Slashdot Mirror
Ted Stevens Loses Senate Re-Election Bid
JakartaDean writes "Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, famed Internet regulator, has lost his Senate seat. The AP is reporting that 'Stevens was declared the loser in Alaska on Tuesday night after a two-week-long process of counting nearly 90,000 absentee and early votes from across Alaska. With this victory, Democrat Mark Begich (the mayor of Anchorage) has defeated one of the giants in the US Senate by a 3,724-vote margin, a stunning end to a 40-year Senate career marred by Stevens' conviction on corruption charges a week before the election.' It's probably too early to tell what this means for Internet regulation, but at least there's a > 0 chance that the next committee chair will understand something about the Net."
Senator Stevens re-election bid is down the tubes.
that it got this close. I figured this would be an absolute stomping after Senator Tubes became a convicted felon.
Alchemist: Be Thou For the People
Has his career gone down the tubes, or did his career fall off the back of a truck? It's just so confusing...
Perhaps there really is a future in USA.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
One last time, because it's got a good techno beat. DJ Ted Stevens, "A Series of Tubes"
This means Palin won't get the Senate seat (Senate would have kicked Stevens out if he won) as a staging post for her national ambition.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Is this Nerd News because Senator Stevens was once in charge of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation?
Someone might want to tell poor kdawson that Senator Stevens hasn't been in charge of that committee for nearly two years.
Stevens goes bye bye and the tubes are already breaking down! Slashdot stories disappearing, seas boiling, dogs and cats living together!!!!
This is the end!
If Stevens had won, Sarah Palin would have probably been their next senator. Stevens would have been thrown out in January and it would be up to Governor Palin to appoint his successor until the 2010 elections. She would have most certainly appointed herself.
You mean it's actually possible to be more of a socialist for Alaska than Ted Stevens?!
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
The man may have made news for his stupid comments. But remember he was put in charge by his fellow citizens. And now we will be paying him to sit around and do nothing for the rest of his life. So who really is the fool?
As a vicious, corrupt scam artist (and convicted felon) whose major contribution to American politics was to funnel millions of taxpayers dollars into one "Bridge to Nowhere" after another, Ted Stevens is the perfect representative of one of the most influential segments of the internet community: spammers.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This is just really sad. Ted Stevens played a greater role in the development of Alaska as a state than any other person. Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
This is not to defend him. I disagreed with a lot of what he did. (Well, to be more accurate, I disagree with him and all the Robert Byrds, etc who stuffed their states full of pork at the expense of the nation. But at least Stevens had the excuse that Alaska really got a hugely raw deal in its statehood compact, and the lack of fulfillment thereof by the federal government.)
Stevens eventually became exhibit A in the argument for term limits. Well OK, Exhibit C after Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.) When you are in office that long, you just naturally begin to believe that that office is YOURS, it belongs to YOU. And it's not fair that after your decades of able public service, your buddies on K Street are all filthy rich while you make a tenth of what they do. After all the billions you've brought to your state, who could possibly begrudge you $10,000 here or there? Heck, you DESERVE it!
I just want to point out that at one time, there was more to Stevens' career than this, including distinguished service in the Army Air Corps in WWII.
- Alaska Jack
I dunno how you can really blame the Democrats for this one, given how Republican-dominated Alaska is - the Democrats simply don't have the power to pull something underhanded. Both parties push this kind of legal crap when they feel it's in their favor. This election was Stevens' to lose, and he did so in spectacular fashion by being convicted on corruption charges (and then, somehow, claiming that he'd never been convicted. WTF?).
recounts
Funny how the republicans cry about "recounts" when what was being counted was the absentee ballots for the first time.
Look at it this way: at least convicted criminals serving in Congress remains a Democrat pasttime and you can continue to thump your values from your high ground without being abject hypocrites and without resorting to kindergarten cries of "but the Democrats!" Except when discussing Bush, because we all know the Republicans wish that Bush was half as awesome as Clinton was.
a toilet sits atop a series of tubes, with which the electorate flushes you to hell
adios, douchebag
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
a) Fraudulent ballots are being added for the Democratic candidate in the midst of the recount.
b) For whatever reason, more valid democratic ballots went uncounted during the first counting.
