 Hi, I'm Mike Bliley. I'm a law student here, and I get my coverage of the election exclusively from 538. And I do that largely because of the unbiased nature, except for Harry's unabashed love for Chris Christie. But I notice that specifically in your debate coverage, one of the things that you all always mention is that the mainstream media's portrayal of the debate matters more than anything else. When they say that someone wins, that coverage carries. And then at the end of those pieces, you and your staff put together grades for how the candidates did. And you may see where I'm going with this. You strike me as someone who would rather predict rather than influence, but do you see yourself playing into this zeitgeist where you could carry some weight in, say, this election? I mean, that's why the primaries, although they're fun, are a little tricky. Like I think the general election people are fairly sensible on retreat to their corners, but the primaries are so momentum-driven that it's a little bit weird. And I'm sure people do read what we say and so forth. It's kind of not the type of influence that I want. At the same time, the fact is that all news coverage is influential. And I think I would say at the very least, we promise some self-awareness, that we're aware that the way the events are covered by the press can affect voters' views. Sometimes the press can be surprised. It doesn't go the way they expect, but you can have these big feedback loops. And I'm surprised how difficult it is. I think one big edge we have. I'm glad that you read us, right? But I think one big edge we have over, say, the New York Times or something is that we can talk about the media as a political actor. Now, we are the media too, and some kind of aware of the circularity of that. Frankly, I think one reason why, during the primaries, sometimes the conservative sites are more interesting to read than liberal sites, that they're also start out being more suspicious of the media. Sometimes in ways that I think are wrong, like about the polls in 2012, but I think having that skepticism and seeing the media as a political actor instead of a kind of benevolent umpire is to a first approximation, the right way to do things, and that's reflected in our coverage. I guess sometimes at the risk of being a little bit hypocritical, potentially. But we do try and be very transparent about what is what we think is a fact? What's an opinion? What's an analysis? Kind of what is a provocation? One reason why I like your blog is that you have a lot of provocations, right? And they're clearly sometimes you put the Tyrone label on it, but it's clear what they are, right? It's clear that provocations meant to incite discussion and debate. And so we'll have a few of those too at times, but kind of speaking in the first person, I think, is important and breaking from the kind of voice of God where a storm cloud gathered on New Hampshire today and the voters decided that speaking as a subjective individual trying to understand what the objective world is like is a lot of what we're all about. And it's not for everyone, but I think that should be reflected at least in the tone and approach of our coverage even where we wind up getting things wrong.