Texas Trends

[eric82oslo]

We're in a realigning period for Democrats to win the presidency?

If it turns out, like the ones from 1860-1892 (Republican), 1896-1928 (Republican), 1932-1964 (Democratic), and 1968-2004 (Republican), to be seven of nine or ten cycles for prevailing Democrats … it's doubtful that Texas would never once carry for the more dominant of the two major parties. And part of that has to do with the fact the Lone Star State is the No. 2-ranked state in population. One that is not immune to shifts.

I agree. The main reason why Texas and Arizona haven't shown any sign that they can be competitive yet I believe is due to the lackluster voter turnout among minorities, and in particular latinos. It's bad in Texas, but the numbers are truely horrible in Arizona. A national Pew Research PDF with racial cross-tabs of voter turnout in all 50 states + D.C. realeased recently, put the latino turnout among adult citizens at shockingly 19%, the lowest single tournout of any racial sub-group in all 50 (51) states! Now, if they've been intimidated by the Republican establishment over the past few years, or what was the exact background for them not voting, I have no clue about honestly, but it should really be a worrisome fact for the national Democratic establishment. The Texas latino turnout for adult citizens was about 40% I believe, still way, way lower than the white turnout in that state.

[Person Man]

What kind of intimidation is happening in Arizona and Texas? hopefully not guys in bed sheets because that's what "intimidation" brings up in any SXSW strategy the GOP would have.

[ElectionsGuy]

Arkansas was brought up as changing from 2000-2008, but really it hasn't changed much ever. Sure it's changed some since the mid 20th century, but it's still a socially conservative state where voters will respond to social conservative politicians like Mike Huckabee. What has changed is the Democratic Party since it had a monopoly on Arkansas 50 years ago. They've gone far to the left while the Republican Party has picked up on recruiting social conservatives. It's pretty much the state it was in the 1950's while the parties are half different. States really don't change that much unless there's massive movements towards them like California in the mid 20th century and Florida in the late 20th century. Partisans also tend to wishfully think every state do they do a point better than last time in, is going to be their state soon. Very rarely do states change or switch parties my friends.

But don't we have massive movement towards Texas? It's a border state that is 2nd in Hispanics to only California.

Yes, but a lot of conservatives are moving to Texas too.

That is true, my parents (who are hardcore conservatives) are thinking about moving down to Texas for retirement.

[hopper]

Texas may end up like Florida eventually but I don't see it going liberal like California or even Vermont.

[barfbag]

Arkansas was brought up as changing from 2000-2008, but really it hasn't changed much ever. Sure it's changed some since the mid 20th century, but it's still a socially conservative state where voters will respond to social conservative politicians like Mike Huckabee. What has changed is the Democratic Party since it had a monopoly on Arkansas 50 years ago. They've gone far to the left while the Republican Party has picked up on recruiting social conservatives. It's pretty much the state it was in the 1950's while the parties are half different. States really don't change that much unless there's massive movements towards them like California in the mid 20th century and Florida in the late 20th century. Partisans also tend to wishfully think every state do they do a point better than last time in, is going to be their state soon. Very rarely do states change or switch parties my friends.

But don't we have massive movement towards Texas? It's a border state that is 2nd in Hispanics to only California.

Yes, but a lot of conservatives are moving to Texas too.

That is true, my parents (who are hardcore conservatives) are thinking about moving down to Texas for retirement.

Yes it's because of Washington's tentacles reaching too far.

[Down the Gurney]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

[ElectionsGuy]

Arkansas was brought up as changing from 2000-2008, but really it hasn't changed much ever. Sure it's changed some since the mid 20th century, but it's still a socially conservative state where voters will respond to social conservative politicians like Mike Huckabee. What has changed is the Democratic Party since it had a monopoly on Arkansas 50 years ago. They've gone far to the left while the Republican Party has picked up on recruiting social conservatives. It's pretty much the state it was in the 1950's while the parties are half different. States really don't change that much unless there's massive movements towards them like California in the mid 20th century and Florida in the late 20th century. Partisans also tend to wishfully think every state do they do a point better than last time in, is going to be their state soon. Very rarely do states change or switch parties my friends.

But don't we have massive movement towards Texas? It's a border state that is 2nd in Hispanics to only California.

Yes, but a lot of conservatives are moving to Texas too.

That is true, my parents (who are hardcore conservatives) are thinking about moving down to Texas for retirement.

Yes it's because of Washington's tentacles reaching too far.

Too far to... Wisconsin?  I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

[ElectionsGuy]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

[DS0816]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

[BaldEagle1991]

I picked option one. But Texas being a leanb Dem state is too far away. If anything Texas is going to be the new Florida, Virginia, and Ohio.

[ElectionsGuy]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

Virginia is in Toss-Up mode and moving left is what I meant. Arizona really hasn't gotten more D, in fact it's more conservative now than it was in the Bush years. Georgia however is moving slightly left from a few years ago but movement is slow, and it's too far of a reach for the Dems right now. Right now if I were a Dem I would want to reach for leaning R NC, which is what many people want. Reaching for Georgia right now is like a conservative reaching for Oregon, and reaching for Arizona is like reaching for Washington.

