Mike Sixel

Here is the list of ideas for changing election outcomes from the POTUS thread. emphasize health care, wage growth, and the trade war ( I agree, this is a great idea, but I'm not sure it increases turnout, but I'd certainly do all of this) broad messaging (not sure what this means, but I’m open to reading what it does) appeal to rural voters (not specific at all) move further left (contradicts the pragmatism part, I’d think) while wrapping it in centrist messaging farm tariffs are bad messaging (yup, this is a good idea, though it's about changing minds, not turnout) stop running milquetoast candidates who stand for almost nothing (agree, but I am not sure if this will work or not, but I'd try it) Register more voters (that’s literally what the party spends all year doing) As I said in the other thread.....I'm not totally serious about, and don't think it will ever happen, that the nation should divide. But, I'm hard pressed to see, given the way the constitution is written, how the vast majority of people in this nation ever win elections, since rural states are empowered to have the majority even though they make up less than 30% of the nation.

which is different than his disapproval rating.....but thanks for reminding me how much people hated Obama, for, um, why again?

Good for him. I would have been good with him here, but it doesn't kill me he's not. He's a nice player for sure, especially at that price. But I'm not sure they can't do better in about a year or two from within the system or FA. It does reduce the FA pool and makes it less likely they sign someone else (if there is a bidding war). that part sucks.

that is the question I've been asking....how to increase turnout. Electing the first black POTUS worked for all of 1 election (note they didn't gain any meaningful ground in his second election). The country (in terms of outcomes, and maybe politics) has turned more and more right, as you yourself posted on this thread. the GOP has spent 3-4 decades on this plan. They control 30% of the elctorate, much of which is concentrated in enough states to skew the Senate and POTUS (as you and Brock have posted here) elections. They control the churches, schools, governments and election rules in those states. Oh, and the media that their base listens to. This isn't "woe is me"....these are the facts the dems have to address and over come.

I read all 28 pages in this thread. Here is the list of ideas for democrats. I'm assuming they've tried all of these the last 30 years...... Medicare for all (you think socialism will win anytime soon?) Stop identity politics (not sure what this means, given that the other side uses them all the time) Sharpen their message (hmmmm, not very specific, and likely to turn off leftist voters because this screams pragmatism to me) De-stigmatize the word socialism (that's going to take decades to undo) Cut defense spending (throwing red meat to the right, and energizing them) Raise taxes on people that make more than 500,000 per year (I'm not sure this changes turnout) GI bill for training (sounds like a giveaway to people not working hard enough) Guarantee everyone a job (see above, we all know people are too lazy to work) Get younger voices in charge (see two down) Back away from immigration (I suppose this one might work, but i don't see how it increases turnout) Don’t put young people in charge (see two above) Put a sane, populist, but not too liberal, at the top of the ticket (like Hillary?) Don’t be for not standing during the anthem, or other unimportant things (I doubt this turns out more voters, but I suppose it might change a mind or two) “accomplish something meaningful” (not terribly specific, and hard to do when not in charge) More authenticity among candidates (I suppose this could work, but I'd guess they are largely doing this in most races) Run a candidate that the district can relate to, (see one above, though the GOP doesn't do this all that much, most of their candidates are not blue collar or whatever) Nancy Pelosi is bad (we can all agree on this, though she is more popular than Trump, and that doesn't seem to be helping enough according to polls) Get organized and have a message (see above) As for the Obama election, I was pretty clear.....that was about electing the first minority POTUS. Apparently electing the first female isn't as meaningful for turnout, though. I agree, it is somewhat about turnout....the question is HOW TO TURN THEM OUT. Because Obama and Moore were very special circumstances....and I have no idea why we aren't going back two POTUS elections before that......and why we aren't discussing state houses and governorships.

And I've asked....how....because it has happened one time in the last 5 POTUS elections, and that was Obama. Other than that, dems have not turned out much. Why? Because it isn't working, not for many years now. Apparently, according to polls, the least popular POTUS ever isn't enough.....

