Looking forward to Tuesday February 29, 2008

On the D side there are 370 delegates at stake between Texas (193), Ohio (141), Rhode Island (21), and Vermont (15). Ohio is currently the hardest outcome to predict. Signs are still pointing to a small Clinton win, but volatility in both the prediction markets (high) and the polls (less, but still present) makes the outlook murky. With at least 12 polls by 10 different pollsters in the past few days, most giving a 5-10 point lead to Hil, her lead seems safe. However, some things to consider:

• Repeat polls by SurveyUSA (solid track record) and Rasmussen (not so much) both show a 10-point Clinton lead falling to five points a few days later (both most recently taken on the 25th).

• No pollster has surveyed more than 862 “likely voters” and most are at n=600. At most, only about 0.01% of registered voters are being sampled. That would scare any rational statistician. Political pollsters get irrational quickly.

• The difference between the final outcome and the polls depends on whether any voting groups are being systematically underpolled.

For the most part, Obama’s tally margins over the polls have been greater than Clinton’s. In other words, if you look back at every state that has voted so far and compare final outcome with final polling averages, often the match was good (within a couple percent), but when it wasn’t, it was much more likely to underestimate Obama’s percentage and overestimate Clinton’s. This effect was particularly big in Georgia (Obama polled at 14 and won by 35), Wisconsin (Obama polled at 7 and won by 17), Tennessee (Clinton polled at 22 and won by 13), Alabama (polls tied and Obama won by 14), and to a lesser extent Oklahoma (Clinton polled with a 29-point lead and won by 24), even New York (Clinton polled at 20 and won by 17) and other states. Some states were right on (NJ, CT) and only one reversed the effect (in California Hillary polled by 6 and won by 9).

(Why) Are we still talking about the SuperDelegates? February 28, 2008

This much should be clear already: Hillary Clinton is not going to win enough delegates on Tuesday from the OH, TX, VT and RI primaries to erase Barack’s post-SDT (SuperDuperTuesday for you new to this report) run. Even conceding Clinton wins in Rhode Island and Ohio (which I wouldn’t do, but just for sake of argument), Barack is still going to win more delegates than she on Tuesday, padding his lead in the delegates-won-by-vote column. This will cement Clinton’s status: barring a last second bizarre collapse by Mr. Obama, the only way she can win the Dem nomination is by a SuperDelegate fiat.

The problem is, while Barack will have a decent natural lead in pledged delegates (again, those won by vote; despite what many media outlets call them I consider SuperDelegates to be unpledged no matter what they say publicly), he won’t have 50%+1 lead. That leaves the door a sliver open to the SD’s making the final decision and Mark Penn figuring out a clever way to justify it.

But despite Geraldine Ferraro’s absurd NYT op-ed trying to convince everybody that having the SD’s decide the race over the wishes of D primary and caucus voters is a good thing (because she invented the system), I give the benefit of the doubt to the rationality and good judgment of the majority of the SD’s who remain publicly unpledged. This block of about half of the SD’s (roughly 400) who have not yet entered a public preference will wait until the primary picture is crystal clear. It doesn’t matter that Hillaryland brought on war-tested Harold Ickes to try to win the SD’s to Clinton’s side. The presence of Ickes and other arm wrestlers (for both sides) matters only if by the time Montana and South Dakota Dems vote, there is a very, very close 50-50 split between delegates won.  That is exceedingly unlikely.

The point is, don’t be distracted by the SD hype.  If we do get to a point that the SD’s matter — really, really matter — then the D party is in big trouble.  Everybody, even the Clinton camp, realizes this.  Which, of course, is why you are only hearing HC’s camp talk about SuperDelegates and Florida and Michigan delegates.  It’s the only hope left, and although it’s a slim one, when it is your only life perserver you have to cling to it, don’t you?

The Times McCain hit February 28, 2008

It’s been a week now since the NY Times ran its piece basically accusing John McCain of getting sleazy with a coed lobbyist. Oh, it was all couched and caveated, and the editors would really really want you to keep in mind that they just report. You decide. Right?

Relying on only one real source, reporting on the faint possibility of a sex scandle that even the article says probably didn’t happen, running on clearly biased and bitter inside information without fully explaining the context of the source. It only took a few minutes to send McCain into apopalectic heights he hasn’t visited since Rove push-polled him out of South Carolina in 2000. You don’t need me to rehash the predictable responses. Even the NY Times’ own internal people, particularly the public editor, flayed Bill Keller for running the piece.

