New Debate Rule To Avoid "Kiddie Table" Lineup
Last week, the Democratic National Committee quietly instituted a new rule for their first debate, which was created to further avoid having a "kiddie table" debate on either of the two scheduled nights. This was a smart move, given that the entire random selection scheme was set up in the first place to avoid lumping all the leading candidates together in one debate, leaving all the struggling candidates to compete with each other in the other debate. It will still be a random selection process, but there will now be two tiers.
Here is the new language, according to Politico:
"The final list of debate participants (after any tie-breaking procedure is executed, if necessary) will be divided into two groups: candidates with a polling average of 2% or above, and those with a polling average below 2%," the rule reads. "Both groups will be randomly divided between Wednesday night and Thursday night, thus ensuring that both groups are represented fairly on each night."
So both the leading candidates and those not doing so well will be evenly split between the two nights. This could still wind up creating a "kiddie table" debate, but the chances will be lower -- and even if it does happen, the undercard debate is still guaranteed to have some larger names.
Let's take a look at how it might all shake out. From the article: "Eight candidates have a polling average at or above 2 percent right now: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren." The debate is less than a month away, and qualifying for them comes even earlier, so we may know within a few weeks who is going to appear on which night (and who didn't even make the cut for the first debate -- with 24 candidates running, at least four of them won't make the first cut). But for the sake of conversation, let's assume that the list of eight leading candidates doesn't change.
Of course, the big question is where will Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden be? If they draw different nights, then that sets up one dynamic -- each night will be one frontrunner versus three leading candidates and six more from "the pack." But if they both appear on the same night, then the focus will be on the Sanders/Biden faceoff and the rest of the candidates may wind up being peripheral to it. This depends on who else is on the stage, of course, and what debate strategy they choose to use.
If Biden and Sanders don't appear on stage together, then neither night will wind up being a "kiddie table" debate. But if they appear together, the possibility still exists to some extent. Let's say the other two big names to appear that night are Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Then you'd have the top four in the polling all together, with six from the bottom of the polls to round out the roster. The other night would have Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke together with Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar. Booker and Klobuchar are at the bottom end of the top candidates, and have been for a while. They struggle to even reach four or five percent in the polls, while Buttigieg and O'Rourke have both done much better. But Mayor Pete and Beto have both seen polling bumps that have then faded away somewhat, so they're not solidly in the frontrunner ranks either. Add in six of those polling below two percent, and you've got a debate with Pete, Beto, and then a kiddie table roster of eight.
I personally would watch both nights, if that's the way the lineup shook out. Both would make for interesting television, for different reasons. Buttigieg and O'Rourke have both made a big splash with those who want to see someone younger than Biden or Sanders as the nominee, and they've both been fighting for what might be called the "hip vote." In different ways, they both generate a sort of hipster vibe about them, in other words. So it'd be interesting to see their two styles of speaking pitted directly against each other without the distraction of bigger candidates on stage with them. And having such a lineup might also allow for any of the candidates to have a shining breakout moment without it being overshadowed by something Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris said that night.
But even so, the coverage of the debates would have to acknowledge that there was one night of the bigger names and one without them. But the only way to avoid this possibility would be to divide the candidates into three tiers instead of just two, which I doubt the D.N.C. will do (although they might do so later, if the random selection of candidates for the first debate winds up with unbalanced rosters).
At this point, there really are six candidates with any appreciable amount of support, and we'll get at least two of them on a different night than the others. And they'll be chosen randomly, so chances are it won't be as unbalanced as the examples I laid out above. Perhaps Biden and Bernie will be on the same night, but with Klobuchar and Booker. That would mean the other four leading candidates (Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, and Warren) would appear on the other night -- which would be an interesting lineup that nobody could call a "kiddie table." In other words, chances are that the random factor will create a draw with a good mix on both nights, as it was designed to do.
The D.N.C. is working to avoid what happened to Republicans last time around, which is really a smart goal because of how the "kiddie table" debates went over with the public (few watched them, in other words). The Democratic field is even larger than the 2016 GOP lineup was, so much so that at least four candidates won't even make it to the first debate. But there is one interesting difference, at least for now. In 2016, there was one Republican candidate far out in front of everyone else in the polls, and no clear second-place candidate at all. Democrats, with Bernie and Biden, have two clear frontrunners at the moment. But, of course, all that could change at any time. Sanders might fade back into the polling territory that Warren and Harris are now in, or a third candidate might rise to the level that Sanders is now at. Or Biden could stumble in a big way. It's still early days -- we're only talking about the first debate of many, after all.
