Friday Royals Talk: Dutton Praises Michael Young, Says He Could Have Been a Royal

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 11:21 AM EDT in Kansas City Royals News

I don't know if I could have survived the last decade if Michael Young had been around. Then again, he would have taught me so much about life, that maybe I wouldn't be a miserable failure. Today's impossible question: better leader: Francoeur, Young, or Kendall?

In other news, Royal Heritage looks back at the KC A's era, talk of the Cardinals' collapse in Game 2, Drays Bay breaks the Friedman-Angels news, a fascinating discussion of long-term diabolical trusts, Trotsky, and so much more.

Royals:

Baseball:

Rangers fans feel at ease among Cardinal Nation

Bernie: Cards' incredible ride stalls

Breaking: Andrew Friedman Seen Dining With Angels Owner Arte Moreno - DRaysBay

Grab Bag:

Tweet Comment 51 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What if we had all three players? Would we ever lose?

The impossible dream.

by KyleM on Oct 21, 2011 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

I saw the graphic on Lewis, but didn't notice the error:

Looks like FOX is getting ready for the elections next year.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Oct 21, 2011 11:38 AM EDT reply actions

I have no memory of him in KC

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Well he never suited up

Just a paper transaction. A Royal today, released a month later.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 21, 2011 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

I like how the state that is filled in for his stop for the Royal is Kansas, not Missouri, the state that the team is actually in…

Let's just trust the process.

by trusttheprocess on Oct 21, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

There Are Probably

More Royals fans in KS, but I doubt whoever created that graphic knows that.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Oct 21, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm…I bet there’s a higher percentage of kansans than missourians who are royals fans, but I’d wager that there is still a larger total number of Missourians who are fans.

Let's just trust the process.

by trusttheprocess on Oct 21, 2011 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

This sounds right.

by hawkinscm87 on Oct 21, 2011 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I Think This

Calls for a series of polls.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Oct 21, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

A rumor created by a 14-year-old kid's friend is going viral

And treated as if it were real. sigh The internet sucks.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 11:41 AM EDT reply actions

I saw his blog post..

And started dying of laughter. I don’t even think half the stuff he was saying was real.

I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.

2012 is the year we shine.

by Jack Marsh on Oct 21, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting stuff

I always love “coulda been” trades. Wasn’t that the time Baird had his huge hard-on for Kevin Mench? Wonder why he wasn’t discussed over Laynce Nix.

I remember back in ‘06 or maybe ’08 Dems getting all excited that the west was going to turn blue – Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, even Montana. Is that still on pace to happen due to demographics or did the Tea Party movement (which I can see having bigger legs out in the Libertarian west than in other areas) set it back? I covered the Nevada elections a bit and it seemed that while the GOP made some gains (won the Governorship pretty big with a charismatic ,Tea Party-sympathetic candidate), the legislative gains weren’t as big as expected and they didn’t even take back the Senate.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 21, 2011 11:47 AM EDT reply actions

It is still on pace

The southwest is turning more blue everyday. In part that is because of immigration into those states from blue states and the rest is from immigration from Mexico. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com fame said that had a non-Arizonan been running in 2008, Arizona would have been a battleground state, and that used to be an ultra-bright red state. Colorado and New Mexico are now more blue than red. Nevada is essentially purple now.

The Mountain West is more complicated. There is an increasing Latino population in those states which is making them somewhat more blue, but I think it is going to take a considerably longer time to purplize those states.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions

Demographics is destiny

The Latino population in this country is growing much faster than any other ethnic group. And unless the GOP can somehow turn them, it is going to lead to a massive electoral shift in this country. It will flip Texas and a great deal of the west, making a GOP presidential candidate inherently unelectable, and likely keep the House and Senate in Democratic hands on a near-permanent basis. Now it will take decades for this to happen, but it is essentially inevitable unless the GOP makes some significant changes.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions

It will be at least two decades before Texas flips

by BlueEyes_Austin on Oct 21, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Definitely. Probably more.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Latinos are for the most part Catholic

I think the GOP will sieze on that fact to turn the Latino voters toward the Republican vote.

talk to me, Johnny...

by johnny4 on Oct 21, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Aren't Catholics pretty split between the two parties?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 21, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

believe so...

there’s just a huge variety amongst catholics. heritage catholics in the northeast or rust belt, recent hispanic immigrant catholics in the southwest, conservative white catholics in random places…

it doesn’t really make sense to talk about catholics as a demographic voting block b/c theres too much dissimilarity

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

There don't even seem to be...

