The Democratic Convention Kicked Trump's Ass
The best part of the Democratic convention opening night, by far, was the way they destroyed Donald Trump. Any thought that the Democrats would be more into "hope and change" than battering Trump was dispelled very early on. This was an epic and infinitely deserved beat down. One can only guess how much ketchup Trump threw at the walls, because you know he was watching, probably having one of his flunkies take notes.
Trump is at this point a human punching bag, a fighter that cant get his dukes up anymore. At his appearances he is rambling, confused, looks worn out. His just reward for decades of incessant lying and cheating.
Three more days of this bombardment and Trump might devolve into a creamsicle colored puddle of smelly goo.
Tags
Who is online
447 visitors
Just keep the pressure up. He will crack.
What pressure?
This particular convention only talks to the democrat base.
Did the republican convention talk to anyone not already a republican? If so, please give examples.
probably not, because it was a Republican convention.
Link?
I'm not a Republican-- but I watched every minute of it!
I think he has already cracked; that happened as soon as Harris starting leading in the polls and was further fractured when he started experiencing crowd envy.
No one cares about conventions other than the people who are already invested in the party.
It will be completely forgotten in two weeks, just like every other convention this century.
The only thing so far that's going to have sticking power is Andy Beshear hoping JD Vance's wife/daughter gets raped. Not a lot of "joy" in that and it's the kind of peak behind the curtain that gets remembered.
Last night demonstrated beyond doubt that the Democrats know how to go after Trump. The short films about Trump, I think there were three or four of them, are devastating to his reputation in the eyes of anyone other than his most devoted cultists. I'm sure they will be campaign ads nationwide.
They kicked his ass.
As has been said, no one will remember what all this "irrational exuberance" and "joy" was about after a few days of convention "bounce" in her approval ratings. She is forever tied to Biden and his terrible administration, and she cannot cover up her own awful reputation and record. They've been kicking his ass for years to no effect for years now. About the only thing that will keep Trump out of the White House is his big mouth spewing unfiltered bullshit.
For all the negatives you perceive (and imagine) about Harris-Walz there is no comparing their net negatives to the level of negatives encapsulated by Trump.
With the D's age problem solved we now have a presidential contest between a normal D team (by historical standards) and an outrageously horrible 'GOP' candidate Trump.
Chances are good that the electorate (even with superficial observation) will go for the young, positive, energetic, presidential Harris-Walz team over the oldest nominee in US history who is a tired negative curmudgeon, pathological liar, malignant narcissist, and traitor who campaigns on fear, hate and lies.
A 25% tax on unrealized gains. 44.6% capital gains tax on long term gain will destroy the stock market which will destroy peoples retirement account and the investments of pension funds. Throw oin price controls sand higher corporate taxes (which is a tax on consumers) and Harris is plotting to force a depression.
Nothing donald trump could do will ruin more Peoples lives then this.
I agree that taxing unrealized gains would be catastrophic.
It will never happen. It is fundamentally illogical.
And a 44.6% capital gains tax would simply encourage people to not liquidate assets and instead borrow against their portfolio.
These are targeted at high wealth individuals but still, this is bad policy.
The key thing that should be done (that nobody does) is to focus on cutting wasteful spending rather than looking at taxes for more revenue. Sensible taxation for the most wealthy would be to ensure that ordinary income and capital gains are taxed at least at the rate of everyone else. This means closing tax loopholes. Not going to happen either. Our government is far too integrated with our capitalist forces.
Bottom line, this election should be about character, presidential demeanor, etc. We need to raise the bar on what type of people we allow in positions of power.
The purpose of high taxes on the extremely wealthy is not just to get revenue for the government. Its main purpose is to tamp down the vast inequality of political power between the very wealthy and everyone else. Take away the plutocrats power to buy politicians and see the improvement there will be in this country.
There should be a wealth tax because the survival of our society requires a lesser gap between the ones with financial power and those without any.
Not possible. Maybe after many generations, but nothing any of us will live to see.
The disparity is massive, I agree. But the solution is not obvious. Congress is commingled with aristocracy in a mutually beneficial informal system.
But the 1st steps need to be taken, or else it will never happen.
Never happen? Based on what?