So far, the rules the D.N.C. has adopted seem to be good ones, designed to prevent a "kiddie table" lineup. They'll probably work out as designed for the first debate, in one way or another. The much harder task the D.N.C. will have will come later, though. Even with two nights of debates, it still doesn't leave each individual candidate much time to speak. Most will be desperately vying to have that magic breakout moment, which may or may not happen, but viewers will still only get a cursory look at each of the candidates.
Sooner or later the field is going to have to be winnowed further than just the top 20 candidates, though. Maybe they'll cut it down to eight each night for two nights, and then in the next debate cut it again to six each night. Eventually they'll have to cut it down to a single night, which might leave only 10 on the stage. This paring down will be necessary, but it will also be painful for many. But eventually the Democratic debates need to showcase the candidates that have a real shot at winning, instead of being as all-inclusive as possible. If a candidate is polling below five percent by October or November, then he or she is probably not going to be the party's nominee no matter what. The voters will be better served at that point by being able to hear more from the candidates who do show solid support already. Even ten candidates on one night is a lot of people on one stage. In a two-hour debate, that's twelve minutes per candidate (without even subtracting the time the moderators take up asking the questions). Twelve minutes is not a lot of time, obviously, to make the case for your candidacy.
We haven't even begun this process yet, though, so perhaps it's best to have that discussion later. For now, the new D.N.C. rule seems like a good one and hopefully will lead to two very lively nights of debate in late June. After being seen as putting their thumb on the scale last time around, they are diligently working to be as unbiased as possible. Part of this goal was to not show favoritism in who gets to debate on which night, and the new rule is designed to further refine how this can best be achieved. So they really deserve credit for coming up with the new way of holding the draw for the first round of debates that will give voters the most evenhanded look at the entire 2020 Democratic field.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I also wanted to apologize for not running even a rerun column yesterday. I had planned on it, but it was a very busy day of house chores which was a lot longer than intended, and by the end of it I was too exhausted to post. Mea culpa.
-CW
Well, it all seems fair so far. But then, inevitable problems come later. The first debate is like a first date; they don't belch until the second.
No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy
-Old Military Axiom
It's going to be hilarious to watch the DNC bend over backwards to appease EVERYONE and then ends up pleasing no one.. :D
"We're not going to make the same mistakes!!"
"No, no.. You are making all new ones.."
-Jurassic Park 2
This just in...
Third debate will raise the bar for qualification:
Unlike the first and second rounds of debates, when candidates must cross either a donor or polling threshold to qualify, candidates will need to surpass both bars to make the stage for the third and fourth debates. For the September event, candidates will have to hit 2 percent in four qualifying polls, versus 1 percent in three polls for the first debates, and they will need 130,000 individual donors, up from 65,000.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/abc-univision-democratic-debate-1346099
-CW
The DNC rule changes make sense, but don't address the fundamental problems:
Too many candidates, not enough air time. Making up the rules as you umpire the game is a bad idea.
CW-
While I was over at the Politico link you posted I ran into their article about NYC experimenting with "congestion pricing." That simply means you pay more to go a bit farther, a lot faster. Money talks, everybody else walks or rides public transportation.
American politics implemented congestion pricing "reform" long ago.
The key point comes when a statistically significant number of non-political-nerd people start tuning in.
Is this the first debate? Is it after Christmas 2019 in the lead up to Iowa? Is it Super Tuesday?
I strongly suspect that we will be looking for small, likely insignificant signals in the post-debate analysis and polls for at least 3 more months, probably longer.
I am glad that there is an attempt to ensure two sort-of equal debates.
However I think my method was simpler and guaranteed a balanced outcome:
Debate 1:
#1 in polling, #4, #5, #8, #9, etc
Debate 2:
#2, #3, #6, #7, etc.
It will be interesting to see how the candidates answer questions about whether to impeach the president.
My view of what the best answer would include: it is critical that the American voters understand what the Mueller investigation concluded and that they hear or read about the most important parts of the Mueller report.
Mueller should come before Congress and testify as to what is in the Mueller report in order to reach as many Americans who do not know what is in the report as possible.
