The author's just saying that several demographic trends might make it more difficult for the Democrats to win the electoral college in the future, since it is shaped not by total votes but by vote *distribution*, and votes during presidential elections are apportioned in an all-or-nothing way, not a proportional way. (winning 49.98% of state X's votes does not win you 49.98% of its *electoral* votes, with rare exceptions--it wins you zero electoral votes, period.) And that this is a liability worth working on. Are you somehow arguing that the electoral college does not decide the outcome of presidential elections?
And plenty of people are moving into blue states. It's just that their populations are growing at a somewhat slower rate, so the overall distribution of votes has begun to tilt towards redder states. Here's the change since 2020:
As you can see the coastal blue states are growing fairly prodigiously, as are most (but not all) of the urban and suburban centers in the Midwest. And states like Louisiana, Missisissippi, and West Virginia (all very red) are bleeding people. Red states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska have seen outmigration as well. But the overall *geographic distribution* favors the GOP (for now).
However, one factor somewhat alluded to here but not focused on all that much (understandably so, because it is difficult to quantify) is that in many cases, as died-in-the-wool red conservative states urbanize, they become more purple--and, as with Virginia, sometimes turn quite blue. There are, of course, exceptions--Indiana has urbanized quite a bit but hasn't gotten much bluer--but the general trend is noticeable. Neither party's electoral dominance is inexorable in the long-run, although they certainly might face short-run structural roadblocks, as the Democrats currently do.
Ok so this might sound a little nutty, but please bear with me here. Maybe, just maybe Democrats should take a moment to consider that the main reason their brand is in the toilet is due to them turning states they fully control into places people move from. Conversely Republicans have been turning states they control into places people move to. So it’s possible that the Democrats’ current policies do not actually work and should be moderated if not scrapped completely.
I know it sounds crazy but if they can pull off a well governed blue state that people actually want to move to, more people might actually vote for them. At a minimum it would certainly make it harder for Trump to come off as the lesser evil.
The discussion about possible future demographic distributions sounds like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Democrats need to fix their problems with policies and governance. The numbers would take care of themselves.
Conceding that the underlying demographic changes driving the growth of red states are likely to continue well into the future, the only reasonable path to victory lies with becoming more competitive in those states. In order to accomplish this, Democrats must deemphasize their broadly unpopular social justice/identity agenda and focus on economic inequality where Republicans are extremely vulnerable. We can do nothing about your stagnant wages or the unlikelihood that you will ever own a house but we can give you open borders and pronouns, simply is not a winning message in most of the country.
As long as we are trying to collect votes on the margins, we will only make it sometimes, or never. To win over the larger electorate we need a leader who can change course. If we win in Montana chances are we are also winning in Wisconsin and Nevada. Those Hispanic guys down in the Rio Grande Valley have a lot in common with the roughnecks in Nodak.
There are a lot of conservatives still pissed off at Trump, not because Trump is a schmuck, but because of tariffs and immigration. We need someone who can piss off 3% of Democrats while clawing back the 15% who left over wages and jobs. The 3% will vote anyway. I see no one running who can be the change.
I think it's possibly much worse for the Dems than this writeup depicts. If you include a) the ongoing Republican registration gains, b) the steamroller pace of litigation to clean up voter rolls, c) the R campaign to rein in registration fraud, d) the tax revolt that's sending people out of high-tax blue states, and e) the inertia and arrogance of the "progressives" who control the Democratic Party, I think the risks are considerably higher than the Democrats realize.
I think the Dems will launch another attack on the electoral college. Easier to do that than to look inward and examine their policies and persona. If they do attack the EC, I think it will fail. It would take a constitutional amendment and 38 states, and that won't happen. That work-around "compact" they yammer about? Won't happen. It's a nerd-level deal without popular traction, and it's suicidal given that the red states will never go along with it.
At the same time, I think that the Republicans are falling short on immigration. It baffles me. If they would offer immigration reform with a legalization and citizenship path for the illegals who've been here for a long time before 2020, I think it would pay huge dividends. I think it's hard to overestimate the long-term gains the Rs could make.
All in all, I see a very real chance that the Republicans could have a period of political dominance comparable to what the Dems had after 1933, and what the Republicans had from 1869 to 1933. Some big things have to go right for that to happen, but the elements are there. The economy has to cooperate, and the Republicans need to thread the needle on immigration.
