
Photo of the Day, 12/14




I’m under no illusions- I do not think any Democratic candidate can win the state of Texas for Senator or Governor in 2026, and probably not in 2030 either. Texas is a red state, more red than the nation as a whole, because Texas Republicans have been more competitive with Latino voters than their national party has been overall. Yes, Democrats could very well do better in 2026 because of actions Trump has decided to take, but what does that mean? Kamala Harris lost the state by nearly 14%. Joe Biden lost it by 5.5%. Hillary Clinton lost it by 9%. So I guess we’re just debating how bad the loss will be. Beto got kind of, sort of close in 2018 against Ted Cruz, but still lost by a margin well beyond a recount. I’m giving you the reality up front- Texas is red, and it’s not going to change very soon.
I have no strong opinion about Jasmine Crockett as a candidate. She will raise money and motivate the Democratic base, probably more impressively than her primary opponent, James Talarico. Does it really matter though? One may argue that she’ll maximize turnout and therefore be closer. Another might say a Democrat can’t possibly win Texas without persuading some Republicans, and Talarico may be better to do that. In the end, I think they both lose. You would need to be prime Bill Clinton to even have a chance to do both strategies at once, and even then you probably lose Texas.
So I’m not losing sleep over Jasmine Crockett supposedly saying something about persuading Trump voters. To be clear, she said the following:
Q: How will you win over Trump supporters? Crockett: “I don’t know that we’ll necessarily convert all of Trump’s supporters. That’s not our goal.” Q: “Do you need to?” Crockett: “No, we don’t. We don’t need to.”
Let’s start by saying she’s factually correct. You don’t need to convince all of the other side in almost any election. Most Republicans are going to vote Republican. She doesn’t need them all. All true. Now, she was asked how she is going to win them over though, and she did dodge that question. She also doesn’t really need an answer in December of 2025. The election is 11 months away. She may be running against a very corrupt Ken Paxton. She also may not. There’s a lot of variables here.
The problem with Crockett’s answer is that largely after 2012 the Democratic position became to not do persuasion, and to instead focus on base turnout. That worked fine for President Obama, but he still did persuasion. The electorate has grown considerably since 2012, and the truth is that the lowest propensity voters don’t vote Democratic anymore, or at least it’s a lot more murky than it used to be (Biden’s super high 2020 number confuses things, but he was a persuader). Trump’s share of the vote grew with each election he ran. I think what a lot of people want to hear is that a candidate is thinking about why the Clinton or Harris campaigns didn’t work, and is going to try something different, and well, she didn’t say that. “Demographics are destiny” was an entirely failed approach, and we have to get back in the game of winning the hearts and minds of the impressionable voters out there. Ignoring them is a losing strategy.
Voter persuasion is expensive and hard. Yes, racial and gender bias can make the road even harder. It’s not impossible to do, it just probably requires a lot of luck in this case that is probably not going to happen. Math is math. For a state like Texas to flip, there has to be some societal level movement against the Republican Party, and I know you want to believe that’s going to happen, but it’s probably not. America is simply not offended enough by him to become a clearly center-left to liberal nation like it was before the 1960’s. They simply don’t like Democrats enough, when push comes to shove in an actual election. Some argue we need to move left, or pick more white guy candidates to fix that, but those things are not going to work. Republicans hate white Democrats plenty, and you’ll lose some of your base chasing them.
Look, what I’m saying is that people are going to get up in their feels about this primary. They shouldn’t. If Democrats have a chance at Texas, they’re probably already spending heavily in Ohio and Iowa, maybe even Florida, and just won’t have the resources to go into Texas. If we win this race, it won’t be because of which candidate wins the primary. At that point, it’s an act of God.


It’s a cruel, sick, just world. The only Republican left on the Northampton County Council is Tom Giovanni. After running a cynical campaign of memes and attacks on people not running, he didn’t get to put the County GOP Chair in charge of the courthouse after all. He gets to go back to Council and sit quietly by himself as Tara Zrinski serves as the next County Executive. She worked hard, and she earned it.
The rest of the council may not make Giovanni look so bad though. The new chamber will have 8 Democrats in the 9 seats. It still might not be functional. You see, the 8 Democrats don’t necessarily get along, and might not really vote together. How it looks to break out-
There’s four ways this can go, as I see it-
I don’t think counting to 5 will be easy on this council. Trying to do a re-assessment or tax increase will not be easy. Increasing spending will not be easy. Future political campaigns will also become a factor in how council works. I really don’t envy whoever these folks elect President, this will be a tough job.