The problem for the Times is that the piece wasn’t that bad, without context. In context it was a ridicoulsly misguided run. The layers of context go fathoms deep, but to illustrate just one: you can’t possibly run a piece that essentially claims a sex scandal without any proof at any point in the campaign without raising major questions about the timing of the placement. Knowing that, Keller absurdly claimed “we run a piece when it is ready” adding that to a pile of other statements blatatly ignoring “the scarlet elephant in the room” as the public editor put it.

market volatility February 27, 2008

Of course soon after I made this comment in the previous post

To predict a margin of victory, the best strategy is to subjectively combine market trends and poll trends. Doing that, my current guess (subject to change) is that Hillary will win Ohio by somewhere in the 3-6 range and Obama will win Texas by close to ten.

wouldn’t you know it but the Intrade market got all volatile on us. Where Ohio trading had been mostly steady for a week, the market for the Ohio Dem primary is currently trading at $52 for Obama and $44 for Clinton. Go figure. I’ve been telling people privately for the past few days that I think Barack will win Ohio, but I’ve also let myself be swayed by the stability in the Ohio polls and markets that have been showing a decent Clinton lead. In aggregate the Ohio polls are still showing a ~5 point Clinton lead but are also still showing a stronger upward trend to Obama.

Two things important to keep in mind about the polls and markets: first, the polls are a lot slower than the markets. The polls lag true public opinion by a few days, and the significance of that cannot be overstated in this primary season, where public opinion has been quite volatile. But it’s also important to keep in mind that the individuals making trades in the markets and thus setting the market prices are not doing so independently of the polls, but are using the polls as informational inputs in their decision making. So that said, how to interpret a sudden market swing to Obama today when not a single poll has come out giving him a lead? The answer is mood. Mood amongst the traders has shifted, likely as a result of last night’s debate, and is feeling an Obama win in Ohio in spite of what the polls say.

market watching 27-feb February 27, 2008

In previous reports I’ve talked about watching the prediction markets vs. watching the polls (I mostly watch intrade). I often consider the markets to be better predictors of outcome, unless the pollster in question has a good track record and is using a decent-sized sample. If you do trust the markets (they’re not always right, though), right now you’d give best odds to Barack crushing Hillary in Texas and Hillary winning narrowly in Ohio. The trading trends have been steadily up for Barack in Texas and he’s now trading at 70-30. The markets have been essentially flat in Ohio, with Barack making small cuts into Hillary’s stable ~10 point lead.

However, even though I said “crushing” and “winning narrowly,” what the markets don’t give is a likely margin of victory. They give a probability of a certain candidate winning. The market may be feeling that an Obama win in Texas is almost certain even if it is only by a few points. To predict a margin of victory, the best strategy is to subjectively combine market trends and poll trends. Doing that, my current guess (subject to change) is that Hillary will win Ohio by somewhere in the 3-6 range and Obama will win Texas by close to ten.

Since the media jumped all over it like gnats on Joba Chamberlain, you probably saw that Bill Clinton said the same thing I did a while back: if Hillary doesn’t win both TX and OH then she’s done. (Snark snark, I said it first, Bill. But then again, it was obvious to everybody, wasn’t it?) I’m not clear on what she will do when she loses Texas and wins Ohio. If she loses both she will concede on March 5th, but if she wins Ohio and loses Texas closely I bet she stays in it for a few more days.

political report #12 February 26, 2008

[This is the first report post-email. Now into the blog era. What it means (probably) is shorter and more frequent reports. This post was written before the Ohio debate tonight.]

R.N. who? The breath from the collective yawn that greeted Ralphie’s latest foray into presidential politics knocked me over a couple of days ago. What’s that you say? Ralph Nader? Isn’t he that guy who writes for Consumer Reports?

Dems, I’m sure you know this but you can settle down about Nader already. If he had anything new to add this time (he genuinely did in 2000, but what’s new today?) things might be different, but at this point he’s a broken 33⅓, spinning only because we can’t figure out where the off switch is. Unlike in 2000, there is a very clear difference between the D candidate and the incumbent administration, so there will be no feelings of frustration with the lack of change choice that got Nader enough 2000 votes to bury Gore.

