Allan Lichtman: The Science of Political Prediction

Guy Kawasaki:
I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is the Remarkable People Podcast. We're on a mission to make you remarkable. Today we have a distinguished guest. His name is Allan Lichtman. Allan is an acclaimed American historian who has taught at American University in Washington DC since 1973. Allan is renowned for creating the keys to the White House model with Soviet seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981.
This model uses thirteen true/false criteria to predict whether the presidential candidate of the incumbent party will win or lose. Allan has successfully predicted the outcome in approximately 90 percent of the presidential elections since 1984.
If you've been following the Biden is too old and should step aside his hysteria, you may have seen Allan expressing quite the opposite opinion on various talk shows. This episode provides insight into who and what you should listen to as everybody loses their minds.
Join us as we explore Allan's groundbreaking work, his perspectives on the political landscape, and his remarkable journey as a historian and political analyst. I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is Remarkable People. And now here's the remarkable Allan Lichtman.
Please walk me through how working with a Russian seismologist and earthquake predictor leads to you becoming this election predictor.
Allan Lichtman:
Very good. So the keys to the White House are the alternative to the conventional wisdom of the polls and the pundits that lead us down the primrose path of error, as we saw, for example in 2016. The keys tap into the structure of how elections really work by gauging the strength and performance of the White House party.
And I'd love to tell you I came across the keys by ruining my eyes in the archives in deep contemplation, but if I were to tell you that, to quote the late not so great Richard Nixon, "That would be wrong." I came across the keys serendipitously when I was a visiting distinguished scholar at Caltech in Southern California. And there I met the world's leading authority in earthquake prediction, Vladmir Keilis-Borok.
And it was his idea that we should collaborate. And being brilliant and foresightful, of course, I said, "No. Earthquakes may be a big deal here in Southern California. I have to go back to Washington DC where I teach at American University and no one cares about earthquakes there."
He said, "Oh no, I already solved earthquakes." Right. He said, get this, in 1963, he was a member of the Soviet Scientific delegation that came to Washington and negotiated the most important treaty in the history of the world. It's the treaty why we're still here, the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, that stopped us from poisoning our atmosphere, our oceans and our soil.
And he said in Washington, he fell in love with politics and always wanted to use his methods of earthquake prediction to predict elections. But he said, "Look, I live in the Soviet Union, forget it. Elections, it's supreme leader or off with your head." "But you," he said to me, "Are an expert in the presidency and US history."
So we became the odd couple of political research, and indeed we reconceptualized elections in earthquake terms, not as, remember this is 1981, not as Carter versus Reagan, liberal versus conservative, Republican versus Democrat, but at stability, the White House party stays in power, earthquake, the White House party is turned out of power.
And with that in mind, we looked at every American presidential election from the horse and buggy days of politics, the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
And we used the methods of earthquake prediction or pattern recognition to see what patterns are associated with stability and earthquake. Guided by my insight that elections are basically votes up or down on the strength and performance of the White House party.
And we found the best separation between stability and earthquake, with thirteen key questions, the thirteen keys to the White House, which are true false statements about the strength and performance of the White House party, where an answer of true always favors stability.
And we came up with a simple decision rule. You don't even have to take your shoes off to use the system. If six keys are false, you have earthquake. If fewer than six are false, you have stability.
Guy Kawasaki:
Before we continue with this interview, I thought I would give you more information about these thirteen keys.
Number one, party mandate. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. Number two, no primary contest. There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Number three, incumbent seeking reelection. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Number four, no third party. There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Five, strong short-term economy. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Six, strong long-term economy. Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Number seven, major policy change. The incumbent administration affects major changes in national policy. Number eight, no social unrest. There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Number nine, no scandal. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Number ten, no foreign/military failure. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Number eleven, major foreign/military success. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Number twelve, charismatic incumbent. The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Number thirteen, uncharismatic challenger. The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
These are the thirteen factors. Now let's continue with the interview.
So then in this world, what function do polls serve?
Allan Lichtman:
They serve to mislead us. A couple of things about polls. First of all, they're snapshots. They're not predictors. They're abused as predictors, but the media's got to cover elections every single day. And the easiest thing now that we have multiple polls a day, is to write a story about the polls. You don't even have to take your shoes off to do that.
