#or maybe not controversial because i did that poll a couple weeks back and i actually think lone star won

[lily-blue-blue-lily]

im finally completely caught up on 911 and ive only got a few episodes of lone star left and i think... i think, controversially, maybe i now prefer lone star ...

[batarangsoundsdumb]

hae interrogationes multae respondeant quia demens .

if you read this entire ask post you deserve a gold star and financial recompensation

Um, Obviously because when you’re adopted by a white guy you automatically become white duhhh

this is about this post lmao and yeah youre absolutely right, you have to hand your poc card in when you get adopted by a white guy.

Do you think Cass would listen to Yanni, the YouTube channel epic symphonic rock, or some other stuff? There's some cool mashups but idk if that's up your alley, I kinda feel like I'm pushing it with my weird taste of music by recommending an orchestra cover of metal, but i just love that sort of thing and mashups :P @harvestyourcherries 

i haven’t heard of that? but in my personal (correct) opinion steph listens to classical music, and then both modern and older, and then also stuff like black sabbath, iron maiden, but also hardrock and hardcore. i like the idea of cass just liking the most extreme screaming songs full of noise and then also listen to pachelbel’s 370th sonata yanno? THANK YOU for the rec tho

speaking of ur cass playlist hc...reminds of the time (yesterday) i found 2 playlists randomly on spotify from the same user. one was abt 3 hours of instrumental/classical "dark" & "nostalgic" music. the other almost 11 hours of nothing but hardcore bass/synth/electronic music. just an incredible tightrope act to put on in public. the synth one was also called like "psalms for synth sluts" which is Also incredible

tbh i LOVE synth SO MUCH like for no reason at all but then also cannot handle a poppy electronic beat lmao. but this seems like the kinda thing i’d do but just in one (1) playlist bc i just sort songs by vibe instead of genre? that’s how i end up with britney spears and billy ray cyrus in the same playlist. 

Oh, I want Kate Kane playlist next! It would be amazing if you could do one when you have time and will 🙏

how rude would it be of me to just say no? like sorry kate but idk you and also you seem way too keen on the us military for an institution that homophobically targeted you? (and also commits war crimes) but let’s unpack the fact that the institution that caused the death of your mom and sister and also got you blacklisted for being gay is still one you align with???

'yes i am' 'no you're not' 'yes i am' 'no you're not' 'yes i am' 'no you're not' 'yes i am' 'no you're not' 'yes i am' 'no you're not' 'yes i am' 'no you're not' --- when i tell you i fucking screamed LOL!!!!!!! i can imagine the cameraman not knowing if he should cut to commercial or keep it on these two weirdos fighting on stage (bruce definitely ruffled dick's hair/noogied him right?? 

about this post but yeah lmao. this cameraman just turns to like the audience to get a reaction and it’s just multiple moments of CLEAR shock.

you are the only funny person on this hellsite

how egotistical is it for me to say that i get this ask multiple times a month? bc it literally happens so often it’s hilarious to me.

Wish there was more john/Bruce content 😔😔😔 was so hungry I actually looked at canon media 😔😔😔 (Justice League Dark babeeeyyyyyy)

check out batman: damned for some mediocre content but at least it’s john/bruce (also very interesting story and stuff, just got very >:( over this weird part where harley quinn tried to r*pe bruce or something? it’s not for everyone)

dick grayson but he's nicki minaj

his anaconda don’t want none,,, unless...... 

Dick Grayson was never a cop, he played Marshall on Paw Patrol

you are SO right. also paw patrol is a fucking good show idc. that shit could’ve been the new steven universe on this hellsite.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CS1lI0bLI7-/?utm_medium=copy_link

...

why do people keep reposting my CONTENT. if you are not funny yourself don’t just grab shit off of tumblr and post it on insta,,, get a life. sidenote: should i start an insta and get all these ppl to take my content down that would be funny as hell.

Might I suggest for a Gotham City Meme: something about the true crime fandom thirsting for the rogues gallery

ok can i just say something slightly controversial?? no? i don’t find true crime ppl who are into criminals funny, that shits disturbing irl im not gonna bring that into my very chill universe.

i may have never seen a 'jason cleaning guns in sink' fic but i do know he WOULD

THANK YOU

bestie im sorry to say this to you but while you can, and people do wash their guns in the sink, that is a lot of lead in a very vital part of the kitchen.

people tend to do it in the bathtub.

WHY???? like damn why do you even have guns

i dont think i read many gun sink fics exactly but i have read lots of fics where jason cleanes his guns in the living room. usualy dissembles them and cleans them with a rag i think

lmao fair enough, like i think that’s a large part of what i remember as well.

if you say you've seen/read gun sink fics I believe you. I think those of us who didn't see them are lucky or maybe didn't search for fics by tags or something idk

i mean ive never sought them out but i HAVE seen them,, like definitely i know almost for certain.

saw your tags and I'm interested in Steph/Kara now. They would be the most chaotic couple <3

literally thoooo, i have a wip where they get together in a zombie apocalypse and like UGGGHhhh i am so in love with them.

I am the Breece anon. Thanks for the recommendation; am reading now. I’ve always been a hardcore Superman fan because I love my pure himbo farm boy. My logic is, if one Bruce is a Broose, then multiple Broose are a herd of Breece. And this is a hill upon which I will perish.

fair enough,,,, like moose, meese, goose, geese, bruce, breece. i get your logic and i stand by it as well. (glad you enjoyed the comic recs!!!!)

It's a beautiful day in Gotham, and you are a group of horrible Breece

OH my god dude lmao

there only being 42 fics on ao3 for tim and bernard is honestly so sad i need more

it’s like twice that now!!! we did it lads. (tho very sad that my fic isnt number one but like number 4 :((((  )

i'm too late you already did the poll lol but may i suggest bethy (bernard + timothy)

shit dude that wouldve been so fucking funnyyyyy. think ppl have just stuck to timber tho, tim/bernard kinda died down recently and i think it’s too bad, they’re a great couple and i love them.

Wait, hear me out

Bernothy @redlightofdawn

great recommendation (lmao this ask is from like a month ago) but very sorry to announce that NARDTH is the superior shipname

Wait, we know that bernard likes milfs (Tim's step-mom) but what about dilfs? gilfs?

Wait no, I regret sending that ask

these were two seperate asks and they’re HILARIOUS. in my personal opinion tho,,, milfs, gilfs, dilfs are just about vibes and bernard is just attracted to sexy ppl who may sometimes be milfs, dilfs, or EVEN gilfs.

crime in bludhaven would drop to half if nightwing had a boob window. in this essay i will-

WHERE’S THE ESSAY ANON, WHERE’S THE FUCKING ESSAY

Wait if Barbra and Tim r at opposite ends at all times what happened to Barbra once everyone’s Tim’s ever love before started dying lol

she won a lottery ticket and spent 2 weeks on a resort in the bahamas before returning home and finding out that the joker was arrested for tax evasion and then spent a month staying at her big tiddie goth girlfriend’s house before conner came back to life and she broke her pinkie playing table hockey.

Why is the opposite end thing so funny and compelling to me. Tim comes back from his depression quest for Bruce and Babs is now a literal god

lmao when tim loses his spleen barbara reaches nirvana.

Are you still taking music recs because I have three songs that remind me of Jason that I think you'd like

send to me or lose a toe

🌸 ⭐ put this star into the inbox of your favorite blogs. it’s time to spread positivity! ⭐🌸😋

thanks, i wont tho on account of i wont.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMduBy3Sr/

⬆️

This is the whole of Blüdhaven and everyone anywhere.

Nightwings ass alone saves more people in a calendar year and does more for so society than most heroes do their whole career.Also u are one of the funniest tumblr pages out there. The vibes are unmatched and the memes and tags ✨send me✨.Thank u and goodnight @julia-flow 

fanksss also lmao.

That's going to be a little bit difficult to explain, but

There's some music that you listen to and you think, "oh my gosh, I can perfectly imagine Dick Grayson singing this song, with the same voice as the singer because that voice matches with Dick Grayson"?

oh yeah totally lmao. i have a lot of songs that i think are just entirely dick grayson yanno? kind of all of my playlists have that vibe, but i really find bleachers to fit with dick? idk.

"Lois lane/Superman" fics this, "Lois lane/Clark Kent" fics that, (/lh) let's get into the real good stuff. Some people ship Lois, Clark, and Superman as a throuple. Most popular fic tag for sure

yes totally, i think they’d be absolutely killer on ao3 and clark gets so fucking embarassed about it.

I miss your post, hope you’re doing okay!!

haha this was like 2 months ago, but i was doing fine then too! just didn’t have a lot of inspiration in terms of content.

Doot doot!

noot noot

I’m confused. What did DC do now? Like with nightwing? And another sibling? Please spoil everything for me

lmao they gave him a secret sister plotline where they had his dad cheat on his mom with tony zucco’s wife, bc dick’s life wasn’t traumatic enough yet.

sorry but it's so funny that batman is called "the dark knight" when the gotham city baseball team is called the gotham knights. it'd be like if a vigilante was running around new york called like "the scary yankee"

lmaooo no. but like yankee comes from dutch names or something so wouldnt it be HILARIOUS if gotham knights came from like german names and bruce would be running around called the dark KLAUS UND NIEK @graysonnightwing 

(not a batcest shipper) it’s so funny to me that the responses are “i’m a batcest shipper because i can differentiate fiction from reality and and it doesn’t bother me personally, but i understand why you oils think it’s weird” to “i wish all batcest shippers a very fucking die”

yeah lmaoo. i personally basically flipped my entire stance around to ‘i dont care please leave me and everybody else alone’ bc i think there’s really no point in starting a moral dillema over some fucking fandom bullshit. Please just,,, go home,,, log off, find a nice forest to have a little walk in and remember that somewhere in history, somebody probably died in the place you’re standing. and you will also die someday, and somebody will have to look at your internet usage and see you fighting multiple people anonymously while being named ‘nightwingsbuttchin200186′ like... calm down, we’re all gonna die this is not the thing to worry about.

so since like "wards" don't really exist in modern society almost all the batkids are foster kids, right? i used to work in the system and imagine: monthly visits from social workers and guardian ad litems, bruce having to get permission to take the boys anywhere out of state, calling their social worker at like 8 a.m. like "yeah dick broke his arm again... a gymnastics accident this time...." their poor social worker. bruce send her a huge bouquet and box of chocolates every month to stay on her good side

i imagine the social worker just getting into the case like ‘yeah let’s get this kid a good guardian’ and then ending up having to work with 22 y/o bruce wayne and his 50 y/o dad. and so this social worker is like ‘okay we can work with this, this is the best home i can find’ and then like it ends up landing on its feet and then the kid gets adopted and then they get a call a year later like ‘uhm so hi, this kid tried to steal my tyres can i adopt him?’ and like 3 years later. ‘okay so basically, my neighbours’ kid imprinted on me and now they’re dead, can i keep him?’ two years later it’s like ‘okay so this assassin child-’

ever since I saw that one post of yours, the meme that's something like "I know that abba's backup dancer got me" with a picture of discowing, I've been haunted. Every once in a while I'll be minding my own business then the image of abba's backup dancer dick grayson aka nightwing aka discowing will flash in my mind and I'll be frozen in place. Today at work I was in the middle of folding clothes and suddenly once again discowing entered my mind and I suddenly lost the ability to see anything except He. Thank you.

wow. the IMPACT.

Braver than any US marine man props to you🤝

this shit is about the time i wrote an article on batcest, like man,,, the fact that i didn’t get cancelled is MIRACULOUS. also like,,, uh if anybody on here did gossip on me,, send screenshots i’d love to see it.

Hello, just wanted to say your article was great. Thank you for taking the time to provide an unbaised answer. It should provide people with nuances they couldn't possibly conjure on their own.

May I ask where your username originates from?

yes you may (also thanks!!!) i thought it up when i was trying to find an original username bc i didnt want to be called like ‘timdrakes something something’ or ‘jason todd something smoething’ or ‘dick grayson something something’ yanno? so i thought batarangs, they sound so dumb and that’s my username story... now it’s my whole entire brand lmao.

yno that bit in kick ass where red mist asks kick ass if he wants a hit of his blunt, was that the inspo for stoner tim

no? it’s bc i think stoners are hilarious and drugs are great. (dont do drugs tho) 

How would u feel if someone actually wore one of those bruce or ollie pride shirts u edited

fenomenal next question.

Dick as lil huddy and Jason as James gave me radiation poisoning and now I’m screaming crying throwing up so thx for that

(Rico suave as Tim is perfect tho literally no changes needed)

i was so funny for that shit wasn’t i??? lmao i loved those weird ass fancasts

You're doing the Lord's work by providing us with all these Gotham/Metropolis citizens memes, thank you for being so relentlessly funny @nellethiel-aranel

you’re welcome!! i really enjoy making memes, but getting validation for my content and my memes is REALLY nice.

Bruce is such a slut in your memes and honestly i love that for him @rhodey-rhudert-rhodes-main 

he’s that much of a slut irl too dw.

Bruce and Alfred have an emergency pride flag for the batkids. Oliver Queen printed an emergency "I love my gay son" t-shirt and as soon as Roy told him he was dating Jason, Oliver started wearing that shirt everyday and Roy always cringes when he sees it. Oliver also has an emergency "I love my lesbian daughter" shirt just in case for Cissie.

lmao YES i had a post like this bc like all of their kids/family members are so gayy

stop bringing back batfam fancasts it is not real it is not real it is not- 😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

oh yes it is my darling.

did discowing burn down the notredam because he hates the bees? @allulily

no he did it bc fuck the french.

im gonna beg for 1 thing and 1 thing only. please please please put physical by olivia newton john on dick's playlist

okay then beg. bc i wont. physical reminds me too much of glee and that hurts me mentally.

your playlist is sorely missing some Madonna. Specifically Into the Groove, Like a Prayer, and Vogue

i’m scared of madonna that’s why she’s not on there. she haunts me in my dreams.

suggestion: son of batman by aaron dews for dick’s playlist🤩

sorry, i listened to it and the vibe didn’t agree with me.

Hear me out, metropolis citizens sending rare pair fics of Clark Kent x Superman fics to Lois to edit

yes, absolutely hilarious. even more funny if they send like physical copies, no address attached and lois sends it back marked with red ink, SOMEHOW

Imagine all the smut Clark must of read editing the fics

clark reads smut confirmeeed

NOT LOIS READING SUPERBAT PORN AND EDITING IT A 2AM 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

hc that alfred is a meta that boosts healing factor of the people around him. if the bats are injured as much as they seem to be they would be doing bat stuff MAYBE half the year. no one including alfred knows about this. whenever the kids move out they inexplicably dont recover from injuries as fast and feel better whenever they visit the manor they just chalk it up to homesickness. bruce just thinks he heals really fast. alfred thinks everyone doesnt take care of themselves properly @finchcollector

that’s actually such a great idea, but i think that alfred would find out and learn how to concentrate it better so he can help more people, bc he’s great and i love him.

One of your dickfast posts reminded me of that tweet that goes: 'so you've had sex how many times? Yeah technically that's not a bromance' lol that's dickwally or dickroy

literally tho. like that’s all of dick’s friendships. once it gets past a certain time dick is like ‘wow i wonder what it would be like to make out with wally, wally come make out with me’ and wally’s like ‘we’ve done this like 40 times, dick, you know what it’s like’ and dick is like ‘sorry are you complaining?’ and they just make out.

superfam and batfam associations??

-batman and superman

-dick/barabara and supergirl?

-conner and tim

-jon and damian

pls enlighten me I am confused

nope,,, uhm batman and superman, but dick and superman as well, and then conner and tim, jon and damian and steph + babs with supergirl

I came across a fic in which Wonder Woman calls Batman "Stella" (like Stellaluna, the children's book) and I can imagine the batkids hop on the trend and maybe copies of the book appear at random places (aka, everywhere Bruce frequents)

sorry can’t reciprocate that was the name of my high school chemistry teacher and it gives me nightmares to think about.

good human what are your pronouns?

wouldn’t you like to know?

I need me some gothamites preferring harley over joker memes

everyone prefers harley over joker youre just very fucked up if you dont

don't understand why people try to add like veteran policy to the batfamily

dick pulling out his veteran batfam member card so he can eat first: step aside, peasants

Do you know the song Simmer by Haley Williams? It (the first verse anyways) reminds me of Jason? It's about rage.

damn yeah i LOVE HAYLEY!!!! youre right thoo

Okay so I like listen to your stoner Tim Drake playlist 24/7 but would he listen to skegss? Also I keep adding songs mentally it’s killing me 😩✋🏼 Anyways,, I literally love and worship your playlist 😃🤞🏼 And uh yeah have a good day ✨

stoner tim drake playlist is lyfeeee. also dont know who skeggs is? i’m stupid? have a good day!!

All the Robins (and Batgirl) decide to trade costumes for one night just to fuck with Batman and all the villains in Gotham. @subspacecadet 

batman knows it’s them youknow but like,,, what does he call them? he’s like ‘red hood?’ and 3 people answer and he’s not about to compromise some identities so he’s just Pissed.

I aspire to treat cops the way my dad treats them. This man is a 45 year old Asian immigrant to the US and the treats them like his pets. He talks about them like unruly children. Sometimes he pays off local cops to shut up and stop acting racist. And usually it works. I don’t know why but I can see Oliver Queen doing this

vibes... and also yes? oliver queen handing a local cop a donut to shut the fuck up lmao. but yanno i commit enough crimes to not really want to ever see a cop ever, so they kinda scare the everloving fuck out of me.

seeing as tim hasn't aged in years, that means he was 17 at peak emo tumblr era. im back on my emo tim bullshit and im not letting it go

emo tim had a wattpad account send tweet

People seem to think that batman is so dark and serious when the rainbow batsuit is right there. He wore it with no shame.

dude the 60s were a DIFFERENT TIME

dick grew up in a circus, jason grew up on the streets, and tim was probably raised by the internet

all of them cuss every other word and you cannot tell me otherwise

bitch i KNOW but dc has to change to an 18+ rating if they want to sell comix with swear words in them so we gotta deal with imagining the swear words in ourselves

thoughts on teen titans and young justice

haven’t seen teen titans on account of havent seen it and young justice was LITERALLY my favourite thing ever, tho i do gotta admit it’s not at all similar to the young justice comics unfortunately. i really wouldve liked to see timmy bart kon cassie and cissie animated on tv!!

ew ew ew how to delete batcest shippers I genuinely digust them

log off tumblr?