Donald Trump has destroyed Washington. He has harmed our government permanently and left his successor a mess to clean up. Eventually some alternative is going to have to put functional government back together. That someone is probably the Democratic Party. The Democrats are at a crossroads- do they want to be a leftist party or a center-left/social liberal party. It’s very simple and very straight forward. For me, becoming a party that plays footsie with socialism, embraces isolationism, abandons Civil Rights, embraces guns, opposes the existence of Israel, opposes defending our allies in Europe, throws Obamacare away, and flirts with extremists, whether they have Nazi tattoos or embrace “the Intifada,” is a hard no. Our voters have rejected Bernie Sanders soundly at the ballot box twice. His politics should not be the future of our party, unless we want to never win elections again. Sure, there are some shared, common goals and aims. I embrace Democrats who actually have got things done.
For that reason, I have put together a list of Democrats who need to be defeated in 2026. Some are bad because of ideology, others because they are personally reprehensible, and in a few cases both. I did not put every “progressive” candidate in the country on the list, and that’s for a reason- they are not all bad. I oppose grifters, deadbeats, crackpots, and generally offensive people. Some of them are even moderates. These are generally people I have no interest I supporting in 2026.
I will continue to add to this list and update as more happens.


Absolutely everything is wrong with college football. No, I get it, you like going to games, and you should, but that doesn’t change what I said. From mega conferences to the ESPN rankings show every week, college football is simply a slave to big network money, whether it’s Disney/ESPN, Comcast, or FOX. Great old rivalries like Penn State-Pitt, Oklahoma-Oklahoma State, Pitt-West Virginia, Notre Dame-Michigan, or whatever one you miss, all ended because of conferences, television money, and greed. Let’s be honest, did a single person in the world really want to see the Washington-Purdue game, or the Mizzou-Vanderbilt game, or the Stanford-Wake Forest game? Of course not. The four major conferences now have zero geographical sense, and more teams than can possibly play each other in a year. “Conference championships” literally decided by obscure tiebreakers and computers. The SEC literally had one (maybe two, if you think Michigan or Georgia Tech is actually good) good out of conference win as a collection of 16 schools, and yet they got five teams into the playoffs (at the expense of the one good team they beat), basically because their network runs the process. The conference hasn’t won a national title since the NIL took over the game, and I think the reasons are abundantly obvious for that (by the way, Ed O is a national treasure). It’s a paper tiger, but one that has to be held up because ESPN has so much at stake in them. The only teams down there with a chance to do anything now are teams who have large NIL potential, basically the Texas teams (include Oklahoma, because oil) and Georgia. It’s a joke.
Conferences no longer have anything to do with old rivalries, or geography, or anything sane. They have to do with television markets. The more big markets you are in, the more money you are worth, the better your conference becomes. This basically sucks for the game. I just got done ripping the SEC, but let me give them some credit here for a second, they are the only major conference that truly makes any geographic sense at this point, but it only works because they’re the only part of the country that is more obsessed with college football than the NFL. The ACC has decided to go north and west, and makes zero sense now. The Big 12 is literally a collection of whoever is left out of the other three. The Big Ten? It’s the worst offender, now literally holding court in almost all of the top ten markets in the country. I mean sure, we all wanted Rutgers-UCLA, right?
How you spend your money says everything about what matters to you. ESPN has the SEC. It also has the ACC, and it added quite a few dollars onto that TV deal to insure that it essentially had Notre Dame’s road games in the deal with the ACC (Usually three or four a year). Notre Dame gets about $17-22.1 million a year from the ACC according to Google AI (though the ACC claims that’s not football related), on top of their $50 million plus from NBC. The new revenue model adds about $10 million per school for the top teams, who now will play Notre Dame more often (for instance, Clemson will now play them for 12 years, starting in 2027). At the time of the deal, ESPN added $3 million per school (approximately $50 million) to the payout. That number has only grown. Finebaum and the other talking heads can claim Notre Dame isn’t the ratings giant it claims, but both Disney and Comcast pay out money that says otherwise. Clemson and Florida State are still unhappy with their media payouts, but they would almost certainly leave if the $10 million or so boost they got was suddenly gone. It’s basic math. Unless you think both Comcast/NBC and Disney/ESPN are morons, Notre Dame is clearly making everyone a lot of money. Does Notre Dame get to pocket a lot more money than the ACC teams? Yes, sure. It’s obviously worth it to them too though.
What everyone wants from Notre Dame is to strip them of their independent TV deal with NBC. It would make less than zero sense for Notre Dame to give that up voluntarily though. The ACC isn’t going to stop scheduling games with them if they add $50 million plus annually to their TV deal. Two Big Ten teams this year, and three next year, line up to play them. A pair of SEC teams seem to show up every year. All told, Notre Dame gets ten Power 4 games easily, and they don’t have to split money with teams who add little value. It pisses off fans from other teams, but let’s be honest, if Alabama could add this kind of value, they wouldn’t be sharing with Kentucky and Mississippi State. Same for Michigan and USC. Again, how you spend your money says what’s important to you.
The ACC promoting Miami’s case for the CFB Playoff is not on it’s face offensive. Miami is a member school, and splits the payout with the other member schools. Miami campaigning for Miami is also not an issue, of course they would. In fact, Miami getting in over Notre Dame isn’t really a problem, while I think Notre Dame is better and Miami isn’t a contender, Miami won the game. Miami wasn’t the issue. The issue was the efforts to which ESPN, the ACC and SEC’s TV partner, went to campaign for Alabama at the expense of Notre Dame, and the degree to which the ACC took part. Both Miami and Notre Dame were better teams than Alabama this year. Again, winning SEC games is not some special achievement anymore. The ACC putting the Miami-Notre Dame game on a loop on their ESPN administered network the week of the selection, not to mention direct attacks on social media, was harmful. If the ACC isn’t an ally, why is Notre Dame participating with them? Do we not think one of the other conferences would enter into a deal with Notre Dame that *adds* money to their TV payouts for every member school? Of course they would. The only reasons they are in conferences is money. Don’t kid yourself.
Notre Dame should leave the ACC. It would kill the ACC, yes, and maybe that’s not great, but it’s probably necessary to do any real damage to ESPN. Skipping the Bowl Game did directly hurt the bottom line, and did damage to the value of the bowl brand, which hurt ESPN too, but that’s not the big hit. Killing one of their conferences would send the message that ESPN and the conferences are not really in charge here. It’s time for the NCAA to re-assert control, and Notre Dame could speed up that process in football right now. Break an entire conference and set off a domino effect the other three can’t quite handle. Or better yet, form a true “scheduling consortium” with a few other powerhouse teams where everyone can have their own TV deals and show how useless these conferences are. The point is, once one school shows they can devalue an entire conference, the whole game is over. Someone will have to step in, and the only possible entity is the NCAA.
I know this isn’t popular, because Notre Dame is not as popular as it once was. In the 1900’s, the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t go to college, so they chose their team allegiances based on other factors. Notre Dame being forced to go independent and travel the country, as well as their ties to the Catholic Church, built in millions of fans. Today, a lot more people go to college, and most of them don’t go to Notre Dame. They don’t like Notre Dame being unique, because people hate unique things, and their schools are not unique. They’re going to kick and scream about Notre Dame delivering a shock to the system. If Notre Dame has the courage to soldier through it though, everyone will be better off when the conferences die, for football (to be clear, they’re not as problematic in other sports). They’re out of control and need to be reigned back in.
The NCAA needs to separate “power four” football into it’s own division. The “group of 5” conferences are playing a different sport where there are smaller budgets, little TV money, and tiny bits of NIL. The 18 Big Ten teams, 16 SEC teams, 17 ACC teams, 16 Big 12 teams, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Washington State, UCONN, and between 1 and 9 more teams should be put into a separate division altogether. This would form a division of 72 to 80 teams, which should them be split into 8 regional divisions of 9 or 10 teams (based on which number you pick). You would play 8 or 9 division/conference games, against EVERYONE in the conference/division. The eight champions should make the playoff, period. You can schedule anyone you want with your 3 or 4 other games. This is the only sensible way forward, the only way for college football to act like a serious sport. Consolidate the “Group of 5” schools into four conferences and create a playoff for that division too. From pure budget perspectives, this would be fair.
Notre Dame can do what needs to be done here. Live by the values that made the program great- independence. It was forced on Notre Dame. Notre Dame is big enough to force it on the sport. Tear down this house of cards and do everyone a favor. Neuter the overrated SEC.



