On Donna Brazile and "the Deal"

Of course, the downside of being an essayist of exceedingly moderate and highly localized renown is that I am oft beseeched to lend my Waterman pen in support or in opposition to one Howard County issue or another (without even the slightest hint of a promise of remuneration!).  So, my mailbox is jam-packed with entreaties to comment upon the wretched petit fascists swarming about in HoCo.  There will, rest assured, be time to discuss them and their ilk. But once again, this author feels compelled to offer thoughts on the national scene.

Of late, Donna Brazile has been excoriated (in many cases, rather ruthlessly and unfairly) for her book where she shared her thoughts on, amongst other issues, the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC (insofar as those entities were “distinct”).  As a political operator and strategist, there is no disputing that she is top-flight.  Having enjoyed one of her earlier works, Cooking with Grease, I will most likely purchase her latest tome, Hacks.   

Frankly, I can’t fault the DNC for the arrangement they made with the Clinton campaign in 2015.  No matter how many Democrats supported Bernie (the current author being one of them), the good Senator from Vermont was not a Democrat.  That left the watery gruel that was O’Malley (clearly eyeing a Cabinet post or 2020), Chafee (clearly viewing Earth from Mars via Providence), Webb (clearly out of touch), and Lessig (clearly engaging in some form of performance art).  When you have a candidate who in 2015 (essentially) was the clear front-runner and likely eventual nominee, and who actually belonged to the party, that person is…well… primus inter pares comes to mind.

But, some may sputter, what about the supposed precious neutrality of the DNC?  While the image of the DNC as some sort of disinterested referee is quaint, it doesn’t square with the mission of electing Democrats to public office.  I still maintain that Senator Sanders would have been absolutely savaged by Trump and the Republicans in the General Election.  Possibly enough to lose the White House, and probably enough to burn the electoral dreams of many down-ticket Democrats.  Secretary Clinton, neoliberal that she is, and the Clinton campaign, as bland as it turned out to be, was the far safer bet for Democrats nationwide. 

So, arrangements were made; nothing illegal (unlike the allegations swirling around Trump, his family, and some of his top aides) and frankly, I am not having a ton of ethical issues with the deal, as I understand it.  I find it helpful to learn the rules of the game before playing it (a lesson forgotten by Clinton ’08 when it came to delegate math) and clearly, Clinton ’16 had the primary campaign rules all sorted out. 

With so much “righteous” indignation coming from the Republicans over this tempest in a Diet Coke can, I wonder if those Democrats offended by the deal are wondering why they have all of these new-found allies on the right…and who really stands to benefit from stoking the ashes of this “controversy.”

In solidarity.

2016: Let Us Smash this Rehash

Frankly, the Republicans are the only ones who benefit from the constant re-articulation of a narrative that puts the blame on Secretary Clinton’s loss on the 12% of Sanders primary voters who went with Trump in the General Election.* 

What is particularly tiresome about this line of argumentation, although it possesses a kernel of truth to it, is that there absolutely would have been a significant number of Clinton primary voters that would not have cast their ballots for Bernie-as-D-nominee (and gone as far as voting for Trump) in November.  Would it have been 12%, probably more like 6%-8%, but I would argue that 1) Bernie would likely have not have turned out as many white Democratic women as Clinton, 2) the GOP corporatist machine (functionally aided by many New Democratic-inclined well-heeled fundraisers who would have sat at home) would have decimated Sanders with a predictable (read: socialist-baiting) and brutal line of attack in the Fall campaign, and 3) many of those Sanders primary voters-Trump general election voters possessed an anti-neo-liberal worldview (which, at times, seemed to be closer to where Trump stood on trade, if you believed what he said).  Without Sanders or a similarly situated candidate, most probably would have sat out the primary election entirely.

The current-day finger-pointing and blame-shifting is painful to witness when the threat to our Republic is so abundantly clear. Outside of personal ego trips, it does the Democratic Party (no matter where one resides within this noble faction) little good to criticize a substantial percentage of the Party’s 2016 electorate.    

Frankly, with high-profile Democrats, including potential 2020’ers like Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Elizabeth Warren, announcing their support for Medicate-for-All legislation, those who belong to the Party of the People should be overjoyed that we might be able to run on a coherent and compelling platform against what is likely to be a weak GOP nominee.

