The Over Reaction to Andrew Painter’s (and Their Other Young Players) Real Problems for the Phillies

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment
Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

Leave it to Philadelphia fans and media to worry about things they shouldn’t lose a moment’s sleep over. On the night Zack Wheeler returned to the Phillies, their record sat at 8-18, and they were probably the worst team in baseball to that point in the season. His return was just a couple of days removed from the Phillies DFA’ing Taijuan Walker, who was maybe the worst starting pitcher in baseball through the first five rotations through. Andrew Painter kind of looked like a normal rookie trying to figure things out and the night before, Rob Thomson had left him in a batter too long against Atlanta in what had been a good start up until that point. In the time since then, the Phillies are 32-16, but 1-8 in Painter’s starts. If the Phillies continue this rather substantial stretch they’ve been on for almost two months the rest of the way, they’ll win 98 or 99 games. They’re going to be a playoff team rather easily in the end. Painter’s struggles have been substantial, but they have been but a bump on the road for a team that is going to steamroll to one of the NL Playoff spots this season. Yes, I said steamroll.

This does not mean that Painter’s problems are not a real problem. Half the games they’ve lost in the last 48 games were his starts. That’s astoundingly bad. By contrast, Aaron Nola has been as absolutely mediocre as a league average four or five starter over that stretch (to be read, you don’t enjoy his starts) and the Phillies have won the overwhelming majority of them. Yes, it’s not even close to .500. Basically if Painter was going three or four OK innings in his starts and handing the ball to the bullpen the rest of the way, the Phillies would very likely have three or four more wins than they have. Painter has simply not been good enough to be a major league pitcher. I have read plenty of writers and fans lamenting that Alan Rangel is the best current option to replace him in the rotation, and I don’t agree with them, or any talk of the Phillies going and trying to trade for a fifth starter in June. They could literally treat the fifth spot in the rotation as essentially a bullpen/opener game, try to get three or four okay innings from Rangel, and they’ll be a better team for it. The bar is super low.

Of course in the world of sports talk hyperbole today you’re seeing people write Painter’s obituary and say the Phillies should just trade any young prospect they can for any MLB ready help they can, because most prospects fail. There are folks ready to give up on Justin Crawford after a tough month or so, as well as Felix Reyes, Gabriel Rincones Jr., Otto Kemp, and any other number of younger players. Of course this is how you end up as the Angels, watching Brandon Marsh become the player you desperately needed in another uniform before the age of 30. Crawford for sure, but I’d probably say Reyes and Rincones too, need an extended period of at-bats in the majors to figure it out. Crawford’s game probably will take some time to reach it’s potential, but the team is winning games while he figures it out right now, and that really doesn’t make it as big of a problem as some fans would believe. Reyes hit his 16th homer in AAA on Tuesday, but has struggled in sporadic playing time in the major leagues so far- because sporadic playing time is not a good way to see if a guy who crushed AA and AAA as a full time player can hit in the majors. If it were me, I would not be carrying two back-up catchers who cannot hit major league pitching (again, it’s not like they play enough to improve, and Lord knows they should be giving Marchan one start in every series to save J.T. at this age), I’d be platooning Rincones and Reyes in left and getting Reyes some starts at third base as well, to see what they can actually do in the majors. This team is winning games anyway, because their top three starting pitchers, their top several relievers, and their top three or four bats are all so good that they can sustain winning two-thirds of their game when all healthy and playing. You have about a month to decide what people are ahead of the trade deadline and then go get what’s necessary then. Maybe these guys aren’t good enough to win with. Maybe they are. I’d actually kind of like to know.

As for Painter, it’s important to look back on the early careers of Max Scherzer, Roy Halladay, Curt Schilling, and Randy Johnson and understand that not every Hall-of-Fame level stud pitcher that can carry a staff came up ready to carry a staff like a Justin Verlander or Paul Skenes. Hell, Zack Wheeler spent his early years baffling the Mets and the league as to what he was. Writing him off today would be a mistake, though I’m not saying I wouldn’t put him in a trade if I could actually get a difference maker under contract for a while onto my team. Painter might still figure it out if given the time by his organization, he’s only 23 right now. There are guys who will be drafted at his age this year. Blaming the Phillies for holding Painter as a top prospect when literally the whole league called him a top ten prospect in 2023 (and even some in 2024), is silly. The problem since his Tommy John surgery is basically two things- his fastball is flat and his command has not returned. Some folks want to talk about his velocity, but for the most part it has returned and is at least pretty normal. The Phillies are not asking him to be a number one right now, and realistically he needs to be a number three in like 2028 for this team to flourish with him, the bar is not super high. He just needs to be a league average (aka- Nola) fourth or fifth starter right now and stop getting absolutely raked the way he has this season. The problem is simple though- it may not happen. We are about 13 months into him pitching in live professional games post-surgery, the majority of that in AAA and the Majors, and his fastball has lacked it’s old movement since. The Phillies claimed some of it was his arm slot last year, then told us it was fixed in Spring Training, and the ball is still flat. Guys throwing in the mid-to-high 90’s with a flat fastball get hit hard in the Major Leagues, and also many times in AAA. He could certainly survive as a mid to back end rotation piece who doesn’t cost much for the next half decade in Philadelphia if he had better command of all of his stuff, but he has not had that last year or this year. You can’t hang breaking balls against professional hitters. You can’t miss your location with a flat 96 mph fastball in the majors. I don’t know if Painter’s lack of improvement on these things from last year to this year is a Painter problem or a coaching problem, but if no one fixes it, he might not ever be a Major League starter, or even reliever.