But look at how often the snapshot polls give you inaccurate predictions. Of course, they led us to falsely predict. Not us because I correctly predicted Donald Trump in 2016, which you can imagine did not make me very popular in 90 percent plus Democratic Washington DC where I teach at American University. But the polls of course let all the conventional forecasters down the path of error. Or look at 1988.
In the late spring of 1988, George H.W. Bush trailed Mike Dukakis, the Democrat by seventeen points. Again, all the pundits wrote off Bush, but I wrote at the time that based on the keys, bush is going to win because he is running on the record of the Reagan administration, peace, prosperity, domestic tranquility.
The other thing about the polls is that the error is vastly greater than they would have you believe, you've heard, right, the error margin's plus or minus 3 percent, about? That's pure statistical error. That's the error you would get if you had a huge jar of green and red balls and you took a sample, and you estimated the percentage of red and green balls in the jar, but human beings are not red and green balls.
Most people don't respond to pollsters. They may lie, they may have not focused on the election and they may change their minds. Plus, no one's voted yet, so the pollsters have to guess who the likely voters are. This introduces significant error above and beyond plus or minus three. And it's not random, it's unidirectional.
In 2016, the polls underestimated Republican voting strength. And so like generals fighting the last war, they overcorrected. And based on the midterms of 2022, the off-year elections of 2023, and the special elections of 2024, the polls are significantly underestimating Democratic voting strength.
The best example is the most highly publicized special election for the New York congressional seat previously held by the disgraced and booted out George Santos. The polls taken just a couple of days before the election, had it as a dead heat, Democrat ahead by an insignificant one point. Well, the Democrat won by eight points outperforming the polls by seven points.
Guy Kawasaki:
When people tell me about polls, I ask myself, if my iPhone rang and I saw a number, +1 877 666 5432, and I would look at that number and say, I don't know who the hell that is. 877, or 888, or 800, that's not a good number to answer.
Now let's say I was stupid enough to actually answer that, and then somebody comes on and says, "I'm from Seneca College," or something. "I'm conducting a political poll." I would hang up right there. So what kind of people are picking up a phone call from a number they don't recognize, and then they hear somebody saying, "I'm calling for the American Polling Institute," and then actually spend time? How can that be statistically and scientifically relevant?
Allan Lichtman:
It's not. Most people don't respond to polls, only a very small percentage. And while they try to make it representative, it can't be because it's biased by response.
Guy Kawasaki:
Well then how did they get anybody to respond is my question. But we don't need to go down that.
Allan Lichtman:
Good question.
Guy Kawasaki:
And now we're betting the future of the country on this completely flawed method. What am I missing, Allan?
Allan Lichtman:
You're missing the fact that, look, all of these critics who are trying to bounce Joe Biden from the Democratic nomination to a significant extent based on phony polls have zero track record to predicting elections. And yet they claim they know what the Democrats ought to do to win the election. And why are they dependent on polls? Because they have no scientific system, unlike the keys to the White House, so they're forced to turn to the polls.
And yes, at the time that they were starting to, Democrats commit hara-kiri, slit their own throats by trashing their incumbent president and their duly elected nominee. It's not the political operatives, and the donors, and the congressmen, and the senators who nominated Joe Biden. It's the democratic voters, 87 percent of them. So because they have no method for predicting elections, the only thing they have is the polls.
And guess what? Because they're snapshots, they've shifted. The most recent polls from Ipsos, and Washington Post, ABC, show Donald Trump and Joe Biden, well after the debate, in a dead heat. There were some new swing state polls which show swing states moving towards Biden. A recent poll showed Biden ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan, and in striking distance in Arizona. Plus of course, different polls give you different answers, so you can pick any poll you want to prove anything that you believe.
Guy Kawasaki:
It sounds a little bit like the Vietnam War or the Bible, but yeah, I digress.
Allan Lichtman:
Yes, you do.
Guy Kawasaki:
With your thirteen keys. Can't someone make the case that because it's so binary, it's true or false, but aren't they also subjective?
