Elections that killed the viability of a state party?

[Skill and Chance]

What about false alarms?

Virginia Republicans in 2019 is the most obvious recent example.  Going back further, Nevada Dems in 2014, then Michigan and Pennsylvania Dems in 2010.

[Spectator]

What about false alarms?

Virginia Republicans in 2019 is the most obvious recent example.  Going back further, Nevada Dems in 2014, then Michigan and Pennsylvania Dems in 2010.

Doubt anyone serious thought the Nevada, Michigan and PA Dems were dead after those elections. Obama was the most recent winner of those states and they had at least one Dem senator apiece. Virginia Republicans on the other hand, yes, I bet most were writing them off for dead.

[Oryxslayer]

Honestly,  the most impressive collapse of a 'state' level party in recent times is not even in America. The PLQ seemingly remains permanently lost, despite forming a solid chunk of Quebec provincial governments. They collapsed hard in 2018, fell even harder in 2022, and are still in the dumpster with the CAQs polling struggles right now.

The only comparable event is to the collapse of white Dems in the South. An immediate fall with only the minority group clinging on.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

What impact would you say 1994 had on the CA GOP then?

[Spectator]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

What impact would you say 1994 had on the CA GOP then?

Frankly nothing. If Prop 187 was that big a role, why wouldn’t it have materialized in 1994? Because it’s a silly rationale given to explain California becoming demogrpahically bluer and more aligned with liberalism in general.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

I think they won in 2003 with the weird recall setup and the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was, to be sure, easily reelected in 2006. I think Schwarzenegger was a one off based on his celebrity and charismatic personality and the Republican inability to make gains in the state legislature in 2006 I think is indicative of that.

Saying Riordan would have won in 2002 is a counterfactual and there's a reason that Riordan didn't win the Republican nomination in 2002 as well relating to the loonies taking over the party and nominating hardline candidates.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

What impact would you say 1994 had on the CA GOP then?

Frankly nothing. If Prop 187 was that big a role, why wouldn’t it have materialized in 1994? Because it’s a silly rationale given to explain California becoming demogrpahically bluer and more aligned with liberalism in general.

Completely disagree, backlashes often occur later, especially when it involves attacking more marginal groups that don't have the resources to fight back immediately. One major reason for the demographic change was that many of the Latinos in California became American citizens due to the passage of Prop 187.

After Prop 187 Came The Fall Of California's Once-Mighty GOP, And The Rise Of Latino Political Power
https://laist.com/news/prop-187-political-impact-california-latino-participation-power-surges-republican-party-fading

SACRAMENTO —  The lofty position held by California Republicans 25 years ago when Proposition 187 passed seems unimaginable today. It was a high-water mark for the party that wouldn’t last long.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-14/skelton-republican-party-demise-immigration

Proposition 187 Turned California Blue
https://www.cato.org/blog/proposition-187-turned-california-blue

As I said though, it wasn't just Prop 187, that was the catalyst that helped unite the coalitions that still make up the California Democratic Party today. And, I said, the Democratic Party had been gaining in much of California before then. Clinton won it by 13.5% in 1992, for instance, after H.W Bush won it in 1988 by 3.5%. Prop 187 was a short term gain for the California Republicans that alienated Latinos and got many of them to either become citizens or to register to vote and to get politically active and that helped meld together the modern California Democratic coalition.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

What impact would you say 1994 had on the CA GOP then?

Frankly nothing. If Prop 187 was that big a role, why wouldn’t it have materialized in 1994? Because it’s a silly rationale given to explain California becoming demogrpahically bluer and more aligned with liberalism in general.

A major reason for the collapse has to do with the fact that the early 1990s recession hit Californian particularly hard and particularly defense and other related industries that led to hundreds of thousands of people on that decade moving out of the state and into states like Texas . The flip side was that at the same time you had the tech boom happen and had hundreds of thousands of people move in and what happened was the people who moved in tended to be disproportionately liberal and the people who moved out disproportionately conservative.

The massive D trend of California in the 1990s and R trend of Texas in the 1990s had a lot to do this with this .

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

What impact would you say 1994 had on the CA GOP then?

Frankly nothing. If Prop 187 was that big a role, why wouldn’t it have materialized in 1994? Because it’s a silly rationale given to explain California becoming demogrpahically bluer and more aligned with liberalism in general.

