Dump Biden.

Smedley said:

OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."

Is that acceptable? 

It wasn’t “shorthand”, it was a different statement. 
Your latest is a third statement with a lot of qualifiers (“economists say” “one of the factors”, “can drive”).  Is that your final version?

nohero said:

Smedley said:

OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."

Is that acceptable? 

It wasn’t “shorthand”, it was a different statement. 
Your latest is a third statement with a lot of qualifiers (“economists say” “one of the factors”, “can drive”).  Is that your final version?

I have stated and restated my main point, that inflation presents a headwind for progressives in 2024, multiple times. If you wish to focus on something else, have at it. 

Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?

ml1 has provided cover, so I think you can be brave and answer.

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."

Is that acceptable? 

It wasn’t “shorthand”, it was a different statement. 
Your latest is a third statement with a lot of qualifiers (“economists say” “one of the factors”, “can drive”).  Is that your final version?

I have stated and restated my main point, that inflation presents a headwind for progressives in 2024, multiple times. If you wish to focus on something else, have at it. 

Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?

ml1 has provided cover, so I think you can be brave and answer.

No it wouldn't, but that is a "squirrel", since nobody has proposed such a plan in this environment. I;m not sure whether you're that stupid, or just too stubborn to give up on your non-issue.

Predicting that inflation is still going to be an issue in 2024 is a huge stretch.

If it is, the Dem candidate is surely toast. Progressive don't enter into it.

If the Fed continues to panic over inflation, recession is more likely to be an issue than inflation.

The recession's already started. Anecdotally, a lot of companies have frozen hiring or even started layoffs.

And the Fed has not panicked over inflation.

jimmurphy said:

And the Fed has not panicked over inflation.

certainly has. let's see what the next hike is.

PVW said:

The recession's already started. Anecdotally, a lot of companies have frozen hiring or even started layoffs.

Sir Paul says otherwise

How can you have a recession with UE under 4%? Makes no sense.

drummerboy said:

Predicting that inflation is still going to be an issue in 2024 is a huge stretch.

If it is, the Dem candidate is surely toast. Progressive don't enter into it.

If the Fed continues to panic over inflation, recession is more likely to be an issue than inflation.

This thread (Dump Biden) is more geared toward the primaries than the general election. Assuming Biden doesn't run, people are going be tossing their hats in the ring in like 6 months' time and will need to address inflation and start positioning themselves in terms of what they stand for. So it may be a smidge early to talk about how inflation will affect the race. But I don't think it's a huge stretch by any means.

And I guarantee -- even if the inflation dragon is vanquished and CPI is down to 2-3% within 6 months, which is like absolute best-case scenario, inflation will still be an issue in 2024.  

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."

Is that acceptable? 

It wasn’t “shorthand”, it was a different statement. 
Your latest is a third statement with a lot of qualifiers (“economists say” “one of the factors”, “can drive”).  Is that your final version?

I have stated and restated my main point, that inflation presents a headwind for progressives in 2024, multiple times. If you wish to focus on something else, have at it. 

Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?

ml1 has provided cover, so I think you can be brave and answer.

Smedley said:

This thread (Dump Biden) is more geared toward the primaries than the general election. Assuming Biden doesn't run, people are going be tossing their hats in the ring in like 6 months' time and will need to address inflation and start positioning themselves in terms of what they stand for. So it may be a smidge early to talk about how inflation will affect the race. But I don't think it's a huge stretch by any means.

And I guarantee -- even if the inflation dragon is vanquished and CPI is down to 2-3% within 6 months, which is like absolute best-case scenario, inflation will still be an issue in 2024.  

Of course inflation is an issue. But, it's an issue that's independent of whether the liberals or the conservatives or the "progressives" or the reactionaries are either in charge or trying to be.

It's all in how the issues are presented. For example, the "government spending causes inflation" talking point.  There's a big difference among "it causes it" and "it appears to cause it" and "it may be a factor that causes it". Also, the type of government spending has to be considered - are broad tax cuts more or less inflationary than another child care tax credit, for example.

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

nohero said:

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."

Is that acceptable? 

It wasn’t “shorthand”, it was a different statement. 
Your latest is a third statement with a lot of qualifiers (“economists say” “one of the factors”, “can drive”).  Is that your final version?

I have stated and restated my main point, that inflation presents a headwind for progressives in 2024, multiple times. If you wish to focus on something else, have at it. 

Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?

ml1 has provided cover, so I think you can be brave and answer.

Smedley said:

This thread (Dump Biden) is more geared toward the primaries than the general election. Assuming Biden doesn't run, people are going be tossing their hats in the ring in like 6 months' time and will need to address inflation and start positioning themselves in terms of what they stand for. So it may be a smidge early to talk about how inflation will affect the race. But I don't think it's a huge stretch by any means.

And I guarantee -- even if the inflation dragon is vanquished and CPI is down to 2-3% within 6 months, which is like absolute best-case scenario, inflation will still be an issue in 2024.  

Of course inflation is an issue. But, it's an issue that's independent of whether the liberals or the conservatives or the "progressives" or the reactionaries are either in charge or trying to be.

It's all in how the issues are presented. For example, the "government spending causes inflation" talking point.  There's a big difference among "it causes it" and "it appears to cause it" and "it may be a factor that causes it". Also, the type of government spending has to be considered - are broad tax cuts more or less inflationary than another child care tax credit, for example.

I'm not sure how inflation is going to be a big issue during primaries, regardless of the state of inflation at the time. How would that play out among the candidates? They're trying to get Dem voters, not general voters. What would they be for or against.

At most I could see a more progressive candidate talk about windfall profits. Not sure what a more moderate candidate would say. Would they say - sorry, you can't have nice things because it causes inflation? That sounds like a sure winner.

drummerboy said:

I'm not sure how inflation is going to be a big issue during primaries, regardless of the state of inflation at the time. How would that play out among the candidates? They're trying to get Dem voters, not general voters. What would they be for or against.

At most I could see a more progressive candidate talk about windfall profits. Not sure what a more moderate candidate would say. Would they say - sorry, you can't have nice things because it causes inflation? That sounds like a sure winner.

That's been the Democrats problem for a generation. They spend a lot of effort telling their base they can't have any of their priorities. 

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

I'm not sure how inflation is going to be a big issue during primaries, regardless of the state of inflation at the time. How would that play out among the candidates? They're trying to get Dem voters, not general voters. What would they be for or against.

At most I could see a more progressive candidate talk about windfall profits. Not sure what a more moderate candidate would say. Would they say - sorry, you can't have nice things because it causes inflation? That sounds like a sure winner.

That's been the Democrats problem for a generation. They spend a lot of effort telling their base they can't have any of their priorities. 

It seemed, at least for a while last year, that there was a chance the Dems would go big, until they got jerked around by Sinemanchin.

So maybe we're getting closer.

drummerboy said:

It seemed, at least for a while last year, that there was a chance the Dems would go big, until they got jerked around by Sinemanchin.

So maybe we're getting closer.

maybe. But we have an entire media industry focused on telling Americans that our government can't deliver support  for basic human needs that virtually every other country provides. Health care, retirement, child care, affordable education. 

American  exceptionalism. 

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

It seemed, at least for a while last year, that there was a chance the Dems would go big, until they got jerked around by Sinemanchin.

So maybe we're getting closer.

maybe. But we have an entire media industry focused on telling Americans that our government can't deliver all the basic human needs that virtually every other country provides. Health care, retirement, child care, affordable education. 

American  exceptionalism. 

No argument there. But 2021 was kind of a sea change, as the huge expansion of government support was the major Presidential legislation for the year. It wasn't coming from some fringe group of 10 members of the House.

We'll see.

ml1 said:

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

Don't think I ever said Afghanistan would be more than a temporary blip. I do recall saying Biden's approval rating tanking late last summer was a troubling sign for his presidency, a take that has held up pretty well. 

I never did understand the "Biden's approval rating doesn't matter" consensus on here.  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

Don't think I ever said Afghanistan would be more than a temporary blip. I do recall saying Biden's approval rating tanking late last summer was a troubling sign for his presidency, a take that has held up pretty well. 

I never did understand the "Biden's approval rating doesn't matter" consensus on here.  

because it's just a number. If you recall, a lot of us said the events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September -- and that's exactly what has happened. 

• Omicron surge
• continued supply chain problems
• Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effect on energy and food prices
• inflation
• SCOTUS decisions
• Jan 6 hearings

if anything your obsession last year over Biden's approval rating looks even sillier in retrospect. 

drummerboy said:

Sir Paul says otherwise

How can you have a recession with UE under 4%? Makes no sense.