Nastiness In the last report I said that the only thing left interesting in the D race was how low it was going to go. It hasn’t gone to depths yet, but there have been glimpses. Hillary’s crocodile tears and feigned indignation (“shame on you Barack Obama!!”) at a misleading mailing by Barack’s camp (which was genuinely misleading, as far as I can tell) was a good start, but just minor stuff. The Texas debate was creampuff boring until late in the soirée, and even then didn’t get too juicy. I think Hilaryland probably made a calculation that there’s nothing to be gained by attacking on national TV and seeming the ungracious loser where she once proclaimed herself inevitable. Attacks have picked up in the past two days, and I’ll address those in the coming report.

Lieberman for VP? Not a chance. McCain (I’ll address the NY Times assassination piece in the upcoming report) is already in deep hot water with the R base and as far as I can tell, still has done little to shore up that potential base. Even assuming Obama and McCain split the national independent vote, Obama will crush McCain on respective party loyalty and will win by a Reagan v. Mondale margin if McCain doesn’t do something very big to make the right-R base love him. Choosing a former D as your running mate doesn’t, um, exactly send that message. If you’re thinking Lieberman would help McCain win the national indi vote, keep dreaming. Lieberman was a weird pick at best for Gore in 2000, and gives very little upside on a national ticket. (Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great Senator and a science policy wonk favorite. Few have been as positively aggressive on various science policy and R&D funding issues.)

political report v.1 i.11 February 20, 2008

The early exit polls spelled disaster for Hillary last night.  Long before any returns were posted in Wisconsin, I was watching exit polls come in that had Obama winning almost every single demographic category available, over every geographical bit of the state but the far northwest.   By the time CNN had 40% of the vote reported, Barack was up by 13, very close to my magic number of 15.  At 54% reported the lead was 14 points, it was 15 with 76% counted and this morning I woke up to see that Barack won by 17.  We’re getting closer to a post-Clinton era and some may like it, others won’t, but it is upon us.

What do you do now if you’re Hillary Clinton?  In a race you initially conceded but then campaigned hard for, a state that most polls had you either winning or within single digits, you lost by 17.  In another state that you expected to lose but nonetheless sent some of your star-power surrogates to, you lost by 52.  (BO got more than 3 times the votes that HC got in Pineappleland.  Chelsea herself campaigned in Hawaii for HC and as far as I can tell, only BO’s unknown sister campaigned for him there.)  So what do you do?  Well, the strategy from here out is pretty clear: negative campaigning.

Yes, friends, you are about to see serious negative campaigning unleashed in the D race up to March 4.  Why?  Don’t voters get turned off by negative campaigning?  Yea, sure, some (many?) voters do, but there is one single reason that candidates turn to the negative: because it works.  It works time and again, across the country, inside and out.  If you think Hillary isn’t ready to lay down everything she has to win this thing, you’re not paying enough attention.  All she has left is negative campaigning and that deck of cards is about to be unleashed.  This is not speculation, it was right there on the front page of the NY Times this morning: “Mrs. Clinton wasted no time in signaling that she would now take a tougher line against Mr. Obama – a recognition, her advisers said, that she must act to alter the course of the campaign and define Mr. Obama on her terms.”  This is putting it mildly.

The problem the D’s now have is obvious.  Hillaryland is going to fight like hell to win TX and OH.  BO is going to have no choice but to respond in kind.  How nasty is it going to get?  Nasty enough to kill the golden goose and let McCain eat it?  The only thing left interesting about the D race is how sick it gets.  I doubt Hillary can bring Obama all the way back down to earth with a negative campaigning strategy, but she can hurt him seriously and hurt him for the long-term.

On the R side   As I said in a previous report, the R race is now the more interesting as the D race is over.  The R race is over, too, but why is Huck still around, siphoning votes and not allowing the party to coalesce around a new champion?  Is it so he can stay fresh in the minds of the party Hacks in four years, and be anointed the early frontrunner then?  At this point, that’s my best guess.  Either McCain said something personally offensive to Huck (quite possible), or else Huck is running like hell for 2012 (more likely).  In that, maybe Huck sees what everybody else sees: McCain is probably going to lose this election and with it an entire brand of pseudo-moderate R’sim.  Huck is positioning himself now to be in a defining role of the direction of the new R party reborn in a post-Bush, post-Rove, post-Delay, even post-McCain landscape.

political report v.1 i.10 February 18, 2008

This time I’m going to mix it up by starting with a reader comment, then going into polls, then giving the meat.

