Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

No. Sorry. Support for high-end tax increases will not propel the Democrats to victory. Not that the public opposes high-end increases. But it is not an important issue for the larger public.

Any issue that forces more focus on what will surely be a miserable(r) economy is bad for the incumbents.

Obama cannot win on details. He will have to muster some more of that hopey-changey magic and woo the voting public to his side with rhetoric. Though, he can probably just go off to an island somewhere and let the GOP candidate (whichever one it is) kill themselves with idiocy.

Too bad Bernie Sanders wasn't applicable for the Super Committee. He would have been a great pick.

Definitely. If you like the outcome of the triggers.

 

[Chichikov]

Vote for Rick Parry? What the hell...

It's intentionally misspelled.
Rick Perry is not on the ballot for the Iowa straw pole, and a bunch of super PACs are running a right-in campaign.

 

[Mike M]

It's intentionally misspelled.
Rick Perry is not on the ballot for the Iowa straw pole, and a bunch of super PACs are running a right-in campaign.

Is this an intentional metajoke or fortuitous unintended irony?

 

[mckmas8808]

Governor Rick Perry: Big On Prayer, Not So Big On Charity

WASHINGTON -- Texas Governor Rick Perry sounded a humble note during his speech at his national prayer event last Saturday. In front of some 30,000 people, he pivoted away from the Tea Party rhetoric that had so typified -- and electrified -- his audiences during the past year. Instead, Perry opted for a vague plea for charity.

After introductory remarks, Perry gushed: "Like all of you, I love this country deeply. ... Indeed the only thing that you love more is the living Christ. But our hearts do break for those who suffer, those afflicted by the loss of loved ones, the pain of addiction, the strife that they may find at home, those who have lost jobs, who have lost their homes, people who have lost hope."


Yet Perry's money hasn't answered many prayers. A review of his tax records from the mid-1990s through 2009 show the governor has contributed very little to charity. When he has, Perry has given mainly to charities connected to his family, and even then, his donations have sometimes been slight. An analysis by the San Antonio Express-News in mid-June reported that of his $2.68 million, Perry "gave half a percent to churches and religious organizations, or $14,243."


The Express-News goes on to note: "By comparison, Americans averaged gifts of nearly 1.2 percent of their incomes to churches and religious groups from 2004 to 2008, according to Empty Tomb Inc., an Illinois-based research firm specializing in U.S.-church giving trends."

When asked about the governor's contributions, a senior Perry adviser told The Huffington Post that Perry is not wealthy and never has been. The adviser did not know the details of Perry's various donations. The Governor's Office did not return a request for comment.

In 1996, Tax records show [PDF], the Perrys reported $182,318 in adjusted gross income with just $626 in gifts. Of that, $400 was non-cash donations to Goodwill. Most of the rest went to groups with a Perry tie: $100 to Perry's alma mater Texas A&M, $76 to an A&M booster group and $50 to Helping Hand Home for Children.

In 1998, according to tax records [PDF], the Perrys donated to their children's school, O'Henry Middle School. Their handout totaled $10. The Perrys later gave larger donations to Austin High School, when their two children attended in 2002 and 2003: They gave $50 each year to the school.

In 2007, tax records report [PDF] the couple donating a total of $90 to their church at the time, Tarrytown United Methodist. That year, they gave a total of $413 in cash contributions to charity. Their adjusted gross income was more than $1 million.

For many of his years in statewide elected office, Perry gave more in old clothes and used household items than cash. Goodwill and other thrift stores benefited the most from his largesse.

In 2002, the Perry family claimed in tax filings [PDF] $8,970 worth of clothes and shoes that they donated at a fair market value of $1,794.

In 2005, the Perry family claimed [PDF] one donation of clothing, shoes, and video equipment that came to $10,000 with a deductible market value of $5,000.


The Home, along with Tarrytown United Methodist Church, where the family worshiped for many years, was the biggest recipient of Perry charity.

Andi Kelly, spokeswoman for the Settlement Home, said the Perrys have long donated clothing and other items for the organization's charity garage sale fundraiser, as well as given cash contributions. The annual garage sale nets close to $500,000 for the home each year to support programs for abused and neglected children in the Austin area.

