Hello, Democrats? Are You Listening?

You know, a guy like Abraham Lincoln impressed people not because he was erudite, it's because he was six foot forward. He was tall. He was tall. He was a giant straight looking man who also happened to be like, you know, an erudite like interesting guy. But the importance of presence, of rhetorical skill, of attention grabbing. These are classic, old fashioned political skills. It's me a word that sums up this midterm cycle for you and why. Jamal. Uh, a word, um, a word, a single word, I, I don't know if I have a single word, I mean, I actually think it's been a little less exciting than people think, but this is a cop out. Interesting. It's been an interesting election cycle. I'll allow it, Michael. Dynamic, I, I need two words, uh, lift and drag, lift and drag. Um, uh, the lift is obvious. The Democrats are showing up in primaries and numbers greater than anyone expected in states like Texas and North Carolina and Michigan. Um, and that's a measure of some enthusiasm that I think qualifies as lift and, and drag is just, uh, the man in the White House, a Republican consultant, refers to him as the anchor. Is it weight on all that they're trying to do? So lift and drag. Sorry. I need to. I'm a beginner. That's okay. Well, it's like poetic license. That's what we're all about. Uh, my friends, these insights are coming to you from my regular co-conspirator columnist, Jamal Buie and from our brilliant opinion colleague, politics editor Michael Duffy, who is making his round table debut. I'm Michelle call obsessive cover of national politics, and I'm going to go with a midterm word ulcer inducing, which I think really needs no explanation. But it does give us, I think, the perfect segue into our top topic of discussion this week, the Michigan primaries and the ongoing fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. So obviously this is not a new fight. We've had insurgent progressives and moderate pragmatists locked in a tug of war for years. This cycle it's gotten red hot and it's bubbling up in some battleground areas you might not have expected. This most definitely includes Michigan, where the Democratic primary for US and it came down to a brutal, expansive brawl between the left subdual assayed and the center's Haley Stevens and it ended this week with assayed squeaking out a one point victory. Now, Michael, you spent an awful lot of time talking with folks in Michigan while working on the choice, which for those unfamiliar as basically opinions, voter guide to some of the cycles key races. How surprised are you that the race wound up so close? Well, Michelle, I'm no oracle, you know, like you, I watched else I had on the stomp and in debates and in interviews and you couldn't help but be amazed by his energy and his charisma and I can see why people thought it was going to be a stampede. We did hear all the time when we were talking to people for the choice about sort of a crying, you know, out for change that he offered, but I have to admit, going into the final week, I thought Stevens was going to pull it out chiefly because primary voters in Michigan are wider and older and more moderate than Democrats generally and she's there kind of people. So the worst the polls seem to get for Stevens, the more centers she got, she kind of dug further in and I thought she she must know what she's doing. As it happened, as you say, I'll say, Marshall, the incredible, incredible margins in places like Ann Arbor and grand Rapids and got enough in Detroit that he could pull it out. But the significance is the one you mentioned, which is that, you know, progressive populists have been winning in blues places like New York and New Jersey and Colorado, but they haven't really until this week, one in a purple state or swing state like Michigan and that is a huge deal. One more note about Michigan, it's important, I think, is that Michigan Democrats have a habit of rejecting their party's choice and its ideas about how to win Bernie Sanders, Pete Hillary Clinton there in 2016, 100,000 Democrats voted against Joe Biden just two years ago. And of course, if you go back to the medieval times where I began in 1988, Jesse Jackson wiped the floor with Michael Lukakis in that year. So they have a habit of doing this to their parties, the establishment's choice. And this is part of that tradition. So Jamil, you said last week that for Democratic voters right now, fight expressions of anger are maybe more important than policy or ideological splits. How did this factor in specifically that you saw in Michigan? I mean, my my read of Michigan is that that's very much part of what drove L. C. Ed's right is the sense that he was someone who represented a more aggressive posture. And it's interesting. I mean, I think a lot of people talk about this. It's always in terms of like policy and ideology. And one of my touch stones is that ordinary voters don't actually know that much about either policy or ideology. They don't really have strong views either what they have are a set of a set of census of positions, a set of intuitions for which policy stances can either validate those or tell them that the candidate is off base. Right. And so like else I had being for Medicare for all right. What that says to a voter is this is a guy who wants to do big things or this is a guy who's aligned with these particular people or this is a guy who just isn't going to isn't presenting himself like a typical Democrat. And that's the thing that matters. Like the policy stance is like a proxy for all these other things that people can't may not necessarily