dc.

I just don't see the need for the OF, even if there is other upside. Might as well get any other random arm. AA or AAA nobody who might only ever become one of our relievers? Hey, I'd take it.

I'm just not sure why we need Upton. I guess you can't trade ubaldo for another pitcher... Maybe? What about a shortstop?

The bad bats had me worried - but I hadn't been watching. Didn't realize that Davis, Machado, Kim and Wieters were all out - injury and illness. Apparently the flu is going around after their trip to Tampa. Tillman with the clutch game though... again.

Great wins back to back. Nice pitching. 2nd best RPI in the league. Gotta love it. Meanwhile - I think I forgot to post here, but one of my students was drafted by the O's ... but elected to go to college today. Probably the right choice for him, he'll just get drafted higher in 3/4 years...

Papa, Don't disagree that parties should pay more for share of primary elections. Just read some interesting history on why they don't. But again, in theory i don't care much about closed primaries - aside from cost- because they really should get to choose their candidates however they want. That's not the same as saying it's a good move, because getting independent views in earlier could be a boon in the general election... But smart and fair aren't always the same

I think you've got the two terms backwards. Primary vs general. Primary picks for each party, general picks the final winner. Yes, every state has different rules for primaries as decide by both the state and the party rules. I have never heard any limitation of voting in one election being the key to voting in another - seems blatantly unconstitutional. But it is very common to have a closed primary in which you can only vote if you are registered for a party.

First, as an unaffiliated voter I don't like that in MD I can't vote in primaries. But the obvious counter argument to that is why should I be allowed to vote in a private club's election? The fact that it is happening in a state-sanctioned manner semi changes things... but that's really just convenience. If there are 3 million dems in MD and they want to decide by themselves who to nominate for the election - fine. As I said, if it wasn't through the primary system, they would just do it privately and then collect signatures to put people on the ballot in November anyway. Anyway... this all goes back to why we use our entire system anyway. We need more candidates on ballots, more mandatory run-offs. You shouldn't get to hold major office without 50% of the vote. You shouldn't get to claim an entire state's electoral votes (ever), especially without a clear 50%+. Cleetz - I agree.

While I almost agree about "controlling ballots," I disagree about just selecting your Rs and Ds. Sure, maybe not having those letters next to their names changes how some people act... but it's not like you wouldn't know who is affiliated with each group. As far as "controlling the ballots" goes, though... there's still a hitch. These parties don't really control the ballots. They get to control their primaries, which they well should, really. Now, that doesn't have to be state-sanctioned as it presently is - but one way or another, they are simply choosing the candidate to represent them. They have no control over the rest of the ballot except saying, "This person is running for us." And maybe you could even get rid of that, but all it would do is force the party to submit signatures rather than use the party system... so I just don't see exactly what it accomplishes.

Lastly 100% in favor of multi-party system. But think it's less than doable unless / until we are truly parliamentary, not presidential. I read an interesting commentary saying that the founders kind of wanted the entire thing to be more parliamentary - that's what the electoral college and House vote are for - but that we moved away from that slowly. But so long as it's a system with a separately elected president... it's a system with dominant party factions and not multi party consensus building.

Quinnipiac is not high on my list of trusted polls. I saw another poll today that showed Trump with literally 0% support among blacks in PA at the same time the Quinnipiac poll came out. I'm doing more digging on both now. To 538 I go! Meanwhile - two statements of disagreement: 1. I just don't think in the current system that any third party candidate could really win a state - or major state - without some real sea change. It can't just be a few people like Jill Stein. It would have to be "people starting joining the Green Party" 2. I don't see the feasibility or efficacy of saying a candidate can't be in a political party. I see the idea, but the reality is we'd be blocking parties from funding campaigns. But if Clinton has been a democrat for 30 years and then decides to run for office... what does forcing her to drop her party name actually do? I guess more generally it could just limit the influence by how we talk about candidates... but I think you'd just see a whole lot of articles that read, "Clinton, a favorite of the Ds" instead of "Clinton (D)" ...