Given that the Phillies are a team willing to spend money, Painter failing wouldn’t be as bad of a long term hit as it would be on a small market team. Even so, him being at least a league average guy would be a huge help. In the short term though? Honestly, I don’t get the freak out, or people ready and willing to pay a premium to go get a starting pitcher who would never throw a playoff inning for you outside of mop up (think Taijuan Walker and Walker Buehler *last year*). Yes, I’d like the Phillies to try to get a couple (two or three, quantity over a big splash) of right handed or quality bats in general at the deadline and a late inning reliever, because those moves would help this team in October, and maybe we need a fifth starter at some point later, but these are not urgent, immediate problems for a team winning two-thirds of it’s games for a nearly 50 game sample now. The Phillies have time to see what some of these younger players can do for sustained runs, and they should be trying them out to see just that. They’re on their way to the playoffs. I’ll be honest, I’d be very surprised if they don’t finish as the fourth seed and first Wild Card winner in the National League, and that is perfectly fine with me. Outside of LA, Atlanta, and Milwaukee, most of their competition for that spot have much more glaring, important holes on their roster than we do over the long haul. You don’t win the World Series in June, and the Phillies won’t win or lose it because of their fifth starter. They have much more important problems in their path to winning right now.

Bob “Crooksy” Brooks Doesn’t Just Hate Barack Obama, He Hates the Folks Who Save Your Life

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Bob Brooks is a pile of human garbage that anyone should be ashamed of. If you’re defending him, it’s because you want a Congressional staff job and the benefits, let’s be honest. Don’t tell me it’s because you have Democratic values, the man hates Barack Obama. He is accused of committing mortgage fraud, entirely so he could stiff his mother-in-law. He’s not just a random deadbeat. No, he’s much worse than that.

A couple years ago, you might have heard that I was almost dead. Literally a couple *weeks* ago, a keyboardist had a heart attack in my basement during band practice. Both times, the incredible folks of Suburban EMS came to save the day. There’s not enough things I can say about these people, I’d be cremated or in a box somewhere without them. When the keyboardist had his heart attack, these EMT’s were joined by the good people of the Palmer Township Police Department and our *volunteer” fire fighters. What does Crooksy think of them? From Bernie:

The Beacon’s Chuck Ross has some up with something I failed to cover during the primary, and that is Brooks’ revulsion at professional firefighters who dare act as volunteer firefighters in their own communities. Ross points to angry social media posts from Brooks, calling them “scabs” and “shitbags.” 

This country currently faces a severe decline in volunteer firefighters. The number of volunteers has declined about 25% over the past two decades, while emergency calls have increased 70%, particularly in the MidAtlantic.  The shortage is so serious that Lehigh and Northampton Counties both offer real estate tax rebates to volunteer firefighters. 

I understand that Brooks may have no issue with volunteer firefighters so long as they stay out of a municipality covered by a professional and unionized fire department. But does that make sense. The Lehigh Valley’s three cities have all had major fires over the years during which volunteer firefighters from other municipalities assist. The most recent example of this is at an Easton hotel. Should a professional Easton or Bethlehem firefighter refuse to assist if he is also a volunteer at Plainfield’s fire department and that company responds?  Should they just stand by and watch a building burn?

As I said before the primary, Republicans had more on this pile of donkey loaf than I did. I did not have these social media posts. Of course they had the goods here:

In the original article they go on to point out that this post from Brooks is nonsense. Of course a volunteer force should not go into Easton, Bethlehem, Wilson, Allentown, or Emmaus uncalled and undercut unionized, paid members who fight fires for a living. What Crooksy doesn’t point out here is *that doesn’t happen in reality.* There aren’t volunteers from Nancy Run going into his former turf of the city of Bethlehem and responding to routine fire calls. Far from. Almost always, the volunteers are called in because there aren’t enough paid fire fighters on call, or in some cases on the force at all, to respond to the severity of the fire. The reality is that our society doesn’t have the resources to keep people safe all of the time. These folks volunteer to help us deal with that.

I’ll take a guess that this human pile of sewage will say is that these professional fire fighters are “taking advantage” of the real estate tax rebates. Yeah well, our society offers those because we can’t take care of ourselves. God bless these guys to give their time off for the rest of us. I sleep better at night knowing anyone would give of the most important resource we have, time. He knows this though. His union was pleading for more resources from the City of Bethlehem in last year’s budget because *they need more fire fighters.* I even agree with him for the most part. Apparently he doesn’t hold the courage of his own convictions.

Crooksy is just a garbage human being. He should drop out of this race today and just admit the con. Maybe we could still convince the former Congresswoman to take his place.

Crooksy Goes to Court, Part Whatever At This Point

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Fresh off of running for the hills when asked if he committed mortgage fraud by a Republican tracker, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is due in court tomorrow for his latest court date for screwing his former mother-in-law out of over $150k, after interest. Crooksy is basing his entire campaign off of his false “one of us” argument, but what Deadbeat Bob means is one of us as long as you’re not a minority. A majority of “us” liked Barack Obama, Crooksy sure as hell didn’t. I wonder why? They won’t ask him in court tomorrow, but it’s not like he’d tell the truth anyway.

Here we are a month after the primary and this con artist is heading to the court over money loaned to him in 2004, that he signed he’d pay back in 2008, that he lost his appeal over in 2022, and still to date has paid only a reported $100. There was an ethics report filed against him with the House of Representatives during the primary because he was just trying to pretend the lawsuit never happened. Crooksy thinks everyone will just forgive and forget that he’s stiffing his mother-in-law. His continuation as a candidate for the House is very Graham Platner-esque, which makes sense because they have the same consultants. These guys really pick only the best people.

There are rumors that Crooksy is drawing a look from the U.S. Attorney’s office, and I’m sure the Attorney General would like to take a crack at him over his “quit claim” on the property he stiffed his mother-in-law for. I actually don’t think it would be wise for either to open an investigation unless the statute is about to run out on this. He’ll still be as guilty or not next year and it would look nakedly political. Besides, it looks as though Deadbeat Bob will be spending significant general election time in the court room arguing this case anyway. Bob’s defenders have taken in private to criticizing the woman he stiffed out of the money, and I think it’s just a matter of time until they start trying to call her crooked, unhinged, and other evil words. Maybe she is. That doesn’t matter a single iota, as Bob signed the promissory note to pay her back. He acknowledged that he owed her the money, and he then did everything possible to not pay her. If he weren’t your political candidate, you’d call him a deadbeat.