be able to articulate but they feel. I'd say the same is true for stands in Israel is opposition to aid military aid for Israel is his pro-Palestinian politics. There are plenty of voters who I think feel very sincerely and seriously about that and L. C. Ed does as well. But I think for a lot of voters it's a kind of oh this guy sees with his own two eyes what I see and it becomes a proxy for I can trust his judgment. Right. He saw the videos from Gaza. He came to the view that I came to I can trust his judgment. Do they get all those things are happening simultaneously and help explain why it is that I'll say I was able to mount this in a really impressive challenge to Stevens who just had a ton of money. I mean the I'll say it's outspent by like an order of magnitude. So he's running a campaign for which he has much fewer resources and really does have to kind of rely on his charisma on sort of hustle just like being out there in a way that I'm not sure Stevens necessarily had to until the end. Right. Yeah. And and that to me I think how it goes a long way to explaining what happened here. And I it's worth saying right that Stevens nearly won. So like she the combination of resources and the fact that she is like an established candidate. People know her. You know, she's a she's a known quantity and she has like a discrete base. Right. And and one thing that's interesting to me about all of this is the is what left wing and searching candidates and other similar states can take away from this particular race because this is going to look much more like the kind of arena or the kind of battleground that left wing and searching candidates are going to face if you're going to try to really win in other places than a New York right or then like a big city. It's going to look much more like Michigan than it is like New York City. Are you brought up money? I want to I want to talk about that just for a little bit. This wound up being the most expensive democratic, you know, city primary race in history more than 60 million poured into Stevens campaign and more than half of that involved an issue that has become increasingly divisive in the democratic party. And that's Israel. A pack and it's affiliated groups dropped over 30 million in Stevens campaign. And you know, money's generally considered the lifeblood of politics. But increasingly, there's a growing sense that a pack money is toxic and democratic races. So Jamal, given Tuesday's results, which, I mean, include former DSA House member Cory Bushes failed attempt to take back her seat from West Bell. A moderate dam who was supported in the primary by a pack. But where do you think this particular dynamic stands? I think among political elites is Israel's divisive. But if you look at democratic voters and polls of democratic voters, large majorities agree that we should stop giving military aid to Israel. And a lot of ways else I represent where actually like the typical democratic voter is. And the democratic establishment and democratic elites are like catching up to that. But the ground in terms of public opinion is shifted really quickly. And I think that actually accounts for some of the disorientation that like establishment of the Democratic clearly feel like it just happened very fast, like in a matter of like two years, and it's taken time for people in the leadership class, I guess, to adjust. And I'd say that with regards to APEC, I mean, APEC has become a bit of a boogie man here. Honestly, I think the big issue is that APEC supports Republicans too, right? And so it's like you have this well-resourced political action group that will spend millions of dollars either to defeat more left-wing Democrats or to defeat Democrats in the general election. And you can do one, but not the other, you know what I mean? If you don't want to be so toxic to Democratic voters, you can do one, right? You can be like, okay, we are on this side of an intra-party factional battle, but then you can't also be like, and then we're going to defeat the winner of the factional battle. We're going to try to image general election. I think that does really make people very upset when it seems that you're just, then it's all in bad faith. I'll put it that way. So Michael, did you have money thoughts, either on APEC in particular, or just we're generally thinking of a high-popping amount spent here? Well, the key number here is nine to one. Steven's outspent, else I had, you know, buy a huge lopsided portion and normally, you know, you might see a two-to-one outspender, a three-to-one outspent, but you almost never. I'm not sure I've ever seen a nine-to-one ratio. You know, it's like that old saying when someone says it's not about the money. It's about the money. I think the thing that was powerful for elsewhere, else I had about money, is all the things that represented, you know, whether APEC spent $30 million or $30, else I had was able to turn Steven into a tool of special interest. When you're bought off by DTE and Blue Cross and Big Pharma and Big Tech and APEC, don't be surprised that there's a pro quo that comes with that quid. That money doesn't just fall off trees, $60 million from outside organizations in this race. They just come from nowhere. They dove-tailed with his larger complaint that he made over and over during the care unit about the Democratic Party being the pocket of corporations or unseen special interests, and they were way too willing to go along to get along, far too complacent about money politics, and that was a very animating cocktail for Democratic primary voters. And, you know, we