Congress should continue its investigation and even open an impeachment inquiry if that move makes getting testimony on a more timely basis than the Trump administration is allowing for now.
Impeachment is not the best way forward for this president. In November 2020, the American people will decide whether this president should remain in office for a second term.
The candidate who answers like that is the one I would be inclined to support.
By the way, if a Democratic presidential candidate polls under 10% after their first debate, and if the current frontrunner remains heads and shoulders above them all in the polls, then one might hope that they would soon remove themselves from the race on a point of personal privilege.
Mueller should come before Congress and testify as to what is in the Mueller report in order to reach as many Americans who do not know what is in the report as possible.
If people aren't going to take the time to read the report, what makes you think they will sit still long enough to watch him testify???
The fact is, there was not any evidence to support the charge of collusion, even if such a charge existed...
The BEST thing Democrats could do is ignore Mueller and his report and hope it just fades away..
Harping on it time and time again, all that does is illustrate how President Trump is completely innocent of Russia Collusion and emphasizes the Democrat impotence..
Why even bother to sort them out' - all you folks have got is "kiddie-table' candidates, what's the point?
Trump is likely the ideal candidate for your kiddie to run against, but it ain't gonna be a sure thing.
Well, CRS, I'm sure there are plenty of kiddie blogs around, somewhere and I only hope you'll be able to find one.
chrisweigant.com wasn't meant to be one of them.
Regardless, the ONE take-away we get from Mueller's presser is that Democrats lose again.. They will NOT be talking to Mueller.. :D
I think someone predicted that exact scenario recently..
Hmmmmmmmmm :D
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
- Robert Mueller
The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special Counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report. - Sarah H. Sanders
Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! - D. Trump
Brought to you by today's version of The Twilight Zone.
James Comey tweeted out a piece written in the Lawfare blog by former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker.
Baker explains why he believes the best approach to President Trump is love, even if he doesn't quite yet understand what that means personally for him.
The title of the piece is Why I Do Not Hate Donald Trump
Every American should read the Mueller report because of its importance to the promise and national security of America.
So should Americans read this piece:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-i-do-not-hate-donald-trump
Brought to you by today's version of FACTS and REALITY
There.. Fixed it for you..
You heard it directly from Mueller...
There was no evidence that Trump or ANY American colluded with the Russians to win the election..
You lost...
Give it up..
Sure, you got a bucket full of WHATABOUTISM... Big woop..
ACT ON IT...
Bring impeachment...
Dims won't because they KNOW they'll get massacred.....
Pack it up and go home.. It's over.. Ya'all lost...
James Comey tweeted out a piece written in the Lawfare blog by former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker.
That's the guy who is going to be charged with lying to Congress...
I wouldn't put much stock in what HE has to say...
Every American should read the Mueller report because of its importance to the promise and national security of America.
It doesn't matter how many people read the Mueller report.
It STILL won't change the meaning... It STILL won't say that President Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians to win the election...
The Mueller report clears President Trump of any wrongdoing with regards to Russia Collusion..
Mueller's presser simply restates that FACT...
The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special Counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report. -
What about that statement is factually inaccurate??
Answer: Not a damn thing...
You really should read that piece by Jim Baker, Michale.
the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction
That part. The part wherein the Atty General gets that call. That is not factually accurate.
You really should read that piece by Jim Baker, Michale.
I might.. But Baker is a liar and anyone who has done what he has done and says they don't hate President Trump is simply spewing more lies...
But I might get around to it.. But I am hip deep in routers and DD-WRT, so it won't be today...
Michale,
Special Counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report. -
That is a false statement in an effort to purposefully mislead.
Here is what Mueller said about AG Barr's handling of the decision to release the report in large part to the public.
The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.
Mueller did not comment about how the AG handled his report. Mueller has already written about how he feels about that.
And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.
Mueller says that he doesn't question AG Barr's good faith..
Mueller did not comment about how the AG handled his report. Mueller has already written about how he feels about that.
Quote??
Quote?
What'sa matter? You got no memory?
“Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump – and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.” - G. Nadler
Not even the President is above the law. Remember that.
Mueller said that it was "inappropriate" for him to comment beyond what he stated in his report...
Do ya'all respect Mueller's decision..
Michale, you are not as ignorant as you love to let on.
She's saying that you're not that dumb.
