Support NeoGAF

[Deepwater]

Most of them did. I'm talking about Bernie-or-Busters and third party voters.

not every 3rd party voter is progressive. In fact, gary johnson received 4 times as many votes as Jill stein did nationwide

I understand some are upset at people who went from bernie to 3rd party, but they weren't even the bulk of the 3rd party voting. To implicate them as the reason why Hillary lost is ahistorical. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize but this is a sentiment held by a lot on GAF

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Leftists also need to learn that no one outside of the Left understands that you guys are using "liberal" as a term for centrist when it's never meant that in modern American political discourse.

Also this is a little disingenuous of Sam. There have been a ton of special elections across the country that have had huge turnout. The LA county elections were an exception, but also, we don't know the real turnout until all the VBM is in.

Hot take: liberal is starting to leave the vocab as just meaning "left wing" because American liberalism as a tradition is mostly dead now as the Democrats have increasingly become more a party in the Hamilton mold while rejecting its Jeffersonian roots. That's not even an indictment, just an observation.

 

[Aaronrules380]

not every 3rd party voter is progressive. In fact, gary johnson received 4 times as many votes as Jill stein did nationwide

I understand some are upset at people who went from bernie to 3rd party, but they weren't even the bulk of the 3rd party voting. To implicate them as the reason why Hillary lost is ahistorical. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize but this is a sentiment held by a lot on GAF

The issue is less people going Bernie to third party and more people who went from Bernie to not voting at all

 

[bachikarn]

I'm hopeful there will be more efforts to get people to vote in 2018.

 

[aeolist]

Stats? No. I know it's a very small portion of Bernie supporters though that's not really the point. Hillary lost by tiny margins and Busters and third party voters are the easiest to sway to vote Democrat next time, so that's what I'm interested in.

i mean here's why she lost: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html

turnout was down in a few crucial states largely among the poor and minorities. a very small number went to trump, more went third party, and many more didn't vote. she did not even try to win these people over, probably because she didn't have any policies that would materially improve their lives.

 

[Deepwater]

The issue is less people going Bernie to third party and more people who went from Bernie to not voting at all

I don't believe that's the issue, because there is still rampant 3rd party voter shaming. The issue isn't "you guys didn't exercise your right to vote", the issue is "you didn't vote for my candidate"

 

[LegendofJoe]

I mean, it's not propaganda to recognize that she objectively has the most liberal / progressive voting record of almost any other Senator in history. Or to recognize that she's been fighting literally her entire adult life to make the lives of women and children better. Or that she understands how to compromise - both with people to her right and people to her left - to reach legislation proposals that both achieve quality results and actually be feasible to implement and pass.

So yes, liberals who refused to vote for Hillary don't really deserve the sympathy or compassion from those who did because they sucked down decades of propaganda lying about how she's a "Republican in disguise" or "the emailzz" or whatever the fuck the controversy of the day is.

I'd be willing to bet that none of these people have read a damn thing about what happened with HillaryCare. If they had their opinions would be very different.

 

[cdyhybrid]

not every 3rd party voter is progressive. In fact, gary johnson received 4 times as many votes as Jill stein did nationwide

I understand some are upset at people who went from bernie to 3rd party, but they weren't even the bulk of the 3rd party voting. To implicate them as the reason why Hillary lost is ahistorical. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize but this is a sentiment held by a lot on GAF

I'm aware that not every third party voter is progressive. Some are, I thought it was fairly clear that's what I was referring to since I was talking about swaying them to vote blue.

I never said they were the reason Hillary lost, but they sure as hell didn't help.

This thread is about why liberals didn't vote, is it not? I'm expressing my wonder at how people who would claim to hold liberal views (Busters and progressive third party voters) would not vote to prevent the country from going in the opposite direction of their desired policies.

 

[Ogodei]

The anti-progressive ballot initiative got defeated; the progressive ballot initiative got approved; the more progressive of the two marijuana measures got approved. The mostly progressive city council and mayor got re-elected in landslides. Yeah, sounds like Liberals let us down!!! And in the city that gave Clinton literally 100% of her massive popular vote win too, if LA liberals won't vote for Puppy Catcher and Assistant Mosquito and Sewage Guy, how can we know that they'll show up to vote for the big ticket elections?!?!?!

