Similar, I find SD to be generally pretty perceptive - if perhaps a bit prone to attributing motivations, and not hedging his opinions at all such that the result often comes off rather "black-pilly" (I don't think that's his intention per se, just that he seems like more a "facts don't care about your feelings" kind of guy).
Similar, I find SD to be generally pretty perceptive - if perhaps a bit prone to attributing motivations, and not hedging his opinions at all such that the result often comes off rather "black-pilly" (I don't think that's his intention per se, just that he seems like more a "facts don't care about your feelings" kind of guy).
So his takes on the observable effects are good (Kennedy running takes votes away from trump), but his takes on the motives might warrant a grain of salt (Kennedy doing it on purpose to hurt Trump / benefit the IC / whatever).
Similar, I find SD to be generally pretty perceptive - if perhaps a bit prone to attributing motivations, and not hedging his opinions at all such that the result often comes off rather "black-pilly" (I don't think that's his intention per se, just that he seems like more a "facts don't care about your feelings" kind of guy).
So his takes on the observable effects are good (Kennedy running takes votes away from trump), but his takes on the motives might warrant a grain of salt (Kennedy doing it on purpose to hurt Trump / benefit the IC / whatever).