mtutiger

If the Giants are still interested and theoretically signed him, what's their plan for JD Davis?

Within the context of what they are (ie. purely a fan based podcast, not backed by a larger publication), I don't mind Rog or Chris at all. They aren't always right and can mess up details (including Rog with names), but they also seem earnest in trying to learn and understand the sport. The fact that they have landed some larger interviews of late (including Garko) is a reflection of the work they have put in, even if the overall product is unpolished. That's a different situation from the TTC situation, which (I assume) is an Athletic backed podcast and where you would expect the quality to be much higher, especially considering that Stavenhagen is probably the best beat writer that follows this team. Losing the tangents into other subjects would help... as much as Gorosh can annoy everyone, his podcast with Petzold is structured much better and stays on topic for the most part.

That's fair. The commercial strikes me as the kind of thing that will be hailed as savvy by the people you would expect to hail it as savvy, but when you really sit and think about, just reinforces that RFK Jr. really has no qualifications, nor any reason for anybody to care about him or what he thinks, beyond his last name. Not to mention that the money spent on the ad would have been much better allocated toward gathering signatures to actually get on the ballot.... which isn't even a guarantee at this point for him.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the older I get, the more creeped out I get by the obsession our country has over that family in general. RFK Jr. sort of plays into it, but don't forget the role that JFK Jr. has in QAnon as well. Just kinda feels creepy and exploitative.

Excuses, excuses, excuses

I honestly don't understand why any leader in any capitol in Europe would trust us at this point. I hate to say it, but it's reality. And as a collective, I don't think Americans really understand the negatives that would come with losing the NATO alliance. We have a lot power on the world stage and to determine its direction, there's a ton of benefits from a financial and prestige perspective. And if we aren't the guarantors of that, someone else (ie. China) will gladly fill that void.

It's not an apples to apples comparison, and most by now have forgotten it, but one incident that continues to stick out during the Trump era was the Gary Johnson "Aleppo" gaffe. Like, Johnson was clearly out of his depth, but he was earnest in the process regardless and overall seemed decent. The media absolutely roasted him for it. By contrast, Trump, on the subject of the Middle East, gave an answer in (iirc) Debate One with HRC that would best be described as verbal diarrhea. One that, just on merits alone, was even more incoherent than Johnson's was. And nobody cared... I always sort of remember it because it really emphasized to me how little substance really matters in how these things get framed. People have low expectations of Trump on substance, and he drives clicks and ratings. So it checks out that he gets treated differently

Somehow, I doubt this will result in a takeover of the Times Op-Ed pages tmrw

Yiiikes

Nice to see that NBC asked some actual professionals... I value their opinions a little more than Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat lol

The GOP Brain Drain in Congress continues apace

Simply acknowledging the existence of differences between the two cases apparently gets boiled down to "but Trump". I'm with Edman on this one.

Was meant to be an explanation, not a defense. But I think you know that.

It's a great question... I think she's gotten dragged in the media *a lot*, but I couldn't tell you how she's different from any other Vice President who has seen less scrutiny.

This past week has really gone a long way to shatter my view of where we are at collectively. Setting the Biden report aside, prior to that, the big story was the negotiation on the immigration bill, a negotiation that was done at the request of the current Speaker and, once finished, was torpedoed for *explicitly* political purposes. Like, Trump and others literally signaling that they did not want to see that through because it would be bad politics in an election year. What is the point of governing if 1/3rd of our government just collectively sits on their hands once every four years? Like, are we just paying these guys $174K/year to be high priced rodeo clowns during election years? I really don't know how you fix that.... especially if, as you suggest elsewhere in your post, 47% of the country are just OK with that or are entertained by that.

No doubt, just from my perspective, my kids deserve so much more than what that movement is offering.

The Electoral College is a real issue as well, not just for the usual complaints, but its one of the biggest things that forces a two-party system upon us. The French system, with a Presidential Election and a runoff two weeks after if no candidates reach 50%, would solve at least some problems with our system IMO

She would have inherited the office, ala Ford, so I suspect that unless she did very well and / or had high approval ratings, she'd probably draw some legit competition.

Agreed, unironically.

Yup. I take no joy in delivering this dose of reality to folks, I'm just not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that there's absolutely zero cost to some world where installing the favorite candidates of the pundit class is absolutely bloodless.

Exactly. People act like this is the party calling the shots, but the incentive structures for the candidates that pundits dream about do not align with or without Biden running this cycle. It's not like you can force Whitmer or Shapiro or whoever to get into an open primary, they would have to want to do it and see a realistic path. And consider things like fundraising as well, I might add. Because, believe it or not, money matters a lot when you run for office. It's not "plug and play"

Are you sure other candidates would jump in if Biden dropped out? Do you think Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker, etc. are going to want to burn political capital fighting out a bloody primary with an incumbent VP who would likely be endorsed by Biden and would have the support of the most important demographic in the party? And in all likelihood lose? It's not the party, it's the voters and it's the incentives for alternative candidates. You don't have to like it, I'm just engaging in reality here.

I don't have a particular proclivity toward Harris, but it gets really frustrating to see people act like there's absolutely no cost to going around her status as incumbent VP in this current situation we find ourselves in. Frankly, it's delusional

If Biden were to drop out today, Kamala Harris would be the nominee. Because the most important demographic in the party (ie. AA voters) would be firmly in her camp. Just as it was these same voters (along with those in the Iowa Caucus) who made it so for Obama. Nobody wants to admit this, but it's true. And, for whatever reason, if he were to drop out today and the party, to the extent that they could even control who ends up the nominee to begin with, were to force her to the side to run Whitmer or others, people either do not understand or are engaging in magical thinking about the **** show that would ensue. To the extent that incumbency advantage exists, that evaporates, and you'd likely ignite a civil war in the party.