If those two things happen, I think the Democrats will be looking at decades in the wilderness.
The more interesting question might be, what this means post Trump. The man is gone in 36 months, if not sooner. Trump turns 80 in a few months, and is likely not immortal. :)
A Trump loathing friend jokes her neighbor has worked in nursing home administration for 30 years. Part of her job is the statistical analysis of when residents are likely to exit nursing homes for the last time.
While certainly not definitive since most Americans never reside in a nursing home, she reports less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all US nursing home residents share Trump's age, height and weight. That is not a wish for anyone's demise, but an interesting fact of nature.
In any event, Dems counting on Immigration delivering them back to the Promise Land, might want to consider what happens if Trump departs the WH early, lowers the temperature with larger self repatriation checks or simply messages better. "Defund ICE" seems likely to be as helpful, as "Defund the Police".
Finally, Missouri recently filed federal suit requesting that Apportionment counts be limited to US citizens, born or naturalized. Missouri argues Congressional districts comprised of US citizens have their voting power diluted, when other districts have large populations of ineligible voters, counted for Apportionment.
Missouri contends counting those ineligible to vote for Apportionment is not a Constitutional edict, but rather an administrative function changed under Jimmy Carter. The suit would allow SCOTUS to split the baby on Birthright Citizenship. Birthright citizenship remains, but only citizens born or naturalized would effect Apportionment.
That would seem to be a bigger hurdle for Dems than Reps. Texas and FL would also shed seats, but Blue States would lose more seats in total, and have a harder time replacing those excluded in the count, with new citizens. FL and Texas are more likely to quickly replenish their numbers with Americans relocating to their states. Should counts exclude non voters, it is hard to imagine Minnesota and other Blue States with a sudden citizen population surge.
I haven't seen Larry for a while, but the people who track these things have the January voter registration updates. It's back to a steady-but-slow rightward move (which seemed to have paused or even reversed slightly during the months around the off-year election). The left is currently thrilled because they won a red county in a special election, but I don't think it means much. 2028 will come down to:
- CONSERVATIVE: The post November 2024 rightward drift of the electorate
- LEFTIST: The incumbent seems to be penalized, at least in the post-Obama era
- ???: The economy in 2028
Note that the outstanding performance of the left in off-year and special elections will not help in 2028 because we're back to a general election then. Their good performance is not because the electorate changed in their favor, but because they are currently combining their low-turnout propensity with the out-of-power effect. If you can't wrap your head around the strength of the Democrats in low-turnout elections, think about how disastrous the Biden presidency was, and yet, even with the out-of-power advantage, the Republicans did not have a red wave. Now the out-of-power advantage is added to their low-turnout advantage. It's also the case that Trump has been president long enough that the economy now "belongs to him" so it's currently helping the Democrats as well.
The National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement among states to cast their electoral vote ballots for the winner of the national popular vote even in states where the state popular vote went to another candidate. Fifteen states have agreed to this compact as well as the District of Columbia. How many of them voted for Harris in 2024? Every single one! And yet, Trump won the popular vote in that election by 77.3 million votes to 75 million. Just how pleased would voters in Massachusetts or California be to watch their states cast their electoral votes for Donald Trump?
Had the National Popular Vote Compact been in effect in 2000, the state of Colorado would have cast her electoral votes for Gore even though Bush had carried Colorado because Gore won the national popular vote. But, had the Compact been in effect in 2016, would it have made Hillary Clinton President? No, because it would not have reversed the vote in any of the states Trump carried. So, what's the use of the Compact? If a Republican can still get an electoral vote majority in spite of all the Democratic-ruled states which have ratified the Compact, the Democrats still can't prevent an election like 2016.
Interesting analysis, but the key factor to keep in mind is that the political environment is never static even over just three years, let alone six years. By 2032 the electoral college map will favor Republican candidates as seen from the current perspective of 2026. But...by 2032 the looming deficits and automatic reductions in Social Security and Medicare will be front and center - the days of avoiding reality/kicking the can down the road for political convenience will be over.
