Dr. Strangelove

Yes, Fauci was quite clearly totally comfortable working in the Trump administration. It was completely and totally obvious that they got along. I hear they still meet for lunch every Tuesday.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think fans or the administration would dream of retaining this coach if his last name wasn't Frost. Why you think fans aren't attached to the idea of Scott Frost - despite the overwhelming evidence that he's a disaster based on his record and trajectory of recruiting, and words straight from the ADs mouth - rather than accepting reality that he's not a good coach is on you.

I think the main point is.. option #3 is tied to #2. They really aren't seperate. Because if you replaced the name Frost (and the history behind that name, which is option #3 essentially) with "Coach X" with the same results, nobody would vote to retain him. But his name is Frost, he is a nice Nebraska boy, and despite the results in the field - a the guy buried this program so far into the trash heap that fans accept the worst recruiting class and what is likely the worst record in modern school history - the majority of fans are willing to retain him.

Our own AD: "There's not a lot of data to suggest this will work, let's be honest. But I also think, if there's a decision point - whether it's football or anything else, you know, Scott's a brother, he's a Husker, he's a Nebraskan" What part of that quote screams: "we're making decisions to win games!!" And not: "Scott is from here so even though I think we'll lose, it's better that he's a Nebraskan". I think fans in large part echo the sentiments of our AD. Which is, I hope he wins, he probably won't, but it's better him than somebody else.

I highly disagree. Fans, particularly older fans, long for the glory of the 90s and struggle to conceive of a scenario where an outsider comes in to replace the native son. If fans wanted to win, they wouldn't talk themselves into supporting the retention of a coach who has more losing seasons in his 4 seasons as the previous 46. A coach who's won fewer games than any other B1G West team in his 4 years. But let's be honest: Frost is here ONLY because he played here in the 90s. No outside coach would have anything close to this. Nor would they deserve it. But hey, it's better for a 90s guy to lower this program to the level of Illinois (who's beaten Nebraska two straight years) than for a non-Nebraskan to win games.

Frosts support hinges entirely on his stature as a former player. Even the AD has admitted as much. He said it won't work. Said Frost is family. Said he's a Nebraskan. Fans supported this move for exactly the reasons our own Athletic Director stated.

What about this is untrue? If any other coach had his record would they still be here? (The answer is no) Since the answer is no, what reason is there that Nebraska would keep a coach currently on pace to record the worst season since the 1950s and who's bringing in the worst recruiting class in the B1G and worst class in modern Nebraska history? (Hint: it's because he played here and fans long for the results he posted as a player) The rest of his article are full of stats which aren't exactly debatable.

Yeah and frankly Nebraska is kicking the can down the road. Frost is going to be here for another year or two before inevitably getting fired. He's not the guy. But Trev doesn't have the stones to fire a guy when half the fan base wants Scott Frost to succeed despite extremely overwhelming evidence that he's in over his head.

Don't worry guys, we're bringing in the worst recruiting class in Nebraska history. The cavalry is coming in the *checks notes* #71 class in the country, just behind Toledo at #70 and Central Michigan at #72. I'm sure kids next season will be ready to commit to a coach likely on the biggest hot seat in the country. But hey, he didn't treat a 175 pound slot receiver as a running back this year, causing him to transfer. So I guess things are improving around here.

The coaches are on record saying that Adrian is the starter and the possibility of a change is "not a story". I hope that Logan is ready to play next season, but the coaches seem to think Adrian is better even with a broken jaw, ankle injuries, and whatever else. Simply putting the teams struggles on Adrian is an easy way out. The reality is the team struggles tremendously in so many areas (pass blocking, run blocking, play calling, special teams) that a QB change isn't going to fix all of those issues.

It's pretty stupid. Yes, Martinez makes a lot of bad plays. But he's also the only threat we have at the position. It's not close. He's being protected by 2 of the worst tackles in the conference. The person calling plays for him puts the team in positions to lose.

I sincerely hope that wing of the party stops what they're doing, and I'm glad you're a Republican that does not go along with the Big Lie. The GOP is going to win elections, but as long as they're traditional Republicans and not the Trumpist wing of the party, that's fine. America does not need a high percent of its population believing in voting "fraud".

