Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah... you don't get to do that out loud without at least attempting to refute my arguments.


...unless you want to look silly yourself, that is.

Your arguments and your conclusion are sufficiently diverged that I can address one and not the other.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure the many if not most of the supporters of all candidates feel that their candidate is the most qualified candidate in the bunch on both sides of the aisle. But saying that that nothing can change your mind, speaks for itself.

Oh like anything could change your mind.

I have a large body of knowledge about Clinton, her record goes back 50 years. It doesn't match the constant barrage of negative image campaigning that comes from the scandal hungry news media and the scandal innuendo without evidence the right wing throws out.

So what is it you propose that is going to counter what I know about Clinton already? That she wheels and deals like most good politicians? Not concerned. That she's secretly out to screw the poor and make the rich richer? Her 50 yr record does not indicate that. That she more centrist than I am? That may be but Sanders is so far to the left while I might think those are in line with my values, I don't see his minions growing to great enough numbers.

If his minions suddenly start pouring out of the woodwork, if it looked like the whole Congress was going to be replaced with Progressives, if there was a serious effort to end gerrymandering.... then I might be convinced.

But that's a damn tall order.

 

[The Big Dog]

Vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[Trakar]

If swing state is meaningless, then so is any consideration of red state, blue state, or any state.
We can go by total votes, where Clinton has more than Sanders, but also more than Trump, or Cruz, or Kasich. But this still doesn't make Sanders the winner you want him to be, so maybe polling? Nope, Clinton is the clear winner there, as well.
Waving away Clinton's wins in swing States ignores the plain fact that those are States the Democratic nominee will need to win, and Sanders couldn't win the majority, and especially the large delegate ones needed.

Please reflect on your response and try again, it really doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not being rude, I just really do not understand what you are trying to say.

A state that has been Red or Blue for the last three or four general election cycles, is probably going to be the same composition in 2016. Red or Blue are important because no matter which Red or Blue candidate wins their party's nomination will most likely win the same Red or Blue states their party has carried for the last 2-3 election cycles. Swing states are states that frequently change from one party to the other which makes them important in General elections but largely irrelevant in the primaries unless you have a rational that would explain why one democratic candidate can win against all of the other party's candidates while the other democratic candidate couldn't win against all the other party's candidates (and weren't you the one saying that polls assessing such things are too inaccurate to trust?) Other than that traditionally red states that one candidate might be able to turn Blue that the other candidate might not be able to turn blue (or on the bad side might lose a blue state to a red candidate) Could be a benefit (or take-away) with regard to primary competitors.

So are you game?

Which Blues states that Hillary has won do you think Sanders can't win against Trump, Cruz or Kasich?

Which Red States that Hillary has won do you think that she can win in November that Sanders couldn't win as well?

I think Sanders can win every Blue State in November that Hillary has won so far in the Primaries, and I think Sanders can win the Red State of Alaska (and possibly Oklahoma) in November and I don't think Hillary could carry Alaska or Oklahoma in November.

Not big states not a huge difference what? +10 electoral votes total?

Like I said there are other states I feel good about but those primaries haven't happened yet.

 

[d4m10n]

I think Sanders can win every Blue State in November that Hillary has won so far in the Primaries, and I think Sanders can win the Red State of Alaska (and possibly Oklahoma) in November ...

Possibly Oklahoma? Pull the other one.

 

[Trakar]

Oh like anything could change your mind.

Mandating GMO bans, phasing out or eliminating nuclear power generation, discovering his hidden inner Zionist, there are actually a huge number of things that Sanders could do to lose my support, I'm supporting the public policies he's promoting, he came close to losing me because while he supports and promotes a carbon tax, it is weak and not revenue neutral.

Not that I wouldn't still support and respect the public policy, merely that his personal negatives would outweigh the benefit of supporting him personally.

This is rather the type of thing that happened with my support for Hillary after 2008.

 

[angrysoba]

Please reflect on your response and try again, it really doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not being rude, I just really do not understand what you are trying to say.

