Stick to baseball, 11/12/16.

I ranked the top 50 free agents available this offseason, for Insiders; once these guys start signing, I’ll post reaction pieces as appropriate. My annual offseason buyers guide series started on Friday with the outfield market; the infielders guide will go up today, followed by relievers Sunday and starters on Monday. I wrote an overview of the potential for big trades this winter, given the weak free agent class.

I held my regular Klawchat on Thursday, but there will be no chat this upcoming week.

My latest boardgame review for Paste covers Cones of … I mean, Council of Blackthorn, a pretty good backstabbing game that I think has one major mechanical flaw.

I also updated my all-time favorite boardgame rankings, which now runs to 100 titles. I think that’s plenty, even with the 40-50 or so I try each year for review purposes.

  • I’m going to start this week with reactions to the election of Donald Trump and the Republicans’ de facto control of all three branches of the federal government (assuming they fill the SCOTUS vacancy with one of their own). If you read just one story about the election, make it this one, on how the GOP’s attack on voting rights may have delivered them the White House. If you support the erosion of the voting rights of American citizens, you stand in opposition to a fundamental principle of the modern democracy. Rolling the clock back to the time of poll taxes and literacy tests just to get your guy elected is wrong, and every one of us should be willing to see a candidate we oppose elected if that is the cost of letting everyone who is eligible to vote have the opportunity to vote. If you live in one of the fourteen states that worked to restrict voting rights, you need to stand up now for yourself and for your neighbors.
  • Rod Dreher, senior editor of the American Conservative, called this America’s front-porch revolt. Michael Moore, of all people, predicted the Trump victory months ago and I think he’s correct about the economic insecurity that drove it. (His five-point “plan” for Democrats is a little light on details.) Glenn Greenwald points out that this was partly the result of politicians’ refusal to heed the lessons of Brexit, that (my words here) economic insecurity and self-interest will trump (pun intended) a lot of other concerns. Esquire‘s Charles Pierce is just plain confused by it all. David Remnick of the New Yorker called Trump’s victory an American tragedy. Unlike the book of that name, however, this won’t be boring, even if the ending is just as awful.
  • Garrison Keillor says Trump’s core voters won’t like what happens next; I suspect he’s right about much of this. Amanda Taub of the New York Times calls the win the rise of white populism, using social science research to identify three driving factors there – fear of outsiders, fear of physical attacks, and the collapse of “white identity.”
  • Even Leslie Knope weighed in, with her usual dose of wide-eyed optimism after despair.
  • A Muslim-American woman wrote for the Washington Post why she voted for Donald Trump. It’s an eloquent, thoughful piece, although I wish I shared her lack of concern over civil rights matters.
  • Climate Central says we’re fucked. Scientists in general are stunned and dismayed as the most anti-science President in our nation’s history is set to control the EPA, the NSF, the USDA … okay, that one sucks, but you get the idea.
  • The Guardian wrote before the election how journalists face “tough choices” when climate science deniers are elected. No, they don’t. You fucking hit them with the truth every time. There is no ‘both sides’ here, like there’s no both sides on evolution or vaccinations. If politicians, elected or appointed, deny the truth of climate change, then it is the media’s responsibility to stick to the truth rather than play along for their jobs’ sakes.
  • Did third-party voters cost Hillary the election? I find this piece overly speculative, since some of those voters may have stayed home rather than vote for either major-party candidate, but if you consider the issue of, say, Hillary failing to convince Jill Stein supporters to come vote for her, there’s merit in the examination.
  • “A KKK-endorsed man who openly bragged about assaulting women has risen to power by stoking rural, white Americans’ fears, and, come January, every branch of the federal government will belong to him and his allies.” Ann Friedman at the Cut tells voters angry over the results what to do now.
  • North Carolina’s HB2, the so-called “bathroom bill” that also created a statewide ban on ordinances protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, may have cost Republican Governor Pat McCrory re-election. The race is close enough that provisional ballots must still be counted, so it’s not quite over yet. Yet despite this, Trump took North Carolina, in part by suppressing the African-American vote.
  • Kavitha Davidson, my colleague at the magazine and ESPNW, wrote about being a rape survivor, including a graphic description of how invasive the examination is at the hospital after the fact, for those of you who still think women just make this shit up for kicks.
  • The best longread of the week, election or otherwise, was the New Yorker‘s piece on the failing state of Venezuela, which has implications for baseball, oil, and global security. Hugo Chavez was a disaster, but his death has left the country even worse off.
  • The mother of comedian and writer Harris Wittels, who wrote for and appeared on Parks and Recreation, writes about her son’s long battle with and death from heroin addiction.
  • Astronomers around the world will collaborate in the spring of 2017 to try to take the first picture of a black hole. That’s tricker than it sounds, since nothing, not even light, can escape the black hole’s gravitational pull within its event horizon.
  • Researchers in Queensland, Australia, are trying to develop the first ‘vaccines’ for food allergies. With such allergies on the rise in the developed world, this could be a lifesaving invention for millions of people.
  • California voters rejected Proposition 60, which would have required porn stars to wear condoms on screen, but was opposed by public health groups as well as the industry itself as a backdoor (pun unintended) attempt to drive the industry out of state.
  • Does Trader Joes force its employees to act too cheerful? The New York Times explores some employee complaints about the privately-held retailer, which enjoys a cult following on both coasts (of which I am very much a member).
  • The NY Times article from last week claiming GM crops didn’t deliver promised results was flawed, but so were some responses to it, in part because of misunderstandings of the technology itself.
  • The Times also had an article just before the election on Latina hotel workers gaining a political voice in Nevada, one of the only swing states to end up on Clinton’s side on Tuesday. The article is extremely well-written and even David Simon praised its kicker at the end.
  • The BBC visits a private radio station in Damascus, still playing music and sharing news in the midst of the country’s devastating civil war.
  • A new strain of meningococcal disease is on the rise in Australia, raising calls for the relevant vaccine to become part of that country’s required list of childhood vaccinations.