Ryan Mackenzie deserves to lose in 2026. He voted for everything Donald Trump asked him to vote for, and Donald Trump is about as popular with the electorate right now as athlete’s foot. So of course the consultant class in DC and Harrisburg have saddled us with a pile of cow dung to get elected in this district. My plan is to just leave the race blank right now see what comes around in two years.

Political Gravity in 2026

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment
Random Dick Nixon photo.

A lot of folks think the 2026 election is going to be a landslide. I do think Democrats are likely to win the House this year, and I think they’ll do generally well in swing state governor contests across the country. I’m genuinely a skeptic on Democrats winning the Senate or winning numbers like 2006 or 2018 in this wave though. Trump is historically unpopular. He is double digit percentages worse than he was in his first term at this time or compared to Joe Biden at this point in his term. With the electorate we’re going to have in 2026, Trump would lose if he were on the ballot (midterm electorates are different than Presidential electorates). We’re not having that election though. Democrats are leading the generic ballot right now. Most polling averages are not showing Democrats polling astonishingly high though- in fact both of the ones I linked to here have the Democrats at the same 48% that Kamala Harris received in last year’s election. I’ll link to one more here, just to sort of drive home the point- occasionally there’s a poll that shows Democrats getting to the 51% Joe Biden got in 2020 or that Barack Obama got in 2012, but you don’t see a 55% anywhere. What you generally see is Democrats consolidating their voters and Republicans not feeling incredibly good about their party. Some probably won’t vote this year, others probably will come home in the end to the GOP. In any event, probably no less than 40 states will generically favor the same party they voted for in 2024, if not closer to 45. Democrats may hold slim advantages in places like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina this Fall. Given the candidate quality gaps at the top of the ticket in some of these states, the generic lead might even be noticeable. I’d still venture a guess that even if all of those states tilt blue this Fall, and states like Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas show vast improvement for the Democrats, this will change the result in a minimal number of Congressional districts. I’d venture a guess that 400 districts out of 435 are drawn so partisanly now that even a wave election doesn’t move them. If I had to guess, Republicans lose 15-20 seats this Fall. There’s just not that many more than that actually in play. I can’t see either party falling under 200 seats any time soon.

The best way to understand American politics is to understand that our country has been stuck in a 48-46% split for a quarter century or so now. Every Democratic nominee for President since 1996 has received at least 48% of the vote, and every Republican since 2000 has received at least 46% of the vote. The parties high water marks in that time are 53% (Obama in 2008) and 51% (Bush in 2004) in that time, which is to say they both have a range of 5% they have been able to grow. For every “brilliant” strategist that comes along to change politics, from James Carville to Karl Rove, from David Axelrod to Kellyanne Conway, our public is pretty static. Each crew comes along and moves the electorate a little bit at the edges, and over time you can see trend lines, but there’s almost always an equal backlash that leaves us in roughly the same spot.

Part of this is because no one really likes either party. 58% disapproved of the GOP in the May Pew poll, but 59% disapproved of the Democrats. People that are actually members and call themselves members in each party say they like their party- 84% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans. The rest of the country really doesn’t like either party very much. 45% of Americans now identify as independent. Prior to 2011 it would have been unheard of to have 40% of the electorate call themselves independent. Clear pluralities of Americans 50 and under (if not majorities in some cases) view themselves as independent. While the block of people who call themselves “liberal” is up to 28%, most of that growth is among Americans who self-identify as Democrats. Basically, Democrats are moving left. Meanwhile 47% of independents are calling themselves moderate, a clear plurality over conservative or liberal. More people prefer Democrats (47-42%) in this polling, but it would appear the 11% in neither camp are not exactly moving towards the Democratic Party as it shifts left. Basically a small group of the independents shift from party to party as power shifts in Washington, voting against whoever is in charge. We’ve been in this pattern at least since 2014, if not 2006. Democrats say they want the party to moderate, over and over again, but that is not what is actually happening to the membership of the party.

How does this impact the 2026 election in the real world? Let’s say this- Democrats will probably perform closer to Kamala Harris vote levels in swing districts and swing states in 2026 than Republicans will perform to Trump’s 2024 vote levels. One should assume that particularly strong Democrats at the top of the ticket, like say Roy Cooper in North Carolina or Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania may hold an even more commanding advantage. Candidates like Rob Sand and Josh Turek in Iowa, James Talarico in Texas, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio will probably hold polling advantages for most of the Summer because they are better candidates than their opponents, but those polling advantages need to rise over 50% of the vote to know that they are actually converting some of the voters you’ll need to get to move over to them and actually win. Meanwhile Democratic candidates with glaring potential problems in their candidacies, like say a Graham Platner, will probably poll ahead for most of the Summer before the large scale media buys go to death con five levels after Labor Day. Between now and the general election we’ll probably see a few more nuts win primaries in both parties, because nuts are making up a bigger slice of the primary electorate. People will scream about those nuts impacting the parties beyond their own races. A few figures will matter nationally, people with name recognition and coverage in the media like say Mamdani and Platner. They will matter less than Trump, who has the most name recognition and media coverage. What it will come out to is something like a 51-46% national popular vote victory for Democrats. That will get the job done for them.