Allan Lichtman:
Yes. When I first developed the keys, the professional forecasting profession blasted me. I've committed the ultimate sin of forecasting the sin of subjectivity. And I had a couple of answers. One, yeah, human beings are not red and green balls and you have to make judgments. It's not subjectivity, it's judgments.
And historians make judgements all the time. Two, it's not random judgments. When you read my book Predicting the Next President (2024), which is the eighth edition of the book, you'll see every key including the so-called subjective ones as carefully defined.
Plus I have answered each question from 1860 to the present. So the next answer has to be consistent. Well, it took about fifteen to twenty years, and the professional forecasting community totally changed their minds about the keys.
They realized these big fancy mathematical models that tried to eliminate judgments didn't work and that the best forecasting models were like the keys, which had some judgmental keys, and some cut and dry keys like measurements of economic growth or wins and losses in midterm elections.
And all of a sudden the keys were the hottest thing in professional forecasting. I twice keynoted the International Forecasting Summit. I published in the Journal of Applied Forecasting, in the Scholarly International Journal of Forecasting. The keys were presented by the American Political Science Association as a classic model of forecasting.
I won the Steckler Award for courage in forecasting. The Dean of American Political Science, Gerald Pomper called the keys the most successful prediction model of our time, the only one that was right about 2016, and right going all the way back to the 1980s. Despite all of this, I get a lot of unformed commentary about the alleged subjectivity of the keys.
Guy Kawasaki:
When I see these talking heads on CNN or MSNBC, or, I don't watch Fox, so I'm predisposed towards one kind of talking head. But aren't these people who are opining, basically just hacks who were in the political system somehow and they can't get a real job now, so they're just paid to spout off?
Allan Lichtman:
Yeah, I don't want to disparage my buddies, the pundits, but I have suggested no one's listened, of course, that for the entire election season, we should take all the pundits and the pollsters and send them to a very nice vacation on a far off Pacific Island. Because you're right, they have no scientific basis. The pundits, you talk about them for their opinions. They're just talking about off the top of their heads. Remember, they all thought Hillary Clinton would win in 2016.
And by the way, Joe Biden's debate based on if you want to talk about the only data point we have, a CNN poll was not the worst Democratic performance. 33 percent thought Biden won in a sample that was skewed Republican. But to listen to the media, you would think nobody thought Biden won.
Much worse debate was Obama versus Romney, the first debate where only 20 percent thought Obama won. The poll swung twelve points. Romney went from down eight to up four, and again, all the pundits were writing off Obama. Remember that? "Well, Romney's going to win," and Obama won an electoral college landslide with 332 electoral college votes.
Guy Kawasaki:
So you turn on the TV and you see some heretofore unknown congressmen from New Hampshire that is calling for Biden to step aside, and based on his knowledge of neurology or statistics, and what goes through your brain? How do you even react to something like this random congressman calling for the President of the United States to give it up?
Allan Lichtman:
I am doubly appalled. I have summarized American politics in one sentence. Republicans have no principles. Democrats have no spine. Republicans are united behind a convicted felon, a civilly convicted sexual assaulter, someone who has promised to govern like an authoritarian like his buddy Orbán in Hungary.
And on the other hand, at the first sign of adversity, the spineless Democrats are ready to trash their president trying to bounce the duly elected nominee from the ticket, and they're doing it all out in public.
I've never seen, and I've studied elections from the founding to the President, a party so willing to slit its own throat right out there in public. Plus, they have no basis for their opinions. They have no scientific way of knowing who's going to win and who's going to lose, yet they claim they know what Democrats should do to be electable.
Democrats for a long time have said, "We're going to nominate really electable candidates, experienced, knowledgeable candidates with great records like former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, the great Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis in 1988, the awesome Senator John Kerry in 2004, the former first lady, US Senator, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in 2016." And we know what happened.
Guy Kawasaki:
We're seeing a pattern.
Allan Lichtman:
They all lost. That's how much Democrats know about who's electable.
Guy Kawasaki:
Are you saying that Republicans know more about who's electable?