Reducing SS or Medicare benefits is politically suicidal. Will the no-tax-increases-ever ideology still control the Republican party? If so, will Republican candidates then favor increasing the annual federal budget deficit way beyond the current level of almost $2 trillion? The bottom line: either Republicans moderate their anti-tax dogmas or they will be crushed in 2032 and beyond.
When they have to, Reps will raise the cap on Social Security contributions.
As for Medicare, it would seem Dems have more to lose. All over Europe, far Right political Parties, that were not taken remotely seriously just a decade ago, are poised to take power in the next year or two. The will likely assume the reins in England, France and Germany.
The effect of Open Borders on European safety nets and healthcare is killing the European Left and Center, with the exception of Denmark, where the Socialists closed the borders a while ago.
Voters are enraged as they realize their generous benefits are not sustainable for the world. Their revenge is coming, because things that are not sustainable, end.
For many decades all Presidents and all Congresses have given the country what a large majority of Americans wants: lots of government programs but not sufficient taxes to pay for them, with the deficits covered by increasingly massive borrowing which is now almost $2 trillion per year even in non-recessionary times. This large majority of Americans wants the party to go on, but the music will soon stop and reality will arrive in full force.
Here are the choices come the 2030s: (1) Reduce SS and Medicare benefits (2) Increase tax revenues by some means. (1) is political suicide, as Trump knows, so (2) will happen. Democrats will run on (2) and win landslides if Republicans don't offer their own viable plan.
2 is also political suicide with whoever has their taxes raised.
Removing the cap will only cover about half of the projected shortfall and effectively turns social security from an equally shared entitlement where what everyone takes out is equally related to what they put in, to just another subsidized government redistribution of wealth.
Fixing it will require a sober debate. Good luck with that in the current environment.
You make valid points, but here's the reality about #2: the number of voters who would have their taxes raised by removing the cap is dwarfed by the number of voters with incomes below the cap. SS will eventually become what you describe: another subsidized government redistribution of wealth. General revenues will eventually be used to pay out SS and Medicare benefits that Americans believe they have been promised.
We do need a sober debate about fiscal realities. Amazingly enough, Bernie Sanders once gave an example of a rational approach to this topic of entitlement programs. He was asked if greatly expanding federal social programs would mean that middle-class Americans would have to pay taxes at similar rates to what middle-class Europeans pay for their more expansive welfare states. He said YES, unlike every other elected Democrat who says that just taxing "the rich" enough will provide sufficient revenues.
Yes Sanders used to be honest about the tax and immigration policies required to sustain a Scandinavian style welfare state. The problem is that Americans will never tolerate that level of taxation, and curtailing immigration is a nonstarter with today’s Democratic Party. Our fiscal woes will continue until people stop buying the fairytale that we can have everything all paid for by “the rich”
Our discussion here shows how challenging this problem is. Think the political situation has been red-hot intense? We haven't seen anything yet: wait until Americans have to face fiscal reality over the entitlement programs
There are a lot of ways to generate revenue, look at what Trump has done with tariffs, and it doesn't have to be income tax, and entitlements aren't the only thing worth paying for, but one way or another we have to pay for things. On the flip side the tightwads screaming about fraud are right, and there is a lot more there than Somali daycares, but to do it we have to commit to things man have problems with like funding the IRS that generates a lot more than it costs, or to stop overpaying the private sector for things that should be done by career civil servants.
"..overpaying the private sector...should be done by career civil servants." Put every government employee (city, county, state, federal) into a 401k. Then do a screen on benefits (federal employees get 3 hours of admin week to go to the gym - who else in U.S. gets that?), then give them federal holidays only, not 'family' days or other freebies. IRS became hyper partisan (why weren't Hillary's tax returns ever leaked?) so giving them a boatload more money would be a hard sell.
interesting take on this. "The Electoral College" is poised to get tougher on Democrats.
yeah that dammmnable Electoral College. Like all democratic institutions that hobble the Democratic Party, it's GOT TO GO !! by hook or by crook.
.
We must all sing the same song - America loves us and wants our policies they just don't know it and the ELECTORAL COLLEGE is the problem.
.
wait.
what if ...
the problem was people moving OUT of blue states and INTO red states?
what if
the problem is that Blue polices don't work so good for economy, crime, schools . .
whaaaa -- that's it who said that? KICK HIM OUT! we don't want no freethinking around here.
.
