HuskerNation1

I read that Roberts' PSU visit didn't go great, and his announcement date has been set for April 21. Feeling good about this one!

Such great news...welcome Tristan. Let's keep the Calibraska train moving with Holmes and more.

TA was also a redshirt freshman in 2013. It would be asking a lot of POB to step in and be a potential starter as a true freshman if TA were to be ineffective or get injured. Well I don't think anyone is asking POB to start game 1, but if he is truly the best backup in the group, I'd rather him get some experience in this season so he's ready to take over in 2017. Also, from all that I have heard, POB's football IQ and mechanics as a true freshman will be better than Martinez's as a redshirt freshman.

Very nice discussion in this thread. It will be interesting to see if POB ends up at #2 by August. I think if he's #2 or a coin toss with Fyfe, he needs to NOT redshirt this year. We all saw what happened with Taylor Martinez his senior year which paved the way for TA to start as a freshman. I'm not saying this will happen, but as much as TA likes to run the ball, the chances of getting banged up are pretty good. On top of that, if TA continues what he has done the past 3 years and uses bad judgment, Riley might be more inclined to trying out #2 who has the QB fundamentals down despite the lack of playing time.

Well Riley has been very clear that he wants to be in the top 3 in rushing in the league, so I don't believe the UCLA outcome was a fluke. I think he realizes that to be the head coach at NU, and to compete in the Big Ten, a strong rushing attack is necessary. Now NU could still be in the top 3 in rushing AND pass a lot if they average over 500 yards a game, which is not unthinkable. Also, with all the speed and talent we have at wideout, we can gain 20% of our rushing yards in each game using the wideouts (jet sweep). I know NU did not do as well as the jet sweep last year, but I think with more practice they can improve.

I'm curious everyone's thoughts on Coan vs Gebbia. It's hard to tell just from their videos, but both guys have advantages for NU besides their actual talent. Coan-Pulling him in gives us some mobility and would prevent a good QB going to our top competition in the BIG West Gebbia-Pulling him in helps continue the California pipeline which could lead to additional recruits I think I like Coan's mobility so that might give him an ever so slight edge, but it's hard to say.

Count me as one of the 40% of Conservatives that cannot vote for Trump. It's so sad that the top 2 choices this November are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Seriously, we have millions of Americans, and this is the best both parties can come up with?

If POB feels comfortable, and is willing, and the coaches think he is the best backup, I'm OK with him playing. Obviously, I don't think it would be a good idea if it amounts to POB seeing a grand total of 10-15 snaps in garbage time all season and that's it. But if he earns the PT, wants to do it and there are beneficial snaps to be had, I say let him play. I wouldn't be surprised if Fyfe maintains the back-up spot, though. I know people let the Purdue game stick in their minds but the team came out of that game feeling more confident in Fyfe's abilities. I think that it would be best for POB to redshirt this year if he's not going to start, I think Fyfe is a reliable enough back-up to handle that for another year. If POB actually is better than Armstrong right now, then I'm definitely okay with him starting. But I doubt that he will overtake TA as a freshman. I haven't seen much of Tanner Lee, but what I could find didn't blow me away. He seemed to be average on a below average team. But we'll see what he can do with the talent we have around him here as opposed to Tulane. If I were a betting man, I would say the chances are good that TA starts, Fyfe backs up, and POB redshirts. Tanner Lee is kind of a variable for next year. But you never really know this early, I just have a hard time seeing the staff burn a year with POB just so he can be the back-up. If POB is the best backup, and has the ability to play in some games, I see no problem with him being ready to fill that role this season as it will make him better should be be the started in 2017. When you are in a position where you may have to step in at a moment's notice to lead the team, it forces you to understand the playbook and offense early in the season, and he will pick up on more things with that mindset this year as a backup. Now if he's going to be 4th on the depth chart and there is question about him starting in 2017, then I do agree to redshirt.

I agree on both points, but someone has to knock Trump around to point out just what an awful candidate he is. Trump has gotten months of free air time for saying vulgar outrageous things, and the media has helped prop him up. Here is my assessment of what has transpired: 1. All media outlets, but especially the mainstream media, have given Trump plenty of great airtime to improve his standing in the GOP race. 2. The mainstream media has secretly been hoping for Trump to be the nominee in hope of Hillary having an easy victory in November. 3. In recent weeks, the reality of Trump winning the nomination is starting to spook the MSM, and they are now finally pushing back on his candidacy more than they had the prior 6-9 months. They are terrified he could somehow beat Hillary and become the POTUS. I honestly have many Conservative friends and do not know any that are supporting Trump. I really don't understand who is voting for him, but I do feel he's getting a great deal of support among Reagan Dems and lower/middle class whites that typically don't care about politics.