While we're at it, has your party decided if the elections last night were stolen or does that only apply when you lose?

Here's a pretty accurate take:

Many of the issues you bring up are true, a multitude of factors go into their failures last night and into their looming disaster in 2022. But issues like education polarization, continued identity polarization and demographic shifts point to much deeper issues for Democrats than policy or facing a difficult midterm cycle.

To be fair, your party doesn't have to do anything (or develop a policy platform) to win in 2022. While you're busy grappling with the overwhelming scientific consensus that Humans are causing climate change, the rest of the Republican Party can win by saying and doing nearly anything. They can do that for another 12-16 years in the Senate at least.

You're not wrong. American voters, particularly those on the right, aren't interested in confronting the problems this country is facing. But Democrats don't have a choice, they need to start winning elections. They can stick to their current coalition of educated Whites and a diverse coalition of voters concentrated in cities, but in that scenario they're going to lose rural white voters who control legislative power. They won't win Congress for two decades if current trends continue.

I agree with you for the most part. I do think you're giving to much credit to how much people care about policy - Democrats need to focus on issues like Healthcare, jobs, etc. But they need to frame those policies in a way that is harmful to Republicans and comes across as patriotic. For example, they need to promote renewable energy development, but not to fight climate change. Phrase the issue (truthfully) that it's a national security imperative so America can compete with Chinese made solar/wind products and that our future energy is independent. What you said about racism is spot on. Even if there's truth to racism and how it impacts various issues, stop mentioning it.

There's a reason Trump's opening foray into politics was schilling the conspiracy that Obama is not American. Once he won that part of the Republican Party - which is sizable but not a majority - the rest of the voters were won via his anti-elite messaging. (Which of course is ironic coming from Trump for many reasons). Those voters aren't outright racist, but simply don't care about perceived racism or don't believe it's an issue in society today.

I don't think there's much Democrats can do to combat Republican messaging. But you can't act like Republicans don't run on race issues when CRT - something that doesn't exist - was central to their campaign. Or the numerous ways Trump ran on race (Rapists and murders, Obama isn't American, etc.). The problem Democrats have to face is they simply have to agree with them on these issues in order to be competitive. That doesn't mean that Republicans aren't guilty of fanning racial flames, it just means that they've gotten away with it in such a way that Democrats have to join them.

All of that is somewhat true (you don't believe climate change is caused by humans for example, even though the scientific evidence is overwhelming). As a Republican yourself, are you hoping Trump runs again? I personally guessed Trump has a ~60% chance to win while a non-Trump candidate would probably be much higher. It'll be interesting to see what they decide to do.

When running on issues may not help them. They're simply going to have to move further to the right on many of them. They need to move further to the right on issues like Immigration while trying to craft a winning message on healthcare. Whatever they do, they face an uphill battle.

The picture on the left is deplorable. What was your party's platform in 2020 again? Oh, have you decided if Obama was born in Kenya or if Mexican's are rapists and murders? I mean you voted for a guy who started his political career with those statements, so I'm just wondering which of those stuck work you in order to win your vote. You also voted for him after he couldn't disavow white Supremecy on national TV. I'm sure none of this has to do with white grievance. But don't worry @Archy1221, your party is going to win elections for the next 20 years. Just do us all a favor, try not to elect another guy accused of sexual assault by 2 dozen women (or at least doesn't have an untold number who've signed NDA's).

The R candidate ran on education and CRT - something not taught in VA schools (or any elementary or high school in the country). Republican voters have successfully used white grievance to convince white voters to vote with them. Most Republican candidates don't even bother to produce a policy platform because they don't have to. Democrats, unfortunately, are tethered to reality. They're burdened by believing in pesky things like Climate Change, science, do diseases get you sick, racism, etc. To compete with Republicans they're going to game to abandon some of that messaging.

I don't think there is a winning strategy for Democrats. The electorate responds to grievance and identify; not policy. The Democratic party has absolutely no way to reverse this trend. They're simply going to have to hope voters change by the 2030s.