bearrock

Is there any positive press for Bobby Johnson at all? I seriously can't seem to find anyone who seems positive on this hire.

The poll has about 40%+ support for either candidate. If I were to take a guess about why about 71% says age is an issue for Biden but only 39% for Trump, I think almost all Trump supporters would have age as an issue for Biden and age as not an issue for Trump. You would have some Biden supporters who would have age as an issue for both (but choosing Biden for other reasons). Then you have the 80 is the new 60 crowd, who doesn't view age as an issue for either. I tend to think it's a sign of Trump supporters being a lot more enthusiastic in their support of Trump vs Biden supporters in their support of Biden. Which may actually be a bigger hurdle for Dems to overcome than Biden's age. I think Dems have to hope once the general election cycle starts and Trump is fully at center stage, the small sliver of the electorate who are undecided (really? still undecided?) or lukewarm to apathetic about supporting Biden realize or remember that Trump is unacceptable.

Romo broke down why Hardman had a step (the motion gets the secondary to momentarily shift their eyes towards the direction of motion, Mahomes snaps exactly when the eye shifts with Hardman turning opposite direction at snap). It's a great play design and call by Reid, executed to perfection by Hardman and Mahomes.

I just hope in my lifetime, DC is lucky enough to find our Brady/Mahomes. Absolutely amazing.

I just thank the Good Lord that he's no longer in Philly.

I disagree. I think Dems see less of an upside to a primary challenge against an incumbent president vs the downside. Replace Biden with another candidate and you still have the same demonization just for a different reason, only you just went through a bitter intraparty primary and likely have a fractured base. All for what? To court the hypothetical voters who won't vote for a Biden/Harris ticket but will vote for someone else? If a person's opinion of Trump isn't negative enough to hold your nose to whatever complaint you might have about Biden and show up and vote for him anyway, really skeptical on the prospects of such a person, after the general campaign hatchet job, voting for the eventual dem nominee.

To the extent that there's a sliver of the voters that would either stay home or show up to vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee vs show up and vote for another Dem nominee, if they are enough to swing the election, pretty sure Dem loss in November would be on those voters. Biden gets plastered with issues du jour because he's the Dem nominee. If Newsom, Sanders, Whitmer, or whoever else was the nominee, they would be the next devil incarnate. Either Trump and overturning of Roe/prospect of federal ban on abortion drives enough voters to the polls for a Dem candidate or they won't. I don't think there's a Obama 2008 like candidate that people are clamoring to vote for on the Dems' side. Edit: double post

I think Dems need to refocus the discussion. Let's not forget that after a 5 day trial, a court found that yes, Donald Trump as a sitting president committed insurrection. And for all the hyper technical legal arguments Trump put forth during his appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that fact finding has never been disturbed.

Yeah, there's a fair bit of hypertechnicality going on (some might say intellectual dishonesty). To me, the one state determining argument is nonsensical for the reason you stated (FL 2000 anyone?). I think the argument would have to be that given the language in section 5 giving Congress the power to enforce, when it comes to a national election, it's Congress and Congress alone that can enforce section 3 (this is still pretty hypertechnical and incorrect imo, but better than we can't have a single state decide the national election drivel) This to me raises another issue that I feel the court is going to gloss over. All qualifications are categorical (I believe Justice Kagan touched on this). You are either 35 or you are not. You are either a natural born citizen or you are not. You are either an insurrectionist or you are not. When a candidate's qualification is challenged, it has typically been the states that determine other eligibility categories like age and natural born citizenship. It would be subject to review by higher courts as to whether the ineligibility ruling is sound, but there is no mechanism for ensuring a single national determination on eligibility for other categories. The only plausible argument for treating insurrection differently is section 5 (and as strained a reasoning as it may be, I think Roberts will work very hard to build a narrow consensus that can have liberal justices sign on so that it is not a 6-3 ruling) Yeah, very few things about the US election is national. There's going to be some mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion on why insurrection disqualification needs a national mechanism. I mean that's a constitutional crisis. And to me, the attempted cure would be way worse than the disease. I may not like the fact that Trump can commit insurrection and run for office again and I think we need a clear amendment to specify that a President is indeed covered and lay out a clear mechanism for disqualification (not because I don't think he is disqualified under the current Constitution and set of laws, but to lay rest any argument to the contrary), a blatant disregard of SCOTUS ruling is a red line for me.