Ok, so where the rubber really meets the road, what’s this mean? I think it means that a fairly generic Democratic candidate in a district that runs basically about where the national average district this year is, that candidate is going to win. You have districts like NY-17 and PA-1 where Harris won in 2024, and the only reason Republicans have been able to hold on is candidate quality. Then you have districts like PA-7, 8, and 10, or NJ-7, where Trump carried the seats in 2024 and the races probably hinge on how much of his base comes back out for the GOP in 2026, or how much the GOP can discredit the Democratic nominees. I’ll just give you my napkin math on where these seats all are right now:

-PA-7- Trump won this seat in 2016 50-47% and 2024 51-48%, while Biden won it in 2020 50-49% In every one of those instances, Donald Trump out performed his national numbers in this district (+5, +3, and +2, in order). On the other hand, Bob Casey won it in 2018 by 10% and Tom Wolf by 16%, in a year Democrats won nationally by 9%. The same was true in 2022, when John Fetterman won the district by 5% and Josh Shapiro won it by 12% in a year that Republicans won by a little over 2.5% nationally. In other words, this district is harder for Republicans in midterm years than Presidential years, mostly because of sporadic turnout voters not coming out for midterms. Thinking about this district that way, I think Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is probably entering the general election with about a 6% lead, as the generic ballot shows right now, in part because Mackenzie has an uphill climb to actually bring back out his base of voters from 2024. Mackenzie also doesn’t have the kind of electoral record that say Fitzpatrick, or Lawler, or Kean has in their districts attracting crossover support. He’s not Bresnahan or Perry levels of corrupted personally though either, his problem in this district is purely partisan politics. And of course, Crooksy has personal baggage. The guy is a mini-Platner. The question is, if this is a 5% popular vote spread or more on election night, can Mackenzie convince 1 in 20 voters to vote against Crooksy, rather than for the party they want? For what it’s worth, Susan Wild over performed the national party in 2022 by exactly 5%. I give Crooksy 60-40 odds to win this race, I just think Mackenzie has to overcome a lot, but it’s well within possible.

PA-8- This has been a district shifting right in a hurry. Trump has won it by 9%, 3%, and 9%, out performing his national numbers every time. At first, the district lagged his shift, with Casey and Wolf carrying it in 2018 and Fetterman and Shapiro carrying it in 2022, although by less than PA-7. In 2024 the dam broke. Bresnahan beat Cartwright, McCormick beat Casey, and obviously Trump won. In other words, if we think PA-7 is where the generic ballot is, PA-8 is probably a few points better for Republicans. Bresnahan’s big problem is not only is he not as strong of a candidate as Fitzpatrick, he’s weaker than Mackenzie probably too. But it’s a better district, and while Paige Cognetti doesn’t have Crooksy’s problems, I’m not sure you want your profile in PA-8 to be “Obama alum and pro-choice woman” with that electorate. I assume that a good chunk of the electorate won’t actually love either candidate. This race probably comes down to what exactly the generic ballot is nationally, and how far ahead of it Republicans can run in this area. At 5%, with no Trump on the ticket and Bresnahan’s candidate quality, it’ll be razor close, but I’d expect Cognetti to edge him out.

PA-10- Trump has won this seat by 10%, 4%, and 5%, and this is the most traditionally Republican of these seats, so I am not sold that Scott Perry’s January 6th sins are ever going to cost him his job. Even so, the district has narrowed over time and I’m going to go out on a limb and say Janelle Stelson would reverse her 1.2% defeat in the current political climate. If PA-8 is trending more red right now, this one is trending more blue, and Stelson ran ahead of Kamala Harris by almost 4% in 2024. I’m going out a limb here, but if I were her, I’d mostly run against Trump’s economy and kitchen table issues. If she does that instead of debating what a bad guy Perry is, I think she wins this race by 5%. Everyone who cares already knows about Perry. Hit him for supporting the pain people are going through now, not a six year old insurrection.

PA-1- Donald Trump has never won PA-1. His worst loss of the three was 5% in 2020, so it’s not as blue as other parts of the Philadelphia suburbs, but PA-1 isn’t a Trump seat. It is fair to say right now that PA-1 is probably somewhere between D+8 and D+10 right now. Brian Fitzpatrick is easily the strongest Republican running in any of these PA seats. I’d venture a guess that he has positive approval in the district, which makes him a political unicorn. He can credibly point to instances he has stood up against Trump in a way none of the other GOP candidates I’m talking about here can. With that said, this guy should still be a dead man walking in this political environment. Josh Shapiro really may win this seat by more than 20%. Are there that many people who will cross over and split their tickets in 2026? As his party lost nationally by 9% in 2018, Fitzpatrick won by 2.6%. In 2020, he won by 13% while Biden carried it by 5%, an 18% crossover rate. He won by just shy of 10% in 2022 and 13% in 2024, while Shapiro won by 20% in 2022 and Harris won it by 1% in 2024. Bob Harvie is probably the best candidate to run against Fitzpatrick in a while, and this is the best environment since at least 2018. When I started writing this, I was kind of feeling like he’d probably win this year. Fitzpatrick’s numbers are strong though. If he survived 2018, you have to believe he survives 2026, right? At least right now.

NJ-7- This district is quite literally as swing as PA-7. Trump won it by 6% in 2016, Biden won it by 4% in 2020, and Trump won it by 2% in 2024. For what it’s worth though, this district is more Republican than New Jersey as a whole obviously, and that is a part of why Tom Kean Jr. has held it for two terms now. Cory Booker narrowly won it in 2020 and Andy Kim lost it in 2024. Even so, there are signs that Kean is dead here. Jack Ciattarelli won the district 56-43% in 2021 and *lost* it 51-49% in 2025. Traditionally New Jersey is more red in gubernatorial races than federal years, so a 15% move in a district is a sign of a bloodbath coming. With that said, it was only a 2% margin and Kean has always run better than most Republicans. Rebecca Bennett winning the nomination here is probably a good sign for Democrats though, as she’s been a solid fundraiser (as were most of the leading candidates, to be honest) and there’s nothing “extra” for Republicans to run against here. Add on Kean’s apparent health issues and I’d say this one probably tilts to the Democratic column. Probably by less than the national numbers, but a win’s a win.

Ok, so what am I saying here- I just predicted four competitive seats in this region to flip Democratic. I also don’t think any are slam dunks. I think I feel strongest about Stelson and probably Bennett winning, and weakest about Brooks and Cognetti. But I’d predict them all to win in this environment. Now I’m not saying I want that (I think I’ve been clear about Brooks), but as Trump trends towards Bush 2006 numbers, I don’t see how they survive that? Of course it’s worth noting that the GOP will make up for these losses with gerrymanders across the south that will probably keep this year from looking like a 2006 or 2018. But for now it’s looking like a blowout.