Just like Trump and Christie had an alliance before New Hampshire...I think Cruz and Rubio are forming one, and if Cruz does poorly in the SEC states, even if he eeks out a win in Texas, I think he will bow out as he would rather have Rubio win than Trump. I think you have a point...but I still think Cruz wants to be a supreme court justice Yes his interest in the supreme court has been reported on townhall and other sites, but it would require a gop win for president and holding on to the senate...something that wont happen with Trump as the nominee.

I perceived it as that also. You'd have to be pretty biased against Trump to say he got owned. At this point, the republicans have a choice to make. They can either nominate Trump or choose not to nominate him and lose a lot of the republican votes in the general election when he runs as an independent. Quite the quandary for people who don't like him. I just pray this thing doesn't end up with Clinton or Sanders getting the nomination because either of those seem like a disaster and - in the case of Hilary - corruption waiting to happen. Heres the thing...most Conservatives I know will simply not vote for President if Trump is the nominee...they will vote for other races....or they will write in someones name. Trump is getting a lot of support now from Reagan democrats...that is why you are seeing so many more people voting on the GOP side rather than in the Democratic primary. So i do think he would add these swing voters in a general election but will lose many mainstream and far right conservatives.

Just like Trump and Christie had an alliance before New Hampshire...I think Cruz and Rubio are forming one, and if Cruz does poorly in the SEC states, even if he eeks out a win in Texas, I think he will bow out as he would rather have Rubio win than Trump.

Short answer is not at all. It may have helped remove the debate beatdown Trump took last night, but Christie is loathed by many conservatives. Theres a reason he had to bow out after the 2nd contest.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that Christians have partook, and/or channeled their anger, and outrage towards the less fortunate minorities that don't go about this world the way they see fit. I mean, by and large they are the most hypocritical of people. I am very disappointed in the 'evangelical' vote. I guess I would fit into that camp theologically. Some people are too easily swayed by the pride of 'nationalism' (Trump's message - because it isn't conservatism) and fail to realize or forget that as Christians, they belong to a higher kingdom. Yes, citizens of this world with all of the duties and responsibilities of being a citizen but yet ultimately accountable to a higher kingdom. In this case, Trump does not reflect the humble Christ of the Bible who came to serve and save mankind. Trump is an arrogant, self-centered, NASTY (a word he uses on others) dangerous person who is not worthy of a Christian's vote. However, one can argue the opposite of your last statement with the countless who live their faith daily helping others without fanfare or recognition. People channel their anger. That isn't a Christian thing or a non-Christian thing. Your last statement could be easily turned around on non-Christians (perhaps that is where you are at) who know the right thing to do and don't do it. Beware of throwing the 1st stone of blanket accusation. Great post TG...

Here's an illustration from the WSJ: From Pew: So income has been growing since the Reagan years began. At a trickle for almost everybody; in leaps and bounds for a select few. This has been allowed by policy that wasn't there before and doesn't have to be there today. It isn't even a matter of choosing which people to be concerned with. The existence and trending of this gap affects the shape of the entire country. To quip the Scientific American article from earlier, "Americans actually live in Russia"; we just think otherwise. A pertinent passage: It's simple. Wealthy people have knowledge of how money works and make money work for them. Poor and middle class people go to college, start their life with mounds of student loan debt, get a job (that in many cases a high school graduate could qualify for), and spend the rest of their lives complaining about how privileged the rich are. Its evident that income inequality has grown over the years, and moreso under Obama than others. The solution is not to tax the wealthy more though. I just saw a study that showed the top 40 or 50 wealthiest Americans (or something like that) are supplying 10 million jobs in the US just because of their investment in the free enterprise system. We need to find a way to encourage more entrepreneurs to take risks and get out of the lower class and in the process create more jobs. I think its great that the unemployment rate has dropped, but the number that has been used for years is misleading in that it does not factor in underemployment and those that have dropped out of the labor force or all called "missing workers." In the case of missing workers, if they were factored into the actual unemployment rate, it would be closer to 7%, and if you factor in all those that have left the labor force in the past 8 years, the unemployment rate would be even higher.