Performatively voting in municipal elections in California is not something that will flip Ohio or West Virginia, and there is essentially no reason to believe that there's a connection between low turnout here and low engagement elsewhere in real elections. Never even mind that the people protesting and marching are the 10-12% voting in this election -- this is absolutely a case of preaching to the choir.

This is a totally unproductive look that ignores the cultural, economic, and institutional factors that drive vote patterns.

Just because someone has good politics doesn't mean they're right every time they whip you into an anxiety coma while yelling about how the world is gone to hell.

Aye, i think Sam missed the mark on this one. Look more at the Delaware state special elections, which were pretty good in terms of turnout and Dem vote share, as well as other special elections in which we retained normal vote share (which, bearing in mind that special elections are the worst of all regarding Democratic turnout, is a good thing!)

Montana and Georgia-6 will probably be the ones that really tell a story for 2018, though. Montana especially given Tester's re-election bid next year.

 

[pvpness]

Missed these. Sorry;

So they'll just sit out and take the Republicans instead... brilliant strategy.

Kinda. They're pushing hard (at least the ones I know) to get "Berniecrats" on tickets and when they don't they just move on to the next fight.

This is the problem. Refusing to compromise results in non-voting. When you don't vote, you're giving half a vote to the GOP by default.

They don't see it that way and I'm pretty sure they don't care that you do.

They're only being offered republican candidates?

Haha. It's funny, but they feel like the choice between a Republican and a Democrat isn't really a choice anymore.

With all due respect, your friends are ignorant morons.

The True Scottsman fallacy applied to candidates is a recipe for disaster if you can't be bothered to vote.

I don't think any respect is due at all honestly. You don't know them or me. I can tell you though that it was this exact attitude that pushed these people away from the Democrats. It doesn't seem to have done the Dems any favors in this last election either where they got their asses handed to them across the board. None of them wanted Trump, but none of them believed Democrats would serve their interests either and the Dems did absolutely nothing in their eyes to convince them otherwise. The opposite in fact.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Eh it's going to take a long time to change voter turnout for local elections. It's just at too low of a number to take a significant rise anytime soon, Trump or no Trump.

The mid term elections are going to be the test for Dems to see if they've learned anything and I think we'll see a sizable online campaign to increase turnout during that time. This local stuff gaining a boon this soon was always a pipe dream.

 

[Deepwater]

I'm aware that not every third party voter is progressive. Some are, I thought it was fairly clear what's what I was referring to since I was talking about swaying them to vote blue.

I never said they were the reason Hillary lost, but they sure as hell didn't help.

This thread is about why liberals didn't vote, is it not? I'm expressing my wonder at how people who would claim to hold liberal views (Busters and progressive third party voters) would not vote to prevent the country from going in the opposite direction of their desired policies.

Because being liberal doesn't mean you're any more likely to be a person who engages in critical thinking, as much as people left of the aisle would like to tell themselves.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Missed these. Sorry;



Kinda. They're pushing hard (at least the ones I know) to get "Berniecrats" on tickets and when they don't they just move on to the next fight.



They don't see it that way and I'm pretty sure they don't care that you do.



Haha. It's funny, but they feel like the choice between a Republican and a Democrat isn't really a choice anymore.



I don't think any respect is due at all honestly. You don't know them or me. I can tell you though that it was this exact attitude that pushed these people away from the Democrats. It doesn't seem to have done the Dems any favors in this last election either where they got their asses handed to them across the board. None of them wanted Trump, but none of them believed Democrats would serve their interests either and the Dems did absolutely nothing in their eyes to convince them otherwise. The opposite in fact.

And these people are morons who are actively hurting their cause because they can't accept that if neither one is going to help their cause, they should still pick the one who would hurt them the least. Being active in primarying is a good thing and absolutely something you should do if you don't like the direction of a party. But it's also necessary to accept that if the primaries don't go the way you want, you still need to vote for the lesser of two evils

 

[LizardKing]

i mean here's why she lost: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html



turnout was down in a few crucial states largely among the poor and minorities. a very small number went to trump, more went third party, and many more didn't vote. she did not even try to win these people over, probably because she didn't have any policies that would materially improve their lives.