A state that has been Red or Blue for the last three or four general election cycles, is probably going to be the same composition in 2016. Red or Blue are important because no matter which Red or Blue candidate wins their party's nomination will most likely win the same Red or Blue states their party has carried for the last 2-3 election cycles. Swing states are states that frequently change from one party to the other which makes them important in General elections but largely irrelevant in the primaries unless you have a rational that would explain why one democratic candidate can win against all of the other party's candidates while the other democratic candidate couldn't win against all the other party's candidates (and weren't you the one saying that polls assessing such things are too inaccurate to trust?) Other than that traditionally red states that one candidate might be able to turn Blue that the other candidate might not be able to turn blue (or on the bad side might lose a blue state to a red candidate) Could be a benefit (or take-away) with regard to primary competitors.

So are you game?

Which Blues states that Hillary has won do you think Sanders can't win against Trump, Cruz or Kasich?

Which Red States that Hillary has won do you think that she can win in November that Sanders couldn't win as well?

I think Sanders can win every Blue State in November that Hillary has won so far in the Primaries, and I think Sanders can win the Red State of Alaska (and possibly Oklahoma) in November and I don't think Hillary could carry Alaska or Oklahoma in November.

Not big states not a huge difference what? +10 electoral votes total?

Like I said there are other states I feel good about but those primaries haven't happened yet.

I don't think the highlighted is accurate.

A swing state is not defined by frequently changing from one party to another, but rather that they have the potential to switch from one party to another as they are not considered safe for one particular party or another. These states with such potential may be determined by past voting history in general elections, but also by voter registration in those states, and also...and here's the big one for some posters in this thread, parties also determine them according to polling.

You see, parties don't believe that polls are as accurate as predictions from mediums, unlike one poster here, and they don't assume that the outcome of elections is radically indeterminate. Far from it, they realize ahead of time which elections are foregone conclusions, such as which electoral college votes are locked up before campaigning gets seriously underway.

Furthermore, parties are likely to work out what the return on particular campaigns will be. Spending a ton of money to try to swing Alaska from Red to Blue is unlikely to be considered worth the Democrats' time and money (IMHO! - I am not privy to the inner workings of Democratic campaign strategy) because it only carries three electoral votes.

In other words, professional campaigns now spend the vast majority of its resources on campaigning in swing states that carry a lot of electoral college votes, and this is partly determined by polling. If you want to work for a campaign such as Bernie Sanders's then whatever you do, don't tell the people who might employ you that you think opinion polls are meaningless.

 

[Manopolus]

I don't think the highlighted is accurate.

A swing state is not defined by frequently changing from one party to another, but rather that they have the potential to switch from one party to another as they are not considered safe for one particular party or another. These states with such potential may be determined by past voting history in general elections, but also by voter registration in those states, and also...and here's the big one for some posters in this thread, parties also determine them according to polling.

You see, parties don't believe that polls are as accurate as predictions from mediums, unlike one poster here, and they don't assume that the outcome of elections is radically indeterminate. Far from it, they realize ahead of time which elections are foregone conclusions, such as which electoral college votes are locked up before campaigning gets seriously underway.

Furthermore, parties are likely to work out what the return on particular campaigns will be. Spending a ton of money to try to swing Alaska from Red to Blue is unlikely to be considered worth the Democrats' time and money (IMHO! - I am not privy to the inner workings of Democratic campaign strategy) because it only carries three electoral votes.

In other words, professional campaigns now spend the vast majority of its resources on campaigning in swing states that carry a lot of electoral college votes, and this is partly determined by polling. If you want to work for a campaign such as Bernie Sanders's then whatever you do, don't tell the people who might employ you that you think opinion polls are meaningless.

Yeah... that's actually the problem with The Democratic Party right now -- they don't have a 50-state strategy like The Republican Party does. That is actually why they are losing pretty much everything but the presidency repeatedly of late.