Since recounts are heavily observed by both sides, I find option a to be unlikely. To be perfectly accurate however, the Alaska race was never recounted - they just finished counting all the ballots (absentee and so on take longer) for the first time. Despite this, given the closeness of race, I find it hard to believe that election monitors for either side would have been so incompetent as to allow the level of fraud that you suggest.
Now, GTFO of DC, don't collect $200, and go straight to prison!
You mean it's actually possible to be less trustworthy on rights than the Republicans?!
Rights wise, you trust Republicans more than Democrats?
You mean the republicans who fought against civil rights for blacks, gays, and immigrants, and are always looking for ways to suppress the vote? Or the the republicans behind the Terry Schiavo debacle? Or the republicans who decided pornography and medical marijuana were among the top priorities at the DOJ? Those republicans? Or the republicans who were basically 100% for the PATRIOT act, gutting FISA, and legalized torture?
Those are the people you think are looking out for your civil rights? I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect on civil rights, but dedication to civil rights seems to be much more of a liberal issue (witness right-wing attacks on the ACLU).
Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
Alaskans get $1.85 back for every $1.00 they pay to the Federal Gov't.
So Ted Stevens played a huge role in developing Alaska on my dime. I don't need to laud him for that.
What was wrong with the Alaskan statehood compact? From what I can tell, the Federal government purchased Alaska from Russian. Then turns some of the land over to the state of Alaska? And Alaska gets to charge severance tax on oil taken up there?
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
She's going to run against a Republican incumbent? That should be entertaining.
Buy Cisco. Sell tubing manufacturers.
Have gnu, will travel.
You mean it's actually possible to be more of a socialist for Alaska than Ted Stevens?!
You do know that to be an actual socialist (as opposed to a cable-news caricature of one), you have to do more than just spend bucketloads of money on any random thing, right?
This is neither surprising nor unusual.
For a number of reasons provisional and absentee ballots have historically tended to favor democrats. These include the tendency for the poor & the elderly to vote democratic, as well as democratic voter outreach programs that focus on absentee ballots to lock in the vote early.
Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
While this is certainly true, his failure of reelection has nothing whatsoever to do with any committee chairmanship, since the Democrats control the committee chairmanships in both House and Senate, and they weren't going to pick a Republican no matter what the result of the Alaska Senatorial race.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Did you mistake this site for Digg?
Yeah because there's so many black republicans. Blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat poindexter, regardless of the candidates skin color.
It's as if there is a whole army of nutjobs waiting in the wings for an Obama victory just to be able to post the same message on every thread even tangentially related to politics.
I'm sure this troll will get boring over the next four years.
Yes, and if only those damned white people hadn't voted for him too!!
If only >51% had voted McCain, we'd have some other president-elect!
This post brought to you by a white man who seriously does not give a shit what color his current corrupt political representative is on the outside.
I can definitely understand why a public servant would think that...that's why I advocate paying all of them alot more.
How about somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million a year for president? Can you name one single more important job in America (or hell the world)? CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars...we need to adequately compensate the President so that other, lower ranks can be raised (no one in the gov't can make more than the prez)
Everyone from president on down to your local cop and teach should make more...even your E-1 (lowest rank) military need a healthy (50% plus much better tuition assistance at least) raise.
I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I hate the free market. The free market is a reality of our system and it only makes sense to use that to our advantage.
If all public servants made significantly more money, we would have a renaissance in those seeking employment.
I can speak from personal and second hand experience that many, many talented and service minded people forgo public service because with things like student loans, etc. it just isn't a financially solvent path.
This idea has plenty of historical president...the Mandarins in China for example.
It's all about incentives...we should REWARD those who desire to serve...pay 'em what they're worth
Thank you Dave Raggett
I won't 100% disagree with you on this one, but remember correlation != causation. How can you be sure that the majority of people that voted for McCain aren't simply rich, white republicans? Maybe there's statically lower number of rich, black republicans, and that was one of the more overwhelming factors for them voting Obama. It is a known fact that people tend to vote for people that are most like them. I'm sure you would find, for example, that the percentage of woman that would have voted for Hilary Clinton would have been particularly high.