Okay as poc who was called racist for calling an Italian pastabrain: in the batfam are Italians bit Damian just yells various insults about the others being Italian. Just him yelling “What are you doing you moronic spaghettihead!” At steph etc

huh? i meant real italians. homeboy is telling steph he hopes she chokes on her fucking garlic.

I think it's dumb as hell to pull the batman is the best fighter in the batfam argument because like it's just irresponsible of Bruce to let his kids fight when they couldn't possibly be on his league or something

fair enough, but also like who cares they could all kill you just sit down and take a beating.

lady shiva, thalia al ghul and Selina Kyle are all milfs @notanothertimburtonenthusiastugh 

unfortunately, i have to admit,,, you’re right

why tf didn't someone give joker a death sentence already? like he's a mass murderer...give him the electric chair treatment wtf

idk i think plenty of people would have tried to murder him already (boring answer is: he is a popular character so they can’t kill him off bc he brings in lots of money)

There’s no such thing as “ copaganda”.

all american media is propaganda. happy to clear this up for you

is it bad that I find lady shiva owa owa

no. find her as owa owa as you want.

aight I'm guessing the order of your favs in batfam:

1. tim

2. Steph

3. dick

4. Duke

5. the rest

you’re wrong but it’s cute that you tried, i generally don’t have favourites, but i have a special place in my heart for steph, tim, dick and cass. bc they were like my introduction to batfam. but damian, jason, duke, bruce, babs and alfred are NOT FORGOTTEN OR UNLOVED

oh my god i was literally just readily willing to believe that italians werent white ty for clarifying it was a joke im so dumb sdkvjskdfs

i mean some italians aren’t white? italian is a nationality as well as an ethnicity, so like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

since I saw so many people doing headcanons about the nationalities of batboys, I see Dick as an Italian.

dont know if youre serious or not, but sure.

super random but

jason 🤝 damian

old english

lmao fair enough.

tim absolutely has 1 gay uncle and his parents shit talk said uncle all the time so after bruce adopts him he specifically reaches out to this uncle to be like "heyyyy just so you know you majorly influenced my life yes i know i havent seen you since i was 5 and at the family reunion yes i know you dont remember my name idc thank you im gay too" and then they never talk again.

yuppp lmao that’s definitely something that could happen. i can also consider tim having no family members, like none. until he does like a dna test and he realises he has like an aunt living barely 2 miles away from him who’s like some illegitimate child of his grandpa.

I dare you one of them sends clark superman/clark fic and clark corrects the shit out of it and then goes like ps his dick is not that big, just telling as someone who has seen it. internet either explodes or goes who tf did he not fuck at this point.

i think everybody would call clark a buzzkill and try to cancel him over that.

so you're telling me Tim Drake wouldn't buy Starbucks?

no. dunkin donuts all the way

One of my favorite things is imagining people finding out jason came back from the dead and being like "oh no does he have magic powers now?!?!?" and he just pulls out a gun and tries to shoot joker

now he doesn’t even have the gun :) lmao

my favorite batfamily fanfictions are the ones where they use their shitty codenames, unironically, in any context

bruce gets codename ‘ugh’ everytime. he hates it.

crazy that tim being a 17 y/o ceo and a stoner who does brand deals are all actual canon things written in detective comics comics and not made up for shits and giggles by you, tumblr user batarangsoundsdumb @rowdeyclown

SO CRAZY HUH?

batman au where everything is the same but his utility belt is bright pink

absolutely, but i raise you, his boots light up like sketchers when he kicks people.

unbeknownst to the superhero fandom writers in the dcuniverse, clark and BRUCE are one of the most prolific fanfic writers in the superhero rpf tag on ao3. clark writes the best lois x superman angst, full of unhappy endings and scenes that are a so detailed you'd think you were in the middle of a superhero beatdown. bruce made an ao3 account to fuel "the do the butts match" thing, and makes batman/bruce fics from time to time. he wrote a superbat fic as a joke but ended up making it REAL porny. @concrastinator

dude they’re WAY too busy for that. Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan on the other hand are the most prolific fanfic writers in the superhero rpf tag writing what is Mostly porn.

When the dining table topic gets to politics, Steph says "eat the rich" as the solution

bruce just silently takes away her fork and knife while she’s talking.

[sinrau]

“So I ask you to do me a favor. Suburban women: will you please like me? Please. Please. I saved your damn neighborhood, OK? The other thing: I don’t have that much time to be that nice. You know, I can do it, but I gotta go quickly.” — President Donald J. Trump

Welcome to the Countdown Journal. There are 20 days until Election Day and then 78 until the Inauguration.

Let’s start with this: The president retweeted a story suggesting that Barack Obama had Seal Team 6 murdered. And it hardly made a ripple in the news cycle, three weeks before the election.

As Bill Kristol notes in this morning’s Bulwark, “Deviancy has been defined so far down that President Donald Trump’s retweet at mid-day Tuesday was barely noticed.”

After all, what’s new? And who cares?

So what if the president of the United States brought to prominence an insane conspiracy theory that his predecessor, Barack Obama, arranged for four Americans to be killed at Benghazi to cover up an even bigger intentional blood-sacrifice of Navy SEALs—which in turn covered up the fact that Osama Bin Laden was still alive. Since it was a body-double who was in fact killed in 2011.

Or at least I think that’s the story Trump was amplifying. You’ll forgive me if I got some twists in the plot wrong.

Anyway, what’s the big deal? It’s just Trump being Trump. The important things were happening elsewhere, in the back and forth between Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and various senators on Capitol Hill. That’s what serious conservatives were focused on. That’s what’s going to make a difference. If crazy tweets are the price we pay for an originalist justice, these people tell us, then it’s well worth it.

Speaking of crazy. Olivia Nuzzi reports that America’s Mayor “was in Philadelphia sounding like Livia Soprano.”

After claiming that Democrats used the pandemic to take away gun rights, which did not happen, he mentioned the McCloskeys, the couple who wielded guns on the porch of their St. Louis mansion in front of Black Lives Matter demonstrators who were passing by. Giuliani claimed, falsely, that the protesters had yelled, “ ’We want to rape your wife! We want to rape your wife! We want this for reparations! This is number one for reparations! Biggest house here! Reparations!’” He added, “Nobody knows this, but at the time, their daughter was upstairs under the bed because she was afraid they’re going to come in and they’re talking about rape and they’re going to rape the wife and they’re going to find the daughter.”

None of that was true.

And now we learn that Trump has chosen Rudy and Jay Sekulow to run his post-election operation. What could possibly go wrong?

How is Trump’s final act playing with women? Not well, apparently.

A reporter from the Economist who watched the focus group:

Easy questions. On balance, Amy Coney Barrett is doing as well as could be expected in the kabuki-theater hearings over her nomination. Senators bloviate and ask questions she won’t answer. She doesn’t use notes. We know how it ends.

But the thing about easy questions is that they are easy.

Questions like: Can the president unilaterally move the date of the election? The easy answer is no, he can’t. That requires an act of congress. It’s the law.

ACB’s answer:

“Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I’d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” she said. “So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”

Here’s another one.

I’m not not a lawyer, but shouldn’t a constitutional “originalist” believe that the constitution requires a peaceful transfer of power? And that the founders kind of thought it was important? When did that become “political controversy”?

And, then there was this question about voter intimidation. “Sen. Amy Klobuchar brought up efforts by President Trump to get his supporters to the polls to observe voting activity and asked Judge Amy Coney Barrett if under federal law it is illegal to intimidate voters at the polls. “

“I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.”

She continued: “I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on a full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion, and so I can’t answer questions like that.”

Easy answer: it is against the law to intimidate voters, and as a judge I believe in upholding the law.

Why is this so hard? (And, yes, that is a rhetorical question.)

Well, how about that. Biden says that he is “not a fan of court packing.”

“I’ve already spoken on — I’m not a fan of court packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused,” the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee said in an interview with Cincinnati’s WKRC.

We are now free to get back to Hillary’s emails.

Not with a bang or even a whimper. “‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report.”

Or, as Tim Miller puts it in today’s Bulwark, “Another ‘Deep State’ non-scandal goes down the memory hole.”

Guess we can close the file on that one.

William Barr has quietly ended the probe into the supposed “unmasking” scandal which was only opened as fan service for Republican elected officials and conservative media in the first place. (Trump had suggested to Maria Bartiromo that the perpetrators be given 50 year sentences on Fox.)

I suspect that Barr had hoped that maybe, with a little luck, his investigation might snare somebody in some tangential wrongdoing. Or be able to do some strategic leaking. Or at least keep the issue open until after the election.

Alas, the president’s lawyer daddy struck out. Again. Thus bringing to a close a matter that—in a saner world—would have been the stupidest fake scandal in decade.

Romney sort of goes there. I blame myself a bit for this, because the other day I highlighted Keith Olbermann’s deranged rant. But I was just taking a cheap shot, not attempting to weigh the comparative insanity of the two sides of our political divide.

Which brings me to Romney, who put this out yesterday:

My thoughts on the current state of our politics:

This is good, sort of. This is the strongest denunciation of Trump’s toxic crackpottery from any Republican. (It may be the only one?) But what caught the most attention was Romney’s suggestions that there was some rough moral equivalency between comments by the president of the United States and a washed up sports guy on a YouTube video.

Both were bad. One has the nuclear codes.

So, unfortunately, this falls into the category of:Meant Well, But Actually Missed the Point.

Mitt Romney doesn’t want that to be his epitaph.

A final off-ramp for the GOP establishment?

As I mentioned on yesterday’s podcast, Politico’s Tim Alberta suggests that the GOP might still break with Trump… after the election. If the election is a blowout, he writes, “and Trump is flinging wild accusations about wide-scale fraud and deep-state conspiracies to take him down, Republicans will be forced to choose a side.

“They will either stand with a battered soon-to-be-former president whose days in office are numbered whether he likes it or not, or they will stand with the democratic norms that have guided the nation for 244 years.”

I suspect that he’s at least partly right. Some members of the GOP Old Guard might be willing to tell Trump to go. But Ted Cruz? Josh Hawley? Marco Rubio? Nikki Haley? Lindsey Graham? Forget about it.

Instead, backing Trump is more likely to become the new litmus test of tribal loyalty.

Foxconn turns out to be a massive boondoggle. Who knew?

Oh wait.

Something for the bedwetters. We’ve seen way too much hope and optimism lately, so I wanted to pass on this piece from Thomas Edsall, who warns that Biden is not yet out of the woods.

Here are some of the things causing anxiety among Democratic partisans, particularly political professionals.

One way to measure voter enthusiasm is to compare voter registration trends for each party. A Democratic strategist who closely follows the data on a day-to-day basis wrote in a privately circulated newsletter:

Since last week, the share of white non-college over 30 registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016, and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points. And there are serious signs of political engagement by white non-college voters who had not cast ballots in previous elections.

But, but, but… Biden is now leading in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Arizona and the Economist Forecast gives him a 91 percent chance of winning the election. The FiveThirty Forecast has Biden at 87 percent.

The RealClearPolitics average now puts Biden’s lead at 10 points.

There are 20 days to go.

Quick Hits

Ok, sorry about the downer item above. As an antidote, make sure you read this piece by Mona Charen in today’s Bulwark.

We devote a lot of mental energy to things that are going wrong or could go wrong. It’s human nature. As the sociobiologists teach us, our ancestors were not the ones who heard a rustling in the grass and figured, “Eh, it’s probably nothing.” We are descended from the ones who said “ What the hell was that? Could be a cobra. Better run the other way.” Vigilance is our default mode.

But seven months after the start of this plague, we shouldn’t lose sight of the things that went more right than we expected for two reasons: 1) gratitude is good for the spirit and the soul, and 2) we must guard against catastrophizing.

Nicholas Grossman in today’s Bulwark:

Leaders, especially in law enforcement positions, can counter the president’s effort to stir up voter intimidation by making it clear they’ll prosecute election-related crimes, as Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford did after the debate.

Police should prepare for the possibility of armed intimidation at polling places. And concerned citizens should prepare for the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario in which some police are overwhelmed — or choose to look the other way — by being ready to calmly, peacefully escort any intimidated voters into polling places.

Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection recommends documenting what you see—if uniformed militia show up, photograph or take note of any insignias—and offers fact sheets on the relevant laws in 50 states, which you can find here.

Cheap Shots

Give a gift subscription

Deep Thoughts

Josh Kraushaar in the National Journal:

Republicans are now bracing for a punishing Election Night, resigned to losing the presidency, alarmed that Democrats will pad their House majority, and growing increasingly concerned that Chuck Schumer will be the next Senate majority leader. Most are hoping for a mere blue-wave election, rather than a potential tsunami that would wipe out some GOP members of Congress in reliably red states and districts. “He’s losing older Republicans over COVID,” said one alarmed senior Republican strategist. “They take their health seriously, and they see the nonsense out of the White House and it’s off-putting.”

So today’s column is something of a scorecard that will indicate just how bad the Election Night environment will be for Republicans. These are all races that, in normal times, should be fairly safe seats for the Republican Party. But they’re shaping up to be uncomfortably close. If Democrats win even one of these four races, it’s a sign of a big blue political wipeout.

A Tsunami of Trumpian Crazy

[highvoltagearea]

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, Belarus opposition leader willing to engage with political rival after controversial election

  Belarus’s main opposition challenger has revealed she will return home when the regime is ready for dialogue and is even willing to engage with President Alexander Lukashenko.

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who fled to Lithuania after challenging the results of a disputed presidential election two weeks ago, told Sky News the momentum for change in her country is unstoppable even if protests reduce in size because of state intimidation tactics.

She urged armed forces and the police not to turn on fellow Belarusians if ordered by the strongman ruler to use violence again against peaceful demonstrators.

Image: The 37-year-old former teacher leaves a press conference in Vilnius, Lithuania

But she said she doubted whether the regime would resort to more punishment beatings and repressive crowd control because it had previously fuelled rather than dampened dissent.

Mrs Tikhanovskaya, 37, speaking at a hotel in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, said she would go back to Belarus as soon as the government signals it is ready to speak and once all political prisoners – including her jailed activist husband – are freed.

“I think that will be the moment I will go back there and will be with my husband and people,” she said, speaking in English.

She has helped to establish a co-ordination council to oversee a transition of power. However, the regime is trying to launch a criminal case against it, accusing the body of attempting to “seize power”.

She said the council would continue its work regardless.

As for whether she would be willing to sit down and talk to Mr Lukashenko, his opponent said: “If it is the necessity and I will understand it is necessary so why not?”

The political novice did a round of media interviews a day after emerging from hiding to give a press conference.

She said she was not yet ready to talk about what happened to her during several hours inside a government electoral office on 10 August.

It is thought she was threatened with being separated from her two young children, whom she had already moved to Lithuania.

Mrs Tikhanovskaya, a trained English teacher and previously a full-time mother, is an unlikely political heavyweight.

She only took on the president when her husband, a political activist, was jailed and barred from running in the election.

Her simple message – promising free and fair elections – won her huge support.

It made the official outcome of the polls, which awarded 80% of the vote to Mr Lukashenko and just 10% to his main rival, implausible.

Image: Belarusian President Lukashenko gestures during a rally of his supporters in Minsk

Outrage at the results triggered nationwide protests that were met initially with widespread state violence, which drew even more support for those opposing the regime.

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets last Sunday.

Mr Lukashenko then faced heckles and jeers when he spoke at a factory – his traditional support base.

But in recent days, renewed threats and intimidation from authorities against dissent has dampened what had been a carnival atmosphere of resistance.

Mr Tikhanovskaya said she could not predict how many people would attend another mass demonstration planned for this Sunday, but said change was coming regardless of crowd size.

 Tens of thousands protest in Belarus

“I believe in our people and actually we will not lose this moment,” she said.

“Even if this moment will slow down or calm down a little bit, our people they will not accept our president anymore.”

She had this message for the security forces in case they are ordered to crackdown on protesters: “You can’t go against your mothers, your sisters and your brothers. You don’t have to do this.”

She said she had spoken to a number of Western leaders during her time in Lithuania but had not yet been contacted by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Image: She said she has not yet been contacted by Mr Putin

Russia is a key stakeholder in Belarus, a former Soviet state that retains close cultural, economic and military ties.

Asked whether she should call Mr Putin, she said: “Maybe I will write down a message for him. I don’t know yet but I always called for every nation, and Russia is among these countries … to respect the sovereignty of our country and I am sure they will get this message.”

Asked to clarify whether she did plan to write the Russian leader a note, she said: “Who knows?”

Mr Lukashenko has tried to portray his opponents as being backed by the European Union, the US and other Western allies.

Mrs Tikhasnovskaya noted that, by contrast, when she ran against him he accused his rivals of having links to Russia.

She said she was subjected to no external influence.

“We are for our country, our sovereign country,” she said.

Mrs Tikhanovskaya appeared ready for a long fight if necessary.

“Everybody has to understand that it can last a couple of days or weeks [or]so it can take a lot of time,” she said.

“But I believe in the fact that our authority wants the best for the country and they understand that this crisis has to end and the sooner it ends, the better for country.”