A major reason for the collapse has to do with the fact that the early 1990s recession hit Californian particularly hard and particularly defense and other related industries that led to hundreds of thousands of people on that decade moving out of the state and into states like Texas . The flip side was that at the same time you had the tech boom happen and had hundreds of thousands of people move in and what happened was the people who moved in tended to be disproportionately liberal and the people who moved out disproportionately conservative.

The massive D trend of California in the 1990s and R trend of Texas in the 1990s had a lot to do this with this .

Maybe, but many of the people you're talking about moving out of California (I don't know how many went to Texas) were engineers and engineers have become much more Democratic in general. It used to be the case that most scientists were Democrats but most engineers were Republicans, but that's not true anymore.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Generally I think supposed examples within the past five years or less should be approached with caution.

[ClassicElectionEnthusiast]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

My only issue with that analysis would have been whether the CA Republicans would have managed even that if it weren't for a celebrity candidate (Arnold Schwarzenegger) emerging from the chaotic aftermath of the 2003 recall election.

[Samof94]

2022 was rough for the Michigan GOP

[Open Source Intelligence]

Honestly,  the most impressive collapse of a 'state' level party in recent times is not even in America. The PLQ seemingly remains permanently lost, despite forming a solid chunk of Quebec provincial governments. They collapsed hard in 2018, fell even harder in 2022, and are still in the dumpster with the CAQs polling struggles right now.

The only comparable event is to the collapse of white Dems in the South. An immediate fall with only the minority group clinging on.

Problem for the Quebec Liberals is more due to how more fluid Canada's political structure is compared to the U.S. The Liberals were a conglomeration of federal Liberals, federal Conservatives, and federal NDP members that were all united in the belief that Quebec should remain part of Canada. The nationalist Parti Quebecois faltered, replaced by a center-right CAQ that while French Canadian Firsters do not believe Quebec should become its own country, instead replaced by a belief Quebec should have as much power as it can over its own affairs, and a left option became viable in Quebec Solidaire that are ambiguous on the question of sovereignty but view things more from a policy perspective than anything else and while not an NDP member nationally more or less function as the Quebec NDP. Liberals have become in this context seen by the Quebec public an anglophone party which means they can hardly win any seats outside of greater Montreal. With PQ dying the Liberals have lost their unifying raison d'etre. This past election they were a completely dead party in francophone areas which is almost everywhere outside of greater Montreal.

Canada due to its political fluidity has a lot of American Whig-esque examples of federal and provincial political parties just simply dying.

[Open Source Intelligence]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

I think they won in 2003 with the weird recall setup and the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was, to be sure, easily reelected in 2006. I think Schwarzenegger was a one off based on his celebrity and charismatic personality and the Republican inability to make gains in the state legislature in 2006 I think is indicative of that.

Saying Riordan would have won in 2002 is a counterfactual and there's a reason that Riordan didn't win the Republican nomination in 2002 as well relating to the loonies taking over the party and nominating hardline candidates.

Gray Davis funded advertising heavy for Riordan's opponent (Bill Simon?) in the GOP primary, seeing Riordan as the only threat. It was one of the reasons used during the recall petitioning was that Davis played dirty the past election. Here we are 20 years on and that has become common practice by the Democrats.

I wouldn't even say Schwarzeneggar's victory in 2003 was a Republican Party comeback because he was clearly outside the party establishment (more Trump-ish in that regard). The party man candidate representing the California Republican Party views as they were before that election was McClintock.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

I think they won in 2003 with the weird recall setup and the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was, to be sure, easily reelected in 2006. I think Schwarzenegger was a one off based on his celebrity and charismatic personality and the Republican inability to make gains in the state legislature in 2006 I think is indicative of that.

Saying Riordan would have won in 2002 is a counterfactual and there's a reason that Riordan didn't win the Republican nomination in 2002 as well relating to the loonies taking over the party and nominating hardline candidates.

Gray Davis funded advertising heavy for Riordan's opponent (Bill Simon?) in the GOP primary, seeing Riordan as the only threat. It was one of the reasons used during the recall petitioning was that Davis played dirty the past election. Here we are 20 years on and that has become common practice by the Democrats.