Texas is another story, if they want eyes focused on Texas they will have to prove it has D power by making it trend D. If it trends R again then I see no signs of it flipping, but the only real way it can trend R is if white vote gets even more republican or turnout is better among whites, or If Hispanic vote gets more republican while whites keep the current % with the republicans. If it trends D to about R+16 than my eyes will be focused on Texas but until then, it's in Strong R territory.

[barfbag]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

Georgia hasn't been competed in since the 90's. I wouldn't count on it moving simply because a large number of African Americans voted for Obama in the last two elections.

[illegaloperation]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

Georgia hasn't been competed in since the 90's. I wouldn't count on it moving simply because a large number of African Americans voted for Obama in the last two elections.

None sense. What if Obama in 2008 said that North Carolina hasn't been competed in a long time so he won't compete in in?

As for Texas, Clinton should compete in in even if she has no chance of winning it. That way, we can see how close or far the state really is.

[barfbag]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

Georgia hasn't been competed in since the 90's. I wouldn't count on it moving simply because a large number of African Americans voted for Obama in the last two elections.

None sense. What if Obama in 2008 said that North Carolina hasn't been competed in a long time so he won't compete in in?

As for Texas, Clinton should compete in in even if she has no chance of winning it. That way, we can see how close or far the state really is.

If Clinton campaigned there she'd be spending resources from OH, PA, FL, VA, and NC. She's smarter than that. Obama campaigned in NC in 2008, but it's not the same as Georgia. I don't see GA going Democrat anymore than Indiana again, or Missouri, or Montana.

[eric82oslo]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

[barfbag]

Arkansas was brought up as changing from 2000-2008, but really it hasn't changed much ever. Sure it's changed some since the mid 20th century, but it's still a socially conservative state where voters will respond to social conservative politicians like Mike Huckabee. What has changed is the Democratic Party since it had a monopoly on Arkansas 50 years ago. They've gone far to the left while the Republican Party has picked up on recruiting social conservatives. It's pretty much the state it was in the 1950's while the parties are half different. States really don't change that much unless there's massive movements towards them like California in the mid 20th century and Florida in the late 20th century. Partisans also tend to wishfully think every state do they do a point better than last time in, is going to be their state soon. Very rarely do states change or switch parties my friends.

But don't we have massive movement towards Texas? It's a border state that is 2nd in Hispanics to only California.

Yes, but a lot of conservatives are moving to Texas too.

That is true, my parents (who are hardcore conservatives) are thinking about moving down to Texas for retirement.

Yes it's because of Washington's tentacles reaching too far.

Too far to... Wisconsin?  I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

No all I'm saying is the federal government is becoming too big so conservatives are going to a place where things are run in a manner of their liking at least at the state level. There's always the notion that Texas would secede from the union eventually.

[greenforest32]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

The Senate immigration reform passing could have big changes too considering that could potentially expand the Texas electorate by another 1.5m+ voters in the 2020s when the citizenship provision becomes available: http://immigrationroad.com/resource/illegal-immigrants-by-state.php

[eric82oslo]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

But the expected 65% white electorate is for the midterm only, when the already very low Hispanic and youth votes drop even far lower. They said that only 1 in 4 eligible latino voter in Texas voted in the 2010 midterms, while almost half (or 44%) of white eligible voters did the same.

In 2012, only 59% of the electorate was white. My prediction is that the 2016 electorate will be no more than 55% or 56% white, even lower than that if Hillary generates massive enthusiasm among latinos (as she's likely to do) and Battleground Texas succeeds with their massive voter registration (and voter education) efforts the next 4 years.

Despite the clear demographic advantages in the state, Democrats still have a money problem. While Battleground Texas reported having raised slightly more than 1 million $ during the first quarter, the Republican counteroperation announced that they would pour in almost 8 times that money. In any case, Battleground Texas is more than anything about getting voters actually aware of and interested in their civic rights, and you don't necessarily need a whole lot of money or expensive advertisement campaigns to achieve that goal. Still it's an uphill battle for now. At the very least until 2016.

[greenforest32]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

But the expected 65% white electorate is for the midterm only, when the already very low Hispanic and youth votes drop even lower. In 2012, only 59% of the electorate was white. My prediction is that the 2016 electorate will be no more than 55% or 56% white, even lower than that if Hillary generates massive enthusiasm among latinos (as she's likely to do) and Battleground Texas succeeds with their massive voting registration (and voter education) efforts the next 4 years.

That's true, I was thinking of most of the statewide races that are up in mid-terms. Presidential numbers are different but even then that's a big gap to cover. I am betting on Texas swinging to Democrats in 2016 but I don't think it will be enough for a win in 2016. Say Hillary does well with Texas whites and gets 30% with them being 55% of the electorate, she'd have to win the remaining 45% non-white vote by about 75-25 to hit 50% total.