People who float ideas like "wealth taxes" and constantly complaining that some don't pay "their fair share" wouldn't be above taxing us at the rates stated.
Bad policy may not be enough to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.
Hasn't stopped many stupid things from occurring.
It would immediately also require giving tax credits for unrealized losses. An unrealized gain is just that — unrealized, not real, merely potential. Unrealized gains are already taxed with 'unrealized taxes'. Here is how it works, when a gain is realized (i.e. converted into real money) the taxation is realized.
Taxing unrealized gains is fundamentally flawed logic.
Also, consider the impact on retirement savings. Are we going to tax unrealized gains in retirement / pension / ... portfolios each year and then give tax credits for unrealized losses? This is idiotic.
Now, on top of that, it is naive to think that Congress, given its commingling with aristocracy, would ever enact such legislation.
Any financial regulation that allows for manipulation by the supposed subjects of the regulation is not helpful. Rich people dont live on fumes, they need money like everyone else, and in fact to support their lifestyle they need more money than everyone else. But they now can receive income from interest bearing holdings that cannot be taxed.
This is wrong, but the plutocracy writes the laws and regulations.
Require?? Show me!
I am not arguing flawed logic, I am disputing your claim it will never happen.
This is basic logic. If you only tax unrealized gains then what happens if that unrealized gain disappears in the future? For example, take a stock that has run up excessively in value and is at a ridiculous high at year's end. The unrealized gains would be taxable under this nonsense. Then, when that stock takes its predictable nosedive (correction) and never again achieves its exuberant value, how is this ever reconciled if tax credits are not also part of the equation? Do the math, Texan, this is not difficult.
A big 'nuh-uh' is not an argument.
Sure, things like tax-exempt municipal bonds. These are instruments that are tax-exempt by design to encourage participation. Are you in favor of taking away instruments such as Roth IRAs?
But we are talking about taxing unrealized gains. Very different.
[✘]
Ten Ways Billionaires Avoid Taxes on an Epic Scale
Ten Ways Billionaires Avoid Taxes on an Epic Scale — ProPublica
1. The Ultra Wealth Effect
Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)
2. The $5 Billion IRA
Other billionaires used less conventional ways to avoid income, we found. Tech mogul Peter Thiel amassed a $5 billion Roth IRA, a type of account that shields income from taxes and is intended to help low- and middle-class savers prepare for retirement. Back in 1999, Thiel stuffed low-valued shares of the company that would become PayPal into the account, a maneuver tax lawyers said risked running afoul of IRS rules. (It’s not clear if the government ever challenged the move.) He set himself up to reap billions in untaxed gains. (Thiel did not respond to questions for the original article.)
3. The $1 Billion Parlor Trick: Turning High-Tax-Rate Trading into Low-Tax-Rate Income
Even when tech billionaires do show income on their tax return, they tend to pay relatively low income tax rates. That’s because of the type of income they have: Gains from long-term investments, such as from stock sales, are taxed at a lower rate. But what do you do if you’re making over $1 billion every year, and it’s largely from short-term trading? Do you just accept that you’ll pay the higher rate on all that income? As we reported this week, Jeff Yass, head of one of the most profitable firms on Wall Street, did not meekly accept this fate. Instead, his firm, Susquehanna International Group, found creative ways to transform the wrong sort of income into the right kind, generating tax savings that exceeded $1 billion over just six years. (Susquehanna declined to comment but in a court case that centered on similar allegations, it maintained that it complies with the law.)
4: The Magic of Sports Ownership: Make Money While (Legally) Reporting Losses
The tax code offers business owners a slew of methods to erase income through deductions, none more awesome than buying a sports team, as former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer did with the Los Angeles Clippers. It doesn’t matter whether the team is actually profitable and growing in value. It can still be a write-off. (In some cases, we found, owners could effectively deduct a given player’s contract not once, but twice. They’re allowed to take deductions comparable to those for factory equipment that loses value as it ages, even as teams almost inevitably gain in value.) That’s one reason owners tend to pay far lower tax rates than the athletes they employ, or even the people serving beer in the team’s stadium. In our story, we found a Clippers arena worker who made $45,000 a year and paid a higher tax rate than the billionaire Ballmer. (Ballmer said he pays the taxes he owes.)