This post nails why she lost. Except I wouldn't say she didn't have those policies she just didn't effectively communicate them. The democratic party has become very focused on identity and social equality. Social equality is all well and good but you don't win elections with minorities alone. Even the party is majority white. They haven't done a good job appealing to the common interests of both whites and minorities.

 

[cdyhybrid]

i mean here's why she lost: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html



turnout was down in a few crucial states largely among the poor and minorities. a very small number went to trump, more went third party, and many more didn't vote. she did not even try to win these people over, probably because she didn't have any policies that would materially improve their lives.

I mean, even if you ignore the part where keeping Trump out of the White House would be materially improving the lives of these people, that's a pretty silly assertion.

Because being liberal doesn't mean you're any more likely to be a person who engages in critical thinking, as much as people left of the aisle would like to tell themselves.

Indeed.

 

[LizardKing]

Because being liberal doesn't mean you're any more likely to be a person who engages in critical thinking, as much as people left of the aisle would like to tell themselves.

ehhhh....

Most liberals oppose increased military spending and the mixing of church and state. This ideological group differs from the traditional organized labor base. According to the Pew Research Center, a plurality of 41% resided in mass affluent households and 49% were college graduates, the highest figure of any typographical group. It was also the fastest growing typological group between the late 1990s and early 2000s.[59] Liberals include most of academia[60] and large portions of the professional class.[45][46][47]

So I'd say probably more likely yes. But necessarily? Not even close. You aren't going to be a group that is comprised of most of the nation's critical thinkers and academics and not be a group more likely of critical thinking.

 

[aeolist]

I mean, even if you ignore the part where keeping Trump out of the White House would be materially improving the lives of these people, that's a pretty silly assertion.

"i will hurt you less than the other guy" isn't a winning argument, especially when the other guy is promising the world

 

[Gattsu25]

Haha. It's funny, but they feel like the choice between a Republican and a Democrat isn't really a choice anymore.

Ahh, that makes sense based on inference. Sadly, being a minority means that the choice is much more cut and dry for me and others who would be affected by the Republican's policies. Apathy toward the many minority groups impacted by republicans' policies does seem to be a swelling problem in America these days.

 

[Staccat0]

Bad candidates. I know a lot of my friends who are considered liberal aren't voting because they feel they're only being offered neoliberal candidates. They're strangely optimistic about progressive candidates at the mid-terms tho.

This shit is so fucking stupid.
I'm sorry, but anyone who says this doesn't even understand what is happening. Not voting for a mayor or sherrif because of concerns about Neoliberalism and having optimism about midterms is comedically out of touch with how our government works. It's not an explanation or an excuse. It's just slacking.

 

[Dingens]

"the cost of voting" from Anthony Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy
go read it and you'll find the answer you're looking for

I want to give you a short break down... but that's usually not the best thing to to with complex issues like this
Basically: the cost of voting (time, all kinds of hassles...) doesn't out-way the expected returns (like favourable policy...). Costs can be lowered and raised through policy, for example mandatory voter registration raises the cost whereas Sunday voting or a 2-day voting period lowers it (significantly)
edit: at the same time, bad options may reduce the returns... like shitty candidates

 

[Deepwater]

ehhhh....



So I'd say probably more likely yes. But necessarily? Not even close.

college nowadays don't prepare you for critical thinking, they prepare you for jobs and careers. I get what you're saying, but I reject the idea that liberals are any less likely than conservatives from voting (or abstaining) against their interests.

 

[Nafai1123]

"Can we all agree that everyone should vote?"

"No, I disagree because x, y, z."

-The Liberal Conundrum

 

[whyamihere]

Hot take: liberal is starting to leave the vocab as just meaning "left wing" because American liberalism as a tradition is mostly dead now as the Democrats have increasingly become more a party in the Hamilton mold while rejecting its Jeffersonian roots. That's not even an indictment, just an observation.

Hotter take: liberalism still means left-wing to everyone except the left, and no one outside of Jacobin circles knows what that means when you guys say liberal vs. leftist.

Liberalism is leaving the vocabulary because to many, it means far left. That's why Democrats use progressive, not liberal. You wouldn't see any politician on twitter describe themselves as a "liberal Democrat" why Republicans often describe themselves as "conservative Republican"s.