Yes, Virginia, the ’20 Democratic nominee is likely to be someone with backing from Establishment players.  Yes, this person will probably not be a social democrat.  But, given what our nation has experienced since 1/20/17, I for one would gladly take a half-loaf for stable, moderately progressive governance in the Executive Branch.  Right now, given the President we have, he makes Congressman Delaney and Governor McAuliffe look like very appealing options.    

In short, let us bury the unproductive arguments of 2016.  The stakes for the 99% are too high to worry about the past actions of the 12% of one sub-set of voters.  The right candidate, with the right message, can bring them into the fold.

In solidarity.

*For the record, I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary.  It was not an easy decision but ultimately, he was closer to where I stood on a variety of issues.  And yes, I “came home” for the general election and voted for Secretary Clinton, as she was, at the very least, qualified to hold the office, sufficiently progressive on enough issues, and not demonstrably insane like the GOP nominee.  So don’t refer to me “Bernie Bro.”

No Slats, Just Stats

2016 Howard County Primary Election Fun Facts – Presidential Candidate Electoral Performances at the County Council Level:

-       Trump won in four of the five County Council districts, losing only in the Fightin’ Fourth to Kasich by a 64 vote margin (2,884 to 2,820).

-       Trump’s biggest margin was in the 5^th County Council district, where he outpolled Kasich with 7,550 votes compared to 5,300 for the Ohio Governor.  He also won rather handily in the 1^st District, with 4,250 votes compared to 3,494 for Kasich.  In short, Trump performed best in the West HoCo GOP stronghold and ran quite well in the swing-ish 1^st.

-       Kasich kept it reasonably close in the 2^nd District (losing to Trump 2,716 to 2,602 votes) and in the 3^rd District (again placing second to Trump by 2,512 to 2,272 votes).  In short, Kasich fared best in the more Democratic County Council districts.

-       Cruz had his strongest showing in the 5^th, with 2,968 votes.  He placed third in all County Council Districts.

-       The only other GOP presidential candidate who broke three figures at the County Council level?  Ben Carson (148 votes in the 5^th). 

-       Worst showing?  A tie between Huckabee (8 votes in the 1^st) and Santorum (8 votes in the 4^th).  Don’t stop believing.

-       On the Democratic side, Clinton won in all five County Council districts. The margins of victory were somewhat narrower in the 1^st District and the 5^th District, slightly over 2,100 votes in both cases.  She crushed it in the 4^th, with 10,126 votes compared to 6,218 for the Vermont Senator. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

National Mottos and Hard Numbers

There is an isolated society in Bolivia, numbering no more than 600 souls, who dwell three hours away from Riberalta when the roads are passable, six when they aren’t.  They believe that we die every night, during our dreams, and we awaken into a parallel universe where everything appears to be a continuation of the same existence.  It is our dogged persistence of memory, they claim, that makes it seem as though this continual passing and renewal is nothing more than a short recess from our consciousness from the same life we had the day before.

Every so often, especially when tumultuous events occur, it feels as though they might be onto something.  Let the physicists & theologians sort this out.  God help us if the mathematicians get involved though.  This surly bunch of data-set grinders will bog the entire process down.

But mathematics does have its uses.  For example, as of this writing, it tells us that the itinerant Stateswoman, aka the One True Sage of Chappaqua, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton stands at the precipice of claiming the Democratic nomination for the American Presidency.  The New York Times delegate tracker says she has 1,768 pledged delegates along with 525 unpledged (aka Super-Boss) delegates.  Employing a simple mathematical function, that works out to 2,293…or 96.2% of the total number of delegates required for a simple majority at the Democratic Convention.        

With 930 delegates remaining up-for-grabs, it is likely that she will far exceed the 90 delegates she needs to hit the magic number of 2,383.  Barring a cataclysmic shift in the tectonic plates that undergird our politics in 2016 anno Domini, it is extremely unlikely that her only remaining foe, the at-times blustery Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders will win enough of the pledged delegates and sway enough of the unpledged delegates to wrest the nomination away from the former FLOTUS/Senator/Secretary of State.