Anita Perry's "connection to us stems from her platform for helping children and empowering women, which aligns with the mission of The Settlement Home for Children," Kelly said in an email.

The Perrys have given large donations to other groups with a personal connection as well. In 2008, they gave $9,996 to the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault -- a nonprofit where Anita Perry worked.

"We were pleasantly surprised," recalled Torie Camp, the group's deputy director. "We did not know it was coming."

Perry did give more in some years than in others. In 2005, Perry gave more than $23,000, or about 12 percent of his income, to charity. While $6,235 of that value was in unwanted clothes, furniture and video equipment, he wrote checks for $5,000 to the United Fund of Cross Plains, Texas and almost $3,500 to the Helping Hand Home for Children. His increased giving may have come as a result of the pay raise he received that year.

Perry's inconsistent track record on charitable giving puts him in the company of at least one other Republican candidate. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, is able to raise significant sums for organizations whose goal is to promote him and his brand, but when it comes to collecting funds for charity, the fundraising magic disappears. In 2009, tax records show, the Gingrich Foundation gave away just $135,000 to various organizations; Renewing American Leadership, Gingrich's right-wing Christian non-profit with heavy ties the evangelical community, spent more than double that amount just on promotional mailings.

Michael Nilsen of the Association of Fundraising Professionals said Perry's giving is "about average from what I've seen. Lower in some years, a little higher in some years" compared to other people in his income bracket.

Ken Berger, president of the watchdog group Charity Navigator, said someone in Perry's income bracket typically donates 3 to 4 percent of his or her income. "Some years he's below, some years above. Some years in the mid-range," he said, adding that Perry appears to have upped his contributions once he moved into the governor's mansion.

"Most of this is not showing a great philanthropist and also not showing anything significantly out of the norm," Berger said.
​

####################

Now of course this is a big deal, but can this hurt him in the GOP Presidential nom race?

 

[A Human Becoming]

Definitely. If you like the outcome of the triggers.

At this point I'm expecting the trigger to be better than anything the Republicans put forward. Besides, I don't think Bernie alone would cause that outcome.

 

[Oblivion]

Of all the excuses I've seen so far for why Obama governs the way he does, this one is probably the closest to reality:

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/...of-why-didnt-obama-come-out-fighting-in-2009/

 

[Veezy]

Why wasn't the super committee just Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, an Excel spread sheet, Quicken, a two pound bag of adderall, and enough red bull to put Snookie in a coma?

 

[Jackson50]

Too bad Bernie Sanders wasn't applicable for the Super Committee. He would have been a great pick.

Additionally, Al Franken. Or perhaps a less prominent Senator that would be palatable to the GOP such as Whitehouse. Hey, at least they did not appoint Nelson!

Now of course this is a big deal, but can this hurt him in the GOP Presidential nom race?

Maybe. But he better hope Jesus does not read the Huffington Post. Or post in PoliGAF.

 

[SoulPlaya]

All three of those guys have axes to grind with Obama for a variety of reasons. Smiley is mad at Obama because he never came on his show. West is mad at Obama because he and his mother weren't invited to the inauguration. Farrakhan is mad at Obama because he killed Osama Bin Ladin, and is waging war against his butt-buddy Gaddafi.

Farrakhan's anger I can somewhat understand, but West and Smiley are just being childish.

What? Outside of this article, West has made relevant and legitimate arguments about Obama.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of all the excuses I've seen so far for why Obama governs the way he does, this one is probably the closest to reality:

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/...of-why-didnt-obama-come-out-fighting-in-2009/

A lot of that makes sense to me. The only thing I find odd is this notion that the Obama administration didn't want more stimulus. They did. It was when the Congress came together during conference when the bill got chopped down by like $150 Billion.

Other than that, the guy does make a good point.

What? Outside of this article, West has made relevant and legitimate arguments about Obama.

When he made the assertion that Obama was scared of black men and wanted to kiss up to the white man, I had to turn Cornel West off when it comes to him speaking about Obama. He's gotten a little looney.

 

[RustyNails]

It's intentionally misspelled.
Rick Perry is not on the ballot for the Iowa straw pole, and a bunch of super PACs are running a right-in campaign.