…undivided Roman Catholic voting blocs on individual issues anymore.

Despite the position of the Holy See, there are plenty of pro-choice Catholics in America. Old-school Catholic liberalism on labor issues doesn’t seem to command a majority view within the church anymore… I suspect opposition to the death penalty is probably still a majority view, but there’s nowhere near unanimity there, either, when it comes to individuals.

by kcemigre on Oct 21, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions

there is defniitely a spectrum

to be sure, there is a large, pretty committed, pro-life voting block… but i’ve never met anyone who votes on the death penalty, though I’m sure it is part of how many liberal catholics think

the thing about catholicism is that it is so connected to certain ethnic groups that its almost like judaism in some communities/people. i put myself in that category. being catholic is part of my heritage, but it isnt part of my political life and i’m not terribly religious. there’s a lot of this in Cleveland, where my wife is from, with the Irish, Italian, and Eastern European communities

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

…being catholic … isnt part of my political life and i’m not terribly religious…

Yeah… the lower-case “c” kind of gives you away. I actually typed the phrase “Holy Roman Catholic Church” in my last post before realizing how pompous that sounds and rephrasing with just the words “Roman Catholic.” I am pretty religious, but I don’t even know how being a Catholic would manifest in my political life if I wanted it to.

Anyway, I was talking about voting blocs in a hypothetical sense… like if there were some sort of death-penalty referendum… I don’t expect there are any death penalty “single-issue voters” out there. (Who would they vote for anyway?) I was just trying to think of something that might engender unanimity within the American Catholic community. I bet the death penalty comes closer than abortion, actually… but it’s still far from unanimous.

by kcemigre on Oct 21, 2011 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Are that many passionate about death penalty?

It seems like a pretty small group

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Texas says hey.

Nick Swisher is handsome. Johnny Giavatella close second.

by ChrisCEIT on Oct 21, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Passionate would be a small group.

But, I’m not talking about passion. I’m just talking about consensus. If you polled Catholics, most would oppose the death penalty. The pro-lifers, for obvious reasons (or maybe it’s not obvious since there are pro-lifers who don’t take this view—but Catholic pro-lifers generally tie their belief in some way to the Evangelium Vitae, meaning they have to be consistent about God’s preference for life). And the more liberal wing… well, for the same reasons that liberals have opposed capital punishment for years.

I’m just saying you’d get a broader consensus that on most other issues that divide people. I’m also making this up as I go, so feel free to prove me wrong. This is the sense I get from the parishes I’ve been in over the years.

by kcemigre on Oct 21, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions

The GOP has been trying to play that angle to turn Latinos to their party for years

…and without success.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I do think Latinos would be more inclined to vote GOP

Because of the social issues which align closely with a lot of Latino values, but the illegal immigrant rhetoric turns a lot of them off, and a lot of the Latino population is still working class/poor which the GOP does not seem to cater too much. But elite, well-to-do Latinos – I can see them voting for the GOP in droves.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 21, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, the GOP is zeroing in on that all-important

Rich Latino Vote.

by kcemigre on Oct 21, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Who will court

Jose Guillen?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 21, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Who solves leg cramps that are actually fatal blood clots better?

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

My understanding is that the Cuban population in Miami

votes Republican in droves as a backlash to Castro.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Oct 21, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions

This is true.