I agree with you that Trump is a joke and as a Conservative I'm embarrassed he's leading the GOP nomination right now. I posted on here before that he's the right's version of Obama in that both guys are extremely divisive. Obama goes about it in a more nuance way, while Trump is completely in your face. Trump is really the response to 7 years of incompetence and anger at Obama, but he is not the answer. We shouldn't elect one divisive incompetent President to replace another. Most Christians I know will NEVER vote for Trump even if it means losing to Hillary. There certainly are some evangelicals who are going for Trump, so not going to deny that, but I really think Trump is bringing in a lot of Independents and moderate Dems into the primary process that are disillusioned with politics and find him entertaining and a breath of fresh air.

My apologies if this has been posted before, but if not, this clip always brightens a rough day I'm having at work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCP9vOUd1o

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0 There are over 300 days between now and the end of Obama's term. That means he could nominate three different people, all of whom would be at or nearly tied with the longest it has ever taken for a Supreme Court nominee to be approved, in succession, between now and the end of his term. Failing to approve a reasonable candidate - or, as the link in the OP seems to indicate, three successive candidates taking historically long times to approve - would be seen as obstructionist by the voters. It would be disaster for the Republicans. I would nearly guarantee they will not go down that road. Well Obama could nominate someone that strictly interprets the Constitution like Scalia was and is not an activist judge. If he does that, I think he could get another justice through. Now the question is...would Obama do something like that, or would he try to put through another activist justice like Kagan and Sotomayor. If he really feels strongly that its vital to have a 9th justice this year, he would nominate a new Antonin Scalia.

I think it still is worthy to point out that this is 33-35% of the Republican base witch is roughly 23% of the entire voting population in the US right now. Typically I would not say this about a candidate. But, as you pointed out, he is stuck with his fanatical group of voters and I don't see him winning votes much outside that group. In the general election, I will be shocked if he gets more than 25-30% of the vote. And, that might even be really high. You are right that he has a ceiling of 35% (now he may get more in NV due to his casino ties), but for most states I don't see him getting 45 to 50% or more. Because the other 5 are sticking around, Trump will have such a big delegate lead it will be difficult...but not impossible...to stop. As for the general, he will get at least 45%....there is no way Hillary gets 55% as she is just as disliked as Trump. He actually will pull in many Independents, but will see a lot of Republicans stay home or simply write in another candidate's name.

Well, right now I think Trump is peeling off a lot of Independents and some Democrats in the primaries he has won so far. If it were a closed primary (meaning only declared Republicans could vote), I don't think he would have done as well in NH and SC. There are still a lot of Democrats out there who can't stand Hillary, especially blue collar voters, that would peel votes from her just as much as Rubio. And if Bloomberg ran as well, I think he would pull more votes in urban areas which would typically be the Democratic candidate's strength. I do think Rubio is aware that Trump could always break his pledge and run 3rd party which is why Rubio has not gotten into it with Trump just yet. Now that Rubio is surging a bit, Trump will start to take the gloves off and attack Rubio, and Rubio will have to find a different way to counter that gets his point across without sounding mean spirited or knocked off his game.

I don't think Rubio is a moderate...he's a mainstream conservative meaning he still have conservative views but is able to reach across to independents with his message. With that said, I would say he's way closer to center than say Obama or Hillary are on the Democratic side. Obama is about as far left as Ted Cruz is on the right, and Hillary is pushing to go even further left than Obama on every issue except for foreign policy.