How high a hurdle?  Sanders would need to register huge wins in states like California and New Jersey, blow-out landslide margins north of 70%, in order to stand a chance of significantly diminishing his pledged delegate deficit (currently 274 delegates).  Beyond that, he would need to convince the Establishment Democrats that he would not be tossed like dry maple tree branches into the industrial wood chipper that is the Trump Attack Machine.  The safe money, for these solons and activists, is to stay the course with Hillary, even if she stumbles badly on June 7…which appears unlikely.

I appreciate the hard-fought effort against long odds.  I think former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, in particular, has been an excellent Sanders surrogate and, contrary to the opinions of some, has a future in electoral politics, if she chooses that path.  I think his movement will live on.

However, as each day passes, the parallel universe options for the Sanders presidential campaign all appear to be similar, with June 15, 2016 being the effective end of the road.  They get this in certain parts of Bolivia...but will Sanders and Company?

Stay tuned, as more will follow. 

Where Will You Go, Joe?

“Joe Biden is gone now…and we are all a bit poorer for it.  He was a player, and we need those people in politics.  They are the ones who have defined us to ourselves as a nation of leapers and dreamers and risk-takers, and awesome world power with a lover’s sense of adventure.” – H.S.T. (September 28, 1987)

Much has transpired since John Sasso (of House Dukakis) plunged the long knives into the heart of the Biden ’88 campaign.  Granted, Joe left himself open to the assault; and Sasso himself endured a temporary exile for his deeds. 

But it ended Biden’s last great look at the Oval Office.    He passed on ’92, ’00, and ’04.  His 2008 campaign went nowhere except insofar as it helped convince then-Senator Obama that his colleague from Delaware would be a darn fine Vice President, thus leading to the ticket that secured 365 Electoral Votes.

Sure, Biden had a voting history that might not endear him to the Left, but Biden-Warren would have made for a formidable Democratic Unity ticket, or Warren-Biden for that matter.

It’s a shame that the 2016 Democratic Convention will nominate zero Bidens for national office. 

The default setting in the party now, as it was in 2007, is Hillary Clinton.  She simply has a higher ceiling this time around, and more favorable conditions to win the nomination (diminished Clinton fatigue, weaker primary competition, and a slightly better candidate skillset).    She may inspire millions, but the gnawing concerns linger for many.  Will another Clinton presidency bring four to eight years of Clinton mishegoss?  Anyone with half a pulse during the 90s knows exactly what I am talking about.

The tragedy is that there really wasn’t a great Democratic alternative.  Red state/blue state calculations aside, our 50 States (and DC)…with perhaps a couple of exceptions… are comprised of electorates that net out as pro-free market, usually by overwhelming margins. A decidedly hypothetical Trump- Sanders race would devolve into a capitalist – socialist debate that Sanders could not win.

For many this cycle, including this author, a vote for Sanders was a vote for a message and not the candidate.  He is no longer running for the nomination, despite what his campaign says, he is staying in to realign the Democratic Party for 2017 and beyond.  The Corporate Democrats are in the catbird seat, and many populists, blue collars, and liberals are none-too-happy about what this might mean for American jobs.  Sanders got this, but he was/is a flawed vehicle for their hopes and dreams.  And while Vice President Biden doesn’t check all of the Progressive boxes, at least he can speak the language…and he could have won.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Obligatory Post Election Post

Highlights with 110 of 124 precincts reporting:

-       Once again, the HCEA demonstrated its electoral intelligence and clout.  They endorsed three strong Board of Education candidates, who emerged as the top three vote-getters.  45.7% of the total BoE votes cast (179, 469 and counting…bearing in mind that voters could vote for up to three candidates) were for HCEA-backed candidates.

-       Coombs, Delmont-Small, and Ellis were smart to focus their campaigns on positive, reform-centric themes. 

-       Giles clearly made an attempt to create some distance between herself and the other incumbents.  One could argue that this modified triangulation strategy succeeded only in reinforcing the anti-incumbent frame.

-       With two Board of Education incumbents losing their re-election bids, the question becomes:  what is the best vehicle for ensuring Siddiqui’s defeat in November?  With five very good challenger options, some strategic voting might prove necessary in the general election to ensure a clean sweep.  

-       It’s time for Sanders voters (I was one) to recognize that Clinton is the best and only hope for progressives who wish to build upon the Obama Administration’s successes. 