Allan Lichtman:
No, I'm saying none of the politicians know who's electable and who isn't. But what I am saying is no matter what threat Donald Trump poses to our freedoms and our democracy, the Republicans who have no principles will just stick to him. Whereas the Democrats who have no spine run for the hills publicly at the first sign of adversity. Pick your poison.
Guy Kawasaki:
Well, what if somebody says to you that this election is unlike any other election in the history of our country? It's such a fractured country. And we have social media exaggerating things and making up lies. And we have Russians influencing our election. So we got to throw your thirteen keys out the window because that was then, and this is now?
Allan Lichtman:
Every four years, some critic comes to me and says, "Lichtman, you got to change your keys. We have an African-American running. We've never had that before. The nation's not ready to elect an African-American. We have a woman running. We've never had that before. We have social media. We've never had that before. We have a fractured country. We never had that before." Of course we have. We were vastly more fractured in the 1850s, for example.
But leave all that aside. Two answers. One, you cannot change a model on the fly. That is a recipe for error. Two, the keys are very robust. Remember in development, they go all the way back to 1860 when women couldn't vote, when most African-Americans were enslaved, when my ancestors from Eastern Europe, Latinos, Asians hadn't even arrived here yet. We had an agricultural economy, no polls, no automobiles, no jet planes.
People almost never saw their candidates. So the keys have survived through vastly greater change, greater changes in our society, our economy, our politics, our communications, than other critics have suggested.
Now, let me make one more statement. I'm not so arrogant as to say the patterns of history can never change. I'm not psychic Jeane Dixon with a crystal ball. I'm not Speaker Mike Johnson who claims the Almighty talks to him and tells him what to do. I'm an historian. And it is always possible, I'm not so arrogant to say it isn't, that something outside the keys could be so unprecedented and so cataclysmic as to shake things up, but I can't randomly change the keys.
Guy Kawasaki:
What if you were Biden's chief marketing officer? What would you do?
Allan Lichtman:
I will tell you exactly what I would do. First of all, I would say govern well. Continue to have a successful president. Oh, it's true. Biden has a slight disability. He's always had it even in his prime in the eighties. He does confuse names. He does stutter. He's not always quick on his feet. And he is old. And it is the worst ageism and ableism to trash him for this. Nobody but nobody who's tried to trash Biden for these factors, these ableism and ageism, has shown it has any effect on his presidency.
These issues are way down when it comes to being a successful president. What's vastly more important is experience, knowledge, values, tolerance, respect for democracy, and institutions. And like tens of millions of other persons in America who have slight disabilities, Biden has performed his job admirably.
And in terms of governing well, the most important thing he can do in the short term, it's very tough, because he's got to deal with this crazy Netanyahu in Israel, is broker or ceasefire and hostage release in the Middle East. The second thing I'd tell him is to follow the model of Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt was also blasted for his disability. Remember he had polio. He was paralyzed from the waist down, but it wasn't called a disability in those days.
He was called a cripple. And lots of people said, "My God, you are a cripple, you're sick. You won't even live through a first term." And even his advisor said, "Don't campaign, you might collapse." And FDR said nuts, and ran a vigorous open campaign. And that's exactly what Joe Biden should do. And by the way, this poor cripple who couldn't survive one term, won four landslide elections.
Guy Kawasaki:
You're still the CMO. So what would your slogan for Biden be?
Allan Lichtman:
My slogan for Biden would be that success counts and vision for the future counts, not bombast.
Guy Kawasaki:
Yeah, I'm afraid most Americans don't know what the word bombast means though, Allan.
Allan Lichtman:
Just watch Donald Trump and he's the poster child for bombast.
Guy Kawasaki:
If I were CMO of the Democratic Party, my slogan for Biden would be Vote for Trump and lose your vagina.
Allan Lichtman:
That's not going to be it. The media has been incredibly complicit in all this. I get newsfeeds. And the vast majority of the coverage of the debate is Biden faltering. Legitimate, but Trump had actually a vastly worse debate in terms of the future of the country. He's lying his way to the presidency.
One lie in the debate for every one minute and twenty to thirty seconds, and huge lies about January Sixth, about the 2020 election, about Roe versus Wade. And he made it clear in the debate that he was going to be an authoritarian. Why wasn't that at least equally covered?