I wouldn't even say Schwarzeneggar's victory in 2003 was a Republican Party comeback because he was clearly outside the party establishment (more Trump-ish in that regard). The party man candidate representing the California Republican Party views as they were before that election was McClintock.

As usual your partisan commentary is dubious factually.

1.Simon beat Riordan by nearly 20% this was hardly some close loss on the basis of Davis' intervention.

2.What the Democrats have been doing these days is running ads on behalf of the candidate they want to see win the Republican primary saying stuff like 'this candidate is too extreme for this state' (of course, that that appeals to Republicans is also a major issue.) What Davis did was directly run ads against Riordan. Hardly the same thing, and it may have been because Davis expected Riordan to win and wanted to get out early against him.

I highly doubt that Davis ads said anything like "Riordan is too moderate" and there is no law that a candidate of one party has to wait until after the primaries to run ads against a likely candidate of the other party, so this is in no way a 'dirty trick.'

3.Of course, Republicans merely play dirty tricks by making it difficult for Democrats to vote. So, both sides...

You're a hack.                                                                                                                                                                                            

[Open Source Intelligence]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

I think they won in 2003 with the weird recall setup and the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was, to be sure, easily reelected in 2006. I think Schwarzenegger was a one off based on his celebrity and charismatic personality and the Republican inability to make gains in the state legislature in 2006 I think is indicative of that.

Saying Riordan would have won in 2002 is a counterfactual and there's a reason that Riordan didn't win the Republican nomination in 2002 as well relating to the loonies taking over the party and nominating hardline candidates.

Gray Davis funded advertising heavy for Riordan's opponent (Bill Simon?) in the GOP primary, seeing Riordan as the only threat. It was one of the reasons used during the recall petitioning was that Davis played dirty the past election. Here we are 20 years on and that has become common practice by the Democrats.

I wouldn't even say Schwarzeneggar's victory in 2003 was a Republican Party comeback because he was clearly outside the party establishment (more Trump-ish in that regard). The party man candidate representing the California Republican Party views as they were before that election was McClintock.

As usual your partisan commentary is dubious factually.

1.Simon beat Riordan by nearly 20% this was hardly some close loss on the basis of Davis' intervention.

2.What the Democrats have been doing these days is running ads on behalf of the candidate they want to see win the Republican primary saying stuff like 'this candidate is too extreme for this state' (of course, that that appeals to Republicans is also a major issue.) What Davis did was directly run ads against Riordan. Hardly the same thing, and it may have been because Davis expected Riordan to win and wanted to get out early against him.

I highly doubt that Davis ads said anything like "Riordan is too moderate" and there is no law that a candidate of one party has to wait until after the primaries to run ads against a likely candidate of the other party, so this is in no way a 'dirty trick.'

3.Of course, Republicans merely play dirty tricks by making it difficult for Democrats to vote. So, both sides...

You're a hack.                                                                                                                                                                                            

I'm not a Republican.

Whatever, TalkElections gonna TalkElections. Trying to not be an asshole and make a couple nuanced points of previous history and I'm called a liar and hack. Good job you.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1994 California Republicans. The Republicans won big in that election in California riding on the 'angry white male' anti Clinton wave and including passing Proposition 187. However, it proved to be a last gasp pyrrhic victory for the Republicans who alienated the vast majority of Latinos in California and in the process helped meld the majority California Democratic coalition of the last nearly 30 years.

This isn’t really true , as California Republicans won 2003 and 2006 wasn’t that bad for them . They won the gubernatorial race and insurance commissioner and nearly won Secretary of State and lieutenant governor too . They also would have won in 2002 If they nominated Riordan so really I’d say 2008 was when the CA GOP fell .

2008 you saw a major collapse in GOP fortunes in SoCal that would make their path unviable regardless

I think they won in 2003 with the weird recall setup and the celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was, to be sure, easily reelected in 2006. I think Schwarzenegger was a one off based on his celebrity and charismatic personality and the Republican inability to make gains in the state legislature in 2006 I think is indicative of that.

Saying Riordan would have won in 2002 is a counterfactual and there's a reason that Riordan didn't win the Republican nomination in 2002 as well relating to the loonies taking over the party and nominating hardline candidates.

Gray Davis funded advertising heavy for Riordan's opponent (Bill Simon?) in the GOP primary, seeing Riordan as the only threat. It was one of the reasons used during the recall petitioning was that Davis played dirty the past election. Here we are 20 years on and that has become common practice by the Democrats.