I, on the other hand, have my doubts. :D
Michale, you are not as ignorant as you love to let on.
Thank you... That's the nicest thing anyone in Weigantia has ever said.. :D
But the truth of the matter is, this matter is over...
Democrats can choose to drag it out, but it will only hurt them politically..
Because the more Democrats go on and on about it, the larger the question becomes..
If President Trump is all that ya'all say he is, WHY DON'T DEMOCRATS IMPEACH???
I mean, seriously.. After all the fear mongering and partisan attacks, the people will be like, "Fine!!! Trump is worst then Hitler.. Then why don't you impeach him!!!"
And Democrats will spew and sputter " well, er...eh ... uh.. That is not politically a good idea right now..."
If Trump is as bad as Democrats say, THEN IMPEACH!!!
If Democrats won't impeach, then for gods' sake, quit the hysterical whining and bitching...
That is where the American people are at right now...
Hell.. Even PAULA agrees with me... That should tell ya'all something right there...
“Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump – and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.” - G. Nadler
You gave me a NADLER quote!!!!???
BBBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Didn't he die or something???
I want a quote from MUELLER that says how he feels about how AG Barr handled the Mueller report..
You got any ???
Of course not...
SO.... After GoT, my next binge watching project is THE WALKING DEAD...
Anyone a fan???
Mueller's statement fuels impeachment push on Capitol Hill
Pelosi still reluctant to embrace movement
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/29/muellers-statement-fuels-impeachment-push/
Good...
It's time for Dumbocrats to shit or get off the pot..
Or at least shut the hell up and quit whining and crying...
IMPEACH...
Or shut up....
One person I miss is Leaning Blue..
Now THERE was a rational guy...
I guess he was also embarrassed about the whole Trump/exoneration thing...
No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.... Unless the President has a -D after his name..”
- G. Nadler
There... Fixed it for you...
She's saying that you're not that dumb.
I, on the other hand, have my doubts. :D
Says the guy who swore up and down that Mueller will be before Congress explaining that Trump really IS guilty of collusion.. :D
Dumb??? :D
Mueller has confirmed that Trump is a criminal, but he wasn't the person to indict. Barr is just a part of the criminal gang now.
How long can they keep protecting each other?
Mueller has confirmed that Trump is a criminal, but he wasn't the person to indict. Barr is just a part of the criminal gang now.
Mueller has confirmed no such thing...
It's only your spin that "confirms" it..
But the funny thing is, you have been saying the exact same bullshit for over 2 years..
And you STILL don't have any facts to support the claim.. :D
So, let's take stock..
You lost on Russia Collusion..
You lost on the full unredacted report..
You lost on McGahn testifying..
You lost on Mueller testifying..
Oh yea... You got Trump RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT HIM!!!!
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What would really suck would be an ex-LEO who supported Trump and now knows that Mueller has just called Trump a cheap crook.
I mean, everybody knew Trump wasn't legit, but to have both the Mueller Report state he is guilty of Obstruction, and have Mueller himself say that if Trump wasn't a crook he'd have said so must be painful.
Remember, Trump and his gang have to win every single court case, dodge every subpoena, engage in more and more behavior only somebody guilty would undertake, day-after-day, all though the next election.
It is a lot of fun to watch Trump try to squirm out of the tighter and tighter net enveloping him.
All the while, the Chinese are laughing at him (and thus America), he is acting like Kim is his favorite big brother who he pretends isn't jerking Trump and America around with his blatant provocations, and Iran is a complete mess and they are bombing oil tankers and he can't do anything about it without giving the Iranians the chance to turn the Middle East into another quagmire where America can't win.
This farce of a Presidency is lumbering along with the "D" team of Barr and a bunch of other losers who would never have gotten into their roles in a functional administration.
Here is a President, who at no point in time in his role had even 45% support from the nation. No President has managed to be disliked by over 50% of Americans since day 1 (remember "record crowds at the inauguration"?)
I drove past the corner of the two main streets in my town this morning, and sitting on a lawn chair was an old guy with a sign that said "Trump Supporters Should be Ashamed". He is right.
Michale,
I want a quote from MUELLER that says how he feels about how AG Barr handled the Mueller report..
Here are a couple of Mueller quotes for you regarding his opinion of how the AG has handled the Mueller report.