Yes but...I think ColbertPAC kinda squandered it here. If his intention is to muck up the election/polling process, then it's fine. But I found it slightly juvenile, especially using Rick Perry's likeness in the ad. Just run a vote for lizard-man campaign.

 

[Plinko]

FNo. Sorry. Support for high-end tax increases will not propel the Democrats to victory. Not that the public opposes high-end increases. But it is not an important issue for the larger public.

It is already and will be even more so by next election due to the economy. As I said earlier--when citizens who identify themselves as republicans are actually calling for this, it has become a big deal.

 

[Plinko]

Additionally, because the Democrats cannot run on the platform of raising taxes on the wealthy and so draw a contrast to the GOP. They were unable to bring about that kind of policy - such as the Bush tax cuts - back when they held large majorities in both houses of Congress. So why should someone who is a proponent of such a policy vote for Democrats? They won't do it either.

Aren't you the one who is always talking about how the American public doesn't remember anything in like 6 months? How in the world do you expect them to remember what happened the last time the democrats controlled Congress?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

If polls show Americans support for increased taxes on the rich, how does the GOP candidate go about this issue?

 

[A Human Becoming]

If polls show Americans support for increased taxes on the rich, how does the GOP candidate go about this issue?

By avoiding it I imagine.

 

[FLEABttn]

If polls show Americans support for increased taxes on the rich, how does the GOP candidate go about this issue?

"You can't tax the job creators, because they might not create your job.

Also, who's to say the government won't want to tax you...to death."

 

[Plinko]

"You can't tax the job creators, because they might not create your job.

Also, who's to say the government won't want to tax you...to death."

Thankfully the average American is finally seeing through these lies.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Can someone explain this "Super Committee" to me please?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Thankfully the average American is finally seeing through these lies.

Naw. The GOP will use the boogieman card on Obama.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

All of these new polls showing how most Americans want tax increases on the rich are why the democrats win big in 2012.

There's no way the GOP starts running on that issue. No way.

The problem is that people who vote Republican are more so focused on how illegal immigrants are taking the few jobs we have and how the dirty brown people abuse the welfare system which results in the mass debt we have today.

 

[XMonkey]

"You can't tax the job creators, because they might not create your job.

Also, who's to say the government won't want to tax you...to death."

The efficacy of the "can't tax the job creator" talking point decreases each week the economy stays in the shitter and unemployment remains above 8-9%. It's bullshit and the Republicans using it are on borrowed time.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Aren't you the one who is always talking about how the American public doesn't remember anything in like 6 months? How in the world do you expect them to remember what happened the last time the democrats controlled Congress?

While I share the sentiment in some respects, you're probably thinking of someone else.

Can someone explain this "Super Committee" to me please?

Debt ceiling bill created a committee made up of six Republicans and six Democrats (three from each house of Congress) to propose a debt reduction target to hit certain targets. If committee passes, it recieves expidited consideration in Congress (cannot be filibustered). If they do not approve, the triggers in the legislation take effect to cut spending automatically.

 

[Piecake]

"You can't tax the job creators, because they might not create your job.

Also, who's to say the government won't want to tax you...to death."

The rich don't create jobs nearly as well as the middle class. Why? Because if you give the rich more money, they arent any more likely to create jobs than they were before. That's because the risk of expanding/creating businesses remains the same. They just have more money and they can better afford the gamble if they want to take it that risk. But why would they when they can invest that money in the stock market, a move that takes a lot less work, is taxed less, and a safer bet (yes, even right now)

Giving the money to the middle class does create jobs though because if you give the poor and middle class money, they will buy things. And them buying things not only raises their standard of living, puts money into the pocket of the rich, but perhaps more importantly, it reduces the risk of creating jobs because the demand for the goods is already there.

Why would a rich person create jobs now when no one is buying anything and there is no demand? Makes no sense. Create demand by giving money to the middle class. This doesnt have to be only done through tax cuts. Personally, I think the best way is to heavily invest in education, most of that college, so that parents don't have to take out a second mortgage or the student goes into severe debt to pay for it. That, and adopt Universal Health Care, which will save everyone, individuals, companies, the govt, a whole lot of money.