You're reminding me of all-too-accurate conservative meme.
If we could only:
- Abolish the electoral college
- Pack the Supreme Court
- Censor Free Speech
- Lock up everyone from Trump to abortion protestors
We could save Democracy!
The author's just saying that several demographic trends might make it more difficult for the Democrats to win the electoral college in the future, since it is shaped not by total votes but by vote *distribution*, and votes during presidential elections are apportioned in an all-or-nothing way, not a proportional way. (winning 49.98% of state X's votes does not win you 49.98% of its *electoral* votes, with rare exceptions--it wins you zero electoral votes, period.) And that this is a liability worth working on. Are you somehow arguing that the electoral college does not decide the outcome of presidential elections?
And plenty of people are moving into blue states. It's just that their populations are growing at a somewhat slower rate, so the overall distribution of votes has begun to tilt towards redder states. Here's the change since 2020:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-post-pandemic-population-change-by-u-s-county-2021-2024/
As you can see the coastal blue states are growing fairly prodigiously, as are most (but not all) of the urban and suburban centers in the Midwest. And states like Louisiana, Missisissippi, and West Virginia (all very red) are bleeding people. Red states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska have seen outmigration as well. But the overall *geographic distribution* favors the GOP (for now).
However, one factor somewhat alluded to here but not focused on all that much (understandably so, because it is difficult to quantify) is that in many cases, as died-in-the-wool red conservative states urbanize, they become more purple--and, as with Virginia, sometimes turn quite blue. There are, of course, exceptions--Indiana has urbanized quite a bit but hasn't gotten much bluer--but the general trend is noticeable. Neither party's electoral dominance is inexorable in the long-run, although they certainly might face short-run structural roadblocks, as the Democrats currently do.
Ok so this might sound a little nutty, but please bear with me here. Maybe, just maybe Democrats should take a moment to consider that the main reason their brand is in the toilet is due to them turning states they fully control into places people move from. Conversely Republicans have been turning states they control into places people move to. So it’s possible that the Democrats’ current policies do not actually work and should be moderated if not scrapped completely.
I know it sounds crazy but if they can pull off a well governed blue state that people actually want to move to, more people might actually vote for them. At a minimum it would certainly make it harder for Trump to come off as the lesser evil.
The discussion about possible future demographic distributions sounds like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Democrats need to fix their problems with policies and governance. The numbers would take care of themselves.
Conceding that the underlying demographic changes driving the growth of red states are likely to continue well into the future, the only reasonable path to victory lies with becoming more competitive in those states. In order to accomplish this, Democrats must deemphasize their broadly unpopular social justice/identity agenda and focus on economic inequality where Republicans are extremely vulnerable. We can do nothing about your stagnant wages or the unlikelihood that you will ever own a house but we can give you open borders and pronouns, simply is not a winning message in most of the country.
As long as we are trying to collect votes on the margins, we will only make it sometimes, or never. To win over the larger electorate we need a leader who can change course. If we win in Montana chances are we are also winning in Wisconsin and Nevada. Those Hispanic guys down in the Rio Grande Valley have a lot in common with the roughnecks in Nodak.
There are a lot of conservatives still pissed off at Trump, not because Trump is a schmuck, but because of tariffs and immigration. We need someone who can piss off 3% of Democrats while clawing back the 15% who left over wages and jobs. The 3% will vote anyway. I see no one running who can be the change.
Trump won 312 to 226
I have been writing about this for the past year.
I think it's possibly much worse for the Dems than this writeup depicts. If you include a) the ongoing Republican registration gains, b) the steamroller pace of litigation to clean up voter rolls, c) the R campaign to rein in registration fraud, d) the tax revolt that's sending people out of high-tax blue states, and e) the inertia and arrogance of the "progressives" who control the Democratic Party, I think the risks are considerably higher than the Democrats realize.
I think the Dems will launch another attack on the electoral college. Easier to do that than to look inward and examine their policies and persona. If they do attack the EC, I think it will fail. It would take a constitutional amendment and 38 states, and that won't happen. That work-around "compact" they yammer about? Won't happen. It's a nerd-level deal without popular traction, and it's suicidal given that the red states will never go along with it.