Not everyone is drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. A lot of people out there are focused on Hillary because she is an inspiring leader who knows how to get the system working for people.  To be honest, some of J-Mac’s [John McCain for those who don't speak Jive] criticisms of Obama today are kinda true – he gives cute speeches but where’s the beef? He can’t answer questions about how his ideas are going to work. Barack doesn’t want to debate Hillary as she has repeatedly requested because he knows he’ll lose like he has every debate they’ve had. Let’s put Obama on ice for a few years and bring him back once he’s had a little experience. Directions for leading the free world do not show up on a teleprompter.

My take is that Obama won’t debate because he’s got serious ups on her right now and in general in politics, the insurgents want to debate while the frontrunners don’t.  The front runner has everything to lose in a debate while the insurgent (like, say, Ron Paul) has everything to gain.  Obama was fully willing to debate while he was still unknown.  Now that he’s known, he has more to lose by debating while giving his opponent openings to claw back in.

As far as the where’s the beef thing, you have to be very careful here.  The Hil campaign is pushing that angle very hard right now but it’s resonating about as well as the “ready to lead from day 1!!!” angle.  You can see both angles falling flat.  They’re just not good arguments, especially since Bill Clinton ran in 1992 with very little experience (a bit of time as gov of a small southern state — big whup!!).  The Hil campaign has to find some better stuff to take Obama on.  We don’t elect presidents because they give fine-detail specifics during their campaigns.  We know they are going to have staffs of hundreds to do that for them.  We elect them for their abilities to pull together highly effective and competent people.  Bill Clinton did great at that, GW did really poorly.

As far as inspiring leader, yea, I mean that’s an individual, intuitive choice.  My take is that both would be, but up to this point Hillary’s leadership qualities were known while Obama’s weren’t.  Now that his are known (you can’t get as far as he has in a campaign like this without being a strong leader) people are seeing an alternate path.  As far as leadership styles, this is one place that they are truly distinguishing themselves.  Their policies on most of the major issues are effectively identical, but Clinton has been making clear that her path is to lead as Bill led: make deals when you can, but fight the opposition like hell when it suits you better.  Obama has been repudiating that tactic as often as possible, catching on to a feeling of tiredness that a lot of people have for the left vs. right hatefest that has been embodied in a radio-hates-Clinton and Clinton-pillories-the-right circus ever since 1992.  Not everybody is tired of it, though, and wants Hillary to continue to carry the mantle into battle against the dittoheads.  To me, this essentially is the choice between the two.

political report v.1 i.9 February 12, 2008

Yes, that’s what happens in one day in politics.  Obama wins in DC and MD were easy to foresee, but the flavor of his victory in Virginia was surprising.  As an astute reader pointed out last night, Obama won 2-to-1 in a state that couldn’t even decide in 2006 between an as-conservative-as-they-come Dem war hero and a smarmy race-baiter (bonus if you know who I’m talking about).  He won well over half of the women and voters 60+, half of the white voters, over half in the lower income bracket and over half the union voters.  He also won majorities of voters who said the economy, Iraq or health care were their top priorities.  Or, in other words, in a conservative semi-southern state he made a clean sweep of Clinton’s (previous) strengths.

It all comes down to this: Can Hil win both Texas and Ohio?  If she can, the race is still on.  If she loses even one, it’s over.  So there’s still hope in Hillaryland, but really, it’s over.  Clinton has big leads in the polls in both TX and OH.  I don’t think it matters.  Obama is going to make up that difference in one or both after rolling in Wisconsin, and then it’s on to Denver.  Intrade now has Obama to win both states.  The polls are lagging on this, friends, and the markets are right.  Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign chair lives and works in Ohio.  He just endorsed Obama.

Only a few things are left interesting in this race now (making the R race probably more interesting than the D race).  First is how quickly Obama turns his 15-20 point deficits in the TX and OH polls into ties or leads (or if he even does).  You can never count out a Clinton, but Hillary can only do this if she retains those big margins in those states.  She needs to recapture momentum because TX and OH are big, but after those states (and Rhode Island the same day, which Barack should win) come the final nine that will really decide the race.  If she doesn’t win both TX and OH, those nine don’t matter.  If she does, and wins big, the race is still wide open.