-       I was hoping that Edwards would be more competitive in Howard County.  That said, Van Hollen's nomination should ensure that Maryland is represented by two Democrats in the U.S. Senate in the next Congress.   

 Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Uncommonly Brief

“One good thing about the sameness of America’s suburbs, you can always imagine that you are someplace else.” – S. MacCune (circa 1992)

Nostalgia is a persistent companion…and his reflections on homogeneity and city planning revisited me after nearly a quarter century.

Of course it would be easy to veer off in the direction of Columbia triumphalism.  And these thoughts did occur as I was jaunting back to the Home Office in Wilde Lake.  Northbound on Broken Land.

Frozen in one moment in time, the nascent development on the real estate known as the Crescent may appear to be a move in the direction of uniformity.  Hopefully, as the nearby Inner Arbor takes shape, our evolving City Center will retain a unique character.

Turning from the structures to the people, I am looking forward to reviewing the Primary Election results on Wednesday morning. I am doubly hopeful that our citizens will demonstrate, at the ballot box, that they want something new, different, and better.

Howard County Board of Education:  Coombs, Ellis, Miller

U.S. Senate:  Edwards

President:  Sanders

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

2020 Foresight

Happy Super Tuesday Eve!

When I first came to DC, my employer at the time had a list of "lessons learned" from Senator Phil Gramm's presidential campaign on the wall.  I wish I kept a copy of it.

So, here are some thoughts for 2020 presidential aspirants, based on the lessons learned, re-learned, and forgotten thus far in the 2016 election cycle.

1.  Define your opponents early and vigorously.  While the media historically serves a larger role here, I don't believe I have witnessed a presidential candidate as good as Donald Trump when it comes to establishing narrative frames for his opponents, with his re-positioning of Jeb! being Trump's crowning achievement in this regard (to date).  Governor Bush never recovered from the low energy tag and the characterization helped expedite the collapse of a candidacy that 1) never quite found its voice and 2) was fundamentally out of step with the resurgent populism that pervades the national mood.   Note:  Jeb should have recalled how effectively Rove et. al. were in defining Senator Kerry in 2004...when his own brother was up for re-election.  Remember swift-boating?  It went right to Kerry's perceived strength and deflated it.  Apparently Jeb forgot that lesson from 12 short years ago.

2. Exploit social media to its fullest  Again, Trump might be sui generis within the political realm given his decades-long fame/infamy in our popular culture and his understanding of how to create (and dominate) news in these early days of the 21st Century.  Future candidates should nonetheless peruse his tweets very, very carefully to see how he was able to shape conversations over the course of days, weeks, and months.  This lesson applies regardless of the milieu, Facebook, Twitter, or DodgeWaffle - whatever social media outlets exist in 2020.

3.  Don't hesitate when it comes to going on the offense.  You can't hang back and let your opponents define you, and when you attack when it is too late, it comes across as flailing from a position of weakness.  In short, don't be afraid to go "comparative" early...as long as doing so is in your best strategic interest and it doesn't subvert the candidate's brand.

4.  Establish your brand early.  To that point, you can't undergo a character transformation mid-way through a campaign.  Kasich came close though, he went from quirky, quick-tempered policy wonk to folksy, can-do Midwestern Huggin' Gov in what seemed like a fairly rapid metamorphosis.  It may not take him to March 16, but it allows him to occupy a distinct, and distinguishable, position in the present GOP field.

5. Be prepare to be flexible when it comes to strategy and tactics.  Not to pile on Jeb, but his by-the-book campaign was far too by-the-book.  They failed to adapt to meet the needs of the present environment, choosing instead to ignore the Trump ascendancy until it was far too late.  The summer poll numbers were more than sufficient to warrant a more aggressive posture toward Mr. Trump but the Bush team was too focused on running a playbook for a completely different ballgame.

6. The culture is inseparable from the political.  There is a book concept in here somewhere.  In a pop culture world obsessed with louder, vacuous and/or one-note, but media savvy individuals... is it any surprise that such figures are faring well in the US electorally?  I am not suggesting that 2020 presidential candidates should start appearing on as many reality shows as possible between now and November '20, but they need to think about the larger cultural background and factor that into their planning accordingly.