Let me rephrase. In the part of the economy I can personally observe, there's a definite slowdown -- hiring freezes, layoffs, scaled back business goals and ambitions. I don't actually know if that is true more broadly, or if it signifies something changing more broadly. You're right that we're not technically in a recession, and it's also true that part of the economy having a slowdown is not the same as a recession or necessarily a sign that one on it's way. But in my part of the economy, at least, there's definitely decreased or maybe even negative economic activity.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

Don't think I ever said Afghanistan would be more than a temporary blip. I do recall saying Biden's approval rating tanking late last summer was a troubling sign for his presidency, a take that has held up pretty well. 

I never did understand the "Biden's approval rating doesn't matter" consensus on here.  

because it's just a number. If you recall, a lot of us said the events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September -- and that's exactly what has happened. 

• Omicron surge
• continued supply chain problems
• Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effect on energy and food prices
• inflation
• SCOTUS decisions
• Jan 6 hearings

if anything your obsession last year over Biden's approval rating looks even sillier in retrospect. 

Just a number? Like average annual rainfall in Sheboygan? Or words in War and Peace? The same significance?

Of course "events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September". That is an obvious, common-sense statement, and I never argued otherwise. If you're saying I did, hello straw man your old friend, you've come to talk with him again. 

What I did say was that the approval number was significant for a variety of reasons and you and db at least, said (paraphrasing) it didn't mean a hill of beans.  

Your laundry list is a mishmash, I'm not sure what it's meant to show exactly, but net-net I don't think it shows anything. 

Omicron surge - isn't it more important that we're mostly back to normal, with schools open, mask mandates lifted, etc? And that happened under Biden's watch. So if you're arguing a 1 or 2-month surge that was over months ago dented Biden's approval rating, wouldn't the bigger picture supersede that?  

Inflation stuff -- not all Biden's fault of course but again he was wrong on inflation, as was Powell and Yellen. So of course there will be disapproval.

Scotus and Jan 6 - I'm not sure why these would be negative for Biden, if that's what you're arguing. If anything I think they'd be positive by showing the lunacy and extremes of the other party.

Ultimately, by your logic that exogenous events are everything, why even have a president? We can just have a presidential algorithm making decisions. Think of the taxpayer money saved - $400K in salary + secret service, benefits, etc.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

Don't think I ever said Afghanistan would be more than a temporary blip. I do recall saying Biden's approval rating tanking late last summer was a troubling sign for his presidency, a take that has held up pretty well. 

I never did understand the "Biden's approval rating doesn't matter" consensus on here.  

because it's just a number. If you recall, a lot of us said the events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September -- and that's exactly what has happened. 

• Omicron surge
• continued supply chain problems
• Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effect on energy and food prices
• inflation
• SCOTUS decisions
• Jan 6 hearings

if anything your obsession last year over Biden's approval rating looks even sillier in retrospect. 

Just a number? Like average annual rainfall in Sheboygan? Or words in War and Peace? The same significance?

Of course "events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September". That is an obvious, common-sense statement, and I never argued otherwise. If you're saying I did, hello straw man your old friend, you've come to talk with him again. 

What I did say was that the approval number was significant for a variety of reasons and you and db at least, said (paraphrasing) it didn't mean a hill of beans.  

Your laundry list is a mishmash, I'm not sure what it's meant to show exactly, but net-net I don't think it shows anything. 

Omicron surge - isn't it more important that we're mostly back to normal, with schools open, mask mandates lifted, etc? And that happened under Biden's watch. So if you're arguing a 1 or 2-month surge that was over months ago dented Biden's approval rating, wouldn't the bigger picture supersede that?  

Inflation stuff -- not all Biden's fault of course but again he was wrong on inflation, as was Powell and Yellen. So of course there will be disapproval.

Scotus and Jan 6 - I'm not sure why these would be negative for Biden, if that's what you're arguing. If anything I think they'd be positive by showing the lunacy and extremes of the other party.

