Bryan Medema

Sorry for the delay in posting this- Best of luck in week 3![attachment=2667:ImageUploadedByBtownBanners1443276141.232428.jpg][attachment=2668:ImageUploadedByBtownBanners1443276155.204913.jpg]

Still waiting for "the Donald" to actually make a policy point. One. Just one. He knows he'll get buried. 

Scott Walker showing life. Did not see that coming. 

I lost on the over/under Ronald Reagan mentions during intros. Won on first to break the 11th commandment at least. 

This reminds me of the 2004 debates where Kerry and Bush entered intense negotiations over the details such as how they couldn't be photographed next to each other from certain angles because Bush is significantly shorter than Kerry.

My issue is that I don't see Trump expanding his potential voter pool unless he shifts gears (which in and of itself could diminish his current crop of supporters). In my opinion his best move is to start acting like a professional (not a politician neccessarily) and laying out actual policy points. It would help his credibility with other GOP voters and potentially swing some votes his way. I think he's reached his apex of support amongst people who will support him on his antics alone- he needs substance to continue building.   As for the handling Trump part, I think that a few candidates need to make that move as a means of establishing their own position (in the same vein). For the more established candidates (Bush, Rubio come to mind) they need to skewer him on any moves towards explaining policy (where he'd be tremendously outmatched).   The wild cards are Carson and Fiorina in my mind. If Carson gets more aggressive he could see the needle continue to move, but it could also expose him to "foot in mouth" disease that is a plague to debaters. Fiorina probably has the least to lose but the most to gain. Based on her ability to balance the ticket (in theory at least) she'll never truly fade away, but she could stand to make enough noise to start being mentioned with the big boys.   All told, my guess is that: Trump will shy away from policy questions, Bush will attack this, Carson will not be aggressive enough to make a big impression, Fiorina will be aggressive but will struggle to find her footing with Cruz/Trump hogging that tactic, and Rubio will continue to bide his time (I think he's doing the best job playing the long game personally). Oh, and the rest will certainly be on stage. Yup. They'll be there (I have nothing else to say about their respective roles).

So...back on the debate. What do each of the candidates need to do to "win" tonight? For our purposes lets define winning as expanding your pool of potential voters while retaining what you have.

Maybe if she makes it to the GE, but during the GOP primaries I doubt it'll be an issue.

I'm baffled by her. By virtually every account she did terribly as the CEO of Hewlett Packerd and has no political experience (I know some see this as a positive, but I remain firm that a knowledge of the systemic capabilities of the executive within the system is critical to presidential success). She's worth watching and I think she has a strong chance to end up on the ticket as VP, especially if she's used to balance against the perceived vaginal advantage of HIilary Clinton.

Cuban has said he'd run against the Donald as a Democrat. They apparently do not like each other.

Vaguely on topic- One of the main arguments against the 10 Commandments is that it distinctly says "You shall keep no other God" which is a strict endorsement of one religion over others.

    I already had to publish an 8-page refute to Trump's candidacy but the most important aspect was:   DONT STEAL YOUR SLOGAN FROM THE ONLY PRESIDENT TO BE FORCED TO RESIGN

Pretty amusing that you bring up Reagan given that I consider him a prime example of a successful executive (success defined as pushing your agenda regardless of impact) despite my belief that the long-reaching effects of the war on drugs will destroy his legacy. I see a successful president as fitting either his or Johnson's mold (charmingly charismatic versus incredible political talent) and, frankly, I don't see any in the field with those kinds of credentials. The more brash (and inexperienced) members of the field will be absolutely steamrolled by congress while the few politically savvy candidates (i.e. Clinton, Sanders) lack the necessary public charm to turn opinions. 

At least you didn't do my usual strategy of "score the 2nd most pts but play the highest scorer"

Politics aside (that is to say specific beliefs, policies, etc) the biggest issue with the majority of the field is that none of them look like they will be effective executives. We (Americans) tend to dramatically overestimate the actual powers of the presidency which is best wielded by a certain type of personality. The best comparison for most of the firebrand types is LBJ, but none of them have his political finesse. Clinton is probably the only candidate who understand how to maneuver Congress, but other issues would mire her. TLDNR- We have a bunch of campaigners and legislatures but no proper executives.

I don't like Carson, but that's just fantastic.

Week 1 PPR [attachment=2599:ImageUploadedByBtownBanners1442328408.716919.jpg]results [attachment=2598:ImageUploadedByBtownBanners1442328394.260502.jpg]

If it helps, I had him in two leagues where I was heavily favored already...but against me in a league where the projection was very narrow. Damn you Gronk.

My score is looking a little inflated.

Best of luck everyone*- lets get this started! *Except my weekly opponent

EIU: W AP: W Creighton: W Wake Forest: W Maui: 2-1 Alcorn: W @Duke: L Morehead: W IPFW: W McNeese St: W Notre Dame: W Kennesaw: W @Rutgers: W @Nebraska: W Wisconsin: W Ohio State: W @Minnesota: W Illinois: W Northwestern: W @Wisconsin: L Minnessota: W @Michigan: L @Penn State: W Iowa: W @MSU: L Nebraska: W Purdue: W @Illinois: W @Iowa: W Maryland: W   26-5 (Did I miscount?)

Is it just me or is this the most favorable schedule we've seen in years? We seemed to avoid any rough stretches (which could be good or bad given the team's occasional failure to show up for "lower" opponents) and we get a pair of (relatively) easy B1G road games to start. I like it. I like it a lot. 

- Where would you go in a zombie apocalypse? WALMART Distribution Center- All the supplies with less people. - Where would you go in a post non-zombie apocalypse if it were different than with zombies? Closer to or further from the equator. - What weapon would you use in both? Primary and Secondary weapons. Semi-Automatic Rifle with a 5.56 round (common, light, destructive enough to destroy the brain). Secondary would be some sort of fragmentary explosion (home made or otherwise) intended to destroy mobility. "Sweep the legs" - Describe your ideal community in the apocalypse. Would you do a Woodbury/Alexandria, prison, or find a farm/secluded home? Suburban planned community a good distance outside of a major city- High chance of professionals (IE Doctors, engineers, etc), a population likely willing to do manual labor for their children's sake, long, open, straight streets ideal for long range defense. Close enough to a city to conduct raids, far enough away from it to avoid herds. - Do you get a group together or survive alone? Together. I'm surrounding myself with doctors, dentists, pharmecists, engineers, manual laborers, skilled craftsmen, etc. - Initial survival strategies and ones you put off? Ex: stock pile ammo, security, resources, etc- Secure food and water, minimize engagements with zombies, seek out skilled neighbors, friends etc.

1 Hour 'til PPR Draft. Let's do this!

Bite your tongue and perish the thought, Sir!