Second is the SuperDelegate fiasco.  As I’ve said in a few previous reports, it’s not going to come down to the SD’s.  It could, but it’s not going to.  Using the SD’s to decide the race would be a nightmare that the D party wouldn’t recover from for a long time, and everybody can see that (even the Clintons).  At some point somebody’s gotta have some sense (despite my cynicism in a previous report about that very question).  Also remember what I said before: you might as well ignore the SD count you’re seeing on CNN, NY Times, etc., because it’s almost meaningless.  The SD’s are bound by nothing, and they certainly aren’t “pledged” as some news services have them.  Instead of “pledged” we should call them “promised” with the realization that a “promise” to a politician is like a “suggestion” to everybody else.  In the actual “pledged” delegate vote column (meaning, those who are bound by state party rules to give their votes to a certain candidate according to election or caucus results) Obama is now winning by about 10%.

political report v.1 i.8 February 10, 2008

While you were watching nascar or Davis Cup tennis this weekend (depending on your political proclivities?), Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee were roiling from the left, the right, down the middle and up the other side. And all this is going to force me to issue the first real “prediction” since this report began: the Dem race is as over as the R race. It really pains me to do that, but there it is.

It wasn’t terribly hard to anticipate that Obama was going to do well this weekend, but of the four states that held Dem primaries or caucuses, only one was polled beforehand. (You’re reading closely if you remember from last report which state that was.) Barack swept them all anyway, and by stunningly high numbers. He won Washington and Nebraska by over 35, Louisiana and Maine by 20, and the Virgin Islands by….wait for it….90-8. The Virgin Islands? Yea, see, that’s why you’re glued to this report. Is CNN or Fox(fair and balanced)News going to tell you that the Virgin Islands gets to send 3 delegates to Denver?

As fast as Mr. Obama was racking up post-SDT February states, Ms. Clinton was shuffling campaign staff and starting to head down the Giuliani rabbit hole. It seems the Clinton camp is now conceding the Beltway Primary tomorrow and the Wisconsin and Hawaii elections on the 19^th, waiting instead for Texas and Ohio on March 4^th to bail her out. If that’s true (and who knows, campaigns manage information flow like Bill Belichick manages injury reports, and most of the print and TV media just gulps down anything it gets like dolphins getting sardines at a SeaWorld show) it’s a big, big mistake. Still, she probably has no choice. A slew of recent polls are out on VA and MD and they all have Obama in a slaughter.

Think about what this past weekend means. Obama won in the Pacific Northwest, the dead center of the county, the deep south, and backwoods New England, all at the same time. And not only won, but dominated. When I was speculating about what SDT meant for each candidate’s momentum, I plotted a few possible paths, but one I didn’t mention is that it would rework the race so thoroughly that it would make Barack inevitable and force Hillary to start sloughing campaign staff and loaning herself money a-la-Mitt.

political report v.1 i.7 February 6, 2008

trying to make sense of the senseless….

Now that it’s Wednesday morning, what do the voters think? Who the sam-hell knows. All I know is that west of the Mississippi, you can pretty much draw a line across America at 37°N and find Obama states above it and Hillary states below it. East of the Mississippi the pattern is more or less reversed. Does that mean anything? Probably not. If you really want to understand the political geography of this country you have to understand all the implications of this page. Good luck.

On the R side, John McCain did clearly pull away although, contrary to what I had guessed, not strongly enough to force Mitt and Mike out. Romney actually won more states than just Utah and Massachusetts, but most of them were slight on population and thus delegates (winning ND and MT doesn’t get you much if your opponent wins NY and CA). Huckabee made a somewhat surprising sweep of five southeastern states, but that’s just the problem: they’re all southeastern states. If yesterday’s results did anything, it solidified Huckabee’s frontrunner status on McCain’s VP slot, while giving Romney just enough of a glimpse of a false hope that he’ll continue to whittle away his personal fortune on tearing McCain down for the Dems in November. There’s another way to look at it, too: you can spend a $100 million of your own money on something sure to come back 10-fold in economic value (like building a factory that makes colored sugar water, or solar panels, for instance). Or you can spend $100 million on something that instantly evaporates into space (TV and radio ads) and returns no economic value. Your choice, I guess. At any rate, Romney and Huckabee are actually respectably second and third, but it’s McCain’s nomination now and from past history most expect the R’s to coalesce around him despite the hate he’s getting from the über-right radio/TV clones.