At the end of today's vote, Trump will have won SC by 10 points...much less than the 15-20 point lead he had just a week or two ago. So Trump still is in control, but I do think he underperformed in SC, as did Cruz, and Rubio (and perhaps Kasich) overperformed. With Bush out, 75% of the votes will go to Rubio once the dust settles between those two, and the other 25% might go to Kasich if he remains in the race. As you look out ahead, Cruz is in the most trouble of the remaining top 3. Starting on March 15, the GOP begins to implement winner-take-all states, and none of those states are ones Cruz would be likely to win. In fact, more of those favor Rubio than Trump. So Trump will have a good delegate lead through middle of March, then I see it starting to trend toward Rubio. If Cruz stays in the race long enough, it could be that nobody gets enough delegates and its decided at the convention. How does that work? Do they kinda lobby for delegates to change their minds and then revote at the convention? It's funny. I want Rubio to win because I don't want there to be any chance of Trump becoming president. But I don't want Rubio to win because I don't want a Republican to win and he has the best chance out of anyone. He says lots of things I don't agree with but he's not batsh#t crazy like Trump and Cruz both are (imo). Rubio is my guy all the way, and has been from the start. I like his charisma, optimism, and inclusiveness that he brings to the table. I can see why Dems are scared of him and what he brings to the table. Plus, he is about the only candidate that did not grow up with privilege. As for the delegate process, I'm not an expert, but believe if no candidate gets to 1237, some candidates who have dropped out can encourage their delegates to support one of the remaining candidates. But with Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, they may all be around 25-40% and none could drop out. Thus, I think there is an actual vote on the floor of the convention that can take quite a bit of time, and it may be that the top 2 vote getters after the first round square off if nobody gets over 50% the first round.

At the end of today's vote, Trump will have won SC by 10 points...much less than the 15-20 point lead he had just a week or two ago. So Trump still is in control, but I do think he underperformed in SC, as did Cruz, and Rubio (and perhaps Kasich) overperformed. With Bush out, 75% of the votes will go to Rubio once the dust settles between those two, and the other 25% might go to Kasich if he remains in the race. As you look out ahead, Cruz is in the most trouble of the remaining top 3. Starting on March 15, the GOP begins to implement winner-take-all states, and none of those states are ones Cruz would be likely to win. In fact, more of those favor Rubio than Trump. So Trump will have a good delegate lead through middle of March, then I see it starting to trend toward Rubio. If Cruz stays in the race long enough, it could be that nobody gets enough delegates and its decided at the convention.

I'm interested to hear what everyone's predictions are for who both party's nominees will be, when they will be clinched, and who will then win the general election. I have to say that this is one of the most difficult years to predict, and we are already underway with the first few states. Democratic nominee-Hillary to clinch in April due to overwhelming advantage of party insiders/superdelegates. This assumes that she is not indicted. If she is indicted at some point, I can see Joe Biden coming in and trying to save the day at the DNC Convention. Republican nominee-I know Trump is the projected nominee by just about every pundit out there, but I think Rubio will be the eventual nominee. Trump can't seem to get past 35-40% of the vote, and it seems over half of the GOP would never vote for him under any circumstance. I think Rubio does better than expected in South Carolina, knocking Bush out of the race (and possibly Carson), and Kasich may drop out in the weeks to come, setting up a Trump, Cruz, Rubio showdown. If Rubio does not have the nomination in June, he will win it at the RNC convention. General Election-I look for Rubio to beat Hillary by 4-5 points. The wildcard is if Trump (or Bloomberg) run 3rd party and that could alter the percent but not winner.

Most people I know seem to think a four party system would work best. I tend to agree. If you think about it in terms of this years election: Far left: Sanders Middle left: Clinton Middle right: Trump, probably the governators Far right: Cruz It'd be very intersting if it was all four of these duking it out instead of the left and the right trying to whack all but one of their own. I would redefine this chart. 1. Socialist-Sanders 2. Far Left-Hillary 3. Center-left-Trump (I don't believe he's truly a Republican) 4. Center-Kasich, Bush 5. Center right-Rubio 6. Far Right-Cruz (and maybe Carson) There's no way to consider Trump left of center if one of his central tenants is to deport 11+ million illegal aliens and build a wall. I don't believe he really is a Republican either, though. His political views are really best described as a hodgepodge. I'd probably slide him into the Center category along with Bush and Kasich, ideologically. I just put him Center-right since he's running as a GOP. I agree with most of that, though. I'd argue that Clinton is more a Center-left candidate who's been pushed farther left as the election has worn on by Sanders. For the majority of her time in politics, she's had some strong centrist views on things. But she also veers to the far left on others. It could go either way to me, I guess. First off, Trump says whatever he wants to get attention. In November 2012 after Romney lost, Trump blasted Romney for alienating Hispanics by suggesting that they be deported. This was just 3 years before he began pushing his own deportation approach. Trump also have been pro-universal health care and continues to be though he wont' come out and say it fully. That is about as far left as you can go. And with so many other past leftist views, my gut tells me he's still a center-left guy despite his views on migration and immigration. Good discussion though.