Except that all of the results so far in those races have been from the first count. Nice try, though!
...governor. Now it will have it for a while longer.
The only shame is that this will be an end to the "series of tubes" jokes.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect on civil rights, but dedication to civil rights seems to be much more of a liberal issue (witness right-wing attacks on the ACLU).
I disagree... civil rights isn't an issue for either side. They'll pay it lip service when politically expedient, but neither side gives a damn about our individual rights.
Why did you even post the first half of your post when it's obvious that you knew that it wasn't a recount?
Democrat != socialist. Democrats are really center-right, when you get down to it.
Honestly, it's because I typed the first half of my post, then thought "wait a second, there's no way that a recount could have been completed so soon" and looked up the status of it. The first half of the post still applies, however, despite it not being an actual recount. As I noted, the closeness of the race ensures that many more people will be observing the count, which makes it significantly more difficult to fraudulently alter the results of the election. Rereading my post, I shouldn't have assumed that others would be able to follow my train of thought based on what I'd written.
What does this rant have to do with Ted Stevens? He lost because during his trial a large number of Alaskans thought he looked like a lying politician. The people who voted early (during the trial) overwhelmingly voted for Begich.
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
...governor. Now it will have one for a while longer. The only shame is that this will be an end to the "series of tubes" jokes.
...governor and I forget who it is.
How true, it's a shame that someone had mod points to knock it and the next post down.
Now the series of tubes will be replaced by a series of tubular shaped bars.
(Score:1, Flamebait)
I guess someone wanted "Disagree" and thought that was the replacement.
Presidents (well, Ford at least) have issued full and unconditional pardons for any acts that may have been committed.
Then there is nothing sad about it. I know that I will not find it in any way sore to lose a fair and competetive *democratic* election (from experience - although it was not any political election). Neither should Stevens.
But of course, we know that (very) few politicians tend to get "power hungry" after a while. And very few also get a bit "money hungry". It is the fate of someone detached from the real world for a long while that he gets sensitive to these kinds of things. This is what Stevens did not evade, and this is why he lost - twice. This should say enough about this person. Yes, there are shades of grey and black and purple and who knows what, but some things are very clear, and anyone can understand the words: 'corrupt' and 'politician' put together in one sentence.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
(Score:..., Flamebait)
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The only shame is that this will be an end to the "series of tubes" jokes.
Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!
No, this person is. Besides, that person's been there for ages on /.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Uh Hillary lost because she was a bitch,and I don't mean female. Most saw her as a headline grabbing,what do the polls say I should be for/against this week bitch. So sorry Mr. Troll,but Hillary didn't lose because she was white. She lost because her negative rating was through the roof. Hillary Clinton has always seemed to be one of those whom you either think is the greatest thing since sliced bread,or a super giant megabitch. Whereas Obama just didn't have all the negative baggage being drug behind him that Hillary did. So if you want to make this about race you might want to pick something to make your point OTHER than Hillary Clinton,because frankly I know more than enough whites that can't stand her to know if it would have been her against McSame we would be having Bush part III.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals
See also 1968
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
maybe he doesn't want his right to beat black athiest communist gays as they enter the country while wearing ghost outfits and claiming it was a terrorist taken away from him.
Republicans arn't the same party platform as people who remember what republicanism really means. It has changed gears. Libertarian is a better description for "classic" republican idealogy.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I guess you can say that his political career has "gone down the tubes".
(I'm truly sorry. I just could not resist the urge to make that joke.....)
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Nick Begich is his brother, having written the book about the HAARP array (or whatever you call it) and their famous father disappeared in a plane crash over Alaska. So you have this well known family up there which is very cool. Yes, I am a sucker for anyone who I have heard on the radio, but I am not an American, so I can't vote based on my silliness.
Rights wise, I really, really can't trust Democrats. :)
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you been sleeping through the last 40 years?