What the NCAA Needs, as Opposed to What Congress is Doing

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Ted Cruz has an NCAA reform bill getting a committee vote in Congress today. The bill deals with a lot of thing, from a limited anti-trust exemption to a strict five years of eligibility time, to limits on transferring and limits on poaching coaches. Some of it is actually good stuff and is worth looking at- I know, a shock from Congress and Cruz specifically. It’s also an inadequate bill and one that will not fix the real problems that student athletes need fixed, and fans want to see fixed.

Let’s be honest, everyone is behind the curve. The fans, the writers, the legislators, everyone. We’re talking about the conferences and their next moves, and honestly that’s great, but it’s not where things are going. Even within the Big Ten, SEC, and even ACC, there are echelons in college football. Do Ohio State and Michigan need the Big Ten, or could they honestly just take Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, and Penn State do whatever they want? Do Texas, Alabama, and Georgia need the SEC, or could they grab Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn, Tennessee, and Florida and do whatever they want? I don’t know why Notre Dame hasn’t sat down with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC, and Virginia and built something other than the ACC? At the last television negotiation, many of these schools saw enlarged power conferences as the way to make money. There’s no real necessity for them to do that again. Sure, if it’s the best deal they will, but if it’s not? Money for 15-20 programs will drive the next version of college football as is. Nothing less, nothing more.

What the NCAA needs is something it’s behavior doesn’t really deserve- power and control. There are few organizations I can think of in sports who have shown less character and values than the NCAA, I guess maybe FIFA and the NFL. However, the only way to stop the push towards a true “super conference” run by a few institutions is for the NCAA to receive a strong anti-trust exemption that would give them all the leverage in asserting rules over the members. Anything short of that won’t stop talk from member conferences like the SEC of taking their ball and going home. It also won’t stop member institutions from valuing football dollars over literally everything else and killing off rivalries and lesser revenue sports in the pursuit of those dollars. Basically a weak NCAA continues the progression we’re under, towards a lawless world where 20 programs control the money and set the rules. It is, in a word, chaos.

What fans want isn’t so hard, they want most of what they had for a century, with a logical playoff system that makes sense. They want their old rivalries, they want conferences that make some geographic sense, and a playoff system that values getting the best teams in over conference payouts, ESPN’s monetary interests, and television ratings. This bill might limitedly preserve some of those things. It won’t hold up super long though.

My big concern is that Congress is more worried about things like limiting the NIL than they are about preserving sanity within the sport. It’s not lost on me that Cruz represents Texas, a state with two SEC super powers that are probably happy with the direction things are going. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma basically fled to the SEC for the larger payouts, and left other major institutions in the state to play in lesser conferences and fall behind. I have no doubt at all that Florida State and Clemson are salivating to do that, and it seems obvious to me that Miami and North Carolina wouldn’t mind either.

The NCAA needs the kind of power the “big four” professional sports have right now. They need to be able to negotiate television deals, to set playoff rules that don’t favor two conferences and an independent over everyone else, and have a level of control over conference re-alignment. This bill will improve their hand, but it won’t give them that.

So yes, I think it’s a good bill. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Ted Cruz did a good job. I don’t think good is quite good enough, and I think maybe we’re missing the bigger point here. Do I think it’s good to limit Lane Kiffin to waiting until the season is over to jump ship and take a big pay day from another school? Yeah, I do. I’m not sure Congress needs to settle that though. They definitely have a legitimate role in regulating college sports (it is absolutely interstate commerce). I just am not sure they know what the real problems are that require a Congressional fix.

For all the Talk About a “Free Palestine,” Nobody Has a Plan for Who Would Lead it, and What it Would Look Like

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Yesterday, Senator Chris Van Hollen called for a change in direction from Democrats on funding Israel. Essentially he said it’s time for us to force Israel to begin moving towards a two-state solution with the Palestinians by attaching pre-conditions for all funding from the U.S. Government. You know, as a purely practical matter, I can’t argue with this. We shouldn’t give any other country a dime of aide to do things we don’t want them to do- full stop. I don’t care if we’re talking about close allies or developing nations who are poor. It’s American money and it should be spent in ways we at a minimum support, if not benefit from. I realize I’m taking a position that puts me at odds with say, AIPAC, but well, I think this should be a uniform, across the board policy.

Let’s not bullshit though, we shouldn’t pre-condition aid to any allied nation on crazy ass things that aren’t going to happen though. If we’re going to tell Israel they need to accept a two-state solution right now, we might as well ask them to create a flying cow. There’s a better chance of that turning out okay. Granting independence to any new nation is hard, and while it should always be our goal to make sure all populations in the world are living under a sovereign government they have a say in, some groups are prepared for that and some are not. If we created a nation called Palestine tomorrow, it would be a disaster.

Let’s set the politics aside for a second and look at this as a matter of pragmatism. What would be the borders of this nation? I know the assumption is that it would be Gaza and the West Bank, but there’s a shit ton of assumptions there. Next, there’s the question of who would lead this nation, and how they would be chosen. Remember, after the 2006 elections in Gaza (the last ones) were won by Hamas, they turned around and began killing members of Fatah and other political rivals, essentially creating a one party state. In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas serves as the President of the Palestinian Authority and is the leader of Fatah, but he is considered weak and has no reach into Gaza. These two areas are essentially two different places at this point, and probably wouldn’t agree on any set of rules for an election, let alone concede power if they lost it. If you somehow got the power players to the table and to an agreement on elections, there’s still the matter of the neighboring Arab states, who are less than enthusiastic about this idea. In the past, Jordan has wanted the West Bank, and they’re not super crazy about either side governing next door to them. There’s also the question of whether the Golan Heights would be a part of this state or be given back to Syria, and of course Syria has feelings about this. In short, you basically have two “Palestines” right now, your choices to lead it are a weak old man and a terrorist organization, and it’s not at all clear the neighbors would even be okay with this.