Here’s a serious question- is there a chance that both Super Bowl teams from last year, teams that have met in two of the last three Super Bowls, miss the playoffs? The answer is yes. With that said, the answer is that is still unlikely. Kansas City is dead in the water at this point, sure. Philadelphia looks cooked, but they play Las Vegas and Washington for three of their last four games. With even a 2-2 finish, the Eagles are 10-7. Dallas would have to win out to beat that. Even so, it’s possible.
As soon as everyone got high on Chicago being good, they go and get manhandled in Green Bay, a team who has their flaws too. Go figure. Increasingly to me, it looks like the Rams are the team to beat in the NFC, just by being consistent. The West and North are very good divisions, and their finishes should be exciting. The East is really just a matter of if Philadelphia can beat a couple of teams playing out the string the next two weeks, and the South is a dumpster fire where the Carolina Panthers feel like the hot hand. Remember back in September when the Buccaneers looked great and Baker was leading the MVP chase. That was fun.
Denver now has all two way tiebreakers over New England, which is insane to me, but whatever. Those two look great. Jacksonville has shocked everyone and taken over the South, but Houston is charging hard and has the best defense in the league right now. The Chargers and Bills are very alive, and I wouldn’t want them in that Wild Card round if I were one of these young upstart teams. Someone has to win the North. Increasingly that looks like Pittsburgh. Is this good for that franchise? Probably not. Nobody else seems to want this division title though. While I still wouldn’t be shocked if the Ravens win if it comes down to the head-to-head in the final game, right now Pittsburgh has the edge.
Now, this week’s rankings.
12/3 rankings. 11/26 rankings. 11/18 rankings. 11/11 rankings. 11/4 rankings. 10/28 rankings. 10/21 rankings. 10/15 rankings. 10/8 rankings. 9/30 rankings. 9/24 rankings. 9/16 rankings. 9/9 rankings.