7. Don't over staff.  Walker.  Bush.  Just so much money wasted that could have been spent on voter contact.  No need for dozens of policy advisors, it's a political campaign and not a think tank.

8. Don't inflate your own expectations.  Come on Senator Rubio. The "3-2-1" approach set yourself up for failure right from the outset of the primary season. It is one of the reasons why he has not emerged as the main alternative to Trump (that and his disastrous debate meltdown, which reminded me of Muskie's crying (melting snow?!) moment...something that was so memorable and so damaging that it will not be soon forgotten).

9. Make it about "the people."  This is why Senator Sander's ads have been better than Senator Clinton's.  His paid communications tend to be more "us"-focused while Senator Clinton still spends too much time talking about how unique her candidacy is.  His are more dialogue driven while hers tend to be more monologue-oriented, and people like being talked with, not at.  I am perhaps over-stating the case for illustration purposes, but go ahead, compare the ads.  Remove the specific candidate and ask, which make me feel more of a sense of belonging?  Which are motivating?  Would Clinton be faring better if she ran Sanders-style ads?  Would Sanders be performing worse if he was running Clinton-style ads?  Something to ponder.

Feel free to save this and post it on your fridge.  The magnet can hold it for four years.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

  

A Morning Conversation

“So why isn’t the Administration cutting deals on Keystone? On immigration?”

“Both fine questions Slats, but the President seems to be doubling-down.  Partially out of principle, partially because of optics…he doesn’t want to appear to be getting rolled, and the last element is that he doesn’t have much in the way of negotiating partners, with the GOP leadership in Congress being what it is.”

“Almost makes Newt look statesman-like.”

“Might be an overstretch. Is that coffee in that cup?”

“No. It’s a Drambuie Sunrise. It’s all the rage in Zurich now.”

“Sure.  Anyway, it is shaping up to be a brutal two years for 44. The only good news for the White House is that HRC is going to take a fair amount of heat.”

“The discourse is going to become increasingly polarized as candidates for the Big Chair appeal to their respective bases.  Compromise is going to be difficult on most domestic issues.  No will to deal, not with the aspirants bashing DC as they crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. ”

“And the traditional pivot to a foreign policy focus isn’t promising either.   ISIS/ISIL, Putin indulging his revanchist inclinations, no hope of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.  What’s left? Maybe going after narco-terrorists in the Western Hemisphere?"       

 

“It’s 11:45 pm in America.”

“Perhaps not so dour a prognosis, but Happy Days have not yet arrived.”

“They should have spun off Potsie and Ralph Malph.  A good screwball buddy sitcom could have really helped with ABC’s Tuesday night prime time line up.”

“That isn’t what I meant and that is also a debatable proposition.  But I would have watched “The Tuscaderos!”

“Santorum would love another popular resurgence of ‘50s nostalgia. Of course he would embrace it without any sense of irony and he would forget all of the ‘unpleasant’ parts." 

“Of course not, the actual history of the time wouldn’t fit with his image of that decade as some sort of halcyon era of permanent triumphalism.”

“Pleasantville all over again, at least the first half of that movie.”

“Might not even need to worry about Santorum running again.  He said he would announce his decision in June of 2015.”

“Late.   Who is going to sit on the sidelines that long…for him?  The money and talent will flow elsewhere.”

“Yep.  It would be a significant infrastructure deficit. However, he still has some support on the ground in Iowa.  But he doesn’t want to limp into the fall debates looking like an also-ran four months before the Caucuses.”

“But if he runs, it will just make the Democratic Party seem considerably more centrist.”

“Santorum.  Cruz. Paul.  All together on one stage?  Hillary should be so lucky.”

“Or Bernie Sanders.”

“You need to spend more time state-side.  That just isn’t going to happen.  Are you catching your news on RT?”

“Heaven forbid! Pravda redux.  Now, what do they have on tap here?”

“It's a Panera. So nothing.”

“Right, let’s go.”

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

 

      

"Time Keeps On Slippin'"

I will keep this brief.  The 4:05 pm to Saskatoon is boarding soon and my sprint from Parking Garage A to the ticket counter resulted in four exclamations to “Watch out,” two muttered apologies and one spilled latte. Thankfully, the coffee wasn’t mine.