You've described how ONE party works, and it isn't a good strategy. Combined with the other party's better strategy for local politics, that's why we're losing ground. You can't change minds without at least running campaigns -- even in places where you will lose by 80%, campaigns nonetheless matter. Each loss potentially builds momentum to an eventual win. And who knows, the other guy might even end up with a sex scandal in the middle of the campaign or something. It's not like you even have to throw that much money into it -- just do enough to get on the damn ballot and make a speech or two.

So... congratulations. You've just identified my biggest beef with the way The Democratic Party does things. Every time they don't bother to run a candidate, red areas just get redder. It's a losing strategy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mandating GMO bans, phasing out or eliminating nuclear power generation, discovering his hidden inner Zionist, there are actually a huge number of things that Sanders could do to lose my support, I'm supporting the public policies he's promoting, he came close to losing me because while he supports and promotes a carbon tax, it is weak and not revenue neutral.

Not that I wouldn't still support and respect the public policy, merely that his personal negatives would outweigh the benefit of supporting him personally.

This is rather the type of thing that happened with my support for Hillary after 2008.

But you already know those are not his positions, I assume. I already know what Clinton's positions are as well. I don't believe she is beholden to donors. I do believe they buy access. But that's only a potential to influence. I think Clinton has been pro-women and pro-children, I believe she does care about mothers losing their children to gun violence. I believe she does care about sons and daughters that are sent into war. I don't believe she cares about hedge fund managers evading taxes because they donated to her campaign (if they did).

Sanders is right that the rich have too much influence. I think Obama had advisors over his economic policies that had undue influence. But that pales in comparison to the influence the rich have via the Republican Party.

IOW I don't think Clinton or Obama are the problem. The GOP controlled Congress is the problem. So Sanders replacing Obama isn't going to do anything. Clinton will be stronger against a Republican Congress I don't care how many amendments Sanders got passed.

Sanders could accomplish so much more if he got his followers motivated to change the Congress.

 

[Trakar]

Possibly Oklahoma? Pull the other one.

Possibly,...to put this in the proper perspective, remember, I still see a strong path for Bernie to keep Hillary from reaching 2,383 pledged delegates.

I don't confuse strong with easy, but there is still a viable path made largely by getting the types of turnouts that keep that path viable.

 

[Trakar]

But you already know those are not his positions, I assume. I already know what Clinton's positions are as well. I don't believe she is beholden to donors. I do believe they buy access. But that's only a potential to influence.

I don't see it as buying access or influence. I think they give money to a candidate for the same reason I give money to a candidate. Because I feel sure I know how that candidate thinks and behaves and I know that they will already intend to support and make public policy that is more important to me than everything else she does while in office good or bad. What concerns me is my impressions of the people which seem to feel like she is in their best interests.

I think Clinton has been pro-women and pro-children, I believe she does care about mothers losing their children to gun violence. I believe she does care about sons and daughters that are sent into war. I don't believe she cares about hedge fund managers evading taxes because they donated to her campaign (if they did).

And this description excludes Sanders where specifically?

Sanders is right that the rich have too much influence. I think Obama had advisors over his economic policies that had undue influence. But that pales in comparison to the influence the rich have via the Republican Party.

This isn't about the Republicans, its about the Democratic party, what should it represent. We'll deal with the Republican Party after the convention. The convention is to decide who we are, what we are striving for, how we are going to accomplish these goals and of course, who is the best choice to guide us along the course we map out.

IOW I don't think Clinton or Obama are the problem. The GOP controlled Congress is the problem. So Sanders replacing Obama isn't going to do anything. Clinton will be stronger against a Republican Congress I don't care how many amendments Sanders got passed.

With Clinton as the president it would make Obama's gridlock look like a '60s love-in. You probably won't retake the Senate and quite possibly could lose more seats in the House.

Sanders could accomplish so much more if he got his followers motivated to change the Congress.

I'm quite sure we will, but with a promise of a continuation of more of the same with a bit more of a Third Way Hawk in the White House, from the current leading nominee, there's only so much even a miracle could be expected to accomplish.