The prosecuting team probably had concerns about whether the evidence would be sufficient to establish criminal intent for insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not to say that evidence is not enough for a civil determination or for lay people to have opinions. And having debatable amount of evidence for a criminal conviction is obviously far cry from establishing Trump did not commit insurrection.

SCOTUS would be saying that Congress has to put the enforcement mechanism in place and in the absence of such a mechanism, there is no way to enforce section 3. This obviously runs contrary to some historical examples of states enforcing section 3, but that's why I think they will carve out the distinction based on this disqualification being issued against a candidate for a national election. It would be a statute that specifies how an insurrection allegation would be adjudicated (it need not be a criminal proceeding) and lay out the procedure for disqualifying a presidential candidate. It would be generally applicable to every candidate accused of insurrection like a criminal statute that applies to everyone accused of committing that crime. 2/3rd vote would remove the ineligibility from a specific candidate like a pardon would clear the conviction of a specific criminal.

It's the federal criminal insurrection statute that has disqualification as an additional penalty that is pre 14th amendment. So there's really not a viable argument that this was the method chosen by Congress to enforce section 3. I think the vote will be heavily in favor of Trump remaining on the ballot in the following way: Majority holding decided on the narrow question on whether anyone other than Congress has the power to enforce section 3 on disqualification of a national candidate. I think almost all justices will join and say no. I think Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, possibly joined by Roberts, will write a concurrence that points out that the majority opinion does not address whether President is covered by the 14th amendment, whether Trump did indeed commit insurrection, nor whether the procedure used in Colorado is sufficient to satisfy any due process concerns. If Roberts is not joining anyway, then the liberal justices may go further and say they see no issue with Colorado's finding and that such issue is not what the court's ruling is based on. Jackson may issue a separate concurrence or possibly joined by all liberal justices that says states have the power to enforce section 3 against state elected representatives. Thomas, Alito will issue a concurrence that specifies that Trump is not covered by the 14th amendment, that Colorado proceeding was a sham and therefore not sufficient to protect due process concerns nor make a convincing showing that Trump committed insurrection. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret will issue a concurrence that specifies that President is not an officer under the United States within the meaning of section 3.

There's no typical timeline. Sometimes decision can be shortly after oral argument or at the end of the term (June). It just gets issued during that term. In this case, you'd expect the opinion to be issued shortly (at least a decision staying the CO sup ct decision prior to Super Tuesday).

Wait, for real?

Lot of people thought in this thread Haliburton was the obvious pick over Avidja. But the fact that they were consistently drafting outside the top 5 illustrates the failure of team building. They got stuck playing subpar basketball with Beal as the franchise centerpiece, always being below average, but not terrible enough to land premium picks. And then they gave a dumbass supermax to Beal the year of the Wemby sweepstakes. Aside from it being a terrible contract, it's just a terrible decision to double down on mediocrity in the year they should have been shooting for a top pick.

