mtutiger

Not sure why I should care what some guy named Jimmy Dore thinks about any subject. It's nothing personal to him, but it's no different than how one feels about cable news and its pundits I could easily get the same kind of analysis sitting down at a local bar and talking to a stranger most likely. And it'd be more authentic because he wouldn't be monetizing it.

And that the 1st Amendment had a clause within it that insulates oneself from the consequences of speech. (It does not) Elon Musk or Josh Holmes or whoever all have the right to free speech. And because of the same 1st Amendment, the rest of us all have the right to call them out, or to not do business with them, etc. Same with advertisers. At its most basic, it's just a reaction to the change of culture. And that much of it doesn't have much use for their vision of the world.

Huh, I believe I missed the part of the Constitution where is says that corporations are required to advertise on Twitter

Interesting phrasing of the Q

I dont know how easy it is to rely solely on buying up local ad spots during a World Series game. I've watched enough of them to know there aren't many of them between Innings 1-9, and given this is Pennsylvania (ie. Ground Zero for the Midterms), scarcity is probably an issue. Buying nationally costs more, but puts your spot in the middle of a game when people are watching. Also probably allows him to hit every market in the state versus buying local ad time in individual markets. He's not hurting for campaign cash, good move imo

Just for PA. The game drew a 25.9 rating/50 share in the Philly Media Market... even though the ad spot was nationally broadcast, I do think it was more aimed at his constituents watching the game up in Philly

That definitely doesn't make any sense. Whatever the merits of the model, but if you have a model that is designed to deduct margin from the D candidate based on past polling error and at the end it says Whitmer is ahead, it's kinda hackish to project it as a GOP Pickup.

This post is indicative of it, but RCP has been interesting this cycle, where it goes in and applied an adjustment factor based on the error in previous cycles. (not to mention how arbitrary they are in terms of what polls they will include in their average, but that's another subject) I think it's fair for outlets covering the race to try different things to try to come to the most accurate result, but then again, it's another example of how Constitutional it is within the pundit/polling world to believe that every election going forward will underestimate GOP vote share. It's certainly a defensible prior going into 2022 believing that polling will again underestimate GOP vote share, but it seems risky to me to lean in this hard on that prior.

There's a difference between reading Mein Kampf to educate oneself on the Hitler and, to paraphrase Tater, to read it and relate to it on a personal level. I have no way of knowing whether Mastriano relates to it on a personal level, but it is undeniable that he has engaged in some light anti-semitism during his campaign.

A lot of it comes down to geography as well.... the PA Senate race is gonna come down to Southeast Pennsylvania (ie. Philly, Lehigh Valley, etc.), and the market share that game drew last night was likely massive in those markets. Money well spent.

Herschel Walker wouldn't know the "family unit" if it fell out of the sky and hit him in the head

It was really apparent this year imo... even with the few waiver claims they did make it was apparent. Brendon Davis is a good example, not that I expected much from him, but they basically waited until the final series of the year to bring him up, despite carrying Kody Clemens (and his .150 batting average) for half the season. I get that fans tend to fall in love with guys in AAA when things aren't going well and that those guys may be in AAA for a reason, but to me, it seems inexcusable not to churn the roster a bit more when they were as bad as they were in 2022.

We call this "The Full Herschel"

My personal theory on this is that he was always afraid of quitting on guys developed internally or that he acquired. Being active on the waiver wire requires taking risks with DFAs, which he was never keen on doing. (Also in keeping with how he handled the trade deadline toward the end of his tenure as well). I remember arguing about this with some folks sometime before Kerry C's contract was purchased, but given the fact that the offense was historically bad this year, it was mind blowing how few transactions or waiver wire pickups they explored among position players. It always seemed like they were content on shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic despite the historically bad offensive output.

Obviously want to see her lose, but she's gonna be a pain in the *** if Hobbs wins as well. Especially since Hobbs is SoS

Mastriano would be much worse if he were to get there, I agree. I think his candidacy would be much more potent if he were doing the things that he needs to do to compete, similar to what Lake has done in AZ. From what I've read, he's done little in terms of spending money or on ads, hasn't reached out to swing constituencies and has spent most of the time with base voters, hasn't done a lot of independent media. He was also deprived of institutional support in a way that Lake wasn't as well. Of course, Shapiro being such a strong candidate is part of the equation as well, but Lake kinda stands as a good example of how much more threatening Mastriano could have been in terms of his odds of winning had a few factors gone a different way.

I'd be curious to see the numbers, but on eye test, Avila definitely seemed less active on the waiver wire than others, particularly in 2022 when the hitting was so bad.

I'd put Kari Lake over Doug Mastriano because I really do believe he's not going to win at this point. I go back and forth on Walker/Oz, they are both celebrity grifters who are solely relying on their name and popularity to get the job and have shown little interest in the actual work of the Senate. Would probably lean Walker though, but can see arguments for Oz.

This is a good point, and given his extensive time with the Cubs, I don't know how you can evaluate him solely on his time with the Giants. Theo actually vouched for him when he was hired. I would also argue that his time with the Giants wasn't a failure either even though the results weren't there this year.

I do agree with this, although my point about Rural MI was more outside of the counties around Lake Michigan.

In an era where the political geography is pretty bad for Democrats, Wisconsin is probably the worst state for it. Theoretically you could squeeze a few more votes out of Milwaukee if the suburban counties around them would start acting more like Oakland or the collar counties around Philly, but the trends just about everywhere else are pretty grim.

The flip side to that is that there is more room to fall in Michigan for Ds in rural areas as well compared to PA.... trends away from them are likely to continue in rural areas. Which keeps the state close. That said, those trends are counteracted a lot by trends in SE and W MI. Particularly with depopulation in rural areas.

It's an interesting comparison. Minnesota has a lot more more college educated whites than Michigan, but Michigan has more AAs and maybe that cancels out some. Where the differences between MI and PA/WI present themselves imo, particularly WI, it has a lot more mid-sized cities that tend to vote Democratic, it has Grand Rapids/WMI, which likely will continue to drift left over time due to the high preponderance of college educated whites and economic growth, and increasingly folks who are settling/retiring along Lake Michigan/NW Michigan who bring their politics with them. Minnesota is further left of Michigan, but I do for sure believe that Michigan is the most blue leaning of the 2016 Blue Wall States that flipped.

I get it, just not trying to get out over my skis on this election, especially after 2020 went down. People still need to go out and vote. FWIW, Michigan does have the potential of being a bright spot for Dems this year IMO.

It really comes down to standard midterm dynamics and the fact that recent polling misses have tended to overstate Dem support. I'd love to think that they could hold both chambers, but I don't see it happening. Having said that, on the latter point, one wonders if the conventional wisdom is becoming a little too baked-in at this point. And what the reaction would be if there was, in fact, a polling miss that overstated GOP support. I don't consider it likely, but it would be fun to consider on Earth 2.0