Comments

  1. Hey Keith, thanks for the links and continued highlighting of climate change. It’s terrifying this man is going to be president and have control of environmental and climate issues. Ignoring it will be catastrophic. You may have seen this article already but it clearly shows the effects climate change is already having on the planet. Thanks.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671

  2. You need some of Micheal Tracey’s articles: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-tracey-epic-nature-hillary-collapse-article-1.2869736

    His twitter timeline is good too: https://twitter.com/mtracey

    • …” a political novice who said and did things we were constantly told were outrageous and dangerous…”

      We were told? The hagiography is already kicking in, as if Trump didn’t just wage the most absurdly divisive and rhetorically caustic campaign in decades.

      I’d be more impressed with Tracey if there was some actual analysis there. Opinion-mongerers like this (see Eugene Robinson for a lefter example) are a dime a dozen.

  3. That you could split the country by class or gender and we’d get a mix for Clinton and Trump but a split by race produced such a dtark divide (including the majority of white women) underscores just how central race remains (especially white supremacy) in our country. I’m election-ed out at the moment, so I’ll just leave these here:

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day

    http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2016/11/10/a-time-to-heal/

  4. Sad week. I fear for when the Trump voters slowly come to realize that all the promises he made were just his attempt at gaining votes. He’s already backing down on repealing the ACA or putting Clinton in jail. His transition team is full of Washington insiders and Pat Bondi is included. And this is just the first week. This will get worse before it gets better. Manufacturing and coal jobs are not coming back. So we’re about to find out what’s going to happen. It won’t be fun.

    • Sad week. I fear for when the Obama voters slowly come to realize that all the promises he made were just his attempt at gaining votes. He’s already backing down on promises for what he can do regarding our entanglements in the Middle East or putting Bush and Co. in jail. His transition team is full of Washington insiders and other Wall Streeters and he’s cozying up to the Clintons as well. And this is just the first week. This will get worse before it gets better. Manufacturing and coal jobs are not coming back. So we’re about to find out what’s going to happen. It won’t be fun.

  5. Keith, I enjoy your baseball commentary, especially when you focus on statistics, as you your rainman-like qualities lead to some interesting insights. However your political commentary this election season has served as an important reminder that education does not equal intelligence.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Comment sections serve as an important reminder that anonymity breeds douchebaggery.

    • This seems completely unnecessary. Not to mention, it brings nothing to the table.

    • Well, it told us all that Josh is a giant fucking asshole.

    • Josh, sad!

    • “I don’t agree with you. Therefore you’re dumb.”

      You know, Josh, I can recognize smart commentary when it largely agrees with what I think (Digby, Chris Cillizza), or when it sometimes agrees with what I think (Keith, David Brooks), or when it rarely agrees with what I think (George Will, David Frum). That you seem unable to do so says something important about you, I would say.

  6. Coming from someone who neither supported not voted for Trump, the overdone liberal hysteria, handwringing, rioting and violence of the last 72 hours has done more to make me like Trump than Trump did in 16 months of campaigning. And I doubt I’m alone.

    • And that’s quite telling about you.

    • And what impact have the assaults on women, the slurs directed at minorities, the chants of “Heil, Hitler!” directed at black students, etc., had on your perspective? Or do you only pay attention when liberals are the ones engaging in bad behavior?

      https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

    • My perspective is that any violent, boorish, destructive behavior is abhorrent and should be disavowed by all and prosecuted by the authorities no matter whether it comes from the left or right.