Kind of meh about Kingsbury. Kelly would be kind of concerning. But Matt Canada is just wtf. What on earth about his tenure in Pittsburgh inspires another hire as OC? Edit: thank goodness Canada was fake tweet

So I assume you were able to Google the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about when it comes to the Rooney Rule? Now you move on to speculations, assumptions, and insults. Nice. If Commanders wanted Ben Johnson so badly that they were willing to violate the tampering rule and the Rooney Rule, they could have easily satisfied the Rooney Rule before Detroit got knocked out and extended an official offer to Johnson on Sunday evening instead of scheduling an in person interview on Tuesday. There is absolutely no benefit to be gained by violation of the rules here instead of doing what I outlined above. The fact that they were actively interviewing 4 other candidates in between Detroit's loss and Johnson's scheduled interview is far more consistent with Keim and Schefter's reporting (that Johnson was never a lock). The fact that Seattle also shifted gears to Macdonald, someone they did not even virtually interview, despite an in person interview with Johnson also supports that Johnson didn't interview well. The Detroit blogger's allegation would mean that the Commanders brass completely unnecessarily violated two important hiring rules and also added to their idiocy by having a standing offer to Johnson and still conducted multiple interviews while the offer was outstanding. That would lead Johnson to think WTF and would also lead other candidates (present and future), agents, league personnel to all think it's amateur hour at Ashburn and their words can't be trusted. Even if Commanders were willing to violate the tampering policy and extend a "standing offer" prior to elimination (for whatever good that does), they would at least save themselves from one major violation by fulfilling the Rooney Rule way earlier in the hiring cycle. There is zero evidence beyond one reporting that Johnson had some sort of a standing offer. The timeline makes no sense and the reporting by other top reporters specifically refute the story that Commanders decided on Johnson. Use some of that common sense ffs.

Then you should try googling whether an internal interview qualify for one of the two required Rooney Rule minority interviews

So what is the detail of this particular allegation? Commanders had a standing offer since when? Prior to Sunday evening violates the league hiring policy. Prior to Monday after their interview with Weaver violates the Rooney Rule. So either Commanders flagrantly violated league hiring rules or the standing offer was from Monday to Tuesday morning? This is the stupid allegation you want to peddle? Seriously?

And until Sunday evening, it would have been a flagrant violation of league rules.

Did you hear the Garafolo interview that tweet is based off of? Garofalo specifically said not to say that Peters was undermined. He talked about how Johnson was not the leading candidate after his interviews. Think of it this way. Schneider said he wanted Lions and Ravens to lose so he can move forward with the interview. He had Johnson high enough on the list to do virtual interview with him but not Macdonald. So supposedly Schneider and other Washington brass all concluded after the interview that Johnson is not their top choice (to the extent that Seattle started the interview for Macdonald despite no virtual interview), but Peters was pounding the table for Johnson? That's a reasonable take based on a tweet from a blogger who is speculating off of a Garofolo interview where Garofalo specifically said not to say Peters was undermined? I guess I have far less esteem for bloggers than you.

So much tea leaves reading to get to that conclusion though. It could also be (likely even), that everyone, including Peters had Johnson on the shortlist (we know the team asked for permission to interview Johnson even before Peters was hired). The interview was subpar and the group collectively said he might not be the top candidate. I'm not sure what evidence would point to Peters being overruled on wanting Johnson.

If you meant some of the fans or posters were promising a young fresh coordinator, I mean that's obviously worth what internet speculations are worth. I'll just point out that with his other franchises, Harris has never hired a head coach without previous head coaching experience (at minimum overseas). So there was really no reason to expect a young coordinator hire based on his history. I don't think any owner wants a "old, stale" coach. Whether Dan Quinn is old, stale depends on one's opinion, but based on reputable reporters like Keim, this team's leadership group thought highly of Quinn from the get go and he was always a serious candidate who interviewed very well. The fact that they included him in the shortlist is pretty good evidence that they never thought of him as old or stale. Team talked about leader of men from the beginning. By all reports, he seems to be a good leader. Whether that actually translates to a good winning team is something we'll have to see.

Stop conflating chatter on the internet or even journalists with team positions. The team never talked about young, fresh, or new. Also even if some posters are talking about bridge hires, I would seriously doubt that anyone associated with the team has any interest in bridge hires. No one has to like the hire, but some of the discussion surrounding it makes gameday threads look like roundtable with Nobel Laureates.

Yeah, but the fans are the same