Next question, and it’s a big one- what the hell would a Palestinian government be taking over? Gaza has been pretty much bombed out at this point, and basically has a couple million (living, yes, they weren’t “genocided”) people who lack shelter, infrastructure, adequate health care, food, and civil government. Hamas has been leading them, and well, they haven’t been very good to their people. If I were from Gaza, I’d probably be terrified of both the IDF and Hamas at this point. In the West Bank, it’s sort of better, but you do have violence with Israeli settlers and Palestinians regularly. There’s also just the problem of the government the Palestinians have there being a disaster. Abbas’ term ended in 2009. Their government is broke, lacks legitimacy, has corruption issues, and is weak. If Hamas cannot be allowed to rule the Gaza Strip because they’re fanatical terrorists, the Palestinian Authority cannot rule because it’s simply incapable of taking care of the nation. Health issues are rampant. Violence is rampant. Most of the people lack shelter. Poverty and hunger is ever present. It’s a disaster.

Then there is the issue of Benjamin Netanyahu and he and Ariel Sharon’s tenures leading Israel for most of the 21st century. After Oslo I the plan was to give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Gaza. The right-wing Israeli leaders have made that nearly impossible. Aside from Netanyahu propping up Hamas as a useful foil for many years, and making sure any effort at self-governance by Palestinians fails, he’s also made the geography nearly impossible. By allowing settlers to take over and seize territory in the West Bank, he’s basically made the West Bank less Palestinian. While most American liberals aren’t big fans of these folks, there’s a very fundamental question of what you would do with these people? Would they just stay there? Would they be governed by Palestine or Israel? Netanyahu set out decades ago to make sure that the Oslo Accords could never be realized. He has literally, physically made that almost impossible.

Finally, there is the politics. In Israel, bringing up a Palestinian State after October 7th has been rejected roundly. There is no way they are going to hand a state over to Hamas, or to a leader too weak to control Hamas, even assuming Israelis would back it at all. If you did create this state, it would be one of the poorest in the world at the outset and if the United States is going to help establish it, we’re going to be responsible for making sure it works. That requires boots on the ground possibly, and lots of money. An electorate that voted for Donald Trump two years ago isn’t going to want to give money to Palestine, or Hamas, or whoever the hell we put in charge there. It’s politically impossible to build support for this state in Israel, and damn near the same in America. Now the surprise- it’s hard in the Arab world too. The neighboring countries aren’t crazy about it. There’s probably not a majority among Palestinians either. There’s probably a sizable number of people in the country that would only accept overtaking Israel and subjugating them in Palestine. A majority? I have no idea. The number is nowhere near zero. My guess is the number of Palestinians for a two-state solution is way less than 50%, and may actually be the weakest number amongst all options.

Look, I appreciate Senator Van Hollen stating the obvious, that handing Netanyahu money hasn’t worked out well for American interests or our stated position. I’m all for some sort of conditions on all foreign aid. The nation of Palestine has not existed for centuries though (to the extent it or Israel ever really did) and it is nowhere near ready to exist now. Attach conditions stopping the settlements, maybe pushing the Israelis on one or two other key policy wants we have in the immediate. Try to stop the fighting for some level of permanent time- maybe a year? Set goals that actually have a chance of happening and won’t just sound good to folks in Park Slope who couldn’t tell you who ruled the Holy Land before the British mandate. Proposals like he wrote, while sounding nice and hopeful to liberals who want the world to be better than it is, are unserious and set everyone up to fail. There’s enough death and failure now. There’s no point to promising unicorns and golden paved roads to peace.

The Most Embarrassing Crop of Candidates in the History of the Republic, by a LOT!

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Right now in Michigan there’s a three way primary on the Democratic side for U.S. Senate. The Republicans are going to nominate Mike Rogers, who might just win. General election polling shows that both Haley Stevens and Mallary McMorrow would lead Rogers and likely win. Both are losing the primary, in part because both are running and taking from the same voters. Instead “Doctor” Abdul el-Sayed, whose candidacy is a noun, a verb, and Gaza, leads the primary. He fashioned himself as a left-populist doctor, even though he apparently mostly has not practiced medicine, and in his last statewide run for Governor (2018), Gretchen Whitmer beat him like a drum. He trails polls against Rogers, in part because his candidacy is just a grab bag of left wing catch phrases, and in part because of serious questions about who he really is. He’s the only candidate we should be actively avoiding, and well, he’s the candidate winning.

Just across the river and down the road a bit is New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District. I worked there in 2014 for Bonnie Watson Coleman’s first run for Congress. It’s a mostly well-to-do, highly educated district that includes such well known towns as Trenton, Princeton, and Plainfield, and basically wraps around Rutgers. Bonnie retired this year, and Dr. Adam Hamawy has emerged from a crowded field as the favorite to replace her. We already knew that Hamawy was a close associate of, and testified on the behalf of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Blind Sheikh. That was troublesome, but not on it’s own disqualifying- despite the association, Hamawy was not charged with anything. Now we find out that he volunteered in Bosnia with an organization called “Benevolent Front,” which of course was closed because it was an Al-Qaeda front group. Hamawy is leading polls in NJ-12, has the most money, and has a pro-Palestinian group making a huge TV buy for him. He is also nowhere near 50% of the vote, but his lead is solid. East Brunswick Mayor of East Brunswick, Shanel Robinson of the Somerset County Board of Commissioners, Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp, Trenton area State Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, and second time Congressional candidate Sue Altman are all in this race as well, allowing him to win with way less than 50%.