She'll just have to comfort herself with her book deal.
"Look at the elegance of the hand-tooled leather binding," said the Conservative Book Club, "the archival quality acid-free paper! Every copy will also come with a set of 100% all-American-made red, white and blue crayons to color it in."
Despite Palin's failure to secure the groups that McCain strategists hoped she might deliver - women, independent voters, suburbanites, those with ten fingers - her supporters insisted that she should not be blamed for McCain's shortcomings or Bush's failures. "It were all the fault o' them Muslin terr'ists," said political commentator Joe the Plumber.
Current projections show Palin taking 95% of 25% of the electorate. "I was against the bank bailout from the first," said Palin. "Lookit the rekerd. It was this governor, not that one! You betcha!"
*shudder*
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Believe it!
Convicted Felon Ted Stevens Fails to be Re-Elected in Alaska
The man's a republican, and he deserves to be judged by the GOP definition of socialism: taking my money and giving it to someone else. Stevens has been enormously successful at taking money from us in the lower 48 states and giving it to Alaska; ergo: socialist. If you want to be more literal about it, he's taking tax money from wealthy Contiguous US billionaires and distributing it to working class Alaskans.
There's a simple reason for this, though - the last votes to get counted are absentee ballots, other early votes, and the like - and democrats are for some reason more likely to use those ways of voting.
Reminds me of my dear departed bolshie Uncle Ivan. Ivan wasn't really a communist, although he was a socialist by inclination. The reason could never be a communist was that more than anything else, he was a cynic.
"Kid," Ivan used to say, "nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's socialism for me, capitalism for you."
Wherever he is, he's been reading the newspapers the last couple of months and laughing his ass off.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't feed the trolls. As in, don't reply to them, because then it takes more mod points to make the troll's thread dissapear.
How could a Republican chair a committee when the Democrats control the Senate?
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Provided Stevens doesn't ask for a recount, and accepts defeat, the republicans won't have to hold the vote that they postponed yesterday regarding his status as a senator. This time they can just let the people dismiss their convict friend from the US Senate for them.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Perhaps the Republican party of 1964 is not the same as in 2008? Those stats are laudable. However, party value systems change over time, and the GOP has been pretty shameless about its current priorities while in power.
Considering that nearly a third of the ballots - many of them from Begich-leaning districts - were not included in the first official count, I'd go with (b).
Lots of info here, from a relatively well-respected source: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/alaska
Also, provisional and questioned ballots tend to favor Democrats, for a number of reasons - here's an analysis of why Dems tend to pick up votes in a recount:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/frankens-odds-of-winning-recount-may-be.html
Well, this wasn't a recount, it was a count of absentee and early votes. Given the amount Republican candidates overperformed on Election Day in Alaska (probably Democrats stayed home with the election decided and Begich with a strong polling lead) and the better Democratic Early Voting turnout this year, the switch isn't too surprising.
The Franken/Coleman race hasn't been recounted, and corrections of the vote have gone both ways (it went slightly back towards Coleman recently).
And recounts usually go slightly Democratic because they:
1) Are hand counts, and therefore run into fewer undervotes and overvotes than scan machines; undervotes and overvotes are more common among less affluent, Democratic voters.
2) Later counts (recounts or otherwise) are the first to deal with provisional ballots, which are more common among less affluent voters, and also first time voters (which are also heavily democratic this year).
As opposed to 2004, where only 88% of black voters went for the Democrat. Or 2000, where only 90% of them did.
Curse those 5% extra racist black voters! I'm sure 5% of 11% of the voters swung the race...that's 1.1% of the vote! I'm sure that vastly outnumbered the amount of racist white voters who voted against Obama because of his skin color.
Of course, since 2004, the Republicans let a majorly-black American city drown, but I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with the 5% of blacks that switched sides. (Surely if that had pissed people off, the 2006 election would have been a landslide for Democrats, and that didn't happen. Wait, I've been informed that did happen, silly me.)
