PseudoSABR

I don't understand Rosario in the two hole either. I don't think the Twins are so inept to believe speed matters when players don't get on base (and they must also know that strikeouts don't exactly move the runner over either). So maybe there's something else going on. Maybe: 1) They are trying to alter Rosario's mindset/at-bat-strategy by moving him out of run-producing spot to a run-scoring spot, and 2) This a prelude to Rosario getting sent down if he doesn't adapt to that role.

That's the best feeling I've had so far this year. Hope there are many moments like this. Congrats, Park.

I don't necessarily dispute what you're saying here. But this notion that Americans are going to be surprised to learn that Bernie is a socialist and what he's saying espouses that view I think just doesn't jive. I think a lot of people not necessarily Democrats really like what he says about wealth-disparity and corruption, and don't have the skin-curdling reaction to socialism that so many steadfastly seem to believe. I've heard from plenty of self-identified Republicans that if Cruz or Trump is the nominee, they'd go for Bernie, but not Hillary. And there's tangible reasons that they would do so, that aren't about Bernie's background or would change because of Republican attack ads.

You realize that's just for New York state, right? Every single one for the General has Sanders doing significantly better. I'll make it easy for you (since research or providing support isn't your strong suit): Thursday, April 7 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Trump 41 Clinton +9 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 47, Cruz 47 Tie General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Kasich 51, Clinton 42 Kasich +9 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 57, Trump 37 Sanders +20 General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 53, Cruz 41 Sanders +12 General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders McClatchy/Marist Sanders 52, Kasich 41 Sanders +11 April 4 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Clinton 47, Trump 35 Clinton +12 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Clinton 44, Cruz 39 Clinton +5 General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP Kasich 45, Clinton 38 Kasich +7 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 53, Trump 36 Sanders +17 General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 50, Cruz 38 Sanders +12 General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP Sanders 45, Kasich 42 Sanders +3 March 31 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Trump 41 Clinton +7 General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Cruz 42 Clinton +3 General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton PPP (D) Kasich 45, Clinton 41 Kasich +4 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 48, Trump 40 Sanders +8 General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 48, Cruz 41 Sanders +7 General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 41, Kasich 44 Kasich +3 The PPP poll from more than a week ago shows Sanders marginally better than Clinton, but the other (more recent) polls show much more dominance. And this is in line with previously polls before then (See March 23rd Fox News, Quinpac, and Blomberg, all show more dominance by Sanders).

I think those who would be won-over by the red-scare tactic are already in Trump's corner. I think the rest of the population will be able to distinguish between Norway's economic policy and China's. I don't think capitalism is as impervious to criticism as it has been in the past. It's not as if people don't understand that Sanders is socialist now -- yet the pollsters find that people overwhelmingly prefer Sanders to Trump or Cruz. (I think Sanders real weakness is the level of detail of his plans; he's looking for a mandate (after which his policies would necessarily be filled out), but many voters want the policy details).

So if Bernie beats the Republicans by 10 to 20 points, you really are maintaining that won't have an effect down-ticket. (And can we get some support/links for some of these assertions; both you and Dave are generalizing and making broad statements of fact without making the effort to support it. The things you are assuming are true, I'm not sure actually are. You're discounting the value of having a mandate from the voting public; this notion that Democratic Congress would impede Bernie's agenda is absurd, and if it were the case, well, we need new democrats. And the notion that Clinton would have an easy time dealing with a Republican Congress is also absurd. The Republicans will equally impede who ever the nominee is. Sure Clinton might be more willing to appease them (but that's not necessarily a good thing). Honestly, this line of thinking is the same one that gets liberals negotiating at the 50 yard-line. I'm sick of it.

Actually they do. I haven't seen one poll that has Clinton doing better than Sanders in the general. (And seriously, why wouldn't you check something like that before (incorrectly) correcting my post? If you're going to tell someone how it really is, might want to make sure you're right.)

It's clearly not making any difference? Although I think he cannot win the nomination, his recent success has made significant difference in the polls (for the first time nation wide polls show him leading, and he's closing in California and to some extent in New York). It's probably too little too late. But I don't think Sanders' 'unqualified' remarks are made out desperation, but from poor judgement resulting from that WaPo article I mentioned above.

The polls suggest he would fair much better against the Republican candidates--my suggestion is should that occur, it would, indeed, help elections down-ticket. If he were the nominee do you doubt that he wouldn't stump for other candidate or help fund them? I'm sure the primary season has chilled Hillary's efforts to do the same. (Again, this whole party v. Bernie thing is so...oddly establishment politics, as if loyalty to the party should inform our voting preference.) And you mistook my mirroring values comment; I'd suggest that either Democratic candidate reflects liberal values, even if they aren't our preferred candidate. I didn't mean mirror as a perfect reflection, but rather to simply emphasize voting on values and not on the candidate is far more important.

I'm not sure how my post elicited this response. I don't doubt that Bernie-or-bust people exist and are loud and annoying, but I think they are full of hot-air and will come to their senses. Let's not be such people. I just don't get the point of drawing a line; or trying to make the 'unqualified' statement some undermining their 'friendship.' I see it as unfortunate politics; Bernie's campaign and himself responded hastily to a shoddy-sourced WaPo article titled, “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.” It's too bad Bernie went tit-for-tat and did so aggressively, but I don't get why you drew the line here. It just seems arbitrary and hasty and replicates precisely what annoys you about Bernie-or-bust people.