 

[Wayward son]

Mandating GMO bans, phasing out or eliminating nuclear power generation

How Bernie Sander's position of not granting or renewing the licenses of nuclear power plants could be perceived as anything other then the phasing our or eliminating nuclear power generation is a mystery to me.

Bernie Sander's support of fear-based GMO labeling chaos will have the same effect as a ban.

The most interesting thing I have seen about Sanders lately was his 2003 co-sponsoring of a bill that would have not just jailed scientists for 10 years for human cloning, but also for conducting therapeutic cloning (SCNT) research.

I find the popularity within the Democratic party for a candidate as anti-science as some the worst Republicans I have mocked over the years to be a good reason to stop supporting the party.

 

[Trakar]

I don't think the highlighted is accurate.

Depends upon the time frame and perspective, but it does most often reflect reality (AKA accurate), but I would agree that it is a very simplistic description of a much more complex situation

A swing state is not defined by frequently changing from one party to another, but rather that they have the potential to switch from one party to another as they are not considered safe for one particular party or another. These states with such potential may be determined by past voting history in general elections, but also by voter registration in those states, and also...and here's the big one for some posters in this thread, parties also determine them according to polling.

By that time the state is already swinging, not about to swing.

You tell by the shifts in state government and voting patterns in past elections state and national.

Furthermore, parties are likely to work out what the return on particular campaigns will be. Spending a ton of money to try to swing Alaska from Red to Blue is unlikely to be considered worth the Democrats' time and money (IMHO! - I am not privy to the inner workings of Democratic campaign strategy) because it only carries three electoral votes.

Did I say anything about parties? I think Sanders can pull Alaska casually, Oklahoma would take some supporter effort and probably at least a campaign stop but I think it might be doable particularly if Trump is the republican nominee

In other words, professional campaigns now spend the vast majority of its resources on campaigning in swing states that carry a lot of electoral college votes, and this is partly determined by polling. If you want to work for a campaign such as Bernie Sanders's then whatever you do, don't tell the people who might employ you that you think opinion polls are meaningless.

Exactly how does this relate to anything I've been talking about?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.
That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

It seems that you're saying two things about (pledged) delegates.

First of all, that delegates in primary states matter more than those in caucus states, because there is wider voter participation in primaries than in caucuses. (well, you don't outright say that but I it seems implicit in various posts by various posters in this thread).

I think that very much depends on your viewpoint. Do you want a candidate that appeals to the activists (i.e., those who bother to show up at a caucus) or to the general electorate?

I think you're reading philosophy into my post. I was simply pointing out that less than 7.5% of the remaining delegates are in "caucus" states. Yeah, the "primary" states have more value... numerically. With 1900+ delegates remaining, that's pretty clear. That's all I was pointing out (in response to a person who asked what the impact in the remaining caucus states was going to do for Bernie).

Second, that delegates in swing states matter more than those in solid blue or solid red states. Of course it's much more important to know which candidate will do better in, say, Florida, than in Kansas, which will vote red even if the GOP nominates the second coming of Hitler, or in Washington, which will vote blue even if the Democrats nominate LBJ's head-in-a-jar.

But in the end, the rules are: a delegate is a delegate is a delegate. No matter from which state they're coming, and no matter whether elected by caucus or by primary. Them's the rules, and whoever wins by that metric gets the nomination. If the Democratic party puts more value in which candidate is more popular in swing states, they would have given more delegates to Florida, Ohio, etc. But they haven't.

Again, you're assuming a philosophical side to my post. It's totally based on practical politics. I'm counting delegates/votes and addressing the illogic that Bernie fans are hanging onto in the hopes that there will be a massive shift of superdelegates. That comment was referring to the thinking of those superdelegates.

There seems to be an assumption here that these are cattle herded into the Hillary corral. They are not. They are party professionals. So, as I pointed out, before a superdelegate in, say, Virginia is going to change his vote, he'd want to analyze where and how Bernie got close and if it's by picking up delegates in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas and Texas my reaction is going to be "Meh? He didn't take OH, NY, VA, FL, PA, MA, IL but only MI and WA in the "key dem states" column."