should note also here that Steven's defense against this stuff and Jamel's right was almost non-existent. She almost seemed to own it. She didn't even fight back. She didn't say, "I'm not a tool. I'm not captured." I think he kept using the word "bought," and he wrapped her into a larger shroud of unseen interests who were really guiding, ruining politics. But I think there's even one more thing at stake here, or at work that is important, that isn't really about foreign policy, or is there anything like it. And that is when he, you know, went after, not just, you know, military aid to Israel, but all aid to Israel. He was tapping into what I think a lot of Americans, particularly Democrats feel, is a sense of misplaced priorities. Why are we spending on this when we could be spending on that? And he said, he had this great quote, you know, "Why are we buying bombs and tanks for other countries' wars instead of rebuilding schools?" And you don't have to be an expert on foreign policy or the Middle East, and most people aren't just Jamel notes, just say, "Hey, that sounds right to me." And when neighborhoods and roads and bridges and schools are falling apart, that is an extremely resident angle, and he made the most of it. We'll see if it-- I'm fascinated by that exact kind of dynamic, because this is something that Republicans have been doing frequently, the whole, you know, in the Trump years, the whole, you know, why are we going to do military adventurism, even, and spend over there? Why are we worrying about them when we should be worrying about the white working class back here at home? And then you also look at all these polls over the years that show that American voters tend to have a very inflated sense of how much money is actually spent on foreign aid. And I cannot remember the specifics, but they think it's exponentially more than what we actually spend on a regular basis. So I do think it's interesting that that has crept into the democratic party as well and taken hold, whether it's Israel, the drovet, or kind of some larger force. And I do think this is going to be a real problem because young people in particular are really fired up about this. It's not surprising to me that Stevens was kind of favored by older voters and younger voters were kind of more responsive with the outside. I was going to say one more thing about the Israel peace and in this race. And that is it was, it was almost a taboo topic in washing. It wasn't taboo topic in washing. No one could talk about this. It's, it's, it's, he just kept signaling over and over that I'm going to go on offense and stay there. I'm going to stay on my front foot. And, and that really was a signal, I think, to voters that this is someone who isn't scared of a fight, isn't cowed by power. And is willing to take on, you know, the, the Trump White House and all of its extra constitutional stuff. So I just think by his choice of targets here was also strategic. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I just, I want to just add like one more note to that. It was entirely possible for Stevens to win this race. And to me, one of the things I just like stuck out observing was how just flat footed she was, setting aside all substantive things. You know, Michelle is for me to say this a bunch. Some candidates kind of have the juice and some don't. And you know, watching the two of them, you're like, I'll say that's a guy with the juice. That's a guy you sort of like is sharp and attentive and able to respond to dynamic political conditions like very quickly and assertively. And Stevens just couldn't. And I think voters pick up on that like me. If voters can pick up on anything, it's that they pick on up on that immediately. So once upon a time, my position was that presidential races were just completely different because Americans vote for boyfriends, not candidates in a way that they don't down. But I think social media has actually changed that. So it's actually moving down the food chain who can who can do the viral hit, who can do like the mandami and his man on the street interviews who looks good on camera, who has charisma. I think that is taking root ever farther down the ballot. And I do think that that was one of Stevens problems is she was just she was much flatter than he was. And it is always and it's always been my position that the like you Jamel, the policy differences. I can't find voters usually who can tell me the policy differences between the candidates and their party on the trail. So I think this is something that we're going to be looking at for a while for for better for worse. Can I say just this is a very meeting to say, it's a very 19th century. This is how politics used to be. You know, a guy like Abraham Lincoln impressed people not because he was erudite. It's because he was six foot four. But the importance of presence, of rhetorical skill, of attention grabbing, these are classic, old-fashioned political skills. And I actually think it's a good thing that it's coming back into like people are recognizing the importance of being able to perform politics as much as being able to like be a good legislator. You need to be able to do both. But I think Democrats in particular have lost or forgotten the importance of political performance. If you're not a subscriber, we have some news for you. You can now explore the times for free without paywalls during your first month on the New York Times app. We're going to be learning how the various demographic groups voted for a while yet. But one of the big political divides that we've been looking at, not just in