Read More Here

source https://highvoltagearea.com/svetlana-tikhanovskaya-belarus-opposition-leader-willing-to-engage-with-political-rival-after-controversial-election/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=svetlana-tikhanovskaya-belarus-opposition-leader-willing-to-engage-with-political-rival-after-controversial-election

[theliberaltony]

via FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): None of us know when the 2020 invisible primary officially began. (Was it the day after the 2016 election? The day after the midterm elections in November? Jan. 1, 2019?) But now that we’re a little over a month into 2019, let’s take a moment to step back and assess the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

Who has done well? Who hasn’t? And who do we think will get into the race but hasn’t yet?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): The field is definitely coming into focus, which I appreciate.

With Amy Klobuchar looking likely to join the race this weekend, I would say that all the top-tier candidates are now officially in except Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke.

And those are the three who can afford to wait, in my opinion, because they already have built-in name recognition and support.

Lesser-known names like Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand had to jump in early, which they did.

But I think Kamala Harris has had the best launch so far — based on reports about early donations to her campaign, spikes in Google searches of her name, bumps in polling/prediction markets — followed by Elizabeth Warren.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Hmm. I probably have a couple of quibbles there.

One being that I’m not sure Booker and Gillibrand should be thought of as “lesser-known names.” Or to the extent that they are, maybe that reflects the fact that they’ve had bad rollouts. (Although we should probably keep Gillibrand and Booker separate. I’m not sure they belong in the same category.)

The other quibble is that I’m not sure Beto belongs with the other B’s (Biden and Bernie).

Biden and Bernie are unique in that they’re “next-in-line” candidates: the vice president to the most recent Democratic president and the runner-up in the most recent Democratic primary. So they have a unique amount of notoriety and stature, and nobody is going to challenge their credentials.

For Beto, it’s sort of the exact opposite. His credentials are a little light. And IMO it reeks of arrogance to take all this time to decide when other, more experienced candidates have already gotten into the race.

I don’t think it’s particularly damaging in the long run necessarily, but in terms of someone whose stock has declined, Beto is on that list.

nrakich: Sure. We’re probably just drawing the lines between tiers in different places.

I would put Beto below Biden and Bernie even though they’re all in the upper tier.

sarahf: Yeah, if Beto is in fact running. I agree with Nate that I’m perplexed about why he hasn’t yet thrown his hat in the ring. Although maybe we can expect an answer this month?

Beto O’Rourke says of when he’ll decide on running for president: "The serious answer is really soon. Before the end of this month.”

— Matt Viser (@mviser) February 5, 2019

nrakich: And, yeah, Beto has fallen back into the middle of the pack after seeming to emerge as a front-runner immediately after the 2018 election.

But that was probably going to happen anyway — it’s bad to peak too early.

And he remains a talented politician when it comes to town halls and fundraising, so it’s not over for him.

natesilver: Oh I dunno, Rakich. I think Beto is probably more likely to win the nomination than Bernie. Or maybe not. But you could debate it, at least, so there’s definitely a question.

sarahf:

nrakich: Fair.

natesilver: In his interview with Oprah, Beto strongly hinted at running but didn’t declare.

sarahf: I agree with Nathaniel that Kamala Harris has had the most successful launch so far.

Bill Scher over at Politico tried to evaluate how all of the different candidates announcements have gone so far, and while it wasn’t the most rigorous of analyses, I thought his point that she hasn’t yet had to apologize for her past (e.g., her former life as a prosecutor) was spot on. She also planned a media-packed week, which was smart.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I think her one blunder was on “Medicare-for-all.” In a candidate forum, she suggested that she didn’t see much of a role for private insurance companies in the future. The next day, her staff softened her stance.)

And that walkback matters — it speaks to questions about her preparedness, policy knowledge and the firmness of her convictions on key issues.

natesilver: Here’s a distinction we should probably clarify. When we say a candidate had a good rollout, does that mean they made good tactical decisions? Or does it mean we learned that there’s a market for the candidate but that the market would have existed even if the rollout itself had gone differently?

perry: I mean good tactical decisions. For example, I’m skeptical that there is a market for Julian Castro, Gillibrand or Pete Buttigieg, but they had good rollouts. Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, did not.

nrakich: I would say a good rollout means that the candidate succeeded at tapping into a market that either was or wasn’t there before.

natesilver: OK, then maybe I’d argue that tactical decisions don’t necessarily matter that much.

nrakich: Yeah, I guess you need both good tactical decisions and some sort of post-rollout sign that it resonated with people.

perry: But I think Harris wins the rollout contest because she showed that she has a bigger potential market than Buttigieg does.

natesilver: Gillibrand did a lot of things pretty well, but it didn’t seem to move the needle for her in terms of polling or other indicators.

sarahf: I’m not sure I know whether tactics or identifying a market matters more. Because for a candidate like Buttigieg to have a good “rollout,” it’s less about tactics and more about locking down a market that is invested in him running.

Take Richard Ojeda. He announced in November, after the midterms. I think his rollout was fine, but in the end, he didn’t seem to have a market after all.

nrakich: Right. If you’re Ojeda or Gabbard or John Delaney, you need an AWESOME rollout to make a splash. Someone like Harris probably just needed to not screw it up.

natesilver: See, I think Buttigieg did have a good rollout, and he was in one of those positions where the tactics may have mattered. He could have been branded as an obscure, third- or fourth-tier candidate, à la Ojeda. Instead, he’s getting a fair amount of facetime on national TV and seems to be taken seriously-ish.

perry: So, in my opinion, Warren is the most interesting. She actually jumped into the race early, and her proposal for much higher taxes on wealth over $50 million has captured attention.

sarahf: She definitely threw the still-undeclared Sanders campaign into full gear with its own tax plan.

perry: But I wonder if Warren’s history of claiming Native American heritage will doom her. The controversy has already spiraled.

nrakich: Yeah, The Washington Post on Tuesday published a picture of a State Bar of Texas registration card from 1986 on which Warren listed her race as “American Indian.”

natesilver: The DNA test that Warren released in October showing she has Native American ancestry was part of her rollout, I would argue. And was an unmitigated disaster.

perry: Agree.

natesilver: Especially since she also made claims about not having used Native American status to gain advantage, which now seem to be more questionable.

nrakich: Warren’s best play is to self-opposition-research and dump it all at once, along with a final apology.

As one of the more policy-driven candidates, though, she might be able to generate more positive coverage going forward. So it might just be a push-and-a-pull thing.

sarahf: It sounds as if you all think there’s a way that Warren can apologize and own her past without sinking her candidacy?

perry: It depends on what the apology is. At this point, Warren has to explain clearly: 1. why she was describing herself as American Indian in her 30s and 2. how she knows that universities or employers who were considering hiring her did not take that ancestry into account and therefore hire her in part to add racial diversity to their staffs.

nrakich: I think the apology is less important (politically) than making sure no further news can be broken on the topic. You do that by scouring your past and making sure nothing new can come out.

natesilver: What time frame is the starting point? Beto’s chances are lower than I would have pegged them a month ago but not necessarily lower than I’d have put them the day after the midterm. Probably higher, in fact.

For Warren, it’s sort of the opposite trajectory. The DNA test was a disaster, but the wealth tax and sort of emerging as the most substantive candidate in the field has been good.

perry: Warren’s ancestry issue could be her version of Clinton’s 2016 email scandal — an issue that never goes away and maybe gets too much media coverage.

sarahf: I don’t know. Democrats — and especially white Democrats — are less willing to brush aside issues they perceive as racist.

Granted, Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who has been under pressure to resign after a racist photo was found on his page in his 1984 medical school yearbook, is still governor, so maybe things haven’t actually shifted that much.

nrakich: But Northam would never win a presidential election.

sarahf: OK, we’ve talked about who is running. But who hasn’t announced yet that you’re expecting? And are you already surprised by the size of the field?

perry: I wonder whether Georgia’s Stacey Abrams could have been a serious candidate if she had announced before Harris and Booker. I tend to think that the black presidential candidates are competing for black voters and that having too many of them in the field would have hurt all of them. So moving fast and getting into the race early is crucial. And Harris, in particular, has done that. But Abrams is beloved in the party, as you could see last night in the praise she got after doing the Democratic response to the State of the Union address.

nrakich: I’m surprised at how the field is already shrinking. I was one of those people who thought the Democratic Party would need to have back-to-back debates to accommodate all the candidates. But you’ve already seen Ojeda drop out and several mid-tier candidates, such as Eric Garcetti and Deval Patrick, decline to run.

The field is becoming clearer a lot faster than I thought it would. To me, it’s looking like about a dozen candidates are going to get about 90 percent of the coverage.

natesilver: Man I’m just disagreeing with everyone on everything today. I’m surprised at how many people are running, by contrast.

nrakich: How is that different from any other day, Nate?

natesilver: Usually I disagree with Everyone on Twitter, but not usually with you, Rakich!

But you look at Gillibrand and Castro, for instance — those are people who didn’t seem certain to get in and yet they did.

nrakich: Maybe this is a difference with our priors. I basically assumed that everyone who was rumored to be interested would end up running. That was probably too hasty on my part.

natesilver: Plus, Sherrod Brown and Klobuchar and John Hickenlooper and Jay Inslee are all strongly teasing bids, particularly the first two.

perry: There are more senators than I expected and not as many governors or former governors so far, but I think some of those governors — like Terry McAuliffe, Hickenlooper or Inslee — will run.

sarahf: The senator phenomenon has also surprised me. I can’t help but think that’s more of a reflection of our politics becoming more nationally focused.

nrakich: Part of what we’re seeing is that the Democratic bench of governors is pretty thin. The party got annihilated on the state level in both 2010 and 2014.

natesilver: So let’s say we wind up with 1. Bernie 2. Biden 3. Beto 4. Harris 5. Booker 6. Warren 7. Gillibrand 8. Klobuchar 9. Brown 10. Castro 11. Hickenlooper 12. Inslee 13. Gabbard 14. Buttigieg 15. Delaney. That’s a BIG field.

perry: But smaller than the GOP 2016 field, right?

nrakich: Yeah, there were roughly 17 GOP candidates covered consistently in 2016. Last year, I definitely would have taken the over on that for Democrats in 2020. But now I think it’ll be the under. Even if, yes, 15 is a big field.

natesilver: I mean, it depends on how many also-rans also run! Get a few more randos, and you might be closer to 20 than 15.

perry: Andrew Yang, for example.

sarahf: Who? Kidding.

perry: I kind of expected in the range of 20 candidates.

So you guys think Bernie and Biden and Beto did not suffer from delaying? I think they did. Arguably, Biden could have prevented a few candidates from entering (Brown, Klobuchar) if he came out firing on all cylinders on Jan 1.

An early run by Beto might have caused some recalculation for Harris or Booker, and Bernie announcing may have influenced Gabbard or Warren.

nrakich: It hurts some candidates more than others (thinking again of Biden and Bernie) to delay. I do think Hickenlooper and Brown are probably blowing it. If they’re interested, they needed to have gotten in yesterday.

perry: Brown is in a lane that is somewhat unoccupied (white male from a swing state), so I think he is fine. But, yes, Hicklenlooper and Inslee should have announced yesterday.

natesilver: Biden probably has enough stature that if people had been intimidated by him, they would have avoided running, even if Biden hadn’t officially declared.

perry: So you are saying Biden is a weak candidate?

natesilver: Brown and Klobuchar considering a bid is a bearish sign for Biden. All three are riding on an electability argument, I think.

nrakich: People have been buzzing about Klobuchar for a while, though, whereas Brown may be seen as a substitute for Biden. That said, his “listening tour” is probably an acknowledgment of the fact that he needs to do SOMETHING to keep himself relevant while he awaits Biden’s decision.

natesilver: Maybe the true-blue moderates have been deterred by Biden — e.g., Michael Bloomberg and McAuliffe — but I’m not optimistic about any of their chances.

sarahf: And is that because we think the 2020 Democratic nominee is going to come from a more progressive wing of the party?

nrakich: I’m not sure. I think if it were an open fight between the progressive wing and the moderate wing (I hate that dichotomy, I need a shower having used it), the progressive wing would win.

But the moderate “lane” (ugh I hate lane analysis too) looks wide open right now. Who is in there among the declared candidates? Just Delaney, I guess?

So if it’s Biden vs. a dozen progressives, I’d take Biden.

natesilver: Sarah, the left is obviously on the upswing, but the conventional wisdom may have actually begun to overcompensate, in part because a lot of commentators on Twitter/podcasts/etc. are further left of center than the average Democratic voter.

Like, I don’t think there’s any world in which Kamala Harris doesn’t win the nomination because she isn’t left enough.

nrakich: Right. Nonwhite voters, especially among older generations, aren’t super lefty. And they are often underrepresented in the media relative to their share of the electorate.

perry: We will have more on this on the site later this week, but I tend to think that dividing Democratic voters and candidates by whether they are anti-establishment or establishment is just as meaningful as grouping them as white or nonwhite. And maybe even more telling than the progressive v. moderate distinction.

As Nathaniel is saying, we often assume that moderate Democrat means a white person with the politics of Howard Schultz, but lots of moderate Democratic voters are black or Latino.

And I don’t see much evidence that Klobuchar will be the candidate for those voters — or at least she has not had to do well with them to win in Minnesota.

nrakich: We’ve talked a lot about entertaining multiple hypotheses about how the Democratic primaries could go. So, one possibility is that they could unfold along identity lines. They could also unfold along ideological lines (progressive vs. moderate). But they could unfold along establishment/anti-establishment lines.

But if all these things intersect, which looks likely, they will do so in unpredictable ways, so to some extent, we’re all just guessing here at the right alchemy.

perry: I think Harris or Booker could be the candidate for minority voters and establishment voters even though they would call themselves progressive.

And then Sanders or Brown may appeal to white voters and anti-establishment voters, some of whom would also call themselves progressive.

natesilver: You also have Beto, who sort of comes across as new and fresh and “anti-establishment” but is also supported by a lot of ex-Obama types (i.e., people who are very much a part of the establishment).

perry: Exactly.

nrakich: Yeah, the generational divide is another possible fault line.

natesilver: To some extent, the talented politicians are able to come across like the best of all possible worlds to all possible voters.

In various ways, Obama both ran to Hillary Clinton’s left and to the center (as a “post-partisan” candidate) in 2008, for example.

nrakich: A Candide-ate? (Anyone for French literature humor?)

natesilver: Rakich, what the hell kind of pun was that?

perry: It was special. Do not cut!

sarahf: If you have made it this far, reader, let me know if you regret it.

natesilver: This is why we don’t let you write your own headlines.

perry: Wow. Harsh.

nrakich: I was so tempted to write that Joe was Biden his time earlier.

perry: !!!!

sarahf: On that note, it’s time for final thoughts. What are we watching for in February?

nrakich: Well, Beto told us this week that he’ll make a decision about running by the end of February, so that’s a big domino that could fall. And then I’m curious to see how long Sanders and Biden think they can stall.

natesilver: Will the 5 B’s run? 1. Biden 2. Bernie 3. Beto 4. Brown 5. klo-B-uchar

perry: I’m curious whether Klobuchar, Beto, Biden, Sanders, Hicklenlooper or Inslee announce and how they decided to roll out their campaigns.

Another thing I’ll be keeping an eye on is who among the already declared candidates keeps getting attention. There is definitely a buzz factor in these primaries — who can get it and maintain it.

nrakich: With so many B’s in the field, how can there not be a buzz factor?

perry: One too many.

nrakich: / leaves chat

natesilver: Nathaniel.

sarahf: It certainly is a kicker.

[flauntpage]

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23

Turns out a healthy Nick Foles is better than an injured Carson Wentz.

Shocking, I know.

That should really be the extent of the “Foles vs. Wentz” argument that will stink up social media and sports radio this week. One guy is healthy, one guy is not. THEREFORE – at this current moment in time, I’m gonna roll with the healthy Super Bowl MVP. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but unfortunately we’re just gonna have to deal with the frothy nothing-burger quarrels for the next seven days.

I’ll tell ya what; that was the first Eagles game I enjoyed watching this year, at least for three quarters. They moved the ball up and down the field, they played aggressive and nasty defense, and I swear I saw glimpses of the 2017 squad out there.

This, of course, begs the question –

Where was this Eagles team against the Buccaneers, Titans, Vikings, Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, and Cowboys?

Surely the quarterback change was not the sole catalyst for the win, right? Nick Foles did play the first two games this season, and he wasn’t exactly Joe Montana against the Falcons or Bucs. The banged-up defense was lights out for 3+ quarters last night as guys like Avonte Maddox and Cre’Von LeBlanc made big plays. Did they miraculously transform into legitimate NFL starters overnight?

Gut feeling: the Eagles still believed in themselves while the Rams believed they were going to trash a 6-7 team in a rebound game coming off a bad loss. It’s the same underdog mentality that got the Birds a Super Bowl ring last year. “No one likes us, we don’t care” was the rallying cry then, but this year it’s more, “No one thinks we have a prayer, and we probably don’t, but we’re gonna at least go down swinging.” Maybe we can get that on a T-shirt.

I’ve been totally unenthusiastic about this team and actually mostly ambivalent over the past three or four weeks, so I won’t flip flop here and tell you how excited I am going forward. That would be the Skip Bayless thing to do, to just hop back on the bandwagon. I’m still skeptical that a banged-up Eagles team does much of anything in the playoffs, but at least they’ve given themselves a chance at 9-7 and a postseason return after slogging through a mostly miserable title defense in 2018.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

He gets the ball out quicker than Carson does. That’s the big difference. Nick glides through his progressions and takes what the defense gives him. He’ll stand in the pocket and take a hit while Carson is more inclined to extend a play and try to make something happen in that fashion.

It’s not to say that Nick is better than Carson, because I don’t think he is. I think they are both pretty damn good when they’re on their game. Statistically, Foles finished 24 for 31 for 270 yards, zero touchdowns and an interception. last night and the Eagles’ offense was a meager 4-13 on third down. Wendell Smallwood and Josh Adams and Jake Elliott did the scoring.

