Brandon

Yeah, I thought McConkey was pretty close to 'can't miss' and would be an excellent player in the NFL. He was the player I would have selected at the time. Some will say he's only a slot receiver, and that may or may not be true, but as weak as the Bills WRs seemed going into the draft, I was more concerned that they got someone that could actually play than worry about position within the group. Thankfully, Coleman looks like he's going to be a good player in his own right.

This is a stupid move for the Jets and a good one for the rest of the division. QB issues aside, their front office had finally done a good job of putting together a reasonably talented roster and I don't think it was just by accident.

Knox has always been better than a lot of the fans give him credit for.

Normally, I'd consider Hegseth to be a risky pick, but at least I have confidence that he'll have the right priorities, unlike the outgoing administration.

He's probably better than John Cornyn or John Thune. I want it to be Ted Cruz, but that ain't gonna happen.

I don't have an issue with Spencer Brown going after that guy

I think the vast majority of the country doesn't care. That being said, if that's what happened, it was Dem voters that didn't turn out.

She can't run her own campaign's finances and can't pay her own staff, but she was going to do a great job running the country's economy, I guess.

So what's the downside?

And suddenly, the Dems are about to become big fans of border security.

I didn't realize the GOP performed that well in the House. I was only looking at gains/losses of seats. But according to that, it's their best showing in terms of vote margin in a presidential election year in almost a century.

Why blame Harris for Biden's failures? It's not like she went on national TV and said she couldn't think of anything she'd do differently than Joe did.

Sure. Trump still has to do a good job and return this country to a position of strength. Maybe he succeeds...maybe he doesn't. Nothing is a given.

It suggests to me that the Dems overreached and the voters saw them as the very thing they accused Trump of being.

I posted it in another thread, but I'll mention it here, too. Look at the exit polling data on 'threat to democracy'. That narrative totally backfired on the Dems. 73% agreed with that narrative..except they voted FOR Trump 51-48%. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

Perhaps the biggest miscalculation of all can be found in the NBC exit polling data. 73% of the country were concerned that democracy was being threatened in this country. Of course, we all know how the Dems have been pushing that narrative non-stop, especially over the last year. Trump won those voters 51-48%, and the more concerned that group of voters were, the more Trump's margin increased. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

I don't know what's worse...the poll itself or that the media ran with it all weekend. Anyone with at least a shred of common sense and intelligence could see that it was an outlier. Trump had been leading by solid margins in Iowa all year in pretty much every other poll, including a 10 point lead in an Emerson poll released at the same time. There was absolutely zero reason to believe that Trump would lose 10 points of support off his 2016 and 2020 margins taking all other circumstances and polling data into consideration.

I don't doubt it. If Trump wants to punish the Dems, the way to do it is to cram his agenda right down their throats. As you say, they don't care about a few pawns, but the political agenda is everything to them. I'm not saying he should do it, but if Trump really wants to screw them, he can suggest the Senate eliminate the filibuster so he can seat a few more Supreme Court justices. Use their own words against them.

If I were Trump, I wouldn't waste political capital on those has-beens. Use it to advance the agenda instead.

I would add a third point. They spent far too much time focusing on #2, when they've already had that vote locked up for years, and not nearly enough time emphasizing the issues that the swing voters actually cared about...primarily the economy and immigration. It seems like they realized it about a week or two ago, but by then, it was far too late.

Based on the public polls and early voting, I can buy it. Increasingly, I think he's going to win the national popular vote by a point or two, plus the EV.

Looking at the early vote totals there, I think they know they have a big problem. It looks like the Dems are running about 700k votes under 2020 going into today. Sure, they could still show up on election day, but that's not the normal pattern. Dems tend to vote early.

The NYT hasnt endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in the general election since Eisenhower in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times

Coleman is definitely better in that situation, yes. McConkey was a guy I thought had a more well rounded overall skillset and would fit well at either the slot or flanker positions. He had enough speed to be a respectable deep threat and was exceedingly quick through his routes and able to generate consistent separation underneath. In the end, I thought he was a much lower risk prospect than Coleman with a likely floor as a high end #2, but as I said, Coleman is playing well and I probably wouldn't trade him for McConkey at this stage.

No, but in the weeks leading up to the draft, Ladd McConkey was my highest rated WR outside the top 3 and I would've taken him over either Coleman or Worthy. At the time, I thought the Bills were so weak at WR that position within that group mattered significantly less than just finding someone who could play, with the lack of speed and separation being another important factor. As it stands, I don't necessarily feel bad about that at all. McConkey is having an excellent rookie year. Would I make an even trade of Coleman for McConkey today? Probably not, as Coleman has been playing well in his own right.