Plus in terms of this ableism, the media is nitpicking everything Biden has to say. Again, I open my newsfeed, Biden answered for one hour, difficult, hostile questions. He didn't falter. He was knowledgeable, he was competent. He answered in a way that was good for the world and the country. Why wasn't that the headline?
Instead, the headline was, "Biden Mistakes Zelensky for Putin", a small gaff that has nothing to do with anything. Biden's been doing these gaffes for forty years, and that's the headline story. Now, the media is ultimately complicit with Donald Trump. And let me tell you, the media will rue the day if Donald Trump gets elected, because what's one of the first things he's going to do, is shut down the free press.
Guy Kawasaki:
When I was listening last night, I was saying to myself, there is no way Donald Trump could have answered these questions with as much authority and insight as what Biden did. There's not even close. He would've just said, "I'll end the war in Ukraine in a week." Right?
Allan Lichtman:
Right. He couldn't have answered one of those questions, much less all of them with the same competence, and ability, and knowledge as Joe Biden. That should have been the story. Instead, the story is these minor gaffes which mean nothing and feed into this horrible discriminatory ableism myth about Joe Biden. By the way, what about Donald Trump's gaff?
I mean he mistook Marla Maples, his own wife, for E. Jean Carroll. He confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi. He talked about protecting airports during the Revolutionary War. He called his wife Mercedes. He ranted incoherently about, "Would you rather be killed by a shark or electrocution?" things as bad or worse than Joe Biden. And he's gotten an almost complete pass on this. It's just awful.
Guy Kawasaki:
As a historian, do you see parallels between Trump and Hitler or always just making shit up here?
Allan Lichtman:
Yeah, I've never used the Hitler comparison. Hitler is a unique evil. The real comparison is Orbán in Hungary and he's openly embraced Orbán who's destroyed the free press, destroyed his opposition. That's the model we need to follow for Trump. And in terms of the media complicity, it is not just the evil people who wreak havoc on this world, it is the good people who don't do enough to stop them.
Guy Kawasaki:
Did not Elie Wiesel teach us that? Right?
Allan Lichtman:
Absolutely. And that is the burden of history. And we need to pay real attention to the danger that Donald Trump poses to our freedoms and democracy. And he's absolutely open about it. It's not some secret. "Oh," some of his apologists say, "He's not serious. He's just joking."
That's what they said about the Access Hollywood tape, "He's not serious. It's just locker room talk. He doesn't assault women." Guess what? A jury unanimously found he had done to E. Jean Carroll, exactly the kind of sexual assault he talked about in the Access Hollywood tape.
Guy Kawasaki:
Okay, let's suppose Trump wins and he does all this stuff, and now you can't have an abortion, you can't have birth control, you can't have IVF, LGBTQ+ people are being reprogrammed, immigrants are deported or imprisoned, just everything happens, Project 2025 happens.
Do you see this as four years of just dystopia and then people are going to get disgusted and throw them all out? Or this is just going to continue and get worse and worse? And Ivanka is the next president, and off we go and the total deterioration of America? Or is this going to be an aberration we're going to bounce back from?
Allan Lichtman:
Democracy is precious, but like all precious things, it can be destroyed. Throughout human history, democracy was very rare, but then you had the golden age of democracy right after World War I when you had about two dozen democracies. That was cut more than in half by the 1940s. Then you had the second golden age of democracy in the late 20th century. And the 21st century has been one era of backsliding. Fewer than 10 percent of the world's peoples live in fully functioning democracies.
So absolutely, if Donald Trump becomes president, covered by immunity that the Supreme Court has given, it's not just going to be four years. Even if Trump dies during that period, the whole Republican Party is now Trump's Republican Party.
But forget about mainstream old-fashioned Republicans. They are all gone. And remember, democracy typically dies from within. The great Nobel Prize winning novelist Sinclair Lewis wrote a novel decades ago called It Can’t Happen Here, and the burden was it can happen here just as has happened to so many other countries.
Guy Kawasaki:
Do you think you're on the Trump or Project 2025 enemies list?