The difference between healthy Foles and injured Carson is that healthy Foles was able to stay ahead of the chains with smart and simple plays on first and second down. He had first down conversions on 2nd and 10 and 2nd and 7 on first half scoring drives. He hit Golden Tate for 11 yards on a 2nd and 10 in the third quarter. There were only nine passing third down conversions last night, but Nick made them count and really did a nice job averting the dreaded three and out.

The only two horrendous passes I saw were the interception at the goal line and a risky screen that he probably should have thrown into the ground, but he was otherwise solid.

I wrote a story last week called “Throwing the Football Down the Field” and went through Carson’s last three game charts to find that he was 2-8 in completed passes of 20 or more yards against the Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys.

Last night, Nick was 3-5 in this category, all of which came down the right side of the field and took advantage of Alshon Jeffery’s ability to grab the ball in traffic:

That really was important, those deep shots. Carson was barely throwing those, and I wonder if the back injury was affecting his ability to step into those throws, or if the torque of the motion made those shots outside the hashmarks painful to even execute.

At the end of the day, Nick has one touchdown and two interceptions in three games this season. I don’t think he “won the game” for the Eagles last night, as some people are saying this morning, but he was steady last night, he kept the offense on the field, he got different receivers involved, and he picked and chose his spots really well.

2) Play calling

With Nick in the game, I was obviously very interested in how Doug decided to use him. Simplified game plan? Different sets?

Here’s what I wrote down for called plays:

Shotgun – run: 21

Shotgun – pass: 30

Under center – run: 6

Under center – pass: 2

I have it as a 32 to 27 pass/run split. The box score has it as a 33/28 split, so I must have missed one in there. Maybe I was on the toilet. Also, I’d have to go back and watch the entire film to see how many RPOs Doug called, since it’s nearly impossible to watch every blocking scheme in real time. Let’s just pretend this is a Quinnipiac poll with a +3 or -3 margin of error in called runs and called passes.

Either way, that’s a really nice balance, about 54% passing and 46% running. If you want to take away the final three run plays on the clock-killing final drive, you still get a 57% to 43% mix, which is a lot better than what Doug usually winds up with.

A couple of other play notes here:

QB scrambles: 2

Draw plays: 1

running back screens: 3

wide receiver screens: 3

They had two screen looks to Alshon and still tried a few RB screens even with Corey Clement not available. Doug ran 17 straight shotgun plays before trying to go under center, and Jason Peters false started on that first attempt. They finished with about 86% of their plays coming out of the shotgun and 14% coming from under center, which is not dissimilar from what they did with Carson this year.

3) Big boy blocking

Truthfully, I hated the play call on the Adams touchdown run. You’re gonna run behind Zach Ertz and Dallas Goedert?

It ended up being the best bit of blocking either guy has shown all year:

Goedert gets the first block and Ertz follows him through the hole to reach the second level. Adams squirts right through while Marcus Peters shows absolutely no interest in making a tackle at all.

Great blocking, exhibit B:

Do not let Russ see Jason Peters opening up a gaping hole, a hole that your grandmother could walk through.

Goedert is in there again, go figure.

One more play, featuring…. guess who? –

The offensive line was excellent last night. This wasn’t a game where the running backs were gashing the Rams for huge chunks of yards, but the red zone blocking was just elite, well-executed stuff.

4) Guys stepping up

Big games from all of these dudes:

Wendell Smallwood: 10 carries, 48 yards, 2 touchdowns

Avonte Maddox: started at outside corner, had a 2nd quarter interception, two pass break-ups and quality coverage on the game’s final play

Cre’Von LeBlanc: he was “flying around” out there

Rasul Douglas: putting big hits on people

D.J. Alexander: big fumble recovery on special teams

Raise your hand if you had those five guys making contributions to the win.

.

.

.

Yep, me neither.

Both lines were fantastic on the evening. Jeffery had his best game of the year. Zach Ertz still had seven targets despite the “reduced” role and Tate had some chunky yardage pickups, too.

5) Blitz me

Jim Schwartz called a really nice game. He pressured Jared Goff, who predictably folded like a soft California guy.

On the final play, Schwartz brought both linebackers and left his five defensive backs in man-to-man deep coverage:

I look at that play again and see Nate Gerry turn around to say something to Malcolm Jenkins. I wonder if that was a miscommunication or just a good sell job, because Gerry comes on a delayed blitz and I think that forces Goff to get rid of the ball a little bit earlier than he wanted to. Either way, I thought it was a pretty gutsy call to send six guys instead of just dropping 7 or 8 into coverage.

Well done, Jim Schwartz.

6) Officiating

After last week’s debacle, I’ve decided to make this a recurring entry in the column. This will continue through the rest of the season and into next year.

We had a rare “grasping the helmet opening” call on the second Eagles drive that moved the sticks on third down. Marcus Peters didn’t think it was a penalty, but replay shows he had a hand inside Smallwood’s dome. Good pickup by the ref there, leading to a key conversion.

I didn’t think the Aaron Donald hit on Foles was a roughing the QB penalty. He did get him high, sure, but he didn’t strike him in the head and he didn’t exactly follow through or bring him to the ground. Looked like he got him across the shoulder.

I thought the Eagles also got a generous spot on the third down conversion just before halftime, the 3rd and 2 to Dallas Goedert that resulted in a touchdown. Eagles fans would be complaining if the other team got this spot:

Thankfully the two key review plays were correct. That was the fake punt catch that was overturned and the Rasul Douglas goal line tackle that ultimately didn’t mean too much. I’m just happy we didn’t get a huge outrageous controversy this time around, so praise the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven for that.

7) The peripherals

Here we go:

won time of possession battle, 32 to 28 minutes

+2 turnover margin

4-13 on third down (30.7%)

0-1 on fourth down

allowed LA to go 4-12 on third down (33%)

lost 0 yards on 0 sacks

3-5 success rate in red zone

six penalties for 49 yards

That’s much more like the 2017 Eagles. They won the TOP on the strength of that +2 turnover margin. The defense really did a nice job of limiting third down conversions after allowing Dallas to go 10-19 for 52% last week. Zero sacks against that Rams line is excellent, and six penalties for 49 yards is more than manageable.

Good stuff all around.

8) Doug’s best call?

I liked 3rd and 4 draw play with Sproles on the first drive. LA wasn’t expecting that.

I also agreed with the decision to kick the field goal at about the four minute mark in the third quarter. Take the points, keep the momentum on the road, and make it a two-score game.

I honestly also did not have a problem with the 53-yard field goal try in the fourth quarter. That’s aggressive Doug. That’s the Doug we want, right? If Elliott hits that kick, the game is over. Shrug.

9) Doug’s worst call?

I didn’t have any issue with him going for it on 4th down near midfield in the first half, but the play call was what? Josh Adams out of the shotgun? The 3rd down play got you into 4th and short, and that’s what you come up with? And you do it with a guy who had left the game earlier with a head injury?

That was a weird one. Doug is good for at least one of those per game.

The only other play that kind of bothered me was the decision to run Sproles on 3rd and 8 in the fourth quarter. He almost converted, but that offensive series felt a little passive to me with about eight minutes on the clock and a 14-point lead. This game didn’t have to come down to the final play, but the Eagles half-bottled it on both sides of the field.

10) Awful announcing

How ’bout that Fresh Prince clip to start off the broadcast? Everybody hated it, but whatever, at least it wasn’t a shot of a cheesesteak or the Liberty Bell.

And how ’bout Cris Collinsworth doing his Sunday night slide in from the left side instead of the right?

#CollinsworthSlide Audible!

pic.twitter.com/zKl0ALKo8v

— SNF on NBC (@SNFonNBC) December 17, 2018

“Now here’s a guy…”

That threw me for a loop. Collinsworth always slides in from the right. Cheeky stuff right there.

Couple of other random notes from the broadcast:

Norristown native Tommy Lasorda looks pretty good for age 91

I prefer Terry McAuley to Dean Blandino and Mike Perreira.

I cringed when Collinsworth said, “All that’s missing now is the Rocky music.“

Al Michaels still seems somewhat bored to me. I think he’s ready to retire.

That’s it. Happy Monday.

The post A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[minename0-blog]

All Twenty Take: What’s Wrong With Lane Johnson?

Quick: what’s the biggest issue for the Philadelphia Eagles, right now?

I’d argue it’s pure execution. They’re just dropping the ball — literally and figuratively — in key moments. That’s little stuff that you expect to regress back to the mean; you expect to get ironed out by veterans and competitors.

But it is neither fun nor constructive to write about the crazy fumbles that haven’t fallen Philadelphia’s way; the small penalties that put them behind the sticks.

So we go to the next answers to the question: what’s the biggest issue for the Philadelphia Eagles?

Some would say the secondary; I certainly would. That’s something I wrote about last week, and will continue to touch on throughout the season.

Some will say the offensive line, and that’s what I’ll be covering here.

The offensive line is playing well

Sorry, I needed to get that in there, clearly and unequivocally, before we got into the film. The offensive line is generally playing pretty well — better than a lot of lines in the league. They remain an elite run-blocking unit that has opened up rush lanes regardless of who’s touting the football; their athleticism and power show up in pass-protection.

They’ve been struggling with blitz recognition and the consequent coordination among one another and the ancillary pieces (running backs and tight ends). These are unit-wide issues that usually cannot be attributed to any one player every single time; they belong to the recognition and communication of every player along the line, the running backs, the quarterbacks, and the coaches in film study the week previous.

Charted pressure does not interest me very much

I know, when I say that, the first response will be the pressure statistics offered by charting services at the end of every NFL week.

I was talking with a bunch of football guys a while back, and we brought up Pro Football Focus. Anybody involved with football to a certain degree knows that PFF is a controversial service, in terms of accuracy and value of information. But this isn’t even about PFF — they just happened to be the example here.

I was told that, among the services that provide charting data to NFL teams, the degrees of variance between services is staggering. Upwards of 70% differences between PFF, SIS, ESPN charting data, NFL Next Gen Stats, et cetera. NFL teams basically throw away pressure data they get from these services, because of how much it varies from their internal numbers.

Who’s right? I don’t really know. But I know I’ll trust good film analysis before I’ll trust highly subjective charting numbers.

Even within the same service — PFF grades the Eagles’ offensive line with worse pressure rates this season, as compared to last — I still take pause. I don’t dispute more pressure has been surrendered, but the origin and affect of this pressure is far more interesting to me than whether or not it happened.

Let’s look at an example.

Carson Wentz was pressured on this play:

Poll

Was Carson Wentz was pressured on this play?

37%

Yes

(392 votes)

62%

No

(667 votes)

1059 votes total Vote Now

Regardless of what you select, both Lane Johnson and Jason Peters make high-quality plays here.

Peters wins in his typical fashion: he takes that hard 45-degree set to quickly establish leverage against the edge rusher. Sometimes he even jump sets out there, just to take the speed out of the rusher from the snap — he’s forcing the defensive end to play slower than he’d probably like to.

Regardless, after the hard set, Peters begins dropping vertically, maintain a tight relationship to LG Isaac Seumalo to protect against inside moves. Once the defensive end (#91 Stephen Weatherly) acknowledges he can’t go inside, he tries to go through. Peters absorbs the contact, locates his hands, and begins turning Weatherly to the outside.

Weatherly tries to bend, giving his back to Peters in an attempt to slink through the block, but Peters has the power and hand placement to shove him beyond the peak of the pocket, with his back to the action. That’s a win.

Lane also plays in his preferred fashion: he takes that vertical set and then waits patiently. Philadelphia very frequently slides away from Lane, so he’s left on an island with a two-way go. He can’t maintain that tight relationship to his guard the way Peters did Seumalo, so he has to be more respective of the potential inside move.

Danielle Hunter (DE #99) knows this, and does a great job stuttering inside before ripping back to Lane’s outside shoulder. Put in a recovery position, Lane’s natural athleticism and length shine: he’s able to get on his horse and track Hunter across the outside edge of the pocket, and he locates that long left arm of his on Hunter’s inside shoulder to ride him deep and out of harm’s way.

Lane does leave himself susceptible to the inside spin — and to a lot of counter moves in general, given how much space he accounts for when Brooks slides away — but by the time Hunter can hit that, Carson is already out and away.

Lane’s been getting the majority of the heat along the OL. Let’s talk about Lane.

Lane Johnson is so, so good

Lane’s playing great football guy. He’s either the best right tackle in the league, or right behind Mitchell Schwartz; he’s easily a Top-6 tackle in the league, and has been performing as such this season.

Lane is what you could call a “take you where you want to go” offensive tackle. Part of that is due to the nature of his responsibilities: again, Philadelphia very frequently asks Lane to play with a two-way go when they slide protection away from him. But part of that is due to his style. Because Lane is so long, and he’s such an athlete, he can match you to the inside or to the outside, and he can drop anchor if you try to go through him.

This is a perfect example here. Brandon Brooks stays thick to the 2-technique off the line, which leaves Lane with miles of space to account for against the stand-up 9-technique, who has a huge runway to attack here. After pushing up the edge track, DE Stephen Weatherly (#91) goes to convert speed to power, and Lane attaches his hands and drops anchor, stymieing the rush.

Reading the deep drop of Carson Wentz, Weatherly works to an arm-over outside counter to try to release from Lane. Because Lane has such a strong grip on the inside chestplate, however, he rides Weatherly back a few yards beyond Carson, who only has to step up in the pocket a bit to release to his check down.

I cannot emphasize this enough: few offensive tackles are asked to do this in the NFL. Very few do it successfully. And, when given the choice between asking Lane Johnson or Jason Peters to do it, the Eagles regularly ask Lane to do it.

That being said, Lane has given up a couple of sacks this season — more than we’re accustomed to seeing, five games into the season. What gives?

Good players can give up sacks; commit drops; throw interceptions. Yet we’re much quicker to forgive, say, the crucial 3rd and 20 Alshon Jeffery drop late in the fourth quarter than we are the sack Lane Johnson surrendered halfway through the second — why?

I’d argue because it’s much easier to remember Alshon’s redeeming qualities; his good plays. Yeah, he had that drop — he also had that wicked touchdown catch against the Titans and that key fourth-down snag on an earlier drive against Minnesota. And he was amazing in the Super Bowl, so on, and so forth.

The tricky thing about playing offensive line is that nobody remembers your good plays, because they didn’t see them. Their eyes were fixated on Carson Wentz, wondering where the ball was going to go, praying he was about to wind up for a deep shot that would get the viewer out of his seat.

Meanwhile, Lane Johnson and the rest of the offensive linemen were giving him the time and space to deliberate such a decision.

As such, we have this play:

Great little inside move by #91 Stephen Weatherly. Because help was sliding to Lane Johnson this time, he set aggressively to the outside — when help is coming to you, you typically don’t have to worry as much about the inside move, given the amount of bodies there.

However, Weatherly 1) does a great job of reading Carson Wentz’s short set — going outside would bear no fruit here, so it’s not worth it. And 2) benefits from Brandon Brooks getting displaced to the center of the field, leaving a slimmer of daylight through which he can sneak. Lane fails to locate hands on Weatherly’s torso, which lets him maintain his momentum through the inside swim and into Carson Wentz, who’s caught just in the preliminary moments of his throwing motion.

But we don’t remember these reps:

Results of these reps? In order: A pressure (maybe?), a sack, and an incompletion. But never evaluate on results; evaluate on process. All three are wins against the inside move for Lane Johnson.

On the first rep, Carson Wentz can be reasonably expected to move in the pocket, given the block Lane executes — but because he’s already finished his motion by the time the rusher arrives, it seems as if the rusher won. Carson’s been stationary for basically the whole play — that’s like trying to pass-protect for a traffic cone, which nobody should reasonably expect.

On the second rep, Halapoulivaati Vaitai is asked to play on the island on which Lane Johnson regularly lives. See how well that goes for him.

But look at Lane, who (just like on the strip-sack) has a slide to him. But this time he’s better prepared for the inside move, locates his hands on the chest plate, and completely nullifies the rusher. There’s a big escape route for Carson to his right, but he isn’t able to beat Danielle Hunter there.

That’s what you see on the final rep: Carson gets to the escape route offered him on the outside. But because the Colts were looping the defensive tackle over the top of the inside move here, there’s still edge contain, so Carson gets rid of the football.

Pressure is a messy concept to understand and to quantify. It affects different quarterbacks in radically opposite ways, it can be intentionally allowed or schemed into a play, and it can be nullified or created by a far, far wider variety of factors than simply the play of the offensive line.

With a quarterback like Carson Wentz — big-bodied, determined to extend the play, willing to hang in the pocket, tackle-breaker — pressure charting can lie. It seems the offensive line is relinquishing rush after rush, when really, they’re doing what they can be reasonably expected to do.

There are other film pieces we can discuss: how Wendell Smallwood’s pass protection struggles screwed the Eagles against the Titans; how Stefen Wisniewski and Jason Peters seemed (to me) to be passing off stunts very well; how Isaac Seumalo is limited in pass-protection. But the greatest grievance I saw following the Vikings game was that of the declining play of Lane Johnson.

And frankly, I just can’t find what y’all are talking about there.

Source: https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2018/10/10/17959214/philadelphia-eagles-offensive-line-lane-johnson-minnesota-vikings-film-review

[theconservativebrief]

By now, you’ve probably heard the story.

Last week, an actress and photographer, Rosey Blair, asked to switch seats with a woman on a plane from New York to Dallas so that she could sit next to her boyfriend. Blair proceeded to live-tweet as she observed the woman and her new seatmate chat and eventually start flirting, discussing their mutual love of working out and subtly touching elbows, all details captured and posted by Blair. Her thread went mega-viral, racking up 900,000 likes, getting picked up by national news outlets and earning Blair thousands of new followers.

Many initially thought the story was adorable, even if others found it creepy and intrusive. Then the incident took an even darker turn.

