Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DTroppens

  1. I did some math to figure out some numbers. Since the Ford family has owned the Lions (Nov. 22, 1963), the Lion are326-497-15 for a .397 win percentage, or what equates to 6.4 wins in a 16-game season.

    Since the turn of the century the Lions are 124-212-1 for a .369 win percentage. That equates to 5.9 wins during a 16-game season.

    The Lions have NEVER EVER EVER had back-to-back 10+ win seasons, but once had six consecutive 10-plus loss seasons. Caldwell had three winning seasons in four years. What do the Lions do? They fire him.

    In the first 52 full seasons the Ford family has owned this team the Lions have had 14 winning seasons, four .500 seasons and 34 losing seasons.

    I expected figuring this stuff was going to be pretty horrible, but it even shocked me a little bit. If someone asked me if the Lions won at least 10 games in back-to-back seasons, I would've said without a doubt it must've happened sometime.  This suggests even when the Lions have a strong season, they've never had a clue how to build off of that. Getting to 10 wins is the "easy" part of becoming a good program. Doing it for two or three seasons in a row isn't. It  takes an extra layer of knowledge of knowing what the heck you are doing and maybe sometimes a little luck. Posting 20 seasons of double-digit losses during that span (remember a lot of those seasons were 14-game seasons) suggests one thing. This family is a joke when it comes to owning a professional football franchise.

    Still, the most shocking stat has to be the fact the team hasn't won a division title since 1993. Gosh, for some years that meant beating out four other teams and for other seasons it meant beating out three other teams. You'd think somewhere down the line they'd "luck" themselves to a division title. Nope, not the Lions.

    I wish this pandemic would end so I can go back to curling on Sundays. Maybe the Chippewas improve to 3-1 tomorrow.

  2. 7 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

    I am not speaking to how he reacts if / when he loses.  He will not be gracious, he doesn't know how to be.  I am sure he will claim it is a false result.  I have no doubt he will sow discord and violence may break out as a consequence.  If need be, he will be forced from office.

    Polling has not show a viable path to victory for him since two or three months after taking office.  He has not / is not growing his base.  If the election were today, and young voters and poc turn out to vote, I don't see how he doesn't lose in a landslide.  Impeachment hearings do not help him.

    That stated, we are 12 months away and a lot can change in a year.  And maybe all the polling errors *could* work in his favor paired with his votes being distributed in the most favorable of ways for him.  But those caveats aside, it seems very much the Dumbocrats election to lose from what I can tell. 

    And to get the young vote to come out, you have to prove it with your policies - I know, beating a dead horse.

  3. 19 hours ago, mtutiger said:

    I think it'd be smart to expect that.

    Having said that, I dont buy the "you gotta nominate _____, or Trump will win" spin. Perhaps there's a range of outcomes depending on the nominee, but I think everyone in the field is *capable* of beating Trump

    As long as the Dem candidate gives people reasons to vote for themselves more than "I'm not Trump." "I'm not Trump" will lose again.

    There has to be at least some populist agenda proving that while you are not Trump your policies prove you also care about the majority of Americans. If that doesn't happen, Trump wins easier than last cycle - at least my thoughts.


    • Like 1
  4. 22 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

    But what is Biden's route to  a majority of the delegates? His support is stagnant with what may be a plurality but nothing close to a majority. Even if Warren doesn't get to a straight out majority of the delegates herself, hers plus Bernie's will probably still total enough to keep Biden from getting to the convention with enough to win, and once the horse trading starts, I have a hard time seeing either the Sanders or Warren delegates going to Biden instead of each other.

    Don't exactly know that for certain right now, but if he gets through Super Tuesday either first or right in the thick of it, his dynamics will change. You'll see the establishment jump on Biden hard as a moderate is truly what they want to win this race - within the party and within the elite.  Would it change enough to where he can get the majority of delegates? I don't know. I don't know if anyone will. But it could keep it close enough that when the second round begins and super delegates are included, Biden could win the nomination.

    One thing is certain. We've been hearing about Biden's eventually fall since about the first debate. It hasn't happened. He's still right there and if his voting block remains strong, he's going nowhere.

  5. On 10/27/2019 at 2:12 PM, mtutiger said:

    Please share.

    Regardless, calling people 'idiots' is a terrible way to bring them over to your side. And Warren will need Biden supporters should she win the nomination 

    I remembered reading somewhere that after one of the debates where Biden had seriously struggled it was polled that one of the reasons he didn't lose much ground may have been the fact that most of his supporters didn't even watch the debates and didn't see how much he struggled. I think I found the poll that it was discussing. Actually this was the link connected to that story.



