ras was supposed to be out sick tonight and showed up.

In a league where the Cy Young has been won by Rick Porcello and Robbie Ray, it's certainly possible.

It's not hopeless quite yet - he has barreled up a few recently with little to show. The 1st AB tonight was terrible though - totally non-competitive.

Third CBJ goal was on Reimer. Raymond is playing like a star. Fabbri had a good game. Kane is immensely talented, but he doesn't create possession. DeBrincat is in a funk. OTOH, Edvinsson gets pucks back. And attempts to forecheck against him were futile. I don't care if he makes an occasional mistake if he drives/maintains puck possession like that. At least against CBJ's level of play. Can he do it against better competition? Tonight was a good start, but we'll see.

where is Jerry Lewis?

yup - goalie tossed the net hoping for a lucky call out of the confusion

We're seeing the emergence of Raymond as a the second lead on this team. Edvinsson was fine. Got to a lot of pucks, cut off a lot of rushes, controlled the puck well.

It would be good if Torkelson's bat could wake up sometime soon.

Flaherty dusts Stevenson with a 97 mph high fastball to end the top of the 5th. 4H 7K 0R.

Well, we won't have to compete with OSU for a new hire. They went with the assistant in-hand - Jake Dielber bumped up to head coach.

Sounds like they are going pair Simon with Petry. That could work. Petry is steady but his skating is sort of gone - he doesn't show enough speed to pressure the puck effectively in the defensive zone - if Edvinsson brings some reach and energy and more attack to the their pairing maybe it will work out.

he's a Canadian citizen isn't he?

Overall the polls missed in 2020 by about 3.5% to the blue side. If Biden were to win another elections by exactly the same vote it would mean that error had reversed to a few percentage overestimate to the red side. So if you believe that US politics is actually pretty ossified, one explanation would be that the pollsters looked at the miss in 2020 and when they re-tuned their likely voter models they went too far the other way. But even so, 3% is a pretty standard margin of error of political polling, and in the US electoral system 3% of the popular vote easily swings an election from big loss to big win. Add to that the big turnout uncertainties you're at a point where too much fixation on the polling is sort of futile. There is enough uncertainty for the election to be out there for either side to take despite the polling data esp because no-one has a good handle on who is going to vote anymore. Polls present risk either way. If you trust polls that show you ahead but are wrong, you don't work hard enough were you need to, if you trust polls that show you behind that are wrong, you pull resources out of winnable districts. Just run the best campaign you can.

More of what 2024 is about. https://news.yahoo.com/6-former-mississippi-law-officers-043844273.html

It's made difficult as the MSM media don't view outright advocacy as their role - while right side media does. That creates a practical imbalance in reporting. I don't know as I want a MSM media that sees advocacy as their primary role. Maybe the correct balance would be instead of taking on advocacy per se, they simply upped their coverage of the inaccuracy of RW media. That story is actually not advocacy per se, but just media prophylaxis. While that might be of some use to balancing political coverage, the MSM doesn't seem interested in the role even on those terms. I imagine there is no subscriber income to be gained by the NYT in regularly reporting on the failures of Fox News. So it remains a dilemma.

Flaherty is also a comeback candidate wager in part, so a little different objective with him.

yup. This is getting to be page one of the Holmes playbook - minimize pressure from positional need as much as possible before the draft.

seems like a fair enough deal.

would love have been the fly on the wall in this discussion between Lalonde and Yzerman. I wonder if one of them is happier than the other and which. Well, here's hoping he's got some game

It may not need to be moved. $550M isn't big money for Putin, he may already have resources of that magnitude under his control (or at least strong influence) in the US but how to get them redeployed covertly is probably tricky.

I take refusal by the bonding companies also to be judgement on the strength of his case on appeal. Logically it would seem the most likely outcome is a reduction in the bond requirement - but that's said in total ignorance what the law says about how the bond is determined, IOW how much discretion does any judge have to change the bond? Putin is no doubt faced with a dilemma here. He may be able to get Trump the money but at the cost of exposing so many of his financial moles in the US that the CIA will have a field day following leads generated by the bond money trail even if the connections are initially opaque enough that Trump gets the bond in the short term. Still, it's has to be a job one for Vladdy right now because cutting off aid to Ukraine is probably do or die for him.

true, but what can you do? Their value to the Pistons isn't very high either when the team is playing .176 basketball. And Troy Weaver still has a job.

true, but in the background is that 30 million more people voted in 2020 vs 2016. That's a 21% increase in the electorate and a 23% increase in the Dem electorate. Those are seismic differences. So of course if you look inside those populations you see shifts in what the breakdowns are, but when you look a those breakdowns you are now looking at a different set of people to a larger degree than normal. That is always true to some degree but uncommonly huge between those two elections. The question is how many individual people moved vs how many people added to populations were in a different place to begin with. That's a non trivial question in terms of strategy implications. When you add the state wide election results since 2020, it's also hard to see decay in the democratic voting coalition. So I do get concerned that if effort spent on the unpersuadable comes at the expense of motivating lazy friends it's a potential strategic error. Now in truth, most campaign activities should cut both ways - we hope.

well you have your location and then you have your articulation....😉 It's a common enough ambiguity though. Your calf moves your foot, but if your calf hurts you'd probably say the pain was in your leg. +1 on the graphic ("Scarlett O'Hara's Halloween")

This is true, but it's sort of like brushing your teeth. You don't need to be told you should, and that bad things will happen if you don't, but that doesn't mean your dentist doesn't stop encouraging you because it still helps.