 

[boiled goose]

Need someone to vote for, not just someone to vote against.

See 08

 

[Boney]

I'm aware that not every third party voter is progressive. Some are, I thought it was fairly clear that's what I was referring to since I was talking about swaying them to vote blue.

I never said they were the reason Hillary lost, but they sure as hell didn't help.

This thread is about why liberals didn't vote, is it not? I'm expressing my wonder at how people who would claim to hold liberal views (Busters and progressive third party voters) would not vote to prevent the country from going in the opposite direction of their desired policies.

Because people have political leverage. If the democratic party wants more green party votes, then they should adapt more green party policies. It's not rocket science

"the cost of voting" from Anthony Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy
go read it and you'll find the answer you're looking for

I want to give you a short break down... but that's usually not the best thing to to with complex issues like this
Basically: the cost of voting (time, all kinds of hassles...) doesn't out-way the expected returns (like favourable policy...). Costs can be lowered and raised through policy, for example mandatory voter registration raises the cost whereas Sunday voting or a 2-day voting period lowers it (significantly)
edit: at the same time, bad options may reduce the returns... like shitty candidates

I covered this same line of argument from the sociological point of view of Zygmund Bauman, where social rights and political rights reinforce each other and both are needed for their survival. If the state, ceases to be a social state, then the political vote ceases to have the social power it's supposed to have.

 

[Brazil]

Old people have time on their hands and are more typically right-leaning. As a result, we're typically going to be only as liberal as the average retired person.

Fuck that. You don't need "time on your hands" to be a freaking citizen.

US Democrats deserve the hell they currently live in.

 

[whyamihere]

oh my god turnout has been up in almost every single special election since the 08 election except for the LA county elections, and we still don't know what the official turnout is of that election because of mail in ballots.

Jesus christ, Sam. LOOK WHAT YOU DID.

 

[cdyhybrid]

"i will hurt you less than the other guy" isn't a winning argument, especially when the other guy is promising the world

I mean, clearly it's not a winning argument, since Hillary lost.

That's kind of the point though. There was a clear opportunity to prevent a lot of people from suffering and some people just said "eh, not convincing enough".

 

[Tranqueris]

The LA vote is pretty confusing now that I think about it. I think California elections can be done by voting by mail. So if you voted by mail in November and you have that as your preference, then they should have sent everyone there a ballot in the mail. Unless the really local city elections are only done in person, which would be weird.

 

[aeolist]

I mean, clearly it's not a winning argument, since Hillary lost.

That's kind of the point though. There was a clear opportunity to prevent a lot of people from suffering and some people just said "eh, not convincing enough".

so the party can either insult non-voters or try to figure out what will work. seems like an easy choice to me.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Fuck that. You don't need "time on your hands" to be a freaking citizen.

US Democrats deserve the hell they currently live in.

this narrative that the voters cant ever be blamed is why we're here to begin with tbh lol

 

[Deepwater]

I mean, clearly it's not a winning argument, since Hillary lost.

That's kind of the point though. There was a clear opportunity to prevent a lot of people from suffering and some people just said "eh, not convincing enough".

I mean, could we apply that logic to John Kerry losing to Bush in 2004?

I'm being serious, not rhetorical btw

 

[whyamihere]

You can simultaneously admonish the idea that people wouldn't vote or not see the difference between two candidates as private people on a message board while also hoping that the broader center left-wing party in the country would find a way to win back the voters in this election.

 

[cdyhybrid]

so the party can either insult non-voters or try to figure out what will work. seems like an easy choice to me.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can't fathom a world where my perception of being insulted by a political party would keep me from voting against a white nationalist candidate.

I mean, could we apply that logic to John Kerry losing to Bush in 2004?

I'm being serious, not rhetorical btw

Probably, but I'd say this particular election was even worse than that.

 

[GustyGardens]

Most people that I encountered didn't realize that it was voting day. We had polling places set up throughout the county, but not near as much as we did back in November. That's mostly because it's a smaller scale election.

If it's not the president, the people seem not to care. Back in November, there were a number of people that left a majority of their ballot blank because they were uninformed about anything that wasn't Hillary vs. Trump.