Michigan, is between college educated and non-college educated voters. Michael, how were you seeing this split in the Michigan race? Well, you know, I'll say I ran as a classic liberal. He did well in these big college towns like Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, in Lansing. These are home of large universities or colleges. It's interesting. He's the first Democrat in something like nine years to win the whole state without winning any of the three counties around Detroit, McComb, Oakland, or Wayne. That's really unusual and a really different path to victory. So he had a broad base. She did well as you would expect black voters and white voters in Detroit. But it was a different path to getting to a win than we've seen in Michigan for a decade at least. So I want us to look a little bit forward here and talk about what else he needs to do now to unify the party after this kind of bruising primary. And I, you know, Jamel knows this. I'm of the mind that, okay, you shouldn't necessarily freak out about tough primaries. I know political types do, but I think it's good for the party. If you can then turn it around and bring it back together. And the one thing I want to say before I ask, I ask you guys to take this over is I'm hoping that because El Sayed did not romp. He had a tough scary close. I mean, he went into election day, cocky, they were thinking they were going to blow this out, and that was nowhere near what happened. So I'm hoping that they will take this, develop a little bit of modesty or understand that they have a lot of work to do. And so I'm hoping we're looking at a little bit of course correction going forward in like specifically in response to how close this was. But Jamal, how optimistic are you that he can get this done? I'm pretty optimistic. Can the immediate aftermath, like the next morning, but they'll say that and Stevens issued very conciliatory statements that were basically like primaries over hard fought, you know, I'll say it's like thank you for the support, thank you for the winds, Stevens is like looking forward to assisting the nominee in November. And they both seem to recognize that like the primary is over, right? And the actual battle is for is to beat the Republican. It's not to engage in this factional infighting. I think you're right to suggest that this narrow win for S.I. Ed might might be the best possible outcome for him, because it's a reminder, it serves as a very important reminder that like first, he doesn't represent some like overwhelming part of the party coalition in the state. He represents nearly half of it and she represents nearly half of it. And so he needs to do the work to bring these two think these two halves together and to to provide a unified front going forward. And I my sense is that like he would have done that anyway, but this really impresses upon him the necessity to do this. And I think it might tamp down on any inclination, any inkling of wanting to, you know, do a dance in the end zone. It's like, no, we, we, this was a close win. And so now we have to, don't spike the ball, you know, welcome, welcome your opponent back in the fold and then move forward. You know, my sense is that the background conditions of this year's election are favorable to Democrats. And so it's not like they don't need to do any work. Like they still have to work hard for you. So got a hustle. But I don't think there's going to be a big split in the Democratic coalition in the fall. Michael. Well, and then there's Mike Rogers. His, the, the republican he's going to face and you can't count Rogers out. This is a man who just two years ago, I think, nearly beat the Democratic rock star Elissa Slotkin by she lost by maybe 20,000 votes. The republicans have always already pledged to spend $45 or $50 million on the state. And that number will quadruple. It's will be them a very closely fought race. My guess is that when this race began, Rogers hoped teed face Elsaid instead of instead of Stevens. But I'm guessing now they aren't thinking that. That this is a different candidate and much more mature and practice and experienced guy who's proven himself to be extremely fast on his feet. It's received wisdom among some Michigan Democrats that Mike Rogers can be beat because they beat him before. But, but I at that strikes me as, you know, overconfidence. And in, in the choice, we had one of our panelists was a Lansing state senator named Sarah Anthony and she'd been watching Rogers for 20 years and talked about him in the series as a extremely formidable and capable campaigner who could go to, you know, farm in the morning and a, and a UAW site, you know, at lunch and end up at, you know, in a hunt club in the evening. And she said in, in our series, he's a genius. Now he's a lot trumpier than he was when he was in Congress for 15 years. But you just cannot take anything for granted against him. So they, they, they have a lot of reasons. As Jamel said to, to start, start from scratch and pretend they're, they're behind from the beginning. How much do we think that voters there were thinking about electability in the fall? I mean, that's always a complicated calculation. I think one of the reasons Stevens did so well. And you can see this in some of the comments is that people were concerned that perhaps she would be a better candidate in the fall than he would be. But it's, yeah, I think the grand experiment that was going on here, which will obviously have an impact going into 2028 based on what happens in November is I do get the sense that as Jamel says, all the fundamentals are going in