First, the only time Mueller spoke about the AG's handling of the report at his press conference today was to say the following about how the AG handled the public release of the report:
"The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision." ... Mueller, May 29, 2019-05-29
Secondly, we already know how Mueller felt about the AG's handling of the roll-out of the report. From Mueller's letter to the Department of Justice and AG on March 27:
"As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which to appoint the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation."
While the AG has said that the document he released to the public on March 24 was not a summary of the report, he left out critical aspects of the report that mislead the public for almost a month. You know as well as I do that it is hard to set the record straight after an errant description percolates for so long without any rebuttal.
It is very interesting to note how Mueller talks about the timing of events in late March in his letter to the AG.
What would really suck would be an ex-LEO who supported Trump and now knows that Mueller has just called Trump a cheap crook.
Actually, Mueller didn't say that at all..
But it IS what you heard..
Which says more about you than it does about Mueller..
but to have both the Mueller Report state he is guilty of Obstruction, and have Mueller himself say that if Trump wasn't a crook he'd have said so must be painful.
Except Mueller didn't say ANY of that..
But I am sure it IS what you heard.. :D
"The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision." ... Mueller, May 29, 2019-05-29
And what exactly is wrong with that???
"As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions."
Again.. What is the problem???
The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the Office's work and conclusions.
Fine.. A difference of opinion.. No big deal..
There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which to appoint the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.
That public confusion was caused by the media, not by AG Barr's report...
Can we agree that it is over and Trump/American haters lost???
While the AG has said that the document he released to the public on March 24 was not a summary of the report, he left out critical aspects of the report that mislead the public for almost a month.
How, exactly, did it "mislead" the public??
Mueller even said "As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions."
Mueller said the summary was accurate..
I think the problem is SOLELY with the content of the Mueller report...
You simply don't like what it said..
Would THAT be an accurate assessment???
46-nielm
Excellent. I'm printing it out and framing it.
That public confusion was caused by the media, not by AG Barr's report...
You see, AG Barr faithfully reported the contents of the Mueller report..
the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions."
The Media said that what Barr was saying was not accurate..
And therein lies the confusion..
The media was reporting what they WANTED it to be..
NOT what it factually was...
46-nielm
Excellent. I'm printing it out and framing it.
TRANSLATION: You are saying what I want to hear so I am going to give you a commenting blow job..
Remember, Trump and his gang have to win every single court case, dodge every subpoena, engage in more and more behavior only somebody guilty would undertake, day-after-day, all though the next election.
Won't be a problem.. Since the Democrats can't make up their minds on exactly what they want to do... :D
It is a lot of fun to watch Trump try to squirm out of the tighter and tighter net enveloping him.
Yea, you said much the same thing when you were crowing about Mueller's investigation..
How did that work out for ya?? :D
Here is a President, who at no point in time in his role had even 45% support from the nation. No President has managed to be disliked by over 50% of Americans since day 1 (remember "record crowds at the inauguration"?)
Only if you cherry pick the polls that say what you want to hear..
The fact is, President Trump polls better than the Democrats in Congress **AND** your media.. :D
BBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I drove past the corner of the two main streets in my town this morning, and sitting on a lawn chair was an old guy with a sign that said "Trump Supporters Should be Ashamed". He is right.
Typical luser Democrat Trump/America hater..
No job and living off the scraps of those better than him..
In other words, the luser that epitomizes the Luser Democrat Party.. :D
So, let's take stock again..
Ya'all LOST on Russia Collusion....
Ya'all LOST on releasing the full un-redacted report....
Ya'all LOST on McGahn appearing before the House..
Ya'all LOST on AG Barr appearing before the House...
Ya'all LOST on Mueller appearing before the House...
In short.. Ya'all LOST again and again and again and again.. :D
"WINNING!!!"
-Demcorat Party
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Michale,
Mueller said the summary was accurate
Ah, Mueller was talking about his own summaries.
Heh.
But, I know you knew that.
It's not that hard to say you are wrong and sorry for it, Michale. You've done it before ...
Michale, you're a real card and you ought to be dealt with. :)
Ah, Mueller was talking about his own summaries.
Actually, he wasn't..
But I'll have to address that tomorrow morning...
Stay tuned.. :D
He was, Michale. But, you go ahead and address it in the morning. :)
G'nite!
I'll be waiting, with bated breath ...
If you're not at the Biden table, then, sorry to say, you are at the "kiddie" table.