mtutiger

The Bulwark aren't exactly in love with Ron DeSantis, but nonetheless it does fit a pattern of polling whereby partisan R pollsters who have an interest in seeing Trump go down tend to show Ron DeSantis doing better than public polling does. The bigger concern off The Bulwark poll for DeSantis is what percentage of the Trumpy crowd is ride-or-die for Trump, they speculate as high as 28-30%.... sure, some of those people may come around in the end, but even something as small as 5% of Trump's base of support sitting at home as opposed to voting for DeSantis could really hurt his chances.

To be fair, there's a real disparity in some of the polling right now.... I've seen a couple of polls recently showing around a 52-30 spread in favor of Trump as well. I tend to think people are underestimating Trump's residual strength within the base of the party. I still think he's the favorite.

Again, not just AA urban poor, but rural as well. It's not an accident that the poorest parts of some of our poorest states (Mississippi and Arkansas, for example) are in the Mississippi Delta.

I thought it was interesting that the Braves, Astros and Blue Jays (all generally considered better systems than the lowly Tigers) all have less guys on Law's list. Once again proving the limited utility of Top 100 lists.

LOL, you are right.... completely wasn't thinking.

Almost would have rather seen Meadows Jr. get an invite lol

I think it's a fair point to discuss the fact that market forces have been cruel to rural communities in the north and that are more demographically white, including the one I grew up in. But as a counterpoint, one could take a look at rural, agricultural regions in the south, such as in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana along the Delta or in the Black Belt of Alabama that are predominantly AA and who have always lagged behind, from an economic standpoint, rural ag communities in other parts of the United States, still lag behind them today and who are subjected to those same market forces. As an aside, as much as we characterize AAs as a primarily urban group, anyone who has spent time in the South knows that isn't entirely true.... it's more the case up north, but much less so down here.

Exactly my point. Geography matters, but it doesn't explain all of it. There are other factors at play.

The other thing I would say as this: the loudest voices that are being referenced in this thread aren't necessarily reflective of African Americans views on law enforcement either. Polling continually show that AAs are generally supportive and desire law enforcement in their communities. But to that end, one can desire and understand the need for law enforcement while acknowledging the issues that exist within the law enforcement community, which AAs do per polling as well. For some reason, instead of looking at this nuance, we have two extreme sides who either go to the mattresses defending or obfuscating arguments that maybe the law enforcement profession needs some self-reflection or go out and say things along the line (at least in the most extreme arguments anyway) of police are there to go out and systematically kill black people. Neither of these views is reflective of where the majority of AAs (or even Americans more generally) fall, but those are the contours that are used to discuss these issues. And that's a choice we all make.... we don't have to discuss along those lines or engage on those extremes.

Yes, police engage and kill people of all races. I'm pretty sure no one disputes that. But when it happens to one group of people 2.5 times more per capita than the group that comprises the majority of Americans, it's not exactly a huge shock that people are going to ask questions about what factors may cause that and you don't have to be someone on social media who engages in overheated rhetoric to acknowledge that disparity or wonder about what factors cause that. Or even that there may be systemic factors at play. Regarding the bolded, as mentioned in the part of my post that you didn't quote, at a disparity of 2.5 times, I'm not of the view that disparity can be entirely explained by geography. As someone who isn't black, I'm not going to pretend to understand the variety of factors that may cause someone who is black to run from the cops. Or simply chalk it all up to "people painting everything as racist" From the few interactions I've had in my life with people from that community on this subject, it seems to have a lot more to do with the learned experience over the generations of having interactions with law enforcement than simply being told what to do by social media influencers.

I don't have too much of an issue with our air fryer, but if someone has a >$100 dollar cut of meat and freezes and air frys it, that sounds like a war crime lol

Maybe? I think the bigger thing is that taking his managerial career along with comparing his front office experience to Dana Brown, it just makes it an incredibly easy decision (and one they ultimately made the right decision on)

Perhaps, but I've seen people mostly elide it (ie. True, but Bombers point still stands... and yes, I saw the last paragraph and still think it was being elided) and introducing red herrings/whataboutism points into the discussion to avoid having to directly deal with Lee's point (ie. I would be interested in your thoughts on why 95% of people shot and killed by police are men despite being 50% of the population.) Lee's point is important because it provides statistical context to the absolute numbers. At accounting for 2.5 times the rate of whites per capita in police deaths, that is a really dramatic difference, so much so that I don't think it can all be accounted for just in the difference in communities or policing. To be clear, I don't know all the reasons for the disparity in rates between whites and blacks in this metric, and they may not all be nefarious, I just think more context is needed than just pointing to the absolute numbers and saying that's the be all end all. To be clear, I don't know all the reasons for the disparity in rates between others and whites in this metric, and they may not all be nefarious, I just think more context is needed than just pointing to the absolute numbers and saying that's the be all end all.

Lee's point still stands in that the per capita numbers suggest that violence against blacks by police happens at a higher proportionality than it does with other groups. We can debate the reasons for that and whether the reasons are nefarious or less so, but just looking at absolute numbers misses a lot of context... Looking at absolute numbers alone is as accurate as saying that because Spencer Torkelson had more hits than Ozzie Albies in 2022, that means he was a better hitter. When factoring in proportionality of games played, among of ABs, etc., it's erroneous to say that.

Owning the libs by *checks notes* air frying Wagyu beef....

Incidentally, you could argue the same for at least Greene, who was above average barreling balls and probably didn't produce enough to show for it.

This is good context, but it really doesn't change the upshot: one player was significantly better and was closer to meeting expectations than the other last year. That doesn't mean that Tork is a bust or will wash out or that Greene will even be a better player than Tork over the course of their careers, the results from 2022 just kinda speak for themselves. Even factoring in luck.

No doubt, Tork was noticeably better upon being called up later in the summer.

Don’t bring facts into this argument.

For reference, Torkelson had an OPS+ of 77. One rookie was just about league average, the other wasnt.

Here's how I would put it... Greene fell within range of what could reasonably expected from a rookie debut season. Or at least the expectations I had going into 2022, especially given his injury. On the lower end of course, but within range. That doesn't mean that he was great or that he doesn't need to improve, but he was within the range of outcomes. And he showed enough for me to believe he'll be at least a solid big leaguer. Tork was nowhere close to the bottom of his range of outcomes as I saw it going into 2022. And I say this as someone who has been one of his bigger defenders and someone who has preached patience with him, he was downright bad in 2022. And because of his performance I have less confidence in him than in Greene. Doesn't mean he won't grow into the role of reach greater heights, but 2022 introduced more uncertainty in his case

Tork was a .604 OPS and a -1.3 WAR, Greene was .682 with a 1.4 WAR Close to an 80 point difference in OPS and close to 3 difference in WAR. I guess one can look at Greene's performance and call it an underperformance (debatable), but it's clear he was in a different ballpark than TORK! in 2022.

Talk about a line that says so much about Trump's character...