An online hunt began to find the identities of the couple, now identified by the hashtag #PlaneBae. The man, a former professional soccer player named Euan Holden, embraced the media circus, but the woman, uncomfortable with the newfound spotlight, hesitated. That didn’t stop the online mob from tracking her down. She began receiving crass, sexually explicit messages in the comments of her personal Instagram profile.

She deactivated her social media accounts and declined an invitation to go on the Today show. Blair and Holden appeared without her. No one asked her if she had any reservations or concerns about being made part of a viral story. All she did was board a plane and chat with her seatmate. Now she is a public figure, a hashtag, and a target. Millions of strangers on the internet want to know about her personal life.

The erosion of the division between public and private has been coming for a while now. Maybe it started with reality television and the dramatic storylines broadcast to millions about people just like you falling in love. (Though those people willingly signed up to become public figures.) Maybe it was already in the works before then: People have always turned other people’s lives into public spectacle regardless of their will.

When I was 22, I wrote my first paid article for a publication on the internet. My essay, written under my own name, was about what it was like to date with genital herpes. I expected maybe a few thousand people to read it on the Women’s Health website; it wasn’t even going in the physical magazine. At the time, I was an intern at a media company, less than a year out of college, and my only brush with fame was as a 13-year-old writer of moderately popular Harry Potter fanfiction.

The herpes article went viral. Not just “few thousand retweets” viral — I mean invitations to go on daytime television viral. Two days after my essay went up on Women’s Health, I was featured in a trending article on the Washington Post website. It was aggregated from there on Yahoo, Jezebel, and eventually even The Daily Mail, where an enterprising staffer tracked down my private Facebook profile and raided it for photographs to use in their article.

There I was, smiling brightly in a picture my mother had taken as my father blew out his birthday candles. Of course, they cropped my father out, leaving me grinning and alone as hundreds of Daily Mail readers wrote comments underneath attacking my character. This slut, this shameful whore. She should kill herself for having an STI.

The next year I would find myself at the center of a new controversy when Genius, a well-funded startup that mostly writes annotations on song lyrics, launched a new tool allowing their users to annotate any website, anywhere. I wrote a blog post detailing why I thought the product was unethical, as it ignored the consent of the website creator and let strangers essentially scrawl graffiti on our intellectual property. I was also concerned it would be yet another tool in the hands of abusers, stalkers, and harassment mobs to come after me on my personal blog; since going viral, I had spent a year receiving horrifying sexual emails from strangers.

Sam Biddle, writing for Gawker, found my case unconvincing. His argument boiled down to my status as a public figure. “It’s brave and noble of Dawson to publicly try to combat the stigma of STD infection,” he wrote. “But when she writes ‘we need more voices to challenge the single narrative of herpes,’ she’s already acknowledging her place in public—it’s right there in the ‘we.’ If you want to advocate for a cause in front of an audience (and judging by the fact that her website has a ‘Press’ section, I’m assuming she does), you have to take what comes with it. Dawson says she has a blog ‘to have total control of how I write and who interacts with me.’ If only this were possible! Unfortunately, this is a fantasy, and will always be so.”

Chelsea Hassler, writing for Slate, argued the contrary position: That as a blogger with a few articles published, I was not someone who rose to the level of a “public figure.” I was an individual, an amateur. She wrote, “There’s a substantive difference between critiquing the work of a professional journalist or blogger and critiquing the writing of an individual who is using her blog as an outlet to communicate with other likeminded people.”

People like me pose a challenge to traditional understandings of the public-private divide. I write about my personal life, and sometimes I get paid to do so. I have fewer than 20,000 followers on Twitter. I’ve had a handful of short stories published in anthologies by indie houses and my blog has steady traffic, but I don’t have a Wikipedia page. Would you consider me a public figure? At what point did I become one? Would it change your mind if I told you I’ve never wanted to be one?

I don’t think there is any such thing as a “private person” anymore. The vast majority of us constantly groom our internet presence, choosing the right filter on Instagram for our brunch and taking polls of our friends about our next Facebook profile picture.

We don’t think about this as a public act when we have only 400 connections on LinkedIn or 3,000 followers on Tumblr. No one imagines the Daily Mail write-up or the Jezebel headline. We actively create our public selves, every day, one social media post at a time. Little kids dream of becoming famous YouTubers the same way I wanted to be a published author when I was 12.

But there are also those of us who don’t choose this. We keep our accounts locked, our Instagram profile set to “friends only.” Maybe we learned a lesson when a post took off and left the safe haven of our community, picked apart in a horrifying display of context collapse by strangers who we didn’t intend to speak to. Maybe we are hiding from something: a stalker, an abusive ex, our family members who don’t know our true queer identity. To some of us, privacy is vital.

A woman boarded a plane in New York and stepped off that plane in Dallas. She chatted with a stranger, showed him some family photos, brushed his elbow with her own. At no point did she agree to participate in the story Rosey Blair was telling. After the fact, when the hunt began and the woman took no part in encouraging it the way Holden did, Blair tweeted a video in which she drawled, “We don’t have the gal’s permish yet, not yet y’all, but I’m sure you guys are sneaky, you guys might…” And her followers did not disappoint.

When people called Blair out for this blatant invasion of privacy, she blocked them. Because she, apparently, wanted to control her own boundaries. Later she tweeted about wanting a job at BuzzFeed.

I don’t know what the woman on the plane is thinking or feeling. I don’t know if she’s afraid or angry or mildly amused but inconvenienced. But I know how it feels to see strangers scrawling obscenities on social media accounts and email inboxes you once considered safe, commenting alongside your friends and family members. I know the sour humiliation of knowing everyone in your life can see that strangers have written about you — your parents, your co-workers, your exes.

Even when the attention is positive, it is overwhelming and frightening. Your mind reels at the possibility of what they could find: your address, if your voting records are logged online; your cellphone number, if you accidentally included it on a form somewhere; your unflattering selfies at the beginning of your Facebook photo archive. There are hundreds of Facebook friend requests, press requests from journalists in your Instagram inbox, even people contacting your employer. This story you didn’t choose becomes the main story of your life.

There is no opting-in, no consent form, no opportunity to take it all back. It feels like you are drowning as everyone on the beach applauds your swimming prowess. What do you have to complain about? Why wouldn’t you want publicity?

It’s clear that to Blair, the violation of this woman’s privacy is less important than Blair’s growing platform and ambition. It is not a romantic comedy for the digital age. It is an act of dehumanization.

A friend of mine asked if I’d thought through the contradiction of criticizing Blair publicly like this, when she’s another not-quite public figure too. But Blair is not just posting about her own life; she has taken non-consenting parties along for the ride. While Blair uploads gorgeous Instagram photos to celebrate her body on her birthday (I say this genuinely: You go, girl), the woman on the plane has deleted her own Instagram account after receiving violent abuse from the army Blair created. As the content creator of this media circus, Blair is responsible for the behavior of its fans. When faced with the opportunity to discourage their privacy violations, she has done the opposite: “I’m sure you guys are sneaky.”

You become a public figure the instant that someone else decides you are worthy of interest, even if you are minding your damn business. Maybe you will tweet a joke. Maybe you will squint in a friend’s photograph. Maybe you will yodel in a Walmart. Or maybe you will board a plane.

This essay is adapted from a blog post that originally ran on Ella Dawson’s website.

Ella Dawson is a sex and culture critic whose writing has been published by ELLE, MTV, Women’s Health, and more. Find her at elladawson.com and on Twitter as @brosandprose.

First Person is Vox’s home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.

Original Source -> The dark side of going viral

via The Conservative Brief

[melindarowens]

Angry Dems Turn On Obama, Pelosi, Schumer: “Talk Less About Russia”

It’s been a rough week for the legacy of the Obama administration. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a Democrat-endorsed probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s conduct during the campaign – when it’s widely believed she colluded with the Clinton’s to “soften” the FBI’s probe into Hillary’s mishandling of classified information. Earlier, sure-thing Democratic neophyte Jon Ossoff lost a special election in Georgia that he was supposedly guaranteed to win, leading America’s least—preferred party of overly brazen corporatists to an embarrassing 5-0 defeat, and stoking calls for Nancy Pelosi – the Dem’s longtime leader in Congress – to step aside.

And as if all that wasn’t enough, revelations that Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states – and the Obama administration did nothing about it – have inspired the president’s fellow Democrats to turn on their once-revered leader.

 As the Hill reports, Democrats are criticizing no-drama Obama for being too cautious with his disclosures about “the Russia problem” in the run-up to the 2016 election, claiming that he shouldn't have hesitated to inform the public about the allegations:

“The Obama administration is under fresh scrutiny for its response to Russian meddling in the election after new details emerged this week about how the White House weighed its actions against the 2016 political environment.

 Then-President Obama was too cautious in the months leading up to the election, frustrated Democratic lawmakers and strategists say.

 “It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who co-chairs the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee."

Meanwhile, Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan, who recently challenged Pelosi for leadership of the party, is leading a small group of Congressional Dems in criticizing Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership's irrational focus on the Russia investigations. Ryan believes the focus on making the Dems appear out of touch to working Americans who care more about economic issues than the Trump witch hunt, as the Hill reports.  Ryan's attempt to lead from behind comes as some of his peers push for the creation of a 9/11-style Commission to launch what would be the fourth investigation into the Trump campaign. 

Even though the contradiction here is obvious – Dems are complaining that the party is too focused on Russia, while criticizing Obama for not releasing more scurrilous details about alleged interference –at least Ryan recognizes that the focus on Russia will hurt the Dems where it counts: In next year's midterms.

"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. “They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

 “And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on,” he added, “then we're never going to be able to win elections.”

Turning back to Obama, the president's motives in withholding the information definitely leave room for speculation. Was he worried that the public would interpret the disclosure as transparent fearmongering intended to benefit the Clinton campaign – or maybe he thought it would make the Democrats and Clinton look ineffectual in the face of a problem that couldn’t be solved with a couple of well-timed drone strikes? For what it's worth, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says Obama withheld the information because he didn’t want to play into Trump’s claims that the election was being “rigged.”

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that the White House held back on responding to Russia because it didn’t want to play into fears, propagated by then-candidate Trump, that the election would be “rigged.”

 “One of the candidates, as you'll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way,” Johnson said. “And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

 Trump had repeatedly claimed that the outcome of the election would be “rigged” against him, alleging widespread voter fraud and inaccurate polling. He provided no evidence to back up his claims, but critics feared that his rhetoric could undermine public trust in the outcome of the election.

In any event, Obama’s decision to withhold the information has made the Dems look weak, desperate and disorganized. And now they’re rightfully worried that the administration’s countermeasures – kicking out a few dozen diplomats – have helped them lose what little credibility they still had in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, President Trump has a few questions of his own;

'Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

 Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

 “By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday. The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

So what’s next for the Dems? Obama, who has already pivoted from politician to social-media celebrity, will probably continue to chime in every now and then from the peanut gallery. Meanwhile, we wait to see if the DOJ or any other interested parties piggy-back on the Senate’s investigation into Lynch’s blatant attempt at obstruction, and wonder: Could this be the controversy that leads to the unraveling of the modern Democratic Party?

Of course, President Trump couldn't resist taking a shot at his predecessor on Twitter:

Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017

 By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017

  source http://capitalisthq.com/angry-dems-turn-on-obama-pelosi-schumer-talk-less-about-russia/ from CapitalistHQ http://capitalisthq.blogspot.com/2017/06/angry-dems-turn-on-obama-pelosi-schumer.html

[everettwilkinson]

Angry Dems Turn On Obama, Pelosi, Schumer: “Talk Less About Russia”

It’s been a rough week for the legacy of the Obama administration. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a Democrat-endorsed probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s conduct during the campaign – when it’s widely believed she colluded with the Clinton’s to “soften” the FBI’s probe into Hillary’s mishandling of classified information. Earlier, sure-thing Democratic neophyte Jon Ossoff lost a special election in Georgia that he was supposedly guaranteed to win, leading America’s least—preferred party of overly brazen corporatists to an embarrassing 5-0 defeat, and stoking calls for Nancy Pelosi – the Dem’s longtime leader in Congress – to step aside.

And as if all that wasn’t enough, revelations that Russian hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states – and the Obama administration did nothing about it – have inspired the president’s fellow Democrats to turn on their once-revered leader.

  As the Hill reports, Democrats are criticizing no-drama Obama for being too cautious with his disclosures about “the Russia problem” in the run-up to the 2016 election, claiming that he shouldn't have hesitated to inform the public about the allegations:

“The Obama administration is under fresh scrutiny for its response to Russian meddling in the election after new details emerged this week about how the White House weighed its actions against the 2016 political environment.

  Then-President Obama was too cautious in the months leading up to the election, frustrated Democratic lawmakers and strategists say.

  “It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who co-chairs the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee."

Meanwhile, Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan, who recently challenged Pelosi for leadership of the party, is leading a small group of Congressional Dems in criticizing Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership's irrational focus on the Russia investigations. Ryan believes the focus on making the Dems appear out of touch to working Americans who care more about economic issues than the Trump witch hunt, as the Hill reports.  Ryan's attempt to lead from behind comes as some of his peers push for the creation of a 9/11-style Commission to launch what would be the fourth investigation into the Trump campaign. 

Even though the contradiction here is obvious – Dems are complaining that the party is too focused on Russia, while criticizing Obama for not releasing more scurrilous details about alleged interference –at least Ryan recognizes that the focus on Russia will hurt the Dems where it counts: In next year's midterms.

"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. “They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

  “And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on,” he added, “then we're never going to be able to win elections.”

Turning back to Obama, the president's motives in withholding the information definitely leave room for speculation. Was he worried that the public would interpret the disclosure as transparent fearmongering intended to benefit the Clinton campaign – or maybe he thought it would make the Democrats and Clinton look ineffectual in the face of a problem that couldn’t be solved with a couple of well-timed drone strikes? For what it's worth, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says Obama withheld the information because he didn’t want to play into Trump’s claims that the election was being “rigged.”

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that the White House held back on responding to Russia because it didn’t want to play into fears, propagated by then-candidate Trump, that the election would be “rigged.”

  “One of the candidates, as you'll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way,” Johnson said. “And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

  Trump had repeatedly claimed that the outcome of the election would be “rigged” against him, alleging widespread voter fraud and inaccurate polling. He provided no evidence to back up his claims, but critics feared that his rhetoric could undermine public trust in the outcome of the election.

In any event, Obama’s decision to withhold the information has made the Dems look weak, desperate and disorganized. And now they’re rightfully worried that the administration’s countermeasures – kicking out a few dozen diplomats – have helped them lose what little credibility they still had in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, President Trump has a few questions of his own;

'Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

  Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

  “By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday. The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

So what’s next for the Dems? Obama, who has already pivoted from politician to social-media celebrity, will probably continue to chime in every now and then from the peanut gallery. Meanwhile, we wait to see if the DOJ or any other interested parties piggy-back on the Senate’s investigation into Lynch’s blatant attempt at obstruction, and wonder: Could this be the controversy that leads to the unraveling of the modern Democratic Party?

Of course, President Trump couldn't resist taking a shot at his predecessor on Twitter:

Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017

  By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017

  from CapitalistHQ.com http://capitalisthq.com/angry-dems-turn-on-obama-pelosi-schumer-talk-less-about-russia/

[flauntpage]

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23

Turns out a healthy Nick Foles is better than an injured Carson Wentz.

Shocking, I know.

That should really be the extent of the “Foles vs. Wentz” argument that will stink up social media and sports radio this week. One guy is healthy, one guy is not. THEREFORE – at this current moment in time, I’m gonna roll with the healthy Super Bowl MVP. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but unfortunately we’re just gonna have to deal with the frothy nothing-burger quarrels for the next seven days.

I’ll tell ya what; that was the first Eagles game I enjoyed watching this year, at least for three quarters. They moved the ball up and down the field, they played aggressive and nasty defense, and I swear I saw glimpses of the 2017 squad out there.

This, of course, begs the question –

Where was this Eagles team against the Buccaneers, Titans, Vikings, Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, and Cowboys?

Surely the quarterback change was not the sole catalyst for the win, right? Nick Foles did play the first two games this season, and he wasn’t exactly Joe Montana against the Falcons or Bucs. The banged-up defense was lights out for 3+ quarters last night as guys like Avonte Maddox and Cre’Von LeBlanc made big plays. Did they miraculously transform into legitimate NFL starters overnight?

Gut feeling: the Eagles still believed in themselves while the Rams believed they were going to trash a 6-7 team in a rebound game coming off a bad loss. It’s the same underdog mentality that got the Birds a Super Bowl ring last year. “No one likes us, we don’t care” was the rallying cry then, but this year it’s more, “No one thinks we have a prayer, and we probably don’t, but we’re gonna at least go down swinging.” Maybe we can get that on a T-shirt.

I’ve been totally unenthusiastic about this team and actually mostly ambivalent over the past three or four weeks, so I won’t flip flop here and tell you how excited I am going forward. That would be the Skip Bayless thing to do, to just hop back on the bandwagon. I’m still skeptical that a banged-up Eagles team does much of anything in the playoffs, but at least they’ve given themselves a chance at 9-7 and a postseason return after slogging through a mostly miserable title defense in 2018.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

He gets the ball out quicker than Carson does. That’s the big difference. Nick glides through his progressions and takes what the defense gives him. He’ll stand in the pocket and take a hit while Carson is more inclined to extend a play and try to make something happen in that fashion.

It’s not to say that Nick is better than Carson, because I don’t think he is. I think they are both pretty damn good when they’re on their game. Statistically, Foles finished 24 for 31 for 270 yards, zero touchdowns and an interception. last night and the Eagles’ offense was a meager 4-13 on third down. Wendell Smallwood and Josh Adams and Jake Elliott did the scoring.

The difference between healthy Foles and injured Carson is that healthy Foles was able to stay ahead of the chains with smart and simple plays on first and second down. He had first down conversions on 2nd and 10 and 2nd and 7 on first half scoring drives. He hit Golden Tate for 11 yards on a 2nd and 10 in the third quarter. There were only nine passing third down conversions last night, but Nick made them count and really did a nice job averting the dreaded three and out.