Ultimately, by your logic that exogenous events are everything, why even have a president? We can just have a presidential algorithm making decisions. Think of the taxpayer money saved - $400K in salary + secret service, benefits, etc.

not all of the events are meant to be negative for Biden and the Democrats in this midterm. Some may hinder their performance, some may help.  

here's the thing that you seem to not get about my and other people's argument here.  A president's approval rating in and of itself is not causal.  It is caused by a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some are not.

you are treating the approval rating number as if you are the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise.

ml1 said:

not all of the events are meant to be negative for Biden and the Democrats in this midterm. Some may hinder their performance, some may help.  

here's the thing that you seem to not get about my and other people's argument here.  A president's approval rating in and of itself is not causal.  It is caused by a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some are not.

you are treating the approval rating number as if you are the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise.

Approval rating is only indirectly connected to what may happen in the November 2022 election.

For example, my guess is that Biden's "approval" among AOC voters is more likely to be negative.  That does not mean that they won't vote Democratic this year.

The "approve/disapprove" question is not the same as "who are you voting for in the election?" At best, it's an indicator of what issues that are on people's minds - but, again, only if there are more details about why they approve or disapprove.

nohero said:

ml1 said:

not all of the events are meant to be negative for Biden and the Democrats in this midterm. Some may hinder their performance, some may help.  

here's the thing that you seem to not get about my and other people's argument here.  A president's approval rating in and of itself is not causal.  It is caused by a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some are not.

you are treating the approval rating number as if you are the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise.

Approval rating is only indirectly connected to what may happen in the November 2022 election.

For example, my guess is that Biden's "approval" among AOC voters is more likely to be negative.  That does not mean that they won't vote Democratic this year.

The "approve/disapprove" question is not the same as "who are you voting for in the election?" At best, it's an indicator of what issues that are on people's minds - but, again, only if there are more details about why they approve or disapprove.

and most importantly, it's an outcome measure. It's correlated with election results, but by itself it doesn't cause an election outcome.

It's astounding to me that a person needs to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation, but here we are.

And it's similarly surprising that anyone wouldn't be able to understand this POV:  I don't care about the approval number.  I care about what a president does or does not do in response to events.  That is, the things that INFLUENCE the approval score.

sheesh.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

I thought we were discussing '22. If I thought I was agreeing that inflation would be a major issue in an election 2 years from now I wouldn't even bothered responding. I mean, wasn't somebody claiming less than a year ago that Afghanistan and Biden's low approval rating were the big issues to be concerned about?

Don't think I ever said Afghanistan would be more than a temporary blip. I do recall saying Biden's approval rating tanking late last summer was a troubling sign for his presidency, a take that has held up pretty well. 

I never did understand the "Biden's approval rating doesn't matter" consensus on here.  

because it's just a number. If you recall, a lot of us said the events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September -- and that's exactly what has happened. 

• Omicron surge
• continued supply chain problems
• Russian invasion of Ukraine and the effect on energy and food prices
• inflation
• SCOTUS decisions
• Jan 6 hearings

if anything your obsession last year over Biden's approval rating looks even sillier in retrospect. 

Just a number? Like average annual rainfall in Sheboygan? Or words in War and Peace? The same significance?

Of course "events of the year to come were more important in affecting the '22 midterms than Biden's approval last September". That is an obvious, common-sense statement, and I never argued otherwise. If you're saying I did, hello straw man your old friend, you've come to talk with him again. 

What I did say was that the approval number was significant for a variety of reasons and you and db at least, said (paraphrasing) it didn't mean a hill of beans.  

Your laundry list is a mishmash, I'm not sure what it's meant to show exactly, but net-net I don't think it shows anything. 

Omicron surge - isn't it more important that we're mostly back to normal, with schools open, mask mandates lifted, etc? And that happened under Biden's watch. So if you're arguing a 1 or 2-month surge that was over months ago dented Biden's approval rating, wouldn't the bigger picture supersede that?  

Inflation stuff -- not all Biden's fault of course but again he was wrong on inflation, as was Powell and Yellen. So of course there will be disapproval.

Scotus and Jan 6 - I'm not sure why these would be negative for Biden, if that's what you're arguing. If anything I think they'd be positive by showing the lunacy and extremes of the other party.

Ultimately, by your logic that exogenous events are everything, why even have a president? We can just have a presidential algorithm making decisions. Think of the taxpayer money saved - $400K in salary + secret service, benefits, etc.

not all of the events are meant to be negative for Biden and the Democrats in this midterm. Some may hinder their performance, some may help.  

here's the thing that you seem to not get about my and other people's argument here.  A president's approval rating in and of itself is not causal.  It is caused by a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some are not.

you are treating the approval rating number as if you are the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise.

I realize that the approval rating is a function of a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some not. But a president's approval in and of itself can be causal.  

I believe anyone who reads my previous posts would reasonably conclude that I grasp the approval-rating concept sufficiently. If you believe otherwise, please show direct evidence to back this up. But stop with the straw men. Thank you. 

ml1 said:

nohero said:

ml1 said:

not all of the events are meant to be negative for Biden and the Democrats in this midterm. Some may hinder their performance, some may help.  

here's the thing that you seem to not get about my and other people's argument here.  A president's approval rating in and of itself is not causal.  It is caused by a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some are not.

you are treating the approval rating number as if you are the rooster who thinks his crowing causes the sun to rise.

Approval rating is only indirectly connected to what may happen in the November 2022 election.

For example, my guess is that Biden's "approval" among AOC voters is more likely to be negative.  That does not mean that they won't vote Democratic this year.

The "approve/disapprove" question is not the same as "who are you voting for in the election?" At best, it's an indicator of what issues that are on people's minds - but, again, only if there are more details about why they approve or disapprove.

and most importantly, it's an outcome measure. It's correlated with election results, but by itself it doesn't cause an election outcome.

It's astounding to me that a person needs to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation, but here we are.

And it's similarly surprising that anyone wouldn't be able to understand this POV:  I don't care about the approval number.  I care about what a president does or does not do in response to events.  That is, the things that INFLUENCE the approval score.

sheesh.

Again, let's see evidence back up your claim that I need to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation. 

You're just pulling this out of your arse. 

Smedley said:

Again, let's see evidence back up your claim that I need to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation. 

You're just pulling this out of your arse. 

you have repeatedly insisted that an approval rating is itself something to be concerned with. And you can't understand why any of us are arguing otherwise. 

I'm starting to suspect that you agreed with us all along. But just wanted to be stubborn and argue. 

But I guess we're in agreement.

What a waste of time this discussion was. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Again, let's see evidence back up your claim that I need to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation. 

You're just pulling this out of your arse. 

you have repeatedly insisted that an approval rating is itself something to be concerned with. And you can't understand why any of us are arguing otherwise. 

I'm starting to suspect that you agreed with us all along. But just wanted to be stubborn and argue. 

But I guess we're in agreement.

What a waste of time this discussion was. 

Again you're just blabbing. As they used to say at Bloomberg News, show don't tell. And you're just telling.

An approval rating is something to be concerned with. It's not always or automatically causal, but it can be causal. It's also a function of a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some not.

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Again, let's see evidence back up your claim that I need to be reminded that correlation does not imply causation. 

You're just pulling this out of your arse. 

you have repeatedly insisted that an approval rating is itself something to be concerned with. And you can't understand why any of us are arguing otherwise. 

I'm starting to suspect that you agreed with us all along. But just wanted to be stubborn and argue. 

But I guess we're in agreement.

What a waste of time this discussion was. 

Again you're just blabbing. As they used to say at Bloomberg News, show don't tell. And you're just telling.

An approval rating is something to be concerned with. It's also not in and of itself causal. It's also a function of a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some not.

It's astounding to me how someone can not grasp that those three statements can all be true, with no mutual exclusivity. 

Sheesh. 

your argument was that WE should be concerned with it.  And I'm not.  I wouldn't argue that other people might not be concerned about an approval rating number. You clearly are.

Not sure what you're talking about there but w/e. Bottom line I think you recognize my take from 10-11 mos ago was correct but of course you won't admit it so you're working every angle to distort it. 

And don't forget you're the one who brought up this topic. I don't think I've brought up the topic of presidential approval rating as a fresh talking point for many months. Which is peculiar for someone who is "obsessed" with the topic as you claim I am.  

Smedley said:

Bottom line I think you recognize my take from 10-11 mos ago was correct but of course you won't admit it so you're working every angle to distort it. 

whatever the number was a year ago, by itself it has no bearing on the events of the past year that are going to affect this year's midterms.

unless you are claiming that Biden's approval rating was predictive of intervening events, it was not something to have been concerned about a year ago.  and yes, it looks silly in retrospect that a number should have been considered so important.

because Biden's approval could just has easily climbed ten points if he had led a NATO diplomatic effort to head off Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Or got BBB through the Senate. Or any number of things he could have done better this year.