  6. 17 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    She came to Michigan. She literally held an event about a mile from where I live. 

    I spoke in extremes and shouldn't have but... 


    She wasn't here much at all. I think once very early during the general (think Sanders came with her but I could update be wrong on that) and she came very late and did two rallies within the same date after it looked like she may lose the state. 

    Michigan was way too important for that lack of attention.  

  7. 12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    Hillary still got 3 million more votes than both Trump and Sanders. We have to be like Trump and only focus on a base in a handful of states instead of the country at as a whole. 

    It would've been nice if Clinton could've come to the key states like Michigan and actually discussed policy that would've supported these states. But the more people hear Clinton, the less they like her and compounding matters even if she did something like that, her legitimacy of those populist comments would be laughable. That's why she didn't come to these states. And some of it may have been ego and arrogance.

  8. 5 hours ago, mtutiger said:

    This comment is dripping with arrogance and disdain. The kind that helped Trump win in 2016.

    If it makes you feel better, his demographic is the 50-plus camp. And those people are usually unwavering and will vote for certain. He doesn't have "enthusiasm" of other candidates when you are talking about volunteering, going to rallies or donating, but they are enthusiastic in terms they will stick with their candidate and vote. The longer this stays a multiple-person race, the better for Biden - just as long as he stays near the top or remains at the top. 

    His demise has been declared by many, but with his loyal elder base, if it does happen, it's not happening anytime soon.

  9. 2 hours ago, Yoda said:

    No dem made you vote for him. 

    I don't know where I said I voted for Trump.


    Those who looked at both parties not supporting them and saw how Clinton was actually to the right of the few policies she expressed did. A large group of people who voted for Obama twice went to Trump.

  10. I have Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank on my bookshelf near my "reading station." I need to start reading it instead of my Tiger books. :) I guess I haven't read it yet because I've gotten the cliff notes on it through interviews. It talks about the Dem party's shift from the working class to the professional class. 

    I will look for Michael Hirsh's writing.

  11. 10 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

    I think this is mostly correct.  I ***** about Trump because he is a horrible human being and I hate seeing "half" the nation fall in love with a con man.  However, I think both sides are more interested in helping themselves politically and financially than they are in serving the people.  People have caught on to this.  Unfortunately, they haven't caught onto Trump's populist con job, so he has a good chance of being re-elected.    

    Trump is what we get when two parties do this. He's as much the Dem's doing as the Republicans. 

    • Like 1
  12. That would be fine if the party didn't take an active role in influencing who wins the nomination. 

    It's going to be either Biden, Warren or Sanders. I think we should be able to agree to  that being pretty obvious - that's unless Clinton joins. If that happens, I think she takes enough votes from Biden and some from Warren and Sanders may become the front runner. However, he won't get enough of the vote to win it with 50-plus people percent probably. Can we say second round super delegates? Heck, without Clinton in it that may happen. 

    Biden voters are among the least informed and most probably have no clue how much he's stumbling and bumbling through this entire campaign so far. Most still look at him fondly as Obama's VP and the establishment party officials and media are working hard to protect him at all costs. The key to his campaign is if this remains the case through the first couple of states so he pushes forward well enough to win South Carolina and the southern Super Tuesday states. Then whatever he's done won't matter and he may remain the front runner with the party and media protecting him. If the party can get away with it he'll win a second round super delegate battle. But he's so corrupt, he easily loses to Trump as Trump takes the offensive to Biden's corruption. Trump's base doesn't worry about his corruption and will come out to vote. Biden - a Republican posing as a Dem - will not inspire and will lose horribly. 

    Warren can fight a legitimate policy battle with Trump, but her stories of her heritage and some inconsistencies with other life experiences will be polarized, her wishy washy views on medicare for all and willingness to take money from corporations and big donors in the general (funding the DNC is funding her campaign as much as she may not admit it) may hurt her. She could beat Trump. She needs to make sure it's a policy battle and convince people she is on their side and will fight. 

    Sanders's issue is the primary. If he wins it (and right now he may be No. 3 to do that) he beats Trump in the general because he does represent change - or at least the fight for it. He wins the policy battle with Trump easily because Trump can't legitimately go to the left of Sander with fake populist rhetoric as well as he did against Clinton. He has 30 years of consistency for being a fighter for the people. But winning the primary will be very tough with the party and the corporate establishment against him. That becomes a benefit in the general. 