The only two horrendous passes I saw were the interception at the goal line and a risky screen that he probably should have thrown into the ground, but he was otherwise solid.

I wrote a story last week called “Throwing the Football Down the Field” and went through Carson’s last three game charts to find that he was 2-8 in completed passes of 20 or more yards against the Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys.

Last night, Nick was 3-5 in this category, all of which came down the right side of the field and took advantage of Alshon Jeffery’s ability to grab the ball in traffic:

That really was important, those deep shots. Carson was barely throwing those, and I wonder if the back injury was affecting his ability to step into those throws, or if the torque of the motion made those shots outside the hashmarks painful to even execute.

At the end of the day, Nick has one touchdown and two interceptions in three games this season. I don’t think he “won the game” for the Eagles last night, as some people are saying this morning, but he was steady last night, he kept the offense on the field, he got different receivers involved, and he picked and chose his spots really well.

2) Play calling

With Nick in the game, I was obviously very interested in how Doug decided to use him. Simplified game plan? Different sets?

Here’s what I wrote down for called plays:

Shotgun – run: 21

Shotgun – pass: 30

Under center – run: 6

Under center – pass: 2

I have it as a 32 to 27 pass/run split. The box score has it as a 33/28 split, so I must have missed one in there. Maybe I was on the toilet. Also, I’d have to go back and watch the entire film to see how many RPOs Doug called, since it’s nearly impossible to watch every blocking scheme in real time. Let’s just pretend this is a Quinnipiac poll with a +3 or -3 margin of error in called runs and called passes.

Either way, that’s a really nice balance, about 54% passing and 46% running. If you want to take away the final three run plays on the clock-killing final drive, you still get a 57% to 43% mix, which is a lot better than what Doug usually winds up with.

A couple of other play notes here:

QB scrambles: 2

Draw plays: 1

running back screens: 3

wide receiver screens: 3

They had two screen looks to Alshon and still tried a few RB screens even with Corey Clement not available. Doug ran 17 straight shotgun plays before trying to go under center, and Jason Peters false started on that first attempt. They finished with about 86% of their plays coming out of the shotgun and 14% coming from under center, which is not dissimilar from what they did with Carson this year.

3) Big boy blocking

Truthfully, I hated the play call on the Adams touchdown run. You’re gonna run behind Zach Ertz and Dallas Goedert?

It ended up being the best bit of blocking either guy has shown all year:

Goedert gets the first block and Ertz follows him through the hole to reach the second level. Adams squirts right through while Marcus Peters shows absolutely no interest in making a tackle at all.

Great blocking, exhibit B:

Do not let Russ see Jason Peters opening up a gaping hole, a hole that your grandmother could walk through.

Goedert is in there again, go figure.

One more play, featuring…. guess who? –

The offensive line was excellent last night. This wasn’t a game where the running backs were gashing the Rams for huge chunks of yards, but the red zone blocking was just elite, well-executed stuff.

4) Guys stepping up

Big games from all of these dudes:

Wendell Smallwood: 10 carries, 48 yards, 2 touchdowns

Avonte Maddox: started at outside corner, had a 2nd quarter interception, two pass break-ups and quality coverage on the game’s final play

Cre’Von LeBlanc: he was “flying around” out there

Rasul Douglas: putting big hits on people

D.J. Alexander: big fumble recovery on special teams

Raise your hand if you had those five guys making contributions to the win.

.

.

.

Yep, me neither.

Both lines were fantastic on the evening. Jeffery had his best game of the year. Zach Ertz still had seven targets despite the “reduced” role and Tate had some chunky yardage pickups, too.

5) Blitz me

Jim Schwartz called a really nice game. He pressured Jared Goff, who predictably folded like a soft California guy.

On the final play, Schwartz brought both linebackers and left his five defensive backs in man-to-man deep coverage:

I look at that play again and see Nate Gerry turn around to say something to Malcolm Jenkins. I wonder if that was a miscommunication or just a good sell job, because Gerry comes on a delayed blitz and I think that forces Goff to get rid of the ball a little bit earlier than he wanted to. Either way, I thought it was a pretty gutsy call to send six guys instead of just dropping 7 or 8 into coverage.

Well done, Jim Schwartz.

6) Officiating

After last week’s debacle, I’ve decided to make this a recurring entry in the column. This will continue through the rest of the season and into next year.

We had a rare “grasping the helmet opening” call on the second Eagles drive that moved the sticks on third down. Marcus Peters didn’t think it was a penalty, but replay shows he had a hand inside Smallwood’s dome. Good pickup by the ref there, leading to a key conversion.

I didn’t think the Aaron Donald hit on Foles was a roughing the QB penalty. He did get him high, sure, but he didn’t strike him in the head and he didn’t exactly follow through or bring him to the ground. Looked like he got him across the shoulder.

I thought the Eagles also got a generous spot on the third down conversion just before halftime, the 3rd and 2 to Dallas Goedert that resulted in a touchdown. Eagles fans would be complaining if the other team got this spot:

Thankfully the two key review plays were correct. That was the fake punt catch that was overturned and the Rasul Douglas goal line tackle that ultimately didn’t mean too much. I’m just happy we didn’t get a huge outrageous controversy this time around, so praise the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven for that.

7) The peripherals

Here we go:

won time of possession battle, 32 to 28 minutes

+2 turnover margin

4-13 on third down (30.7%)

0-1 on fourth down

allowed LA to go 4-12 on third down (33%)

lost 0 yards on 0 sacks

3-5 success rate in red zone

six penalties for 49 yards

That’s much more like the 2017 Eagles. They won the TOP on the strength of that +2 turnover margin. The defense really did a nice job of limiting third down conversions after allowing Dallas to go 10-19 for 52% last week. Zero sacks against that Rams line is excellent, and six penalties for 49 yards is more than manageable.

Good stuff all around.

8) Doug’s best call?

I liked 3rd and 4 draw play with Sproles on the first drive. LA wasn’t expecting that.

I also agreed with the decision to kick the field goal at about the four minute mark in the third quarter. Take the points, keep the momentum on the road, and make it a two-score game.

I honestly also did not have a problem with the 53-yard field goal try in the fourth quarter. That’s aggressive Doug. That’s the Doug we want, right? If Elliott hits that kick, the game is over. Shrug.

9) Doug’s worst call?

I didn’t have any issue with him going for it on 4th down near midfield in the first half, but the play call was what? Josh Adams out of the shotgun? The 3rd down play got you into 4th and short, and that’s what you come up with? And you do it with a guy who had left the game earlier with a head injury?

That was a weird one. Doug is good for at least one of those per game.

The only other play that kind of bothered me was the decision to run Sproles on 3rd and 8 in the fourth quarter. He almost converted, but that offensive series felt a little passive to me with about eight minutes on the clock and a 14-point lead. This game didn’t have to come down to the final play, but the Eagles half-bottled it on both sides of the field.

10) Awful announcing

How ’bout that Fresh Prince clip to start off the broadcast? Everybody hated it, but whatever, at least it wasn’t a shot of a cheesesteak or the Liberty Bell.

And how ’bout Cris Collinsworth doing his Sunday night slide in from the left side instead of the right?

#CollinsworthSlide Audible!

pic.twitter.com/zKl0ALKo8v

— SNF on NBC (@SNFonNBC) December 17, 2018

“Now here’s a guy…”

That threw me for a loop. Collinsworth always slides in from the right. Cheeky stuff right there.

Couple of other random notes from the broadcast:

Norristown native Tommy Lasorda looks pretty good for age 91

I prefer Terry McAuley to Dean Blandino and Mike Perreira.

I cringed when Collinsworth said, “All that’s missing now is the Rocky music.“

Al Michaels still seems somewhat bored to me. I think he’s ready to retire.

That’s it. Happy Monday.

The post A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[flauntpage]

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23

Turns out a healthy Nick Foles is better than an injured Carson Wentz.

Shocking, I know.

That should really be the extent of the “Foles vs. Wentz” argument that will stink up social media and sports radio this week. One guy is healthy, one guy is not. THEREFORE – at this current moment in time, I’m gonna roll with the healthy Super Bowl MVP. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but unfortunately we’re just gonna have to deal with the frothy nothing-burger quarrels for the next seven days.

I’ll tell ya what; that was the first Eagles game I enjoyed watching this year, at least for three quarters. They moved the ball up and down the field, they played aggressive and nasty defense, and I swear I saw glimpses of the 2017 squad out there.

This, of course, begs the question –

Where was this Eagles team against the Buccaneers, Titans, Vikings, Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, and Cowboys?

Surely the quarterback change was not the sole catalyst for the win, right? Nick Foles did play the first two games this season, and he wasn’t exactly Joe Montana against the Falcons or Bucs. The banged-up defense was lights out for 3+ quarters last night as guys like Avonte Maddox and Cre’Von LeBlanc made big plays. Did they miraculously transform into legitimate NFL starters overnight?

Gut feeling: the Eagles still believed in themselves while the Rams believed they were going to trash a 6-7 team in a rebound game coming off a bad loss. It’s the same underdog mentality that got the Birds a Super Bowl ring last year. “No one likes us, we don’t care” was the rallying cry then, but this year it’s more, “No one thinks we have a prayer, and we probably don’t, but we’re gonna at least go down swinging.” Maybe we can get that on a T-shirt.

I’ve been totally unenthusiastic about this team and actually mostly ambivalent over the past three or four weeks, so I won’t flip flop here and tell you how excited I am going forward. That would be the Skip Bayless thing to do, to just hop back on the bandwagon. I’m still skeptical that a banged-up Eagles team does much of anything in the playoffs, but at least they’ve given themselves a chance at 9-7 and a postseason return after slogging through a mostly miserable title defense in 2018.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

He gets the ball out quicker than Carson does. That’s the big difference. Nick glides through his progressions and takes what the defense gives him. He’ll stand in the pocket and take a hit while Carson is more inclined to extend a play and try to make something happen in that fashion.

It’s not to say that Nick is better than Carson, because I don’t think he is. I think they are both pretty damn good when they’re on their game. Statistically, Foles finished 24 for 31 for 270 yards, zero touchdowns and an interception. last night and the Eagles’ offense was a meager 4-13 on third down. Wendell Smallwood and Josh Adams and Jake Elliott did the scoring.

The difference between healthy Foles and injured Carson is that healthy Foles was able to stay ahead of the chains with smart and simple plays on first and second down. He had first down conversions on 2nd and 10 and 2nd and 7 on first half scoring drives. He hit Golden Tate for 11 yards on a 2nd and 10 in the third quarter. There were only nine passing third down conversions last night, but Nick made them count and really did a nice job averting the dreaded three and out.

The only two horrendous passes I saw were the interception at the goal line and a risky screen that he probably should have thrown into the ground, but he was otherwise solid.

I wrote a story last week called “Throwing the Football Down the Field” and went through Carson’s last three game charts to find that he was 2-8 in completed passes of 20 or more yards against the Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys.

Last night, Nick was 3-5 in this category, all of which came down the right side of the field and took advantage of Alshon Jeffery’s ability to grab the ball in traffic:

That really was important, those deep shots. Carson was barely throwing those, and I wonder if the back injury was affecting his ability to step into those throws, or if the torque of the motion made those shots outside the hashmarks painful to even execute.

At the end of the day, Nick has one touchdown and two interceptions in three games this season. I don’t think he “won the game” for the Eagles last night, as some people are saying this morning, but he was steady last night, he kept the offense on the field, he got different receivers involved, and he picked and chose his spots really well.

2) Play calling

With Nick in the game, I was obviously very interested in how Doug decided to use him. Simplified game plan? Different sets?

Here’s what I wrote down for called plays:

Shotgun – run: 21

Shotgun – pass: 30

Under center – run: 6

Under center – pass: 2

I have it as a 32 to 27 pass/run split. The box score has it as a 33/28 split, so I must have missed one in there. Maybe I was on the toilet. Also, I’d have to go back and watch the entire film to see how many RPOs Doug called, since it’s nearly impossible to watch every blocking scheme in real time. Let’s just pretend this is a Quinnipiac poll with a +3 or -3 margin of error in called runs and called passes.

Either way, that’s a really nice balance, about 54% passing and 46% running. If you want to take away the final three run plays on the clock-killing final drive, you still get a 57% to 43% mix, which is a lot better than what Doug usually winds up with.

A couple of other play notes here:

QB scrambles: 2

Draw plays: 1

running back screens: 3

wide receiver screens: 3

They had two screen looks to Alshon and still tried a few RB screens even with Corey Clement not available. Doug ran 17 straight shotgun plays before trying to go under center, and Jason Peters false started on that first attempt. They finished with about 86% of their plays coming out of the shotgun and 14% coming from under center, which is not dissimilar from what they did with Carson this year.

3) Big boy blocking

Truthfully, I hated the play call on the Adams touchdown run. You’re gonna run behind Zach Ertz and Dallas Goedert?

It ended up being the best bit of blocking either guy has shown all year:

Goedert gets the first block and Ertz follows him through the hole to reach the second level. Adams squirts right through while Marcus Peters shows absolutely no interest in making a tackle at all.

Great blocking, exhibit B:

Do not let Russ see Jason Peters opening up a gaping hole, a hole that your grandmother could walk through.

Goedert is in there again, go figure.

One more play, featuring…. guess who? –

The offensive line was excellent last night. This wasn’t a game where the running backs were gashing the Rams for huge chunks of yards, but the red zone blocking was just elite, well-executed stuff.

4) Guys stepping up

Big games from all of these dudes:

Wendell Smallwood: 10 carries, 48 yards, 2 touchdowns

Avonte Maddox: started at outside corner, had a 2nd quarter interception, two pass break-ups and quality coverage on the game’s final play

Cre’Von LeBlanc: he was “flying around” out there

Rasul Douglas: putting big hits on people

D.J. Alexander: big fumble recovery on special teams

Raise your hand if you had those five guys making contributions to the win.

.

.

.

Yep, me neither.

Both lines were fantastic on the evening. Jeffery had his best game of the year. Zach Ertz still had seven targets despite the “reduced” role and Tate had some chunky yardage pickups, too.

5) Blitz me

Jim Schwartz called a really nice game. He pressured Jared Goff, who predictably folded like a soft California guy.

On the final play, Schwartz brought both linebackers and left his five defensive backs in man-to-man deep coverage:

I look at that play again and see Nate Gerry turn around to say something to Malcolm Jenkins. I wonder if that was a miscommunication or just a good sell job, because Gerry comes on a delayed blitz and I think that forces Goff to get rid of the ball a little bit earlier than he wanted to. Either way, I thought it was a pretty gutsy call to send six guys instead of just dropping 7 or 8 into coverage.

Well done, Jim Schwartz.

6) Officiating

After last week’s debacle, I’ve decided to make this a recurring entry in the column. This will continue through the rest of the season and into next year.

We had a rare “grasping the helmet opening” call on the second Eagles drive that moved the sticks on third down. Marcus Peters didn’t think it was a penalty, but replay shows he had a hand inside Smallwood’s dome. Good pickup by the ref there, leading to a key conversion.

I didn’t think the Aaron Donald hit on Foles was a roughing the QB penalty. He did get him high, sure, but he didn’t strike him in the head and he didn’t exactly follow through or bring him to the ground. Looked like he got him across the shoulder.

I thought the Eagles also got a generous spot on the third down conversion just before halftime, the 3rd and 2 to Dallas Goedert that resulted in a touchdown. Eagles fans would be complaining if the other team got this spot:

Thankfully the two key review plays were correct. That was the fake punt catch that was overturned and the Rasul Douglas goal line tackle that ultimately didn’t mean too much. I’m just happy we didn’t get a huge outrageous controversy this time around, so praise the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven for that.

7) The peripherals

Here we go:

won time of possession battle, 32 to 28 minutes

+2 turnover margin

4-13 on third down (30.7%)

0-1 on fourth down

allowed LA to go 4-12 on third down (33%)

lost 0 yards on 0 sacks

3-5 success rate in red zone

six penalties for 49 yards

That’s much more like the 2017 Eagles. They won the TOP on the strength of that +2 turnover margin. The defense really did a nice job of limiting third down conversions after allowing Dallas to go 10-19 for 52% last week. Zero sacks against that Rams line is excellent, and six penalties for 49 yards is more than manageable.

Good stuff all around.

8) Doug’s best call?

I liked 3rd and 4 draw play with Sproles on the first drive. LA wasn’t expecting that.

I also agreed with the decision to kick the field goal at about the four minute mark in the third quarter. Take the points, keep the momentum on the road, and make it a two-score game.

I honestly also did not have a problem with the 53-yard field goal try in the fourth quarter. That’s aggressive Doug. That’s the Doug we want, right? If Elliott hits that kick, the game is over. Shrug.

9) Doug’s worst call?

I didn’t have any issue with him going for it on 4th down near midfield in the first half, but the play call was what? Josh Adams out of the shotgun? The 3rd down play got you into 4th and short, and that’s what you come up with? And you do it with a guy who had left the game earlier with a head injury?

That was a weird one. Doug is good for at least one of those per game.

The only other play that kind of bothered me was the decision to run Sproles on 3rd and 8 in the fourth quarter. He almost converted, but that offensive series felt a little passive to me with about eight minutes on the clock and a 14-point lead. This game didn’t have to come down to the final play, but the Eagles half-bottled it on both sides of the field.

10) Awful announcing

How ’bout that Fresh Prince clip to start off the broadcast? Everybody hated it, but whatever, at least it wasn’t a shot of a cheesesteak or the Liberty Bell.

And how ’bout Cris Collinsworth doing his Sunday night slide in from the left side instead of the right?