 

[LizardKing]

college nowadays don't prepare you for critical thinking, they prepare you for jobs and careers. I get what you're saying, but I reject the idea that liberals are any less likely than conservatives from voting (or abstaining) against their interests.

Not just college graduates but most of professional academia. These are the big group of critical thinkers of the world whether college prepared them for that or not. So as a group they are probably more prone to critical thinking. Is voting against one's own interest always a bad thing? I'm white and have money but will vote for equality and social programs to my own personal detriment because it makes a better society. That is many of what forms the liberal group so you are right about voting against one's own interests but I think it's hard to say that's inherently wrong though, and it's more about your ideals. Do you favor the individual or the society? The republican party is 90% white and straight and they vote in their own interest with racist and discriminatory policy (also economically).

I guess I can't say I'm totally voting against my own interests because I believe a rising tide lifts all ships, but I will never tangibly know if I'm voting in my interest.

 

[afternoon delight]

As someone who's campaigned for Democrats in multiple elections, I expect little to no change in 2018 and a Trump 2020 win. Sure, Americans will talk some shit on a phone before they go back to dinner to a pollster, but actually show up and vote in large organized numbers for liberal candidates? A rare feat.

 

[whyamihere]

As someone who's campaigned for Democrats in multiple elections, I expect little to no change in 2018 and a Trump 2020 win. Sure, Americans will talk some shit on a phone before they go back to dinner to a pollster, but actually show up and vote in large organized numbers for liberal candidates? A rare feat.

Well, if we don't do the work, then sure. Hope is lost.

 

[thepotatoman]

Thank you! Did they happen everywhere? Are there other elections this year? I keep searching and all city websites seem like they were made in the latter half of the 90's.

Ballotpedia has 2017 dates for a lot of cities and special elections:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:Calendar

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_municipal_elections,_2017

You kinda just have to keep an eye out for special elections since there's no real set date for them.

 

[pvpness]

And these people are morons who are actively hurting their cause because they can't accept that if neither one is going to help their cause, they should still pick the one who would hurt them the least. Being active in primarying is a good thing and absolutely something you should do if you don't like the direction of a party. But it's also necessary to accept that if the primaries don't go the way you want, you still need to vote for the lesser of two evils

Heh. Believe me when I tell you I've had this conversation with them enough times to know that they would say that voting the lesser of two evils is what got us choosing between evil and evil. They don't think that one candidate is going to hurt them less anymore.

Ahh, that makes sense based on inference. Sadly, being a minority means that the choice is much more cut and dry for me and others who would be affected by the Republican's policies. Apathy toward the many minority groups impacted by republicans' policies does seem to be a swelling problem in America these days.

It's a thing for sure. Some of these cats are PoC and are every bit as angry and fanatical about their "Bernie or Bust" ideology as the whites they stand next too. I've had at length discussions where it's proposed that Hillary was just as bad for PoC as Trump was. Super Predators. Heh.

This shit is so fucking stupid.
I'm sorry, but anyone who says this doesn't even understand what is happening. Not voting for a mayor or sherrif because of concerns about Neoliberalism and having optimism about midterms is comedically out of touch with how our government works. It's not an explanation or an excuse. It's just slacking.

Shrug. Maybe. What I'm seeing is that they won't vote for anybody at this point that has money or comes from money. I least I think that's the common denominator. At least for candidates that don't immediately strike out with them through policy alone.

 

[cdyhybrid]

You can simultaneously admonish the idea that people wouldn't vote or not see the difference between two candidates as private people on a message board while also hoping that the broader center left-wing party in the country would find a way to win back the voters in this election.

Yep. I'm not saying the party didn't fuck this up, I'm saying I can't believe people didn't bail the party out regardless because there was so much at stake.

 

[Deepwater]

Not just college graduates most most of professional academia. These are the big group of critical thinkers of the world whether college prepared them for that or not. Is voting against one's own interest always a bad thing? I'm white and have money but will vote for equality and social programs to my own personal detriment because it makes a better society. That is many of what forms the liberal group so you are right. I think it's hard to say voting against your own interest is inherently wrong though, and it's more about your ideals. Do you favor the individual or the society? The republican party is 90% white and straight and they vote in their own interest with racist and discriminatory policy.