Anyone who believes they can run for President, seeking the nomination of a major party, and wait on announcing until the summer of 2015 is either a complete dolt…or Hillary Clinton, because she could get away with it.   She wouldn’t tarry to that extent, but she has advantages that none of her likely Democratic rivals can match: astronomically high name recognition & solid Fav/Unfav numbers among likely D primary voters/caucus attendees, a broad network of supporters (ranging from top-flight operatives to keyed-in local elected officials and activists), massive fundraising potential, a spouse who (when on his game) is probably the most persuasive advocate for Democratic candidates and causes since JFK, and a personal biography that seems ideally suited for the Challenges of Today.  Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to stop that juggernaut?  Extremely unlikely.

She could afford to wait, if she wanted to. That said, she won’t. I would wager dollars to doughnuts, that Clinton will most likely announce her intentions in early 2015...at some point between January 1 and March 31...most likely in the first half of that window.

For the record: I am not, viscerally, a huge fan of HRC.  Intellectually, I admire her accomplishments and respect her brainpower and toughness.  Genuine heavy mettle.  I think she would be a good president, perhaps even very good.

Perhaps I just find the Clinton family saga a little tiresome.  Maybe my thinking on the matter will evolve, and it is all about making the best choice from the available options.  That said, my last votes for a Clinton occurred back in ’92 (once in March, again in November).  Pissed off on how he handled the Lani Guinier nomination, I decided I would not vote for his re-election in 1996.  I ended up casting my ballot for Steve Forbes in the GOP primary, and for Senator Bob Dole in the General. 

But that was the other Clinton.  Fast forward to late 2007, I favored then-Senator Obama’s stance on the War and his overall positioning, slightly to the left of then-Senator Clinton… a good mainstream progressive from the Heartland. 

But now, deep into the second term of the Obama Presidency, with Official DC turning its critical, menaced and slightly rum-soaked eyes to 2016 and whispering of Iowa, of New Hampshire…and facing the near inevitability of yet another Clinton campaign.  One must ask, is this her time? 

In the post WWII era, few candidates who aren’t sitting Presidents, incumbent Vice Presidents or Bushes have had such a clear road to the nomination of a major party. Adlai Stevenson’s second run in ’56 comes close, and even he had to contend with Estes Kefauver, who was no slacker.

So who will step up on the D side?  I have a list of 38 names.  Many of the other 37 won’t run.  Some might explore it, then opt against such an arduous campaign.  A handful will get into the race, I would estimate no more than four or five serious candidates in addition to former Secretary of State Clinton. In short, a small field by modern standards. 

There will be a challenger from the Far Left (right this way Senator Sanders), a slot for a conservative Democrat who wants to over-correct based on one interpretation of the 2014 election results (greetings Senator Manchin), a couple of candidates who want to be in the mix because a) they believe they have a compelling story to tell and b) Hillary might stumble…let’s just put in former Senator Webb and current Governor Martin O’Malley in this category….for now.  The former is an interesting possibility, given his populist inclinations and swing state geographic base.   Potentially very interesting.  O’Malley was dinged, probably not irreparably, based on last week’s election outcomes in Maryland…but he remains a decided long-shot.

Oh yes, and let us not forget Vice President Joe Biden.  First, I don’t believe he will run again.   He had two decent opportunities. I recall his 1988 campaign vividly and his 2008 effort recently.  Second, he is a fine public servant but he is not the future of the Democratic Party.  

The progressive wing will long for Senator Elizabeth Warren, some of the unreconstructed will want the ageless Jerry Brown to saddle up once more, Rahm may practice speeches in his bathroom mirror, and Senator Booker will keep his calendar open for 2024.

Me? I will probably spend the Holidays pondering the possibility of a Cuomo, the reemergence of Feingold or Dean, the potential of Gillibrand, or if John Cusack is ready to take a break from this acting nonsense and get into politics in a serious way.   

That said, I will most likely be wearing a Clinton button on 12/31/2015…just like many of you will too. 

But who knows? 

In any event, it is all coming sooner than you think.  The calendar demands it.  Beware those who jump in late, history has not been kind to them.

With that in mind…up next…a look at the Republicans.  And yes, they will probably go Establishment again in 2016, in case you were wondering.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.