#CollinsworthSlide Audible!

pic.twitter.com/zKl0ALKo8v

— SNF on NBC (@SNFonNBC) December 17, 2018

“Now here’s a guy…”

That threw me for a loop. Collinsworth always slides in from the right. Cheeky stuff right there.

Couple of other random notes from the broadcast:

Norristown native Tommy Lasorda looks pretty good for age 91

I prefer Terry McAuley to Dean Blandino and Mike Perreira.

I cringed when Collinsworth said, “All that’s missing now is the Rocky music.“

Al Michaels still seems somewhat bored to me. I think he’s ready to retire.

That’s it. Happy Monday.

The post A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[flauntpage]

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23

Turns out a healthy Nick Foles is better than an injured Carson Wentz.

Shocking, I know.

That should really be the extent of the “Foles vs. Wentz” argument that will stink up social media and sports radio this week. One guy is healthy, one guy is not. THEREFORE – at this current moment in time, I’m gonna roll with the healthy Super Bowl MVP. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but unfortunately we’re just gonna have to deal with the frothy nothing-burger quarrels for the next seven days.

I’ll tell ya what; that was the first Eagles game I enjoyed watching this year, at least for three quarters. They moved the ball up and down the field, they played aggressive and nasty defense, and I swear I saw glimpses of the 2017 squad out there.

This, of course, begs the question –

Where was this Eagles team against the Buccaneers, Titans, Vikings, Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, and Cowboys?

Surely the quarterback change was not the sole catalyst for the win, right? Nick Foles did play the first two games this season, and he wasn’t exactly Joe Montana against the Falcons or Bucs. The banged-up defense was lights out for 3+ quarters last night as guys like Avonte Maddox and Cre’Von LeBlanc made big plays. Did they miraculously transform into legitimate NFL starters overnight?

Gut feeling: the Eagles still believed in themselves while the Rams believed they were going to trash a 6-7 team in a rebound game coming off a bad loss. It’s the same underdog mentality that got the Birds a Super Bowl ring last year. “No one likes us, we don’t care” was the rallying cry then, but this year it’s more, “No one thinks we have a prayer, and we probably don’t, but we’re gonna at least go down swinging.” Maybe we can get that on a T-shirt.

I’ve been totally unenthusiastic about this team and actually mostly ambivalent over the past three or four weeks, so I won’t flip flop here and tell you how excited I am going forward. That would be the Skip Bayless thing to do, to just hop back on the bandwagon. I’m still skeptical that a banged-up Eagles team does much of anything in the playoffs, but at least they’ve given themselves a chance at 9-7 and a postseason return after slogging through a mostly miserable title defense in 2018.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

He gets the ball out quicker than Carson does. That’s the big difference. Nick glides through his progressions and takes what the defense gives him. He’ll stand in the pocket and take a hit while Carson is more inclined to extend a play and try to make something happen in that fashion.

It’s not to say that Nick is better than Carson, because I don’t think he is. I think they are both pretty damn good when they’re on their game. Statistically, Foles finished 24 for 31 for 270 yards, zero touchdowns and an interception. last night and the Eagles’ offense was a meager 4-13 on third down. Wendell Smallwood and Josh Adams and Jake Elliott did the scoring.

The difference between healthy Foles and injured Carson is that healthy Foles was able to stay ahead of the chains with smart and simple plays on first and second down. He had first down conversions on 2nd and 10 and 2nd and 7 on first half scoring drives. He hit Golden Tate for 11 yards on a 2nd and 10 in the third quarter. There were only nine passing third down conversions last night, but Nick made them count and really did a nice job averting the dreaded three and out.

The only two horrendous passes I saw were the interception at the goal line and a risky screen that he probably should have thrown into the ground, but he was otherwise solid.

I wrote a story last week called “Throwing the Football Down the Field” and went through Carson’s last three game charts to find that he was 2-8 in completed passes of 20 or more yards against the Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys.

Last night, Nick was 3-5 in this category, all of which came down the right side of the field and took advantage of Alshon Jeffery’s ability to grab the ball in traffic:

That really was important, those deep shots. Carson was barely throwing those, and I wonder if the back injury was affecting his ability to step into those throws, or if the torque of the motion made those shots outside the hashmarks painful to even execute.

At the end of the day, Nick has one touchdown and two interceptions in three games this season. I don’t think he “won the game” for the Eagles last night, as some people are saying this morning, but he was steady last night, he kept the offense on the field, he got different receivers involved, and he picked and chose his spots really well.

2) Play calling

With Nick in the game, I was obviously very interested in how Doug decided to use him. Simplified game plan? Different sets?

Here’s what I wrote down for called plays:

Shotgun – run: 21

Shotgun – pass: 30

Under center – run: 6

Under center – pass: 2

I have it as a 32 to 27 pass/run split. The box score has it as a 33/28 split, so I must have missed one in there. Maybe I was on the toilet. Also, I’d have to go back and watch the entire film to see how many RPOs Doug called, since it’s nearly impossible to watch every blocking scheme in real time. Let’s just pretend this is a Quinnipiac poll with a +3 or -3 margin of error in called runs and called passes.

Either way, that’s a really nice balance, about 54% passing and 46% running. If you want to take away the final three run plays on the clock-killing final drive, you still get a 57% to 43% mix, which is a lot better than what Doug usually winds up with.

A couple of other play notes here:

QB scrambles: 2

Draw plays: 1

running back screens: 3

wide receiver screens: 3

They had two screen looks to Alshon and still tried a few RB screens even with Corey Clement not available. Doug ran 17 straight shotgun plays before trying to go under center, and Jason Peters false started on that first attempt. They finished with about 86% of their plays coming out of the shotgun and 14% coming from under center, which is not dissimilar from what they did with Carson this year.

3) Big boy blocking

Truthfully, I hated the play call on the Adams touchdown run. You’re gonna run behind Zach Ertz and Dallas Goedert?

It ended up being the best bit of blocking either guy has shown all year:

Goedert gets the first block and Ertz follows him through the hole to reach the second level. Adams squirts right through while Marcus Peters shows absolutely no interest in making a tackle at all.

Great blocking, exhibit B:

Do not let Russ see Jason Peters opening up a gaping hole, a hole that your grandmother could walk through.

Goedert is in there again, go figure.

One more play, featuring…. guess who? –

The offensive line was excellent last night. This wasn’t a game where the running backs were gashing the Rams for huge chunks of yards, but the red zone blocking was just elite, well-executed stuff.

4) Guys stepping up

Big games from all of these dudes:

Wendell Smallwood: 10 carries, 48 yards, 2 touchdowns

Avonte Maddox: started at outside corner, had a 2nd quarter interception, two pass break-ups and quality coverage on the game’s final play

Cre’Von LeBlanc: he was “flying around” out there

Rasul Douglas: putting big hits on people

D.J. Alexander: big fumble recovery on special teams

Raise your hand if you had those five guys making contributions to the win.

.

.

.

Yep, me neither.

Both lines were fantastic on the evening. Jeffery had his best game of the year. Zach Ertz still had seven targets despite the “reduced” role and Tate had some chunky yardage pickups, too.

5) Blitz me

Jim Schwartz called a really nice game. He pressured Jared Goff, who predictably folded like a soft California guy.

On the final play, Schwartz brought both linebackers and left his five defensive backs in man-to-man deep coverage:

I look at that play again and see Nate Gerry turn around to say something to Malcolm Jenkins. I wonder if that was a miscommunication or just a good sell job, because Gerry comes on a delayed blitz and I think that forces Goff to get rid of the ball a little bit earlier than he wanted to. Either way, I thought it was a pretty gutsy call to send six guys instead of just dropping 7 or 8 into coverage.

Well done, Jim Schwartz.

6) Officiating

After last week’s debacle, I’ve decided to make this a recurring entry in the column. This will continue through the rest of the season and into next year.

We had a rare “grasping the helmet opening” call on the second Eagles drive that moved the sticks on third down. Marcus Peters didn’t think it was a penalty, but replay shows he had a hand inside Smallwood’s dome. Good pickup by the ref there, leading to a key conversion.

I didn’t think the Aaron Donald hit on Foles was a roughing the QB penalty. He did get him high, sure, but he didn’t strike him in the head and he didn’t exactly follow through or bring him to the ground. Looked like he got him across the shoulder.

I thought the Eagles also got a generous spot on the third down conversion just before halftime, the 3rd and 2 to Dallas Goedert that resulted in a touchdown. Eagles fans would be complaining if the other team got this spot:

Thankfully the two key review plays were correct. That was the fake punt catch that was overturned and the Rasul Douglas goal line tackle that ultimately didn’t mean too much. I’m just happy we didn’t get a huge outrageous controversy this time around, so praise the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven for that.

7) The peripherals

Here we go:

won time of possession battle, 32 to 28 minutes

+2 turnover margin

4-13 on third down (30.7%)

0-1 on fourth down

allowed LA to go 4-12 on third down (33%)

lost 0 yards on 0 sacks

3-5 success rate in red zone

six penalties for 49 yards

That’s much more like the 2017 Eagles. They won the TOP on the strength of that +2 turnover margin. The defense really did a nice job of limiting third down conversions after allowing Dallas to go 10-19 for 52% last week. Zero sacks against that Rams line is excellent, and six penalties for 49 yards is more than manageable.

Good stuff all around.

8) Doug’s best call?

I liked 3rd and 4 draw play with Sproles on the first drive. LA wasn’t expecting that.

I also agreed with the decision to kick the field goal at about the four minute mark in the third quarter. Take the points, keep the momentum on the road, and make it a two-score game.

I honestly also did not have a problem with the 53-yard field goal try in the fourth quarter. That’s aggressive Doug. That’s the Doug we want, right? If Elliott hits that kick, the game is over. Shrug.

9) Doug’s worst call?

I didn’t have any issue with him going for it on 4th down near midfield in the first half, but the play call was what? Josh Adams out of the shotgun? The 3rd down play got you into 4th and short, and that’s what you come up with? And you do it with a guy who had left the game earlier with a head injury?

That was a weird one. Doug is good for at least one of those per game.

The only other play that kind of bothered me was the decision to run Sproles on 3rd and 8 in the fourth quarter. He almost converted, but that offensive series felt a little passive to me with about eight minutes on the clock and a 14-point lead. This game didn’t have to come down to the final play, but the Eagles half-bottled it on both sides of the field.

10) Awful announcing

How ’bout that Fresh Prince clip to start off the broadcast? Everybody hated it, but whatever, at least it wasn’t a shot of a cheesesteak or the Liberty Bell.

And how ’bout Cris Collinsworth doing his Sunday night slide in from the left side instead of the right?

#CollinsworthSlide Audible!

pic.twitter.com/zKl0ALKo8v

— SNF on NBC (@SNFonNBC) December 17, 2018

“Now here’s a guy…”

That threw me for a loop. Collinsworth always slides in from the right. Cheeky stuff right there.

Couple of other random notes from the broadcast:

Norristown native Tommy Lasorda looks pretty good for age 91

I prefer Terry McAuley to Dean Blandino and Mike Perreira.

I cringed when Collinsworth said, “All that’s missing now is the Rocky music.“

Al Michaels still seems somewhat bored to me. I think he’s ready to retire.

That’s it. Happy Monday.

The post A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[flauntpage]

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23

Turns out a healthy Nick Foles is better than an injured Carson Wentz.

Shocking, I know.

That should really be the extent of the “Foles vs. Wentz” argument that will stink up social media and sports radio this week. One guy is healthy, one guy is not. THEREFORE – at this current moment in time, I’m gonna roll with the healthy Super Bowl MVP. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but unfortunately we’re just gonna have to deal with the frothy nothing-burger quarrels for the next seven days.

I’ll tell ya what; that was the first Eagles game I enjoyed watching this year, at least for three quarters. They moved the ball up and down the field, they played aggressive and nasty defense, and I swear I saw glimpses of the 2017 squad out there.

This, of course, begs the question –

Where was this Eagles team against the Buccaneers, Titans, Vikings, Panthers, Cowboys, Saints, and Cowboys?

Surely the quarterback change was not the sole catalyst for the win, right? Nick Foles did play the first two games this season, and he wasn’t exactly Joe Montana against the Falcons or Bucs. The banged-up defense was lights out for 3+ quarters last night as guys like Avonte Maddox and Cre’Von LeBlanc made big plays. Did they miraculously transform into legitimate NFL starters overnight?

Gut feeling: the Eagles still believed in themselves while the Rams believed they were going to trash a 6-7 team in a rebound game coming off a bad loss. It’s the same underdog mentality that got the Birds a Super Bowl ring last year. “No one likes us, we don’t care” was the rallying cry then, but this year it’s more, “No one thinks we have a prayer, and we probably don’t, but we’re gonna at least go down swinging.” Maybe we can get that on a T-shirt.

I’ve been totally unenthusiastic about this team and actually mostly ambivalent over the past three or four weeks, so I won’t flip flop here and tell you how excited I am going forward. That would be the Skip Bayless thing to do, to just hop back on the bandwagon. I’m still skeptical that a banged-up Eagles team does much of anything in the playoffs, but at least they’ve given themselves a chance at 9-7 and a postseason return after slogging through a mostly miserable title defense in 2018.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

He gets the ball out quicker than Carson does. That’s the big difference. Nick glides through his progressions and takes what the defense gives him. He’ll stand in the pocket and take a hit while Carson is more inclined to extend a play and try to make something happen in that fashion.

It’s not to say that Nick is better than Carson, because I don’t think he is. I think they are both pretty damn good when they’re on their game. Statistically, Foles finished 24 for 31 for 270 yards, zero touchdowns and an interception. last night and the Eagles’ offense was a meager 4-13 on third down. Wendell Smallwood and Josh Adams and Jake Elliott did the scoring.

The difference between healthy Foles and injured Carson is that healthy Foles was able to stay ahead of the chains with smart and simple plays on first and second down. He had first down conversions on 2nd and 10 and 2nd and 7 on first half scoring drives. He hit Golden Tate for 11 yards on a 2nd and 10 in the third quarter. There were only nine passing third down conversions last night, but Nick made them count and really did a nice job averting the dreaded three and out.

The only two horrendous passes I saw were the interception at the goal line and a risky screen that he probably should have thrown into the ground, but he was otherwise solid.

I wrote a story last week called “Throwing the Football Down the Field” and went through Carson’s last three game charts to find that he was 2-8 in completed passes of 20 or more yards against the Giants, Redskins, and Cowboys.

Last night, Nick was 3-5 in this category, all of which came down the right side of the field and took advantage of Alshon Jeffery’s ability to grab the ball in traffic:

That really was important, those deep shots. Carson was barely throwing those, and I wonder if the back injury was affecting his ability to step into those throws, or if the torque of the motion made those shots outside the hashmarks painful to even execute.

At the end of the day, Nick has one touchdown and two interceptions in three games this season. I don’t think he “won the game” for the Eagles last night, as some people are saying this morning, but he was steady last night, he kept the offense on the field, he got different receivers involved, and he picked and chose his spots really well.

2) Play calling

With Nick in the game, I was obviously very interested in how Doug decided to use him. Simplified game plan? Different sets?

Here’s what I wrote down for called plays:

Shotgun – run: 21

Shotgun – pass: 30

Under center – run: 6

Under center – pass: 2

I have it as a 32 to 27 pass/run split. The box score has it as a 33/28 split, so I must have missed one in there. Maybe I was on the toilet. Also, I’d have to go back and watch the entire film to see how many RPOs Doug called, since it’s nearly impossible to watch every blocking scheme in real time. Let’s just pretend this is a Quinnipiac poll with a +3 or -3 margin of error in called runs and called passes.

Either way, that’s a really nice balance, about 54% passing and 46% running. If you want to take away the final three run plays on the clock-killing final drive, you still get a 57% to 43% mix, which is a lot better than what Doug usually winds up with.

A couple of other play notes here:

QB scrambles: 2

Draw plays: 1

running back screens: 3

wide receiver screens: 3

They had two screen looks to Alshon and still tried a few RB screens even with Corey Clement not available. Doug ran 17 straight shotgun plays before trying to go under center, and Jason Peters false started on that first attempt. They finished with about 86% of their plays coming out of the shotgun and 14% coming from under center, which is not dissimilar from what they did with Carson this year.

3) Big boy blocking

Truthfully, I hated the play call on the Adams touchdown run. You’re gonna run behind Zach Ertz and Dallas Goedert?

It ended up being the best bit of blocking either guy has shown all year:

Goedert gets the first block and Ertz follows him through the hole to reach the second level. Adams squirts right through while Marcus Peters shows absolutely no interest in making a tackle at all.

Great blocking, exhibit B:

Do not let Russ see Jason Peters opening up a gaping hole, a hole that your grandmother could walk through.

Goedert is in there again, go figure.

One more play, featuring…. guess who? –

The offensive line was excellent last night. This wasn’t a game where the running backs were gashing the Rams for huge chunks of yards, but the red zone blocking was just elite, well-executed stuff.

4) Guys stepping up

Big games from all of these dudes:

Wendell Smallwood: 10 carries, 48 yards, 2 touchdowns

Avonte Maddox: started at outside corner, had a 2nd quarter interception, two pass break-ups and quality coverage on the game’s final play

Cre’Von LeBlanc: he was “flying around” out there

Rasul Douglas: putting big hits on people

D.J. Alexander: big fumble recovery on special teams

Raise your hand if you had those five guys making contributions to the win.

.

.

.

Yep, me neither.

Both lines were fantastic on the evening. Jeffery had his best game of the year. Zach Ertz still had seven targets despite the “reduced” role and Tate had some chunky yardage pickups, too.

5) Blitz me

Jim Schwartz called a really nice game. He pressured Jared Goff, who predictably folded like a soft California guy.

On the final play, Schwartz brought both linebackers and left his five defensive backs in man-to-man deep coverage:

I look at that play again and see Nate Gerry turn around to say something to Malcolm Jenkins. I wonder if that was a miscommunication or just a good sell job, because Gerry comes on a delayed blitz and I think that forces Goff to get rid of the ball a little bit earlier than he wanted to. Either way, I thought it was a pretty gutsy call to send six guys instead of just dropping 7 or 8 into coverage.

