Des Moines Register Poll: Obama 32, Clinton 25, Edwards 24

[Falkenhayn]

+http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22457164/

Obama widens lead over Clinton in Iowa
Presidential contenders rang in the new year with near-constant campaigning on Monday as a poll showed Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee leading their rivals with three days remaining before the Iowa caucuses.

Anonymous phone calls and a negative campaign commercial that vanished into thin air also spiced the race, and not even New Year's Eve was off-limits to campaigning.

The poll by the Des Moines Register showed Obama, an Illinois senator, with the support of 32 percent of those surveyed, compared to 25 percent for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and 24 percent for former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Among Republicans, Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, had the backing of 32 percent of those surveyed, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had 26 percent.

Other polls have shown far closer races in recent days within both parties, and the leading candidates are engaged in a virtual nonstop round of personal appearances across the state that provides the first test of the race for the White House.

"I'm taking a risk, I know I am," said Huckabee, who previewed an ad sharply critical of rival Mitt Romney during the day after first assuring reporters he would not air it on TV.

The three top Democratic rivals campaigned in far more traditional fashion, and Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined for more than a dozen appearances before time ran out on 2007. Clinton got the distinction for the last event of the year -- in downtown Des Moines with her husband, the former president.

"We want our government back, we want our democracy back," Edwards told an audience in Storm Lake. Locked in a three-way race, the former North Carolina senator claimed late momentum for a campaign built around his pledge to fight special interests in Washington.

Clinton, a former first lady bidding to become the first female president, seemed primed to counter. "I submit to you there isn't anybody running who's taken on more special interests and taken on more incoming fire and survived them than I have," she told a crowd in Keokuk.

Without mentioning Edwards by name, she appeared to gently mock the fired-up speaking style he uses to deliver his populist pledge. "It's not something you have to do by yelling and screaming," she said. "Save your energy."

Obama stuck doggedly to the campaign pitch that has made him the most serious black presidential candidate in history. "You can't afford to settle for the same old politics," he told a crowd in Perry.

The poll said Obama was benefiting handsomely from an influx of first-time caucus-goers. If so, that meant his finish in the state would hinge to an extraordinary degree on the ability of his organization to turn out supporters.

In yet another sign of uncertainty, nearly a third of those polled said they could still change their minds.

In a gesture that reflected the hand-to-hand nature of the political struggle, his campaign arranged to have a former Clinton supporter, Marlin Eineke, introduce Obama to the crowd. The political convert said he was attracted to Obama's positive campaign.

Obama's aides took steps to stress their man's strength in the states that vote after Iowa, and against Republicans in the fall campaign. But like everything else in the race for the White House, all of that remains to be recalculated after Iowa's precinct caucuses on Thursday.

New Hampshire holds its first-in-the-nation primary five days after Iowa's caucuses, and if history is a guide the roster of candidates will be far slimmer by then. Already, Democrats Chris Dodd and Joseph Biden have spoken about dropping out if they fail to meet their expectations in Iowa.

With three days remaining until the caucuses, several Democratic voters reported receiving anonymous telephone calls from self-proclaimed pollsters spreading unflattering information.

Some calls said Obama's health plan would leave millions uninsured. Others said Edwards' plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq were dangerous or that Clinton would lead the party to defeat in the fall.

One Democrat, Michael Hancock of Coralville, said he had received an automated call reminding him that an important college football game would be televised Thursday night at the same time the caucuses were held.

He said he promptly hung up his phone before concluding it was a "transparent attempt to depress turnout from some people." Neighboring Kansas plays in the Orange Bowl Thursday night.

No group has taken responsibility for any of the calls.

While Democrats were in a tight three-way race in Iowa, the Republican contest came down to a two-way struggle between Huckabee and Romney.

Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, used his personal wealth to jump out to a sizable early lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Huckabee's support among evangelical Christians allowed him to overtake Romney in surveys in recent weeks, although he has more lately fallen back under the weight of criticism of his record as governor of Arkansas as well as his own campaign missteps.

Stepping before more than a dozen television cameras, Huckabee first swore off negative ads in the Iowa race, then previewed a commercial in which he was seen saying of his rival: "If a man's dishonest to obtain a job, he'll be dishonest on the job. Iowans deserve better."

He acknowledged the risk to his campaign of allowing Romney's critical commercials to go unanswered, but said of his own supporters: "If they abandon us now because we are not going negative I would be surprised."

"If you gain the whole world and lose your soul, what have you profited?" asked the Baptist preacher-politician.

Huckabee is trying to outflank Romney in their race for primacy in Iowa -- and in the national polls."

He told reporters one of the reasons he originally intended to launch a negative commercial was because Romney had assailed a third candidate, Sen. John McCain. McCain has made a relatively modest effort in Iowa, and Huckabee could benefit in the campaign's final few days if he could peel away some Republicans who had been leaning toward the Arizona senator.

Huckabee also suggested a two-way debate in the final two days that would allow Romney and him to share a stage.

Romney had no immediate response to that as he made his final campaign rounds of 2007.

He launched an upbeat new commercial that said it was "time to turn around Washington."

At the same time, he was freshly critical of Huckabee's record as governor, saying voters would be put off by his rival's position on immigration and the pardons he had granted while governor.

McCain had New Hampshire to himself, and he defended himself against Romney's ad that points out he opposed President Bush's tax cut in 2001. "There was no restraint in spending" to accompany the cuts, he said.

[The Original Nex]

And this VERY DIFFERENT article from Reuters...

All these late hour polls are just so fun and reliable aren't they??

Clinton holds lead as Romney slips in Iowa

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Tue Jan 1, 7:07 AM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mike Huckabee hold narrow leads on their top rivals two days before the state opens the presidential nominating race, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Tuesday.

Clinton, a New York senator, maintained a stable four-point edge over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 30 percent to 26 percent, in the Democratic race. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was in third at 25 percent, down one point overnight.

Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, widened his lead over Romney among Republicans to 29 percent to 25 percent. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who has been on the attack against Huckabee, slipped two points overnight.

Arizona Sen. John McCain remained a distant third in Iowa's Republican race at 12 percent, with former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson gaining two points to climb to fourth at 10 percent.

The poll of 925 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 928 likely Republican caucus-goers was taken Friday through Monday and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points for each party.

Iowa is the first test in the state-by-state fight to choose candidates for the November presidential election, and about 7 percent of Democrats and 6 percent of Republicans remain undecided after months of heavy campaigning

Clinton, Obama and Edwards have been battling for the top Democratic spot for months. Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president, leads among women and older voters who are most likely to turn out for a caucus.

But Edwards remains the top second choice of Democrats, a potentially significant factor given the requirement a candidate have 15 percent support in each precinct to be viable or their supporters can switch to another candidate.

SECOND CHOICE

Edwards is the second choice of 30 percent of Democrats, with Obama at 22 percent and Clinton at 15 percent.

"Edwards is holding strong among second-choice voters, which could help him on caucus night," said pollster John Zogby. "He also has been cutting into Obama's lead among independents in particular."

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson were at 5 percent each among Democrats, with Delaware Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 1 percent each.

Among Republicans, Huckabee has solidified his lead over Romney while under attack over his Arkansas record on immigration, taxes and crime.

The rise by Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has been fueled by his support among religious and social conservatives. But Thompson has cut into his backing among Iowans who say they are "born-again" Christians and "very" conservative.

McCain has cut into Romney's support among moderates and independents.

"The battle for third place could be interesting," Zogby said. "Every point McCain gains comes from Romney, and Thompson's gains come from Huckabee. The outcome could determine the winner in Iowa."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has focused on later states and largely bypassed Iowa, was at 8 percent in the Republican race. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was at 7 percent, and California Rep. Duncan Hunter was at 1 percent.

The rolling tracking poll will continue each day through the Iowa caucus on Thursday. In a rolling poll, the most recent day's results are added while the oldest day's results are dropped in order to track changing momentum.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

(For more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)

[Androsphinx]

What's particularly amusing is the media's conviction in their own accuracy and inerrancy at the expense of their actual job of providing information and good analysis. That neither report mentions the other poll (I can't tell which was released first) is fairly ridiculous.

I remember a piece in the pre-midterm 2006 New Statesman, where one of their senior US people claimed that the exit polls in 2004 (giving Kerry victory) had been accurate, and it was widespread, undetected vote rigging and manipulation which changed the result. Because, of course, that's much more probable than opinion polls being shoddy indicators.

[SirNitram]

The problem is Iowa caucuses aren't particularly reflective of the general population, or even of basic democratic nature.

To be honest, though? I wish they'd hurry up and pick a nominee.

[Edi]

What's particularly amusing is the media's conviction in their own accuracy and inerrancy at the expense of their actual job of providing information and good analysis. That neither report mentions the other poll (I can't tell which was released first) is fairly ridiculous.

I remember a piece in the pre-midterm 2006 New Statesman, where one of their senior US people claimed that the exit polls in 2004 (giving Kerry victory) had been accurate, and it was widespread, undetected vote rigging and manipulation which changed the result. Because, of course, that's much more probable than opinion polls being shoddy indicators.

Bad analogy. The way they have done exit polling has been accurate down to a very small margin since the 1930s or so (I don't remember the exact point when the method of analysis for it was invented) and they have been doing it the same way for decades, with accurate results. So when the exit polling results differed wildly from the final declared end result in 2004 and given what we know of Diebold voting machines and the various shenanigans that surrounded the 2004 election in several states, the most elegant explanation is indeed widespread undetected vote rigging.

Come back and play some other time when you know what you're talking about.

[Balrog]

The problem is Iowa caucuses aren't particularly reflective of the general population, or even of basic democratic nature.

You mean, a bunch of middle-america white corn farmers aren't indicitive of the views of the nation?

At least they both got the Republican frontrunner right I suppose.

[SirNitram]

The problem is Iowa caucuses aren't particularly reflective of the general population, or even of basic democratic nature.

You mean, a bunch of middle-america white corn farmers aren't indicitive of the views of the nation?

At least they both got the Republican frontrunner right I suppose.

No. I mean a non-secret ballot where you have to stay for hours, with a turnout of around a hundred thousand, is not a democratic method.

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought the Register poll was questioning likely caucus-goers, so it might be a little more representative than simply a general poll.

[Mange]

Republican Mike Huckabee leading their rivals

What?! How are people thinking? Mike Huckabee scares the sweet bejesus out of me.

[Glocksman]

I thought the Register poll was questioning likely caucus-goers, so it might be a little more representative than simply a general poll.

It may be, but the real problem with polling and the caucus is that caucusing isn't just a matter of (as Nitram pointed out) going in, casting a ballot, and leaving.

Linky

The most distinguishing feature of the caucuses, and what makes them far different from presidential primaries, is that when Iowans gather in schools and church basements and other places on caucus night, everything is out in the open. This can be intimidating for first-time participants, a fact that concerns every campaign this year that is looking to expand the traditional universe of caucus attendees. But it is the essence of Iowa's system.

In a primary, voters quietly fill out their ballots and leave. In the caucuses, they are required to come and stay for several hours, and there are no secret ballots. In the presence of friends, neighbors and occasionally strangers, Iowa Democrats vote with their feet, by raising their hands and moving to different parts of the room to signify their support for one candidate or another.

In other words, someone could tell a pollster quite honestly that they intend to vote for Obama, but when they arrive and see a bunch of their 'friends and neighbors' (along with the leadership of his local union, which endorsed HRC) standing in Hillary's corner, it'd take a committed person to not just 'go with the crowd'.

As you can see, this dynamic can play havoc even with the best polling.

Secret balloting is the hallmark of a democratic selection process, as it frees the voter from any such 'groupthink' or outright intimidation.
The whole process in Iowa is arcane and undemocratic at its heart.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm aware of that - I simply thought that a poll of the Caucus-goers might be closer to what they will advocate when they caucus.

As for the caucus, I do like the fact that there is a negotiating aspect to it. It's not simply a "grind out X number of partisans to the primary polls via advertising and campaigning" like in the primary states.

[Androsphinx]

What's particularly amusing is the media's conviction in their own accuracy and inerrancy at the expense of their actual job of providing information and good analysis. That neither report mentions the other poll (I can't tell which was released first) is fairly ridiculous.

I remember a piece in the pre-midterm 2006 New Statesman, where one of their senior US people claimed that the exit polls in 2004 (giving Kerry victory) had been accurate, and it was widespread, undetected vote rigging and manipulation which changed the result. Because, of course, that's much more probable than opinion polls being shoddy indicators.

Bad analogy. The way they have done exit polling has been accurate down to a very small margin since the 1930s or so (I don't remember the exact point when the method of analysis for it was invented) and they have been doing it the same way for decades, with accurate results. So when the exit polling results differed wildly from the final declared end result in 2004 and given what we know of Diebold voting machines and the various shenanigans that surrounded the 2004 election in several states, the most elegant explanation is indeed widespread undetected vote rigging.

Come back and play some other time when you know what you're talking about.

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

[Ace Pace]

Who wins what in Iowa doesn't interest me that much, but I'm suprised no one commented on this tidbit.

With three days remaining until the caucuses, several Democratic voters reported receiving anonymous telephone calls from self-proclaimed pollsters spreading unflattering information.

Some calls said Obama's health plan would leave millions uninsured. Others said Edwards' plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq were dangerous or that Clinton would lead the party to defeat in the fall.

One Democrat, Michael Hancock of Coralville, said he had received an automated call reminding him that an important college football game would be televised Thursday night at the same time the caucuses were held.

He said he promptly hung up his phone before concluding it was a "transparent attempt to depress turnout from some people." Neighboring Kansas plays in the Orange Bowl Thursday night.

No group has taken responsibility for any of the calls.

Just me, or is this indicative of whats going to happen for all of 2008? Scare tactics and playing on peoples instincts?

[Guardsman Bass]

What's particularly amusing is the media's conviction in their own accuracy and inerrancy at the expense of their actual job of providing information and good analysis. That neither report mentions the other poll (I can't tell which was released first) is fairly ridiculous.

I remember a piece in the pre-midterm 2006 New Statesman, where one of their senior US people claimed that the exit polls in 2004 (giving Kerry victory) had been accurate, and it was widespread, undetected vote rigging and manipulation which changed the result. Because, of course, that's much more probable than opinion polls being shoddy indicators.

Bad analogy. The way they have done exit polling has been accurate down to a very small margin since the 1930s or so (I don't remember the exact point when the method of analysis for it was invented) and they have been doing it the same way for decades, with accurate results. So when the exit polling results differed wildly from the final declared end result in 2004 and given what we know of Diebold voting machines and the various shenanigans that surrounded the 2004 election in several states, the most elegant explanation is indeed widespread undetected vote rigging.

Come back and play some other time when you know what you're talking about.

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

Fuck you and your willful ignorance. We have direct precedent with the Republicans in charge of the key deciding state in 2000 (Florida) distorting the electoral process, and the Diebold voting machines were known to have problems.

As for why Kerry conceded, it had to do with the fact that he didn't want to get into a long, drawn-out ugly recount deal. One of the documentaries I've seen about the Ohio contest pointed out that a number of his advisors wanted him to contest the tallies, but he chose not to.

[Androsphinx]

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

Fuck you and your willful ignorance. We have direct precedent with the Republicans in charge of the key deciding state in 2000 (Florida) distorting the electoral process, and the Diebold voting machines were known to have problems.

As for why Kerry conceded, it had to do with the fact that he didn't want to get into a long, drawn-out ugly recount deal. One of the documentaries I've seen about the Ohio contest pointed out that a number of his advisors wanted him to contest the tallies, but he chose not to.[/quote]

Oh for fuck's sake. In January 2005 the House of Representatives voted 267-31 not to contest the Ohio vote. Almost three times as many Democrats voted against as for. In the Senate, the vote was 75-1, and even that one (the ever-beloved Barbara Boxer) made it clear she wsn't challenging the outcome.

Are they all in on this deluded conspiracy? Or is it possible that a shoddily- performed series of exit polls (response rate of about 50%, training over one phone-call, single pollsters who had to leave three times during the day and miss the last hour of polling) had something to do with it. There were even International Observers

[Guardsman Bass]

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

Fuck you and your willful ignorance. We have direct precedent with the Republicans in charge of the key deciding state in 2000 (Florida) distorting the electoral process, and the Diebold voting machines were known to have problems.

As for why Kerry conceded, it had to do with the fact that he didn't want to get into a long, drawn-out ugly recount deal. One of the documentaries I've seen about the Ohio contest pointed out that a number of his advisors wanted him to contest the tallies, but he chose not to.

Oh for fuck's sake. In January 2005 the House of Representatives voted 267-31 not to contest the Ohio vote. Almost three times as many Democrats voted against as for. In the Senate, the vote was 75-1, and even that one (the ever-beloved Barbara Boxer) made it clear she wsn't challenging the outcome.

Are they all in on this deluded conspiracy? Or is it possible that a shoddily- performed series of exit polls (response rate of about 50%, training over one phone-call, single pollsters who had to leave three times during the day and miss the last hour of polling) had something to do with it. There were even International Observers

Who the fuck called it a conspiracy? I notice, too, that you didn't respond to the point about how we have direct precedent of voting day (and after) shenanigans in Florida in 2000.

As for the democratic vote, well, what could they do? Contest the election after the candidate had conceded two months earlier? Espeically when there is no fucking way that the sitting party in majority (the Republicans) would let anything like that happen?

As for the Observer report, did you not read it yourself? They specifically mentioned issues with creating a paper trail (Nevada only had the the proper one), and issues with both the legal inability of non-partisan observers to get into many of the polling stations where they were using the electronic voting machines - exactly the type of concerns we were raising.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

You realize that John Kerry's concession meant jack shit officially, right?

[Edi]

What's particularly amusing is the media's conviction in their own accuracy and inerrancy at the expense of their actual job of providing information and good analysis. That neither report mentions the other poll (I can't tell which was released first) is fairly ridiculous.

I remember a piece in the pre-midterm 2006 New Statesman, where one of their senior US people claimed that the exit polls in 2004 (giving Kerry victory) had been accurate, and it was widespread, undetected vote rigging and manipulation which changed the result. Because, of course, that's much more probable than opinion polls being shoddy indicators.

Bad analogy. The way they have done exit polling has been accurate down to a very small margin since the 1930s or so (I don't remember the exact point when the method of analysis for it was invented) and they have been doing it the same way for decades, with accurate results. So when the exit polling results differed wildly from the final declared end result in 2004 and given what we know of Diebold voting machines and the various shenanigans that surrounded the 2004 election in several states, the most elegant explanation is indeed widespread undetected vote rigging.

Come back and play some other time when you know what you're talking about.

Seeing that, oh, John Kerry conceeded, and neither he nor his campaign are involved with those who allege conspiracy, fuck you and your paranoid patronising.

How about you shove that attitude right back up your arse, fucktard?

Those there are all threads from the N&P forum that can be found on the first page of search results with "Diebold" as the search key. I've even organized them in order from oldest to newest. So take your bullshit, ram it up your arse with a spiked cattleprod, fuck off and don't come back until you can bring a better argument than your personal incredulity to the table. Moron.

[CmdrWilkens]

Oh for fuck's sake. In January 2005 the House of Representatives voted 267-31 not to contest the Ohio vote. Almost three times as many Democrats voted against as for. In the Senate, the vote was 75-1, and even that one (the ever-beloved Barbara Boxer) made it clear she wsn't challenging the outcome.

Yes because politicians who vote to preserve their electability are obviously the most unbiased judge of the factual matter at hand. If we were to take the vote of the average american suddenly the Earth would be 6000 years old and run by a vengeful God waiting to kill everyone who doesn't kowtow the right way.

Let me put this in a simple way you can understand: POPULARITY has no bearing on TRUTHFULNESS.

[Metatwaddle]

Who wins what in Iowa doesn't interest me that much, but I'm suprised no one commented on this tidbit.

With three days remaining until the caucuses, several Democratic voters reported receiving anonymous telephone calls from self-proclaimed pollsters spreading unflattering information.

Some calls said Obama's health plan would leave millions uninsured. Others said Edwards' plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq were dangerous or that Clinton would lead the party to defeat in the fall.

One Democrat, Michael Hancock of Coralville, said he had received an automated call reminding him that an important college football game would be televised Thursday night at the same time the caucuses were held.

He said he promptly hung up his phone before concluding it was a "transparent attempt to depress turnout from some people." Neighboring Kansas plays in the Orange Bowl Thursday night.

No group has taken responsibility for any of the calls.

Just me, or is this indicative of whats going to happen for all of 2008? Scare tactics and playing on peoples instincts?

Frankly, it's still better than the 2000 Republican primaries in South Carolina, where there were questions from pollsters on the phones like "If you were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate child, would you still vote for him?" I'm not going to get the vapors over people saying "Obama's health care plan sucks" or "Hillary is unelectable".

The Orange Bowl guy is interesting, though. He must belong to a demographic that (a) is particularly unlikely to vote for a particular candidate, and (b) likely to enjoy college football. If I had to guess, I'd say the demographic is young men and the candidate is Clinton. Her popularity is much greater with women than men, and Obama's youthful outlook probably makes him disproportionately popular with young people. Besides, I hear (though I don't have a source) that she's not courting young voters at all because she thinks there's little to gain and a lot of senior citizens' votes to lose.

[Darth Wong]

I guess you people are inured to this bullshit. I know I'd be outraged if I found out that this kind of manipulation was going on in an election around here, but apparently it's par for the course in the US. Personally, I think you people really need to revisit the nature of your democracy, and crack down hard on electioneering abuses. I'm talking about prison sentences here, but you guys are so accustomed to this shit that you seem to have a totally blase attitude about it all. "Oh well, people are running around telemarketing voters with slanderous accusations with impunity, it's just what people do".

[Mr. T]

I'm pulling for Obama, but I'm bracing for an upset, probably by Edwards. Obama as far as I can tell has really been relying on the youth vote, whom are notorious for not voting.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I guess you people are inured to this bullshit. I know I'd be outraged if I found out that this kind of manipulation was going on in an election around here, but apparently it's par for the course in the US. Personally, I think you people really need to revisit the nature of your democracy, and crack down hard on electioneering abuses. I'm talking about prison sentences here, but you guys are so accustomed to this shit that you seem to have a totally blase attitude about it all. "Oh well, people are running around telemarketing voters with slanderous accusations with impunity, it's just what people do".

I'd support a law against it, but America's nonstop election cycle has crushed my soul.

[Covenant]

Tampering like this with an election really should be a federal offense, but when the Government itself got in power that way, what can you expect? The country as a whole could 'wake up' and decide they're done with this bullshit, but they're half so sure that they're right that they don't care what's done to get them power. We know without a doubt about a lot of the things Bush did, but his base didn't really care until they started losing their jobs. I lay the blame on the Republican half for being so deliberately manipulative with their own base encouraging it on both sides, but it's just a mess. It's part of the reason I've been soured to Hillary--I just don't like her tactics. I wish this kind of garbage wasn't done.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I reeeeeeeally hope that whoever wins this election does it with a clear majority and a mandate. Maybe it'll help heal some of the fractures in our society.