5. Build, Drill and Save: The Real Estate and Oil Businesses Can Both Be Tax Havens
In certain industries, like real estate or oil and gas, the tax breaks are so plentiful that billionaires can erase their income entirely even as they grow richer. That’s how real estate developer Stephen Ross (who also happens to own the Miami Dolphins) went 10 years without paying any income tax. Ross said that he followed the law. Another mogul, this one in the oil business, managed to tap a near bottomless well of write-offs via one of the biggest oil spills in history. (The mogul’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment.)
6. Even a Billionaire’s Hobbies Can Pay Off at Tax Time
Deductions from hobbies and side projects, which the ultrawealthy can structure as businesses, are another fun option. For some billionaires, it’s race horses: We found that six owners of thoroughbreds at the 2021 Kentucky Derby had taken a combined $600 million in tax write-offs on their horse racing operations. For others, like Beanie Babies founder Ty Warner, it’s luxury hotels. The billionaire splurged on a couple of landmark Four Seasons locations and then went 12 years without paying any income tax. (Representatives for Warner did not respond to requests for comment.)
7. Think Your Taxes are Too High? Change the Tax Laws
Sometimes, it pays to fight for a new tax break. For the billionaires who contributed millions to Republican politicians, the payoff came in the form of Trump’s “big, beautiful tax cut” for passthrough businesses. We found the change sent $1 billion in tax savings in a single year to just 82 ultrawealthy households. Some business owners also boosted their savings with a trick: They slashed their own salaries and categorized the money instead as passthrough income.
8. Why Tech Billionaires Pay Less Than Hedge-Fund Managers
With so many options to reduce taxes, the richest Americans often manage low income tax rates. We analyzed the incomes and taxes of the country’s top 400 earners, those averaging over $110 million in income per year. Overall, the group paid relatively low rates, but certain segments (tech billionaires, heirs, private equity executives) stood out even within this elite population because they were able to draw on the sorts of techniques detailed above. (Also drawing on these techniques were wealthy politicians, like the governors of Colorado and West Virginia.)
9. Brother, Can You Spare a Stimulus Check?
But the real standouts were the billionaires who reported such low incomes that they qualified for government assistance. At least 18 billionaires received stimulus checks in 2020, because their tax returns placed them below the income cutoff ($150,000 for a married couple).
IRS Audit of Trump Could Cost Former President More Than $100 Million
10. Trust This: How Wealthy Families Pass Billions to Heirs While Avoiding Taxes
The holes in the estate tax, we found, are even more remarkable. There are well-worn ways to make sure Uncle Sam doesn’t get his cut of a fortune being passed on to heirs, and the most common is through a trust. How common no one can say, but we found evidence that at least half of the nation’s 100 richest individuals had used estate-tax-dodging trusts. In another story,we followed three century-old dynasties down through the generations, showing how they used trusts to avoid taxes, so that a fortune could pass all the way from the original early 20th century tycoon to, for example, the great-great-granddaughter who recently collected $210 million before her 19th birthday.
many wealthy individuals use various strategies to derive income from holdings that are not immediately taxable. Here are a few common methods:
Borrowing Against Assets : Instead of selling assets like stocks, which would generate taxable income, the wealthy often borrow against these assets. Loans are not considered income and therefore are not taxed 1 .
Unrealized Gains : Wealthy individuals can hold onto assets that have appreciated in value without selling them. These unrealized gains are not taxed until the assets are sold 2 .
Tax-Advantaged Accounts : Some use accounts like Roth IRAs, which allow investments to grow tax-free. For example, Peter Thiel reportedly grew a Roth IRA to $5 billion by placing low-valued shares of a startup into the account 1 .
Offshore Accounts : Some wealthy individuals use offshore accounts to shield income from taxes. These accounts can be in countries with favorable tax laws 3 .
Tax-Loss Harvesting : This involves selling investments that have lost value to offset the gains from other investments, thereby reducing taxable income 4 .
These strategies are often legal but can contribute to significant disparities in tax burdens between the wealthy and average taxpayers. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
copilot
[✘]
What is your point?
I have not in any way suggested that wealthy individuals do not have myriad instruments at their disposal.