I don't have an answer on the PAC issue. I am not looking to tell anyone what they can or cannot say. But really, most ads and real info comes from the candidates campaigns right now... if those campaigns cannot take in any funds or spend any funds except via the channels provided through the election itself, that is a big difference.I think it would not only get more people into the races (funding a campaign as a reason to stay out... that's gone). But it would also eliminate a lot of the direct "who gave me money" corruption ideas today. For the record, I think parties should not be allowed to fund either. As for studies - do any states have mandatory public financing?

Great post, cleetz. A tangent of sorts from the general topic, but related to your post above: The crusade AGAINST independent districting commissions has been astounding. Conservatives in several states have taken cases all the way to Supreme Court arguing this goes against the Constitution (which says the "legislature" of the states must district - but why a commission cannot be assigned by a legislature?). Even the SC was super divided and I think it was a 5-4 or 6-3 split allowing these commissions. Then in Texas they wanted to NOT COUNT kids and non-voters in their election districting (only for state and local districts, not national). That too was struck down - though not on the sweeping grounds it should have been. For fuck's sake, the entire 3/5ths compromise was about counting people who couldn't vote. And as the US census bureau noted, the stats they produce (the only official stats to be used for this process) do not divide in anyway based on who can vote and who can't. In their brief to the court they said, "it would be odd to have to apportion based on something we don't even count." I also really agree on the financing, but I think the better option is simply a totally public financing system. If you run and can get X signatures to support your campaign existing, you are entitled to Y funds in that campaign. Any other system allows for too much possibility of corruption - in my mind at least. And yet in Citizens United, Anthony Kennedy wrote the words I think he now regrets that people won't just think of corruption because of money and law going together. It's all people see and think. Trump is running his campaign into the ground on it. Lastly 100% on to term limits - and reducing pensions. These are not lifetime positions of wealth, they are temporary positions of service.

I actually think any third party leads to Clinton, as no third party would actually win a state - or rather take a state from Hillary. But yes, any push to the house equals Trump... unless by that point the GOP leadership can convince their caucus to pick an alternative (Ryan or Romney?)

If Congress voted, you'd get Trump. States get one vote each, R's control more than 30 state delegations - thanks to lots of one and two rep states in the Midwest.

I'd take Gray but we can't afford him

We hate west coast travel...

Precisely, but it shouldn't take guts. You're supposed to be aligned with an ideology, with an idea, with good policy... not with a team. It's infuriating. Paul Ryan continually saying he hates Trump but at least he's not Clinton? It's the definition of forgetting what you're there to do and who you are. It's winning the battle knowing you will lose the war.

I used Venezuela as an example of lots of economic phenomena in my classes this year. If you don't listen, Marketplace on NPR has a ton of great pieces on what is happening and why.

Seven straight again.

Also, I've seen no reporting he'd ever been to Syria. But I did just read this saying he didn't actually know which groups were which in Islam. How about instead of closing borders, we just act on intelligence... Interviewed twice for potential terrorist sympathy? Maybe let's not let him but a gun. Why does it have to affect anyone else? Omar Mateen may not have understood the difference between ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah http://wapo.st/1sCLIYH

Nothing good ever comes from shutting borders. To use a nice pro gun argument, you think the people who want do bad things are going to follow the rules? Meanwhile, this guy was, you know, already here... US citizen and all...

I went and looked it up... I don't know if we were ever 14 over, but I do know we had some great records in April and May, then has losing records that got worse as the season progressed by the month. From one under in June to something like only 6 wins in August or September. Ugh. But again, that team was very different from this team in many ways... I think at least.

14 games in July sounds too good for that team. But even if it's true, the reality is that team fell apart closer to early June. It was a long, slow death. This team is still doing more than just being competitive, so I'm far less worried. Didn't mean they'll be 20 over forever. But they won't crumble like 2005.

Davis made his own decisions in that brawl. Moving on.

I also loved Buck's comments post game, both supporting Manny and not so quietly calling out Ned Yost for seemingly allowing it. He pretty much said guys don't keep doing that if they are given the message not to.. the teammates don't like it, so there must be someone giving the thumbs up...