      I just wish all the leftists, Obama, Clinton, Michael Moore, the Hollywood celebs, upper west side liberals, Keith Law, the NY Times, Jezebel/ deadspin, the Washington Post, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, you and everyone else who warned us that one candidate was a violent racist rabble rouser who didn’t respect democracy would hold those actual violent racist rabble rousers who don’t respect democracy to the same standard, even if they agree with you politically.

      Seems pretty simple to me. What’s YOUR perspective?

    • I literally posted something from the SPLC upthread about over 200 hate crimes against minorities in this country since Tuesday. And you’re worried about the handful of ultra-leftist (to use one term for them) among the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters, who have largely condemned the violence of those small factions of the protesters in line with state and national politicians? You obviously have an issue with one side over the other, and your “BOTH SIDES” rhetoric rings hollow. And by the way, Trump hasn’t disavowed the awful things any of his supporters have done this week (and rarely at all), so please spare us your hypocrisy and double standards.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Violence has no place in political discourse and should be rightfully shunned under all circumstances. On the other hand, the right to protest our government without fear of political retribution is utterly American and something to be genuinely proud of. John, I completely agree with you on the the crux of your second point, but fail to understand how the violence of some left-wing protesters makes Trump more sympathetic. Unless the racism of certain Tea Party protesters also evoked the same sympathy for Obama.

  7. Serious question: look out 4 (or 8) years and just suppose the following (might be a huge stretch but just offering a hypothetical as the antithesis to the doom-saying we’re hearing) and we’re averaging 3%-4% GDP growth annually, the unemployment rate remains low and wages are increasing at a healthy pace, we’ve broadened health coverage and health care costs have flattened out or are declining, we’re continuing to make great social progress in some areas in terms of getting disadvantaged members of society on equal footing, and so on and so forth…what will you honestly say in response and what kind of mea culpa will you offer (if any) after such scare-mongering right now? I’m truly curious because I don’t see able to bring yourself to admitting that level of fault in your emotional analysis.

    Probably a longshot that so many “good things” transpire, but we hardly know at this point what’s going to happen.

    • “I’m truly curious because I don’t see able to bring yourself to admitting that level of fault in your emotional analysis.”

      Mark: I’ve tolerated you for a few months now, but I think it’s time you go fuck yourself. Insults dressed up in pretty language are still just insults. I’ve made it quite clear I don’t care for your antics here, yet you persist. Your commenting privileges are hereby revoked.

    • “wages are increasing at a healthy pace”

      Wages haven’t been increasing at a healthy pace for the vast majority of the country in what? 40 years?

  8. Any comment on the calls for (and growing support for) a “Calexit”?

    Perhaps they’re just a bunch of bigoted, treasonous, secessionists, right? Just as we might see the same thing out of a bunch of Oklahomans following the election of a Democrat?

    • Those are strawmen. I didn’t include the Calexit stuff in the roundup because 1) it’s a dumb idea and 2) I didn’t find anything worthwhile written about it, because it’s kind of obviously a dumb idea.

  9. Clinton was a terrible candidate – a great resume for being president is not the same thing as being good at connecting with with the electorate. It was apparent after ’08 – her only real race (after Rudy got sick and dropped out, the NYS Senate race became a gift) – that she had no charisma with voters.

    Most candidates have to demonstrate they can win elections on the way up to nation campaigns; she got to skip all that, and was only exposed as weak in ’08. But the party ignored it and saddled us with her again, discouraging better candidates like Biden. The democratic establishment deserves its wildness period; it’s their fault we’re stuck with The Donald.

    • Bro…. why’d you have to bring up Biden? His son died tragically, and he’s said in public that he wouldn’t have been able to commit fully to being president or running a campaign because of what he was going through after that. Even if I agree about the Democratic Party in many ways.

    • Also, You know who actually performed terribly in 2008? Biden. So seems to me you’ve got some big holes in your reasoning Dave.

  10. All I have to say in response to all the voter suppression accusations is that we should be able to quantify to at least some small degree what this number was? I mean, I have to think that people who wanted and tried to vote but couldn’t/didn’t are willing to speak out and say so. Of course, we also need to consider voters of all stripes (i.e. those who were going to vote for Trump or someone else besides just Clinton) in our analysis. Please, aside from vague suggestions, demonstrate quantitatively how much voter suppression affected the outcome. This should be a reasonable thing to do.

  11. If you’re interested, the Pew polling data on voter priorities was interesting…and puzzling: http://www.people-press.org/2016/11/10/a-divided-and-pessimistic-electorate/ Here’s a local law enforcement blogger on why the numbers are so puzzling: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/11/reality-check-in-fact-free-era-what-can.html

  12. My point was only that there were better candidates out there. The timing of his son’s death may have taken him out regardless, but the party should have been encouraging him (and others) prior to that – not trying to clear the way for Clinton again after she performed badly in ’08.