Well done, Jim Schwartz.

6) Officiating

After last week’s debacle, I’ve decided to make this a recurring entry in the column. This will continue through the rest of the season and into next year.

We had a rare “grasping the helmet opening” call on the second Eagles drive that moved the sticks on third down. Marcus Peters didn’t think it was a penalty, but replay shows he had a hand inside Smallwood’s dome. Good pickup by the ref there, leading to a key conversion.

I didn’t think the Aaron Donald hit on Foles was a roughing the QB penalty. He did get him high, sure, but he didn’t strike him in the head and he didn’t exactly follow through or bring him to the ground. Looked like he got him across the shoulder.

I thought the Eagles also got a generous spot on the third down conversion just before halftime, the 3rd and 2 to Dallas Goedert that resulted in a touchdown. Eagles fans would be complaining if the other team got this spot:

Thankfully the two key review plays were correct. That was the fake punt catch that was overturned and the Rasul Douglas goal line tackle that ultimately didn’t mean too much. I’m just happy we didn’t get a huge outrageous controversy this time around, so praise the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven for that.

7) The peripherals

Here we go:

won time of possession battle, 32 to 28 minutes

+2 turnover margin

4-13 on third down (30.7%)

0-1 on fourth down

allowed LA to go 4-12 on third down (33%)

lost 0 yards on 0 sacks

3-5 success rate in red zone

six penalties for 49 yards

That’s much more like the 2017 Eagles. They won the TOP on the strength of that +2 turnover margin. The defense really did a nice job of limiting third down conversions after allowing Dallas to go 10-19 for 52% last week. Zero sacks against that Rams line is excellent, and six penalties for 49 yards is more than manageable.

Good stuff all around.

8) Doug’s best call?

I liked 3rd and 4 draw play with Sproles on the first drive. LA wasn’t expecting that.

I also agreed with the decision to kick the field goal at about the four minute mark in the third quarter. Take the points, keep the momentum on the road, and make it a two-score game.

I honestly also did not have a problem with the 53-yard field goal try in the fourth quarter. That’s aggressive Doug. That’s the Doug we want, right? If Elliott hits that kick, the game is over. Shrug.

9) Doug’s worst call?

I didn’t have any issue with him going for it on 4th down near midfield in the first half, but the play call was what? Josh Adams out of the shotgun? The 3rd down play got you into 4th and short, and that’s what you come up with? And you do it with a guy who had left the game earlier with a head injury?

That was a weird one. Doug is good for at least one of those per game.

The only other play that kind of bothered me was the decision to run Sproles on 3rd and 8 in the fourth quarter. He almost converted, but that offensive series felt a little passive to me with about eight minutes on the clock and a 14-point lead. This game didn’t have to come down to the final play, but the Eagles half-bottled it on both sides of the field.

10) Awful announcing

How ’bout that Fresh Prince clip to start off the broadcast? Everybody hated it, but whatever, at least it wasn’t a shot of a cheesesteak or the Liberty Bell.

And how ’bout Cris Collinsworth doing his Sunday night slide in from the left side instead of the right?

#CollinsworthSlide Audible!

pic.twitter.com/zKl0ALKo8v

— SNF on NBC (@SNFonNBC) December 17, 2018

“Now here’s a guy…”

That threw me for a loop. Collinsworth always slides in from the right. Cheeky stuff right there.

Couple of other random notes from the broadcast:

Norristown native Tommy Lasorda looks pretty good for age 91

I prefer Terry McAuley to Dean Blandino and Mike Perreira.

I cringed when Collinsworth said, “All that’s missing now is the Rocky music.“

Al Michaels still seems somewhat bored to me. I think he’s ready to retire.

That’s it. Happy Monday.

The post A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 appeared first on Crossing Broad.

A Hollywood Moment – Ten Takeaways from Eagles 30, Rams 23 published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): For your consideration today:

Whatever happened to that Democratic wave?

The Democratic advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot is down to less than 6 percentage points:

What’s going on? Is it time for Democrats to PANIC!!! ?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I guess Democrats have nine more months in which to panic and/or watch the generic ballot change — up and down — right?

Happy February, by the way, everyone.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It is not time for them to panic, but it’s a reminder not to take anything for granted.

clare.malone: That feels like good life advice in general.

micah: That’s a take.

natesilver: It’s the correct take, and any other take is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): This is rather an odd feeling, right? We’re seeing all these Republican retirements. The special elections continue to look good for the Democrats, and now the generic ballot has narrowed significantly.

micah: Wait a sec …

We’ve been telling readers that Republicans are in trouble — look at the special election results, which matched the generic ballot. Now the generic ballot has narrowed (we haven’t had any super recent special elections), shouldn’t that be cause for Democratic concern?

natesilver: You already asked that question.

micah: I’m trying to square your answer with what you’ve been saying for months.

natesilver: I think we’ve been saying that there’s a pretty rich mix of evidence — polling, special elections data, retirements, the history of the “out” party performing well in midterms — suggesting that the political winds favor Democrats. Now one of those indicators — an important one, the generic ballot — doesn’t look as good.

But if you had a model that blended all those indicators together, how much would a 5-point swing on the generic ballot in January affect your prediction for November? I don’t know, because we don’t start building those sorts of models until late in the election year. But I’d guess you’d have to discount it pretty heavily; so maybe a 5-point swing in January translates to a 1-point or 2-point swing in your November prediction, or something.

micah: 1 or 2 points isn’t nothing.

natesilver: You seem to have this straw-man position that I’m saying it’s nothing when I don’t hold that position.

micah: lol

harry: Well, Mr. Silver. I have not a formal model, but I do have something mathematical or statistical. I went back as far as I could and looked at the generic ballot in January of a midterm year versus the results in November.

It essentially shows what you’re getting at: Yes, it matters, but there is a natural reversion to the mean. Ergo, a movement of say 5 points now does roughly translate into a 2-point movement come November, on average.

natesilver: And maybe less of an impact than that if you’re also looking at other indicators and not just the generic ballot. Like, if Democrats start to perform less well in special elections, then it’s more concerning for them.

So far, we haven’t really seen those other indicators slip.

micah: Before we get to the why of all this … are Dems panicking at all?

clare.malone: Well, they will be after they read this chat.

harry: Nice.

micah: Haha.

clare.malone: Actually, I did talk to an avid generic-ballot checker a couple of days ago, and that person was quite alarmed at the Democratic dive.

So, anecdotally, I suppose some informed watchers might be worried, but don’t you think that by and large, the Democratic base IS NOT checking on where the generic ballot is?

harry: Who do you hang out with?!

clare.malone: heh

micah: What about Democratic officeholders? Perry?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): We’ve had Trump making gains in polls for a short time, but this was also the week of the State of the Union and Nunes/memogate. So I haven’t talked to a lot of Dems freaking out about the generic ballot, but that’s because they are freaking out about other things. David Frum, one of the most anti-Trump Republicans, is freaking out.

I've been predicting this to audiences for a while. Wage increases + tax cuts aimed at Trump constituencies (at expense of Clinton-voting states) => improving numbers for Trump. Meanwhile, congressional GOP is weakening, becoming therefore more dependent on him, emboldening him. https://t.co/3q4bNN5us2

— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 1, 2018

So we published a story on Dec. 22 with the headline “The Democrats’ Wave Could Turn Into A Flood.” Is that statement still operative? And is this line — “Once you take into account who holds the White House, the generic ballot at this point is usually predictive of the midterm House result” — still operative?

Those were my questions, as a nonexpert on the generic ballot.

clare.malone: They’re still up by … 6.

micah: Yeah, all that is still true. The flood is just less likely?

natesilver: A key point of context here is that Democrats could win the House popular vote by 6 points — which is kind of a lot — and still not take the House.

harry: Right. The movement we saw from December’s generic ballot average to January’s average was obviously smaller than the movement from December’s Democratic high point to January’s Democratic low point. And we published that article (unknowingly) at December’s high point, and we’re at the low point now.

There’s probably a floor in here somewhere for the Democrats given the fundamentals at play.

natesilver: Another key point of context is that it doesn’t take all that much to go from a ripple to a tsunami. If the Democrats were to win the House popular vote by 12 points say — and there were lots of polls to that effect in December — they could win lots and lots and lots of seats. It’s a pretty nonlinear effect once you start getting into the territory where supposedly safe gerrymandered seats come into play.

So I think the conventional wisdom is overly certain that Democrats will take the House. But I also think the chance of Democrats winning say 50+ seats is higher than people assume.

micah: OK, so let’s talk why the environment has shifted toward Republicans.

clare.malone: It could just be wintertime seasonal affective disorder for the generic ballot … or maybe people being happy that Congress passed legislation/Trump hasn’t done or said anything too out of the ordinary in awhile?

harry: I mean, Trump’s approval rating went up, so that’s a pretty decent starting point.

natesilver: I think (i) Trump has been a little quieter; (ii) there’s been more focus on the economy, and the economy is good; and (iii) the tax bill is less of a hindrance to the GOP (I don’t know that I buy that it has been a help).

micah: Is that in order of importance?

natesilver: Not in any particular order.

micah: Anyone want to put those in order?

perry: Frum said the Trump/GOP improvement is about all of these companies announcing bonuses/hiring and Trump trumpeting that. That seems plausible.

I would put economy news at No 1. And No. 2 is that there is no tax bill, health care bill or other piece of unpopular legislation moving through Congress. I’d put Trump’s behavior — which is quieter but has still included some controversy, like the “shithole” incident — at No. 3.

clare.malone: Right, all of the above. The Democrats, given that they hold no chamber of government, are at a disadvantage at this sort of lull time in an election year. They can’t really get any news about initiating legislation, they’re forced into reactive positions like during the government shutdown, and it’s months before primaries heat up and news about congressional races — many of which will have an anti-Trump bent — starts trickling out.

micah: And Democrats sorta messed up the shutdown, no?

natesilver: The tax bill is weird because some of the GOP’s worst numbers all year were when the tax bill was being debated. They hit generic ballot lows and Trump hit his approval rating low basically right as the thing was being signed. So it helps the GOP that the tax bill is becoming less unpopular, but, as Perry says, it maybe also helps that it isn’t as salient right now.

clare.malone: Democrats probably could have been a bit bolder about the shutdown play, given that polling seemed sympathetic to their position on DACA, yes (although the public didn’t favor shutting down the government).

natesilver: I don’t know that the shutdown had a huge effect. But I do think there was a lot of news in January that got partisans on both sides riled up, and that’s sorta good news for the GOP.

Look, lots of swing voters are going to vote Democratic this year. That’s usually how it works in the midterms — the swing voters vote against the president’s party. But what determines trickle vs. wave vs. tsunami will be the relative turnout levels of the parties.

harry: I’m don’t think the shutdown hurt Democrats. At least, there’s not a lot of evidence it did.

perry: I have never seen this many companies announce bonuses, etc. and credit the federal government. I know it’s cynical on the companies’ parts in some ways, but it’s like a Trump-PR blitz sponsored by corporate America. Trump’s White House does not have much credibility, but these companies do. They are selling the tax cut in some ways. That helps.

micah: Yeah, I buy that, Perry.

If you’re a company right now making hires, there are “get in the administration’s good books” reasons to make a big deal of it. And to say it’s about taxes or regulations or whatever.

natesilver: The White House seems to be getting smarter — particularly in its PR strategy.

For example, the thing they did where they convinced everyone that the State of the Union was gonna be super bipartisan, but it was actually quite partisan once you peeled away the rhetoric — that indicated a level of sophistication.

perry: If Trump can get companies to announce in October and November bonuses based on the tax cut, that would help. I doubt that will happen. I think he is in a tax cut/hiring boost that will be temporary, in other words.

So I expect the generic ballot to move back toward the Democrats. Is that what everyone here is saying too?

clare.malone: I saw something from the Pew Research Center the other day that noted that the share of Americans who see the economy as the top priority to be dealt with has been dropping. I wonder if that has any effect going forward, as the election year unfurls.

In other words: Will the economy remain the main, motivating issue of 2018? (Which we presume would be good for Trump?)

It doesn’t necessarily seem like it will be, given the focus on immigration, etc.

harry: Well, that could, in part, explain why Trump’s economic approval rating isn’t pushing up his overall job approval rating, which, in turn, is linked to the congressional generic ballot.

micah: Yeah, I think there are lots of anti-Trump voters who won’t be swayed no matter what the economy does.

natesilver: It will be interesting to see what happens if we move into a Russia/FBI/clusterfark news cycle, as we appear to be moving into now.

Clearly, the more people are focused on the economy, the better it is for Trump and the GOP, both because the economy is pretty good and because all the other storylines are pretty bad for them.

perry: We are talking — in terms of his approval rating, which I understand a bit better — about two different blocs of the electorate, right? The tax cut and policies like that should shore up his numbers among Republicans, getting him close to 90 percent approval among GOP voters. And that will get him close to 40 percent overall. But the more reluctant Trump voters of 2016 and then the rest of the electorate are still a problem, right?

harry: Right. This is from Gallup back in June, but look at these differences by party:

The economy is a pretty decent issue for Republicans, or at least a break-even one.

But to Perry’s point, there’s only so much that a party with a president who has a 40 percent approval rating can improve on the generic congressional ballot.

I also wonder how much of what we’ve seen is simply a reversion to the mean. Yesterday, I took monthly averages of the FiveThirtyEight generic ballot tracker. The Democratic advantage in December was 10.7 percentage points. In January, it was 8.1 points. And the monthly average since July is 8.7 points

So, December was something of an outlier. January was closer to the long-term average.

natesilver: I mean, everything reverts to the mean, but it’s hard to know what the mean is.

harry: I guess what I’m saying is news cycles go up and down.

clare.malone: The Circle Game of the Trumpian era.

natesilver: The abnormal is actually normal.

perry: An atmosphere where Trump is at 40 percent approval and Democrats lead the generic ballot by 6 to 8 points is different than Trump at 37 percent and Democrats up 8 to 11, as we saw for much of the last year. Democrats should be worried about the former, if we think that will be the new “mean.”

harry: Now that is an interesting thought.

natesilver: Yeah, the thing is we’re in the range where there’s large marginal impact. If Democrats went from +5 on the generic ballot to +2, it wouldn’t matter much. But +9 is a pretty different number than +6.

micah: Right. I’ll say this, and this is one reason I do think Democrats should be concerned: The last month or so has shown that if Trump tones it down and Republicans get a few good breaks, then the Democratic advantage will shrink — shrink enough so that (even in a midterm year against a president of the opposite party) taking back the House (let alone the Senate) will be a challenge.

That’s the thing, really: Because of self-sorting/gerrymandering and the bad Senate map, a +6 Democratic advantage on the generic ballot isn’t great.

natesilver: A +6 would make Democrats heavy underdogs in the Senate and slight underdogs in the House.

micah: Right.

clare.malone: So a lot of what we’re attributing the Republican/Trump rise in popularity to is him staying quiet. But I just wonder about the long-term stability of that condition. It’s either (i) the White House has gotten more disciplined and on message or (ii) Trump hasn’t had much to respond to.

micah: I don’t know how much of a factor that is. The economy is a simpler explanation, and the tax debate going away.

natesilver: January was a slow news month — at least, the first half of it was.

clare.malone: I think that once people actually start throwing barbs at Trump during midterm ads, campaigns, etc., he’s more likely to take the bait.

perry: So I think the question of whether Democrats should panic depends on whether we think a generic ballot of +6 or +9 is more likely by, say, September. I expect the Democratic advantage to grow again, but I’m bad at predicting. Also, how much of the Democratic advantage is baked in, by GOP incumbents who maybe could have won re-election instead retiring, anticipating a worse environment than the one that actually exists?

micah: Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see how the generic ballot affects the retirement beat.

OK, any final thoughts?

natesilver: Well, I think it’s a little early to be sweating every tick of the generic ballot. With that said, I hope this chart will be a useful corrective to the emerging narrative that a Democratic wave is inevitable. There’s high potential for a wave. And if there is a wave, it could be a large one. But there are also scenarios in which Republicans battle things … not quite to a draw, but to enough of a draw that their geographic advantages let them keep both chambers of Congress.

micah: Here’s my final thought — a proposal for our nautical-themed 2018 midterm terminology:

puddle (Democrats gain 0 to 4 House seats)

trickle (5 to 9)

ripple (10 to 14)

swell (15 to 19)

wave (20 to 24)

flood (25 to 29)

tsunami (30+)

And if the Senate and House have very different results, it’s a “split peak wave.” That’s courtesy of @SurferSalsaDan:

@538politics It’s a split peak wave election. #WaveElection pic.twitter.com/B05KcyUlBR

— Salsadan (@SurferSalsaDan) January 19, 2018

natesilver: Oh, see, you’re totally conceiving of the problem wrong with those seat ranges.

micah: Waddya mean?

natesilver: It’s way too narrow a range

micah: There’s a + sign at the end.

natesilver:

anti-wave (Democrats lose House seats)

trickle (Democrats gain 0 to 10)

swell (Democrats gain 11 to 24)

wave (Democrats gain 25 to 35)

flood (35 to 50)

tsunami (50+)

perry: I think if the generic ballot stays in this range for a few months, Democrats should be panicking. But I don’t think they should panic now. I don’t know exactly what caused Trump and Republicans to make gains, but assuming that it’s the good economic news, is there a way for the GOP to keep touting this news, keep generating news about the economy? That will help their political standing. Also, we didn’t mention Russia or Mueller much here. More indictments/controversies on that front will basically drown out any good economic news.

micah: Yeah, that seems right.

And I’ll sign onto that nomenclature, Nate.

harry: My final thought is essentially this: It’s always great chatting with everyone. You make me laugh and smile. And thank you, reader, for reading.