Besides the superdelegate I'm speaking of is the governor of the state and he's the former head of the DNC and answers to a lot more than just recent results. His vote changes when the party changes its support, and that ain't going to happen because someone at Huffpo writes a column explaining that Bernie's really ahead because he's getting more last-minute voters(yeah, someone actually posted such an article). The names, addresses and phone numbers of the superdelegates are known. And unless they see Bernie sweeping NY and PA, they're not changing their support while "The Boss" is still ahead.

Further, I personally think that some of the superdelegates... in WA or CO for example... should rethink their positions. I don't necessarily agree with the overwhelming support for the party choice; this is just explication of how I see this process working. But I say WA or CO and not (say) ID for a reason. The superdelegates are politicians. Their job, as everyone knows, is to get re-elected or re-appointed. Idaho is conservative. Voters may currently support the not-the-beltway candidate in the primaries, but those are Dem voters. When the GE and state elections come around, they have to run against arch conservatives, not just Dem caucus members.

He certainly didn't diminish his chances this weekend and decreased his trailing by some 65 delegates. But if he wins in pledged delegates, which I agree is a longshot, it will be not a day earlier than California votes.

So will the superdelegates change their mind if that happens? Out of 712, a whopping 469 have expressed support for Hillary against 29 for Bernie. Eight years ago, Hillary was also leading in superdelegates, but by a much more modest margin, and moreover, Obama clinched a (small) lead much earlier in the primaries season so they had ample time to see the writing on the wall. Or will they argue, as above, that primary states are more important, or that swing states are more important and stick to Hillary?

This wasn't addressed to me, but his germane to the discussion. As explained above, they have different allegiances and loyalties. I believe they are much more likely to take the pragmatic view of the highlighted sentence. We're talking politicians! But you're discussing a milestone that hasn't happened... Bernie is not in the lead. If/when that happens, you could see shifts from some of the original knee-jerk party line supporters.

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah... that's actually the problem with The Democratic Party right now -- they don't have a 50-state strategy like The Republican Party does. That is actually why they are losing pretty much everything but the presidency repeatedly of late.

You'll have to explain this. The presidential elections are the only elections in which you can afford to ignore Red states and Blue states. How would such a strategy work in a Senatorial, Gubernatorial or Congressional election?

You've described how ONE party works, and it isn't a good strategy. Combined with the other party's better strategy for local politics, that's why we're losing ground. You can't change minds without at least running campaigns -- even in places where you will lose by 80%, campaigns nonetheless matter. Each loss potentially builds momentum to an eventual win. And who knows, the other guy might even end up with a sex scandal in the middle of the campaign or something. It's not like you even have to throw that much money into it -- just do enough to get on the damn ballot and make a speech or two.

So... congratulations. You've just identified my biggest beef with the way The Democratic Party does things. Every time they don't bother to run a candidate, red areas just get redder. It's a losing strategy.

???

I think you are just making this up. I wasn't describing how ONE party works at all, but how BOTH the big parties work.

The Republicans obviously are better at targeting than the Democrats are, and they don't have to care about making red states redder.

Think about Al Gore's presidential election. How did winning the popular vote help him? Not at all. Instead, the Republicans won in the right places, got the electoral college votes and won the presidency. People like Karl Rove are given credit for microtargeting, not the Democrats.

 

[Manopolus]

You'll have to explain this. The presidential elections are the only elections in which you can afford to ignore Red states and Blue states. How would such a strategy work in a Senatorial, Gubernatorial or Congressional election?

Badly.

Most state congressional seats in my state tend to be uncontested by democrats. They might have a primary challenge from another Republican though. This is also true of our federal representatives and senators to a lesser degree. The dems usually do field a candidate for governor though, and even occasionally win. That's really the only position you can count on to be contested every time.