    By the way, if you haven’t seen it, Biden’s speech about grief to military survivor families is worth watching:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwZ6UfXm410

    • I think it’s easy, perhaps even a bit facile, to predict that a candidate who didn’t even run would have done better than a candidate that did run and lost by a thin margin.

      Biden (or any other candidate you might suggest) did not have to deal with the six-month microscope that is pointed at presidential candidates. There was no opportunity for strategic errors, for debate missteps, or for any other damage to accrue to these non-candidates. Further, Biden (and nearly any other candidate you might name) is a Washington insider, and Washington insiders were one of the things that people were voting against this time around.

    • A Salty Scientist

      The most striking thing to me anyway is how similar the final vote tallies will be for Trump compared to McCain and Romney. I’m not a political scientist, but it appears that the level of political polarization in this country is unprecedented. Other Democratic candidates may very well have won (though I remain skeptical of Sanders’ chances), but only through increased turnout and not by flipping Trump votes. The Trump win is surprising because despite all of the baggage that should have killed his chances, he received about as many votes as a genetic Republican could expect. For the foreseeable future, It appears that there is a floor of at worst 40% support for each major party candidate, regardless of how bad they may be. This level hyper-partisanship is terrifying for those of us who want to hear rational discourse about ideas instead of literal demonization of opponents.

    • Umm… Clinton did not perform badly in 2008. She arguably garnered more votes in the primary than Obama did. They each got about 18 million votes, which were record numbers for the primaries. Obama won because of the caucuses.

  13. For the record, the josh that posted above is not the same josh that has been posting here the last few weeks. While I may disagree on some things, I would never call people stupid

    • My name is Josh as well and I’m also not the dickhead Josh from the earlier post.

    • Thanks, guys. I can see within the admin panel that Asshole Josh has never commented here before (and never will again).

      I’m still on vacation, out of the country, so I’ll probably be scarce till Sunday, even in the comments here.

  14. I’ve got a bit of a political science background, having done some work toward a Ph.D. before deciding to go into law (I know, I know…), and I’m a political junky and come from a very politically involved family, so outside of its terrifying outcome, this election is just fascinating to me on so many levels. I think those who argue that Clinton lost because she was an uninspiring candidate are both right and wrong. Sure, she has baggage, wasn’t really all that transparent or even entirely truthful on the campaign trail regarding the email scandal, but she also has been in public service for decades, has been held accountable for her husband’s policy “failings,” like NAFTA, which is probably unfair, and recent research suggests that she had received more negative treatment in the press than Mr. Trump. Objectively, Trump wasn’t held to remotely the same standards in the press as Clinton during the campaign, which I believe led people view each of their scandals as false equivalencies.

    I’m also not above playing the “what if” game: what if Sanders didn’t enter the Democratic Primary? Could O’Malley have taken his place as the progressive, yet unlike Sanders, be perceived as a candidate with an actual shot in the general election? I tend to think yes, but I also don’t believe Clinton was as flawed a candidate as she has been perceived. Her campaign, on the other hand, was probably unsound and overconfident.

    Another interesting aspect of the election (sorry this is long) has been the celebrity effect and affect. There’s a fascinating interview with Professor David Jackson out of Bowling Green in The Atlantic about this and it’s more complicated than you’d think. Below is the link:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/11/election-celebrities-trump-clinton-endorsements-beyonce-springsteen-david-jackson-bowling-green/507383/?utm_source=fbb

  15. Thomas, as a fellow traveler (well, without the law degree 🙂 ), I agree with you especially on the “what if”. As other posters have noted, Trump received about the same number of votes as the previous two Republican candidates. The difference is that Clinton received far fewer votes than did Obama. Part of this may be due to disillusionment, both with her and with the process. Another part may have been a fundamental misunderstanding by her campaign (and the mainstream media) of the lack of support from key subgroups. Far fewer college-degree women voted for Clinton than anticipated. African-American participation was down. There may have been a misinterpretation of the implication of the high early voting turnout. And Clinton received far fewer Hispanic votes (especially in Florida) than they’d counted on.

    It’s interesting that, (discounting Bush Sr., who rode in on Reagan’s coattails and against a flawed candidate (Dukakis in the tank photo), the last three Republican Presidents were all derided by the Dems (Reagan as “too conservative to win”, Bush Jr as “dumb as a post”, and Trump as … well, no need to go there, even though I agree with it and am wearing my safety pin). In all three cases, it blew up on them (although Reagan won in a landslide over an unpopular Carter and a marginally-relevant Anderson). IMO, the Democratic Party has in these instances been too intellectually snobbish for its own good.

  16. No Ryan Howard on the top 50 FA list? WHY DO YOU HATE oh nevermind i can’t even laugh about the fact that they paid him 10 million to not play for them.

  17. I like waffles.