I know they exist; but I don't know any personally, and no one here posts to that affect. True Bernie-or-bust supporters, in my mind, probably wouldn't be inclined to vote at all, if not for Bernie. The all-in Bernie supporters I know would definitely vote to keep the Republicans out, no matter the candidate. Like I said before, I think this my-candidate-or-nothing attitude is a lot of posturing and I think people will come to their senses and, if nothing else, vote against the Republican's candidate.

How about leader of the United States and off-shore tax havens? Narrows the necessary qualifications, a bit.

Do a set of qualification even exist for the leader of the free world? The job requires a skill-set beyond any one person, experience only gained through a disqualifying career.

That's some stomach-turning logic right there. I'm just surprised.

He'd have a liberal mandate for the first time since 1920, and if he brings a host of democrats into Congress with him; well, it would seem that Sanders helped redefined what it means to be Democrat. And really the party-loyalty thing from supposed liberals is well anti-progressive/liberal. It's not about what team wins, and about getting people that mirror our values into the right office.

I don't know any Bernie-or-bust supporters. But I guess I know some Hilary-or-bust supporters. And I think your very wrong on Bernie running against Hillary if he loses the nomination. He said yesterday that he would support her. I know there's lots of never-would-vote-for-Hillary people, and they drive me nuts, but their attitude isn't rooted in loyalty to Bernie, rather it's (unfairly) adverse to Clinton. Let's not be either of these people. I honestly don't get your attitude towards Bernie; I don't like his comments about Hillary being unqualified (even as a retort to similar comments she may have made), but campaigns can get ugly, and largely he's been very classy towards Clinton with some media-emboldened exceptions. You've said in the past that issues like the Supreme Court and women's right are tantamount to you, are they less important than how they candidates are treating each other late in the primary? It just doesn't make sense from the values are more important than any candidate point of view. Honestly, this feels like a bit of hot-air, as Bernie is unlikely to win the nomination, and you really won't face a choice of voting for Bernie or benefiting Republican.

So you'd really let a Republican benefit from your non-vote? Goodness.

As I've said a few times in this thread, this evidence wouldn't result in a new trial, because it was available to the defense at the time of the original trial. They would need other grounds for a new trial, but this evidence would be useful (if true/reliable), no doubt.

All that's just speculation. Like I said we can all invent scenarios to match the facts. The prosecution, however, would need a specific narrative that is believable beyond a reasonable doubt. (Again if what the data suggests is true,) you may find it more likely that murderer went parading around town with the cellphone, I find it more likely that the victim left with her own cellphone before whoever murdered her. In any case, if the murderer or the victim left the property it creates doubt to the prosecution's version of the truth.

Oh I know. And I made the point that I don't even think this evidence will satisfy the test for a new trial as it was available to the defense at the time of trial, not necessarily because of the questions about the data's reliability. They will need other grounds for a retrial other than this, and they might have such grounds, though this evidence might be more useful to their overall defense. In retrial, if granted, the burden, of course, falls back on the prosecution to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why the heck would the murderer kill her and then go do something with the cellphone yet hide the Rav4 on Avery's property? That doesn't make much sense (and probably defies the time-frame). If Avery really did do it, and the cell phone data is credible, I'd find it more likely he followed her after she left, and then killed her somewhere off property. (Still I think this has time problems and witness problems). We might be able to invent some sort of reality where the facts still fit the prosecution's case, but reasonable doubt begins to creep in pretty quickly when we start generalizing our explanations to what frantic murderers usually do... If you want to argue that she wasn't killed on the Avery property, the placement of the cellphone is evidence towards making that case. Therefore it has value in the court room. The cellphone data does not need to by-itself unravel the prosecution's case; it's simply part of a larger defense to create reasonable doubt. I think people are overlooking the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

It doesn't suggest that she was alive - that's not why it would be useful as evidence. It suggests that the cellphone left the property, which is a fact the prosecution's version of events would have to account for. To use your Occam's Razor analysis, is it more assumptious to believe that Avery left the property with her cellphone even though he was about to murder her or already had; or is it more assumptious to believe that she left the property herself? It doesn't mean that Avery didn't murder her, but it certainly casts doubt on the prosecution's version of events and timeline. Although it's not smoking gun of innocence (which is silly concept anyway), if true, this evidence is unquestionably important. (I don't get the tendency to want to dismiss the evidence, honestly.) Could the data be unreliable? Sure. (And a judge ultimately decides this questions after arguments from each side - so it certainly might not get into "evidence," but it also could in few different ways). On the other hand, how much should such data be trusted and what does it really prove? Well, those questions go to weight; they would be litigated in the courtroom and the jury would ultimately decide how much to trust it and what it means as far as proving Avery's guilty or creating reasonable doubt.

I'll just say this I find it highly problematic that this evidence is being dismissed without actually knowing what it consists of (all the probabilistic supposition notwithstanding). I also find it equally problematic to question Zellner's integrity. Thank god Occam's Razor isn't a legal doctrine.

Fair enough (and your explanation makes sense, but...). Such data is still easily collected. I doubt Towers are sending pings out every second, whatever data they have collected may be sufficient to account for the error. The data might be fallible within a given range, but that range might still preclude the Avery property. For me, why I keep living with the possible fallibility of the data is that evidence need not show where Halbach was at, but where she couldn't be.

So you doubt the data exists at all? What data do you think Zellner has? The cell tower information was probably collected in the days following Teresa Halbach disappearance; there was an immediate search. You may doubt that the cell company kept such simple ping-data for a matter of days, but I think it's very possible that in the search for Halbach, authorities were able to get such data from the cellphone companies. Of course, as Zellner indicates, the original defense may have blown it by overlooking the meaningfulness of such data.