I (maybe not you) was talking about taxing unrealized gains.
Substantial Income of Wealthy Households Escapes Annual Taxation Or Enjoys Special Tax Breaks | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (cbpp.org)
Unlike other types of income, like wages, the amount of capital gain claimed on a tax return is often effectively voluntary due to the “realization principle,” which means that a capital gain is only taxed when the capital gain is “realized,” typically when the asset is sold. Only part of capital gains are realized in any given year. The rest are deferred, and no tax is immediately due, even if the unrealized capital gain makes up a significant share of a household’s income as reflected in the growth of its net worth.
The ability to defer capital gains taxes confers three benefits on taxpayers who can take advantage of this tax break:
This deferral option disproportionately benefits wealthy households. Not only do they receive the large bulk of capital gains (see discussion below), but unrealized capital gains make up 34 percent of the assets of the wealthiest 1 percent of households, which held $6.6 million in unrealized capital gains apiece, on average, in 2013. The comparable figures for households in the bottom 90 percent are just 6.1 percent and $9,000, respectively. [8]
Not surprisingly, many wealthy households take advantage of this very generous tax break. Research in the 1980s by Eugene Steuerle (now with the Tax Policy Center) found that less than one-third of overall capital income (including unrealized gains) was reported on individual tax returns. [9] And an important 2018 paper by Jenny Bourne, Steuerle, and others found that over the 2002-2006 period, when the stock market was delivering annual returns of 7-8 percent after adjusting for inflation, wealthy people were reporting taxable returns on their wealth of “less than 3 percent and the predominant rate was in the 1 to 2 percent range.” [10] The authors concluded that “these results are consistent with earlier work . . . indicating that in aggregate most capital income is not reported on tax returns.” [11]
Are stocks or real estate holdings that grow in value income or not ? When the worth of that stock goes up the individuals net worth goes up, which is income. Is it the taxpayers fault that the stock may go down later?
Can a regular person take part of their income and lose it at the track and then at the end of the year deduct those losses at the track from their tax liability? Of course not.
Do you think you are debating me in some way? I do not get what you are trying to accomplish here.
If you have a point to make about taxing unrealized gains then make it. Otherwise, you seem to be arguing a point that I already recognize and have never disputed — that wealthy individuals have all sorts of opportunities for skirting taxation.
I dont know, I think what I said is pretty clear. Rich people make income from "gains", so it should be taxed.
If I make 80,000 a year at my job can I say "I'm going to let 60,000 of this money just sit in my desk drawer and not do anything with it until later." Can I go on my tax form and say my income was only 20,000?
Wrong.
If you itemize, anyone CAN deduct losses against winnings but not more than you have won. Same for Michigan on state income taxes but not all states do that.
So yes, a “regular person” can do it.
But that income would be realized gains, not unrealized gains.
An unrealized gain is a gain 'on paper'. It is a gain that is not realized as a liquid asset. One cannot 'spend' an unrealized gain.
Yes one can as long as they factor in their wins also for a net gain or loss.
Not following this either. If you have ordinary income from your job of $80,000 your income is taxed because it is real.
Again, yes the wealthier an individual the more opportunities available to them. Addressing loopholes, tax havens, etc. is a very different topic than taxing unrealized gains.
You can only use losses to offset the tax liability on wins. If you hit a trifecta for 5000 dollars and you can show 5000 in losses you dont have to pay taxes on the trifecta. If you never hit the trifecta and lose 5000 you're fucked.
semantics. "Gains" are income.
Okay, John, if you are not going to follow the legal and accounting definitions then there is no point in my continuing this with you.
Okay we can be done. My point is that the legal definitions are written with the intent to benefit the wealthy.
On that we agree and have always agreed. I have written about that in this forum.
And, in closing, this is part of my argument to Texan. One key reason that an illogical act such as taxing unrealized gains will not work is that those who would write the legislation (Congress) are commingled with aristocracy. Those with money heavily influence Congress to their advantage. This is a fundamental problem and I am not sure how this will ever be resolved.
You keep talking logic and politicians.
Have you not seen what has happened over the last 30 years or so?
Your comment is devoid of specifics. It is entirely vague.
Make a specific point.