Democrats direction, especially with Trump being just wildly unpopular. So I think that there's a sense that the time is okay to play around a little bit and not worry so dramatically about just building the most generic Democrat who can reach the broadest coalition. But that makes a lot of Democrats nervous that you'll wind up with someone who winds up too extreme to appeal to something beyond the base. And I think that Michigan's Senate race is maybe the kind of exhibit A and all of this and everybody's going to be watching it really closely. And let's not forget one more thing, which is a really late primary, August the fourth. They don't, you know, voting starts in Michigan for the fall. They made a decision to put this thing so late that they've made their unification problems a little harder. It was interesting that Malibu Orro was on the podium with Hillsayah after he won. But they were aware that they have a, there is a clock and they have to move fast. So one of the things that Republicans are looking at, the president is wildly unpopular. Rogers is a Trump ally. How do we think he is going to thread this needle going forward? Rodgers has been on both sides of Trump. When he first ran, he was a fairly conventional middle of the road, almost Bush, Republican, strong and national defense. And he was, he posed a challenge for Democrats because he was fairly centrist in his early incarnations. But after Trump took office and particularly the second time, he's become Trumpier and has said things that are much more extreme. And that gives Democrats an opening to attack him that they didn't have before my hunch is that Rogers will come after El Sayyad on foreign policy very much on the Middle East and Israel. And there is a, there is don't forget there's a lot of support for Trump and Michigan. He's won the state twice. So I don't expect, I expect that the White House will pour tons of money into it. I expect Trump will be all over this race. I think he's already made clear that he thinks, El Sayyad's a communist. We're going to hear a lot of that. And that he was right out of the gate in in Vada. He's talking about this isn't Democratic socialism or socialism that the party's pushing its pure communism. He made some fairly vulgar statements about El Sayyad. No, he hates Jews and he hates Israel. Abdul El Sayyad, do you believe this? He is going forward with what we have termed the hate election. It's just like, this is not about me. This is about the other team being crazy and trying to ruin America. So I think you're totally right on that. And I think if Rogers has a problem, it's going to be separating himself from some of that stuff with the voters who are not sure about which way to go. All right. Before we move on to recommendations, I have a different, slightly different big picture question for you guys. So even as the Democrats are slugging it out over the direction of their party, we're seeing growing dissatisfaction with both parties nationwide. More and more voters are choosing to disaffiliate. Young voters in particular just have no use for political parties in many cases. And so one way that the Democrats are starting to respond to this is by backing independence in tough red state races. So the Senate contest in Nebraska, the state party has gone all in on independent Dan Osborne. I went out, checked out his campaign a couple of weeks ago, something similar is happening in states like Idaho, South Dakota, and a little bit in Montana, even though the state dams are still kind of split in that race. What do you all think about this development? I mean, my only thought is that it's just a reminder of how our party system really constrains people's choices in a way that like is unsatisfactory, you know, if we had, you know, if you still had electoral fusion in most states and like you wouldn't, this wouldn't naturally be an issue, but someone could run as an independent or an independent party. And like the Democrats could just nominate that guy too. So he's on both ballot lines or she's on both ballot lines and the problem solved. But what this says to me is that, you know, in places where the Democratic party just its brand is in the tank and there just really isn't like there are viable candidates necessarily in part because of the brand. They're still political diversity, right? There's still voters who want like a different choice. And so I think I think there ought to be real thought given to how can we provide those voters a different choice other than oh, you have to choose one of the two. But yeah, that's my takeaway. Michael. Well, I just think it's a frustration that's being felt by Democrats in the states where there just aren't many Democrats, you know, in states like Nebraska, South Dakota, Idaho, it's two to one. And there's really no path. There's no path to statewide office at the moment as a Democrat. The brand, not it's not just the brand is toxic. They're just don't enough Democrats who are here. And so to me, this is like, this is one of those old American things. There's more than one way to skin it. And I think that the Democrats are asking themselves a question, it's not clear how they're going to answer that any of these independents are going to win. But how much do you want to take back control of a chamber and how much in the way of positions and ideologies? Are you willing to give up in order to take it and to keep Republicans out of control? That's really the question that is going on. The fact that there are four states who are doing this is astonishing to me. It's an amazing development. Also, Joe Manchin popped