    With the people currently in the race these are the ones who can win the primary (the others would need what I'd consider party corruption to have any small chance) and I see how they can win. Buttigieg (think I spelled it right) may have a small chance to win the primary if the DNC abandons Biden for him, and there a subtle hints that could Ben happening. If that happens though, Biden voters have Warren or Sanders as their second choices right now, so it's hard seeing Buttigieg being more successful than Biden in that moderate Dem role.

  13. On 10/23/2019 at 1:23 PM, 313DetroitCity said:

    How is she doing outside of Minnesota? She is uninspiring and her candidacy has largely been "Sanders & Warren are promising too much".

    You don't win a national election when you're a moderate during your primary. She is going to be unable to rally support and get key demographics out to vote, even within the Democratic party.

    This. If the Dems don't run on legitimate populist ideas that will help people's daily lives, the Dems are going to lose. And one by one, each does something to prove they are more fighting against Trump with platitudes instead of policies. Why? Because they really don't want to rock the boat on their gravy train, which means they really don't want to see legitimate change. All they really want is Trump out of office so it can be corruption as it was prior to him for both parties. The problem they are running into is a Dem base that's more progressive than their policies, and that's getting more exposed every day to more and more people. How many Dems voted for the balloon-sized military budget that gave Trump even more than he asked for despite the fact they all say he's a danger to our society? How many Dems will actually fight to change the Trump tax bill if they get in office? Not guessing very many. And now let's look at medicare for all - we are down to exactly one candidate who hasn't changed his/her stance on it. Everyone has hedged on it now, which means even if it remains their ideal (which it doesn't) then they won't fight for it. We'll end up with some modifications from the Republican think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and it will fail. We'll end up with a private option with mostly old and sick in it which will raise the costs of any government plan, result in a two-tier medical system based on private care and government care and it will fall flat on its face so people can say "See, medicare for all doesn't work." Most Dem candidates don't care if this is the eventual conclusion because they want that money from those donors just as much as Republicans do.

    Klobuchar doesn't do anything at the national level to beat Trump. She's one of the people I was talking about above.

    A Democrat won't win a general election anytime soon unless they fight for a populist agenda, or at least fake the population that they are seeking a populist agenda.****, Trump lied but a decent amount of his rhetoric was populist while Clinton actually argued to the right of Trump on some of those issues. Look who inspired his base and look who didn't. Look who won and look who lost.

    Of course, most of this is basically my opinion on these issues, but I think I have a reasonable pulse on this.

    • Thanks 1
  14. 12 hours ago, Deleterious said:

    Ugh.  If Jackson and Drummond are both on the roster at this time next year.  I might have to start watching curling with DTroppens.  

    The Thursday league I run is the largest in our curling club! We'd love to have you. :)

    My first trip to the club is Sunday! It has clearly made my Sundays during football season a much happier time.


  15. 1 hour ago, Betrayer said:

    I had season tickets for 14 years at the Palace. Once they moved I only went to 1 game.

    However, I moved to North Carolina recently, so I'll get a chance to see them play in Charlotte on Nov 15th wearing all my Piston gear.  Looking forward to being the visitor and cheering when everyone else is booing.

    So you moved to Charlotte so you could see more Pistons games live? :)

    I drove through Charlotte during a vacation to South Carolina this summer. I think I may have passed by the stadium while stuck in a traffic jam on the expressway on the way back home (at 10:30 p.m. no less), so I know where the stadium is. Maybe we should meet up for the Pistons game. :)

    I'm a bit embarrassed that I haven't been to a game since they left the Palace. I've been to more Pistons games in Milwaukee than LCA.

  16. 16 hours ago, Buddha said:

    how does the move from an arena they own to an arena they rent add to the value of the franchise?

    The first thought that popped into my mind was, "Well, he can relocate the franchise to another city/state he finds more financially desirable."

    How long is the Pistons lease anyway?

  17. 1 hour ago, holygoat said:

    I think I was the only one here who called this one out in the game thread.

    I don't think anyone said anything about this in the moment, either. I called it out in the game thread, but none of the announcers said anything.

    Is he being touched in this play? I honestly don't remember if the defender pushed him to the ground or if he dove to the ground, caught it and maybe his momentum took him in before being touched. I'll have to find the replay.

    I found one quick look at the play, but it was the actual initial footage. You can't tell from that angle.

  • Create New...