Oh, didn't realize you were responding to a question how republicans would respond. Woops, I apologize

 

[FLEABttn]

The efficacy of the "can't tax the job creator" talking point decreases each week the economy stays in the shitter and unemployment remains above 8-9%. It's bullshit and the Republicans using it are on borrowed time.

They'll just spin it and say it's evidence that laying taxes on the job creators clearly isn't working, and that we need to cut capital gains and income taxes on the highest brackets in half.

But this isn't the difficult part. I think any medicare or social security cuts would be harder to dance around.

Small novel of text

Too much nuance for your average voter, and too many words. Could you shorten that down to soundbite for for the voters? It's not wrong, but will it get them off their tractors?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Debt ceiling bill created a committee made up of six Republicans and six Democrats (three from each house of Congress) to propose a debt reduction target to hit certain targets. If committee passes, it recieves expidited consideration in Congress (cannot be filibustered). If they do not approve, the triggers in the legislation take effect to cut spending automatically.

So are there any darksides to this that I should know about?

 

[Plinko]

So the latest Fox poll has Romney at 21% and Perry at 13%. I'll be more interested to see what they have to say if Perry gets into a debate.

 

[Piecake]

Too much nuance for your average voter, and too many words. Could you shorten that down to soundbite for for the voters? It's not wrong, but will it get them off their tractors?

Free pizza and beer for everyone who votes for me!

 

[Piecake]

So are there any darksides to this that I should know about?

one of the democrats is basically a republican

 

[reggieandTFE]

So are there any darksides to this that I should know about?

The existence of the committee itself is the dark side. Let's jam 11 rich, white crusty dudes (and 1 woman) in a room and let them decide the fate of Medicare, Medicaid and social security while simultaneously sending our economy back into recession.

 

[A Human Becoming]

The existence of the committee itself is the dark side. Let's jam 11 rich, white crusty dudes (and 1 woman) in a room and let them decide the fate of Medicare, Medicaid and social security while simultaneously sending our economy back into recession.

I thought only 9 have been chosen? Could be a minority member in there!

 

[worldrunover]

one of the democrats is basically a republican

Yeah, I don't know what kind of pictures ol' Max has of Harry Reid, but they better put Anthony Weiner to shame, is all I'm saying.

 

[markatisu]

The existence of the committee itself is the dark side. Let's jam 11 rich, white crusty dudes (and 1 woman) in a room and let them decide the fate of Medicare, Medicaid and social security while simultaneously sending our economy back into recession.

Seriously did the question have to be asked if 11 politicians who hold a higher power and do not have to go via the other members of Congress has a darkside?

Not to mention the precedent it sets, why have the other members of Congress if the most difficult of deals is going to be made by a handful of them

 

[XMonkey]

They'll just spin it and say it's evidence that laying taxes on the job creators clearly isn't working, and that we need to cut capital gains and income taxes on the highest brackets in half.

Fairly easy to counter. Bring up the rising wealth inequality (especially in the last decade) while at the same time pointing out that tax rates in this country are at some of the lowest levels in our modern history. As a bonus you could point to all the growth we had while tax rates were higher than they were today.

 

[Clevinger]

Yeah, I don't know what kind of pictures ol' Max has of Harry Reid, but they better put Anthony Weiner to shame, is all I'm saying.

Baucus has pictures of Reid smiling while being whipped by his dominatrix.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Fairly easy to counter. Bring up the rising wealth inequality (especially in the last decade) while at the same time pointing out that tax rates in this country are at some of the lowest levels in our modern history. As a bonus you could point to all the growth we had while tax rates were higher than they were today.

The problem is you're not dealing with creatures of logic. Humans are creatures of emotion.

 

[state-of-the-art]

If congress is really so inept that they feel they cannot work to accomplish something so imperative as financing a budget without abdicating responsibility to a select few among them, then I say they all should forfeit pay and benefits. They don't want to do their job then fine, I don't want to pay them for sitting on their thumbs.

Goddammit this whole charade irks me to no end.

 

[FLEABttn]

Fairly easy to counter. Bring up the rising wealth inequality (especially in the last decade) while at the same time pointing out that tax rates in this country are at some of the lowest levels in our modern history. As a bonus you could point to all the growth we had while tax rates were higher than they were today.