On the D side. My oh my. Whose spin do you want to pick? First Hillary’s: we won CA, NY and MA, more votes overall, and more delegates overall. For Barack: we won 14 states to your 8, and essentially a 50-50 split on delegates.

Here’s why Obama should be worried: Clinton won yesterday. She won the big prizes by big margins, and the big prizes comprise just about 100% of the national TV market. Los punditos and the producers live in NYC and LA and a bit in DC. By holding on, Hillary showed some resiliency that could resonate with many, especially women. She’s showing more emotion, more personal warmth, more passion, and her campaign has finally gotten Bill to simmer down and stop self-destructing. Her wins in big states probably means more money from those rich states. Her 2-1 edge in CA’s Latino votes is also a good omen. But….

Here’s why Clinton should be worried: Barack really won yesterday. He came from way back in the national polls just 2-3 weeks ago to force a tie in delegate count yesterday. He won half again as many states, showing broader geographic appeal. And he raised way, way more money in January than Clinton did (and Clinton just loaned her own campaign $5 million in what could be seen as desperation). Furthermore, he now has some more time to personally campaign in the remaining February states (9 in all), and his history is of making up ground quickly when he can campaign in a state.

Momentum You can just see the air pumping back up into the Clinton campaign, can’t you? They were biting their fingernails for the past two weeks, waiting to see how the voters would feel about the Woman Who Would Be Crowned vs. the Insurgent Who Republicans Think Is A Muslim (oh, the push-polling opportunities for the R’s….). Now the air is back. In the subtle calculus of emotional response, do voters trend toward Hillary now because she starts to exude more confidence?

political report v.1 i.6 February 4, 2008

Finally, the day is about here.  SuperDuperTuesday.  This is the day where Romney lets himself out the front door (loudly, I bet, trying to take the leftover apple pie with him), and all hell breaks loose on the Dem side.  This is the day that McCain suddenly stops talking about Reagan because he’s got the R nomination locked up and he has to go back to winning the moderates (and because he never wanted to talk about Reagan in the first place….more on that later).  And this is the day people start noticing the Super Delegates and wondering about stolen elections.

As I said in the last report, the best difference between the way the D and R primaries run is that (most of) the R primaries are winner-take-all in each state whereas the D’s are allocated proportional to vote count and geography.  So when McCain wins every state but Massachusetts tomorrow he wins the R nomination.  If Hillary wins slightly more votes than Obama tomorrow, she still has a lot of work to do, because they could be close to tied in delegate count.  That’s where the Super Delegates come in.

For some strange, bygone reason, the Dems decided to go back to the days of the smoke-filled room.  (One of you dear readers has long advocated for this, thinking that the nominee should be picked by party bosses over cigars and brandy…I shudder at the thought, but then again I never helped elect a governor of a Midwestern state or have Senators coming to my birthday parties.)  Of the roughly 4000 D delegates that will attend the Denver convention in a few months and cast votes for the next Dear Leader, most are chosen by the voters.  But ~800 aren’t.  Those ~800 are party insiders (some currently elected officers) and they get to vote for whomever they damn well want to.  (This article explains the history behind this lunacy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/.)

The original idea of the Super Delegate was to “stabilize” the nominating process, to allow elected D’s a lot of say in the final nominee in case things seemed to be trending toward a bad pick (i.e. McGovern in 1972).  Usually the Super Delegates don’t matter much, but they did in 1984 and they could again this time.  If Hil and Barack come out essentially tied tomorrow in delegate count, the SD’s are probably going to matter.  If by the end of February neither HC or BO can clearly pull ahead, campaigning will continue neck-and-neck through May and June, and if that happens the SD’s will be the difference.  And if we get there, it is entirely possible that the SD’s help nominate the lesser-garnering candidate.  The only way that’s going to happen is if Obama has a slight edge in votes but most SD’s go for Hillary (which is entirely possible).  If that does happen, expect all hell to break loose.