I know that's not precisely what you were talking about, but it does speak to the dangers of letting the polls affect what you attempt to accomplish.

Of course, nowadays Brownback is so unpopular that Kansas Democrats think they have a chance now in some localities where they didn't even try before. Unfortunately it won't likely last, but things are temporarily improving. In my specific location though, Libertarians have more of a following than Democrats.

 

[angrysoba]

Depends upon the time frame and perspective, but it does most often reflect reality (AKA accurate), but I would agree that it is a very simplistic description of a much more complex situation



By that time the state is already swinging, not about to swing.

So what? I am saying that polls are one way in which these states are identified.

You tell by the shifts in state government and voting patterns in past elections state and national.

Did I say anything about parties? I think Sanders can pull Alaska casually, Oklahoma would take some supporter effort and probably at least a campaign stop but I think it might be doable particularly if Trump is the republican nominee

I've no idea what you mean. I am assuming you are talking about Sanders running as a Democrat, in which case the party will probably shoulder much of the campaign strategy rather than letting Sanders do it by himself. Are you thinking of him running as an independent?

Exactly how does this relate to anything I've been talking about?

It was a reference to something Manopolus said, but frankly, it applies to most Bernie Sanders fans who have to essentially be blind to the polls, or ignore them, to believe Sanders has much of a shot of getting the nomination.

 

[angrysoba]

Badly.

Most state congressional seats in my state tend to be uncontested by democrats. They might have a primary challenge from another Republican though. This is also true of our federal representatives and senators to a lesser degree. The dems usually do field a candidate for governor though, and even occasionally win. That's really the only position you can count on to be contested every time.

I know that's not precisely what you were talking about, but it does speak to the dangers of letting the polls affect what you attempt or strive for.

Then maybe you should run as the Democrat candidate in some of those contests.

Presumably people do not because they don't consider it worth their time. That's not much different from parties given that time and resources are not unlimited.

 

[Manopolus]

Then maybe you should run as the Democrat candidate in some of those contests.

Presumably people do not because they don't consider it worth their time. That's not much different from parties given that time and resources are not unlimited.

I suspect there are better potential candidates available. The local folks wouldn't elect me dogcatcher. Too much history. While I do realize intellectually that this may partially be spotlight bias, that doesn't help the anxiety part of it.

I considered it anyway though. I just didn't think it was a good idea. I'm a better gadfly than I am a politician, and that won't work in this area. Part of the problem is that intentionally drawing attention to yourself in any way is like some sort of a cardinal sin around here, and I'm a bit of an attention whore.

...but I do recognize that somebody should run, even if they're going to lose. I'm just not that somebody. I don't have enough backup.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see it as buying access or influence. I think they give money to a candidate for the same reason I give money to a candidate. Because I feel sure I know how that candidate thinks and behaves and I know that they will already intend to support and make public policy that is more important to me than everything else she does while in office good or bad. What concerns me is my impressions of the people which seem to feel like she is in their best interests.

Yet you can't guarantee that said candidate will turn out to be the candidate you think they will be.

And this description excludes Sanders where specifically?

While I think Sanders is on the side of women and minorities, as I've said over and over, I don't think he will be an effective POTUS. I know you don't agree. I've heard all the arguments. I'm not persuaded.

This isn't about the Republicans, its about the Democratic party, what should it represent. We'll deal with the Republican Party after the convention. The convention is to decide who we are, what we are striving for, how we are going to accomplish these goals and of course, who is the best choice to guide us along the course we map out.

My answer stands. I don't think a Sanders POTUS will make a difference. I do think a Clinton POTUS will.

With Clinton as the president it would make Obama's gridlock look like a '60s love-in. You probably won't retake the Senate and quite possibly could lose more seats in the House.

Don't agree.

I'm quite sure we will, but with a promise of a continuation of more of the same with a bit more of a Third Way Hawk in the White House, from the current leading nominee, there's only so much even a miracle could be expected to accomplish.

I just don't buy this narrative that it's Sanders or bust.