mtutiger

Switch out Madden for Brieske, and that's probably right.

More than just the polls, this is a reason why the Senate picture doesn't look great for the Rs. Have to imagine McConnell didn't think he'd have to spend significant cheddar in Ohio.

Fair enough, but with respect to the poll we are discussing, it would be Johnson with that issue at the moment more than Barnes.

This from RJ Anderson is a pretty good piece on Daniels and how things ended in Texas. It should read somewhat familiar to Tigers fans... the Rangers aren't in as bad of a place, but they have been plagued with similar issues in terms of not turning around high draft picks and issues with developing talent in the latter part of the 2010s and into the 2020s. I would prefer they go a different route

Completely fair. I would rather have both as well, tbh, although I don't know that it's a slam dunk either.

In general, whenever this conversation comes up, it seems like a baked in assumption that there is zero cost in terms of other selections had the Tigers switched out Jobe for Mayer. Believing that Mayer or Lawlar would have been better selections is completely a legit view... I wouldn't have preferred Jobe there either. But we also can't say that, had they gone with Mayer, they would have also gotten Pacheco and/or Madden. Maybe that's a risk or sacrifice worth taking for some folks, but that context should at least be acknowledged when this conversation comes up.

I don't have a problem with retreads. I just don't want them to hire Jon Daniels

Been wondering this for a while... R candidates have been eschewing traditional media more and more this cycle. And while Fox is a big fish, just purely on numbers, if you are avoiding non-conservative media, you aren't getting your message out as the majority of Americans do not watch these outlets.

Tough break for Jobe, had a couple of good starts in a row.

Correlation isn't necessarily causation of course, but things started to trend downward for the Rangers when AJ Preller left as well. Daniels deserves credit for his part, but he had a lot of help with those early 10s Ranger ballclubs as well.

Polls are still useful as you can find trends, even if the top line numbers leave you skeptical. If Marquette does a survey in June showing a 2-point race and one in August that shows a 7-point race, that suggests movement in the environment. Doesnt mean it will stay that way, polls are a snapshot in time. But it does suggest it

Harold injured?

Another HBP? Jeebus

I get it. I don't think Barnes is winning by 7 either. All I'm trying to say is that the data (both in terms of polling an in terms of special elections) suggest that the environment isn't as robust for Republicans as it was six months ago. The Marquette poll is but one data point that has largely pointed to that at this moment. We will have another special election in NY-19 in a week (a tossup district, replacing Anthony Delgado)... let's see how that one goes as well and add that to the pile.

Dems do a better job of unskewing favorable polls than Rs do of unskewing unfavorable polls lol

According to the crosstabs of the Marquette poll, Inflation is a big concern for 42% of Democrats, which is likely a not-insignificant chunk of the total who rank Inflation as a high priority I assume most of those folks, if not all, will not be voting for RonJohn in November.

It's more mixed than that imo.... party registration data doesn't favor Dems (even if that's an imperfect measurement because not every state has party registration), trends in POC communities still aren't great, etc. I'm not saying that the Dems are going to win the House... I don't believe they will. But the margins matter.... at least as of this moment, I don't buy that they are in position to lose 40+ seats. And when it comes to Senate races, that matters a lot.... it's the difference between some candidates winning and losing.

Honestly feels to me like the conventional wisdom broadly is that of a Republican wave, despite data to the contrary.

There's a set of priors that everyone has going into this election, and honestly I kinda share them, by which the fundamentals run counter to the Democrats because of incumbency + economic conditions. But we keep getting data points in, not just in polling, but with special elections as well, that keeps showing that (at least as of this moment) it's not a red wave scenario, and yet all that data seems to be getting thrown in the trash because of those priors. Do the fundamentals point to a Johnson win? Yes. Does he stand a better chance of winning in November than Barnes? I'd say the race is no better than a tossup for Barnes, even with this poll. People aren't tuned in as closely right now, it's been a good news cycle for Ds and that will likely not continue much longer. My only argument is that people need to be open-minded to scenarios in which priors aren't confirmed. Johnson is yet another candidate who isn't well liked (even if he isn't Oz levels of bad).... it's not unthinkable that he'd lose, particularly if one believes Ohio is actually in play (which I don't)

Marquette had Tammy Baldwin up 49-47 with LV in August 2018. What did she go on to win by? Again, I don't buy that Barnes will win by 7, but the trends matter.

It's not even just Dems, it's the mainstream media in general. If the poll was released and it shown Johnson tied or leading, it'd be taken as gospel. A poll showing Johnson down, meanwhile, people are told to slow their roll or that it's not to be believed. The odds of Barnes winning by seven points when it's all said and done are zero, but the trend from the last poll (which showed a virtual tie) is what matters and it kinda confirms that evolution of the environment. And it hasn't just been seen in polling alone either - it was seen in Kansas Amendment election and in the Minnesota 1 Special Election as well.

Generally agreed, but while Ryan has run a great campaign, they would win Wisconsin before they win Ohio.

Jon Daniels had a great run with the Texas Rangers during a six year stretch between 2010 and 2016. But again, that was six years ago since the end of that run and their fall from grace overlaps pretty well on the Avila era that we just exited. Maybe it's a case of a guy needing a change of scenery, but while they are going to cast a wide net, I'd rather they ultimately go in a different direction when it's all said and done.

Obviously. Having said that, if you are a Dem, it's obviously better for there to be a 1% gap than a 10+% gap (as was seen on the last Marquette poll)

Maybe even more eye-opening than the Senate poll... the enthusiasm gap in this poll is almost gone