[deleted][✘]
I am not "invested in the party.,
Yet I watched every minute of it!!!
Biden fucking destroyed Trump, again. Every speaker did well, but his fury was epic. Then venom in his tone when he said “who the hell does he think he is” was palpable. Great job Joe.
I preferred AOC but they were almost all good.
I thought AOC's was very good-- but that didn't surprize me. IMO she's much more intelligent than many people realize.
Personally I thought Michelle Obama's was one of the very best. (But that's just my opinion).
Of course there were many others....
Yep, like he destroyed him in the debate. Hilarious
You must’ve missed it. We get it, you’re old enough that you need to be in bed earlier than an 81 year old badass goes to bed.
Biden had his act together. But of course I do not expect a Trump supporter to give Biden any credit for anything at any time.
Is there anything you would give Trump credit for?
Yes, since you asked, I give Trump credit for mishandling COVID, for election denial, for the fake elector scheme, for Georgia election interference, for gross disregard for top secret Presidential records, for thousands of rank lies, countless sexual assaults, cheating on all his wives, home wrecking, financial frauds, ripping off kid's charities and especially for January 6th. That is just for starters! What else?
Trump stands out as a politician with an abundance of negatives, far overshadowing his positives.
But in terms of policy I credit him for:
His contrasting shit policies such as the irresponsible deregulation across many dimensions to enable businesses to cut corners in safety are not listed nor am I listing the many reasons he is entirely unfit for office.
Every PotUS will have good and bad in his/her administration. So one can always produce a list of good things.
But in Trump's case, this does not even matter. His behavior and negative actions far overshadow the good. And much worse, as an individual Trump is wholly unfit to hold the office of the presidency for the reasons I have argued for well over a year now.
It is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic to support this vindictive traitor for PotUS.
As long as we live in a society that fights taxation as unfair to something or other lowering tax rates will always have its appeal. I think taxes , on the people with the bulk of the money, should always be as high as public opinion will bear. Taxes on corporations would ideally be taxes on excessive profits. Excessive profits are economic exploitation.
-
Illegal immigration has been around for over 100 years and has ebbed and flowed. In recent times more and more people want to leave their countries of birth and migrate to a "better" land where they can have a better way of life. Can they really be blamed? Unfortunately the US is highly implicated in why some of these other countries are in such bad shape. I agree we have to control our border but it will take reform put into law by Congress and not just troops on the border.
-
The Abraham accords have a major and unsolvable flaw, they do not account for the Palestinians.
-
I do think the Trump administration did a good job on the speed of developing the covid vaccines, but I wonder how much of that speed belongs to trumps personal credit.
John, every policy will have pros and cons. I was attempting to give an actual answer (even though the question was insincere). If I included negatives on each positive then I basically would have offered a non-answer.
Ditto but inverted.
You did not pay any attention to what took place on this thread. Operating based on stereotype is a great way to be wrong.
ANY supposition that Biden destroyed Trump in that debate is simply just asinine. End of story.
Absolutely, undoubtedly, 100% correct!
No one can claim credibly that Biden did well in the debate.
What on Earth are you talking about? Who has even hinted that Biden was effective in the debate much less "destroyed Trump"?
Who made such a claim?
Do you understand that the context of this thread is Biden's speech, not his debate performance?
Do you understand that I made zero claims about you or your posts?
Who claimed Biden did well in the debate?
You tell me!
So Trump did destroy Biden in the debate. Right?
Biden destroyed himself.
Did you watch the debate?
Did you?
Is that the debate where Trump lied at least 30 times ?
Which means Trump destroyed him in the debate. End of story.
The jury is out on Biden destroying Trump at your convention. Opinions will vary greatly in this regard. There is no question who won that debate. And yes, I choked my way through watching the debate and Biden’s convention speech. Wasn’t easy in either case.
Why, yes, it is.
Was there another debate or do you get that we are talking about the only debate between Trump and Biden this year?
One lousy debate and the moneybags cut off funds.
Biden lied about ….. uuhhh how many times ….. hard to tell since he was impossible to understand half the time
Tossed to the scrap heap …. Oh well ….. the liberal cabal just injected who they wanted instead ….. hooray democracy!
Biden got whooped so bad they made him quit.