We saw this in Pennsylvania more than a bit recently. AOC/Hasan Piker endorsed, left-wing slogan generating machine Chris Rabb won his primary in PA-3 with 44.66%, while promising a bunch of things he’ll never even get close to delivering in Congress. Again, Sharif Street and Dr. Ala Stanford split 53.28% of the vote amongst them as the “normie” Dems. Here in PA-7, Bernie Sanders endorsed left winger and man who stiffed his mother-in-law out of $55k for over 20 years, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks won his four way primary with 41.01% of the vote, shackling Democrats with a deadbeat with two or three functioning brain cells as their candidate. Over and over again, we are picking problematic, dumb, scary candidates to run for office with a simple plurality of the vote in these insular, out of touch primaries. These people basically represent a fringe of the most partisan, most out of touch voters. They’re embarrassing.

Don’t get me wrong, probably the scariest nominee we have out of all of them, Mr. Nazi tattoo himself, Graham Platner, won his race by bankrupting his Chuck Schumer (retire) selected opponent. Yes, I know there are still other people on the ballot, but none are running serious campaigns. So now we have the guy who went on a Nazi conspiracy theorist podcast and called himself a long time fan. He was a Blackwater mercenary. He posted homophobia and racism for years on Reddit. He may have dated several women at once, and well, there are more rumors about what’s to come there. That’s fine though because his campaign pays his wife. No, really. He apparently defends urinating on dead bodies in war. The guy admits to public masturbation. Platner downplayed rape and blamed victims. Honestly, the problems with this alum of the elite Hotchkiss Prep School ($75k a year?) seriously outweigh his fake “working class background.” Some folks are even questioning if he’s fraudulently getting VA Benefits. The guy is problematic.

I’m beginning to think the only reason we avoided nominating raging anti-semite Maureen Galindo in TX-35 is that she had to actually get 50% of the vote. I guess we don’t need to get that Kames ICE Prison ready to be a concentration camp for “Zionists” after all. For what it’s worth though, she got over 40%

These people are all fucking embarrassments to humanity. I’m sorry, pardon the French, but these people shouldn’t walk your dog, let alone represent you anywhere as a leader. It’s fairly obvious that the consultant class down in the bubble that is the Beltway decided this was the year to flirt with weirdos and wackos, because they somehow think this will convince white guys to vote for them. Of course it’s going to fail, but this what happens when you let a bunch of rejected dorks try to figure out how to connect with “every man” types. The moral of the story is not to let Jeff Coote, Rebecca Katz, and Morris Katz be your strategists on reaching guys who drink beer and watch the Red Sox. But beyond that, it is very apparent that there are folks at the DCCC, DSCC, and DNC who are all co-signing this shit. They’re so out of touch that they think running Nazis, terrorists, deadbeats, and possibly even folks who want to have concentration camps will appeal to “normal” people. Perhaps our biggest concern should be the lack of intellectual ability in the operative class in 2026.

Ken Martin’s entire tenure at the DNC, and really the direction of the party since about 2015, has been a disaster. Much as the GOP of John McCain and Speaker John Boehner allowed the Teahadists into the ten in 2008 to 2014, these feeble and feckless leaders have allowed antisemites, terrorist adjacent, scumbags, and losers into the Democratic tent. It ended badly for the GOP and the country, and well, guess what will happen here?

Don’t think the Republicans aren’t literally worse, of course. Last night Texas Republicans nominated bible-thumping adulterer, likely bribe taker, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the Senate. When they replaced Texas Congressman Tony Gonzalez, the GOP found Mein Kampf enthusiast Brandon Herrera. Thomas Massie did lose after spending the final weekend of his campaign with Holocaust denier Ryan Matta, but he lost to ultra-MAGA nutbag Ed Gallrein. The GOP is literally fighting a civil war over Candace Owens and Laura Loomer right now, so things aren’t well over there.

America is about to turn 250 years old. The people being chosen to lead us are increasingly moon howlers and embarrassments to humanity. The 2026 Election is literally shaping up as a race to the bottom, where we have to decide if disgraces on our “side” are better than “sheeple” on the other. It’s disgraceful and maybe the best sign that our republic needs a full makeover moving forward.

Democrats Need to Hope Platner Loses

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Everything is a business decision, especially in politics. How much is a seat worth to your party? You really can’t win everywhere, because you lack the resources, so the question ultimately is what are your odds of winning, and what is the cost? Activists like to talk about competing everywhere, but that’s anti-reality.

Democrats are highly unlikely to win the Senate in 2026. Notice I did not say they won’t or can’t, I said unlikely. They need to flip four seats to the positive this year. They have varying degrees of difficult defenses to fight in Michigan, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Realistically they need to win all of those to maintain a shot at future majorities. They came into this cycle only realistically thinking they had a shot at North Carolina and Maine. Michigan has gone worse so far than they could have hoped, Georgia has gone better, and North Carolina could not be going better if the GOP conceded it. Maine, for all of the talk about it, is basically going exactly the same as it was going in 2020 at this point, when Gideon was beating Collins handily and was expected to flip the seat- only to lose badly. Gideon never trailed in that race and her lead looked a lot like Platner’s did in October of that year. So at no point will that race look safe.

So let’s assume for a second that we’re holding Georgia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, flipping North Carolina, and Michigan may very well come down to who is our nominee. Maine remains solidly on the board either way, maybe even give Democrats slightly better than even money odds at it. We’d be at best +2 in the Senate, two seats short, and at worst sitting even. That’s not going to get us a majority. Almost all hopes of the Democrats flipping the Senate still will rest on three time Trump states voting Democratic. Sherrod Brown lost his seat in 2024 and would have to beat the appointed replacement for J.D. Vance, which is very possible, but very difficult. Mary Peltola, who has won Alaska before, would have to defeat a Republican incumbent where the voters there know that voting for her is giving Democrats a potential majority. There are hopes for the open Iowa seat, but we do have a somewhat bruising primary there to even get the shot to convince Iowa voters to pull the plug on Trump in the Senate after giving him three large victories, and a decade of Democrats losing literally every Governor and Senate race there. And of course, there’s Texas. I think Talarico is probably a pretty good candidate, but Texas is still Texas, and we don’t know yet how much ill will there is towards him from Black voters in the state from the Jasmine Crockett primary. Could each of these races flip individually? Yes, it’s possible. Could all four of them flip together? The odds drop a lot, but it is *possible*. Can Democrats win probable difficult defenses in Georgia, New Hampshire, and Michigan, flip both of North Carolina and Maine, *AND* win at least two of Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas? I’m going to tell you, for those of you who like to gamble on sports, you would be getting a big plus money line on this parlay. Of the nine states I just named, Harris won two of them. Do you think the Democratic Party is that much stronger than it was in 2024? You’re being wishful. In 2018, the Democrats won 40 seats in the House in a landslide win, but *lost* seats in the Senate that were being fought on red turf. If you’re saying you think Democrats win the Senate, you’re basically saying Democrats are considerably stronger than they were in 2018. I know you want to think there is a mass exodus of MAGA voters from supporting the GOP right now, but you’re being very hopeful, some might even say delusional. I guess you can hope that their turnout drops wildly enough to put some of these seats in play and maybe we pull the inside straight with exactly a four seat flip. I’m just saying evidence suggests you probably won’t get it.

