Yeah, I don’t like the color of this one. I do think that the Saints are going to want this game more badly than the Rams do, and since they’re pretty even…I think the Saints are going to cause Trouble.

The short week and the flight are overrated, imo. They’ve been thinking about this game plan since the start of camp. That shortened week isn’t going to matter, especially this early in the season.

As always, it will come down to a handful of pivotal plays.

damn

Hey…New Orleans…

How is life going for you the last couple of games?

Wow. Roughing the kicker.

A win on the road against a pretty good team (playoff potential) after zero live snaps in the preseason…

Not worthy of the cover photo of a national magazine…but I will take it without complaint.

Beat the Saints next week, and I will start to take this team seriously.

I just had to post those pictures on Facebook a few months ago. I lost a bet with Nittany over something.

joemad wrote:

Jared Goff is very very overrated by national media

don’t you folks find this statement to be quite opposite?…. Goff is not a media darling

I laughed.

I’d say that the mean temperature of the national media is that Goff is a marionette, and that McVay is responsible for his QBR. Seriously, I saw several writers speculating that the Rams would just let him go, and put some other body behind center…like that was a good plan.

And Goff isn’t just “overrated.” He is “very very overrated.”

That’s just hilarious to me.

You know…I don’t travel far on Rams sites, but none of the sites I do visit batted an eye at Goff’s extension. There must have been detractors somewhere, but I didn’t see any of them.

Goff has improved every year, and his mindset is proto for the position.

Extending Goff was as big a no-brainer as extending Donald. And at the end of this season, I expect the national media will be right there, telling us that they knew it right from his days at Berkeley.

Quality map. Clearly no gerrymandering there. Looks very fair. (i.e. I live in the green area).

waterfield wrote:

I guess I’ve never understood this business about Clinton being a bad candidate.

If you go by her resume, Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever to run for the presidency.

Going back to what WV said, Hillary told a crappy story. I think the subtext of her entire campaign was something like “I, Hillary Clinton, have bided my time consolidating the entire Washington apparatus, and am now prepared to become the first Woman president ever, a historical Glass Ceiling moment that I, Hillary Clinton, am entitled to!”

At a time when anti-establishment sentiment was cresting…it wasn’t a good story. With Trump on her right, and Sanders on her left, Clinton appeared to be the consummate focus group manufactured persona with a Madison Avenue shine, and with distrust of insiders at a high, she was the wrong person at the wrong time.

waterfield wrote:

Why not ?

Because there is NOT.

And it reeks of the LA Times trying to shape public opinion by pretending that there is. Just like the WaPo and NY Times.

waterfield wrote:

“Elections aren’t about policy”

Not sure about that. Was the democratic victories in 2018 all about policy- namely the issue of health care ?

Mmmm…yeeeah. I think. The ISSUES matter. The VISION matters. To some extent healthcare was a big deal in 2018. But I don’t think people were well-informed on that issue. I mean…nobody knows how the ACA works, but they know what little healthcare people have is better than nothing, and shouldn’t be repealed by the GOP. They know and care about it that much.

But people don’t sit around with their BINGO cards on issues with the answers they like all over the card, and making decisions based on how many squares each candidate aligns with. Very few voters are THAT discerning about the person they vote for. If they were, few of our representatives would win elections since Medicare-for-all, expanded social security, increased spending on public education, higher wages, and so on are desired by a significant majority of Americans, but opposed by almost all our representatives.

So…they go for the Vision Thing, and candidates lie about that.

Billy_T wrote:

Elections aren’t about policy. Which means you can’t be “too far left” on those. If elections were about policy, the GOP would never win a single national election, because their policies are forever unpopular. Trump never described his. He won anyway.

Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams and united fronts. The side that tells the best stories, sells them, and keeps a united, confident front, wins.

I agree with that entire post, not just the part I copied here for emphasis.

This is what I have been saying. The Dems need to sell the Green New Deal as a job and wage-building investment that will lead to the coolest hi-tech world you can possibly imagine…while saving the planet from climate change.

They can sell that vision.

The “pragmatic” Baby Steps approach Biden et al offer is not going to get people out to vote.