I wouldn't even say Schwarzeneggar's victory in 2003 was a Republican Party comeback because he was clearly outside the party establishment (more Trump-ish in that regard). The party man candidate representing the California Republican Party views as they were before that election was McClintock.

As usual your partisan commentary is dubious factually.

1.Simon beat Riordan by nearly 20% this was hardly some close loss on the basis of Davis' intervention.

2.What the Democrats have been doing these days is running ads on behalf of the candidate they want to see win the Republican primary saying stuff like 'this candidate is too extreme for this state' (of course, that that appeals to Republicans is also a major issue.) What Davis did was directly run ads against Riordan. Hardly the same thing, and it may have been because Davis expected Riordan to win and wanted to get out early against him.

I highly doubt that Davis ads said anything like "Riordan is too moderate" and there is no law that a candidate of one party has to wait until after the primaries to run ads against a likely candidate of the other party, so this is in no way a 'dirty trick.'

3.Of course, Republicans merely play dirty tricks by making it difficult for Democrats to vote. So, both sides...

You're a hack.                                                                                                                                                                                            

I'm not a Republican.

Whatever, TalkElections gonna TalkElections. Trying to not be an asshole and make a couple nuanced points of previous history and I'm called a liar and hack. Good job you.

Except my reply makes it clear you didn't make a 'nuanced' point you made a dubious point factually.

If you're not a Republican and you're so concerned about election dirty tricks, I'm sure you'll have no problem linking me to all the posts you've written about the unquestionably dirty tricks of Republicans such as the voter I.D requirements that are clearly nothing more than Republicans trying to make it more difficult for Democrats to vote, the 6-8 hour lineups in Democratic cities in Republican states like Atlanta and the occasional but undisputed cases of sleazy Republicans like Georgia Brian Kemp in Georgia as Secretary of State 'improperly' but not illegally removing from the voter rolls likely Democratic voters and likely Republican voters of his primary opponent in 2018.

[Sol]

2010 was this for most Southern Democratic parties. Even in states like North Carolina or Georgia where Democrats are viable at the federal level, that election permanently displaced them as a party of government.

[Duke of York]

2010 was this for most Southern Democratic parties. Even in states like North Carolina or Georgia where Democrats are viable at the federal level, that election permanently displaced them as a party of government.

North Carolina and Georgia no.

Democrats still hold several statewide offices in North Carolina and could retain the governorship and win several Council of State positions.

In Georgia they will likely make gains in the state legislature and could very well win the Governorship and other row offices next cycle.

[Sol]

2010 was this for most Southern Democratic parties. Even in states like North Carolina or Georgia where Democrats are viable at the federal level, that election permanently displaced them as a party of government.

North Carolina and Georgia no.

Democrats still hold several statewide offices in North Carolina and could retain the governorship and win several Council of State positions.

In Georgia they will likely make gains in the state legislature and could very well win the Governorship and other row offices next cycle.

I can't speak as much to Georgia, but in North Carolina the large majority of power is headquartered in the state legislature, and the fact that Democrats haven't been viable there since means that Republican government is the default state in NC, much as Democratic government was pre-2010.

[GAinDC]

California Republicans, 1994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

[kwabbit]

California Republicans, 1994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

I would say the attribution the decline of the CA GOP to prop 187 is a 2008/2012 Demographics is Destiny type myth. The Texas GOP held steady with a similarly booming Hispanic population. Latinos were always a cornerstone of the CA Dem coalition. The real reason was that the increasing nationalization of politics eliminated the dominance of the CA GOP over SoCal White suburbanites. Getting 75% of educated Whites in a coastal suburb like OC was never going to last. The end of the Cold War also was an important cause. Communist diaspora were no longer so heavily R and defense jobs disappeared.

[xavier110]

Operating in the moment, I would argue 2020 might have marked the death knell for the AZ Republican Party’s statewide ambitions. I mean, they quite literally jumped the shark with the stolen election stuff.

It’s hard not to see them getting swept out of almost all the major statewide offices in 2022 as a precursor of what’s to come. (But also could be a mirage!)

Should Dems flip a chamber of the legislature this year, with Gallego and Biden winning, then I’ll feel more comfortable calling it. But if it looks like a snowball and acts like a snowball…