up, the former Democratic Senator from West Virginia a few days ago, and he rolled out this entire group that's entire purpose is to recruit independents to run so that people have a different choice. He said this is not about forming a third party. He doesn't intend to get back into the game, but he has looked around and said, "Okay, we need to shake things up a bit." So, he's looking to scale this thing, which I have no idea if they can make any progress. But I do think it's worth a shot. My critique of this though is that if you want to elevate independent candidates, then you have to give people a way to vote without spoiling. You have to let people be able to cast a ballot knowing that their second choice or if they're maybe better aligned, they're 10% more aligned with the independent than the Democrat. You want people to be able to say, "I can vote for the independent without do mean the Democrat." That's why people like this is our PSA for ranked choice voting once more. You have to be able to get rid of the spoiler effect. I would say this is like me putting political science head on that if you really want meaningful competition, you cannot just have independent candidates. You have to have viable new parties. You have to have an actual party organization that can have its own ballot line and compete. Any political reform option that doesn't foreground, and this is funny because Americans, hate parties. Americans have always hated political parties, but you can't have a functional democracy without them. If you want there to be more political competition, you really have to be thinking, "How can I incentivize the creation of new parties?" That choice doesn't really do that. Fusion does. I'm going to make another plug for fusion. Fusion voting does, but you have to do that. You have to spoiler problem, new party problem. Those are the problems you have to solve. Solve those problems and you can get more non-traditional candidates in there. You can get non-democrats and non-Republicans in there. You could even have situations where in states where maybe not every Republican voter wants to support the mega-Republican, you could have some other Republican party faction on the ballot line that they can vote for. There's a lot you can do here if you begin to tweak the rules a little, but if you don't tweak the rules, then no amount of independent candidates is really going to change the basic calculation. With that, I would like to shift us now to everyone's favorite part of the game, recommendations. Michael, first timers go first. What do you got for? Okay. This podcast has been excellent in the last few weeks talking about what is going to be required to curtail or end the war with Iran. My recommendation is Road to Surrender by Evan Thomas. Book came out a couple of years ago, but it details in extraordinary ways how the forces and leaders in Tokyo and Japan had to overcome folks who kept wanting to fight in order to bring World War II to a close. Many in the U.S. chain of command assumed they would have to drop many more bombs than just two on Japan. We're fully prepared to do so. The Air Force dropped the second weapon without even telling President Truman, and though Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sold to the American public as military targets, they weren't really. They were chosen for effect and everybody in Washington wavered back and forth, even in the final days about whether to keep fighting. In Japan, the situation was even worse. In fact, there was a coup in the Imperial Palace after the second bomb had been dropped. Over and over, he just explains how difficult it is inside any government, even one that knows its existence is at risk to stop fighting, and that, of course, has powerful lessons for us. So that's my recommendation. Road to Surrender by Evan Thomas. All right. Jamal. I'm going to, just because that was a great recommendation, and I want to encourage people to read more about late 19th and early 20th century Japan. I'm going to recommend Hirohito and the making of modern Japan biography of the Emperor Hirohito by Herbert Bix. It helps you understand the rise of Imperial Japan and its development. And Hirohito's almost like a caretaker emperor really gets into his direct involvement in the decisions that would eventually produce Japan's war with the United States in the 1940s. So it's a great biography, highly recommended, and I think it's a good companion with Michael's recommendation. Okay. Well, I feel at the end of it, it isn't. Come but upon me to go down market. So I'm going to recommend The Hulu Show Furious, but with a big caveat. So this is a crime drama that's based loosely on the 1980s, 1987 film, Black Widow, which was all about this woman who would marry rich husbands and then kill them. This is a kind of a shift on that, but it is still you have a female serial killer on the loose. The show itself is solid, but the FBI agent tracking her is played by Amy Rossum and she is brilliant. She doesn't have to do anything. She can just sit there and she is charismatic. Every word out of her mouth is fantastic, highly recommend. Once you're through reading about Japan. So that's it. Is she better than Debra Winger in the original? I don't want to talk bad about the '80s. I'm a child of the '80s, so I have nostalgia value, but yeah, I'm sorry. There's no comparison. So go forth, get your serial killers, get your war stories, and we're going to land this plane. Guys, thank you so much. We've solved the world's problems for another week. Let's do it again soon. Thanks, Michelle. Thank you so much.