So then this begs a pretty simple question, one that I’d suggest has a complex answer. Senate Democrats will have to decide at some point if Graham Platner is worth the trouble to elect in Maine. The DSCC will make the decision to fund him, I will spare you that question for now. They have to if they really want to win the Senate, and his polling probably will never be bad, even if it’s just another Gideon situation. I say probably because we really have no idea what is still out there on this guy. I mean in the past week or so we found out he likes masturbating in public places, he said a Marine who received a Purple Heart should have died, and we’re hearing rumblings of Republicans looking into his income, since he receives disability benefits for his PTSD. I mean, even if you want to assume that the general electorate full of less partisan people than the Democratic Primary are going to forgive the Nazi tattoo, comments about urinating on dead bodies, and being a mercenary, what else is out there, how much proverbial straw will it take to break the camel’s back, and how much money will they pour into taking this guy out? It’s going to take a herculean effort to make sure this guy survives when the Fall comes. That’s assuming we even can, especially as Republicans also pour money into a likely flip RED in ME-2. Is it doable? There’s definitely a chance. Easy? Absolutely not.

So alright, I’ll ask the question again- is it worth it? Best case, the party spends an ungodly amount of cash to get a guy across the line who has a Nazi tattoo, thinks Black people don’t tip, and is a treasure chest of red flags that our core voters typically don’t like. He’ll arrive in Washington and immediately be the new AOC- attacked with every negative term conservatives know, in this case focusing on Nazi, weirdo, and Socialist. He attacks the Democratic Party any chance he gets, so he’ll hurt other candidates and turn off voters in other races we need to win. In a word, the guy is a nuisance. Of course they’re going to fund him and try to win, because that’s the only purpose for the DSCC to exist. Is it worth it though, really? Congressman Jake Auchincloss is right in saying it’s not, and calling this Nazi unacceptable. Him winning isn’t even worth the headaches as is, Democrats flocking to defend this scumbag are building the next round of GOP ammo for them to use against us.

Hard “no thanks” from me.

MLB Power Rankings 5/25

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Well, here we finally are. My first power rankings of the MLB Season come about 1/3 of the way through the seasons (it’s exactly 1/3 for my Phillies). I’ll start by just diving into the rankings, then we’ll talk about it after.

  1. Atlanta Braves
  2. Tampa Bay Rays
  3. Los Angeles Dodgers
  4. Milwaukee Brewers
  5. Cleveland Guardians
  6. San Diego Padres
  7. New York Yankees
  8. Arizona Diamondbacks
  9. St. Louis Cardinals
  10. Chicago Cubs
  11. Cincinnati Reds
  12. Sacramento Athletics
  13. Philadelphia Phillies
  14. Chicago White Sox
  15. Pittsburgh Pirates
  16. Washington Nationals
  17. Toronto Blue Jays
  18. Miami Marlins
  19. Seattle Mariners
  20. Minnesota Twins
  21. Baltimore Orioles
  22. Boston Red Sox
  23. Texas Rangers
  24. Houston Astros
  25. New York Mets
  26. San Francisco Giants
  27. Kansas City Royals
  28. Detroit Tigers
  29. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
  30. Colorado Rockies

There’s a lot of surprises here, a lot of teams ranked in places I would not have expected them to be. Atlanta and the Dodgers aren’t shocking, although Atlanta not only survived early pitching injuries, but thrived through them. Tampa? Shocking. We all sat here thinking Milwaukee and Cleveland might drop back a bit, but they have not. San Diego and the Yankees are right in the discussion to win it all, no shock there. Same with the Cubs. Arizona might be a slight surprise, but not astounding. St. Louis? Shock.

It’s the next ten that are filled with surprises. Philadelphia, Toronto, and Seattle all have higher expectations than this. None have hit like last year. They can all pitch though, so don’t hit the panic button yet. Teams like the White Sox and Nationals have probably played a bit over their heads so far, but they probably don’t have the pitching to stay in the race. They will need to convince their front offices to go get them help.

And then there are teams in serious trouble already. Boston is disappointing. The Mets and Giants are cataclysmic. Kansas City may have to give up on this group. Detroit? Everything is going wrong. And of course you have the Angels and Rockies, who are both not going anywhere at all- like not into a rebuild, not into trying to win, they’re literally just existing.

Since we’re at the 1/3 mark, I’ll add here that right now I’d give the MVP’s to Drake Baldwin and Ben Rice, neither of whom will win. I’d give the Cy Youngs to Cristopher Sanchez and Cam Schlittler, of which I’d say Sanchez is more likely but both are a little bit of a surprise. I’d give the Rookie of the Year awards to Munetaka Murakami (who is going to get a lot of folks fired) and Sal Stewart, both guys that seem capable of keeping this pace. I’d give Manager of the Year to Walt Weiss and Kevin Cash, and neither would be remotely close.

Lots of baseball ahead. We’ll see where we are in the next rankings.