At the same time, I think that the Republicans are falling short on immigration. It baffles me. If they would offer immigration reform with a legalization and citizenship path for the illegals who've been here for a long time before 2020, I think it would pay huge dividends. I think it's hard to overestimate the long-term gains the Rs could make.
All in all, I see a very real chance that the Republicans could have a period of political dominance comparable to what the Dems had after 1933, and what the Republicans had from 1869 to 1933. Some big things have to go right for that to happen, but the elements are there. The economy has to cooperate, and the Republicans need to thread the needle on immigration.
If those two things happen, I think the Democrats will be looking at decades in the wilderness.
The more interesting question might be, what this means post Trump. The man is gone in 36 months, if not sooner. Trump turns 80 in a few months, and is likely not immortal. :)
A Trump loathing friend jokes her neighbor has worked in nursing home administration for 30 years. Part of her job is the statistical analysis of when residents are likely to exit nursing homes for the last time.
While certainly not definitive since most Americans never reside in a nursing home, she reports less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all US nursing home residents share Trump's age, height and weight. That is not a wish for anyone's demise, but an interesting fact of nature.
In any event, Dems counting on Immigration delivering them back to the Promise Land, might want to consider what happens if Trump departs the WH early, lowers the temperature with larger self repatriation checks or simply messages better. "Defund ICE" seems likely to be as helpful, as "Defund the Police".
Finally, Missouri recently filed federal suit requesting that Apportionment counts be limited to US citizens, born or naturalized. Missouri argues Congressional districts comprised of US citizens have their voting power diluted, when other districts have large populations of ineligible voters, counted for Apportionment.
Missouri contends counting those ineligible to vote for Apportionment is not a Constitutional edict, but rather an administrative function changed under Jimmy Carter. The suit would allow SCOTUS to split the baby on Birthright Citizenship. Birthright citizenship remains, but only citizens born or naturalized would effect Apportionment.
That would seem to be a bigger hurdle for Dems than Reps. Texas and FL would also shed seats, but Blue States would lose more seats in total, and have a harder time replacing those excluded in the count, with new citizens. FL and Texas are more likely to quickly replenish their numbers with Americans relocating to their states. Should counts exclude non voters, it is hard to imagine Minnesota and other Blue States with a sudden citizen population surge.
I haven't seen Larry for a while, but the people who track these things have the January voter registration updates. It's back to a steady-but-slow rightward move (which seemed to have paused or even reversed slightly during the months around the off-year election). The left is currently thrilled because they won a red county in a special election, but I don't think it means much. 2028 will come down to:
- CONSERVATIVE: The post November 2024 rightward drift of the electorate
- LEFTIST: The incumbent seems to be penalized, at least in the post-Obama era
- ???: The economy in 2028
Note that the outstanding performance of the left in off-year and special elections will not help in 2028 because we're back to a general election then. Their good performance is not because the electorate changed in their favor, but because they are currently combining their low-turnout propensity with the out-of-power effect. If you can't wrap your head around the strength of the Democrats in low-turnout elections, think about how disastrous the Biden presidency was, and yet, even with the out-of-power advantage, the Republicans did not have a red wave. Now the out-of-power advantage is added to their low-turnout advantage. It's also the case that Trump has been president long enough that the economy now "belongs to him" so it's currently helping the Democrats as well.
The National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement among states to cast their electoral vote ballots for the winner of the national popular vote even in states where the state popular vote went to another candidate. Fifteen states have agreed to this compact as well as the District of Columbia. How many of them voted for Harris in 2024? Every single one! And yet, Trump won the popular vote in that election by 77.3 million votes to 75 million. Just how pleased would voters in Massachusetts or California be to watch their states cast their electoral votes for Donald Trump?
Had the National Popular Vote Compact been in effect in 2000, the state of Colorado would have cast her electoral votes for Gore even though Bush had carried Colorado because Gore won the national popular vote. But, had the Compact been in effect in 2016, would it have made Hillary Clinton President? No, because it would not have reversed the vote in any of the states Trump carried. So, what's the use of the Compact? If a Republican can still get an electoral vote majority in spite of all the Democratic-ruled states which have ratified the Compact, the Democrats still can't prevent an election like 2016.