Allan Lichtman:
I have no idea, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. At one point, Trump really liked me. When I was virtually alone in predicting his 2016 win I got a note on the Washington Post interview where I predicted his win, and it said, "Congrats professor, good call," and in big Sharpie letters, Donald J. Trump, but I haven't heard from him since.
Guy Kawasaki:
And you have that someplace now? Let's suppose you are on the enemy's list. Would you be flattered or fearful?
Allan Lichtman:
I'd probably be flattered. I'm too old to be fearful.
Guy Kawasaki:
Okay, I want you to complete this story. You and Nate Silver walk into a bar. Now finish the story, what happens in the bar?
Allan Lichtman:
Nate Silver apologizes to me for inaccurately predicting elections when I haven't, and says, "I'm getting off wagon. I'm not doing polls anymore."
Guy Kawasaki:
Getting away from all this usual mishegoss that we're in right now, but at the end of the day, Allan, what do you want to be remembered for, besides being ten for eleven?
Allan Lichtman:
I'd like to be remembered for making a contribution to our democracy, both through my analysis and advocacy, through my books and articles, and through my work as an expert witness in 110 civil rights cases across America.
Guy Kawasaki:
At a highly educational, philosophical, intellectual level, can you just tell us about the ability of history to predict the future?
Allan Lichtman:
Well, you can't just naively draw parallels between history and the future, but history is all we have. It's our only rushlight into the future, but you can't just take it for granted. You have to do analysis, develop a model, develop a decision rule, and show that the model has worked both retrospectively, and of course most importantly, predictively.
That's why I say to all of these pundits, and donors, and democratic officials, and operatives, if you don't have a successful track record in having a model that works overtime, no one should listen to you.
Guy Kawasaki:
I promise this is my last question. So as of this moment, okay, as of this day in July, you are predicting that Joe Biden would get reelected?
Allan Lichtman:
Wrong. I really need to be clear about this because a lot of folks have misinterpreted me. I have not made a final prediction. I will make my final prediction after the Democratic Convention in August, but I have said based on my system, and shutting out all the rest of this noise that a lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose. It could happen, but a lot would have to go wrong. But check back with me after the Democratic Convention for my final prediction.
Guy Kawasaki:
What could go wrong between now and August?
Allan Lichtman:
Oh, a lot could go wrong. We could have an explosion of social unrest. We could have terrible reverses in the two wars. We could have an RFK Junior really gain traction. I'm not saying any of those things are going to happen. I think they're long shots, but those are the kinds of things that could go wrong.
If you want to follow the keys in my analysis, check in at my live show every Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 PM Eastern, and you can find it by looking up at @AllanLichtmanYouTube. That's A-L-L-A-N L-I-C-H-T-M-A-N YouTube, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 9:00 PM Eastern.
Guy Kawasaki:
This interview was recorded on Friday, July Twelfth, 2024. I am recording this introduction on Saturday, July Thirteenth, 2024, a few hours after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. My God, we live in interesting times. I'm having difficulty not coming to the conclusion that we must be living in a simulation. You just cannot make this kind of stuff up.
I hope you found this interview educational. I hope it gives you a different perspective on how to interpret polls and predictions for the presidential election of 2024. And when you watch people on TV, or YouTube, or TikTok, or wherever you get your news, just keep in mind what Allan said about how people are using polls and the quality of the information that polls communicate.
Get out there and vote. I don't think the debate made any Republicans turn into Democrats and any Democrats turn into Republicans. This election is going to be decided by the undecideds. I hope you decide it's only the future of our country that's at stake. Clearly, the baby boomers are not going to solve all the problems. It's in your court.
I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is Remarkable People. My thanks to the Remarkable people team. They turned this episode around really fast because things change so rapidly in the presidential election. Kudos to Jeff Sieh and Shannon Hernandez, our sound design team. Thank you to Madisun Nuismer, our producer, Tessa Nuismer researcher, and Fallon Yates, Luis Magaña, and Alexis Nishimura.
This is the Remarkable People team, and we are on a mission to make you remarkable. Until next time, Mahalo and Aloha, and remember to vote.