That's an optimistic scenario for Democrats too as we don't know how much things like Texas' upcoming voter ID requirement will affect the electorate.

[ElectionsGuy]

Arkansas was brought up as changing from 2000-2008, but really it hasn't changed much ever. Sure it's changed some since the mid 20th century, but it's still a socially conservative state where voters will respond to social conservative politicians like Mike Huckabee. What has changed is the Democratic Party since it had a monopoly on Arkansas 50 years ago. They've gone far to the left while the Republican Party has picked up on recruiting social conservatives. It's pretty much the state it was in the 1950's while the parties are half different. States really don't change that much unless there's massive movements towards them like California in the mid 20th century and Florida in the late 20th century. Partisans also tend to wishfully think every state do they do a point better than last time in, is going to be their state soon. Very rarely do states change or switch parties my friends.

But don't we have massive movement towards Texas? It's a border state that is 2nd in Hispanics to only California.

Yes, but a lot of conservatives are moving to Texas too.

That is true, my parents (who are hardcore conservatives) are thinking about moving down to Texas for retirement.

Yes it's because of Washington's tentacles reaching too far.

Too far to... Wisconsin?  I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

No all I'm saying is the federal government is becoming too big so conservatives are going to a place where things are run in a manner of their liking at least at the state level. There's always the notion that Texas would secede from the union eventually.

Oh, OK

[barfbag]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

But the expected 65% white electorate is for the midterm only, when the already very low Hispanic and youth votes drop even lower. In 2012, only 59% of the electorate was white. My prediction is that the 2016 electorate will be no more than 55% or 56% white, even lower than that if Hillary generates massive enthusiasm among latinos (as she's likely to do) and Battleground Texas succeeds with their massive voting registration (and voter education) efforts the next 4 years.

That's true, I was thinking of most of the statewide races that are up in mid-terms. Presidential numbers are different but even then that's a big gap to cover. I am betting on Texas swinging to Democrats in 2016 but I don't think it will be enough for a win in 2016. Say Hillary does well with Texas whites and gets 30% with them being 55% of the electorate, she'd have to win the remaining 45% non-white vote by about 75-25 to hit 50% total.

That's an optimistic scenario for Democrats too as we don't know how much things like Texas' upcoming voter ID requirement will affect the electorate.

Yes they might prevent people from voting multiple times and deter illegal immigrants.

[illegaloperation]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

But the expected 65% white electorate is for the midterm only, when the already very low Hispanic and youth votes drop even lower. In 2012, only 59% of the electorate was white. My prediction is that the 2016 electorate will be no more than 55% or 56% white, even lower than that if Hillary generates massive enthusiasm among latinos (as she's likely to do) and Battleground Texas succeeds with their massive voting registration (and voter education) efforts the next 4 years.

That's true, I was thinking of most of the statewide races that are up in mid-terms. Presidential numbers are different but even then that's a big gap to cover. I am betting on Texas swinging to Democrats in 2016 but I don't think it will be enough for a win in 2016. Say Hillary does well with Texas whites and gets 30% with them being 55% of the electorate, she'd have to win the remaining 45% non-white vote by about 75-25 to hit 50% total.

That's an optimistic scenario for Democrats too as we don't know how much things like Texas' upcoming voter ID requirement will affect the electorate.

Yes they might prevent people from voting multiple times and deter illegal immigrants.

While you are at it, get rid of absentee ballots too. Those are the leading cause of voter frauds.

Oh, Republicans like to use those. Never mind.

[VAR]

It will get more Democratic.

The reason Texas is firmly in Republican hand is that Hispanics have very very low turnout in Texas.

Democrats (at least in Texas) have foolishly waited, believing that demographic changes will put them back in power.

Now the Democrats have launched a full-time organization with the goal of turning Texas into a battleground state by doing voter registration drive.

Here is how it will happen. In 2018, the underdog Democratic nominee running for statewide office put up a really strong fight. He ultimately lost, but only by ~2%.

The Democratic base is energized and finally push Democrats to win statewide. Meanwhile, the presidential campaign caught political wind of change and Texas becomes prime battleground state.

Wow.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It will get more Democratic.

The reason Texas is firmly in Republican hand is that Hispanics have very very low turnout in Texas.

Democrats (at least in Texas) have foolishly waited, believing that demographic changes will put them back in power.

Now the Democrats have launched a full-time organization with the goal of turning Texas into a battleground state by doing voter registration drive.

Here is how it will happen. In 2018, the underdog Democratic nominee running for statewide office put up a really strong fight. He ultimately lost, but only by ~2%.

The Democratic base is energized and finally push Democrats to win statewide. Meanwhile, the presidential campaign caught political wind of change and Texas becomes prime battleground state.

Wow.

This is the worst take you can find? Have you seen all the metropolitan whites not becoming liberal stuff filling this entire thread?