Interesting analysis, but the key factor to keep in mind is that the political environment is never static even over just three years, let alone six years. By 2032 the electoral college map will favor Republican candidates as seen from the current perspective of 2026. But...by 2032 the looming deficits and automatic reductions in Social Security and Medicare will be front and center - the days of avoiding reality/kicking the can down the road for political convenience will be over.
Reducing SS or Medicare benefits is politically suicidal. Will the no-tax-increases-ever ideology still control the Republican party? If so, will Republican candidates then favor increasing the annual federal budget deficit way beyond the current level of almost $2 trillion? The bottom line: either Republicans moderate their anti-tax dogmas or they will be crushed in 2032 and beyond.
When they have to, Reps will raise the cap on Social Security contributions.
As for Medicare, it would seem Dems have more to lose. All over Europe, far Right political Parties, that were not taken remotely seriously just a decade ago, are poised to take power in the next year or two. The will likely assume the reins in England, France and Germany.
The effect of Open Borders on European safety nets and healthcare is killing the European Left and Center, with the exception of Denmark, where the Socialists closed the borders a while ago.
Voters are enraged as they realize their generous benefits are not sustainable for the world. Their revenge is coming, because things that are not sustainable, end.
You think the problem is that American people aren't taxed enough? That's what Democrats should run on?
For many decades all Presidents and all Congresses have given the country what a large majority of Americans wants: lots of government programs but not sufficient taxes to pay for them, with the deficits covered by increasingly massive borrowing which is now almost $2 trillion per year even in non-recessionary times. This large majority of Americans wants the party to go on, but the music will soon stop and reality will arrive in full force.
Here are the choices come the 2030s: (1) Reduce SS and Medicare benefits (2) Increase tax revenues by some means. (1) is political suicide, as Trump knows, so (2) will happen. Democrats will run on (2) and win landslides if Republicans don't offer their own viable plan.
1 is political suicide.
2 is also political suicide with whoever has their taxes raised.
Removing the cap will only cover about half of the projected shortfall and effectively turns social security from an equally shared entitlement where what everyone takes out is equally related to what they put in, to just another subsidized government redistribution of wealth.
Fixing it will require a sober debate. Good luck with that in the current environment.
You make valid points, but here's the reality about #2: the number of voters who would have their taxes raised by removing the cap is dwarfed by the number of voters with incomes below the cap. SS will eventually become what you describe: another subsidized government redistribution of wealth. General revenues will eventually be used to pay out SS and Medicare benefits that Americans believe they have been promised.
We do need a sober debate about fiscal realities. Amazingly enough, Bernie Sanders once gave an example of a rational approach to this topic of entitlement programs. He was asked if greatly expanding federal social programs would mean that middle-class Americans would have to pay taxes at similar rates to what middle-class Europeans pay for their more expansive welfare states. He said YES, unlike every other elected Democrat who says that just taxing "the rich" enough will provide sufficient revenues.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/raising-the-tax-cap-cannot-save-social-security
Yes Sanders used to be honest about the tax and immigration policies required to sustain a Scandinavian style welfare state. The problem is that Americans will never tolerate that level of taxation, and curtailing immigration is a nonstarter with today’s Democratic Party. Our fiscal woes will continue until people stop buying the fairytale that we can have everything all paid for by “the rich”
Our discussion here shows how challenging this problem is. Think the political situation has been red-hot intense? We haven't seen anything yet: wait until Americans have to face fiscal reality over the entitlement programs
Congress will fund Social Security and Medicare through the income tax. It is the only place they can find the necessary amounts.
There are a lot of ways to generate revenue, look at what Trump has done with tariffs, and it doesn't have to be income tax, and entitlements aren't the only thing worth paying for, but one way or another we have to pay for things. On the flip side the tightwads screaming about fraud are right, and there is a lot more there than Somali daycares, but to do it we have to commit to things man have problems with like funding the IRS that generates a lot more than it costs, or to stop overpaying the private sector for things that should be done by career civil servants.
"..overpaying the private sector...should be done by career civil servants." Put every government employee (city, county, state, federal) into a 401k. Then do a screen on benefits (federal employees get 3 hours of admin week to go to the gym - who else in U.S. gets that?), then give them federal holidays only, not 'family' days or other freebies. IRS became hyper partisan (why weren't Hillary's tax returns ever leaked?) so giving them a boatload more money would be a hard sell.