I see what you're saying, but public programs, even if you don't directly benefit from them, still have an indirect benefit on your day-to-day. Entitlement programs drive poverty down, which definitely reduces the likelihood of, for example, you being robbed in broad daylight. If you're man, even family planning programs like free IUDs, abortions, etc. end up producing an economic net positive for a state/government that would be preferential to the lack thereof.

But that's all perception. Because nobody thinks about the cost saving state funded contraception does, but rather the misguided moral and faux religious aspects of the topic. Perception is central to this idea of voting against your interests, but I wouldn't say a straight white male voting for a progressive candidate who wants to increase entitlements to minorities is necessarily voting against their interests.

A rural white voter in west virginia voting for a candidate who wants to make it easier for coal mining companies to play fast and loose with your health is voting against your interests.

But I see what you're saying, and I wish I could enunciate my point clearer but it would be significantly more long form

 

[Bakercat]

To all the lurkers in this thread that can't or won't speak their mind, get out and vote!

 

[aeolist]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can't fathom a world where my perception of being insulted by a political party would keep me from voting against a white nationalist candidate.

if the democratic party is as bad as you are at understanding american voters (which seems likely) then get ready for trump to win again in 2020

 

[faisal233]

Bad candidates. I know a lot of my friends who are considered liberal aren't voting because they feel they're only being offered neoliberal candidates. They're strangely optimistic about progressive candidates at the mid-terms tho.

Bernie has done more damage to the progressive cause that any republican can.

 

[cdyhybrid]

if the democratic party is as bad as you are at understanding american voters (which seems likely) then get ready for trump to win again in 2020

No, I understand them just fine. That's why I have a problem with them.

 

[afternoon delight]

Well, if we don't do the work, then sure. Hope is lost.

No it's not that- hope is never lost when you look at it over a long enough timeline. But don't expect "doing the work" to be enough, sometimes, the mood of the country is going to want a red scare and we're going to pass the Patriot Act part three whether we like it or not.

That doesn't mean fighting against it is worthless.

 

[BstnRich]

Did you expect quality, factual commentary from an internet forum?

Oh, you did?

Well, do I have the President for you...

 

[LizardKing]

I see what you're saying, but public programs, even if you don't directly benefit from them, still have an indirect benefit on your day-to-day. Entitlement programs drive poverty down, which definitely reduces the likelihood of, for example, you being robbed in broad daylight. If you're man, even family planning programs like free IUDs, abortions, etc. end up producing an economic net positive for a state/government that would be preferential to the lack thereof.

But that's all perception. Because nobody thinks about the cost saving state funded contraception does, but rather the misguided moral and faux religious aspects of the topic. Perception is central to this idea of voting against your interests, but I wouldn't say a straight white male voting for a progressive candidate who wants to increase entitlements to minorities is necessarily voting against their interests.

A rural white voter in west virginia voting for a candidate who wants to make it easier for coal mining companies to play fast and loose with your health is voting against your interests.

But I see what you're saying, and I wish I could enunciate my point clearer but it would be significantly more long form

I think I get what you're saying which is why I edited with...

I guess I can't say I'm totally voting against my own interests because I believe a rising tide lifts all ships, but I will never tangibly know if I'm voting in my interest.

Which is true in all ways such as like you said less poverty = less crime. That probably affects me. I believe that equality in all forms creates a better society with better lives for most individuals and I can't know if I would be better off as a straight white male voting that way or not but it's what I believe. And many republicans do vote against their own interest, but many also vote for their selfish interests. They will sacrifice a small issue for the larger greedy whole. Most think healthcare won't affect them, and they sure hate paying that medicare tax to those "lazy" poors for example.

 

[Gattsu25]

It's a thing for sure. Some of these cats are PoC and are every bit as angry and fanatical about their "Bernie or Bust" ideology as the whites they stand next too. I've had at length discussions where it's proposed that Hillary was just as bad for PoC as Trump was. Super Predators. Heh.

My cousin hit me with that "Obama has done less for black people than Trump" business at a family get together (this was in March '16) and the entire table was dumbfounded for a few minutes. Not sure what to do in those cases :S