Trump is a buffoon every single day of his life.
Harris will be one of the worst things this country has ever seen if elected. Take it to the bank.
ok, but does that mean Biden didn't lose as badly as we all saw?
I guess Joe is just a bigger buffoon than Trump. Has to be ….
Post 4
Just seems shameful
let Biden run and win all the primaries all while saying what a great job he is doing, only to pull the rug out from him at the last minute.
Pitiful and deceitful.
It is tough to adjust to Trump getting his ass kicked. I understand.
Ok, am not sure why I bother, but here goes:
Your Trump insults are prolific but why the fuck would I care?
Just like it is no skin off my nose if you support a party that is willing to kick out an incumbent President who the party swears is just fine and replace him with who the money people demanded. You get that your primary vote was a total waste of time, right?
Trump is unraveling and his supporter's arguments are now mostly feeble antagonism — devoid of content.
I don't think so, or you wouldn't have posted what you did.
Almost as fast as Biden's support unraveled in a rather spectacular, historical way!
Well, at least you recognize that Trump is unraveling and his supporter's arguments are now mostly feeble antagonism — devoid of content.
Well, at least you seem to admit that Biden performed horribly at the debate despite all the lies his team spewed about how great he is.
Your Trump quips mean nothing to me.
On the day of the debate I observed that Biden's performance was horrible. Since then I have never suggested otherwise.
Operate on facts rather than ridiculous fiction based on a flawed stereotype.
so, as I just stated, you admit Biden was horrible!
Look at us agreeing!
Yes, funny how you agree with me when it is negative regarding a D. But you cannot bring yourself to admit that it is far better for this nation to have Harris rather than Trump as our next PotUS.
What do you find funny?
Harris may be better for the country than Trump, but we don't know that for sure, so you are engaging in rank speculation.
Well, if you are going on factual answers, Biden had by far the most. He didn't counter Trumps bullshit, though, which I guess means he "lost" the debate by letting Trump's lies alone.
Let them roll in their own slop.
Biden did such an awesome job his campaign ended within days.
You could have just left it at the good stuff but just could not help but repeat the same tirades we have seen here many times before.
(even though the question was insincere).
What made you think that? Because we see one or two short sentences criticizing the Ds and Biden and spend literally multiple paragraphs denigrating Trump,, I was i interested in if you thought Trump did some good things while in office.
Your presumption of me and what I wrote was, once again, wrong.
Yep, that sums it up very nicely. Again, if Republicans had tried something like this the moaning and gnashing of teeth coming from the left would be loud and proud.
No doubt about it.
None
Your comments to me et.al. are consistently aggressive and antagonistic. A sincere question would be an exception. Your expectation of spontaneously viewing a question from you as sincere is unrealistic.
Now there is a comment just chock-full of projection.
Like Trump was destroyed in the 1st 2 debates 4 years ago?
Not at all, of course.
Trump didn't do bad enough to actually drop his WHOLE campaign like Democrats forced Biden to.
See 4.2.52
Hmmm, thinking that's a Texan comment. I ignore him.
Inconvenient truths too much?
“I ignore him.”[✘]
[✘]
Link?
[deleted][✘]
That'd be a first. Sorry if I don't believe you.
I would never subscribe to conspiracy theories. And I can support any claim I make.
Current events
[✘]
[✘]
John
You and I seldom agree completely on something, but you hit this one on the head.
MY take on the Republican convention and the Democratic convention (so far) is that the Republicans are looking backwards at the things "they" did to the Republicans and predicting gloom and doom and promoting hate, while the Democratics are contrasting their policies with those of their opponents and promoting hope and change.
I may not agree with all the "change" the democrats want to make, but this is the way a political campaign and a government should work.
I think things are shifting Harris' way as we approach the election
I concur. My phrasing is that Harris-Walz is a positive, responsible, energetic, youthful initiative ... a very good example of a historically proper Democratic team. Trump-Vance is a negative, fear-mongering, disorganized mess artificially held together by the cultish behavior of the contemporary 'GOP'. They represent a horrible example of a Republican team.
On optics alone, one would expect people to favor Harris-Walz. And as one digs deeper into what these teams stand for, the favor for Harris-Walz should grow dramatically.