mtutiger

Gotta say, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in admonishing folks for not adequately complaining about political or media narratives while simultaneously giving credence to a highly speculative and conspiracy ridden article that pushes a rather convenient narrative for its POV

Well, this should put that conspiracy theory to bed. (Although I doubt it will because it's not the most convenient answer for some folks)

And it being Game 1 of the World Series... A 65% probability catch in the sixth inning of Game 80 during the regular season is naturally gonna get less attention than one that happens in the 9th inning of Game 1 of the WS with the game on the line.

This.... a different fielder with more range or who is better positioned maybe makes that catch with more ease, but given the time in the game and context (WS Game 1, on the road, significant underdog), the pressure was ratcheted up greatly.

Turn the Corner is by far the best of the bunch, but they are particularly bad with dedicating time to things other than the Tigers.

But he wears a fleece vest on the campaign trail, so he must be reasonable lol

School shootings or even shootings of public figures in public settings can often be blamed on nebulous things despite evidence to the contrary. If someone goes to the effort and breaks into a public figure like Nancy Pelosi's house, which undoubtedly has more security than the average person, and beats her husband with a hammer, it's really hard to spin that away as being because of some nebulous other reason. Put another way, if you are breaking into Nancy Pelosi's house, screaming "Where's Nancy", and end up beating her husband, there's little reason to believe it isn't political.

Maybe he can give the keynote at the next Republican Convention.... lol

I listen to two of them (Turn Corner and Woodward Tigers).... the former tends to have more actual inside info which makes it a must listen (despite the BBQ tales and frequent college stories, which I tend to tune out on anyway), the latter tends to give more fan-based perspective, which I find interesting enough to hang with. Although I tend to disagree with them a decent amount of the time and think they aren't that much more knowledgeable than anyone here. The blogging world for the team leaves a lot to be desired.... Motor City Bengals in particular is pretty much textbook for your second point, it tends to be all speculation and none of it particularly knowledgeable.

Setting aside how terrible it is, it's interesting how little confidence they are projecting about this upcoming election in Pennsylvania.

That's what I get for not reading the thread.... predictable, but nonetheless disgusting

It's sad to say this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they didn't try to tie it into their messaging on crime.

Insanity

I doubt Trump being unbanned would have much of an impact... to the extent that it does, it probably gets him in the news more, which I'm guessing runs counter to what the GOP would like, particularly in suburban areas with populations of voters who didn't vote for him in 2020. But the impact would be marginal to none regardless imo.

I would be a fan lol

Here?

Yep, really the battleground is the suburbs around Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley and Pittsburgh in the Senate race, all of which aren't places that are suited for Mastriano and where the gap between Fetterman and Oz in terms of ideal candidate is much smaller. Not to mention that Shapiro is from Montgomery County, so Philly burbs is kinda his home turf. Also cannot be understated how little actual campaigning / spending that Mastriano has done in the state. People hate TV ads, but there's a reason that campaigns go up with them: to become part of the consciousness and to define yourself / others before your opponent can do it to you. Particularly in a close state like PA. Shapiro has done that and Mastriano hasn't, hence the massive lead. Much different story in the Senate race, where both candidates are visible and spending money. I suspect that he will run independent on Fetterman as a result.

He's only brought in Metzler so far, but I kinda like how he didn't necessarily have a prior relationship with Metzler before bringing him on. It's better to surround yourself with people with different experiences who may be willing to speak up or challenge when you are in an executive role like that.

I'm not even sure they are the best comparison point for this race.... Mark Kirk, who had a massive stroke while serving in the Senate just within the past decade before losing in 2016 to Tammy Duckworth, is probably the closest allegory. I recall him making a few verbal flubs during the race as well that may have been attributable to auditory issues, but I never recall the media making as big of a deal out of it as they are in this particular race. And the same with Duckworth's campaign, who generally would go after him when making mistakes without taking aim specifically at the fact that he had a stroke. And just as Mark Kirk was fine to serve in the Senate, Fetterman is as well. We will have to see if the voters of PA agree.

This is probably right... it was kind of a damned if you do situation. My own read from reading recaps and watching a few clips this AM is that coverage on Oz' performance by the media seems somewhat muted and the focus is more on Fetterman. It's not entirely without reason, of course, Fetterman was bad. But the muted coverage on Oz seems to overlook or ignore that, being the candidate with very high unfavorable ratings in the polls and the one who is currently trailing, he had things he needed to accomplish last night. And from what I can tell, he really didn't accomplish those goals; he committed a pretty high profile gaffe and based on some other statements (ie. "let me repeat that back since you didn't understand me") came across like a jack*** at times. The polls may come back differently, of course, but I suspect Oz stepping on a few landmines of his own will probably hinder his gains coming out of the debate.

There has been a bit of hyperbole about the Avila drafts in the sense that it often overstates the success that other teams have with respect to their own drafts; even the good teams draft plenty of players that don't pan out. Where the criticism is valid imo comes down to where they have drafted; for all the high draft picks, they haven't had much to show for it thus far. Maybe that changes as Tork/Greene get more experience, Manning progresses, Mize gets healthy, but they have been abjectly disappointing in this regard.

I didn't watch the debate, but gathered that while Fetterman did not have a good debate performance at all, Oz also had issues as well both in terms of that gaffe and in terms of general smarminess/unlikableness (which he kinda needs to improve on based on polling). I'm guessing it didn't move the needle much