Parry that with an "ensuring income equality is part of the socialist agenda" or "income equality has only risen thanks to illegals taking jobs that used to pay americans more money". "Our prosperity under higher tax rates was in spite of them, not because of them. Lower taxes will fix this will jump start our economy." Switch the topic to a social issue, take a hardline stance on it, bam you're in the clear.

 

[Wall]

The district Kapanke lost in is hardly Republican leaning. It's a swing district that Kapanke won with 2% of the vote in 2008. In 2010, Kapanke lost in the same district (for a congressional seat) and Barrett lost the district by 0.7%. Obama got over 60%. GOP stronghold!

Yet despite Obama's massive advantage in 2008, Kapanake still won in that year. Then, in 2010 Walker won in that district, albeit by less than a percentage point (Feingold actually won the district in the Senate election). Kapanake lost his election by only 3 percentage points - and it was not exactly the same district. From the looks of it the house district encompasses much of south western Wisconsin.

What that indicates to me is that enough voters were willing to split their tickets between national and local elections to allow a district that went heavily for the Democrats in a national election to remain competative for Republicans in state elections. After the recall election it appears that has changed - at least for now. In terms of a recall, Scott Walker went from having a district that he could count on giving him at least a slim majority of support to one that will vote againt him by a ten percentage point margin if voters vote the same way as they did in the recall. That is a huge drop off of support.

Looking at the numbers, it doesn't look like any of the other districts save one did any better for the Republicans.

In district 18, Scott Walker won by nearly 16 percentage points in 2010, while in 2011 the Democratic challenger won by 2 percentage points.

In district 14, Walker won by nearly 17 percentage points in 2010, but the incumbant Republican won with only about 4 percentage points this time.

In districts 8 and 10, the margin of victory by Walker compared to the Republican dropped by between 2 and 3 percentage points in each.

District 2 was the only district where the Republican incumbant did better than Walker in 2010, and only by 4 percentage points.

These are all districts that a Republican running statewide needs to either break even in or win decisively to have a chance. The fact that Democrats cut the overall advantage of the Republicans from 13 percent to 6 percent does not bode well for the Republican party. That is why Nate tweeted last night that Democrats would be nuts not to go ahead with a recall of Walker.

He expanded on his reasoning more today:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/wisc-results-suggest-recall-of-governor-would-be-close/

As for Hopper, the guy was cheating on his wife and no longer lived in the district. It's hilarious that the race was as close as it was.

I've heard this used as an excuse, but if you look at the overall pattern, the results were not out of line. Even if you flip the results to give Hopper a narrow victory, the margins would still show a healthy swing towards the Democrats.

The end of the day, the Democrats didn't make significant gains. Down 3 seats or down 1 seat, the Republicans still control the three branches and conservatives hold the state supreme court. All the sound and fury accomplished exactly nothing. Even these gains are likely to be short-lived if the redistricting maps are as partisan as believed.

Even if the Democrats retook the Senate, they still could not have reversed any of the controversial legislation passed under Walker because Republicans still control the two other branches of state government. The 3 seat benchmark was always a somewhat artificial yardstick that one side or another was going to use to claim victory, but I don't see how it would have any effect on actual legislation.

Like I said before, I doubt the Republicans are relieved about the results from Tuesday night. Especially if Democrats have their gubinatorial recall effort coincide with a presidential election, which should help Democrats further because the turnout in Presidential election years favors the Democrats, they have an excellent chance of recalling Walker given his unpopularity and extrapolating from the numbers in the recent recall elections. If the recall occurs on another date, on the othe hand, I would give the Democrats somewhat less of a chance. Still, I doubt Republicans are breathing easy about the matter.

 

[Mortrialus]

Huntsman: Corporate Tax dodging must end



Wow....at the very least he's not a corporate whore

I think we can officially rule out the Jon Huntsman nomination.

 

[Jackson50]

It is already and will be even more so by next election due to the economy. As I said earlier--when citizens who identify themselves as republicans are actually calling for this, it has become a big deal.