The phenomenon doesn’t have much effect outside of Miami, though. Also, Cuban exiles are your go-to demographic if you want to break into the Watergate Hotel.

by kcemigre on Oct 21, 2011 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions

What I'm curious about

is where the numbers are headed for the Mormon population. Within Utah itself, I know it’s going down, if anything, but I’m not sure about the surrounding states. Given the aggressive recent media push by the church on top of the normal missionary activities.. I wonder. It would obviously be helpful for the Republicans but would still pale compared to the immigration factor.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Oct 21, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Its becoming a factor

But is operating at a lower demograhic level

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 1:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Speaking of Fox

So when is Fox going to start moving more spokes-models to their sports division? Fox News is filled with bubble-headed bleached blondes because anyone can read the news and occasionally spurt out what is being fed to them in their earpieces. Why not move them to Fox Sports as well? And I’m not just talking about sideline reporters. Why not have them in the studio as well? If they had five of Fox’s “best” such “news women” on that horrible Sunday morning pre-game show, I might be willing to watch it.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 21, 2011 11:48 AM EDT reply actions

Fox baseball production

Is making me appreciate espn

And i just cant handle Buck anymore at all… His complete lack ofenergy and insight is amazing

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

I love Trotskyists

It’s like running into a Neo-Nazi who says, “yes, I’m a Nazi, but I supported the brownshirts!”

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 21, 2011 1:34 PM EDT reply actions

Yes, Trots are amusing

In fact, stirring the pot among all the left’s factions is always an edifying activity.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Oct 21, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions

The compound interest thing is fun to read about

A lot of the appreciation is eaten away by inflation over that period of time. It’d be interested in a straight dollar for dollar comparison. Yes you have many more dollars, but each one is worth nearly that much less.

I think the democrats face some issues within their party as well. Many of the antiwar, antidrug, civil liberties democrats have to either be frustrated by their elected or think along the lines of “well my guy can be trusted with the patriot act” etc. Same as Republicans do with their bloviated about smaller government.

I am coming to think that being a Libertarian within the Republican party just will not work. The combination of warmongers and social do gooders is too much. I do think that it may be possible to run as a “Jeffersonian Democrat” in that you are for less centralization while protecting civil liberties and being anti interventionist. That speaks to my libertarian ideals, and I’m much more willing to help people with welfarism than kill everyone on the planet.

There’s a huge middle of the country being swung from one direction back to the other, evert 2, 4 or 8 years. We need to open up the party system, at least. Let’s allow 10 different parties equal ability to get on the ballots and make them build coalitions. The 2 party system alienates the biggest chunk of the population and is very broken.

Obviously, you are not a golfer.

by Kyled85 on Oct 21, 2011 2:53 PM EDT reply actions

i think a true multi-party system might allow people to vote for their beliefs easier...

but i’m not sure it would lead to more representative govt. in coalitions, people end up voting for Party A because of X issue, then they go into govt with other parties and are forced to compromise anyway

by Freneau on Oct 21, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree

but I do think having more choices allows for each individual to have a better shot of having their representative’s ear. It’s not a lot, but if we’re being pragmatic that’s what I’d want to start with.

Obviously, you are not a golfer.

by Kyled85 on Oct 21, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe you didn't understand.

Nick Swisher is handsome. Johnny Giavatella close second.

by ChrisCEIT on Oct 21, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think so

The compromise would come with having to legislate, whereas now the voter themselves have to compromise on who to choose.

Big difference.

Obviously, you are not a golfer.

by Kyled85 on Oct 21, 2011 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I think what Will was getting at was that the election system might need to be completely revamped.

In order for the Libertarian Party to get 4% of the seats in congress, they need to win 4% of the congressional seats. It’s a hard thing to do, really. In, say, England, merely 4% of the voters nation-wide are needed to get 4% of a Party into the House of Commons.

Put it this way – according to Gallup – 41% of voters identify themselves at independent, and that number is almost always higher than either of the Ds or the Rs, but congress is nearly 100% D or R. There’s very little chance that an individual’s representative is giving their constuitency any, uh, ear.

Nick Swisher is handsome. Johnny Giavatella close second.

by ChrisCEIT on Oct 22, 2011 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions

you nailed it

“41% of voters identify themselves at independent, and that number is almost always higher than either of the Ds or the Rs, but congress is nearly 100% D or R.”

This is because of the difficulty of getting onto a ballot as a 3rd party candidate. It’s not that people wouldn’t choose another path, it’s that the path isn’t there for them currently.

I do agree very little influence can be used my an average individual, though I still maintain this would move it in that direciton. Small steps.

Obviously, you are not a golfer.

by Kyled85 on Oct 22, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions