Obama net approval ratings
Trump Delegate Math Still Adds Up
Originally posted at PredictWise.com
For the #NeverTrump-ers, yesterday was a rare day of good news. We finally got a new poll of Wisconsin, and it showed Trump at 35%, trailing Cruz’s 36%, and several points behind Trump’s national average of 44%. Even before this poll dropped, the betting markets already viewed Cruz as the favorite in Wisconsin.
Yet, the markets still view Trump as the overwhelming favorite to become the nominee. PredictWise currently views him as 79% favorite, which is where he’s been hovering for weeks.
Trump’s continued status as the favorite may seem surprising given his weakness in Wisconsin and his narrow path to victory. But it makes sense:
Trump can still win Wisconsin, he can win delegates in Wisconsin despite losing the state, he can make up for the delegates lost later, he can still win on the first ballot (or later ballot) if he falls short of 1,237 pledged delegates.
TRUMP CAN STILL WIN WISCONSIN
PredictWise currently believes he has a 41% chance at winning the state. For some perspective, those odds aren’t much lower than Stephen Curry making a wide open three-point shotand are higher than Ted Williams getting a hit in 1941.
TRUMP CAN WIN DELEGATES WHILE LOSING WISCONSIN
Even if he loses the state-wide vote in Wisconsin (and the 18 statewide delegates that are given to the winner), he’ll win some delegates. Assuming he narrowly loses to Cruz, he could carry three to five of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts. Each CD is a Winner-Take-All election worth 3 delegates, so Trump could end up with 9, 12, or 15 delegates even while losing the state overall. If Trump narrowly wins the state, he’d probably get 33 or 36 delegates, so we’re talking about 18-27 delegates at stake.
TRUMP CAN MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS LATER
Trump can make-up for those 18-27 delegates lost in Wisconsin but running up the score in New York (April 19 | 95 “Winner-Take-Most” delegates), Connecticut (April 26 | 28 WTM), Maryland (April 26 | 38 WTM), and Rhode Island (April 26| 19 proportional), which have a combined 180 delegates. With Cruz’s limited appeal in this region and Kasich’s bumbling campaign, Trump winning big in the remaining Northeast states is increasingly likely. Indeed, the newly released markets think he’s an 88% favorite in NY, 76% in CT, 74% in DE, and 71% in in MA, and 78% in RI.
Or he can make up for a loss in Wisconsin with a surprise win in any one of Nebraska (May 10 | 36 WTA), Montana (June 6 | 27 WTA), or South Dakota (June 6 | 29 WTA). While these three states are in the midwest/Big Sky region, which is where Trump struggles the most and Cruz does his best, they are relatively strong Trump states according to Nate Cohn’s national map of Trump support. Trump has decent odds of carrying one of these states.
That same map from Cohn also shows Trump polling stronger than expected in Oregon (May 17 | 28 proportional), Washington (May 24 | 44 WTM), and New Mexico (June 7 | 29 proportional). If Trump does well in those states, he could offset a loss in Wisconsin.
TRUMP CAN STILL BE THE NOMINEE WITHOUT 1,237 PLEDGED DELEGATES
Trump doesn’t need 1,237 delegates at the end of primary elections to become the nominee. Between the end of the primaries on June 6 and the beginning of the Republican Convention on July 18, there are six weeks for each campaign to lobby all the unbound delegates to come their way. After voting is over, there will be 106 unbound delegates to work with. There will also be another 98 delegates who were pledged to candidates that have since dropped out, but are now free to support whichever candidate they prefer. That means there will be over 200 unbound delegates for Trump to showcase his “Art of the Deal” superpowers.
If Trump wakes up on June 8 with 1,236 delegates–one short of a majority–he’s all but certain to convince one of those 200+ unbound delegates to support him. If he instead wakes up with 1,100 delegates, he’ll struggle to convince 137 delegates, especially since in this scenario he must have stumbled down the stretch with some surprising losses.
You can visualize the logic with this graph I sketched up:
Taken together, these four points explain why the betting markets remain so confident about Trump’s chances. He can still win Wisconsin, he can still win delegates in Wisconsin despite losing the state, he can make up for the delegates lost later, and he can still win if he falls short of 1,237 pledged delegates.
Trump State-by-State Delegate Race
Originally posted at PredictWise.com
May brings us five elections:
Indiana on May 3
Nebraska on May 10
West Virginia on May 10
Oregon on May 17
Washington on May 24
The betting markets currently believe Trump is the overwhelming favorite to become the GOP nominee. This is despite Trump winning less than 40% of the popular vote, less than 50% of pledged delegates, and actually being below his delegate targets according to Aaron Bycoffe and David Wasserman. Are the markets overrating Trump?
At this point, there are only three plausible outcomes of the Republican race:
1. Trump earns a majority of pledged delegates (1237+) and becomes the nominee.
2. Trump falls short of a majority, but convinces enough unpledged delegates to get on the Trump Train, allowing him to emerge victorious in Cleveland.
3. Trump falls short of a majority, can’t get enough unpledged delegates to cross over, and someone else emerges
.
Here’s why the betting markets think the first two outcomes are much more likely than Trump losing.
MARCH
Trump currently needs 542 more pledges delegates to reach a majority (1,237) and become the presumptive nominee. Even though he’s won less than half of delegates now, the terrain ahead is favorable for his chances.
This Tuesday, Trump is likely to add 58 delegates to his count. PredictWise thinks Trump has an 87% at winning Arizona, which is a winner-take-all state with 58 delegates. Such a victory should weaken the sting of his near-certain blowout loss in Utah, which the markets think Cruz is the 94% favorite. Recent polling also suggests Cruz will clear 50% of the vote in Utah, giving him all 40 delegates.
Taken together, Arizona and Utah will give Trump 58 new delegates, expand his lead over Cruz by 18 delegates, and leave him 484 delegates short of a majority.
APRIL
The first half of April is the barren part of the election season. There are only three contests, and two of them don’t even have a public preference vote (North Dakota and Colorado). That leaves Wisconsin as the contest of note.
Wisconsin is hard to predict. There are no betting markets, no recent polls, and even its geography and demographics don’t give many hints. It borders states won by Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. It’s a midwestern, very white state, which sound good for Cruz, but it also has a low share of very conservative, frequent church-attending evangelicals–which Cruz needs. The polls we do have point to a Trump lead–but it’s a small one, and maybe now nonexistent.
Wisconsin is also a “winner-take-most” primary, so the winner of the state gets a disproportionately high amount of the state’s delegates. As we saw in Missouri, a tiny shift in the the vote outcome has huge ramifications for the allocation of delegates. For now, let’s follow the evidence we have and say Trump narrowly edges out Cruz in Wisconsin, and takes home most of its 42 delegates.
The final two weeks of April will likely be Trump’s best stretch of the election. It will have to be for him to reach 1237. On April 19th is Trump’s home state of New York and its 95 delegates, most of which are allocated at the congressional district level–three delegates at stake per CD. The winner of each CD gets 2 delegates, unless they reach 50% of the vote, which gives them all 3 delegates. Recent polling, and what we know about Trump’s supporters, suggest New York may be the first state he wins with over 50% of the vote. If he does so, he’s likely to capture nearly all 95 delegates.
One week after New York comes Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. These five states combine for 172 delegates, although 54 of Pennsylvania’s will remain unbound. That means 118 delegates are at stake, and are allocated on a mix of winner-take-all, winner-take-most, and proportional rules. The little polling we do have, along with geographic and demographic indicators, suggest this is favorable Trump territory and he’ll take home most of those 118 delegates.
Assuming he wins Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, Trump will gain between 220 and 240 delegates, on top of the 58 he’d get from Arizona. For the sake of argument, let’s assume he wins 230, which would leave him 254 delegates short of 1237.
MAY
May brings us five elections:
Indiana on May 3
Nebraska on May 10
West Virginia on May 10
Oregon on May 17
Washington on May 24
There is virtually no polling on these five states, but we do have this detailed national polling map, from Nate Cohn. From this, along with what we know about Trump’s base, Trump is a big favorite in West Virginia, a favorite in Indiana, and competitive in Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington. If you assume he wins WV, IN, narrowly wins or loses in OR and WA, and loses NE, Trump should end up with around 100 delegates, bringing him within 154 delegates of 1237.
JUNE
The last day of the primaries is June 7th, when Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, and the biggest prize of them all–California–vote. At stake are 303 delegates–of which Trump will need to win around half of them.
New Jersey is easy to predict for Trump. Numerous polls and indicators suggest that NJ is one of Trump’s best states. New Jersey allocates its 51 delegates on a WTA basis, so if you subtract that from the 154 he needed, he’s now only 103 delegates short of a majority.
New Mexico only has 24 delegates to give out, and it does so on a strict proportional basis, so it doesn’t really matter if Trump wins or not. The little polling we do have and what he know about the demographics point to Trump winning at least a 1/3 of the vote–so let’s assume he wins 8 of the 24 delegate. Trump is now only 95 delegates short.
South Dakota and Montana have a combined 56 delegates, all of which are awarded to the winner. While Trump seems to fare better in these two states than the rest of Big Sky and the midwest, let’s assume Cruz hangs on and takes all 56 delegates. Trump still needs 95 more, but he has 169 to play with in California.
California only awards 10 delegates to the statewide winner. 3 delegates are given to the winner of each of the 53 congressional districts–159 delegates total. Polling suggests Trump has a state-wide lead over Cruz, but Cruz’s support typically tends to be concentrated in pockets of deeply conservatives areas, whereas Trump enjoys broader and more evenly-distributed appeal. This positions Trump to win most of CA’s districts, even if he’s running even with Cruz at the state level. If he does so, Trump will get most of those 159 delegates, pushing him over 1237 and becoming the nominee.
Trump could easily stumble and fall short. If he loses Wisconsin and Indiana, he’d have sweep nearly all of the delegates in the Northeast and California, or make up the difference with surprise wins in Nebraska, South Dakota, or Montana. So while Trump has an obvious path to a majority, he also is walking on an obviously narrow path.
The markets nonetheless remain confident in Trump’s position, because if he doesn’t get to 1237 by June 7th, he’s almost certain to be within striking distance and close enough where he could convince a handful or two of unpledged delegates to join the dark side and vote Trump.
While it’s easy to imagine elite Republicans conspiring to deny Trump the nomination if given an opportunity, such a conspiracy will be much harder to pull off in reality. One of the defining traits of this election has been the total lack of competence from the Republican establishment. Another defining trait has been Trump’s large, frenzied, and violent base of support–a base that’s currently the largest faction of the GOP rank-and-file. While it would make for a great script in House of Cards, it’s hard to imagine the bumbling Republican elite boldly standing up to the powerful, enraged mob of Trumpism, and giving the nomination to Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, or anyone else they think could and should beat Hillary. Instead they’ll do what they’ve been doing all along:
Lose to Trump.
This time is different: Republican anti-establishment candidates are doing better than ever
I’m curious if the current GOP mania with outsider, anti-establishment candidates is just a temporarily blip that will correct itself. After all, the 2012 Primaries had Santorum, Cain, and Bachman all temporarily leading in the polls. 2008 had Huckabee and Ron Paul, each of whom had some success.
So I downloaded all GOP National Primary polling data from the last three elections, and grouped all the candidates into two camps: “Establishment” and “Anti-Establishment.”
For 2008:
Establishment Candidates: McCain, Romney, Guilianni, Fred Thompson
Anti-Establishment: Huckabee, Ron Paul
2012:
Establishment: Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman
Anti: Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Ron Paul
2016:
Establishment: Bush, Rubio, Walker, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie, Jindal, Graham, Pataki
Anti: TRUMP!, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Rand Paul, Santorum
If you include Fiorina in the anti-establishment camp, then the trend is even more pronounced.
While it’s still more likely than not that the establishment will get their way, after looking at this graph, this election cycle really does seem different. The long term trends over the past 9 years show a steady decline in establishment support, which matches up with what we’re witnessing in Congress and the overall difficulty the GOP has had in controlling the Tea Party.
If I were Dictator...
With power, I would dramatically reshape America.
In general, I think neoliberals are right that the private market is the best engine for growth and rising living standards, and that government regulation, ownership, and intrusion distorts and reduces economic efficiency However, this is not absolutely true--some markets require heavy government regulation (finance) to protect capitalism from itself and some markets (health care insurance) just don't work as well as when they are government-run. The power of capitalism also creates temporary and permanent losers who need to be shielded from the creative destruction of the market. This is a moral issue, but also an economic one: cushioning the blows from capitalism allows the "losers" to more quickly reintegrate into the market, which leads to long-term economic growth. Strong social safety nets also create freedom since they reduce economic risk and therefore encourage otherwise uncertain but potentially beneficial investments. I.e., if you have job with benefits, you may not want to quit it to start your own business if that means you have to go without health care for you and your family. Economic growth is also not the sole purpose of public policy--equality is important as well.
I also think the libertarians are right that personal freedoms should not be infringed upon unless the social costs are too high (i.e. "negative externalities"). This is why I think drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage should be legal...but guns shouldn't be.
Finally, American political institutions are a total mess and need radical reform.
So, if I had the power, here's how I'd change America:
1. The Fed should drop inflation/unemployment targeting and switch to NGDP Growth Targeting: This would greatly smooth out the volatility of the business cycle and make steep economic downturns unlikely and short-lived.
2. Health care insurance should be provided for everyone by the federal government (Single Payer System). Private insurance companies can provide supplemental insurance. This would expand coverage, reduce costs (due to increased bargaining power and lower administrative costs), remove these costs from private business (since they are no longer paying for insurance), and remove all volatility in coverage (i.e. losing health care insurance after losing your job).
7. Increase the gas tax and chain it to inflation. Needed to help fund infrastructure and gas consumption is an activity that should be discouraged.
8. Eliminate all tax breaks (including for owning homes, marriage, etc.). These are hidden spending programs, most of which are harmful, and on the aggregate are definitely harmful. They also overly complicate tax filing, which is again wasteful.
10. Eliminate minimum wage laws. Given current political constraints, I support a high minimum wage, but it's not the ideal policy to reduce poverty and raise living standards. It raises the cost to do business, which is passed along to the consumer and the unemployed (or eats into profits), and isn't the best way to target those in need.
12. Install a "guaranteed minimum income" law (to reduce poverty and cushion employment adjustments). Everyone, given a few requirements (such as citizenship, employment, college, or attempts at employment, etc.), should receive a minimum amount of money (maybe something like $15 - 20,000). This would be done via direct government cash transfers. Yes, this will de-incentive some to really look for work or really work hard for a raise, but this is not a wide spread problem and is drastically outweighed by the moral and economic benefits.
15. Reduce defense spending dramatically. Maybe something like 2-3% of GDP. It's currently around 5%, double the world average and makes up over 40% of world defense expenditures. This is wasteful and probably needlessly encourages military endeavors that do more harm than good (see: Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
16. Create an independent "infrastructure bank." Staffed by public policy experts, this would have its own large budget and would be charged with targeting worthy and needed infrastructure projects (HSR, highways, smart power grids, etc.).
17. Strengthen unions via card check rules, eliminate "right to work" laws, and other measures. Maybe even create sector-wide unions who represent all workers in that sector (i.e. Sweden). Probably less needed if all the other stuff on my list existed, but they do help address economic and political inequality since workers face greater collective actions problems than business.
19. Deregulate many zoning laws. Most of these creative terrible incentives, raise property costs, and make cities less efficiently designed.
20. Universal pre-K education. A good investment for future productivity gains.
21. Government(s) should fund all public colleges and universities and make tuition free. A good investment for future productivity gains.
22. Aggressive pro-immigration policy. Working-age population growth helps fund the government and leads to long-term productivity gains.
23. Aggressive expansion of free trade zones. Free trade good.
In general, I think neoliberals are right that the private market is the best engine for growth and rising living standards, and that government regulation, ownership, and intrusion distorts and reduces economic efficiency However, this is not absolutely true--some markets require heavy government regulation (finance) to protect capitalism from itself and some markets (health care insurance) just don't work as well as when they are government-run. The power of capitalism also creates temporary and permanent losers who need to be shielded from the creative destruction of the market. This is a moral issue, but also an economic one: cushioning the blows from capitalism allows the "losers" to more quickly reintegrate into the market, which leads to long-term economic growth. Strong social safety nets also create freedom since they reduce economic risk and therefore encourage otherwise uncertain but potentially beneficial investments. I.e., if you have job with benefits, you may not want to quit it to start your own business if that means you have to go without health care for you and your family. Economic growth is also not the sole purpose of public policy--equality is important as well.
I also think the libertarians are right that personal freedoms should not be infringed upon unless the social costs are too high (i.e. "negative externalities"). This is why I think drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage should be legal...but guns shouldn't be.
Finally, American political institutions are a total mess and need radical reform.
So, if I had the power, here's how I'd change America:
Economic Policy:
2. Health care insurance should be provided for everyone by the federal government (Single Payer System). Private insurance companies can provide supplemental insurance. This would expand coverage, reduce costs (due to increased bargaining power and lower administrative costs), remove these costs from private business (since they are no longer paying for insurance), and remove all volatility in coverage (i.e. losing health care insurance after losing your job).
3. Overall taxation should be more progressive and shouldn't have arbitrary brackets, but instead a granular taxation rate (i.e. every additional dollar taxed at a fractionally higher rate).
4. Eliminate all income taxes (personal, payroll, corporate) and capital gain taxes. While currently necessary to fund our government, they are far from ideal. They distort incentives in anti-growth ways and are overly complicated, therefore wasting money and time on filings and rewarding trickery.
5. Switch to a consumption-based taxes (that are modified so they remain progressive). This would be our new main source of revenue. They would include a Value Added Tax and a "Income minus savings and investments" tax that is progressive. These taxes are the most simple, hardest to dodge, and have the fewest economic distortions.
6. Install a financial transaction tax. This isn't necessary to raise revenue (although that's a bonus), but to throw some sand in the gears of a financial system that is too fast moving and reduce financial volatility.
7. Increase the gas tax and chain it to inflation. Needed to help fund infrastructure and gas consumption is an activity that should be discouraged.
8. Eliminate all tax breaks (including for owning homes, marriage, etc.). These are hidden spending programs, most of which are harmful, and on the aggregate are definitely harmful. They also overly complicate tax filing, which is again wasteful.
9. Eliminate agriculture subsidies. Terrible policy that mostly benefits those who don't need it, makes us fatter, and increases the national deficit.
10. Eliminate minimum wage laws. Given current political constraints, I support a high minimum wage, but it's not the ideal policy to reduce poverty and raise living standards. It raises the cost to do business, which is passed along to the consumer and the unemployed (or eats into profits), and isn't the best way to target those in need.
11. Expand unemployment insurance. It should be more generous and lengthier--this is a main cushion against the inevitable problems of capitalism and is also a powerful automatic stabilizer of aggregate demand (Keynesian policy without all the politics!)
12. Install a "guaranteed minimum income" law (to reduce poverty and cushion employment adjustments). Everyone, given a few requirements (such as citizenship, employment, college, or attempts at employment, etc.), should receive a minimum amount of money (maybe something like $15 - 20,000). This would be done via direct government cash transfers. Yes, this will de-incentive some to really look for work or really work hard for a raise, but this is not a wide spread problem and is drastically outweighed by the moral and economic benefits.
13. Increase capital-to-debt requirements for banks that go higher with more systemic risk they pose. Instead of outlawing "too big to fail banks," which do benefit from economics of scale, try to prevent their systemic risk.
14. Specify that financial institutions that do need to be bailed out are done so on very onerous terms: wiping out shareholders, nationalizing, etc. The government should absolutely always bail out companies that pose systemic economic risk, but should minimize moral hazard as much as possible. This does that.
15. Reduce defense spending dramatically. Maybe something like 2-3% of GDP. It's currently around 5%, double the world average and makes up over 40% of world defense expenditures. This is wasteful and probably needlessly encourages military endeavors that do more harm than good (see: Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
16. Create an independent "infrastructure bank." Staffed by public policy experts, this would have its own large budget and would be charged with targeting worthy and needed infrastructure projects (HSR, highways, smart power grids, etc.).
17. Strengthen unions via card check rules, eliminate "right to work" laws, and other measures. Maybe even create sector-wide unions who represent all workers in that sector (i.e. Sweden). Probably less needed if all the other stuff on my list existed, but they do help address economic and political inequality since workers face greater collective actions problems than business.
18. Install congestion fees on busy freeways and roads. Road space is a scarce public good and should not be given away for free. When its most in demand, it should be most expensive. This would raise revenue, incentivize less driving, and dramatically reduce traffic (saving time, money, energy, and sanity).
19. Deregulate many zoning laws. Most of these creative terrible incentives, raise property costs, and make cities less efficiently designed.
20. Universal pre-K education. A good investment for future productivity gains.
21. Government(s) should fund all public colleges and universities and make tuition free. A good investment for future productivity gains.
22. Aggressive pro-immigration policy. Working-age population growth helps fund the government and leads to long-term productivity gains.
23. Aggressive expansion of free trade zones. Free trade good.
24. Abolish the United States Postal Service - Not really needed anymore.
Politics:
1. Eliminate the United States Senate - Not needed, dysfunctional, and distorts public policy towards areas where most people don't live.
2. Eliminate the Electoral College and replace with national popular vote - All together stupid. Makes voting a pointless exercise for most, incentivizes campaigns to spend all their time and energy in narrow parts of the country, and can lead to anti-democratic outcomes (see: George W. Bush).
3. Install proportional representation for the House - Eliminates problems of Gerrymandering, safe-districts, and wasted votes. Allows for some 3rd party representation.
4. National holiday for election days - Voting should be a celebration and made as easy as possible. Giving the people the day off does both.
5. National early-voting by mail and the internet (if it's proven sufficiently safe). Again, voting should be as costless as possible and waiting in long lines is a big cost (particularly for minorities who Republicans don't want to vote!).
6. Supreme Court term limits - I don't really see the point of lifetime appointments--allows people to hang around too long and time up their retirement to benefit their party. Give them 20 years--that's plenty of time to learn the job and become an absolute expert.
7. Eliminate presidential term limits - We have term limits in the wrong place. Unlike the Supreme Court, we already have a de facto term limit on presidents: elections. Presidential term limits are not needed and are anti-democratic.
8. Eliminate debt ceiling - Dangerous, serves no purpose, and inherently illogical.
9. Eliminate Hastert Rule in House - Pushes public policy towards the extremes. Anti-democratic.
Social Policy:
1. Legalize gay marriage - Or just get the government out of the marriage business all together, grant civil unions to straight and gay couples alike, and allow private institutions to do their own ceremonies.
2. Legalize marijuana - A mostly harmless drug (both personally and socially) who's illegality benefits criminals, wastes public resources, criminalizes non-criminal behavior, and infringes on personal liberty for little reason.
3. Legalize or Decriminalize all other drugs - Unlike marijuana, most other drugs are sufficiently harmful that we should try to reduce their consumption. But they should be treated as health problems and infractions. I'm less sure on whether they should be legalized or merely decriminalized.
4. Legalize prostitution - Prostitutes should should have the same rights and protections as any other worker (including unions!). Illegal prostitution probably reduces the overall prevalence of prostitution, but does so at great costs by making it more unhealthy, exploitative, and violent.
5. Ban all guns (or at least all hand guns and high-powered rifles) and institute a national buyback program to try to get existing guns off the street - While guns and hunting do have important family and cultural connections, they impose severe public costs. Yes, such draconian measures will not eliminate guns and gun violence, and the imminent arrival of 3D printers will make it that much harder to eliminate guns, all measures should be done to reduce the amount of guns in society.
Foreign Policy (I'm least interested in this...):
1. A general liberal-institutionalist outlook grounded in conservative, pragmatic realism. I'd try to strengthen international institutions so the U.S. doesn't have to be the World Police. I'm too ignorant to have specifics on how this is done.
2. I'd like to promote democracy and capitalism where its lacking, but I'm not sure how that's done effectively. Intervention doesn't seem to work, so perhaps "leading by example" and grass-roots support for pro-democratic groups and organizations.
3. Reduction if not elimination of troops in taking out terrorists.
4. Relative increase in drone attacks used for targeted killings. Must come with greatly increased transparency on how applied to American citizen terrorists.
5. Much more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, including explicitly criticizing Israeli actions.
That's all I got for now. I'm curious to see how I change over time. I wish I wrote something like this 10 years ago so I could laugh at my younger, dumber self.