Hardly. The majority of the public have long supported increasing taxes on the wealthy. Furthermore, even a large minority of Republicans have supported this. This is not a radical shift in public opinion. Yet this issue has not propelled Democrats in previous elections. It simply is not a major issue for voters. And it certainly will not propel a big Democratic victory. Now, there is some hope for Democrats. Republican machinations for Medicare and Social Security may provide them a boost; they should focus on those issues.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Stephen Colbert's Super PAC has started airing its first ads in Iowa.

Epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrygYmTsTfU&feature=player_embedded

Video removed. :/

 

[speculawyer]

Definitely. If you like the outcome of the triggers.

You really think Bernie Sanders would have made a damn bit of difference? Every single GOP member of the committee signed a "no tax" pledge.


This whole super-Congress thing is the biggest fucking farce. Why the fuck are they wasting our time?

 

[Skiptastic]

You'd all be very proud of me. I went to a town hall meeting with Congressman Dan Burton. Some local lady was criticizing a vote he made on some pollution stuff and he went into how he thinks that we should have clean water and air, but that the EPA has gone too far in regulations. He then said, "China doesn't have an EPA and look at all the jobs they're getting!" To which I yelled from the back, "Yeah, and a lot of that country is filthy!"

I never felt so PoliGAF in my life.

 

[ReBurn]

Hardly. The majority of the public have long supported increasing taxes on the wealthy. Furthermore, even a large minority of Republicans have supported this. This is not a radical shift in public opinion. Yet this issue has not propelled Democrats in previous elections. It simply is not a major issue for voters. And it certainly will not propel a big Democratic victory. Now, there is some hope for Democrats. Republican machinations for Medicare and Social Security may provide them a boost; they should focus on those issues.

I think that it's reasonable to expect that Medicare and Social Security will have to have some reform to remain viable, and if Democrats can figure out how to make them solvent in the long term I agree with you. I'm not versed in what the Republican machinations for these programs are. Republicans know that touching these programs is taboo and amounts to political suicide, which is why there are only idle threats to do it. It's a nod to the base, but they won't actually go through with it.

 

[Akainu]

Huntsman: Corporate Tax dodging must end



Wow....at the very least he's not a corporate whore

Please. Until he's elected so he can make it worse.

 

[Byakuya769]

You'd all be very proud of me. I went to a town hall meeting with Congressman Dan Burton. Some local lady was criticizing a vote he made on some pollution stuff and he went into how he thinks that we should have clean water and air, but that the EPA has gone too far in regulations. He then said, "China doesn't have an EPA and look at all the jobs they're getting!" To which I yelled from the back, "Yeah, and a lot of that country is filthy!"

I never felt so PoliGAF in my life.

Haha, what a jack ass comment for him to make. Good job, man. Did he react to it?

 

[Plinko]

You'd all be very proud of me. I went to a town hall meeting with Congressman Dan Burton. Some local lady was criticizing a vote he made on some pollution stuff and he went into how he thinks that we should have clean water and air, but that the EPA has gone too far in regulations. He then said, "China doesn't have an EPA and look at all the jobs they're getting!" To which I yelled from the back, "Yeah, and a lot of that country is filthy!"

I never felt so PoliGAF in my life.

Bah, I almost went to that town meeting. Should have gone :/

 

[AlteredBeast]

You really think Bernie Sanders would have made a damn bit of difference? Every single GOP member of the committee signed a "no tax" pledge.


This whole super-Congress thing is the biggest fucking farce. Why the fuck are they wasting our time?

Saving face before trillions of cuts. You know it is going to happen.

 

[Plinko]

Hardly. The majority of the public have long supported increasing taxes on the wealthy. Furthermore, even a large minority of Republicans have supported this. This is not a radical shift in public opinion. Yet this issue has not propelled Democrats in previous elections. It simply is not a major issue for voters. And it certainly will not propel a big Democratic victory. Now, there is some hope for Democrats. Republican machinations for Medicare and Social Security may provide them a boost; they should focus on those issues.

I respectfully disagree. The gap between the rich and the poor is bigger than ever in America. Unemployment is bad and isn't getting better.

I think it's going to play a huge role in the next election. Guess we'll see.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The experiment failed on all levels. Tax rates on everyone need to go up. Just to 1998 levels. Come on, politicians, do everyone a solid and do it. You still won't get thrown out of office. Incumbents are crazy reliable during reelection time.