I'm not only interested in the presidency....but state houses, which have been in control of the GOP for a long time. And the Senate, which is the only way to stop the judiciary from being taken over by people that care more about corporations than people. Let's be frank....IMO, Obama won because he's black, and minorities turned out. They largely didn't before, or since. Hillary won the popular vote....this is the second time that the dems didn't win the EC, so, ya, it is stacked against them. How many times do they need to win the popular vote, and lose the EC, for that to be real? I'd say twice is enough for me, but others may have different opinions. Roy Moore? That was a special election where everything was in the democrat's favor. I doubt they hold that seat for long, but I could be wrong. We are seeing predictions that there might not be a blue wave at all. That the democrats will LOSE senate seats in a midterm election with the least popular POTUS ever. I'm not sure how anyone can look at that and feel all that warm and fuzzy. As for my comments about divorcing the South.....they are more discussion points than a real solution. But, imo, it is a discussion we should be considering. The GOP whining about the GC sounds a lot like the GOP whining about gun control, a red herring to fire up their base.

That's my point....does anyone think the MN OF is fine? I don't.....too many questions, not enough answers....but the post I was responding to with that post, clearly said the MN OF is fine...

I loved JT as a trade candidate last year, less so this year.....he only has 2 years left on his deal. If I'm trading above average players for different players, I don't want to have only 2 years on the deal.......there are just too many questions about this team for that. Now, if they trade for a guy like this, and sign some great FAs....that's different.

It's fair to say that divorce is not an option. It's not fair, imo, to give up......but I'm struggling to find a solution, given how the constitution is set up to reward small, poor, less educated states for continuing to be that way.....and for dragging the rest of the world down.

I think the point was that Kepler could play CF with more certainty than Cave or Buxton at this point.....not about corner OFs.

of course it is simplistic.....but I hate it when people talk about the top defenses in terms of yards allowed, or number of three and outs. The thing that really matters is points given up by the defense. They gave up 17 points to a rookie QB in windy conditions. If the WR doesn't tip the ball on that interception when the game was close, who knows what happens. They aren't dominant, not even a little bit, this year. And the offense isn't good enough, for some reason, to cover for that. Not at a SB level. They don't look like the Pats or Rams at all. Not even close. This was supposed to be the year. The D is stacked with 1st and 2nd round picks (either they made or others). The O has a very good/great QB and two of the best WRs in the game. If this is how they look, it's hard to see them winning anything much past round 1 of the playoffs. There is still time, of course, but my post was about how they have played so far this year, not how they might play.

That would be great. I just don't have that list of FAs in front of me that looks enticing, and it is really hard to predict trades. I'm all for better talent, all for it. 100% for it.

Making fun of me is a great way to have a conversation.....it actually works in person, but online? Any way.....now we are reading excuses that the map isn't right this year, even though we have what history will look back on as the worst president and modern senate we will ever have. I'll keep asking, what is the solution for decades of being taught by your parents, church, school, and every leader around you, that other people are bad, and that taxes are evil, and that it is worse to be a Democrat than an atheist? Because, as long as the map looks this way it isn't "just 30%", it is the majority in enough states to run a majority of state houses and perhaps the senate most years. The constitution is literally set up to give them 1.5-2x more power than they have by votes. That puts them in the driver seat.

Put Garver at 1B, with Austin at DH (and sometimes 1b), with Astudillo and Castro as the primary catchers.

Pretty sure you missed the point......the Brewers didn't say "meh, our OF is fine".....they upgraded it with some certainty compared to what they had. None of that has anything to do with your post (i agree, they should have traded for pitching at the deadline).

Skeptical is probably more fair than cynical......kind of have to have different outcomes to change thoughts.... for those saying it is all freshman, do we have to punt on expecting wins next year, because it will be all sophomores?

Even after these last two years, we may lose Senate seats....and people think we can somehow win elections..........by, um, turning out voters? By what means? I'll believe it when I see it.

I bet Brewers fans are glad their GM didn't think this way....

Not like RBI at all..... Not even close.

All that matters is points. Still lots of time left....

Really? Seventeen points to a rookie QB, so far.....

What happened to Barr?

He was trying for offense. It didn't work. That deep bullpen was one of the ways they got to the post season. I probably leave Hader in, turns out it would not have mattered

That bullpen and how he used them is how they got this far from day one this year. I don't know how that is even arguable. Were the decisions correct in all 172 or so games? Probably not, but I'd take him over molitor.