Now to explain the huge percent shift in the under 30 vote. Perhaps many of them are secretly black. Or perhaps they're just sick and fucking tired of Republicans ruining their future.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The only of those races in which a recount was completed is the WA governor's race. The progressive tightening of this race and the Franken/Coleman race in which a recount was triggered (but has not been done yet) was the completion of the first count. Election night returns -- even that include 100% of precincts -- do not usually include 100% of the vote from each of those precincts. Various ballots (provisional ballots, absentee ballots that arrive on the day of the election, possibly early/absentee ballots in general depending on local procedures) require additional verification that prevents them from being counted until after the in-person ballots cast on election day. For a number of reasons, its not uncommon for these ballots to be more favorable to Democrats in general, and those trends may have been reinforced in this election where there were lots of new Democratic voters and a big effort by the Obama campaign to get people to vote early, so the initial election night count (which isn't a full count of all ballots cast in the election) of many races was less favorable to Democrats than the full count.
Well, even in a pure recount it's possible that machine-unreadable ballots may occur with slightly higher numbers in districts that lean one way or another. And when they're finally counted it's likely that the uncounted ballots will on average tend to be resolved to votes that lean in the same direction as the district they're in. So the difference between the original count and the recount may not just be random noise, it might give an advantage to one side or the other.
The uneven distribution of problematic ballots could be because the quality of voting machines or election workers varies somehow, or could be demographics (e.g. ballots from older voters, or younger voters, or new voters, might on average have slightly higher error rates than others).
Normally you'd expect these effects to be too small to matter, but in a race like say Minnesota, where the difference between candidates is about a hundredth of a percent, they might decide the election.
Actually, machine unreadable ballots occur in significantly higher numbers in precincts that lean Democratic, particularly in heavily minority districts; this is pretty much true nationwide.
I have to agree entirely. Hilary lost because she insisted on being in the spotlight for years leading up the the campaign; this is the main reason her supporters and haters were so divided. The problem with this was, all the usual campaign hand-waiving and distractions can't change the mind of voters who made up their minds years before.
She lost my vote early on when she revealed her true colors as a censorship machine. First she tried to to censor video games for violence at the federal level (thankfully, it failed to garner support). Then she promised if elected that she would protect us from computer-generated porn and violence.
Sure, this got her the over-protective mom vote, but the rest of the rational people in this country realized how stupid this all was. A person with this kind of "censor everything" agenda would only grab for more if you gave an inch. It was more than enough for me to vote against her.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
This wasn't a recount in Alaska, and it's not a recount in WA either, ya moron. It's the count.
As for why they both headed Democratic, it's because they're counting absentee ballots and absentee ballots tend to lean Democratic.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ummm... it wasn't "overwhelmingly". A large percentage (46%) of people evidently are not paying attention OR are hard core party line voters.
Your comment suggests he isn't a "lying politician". The guy giving the gifts testified against him. You'd think he knows what was going on huh?
Go sull up somewhere else hoss. I hear RushIsRight.com is looking for people to cry with.
You were doing pretty well at showing the inferiority of Republicans to Democrats, until you listed those things. The Democrats are in strong agreement with Republicans on those issues. The Democrats vote to outlaw porn, they vote to outlaw drugs, they voted for PATRIOT, and the voted for the FISA amendment. The Republicans suck, but I assure you, if you are an American, the Democrats are your enemy also.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Fair enough... but thankfully, the gap has widened enough that there is no automatic recount - if they want a recount, either the Republicans or Stevens will have to pay for it out of pocket.
I somehow doubt the Republicans are going to want to do anything but cover their own tails right now.
Of course, this is Alaska... sometimes I find myself stunned by the odd political maneuvering we can get here.
that is a pretty darn good idea. Hmmmm. I wonder if Rove would out W.? From the ppl that I know, that knows him, it sounds like he and W are the most spineless of them all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Term limits are a cure that is worse than the disease. If a politician knows he has only so many years left in office, he'll be looking for his next career. And what's going to help him get a better career: doing the people's business, or selling the people out to the wealthy and the powerful?
Term limits wont eliminate the Ted Stevens or the Duke Cunninghams - it'll get them started earlier.
It was a Republican argument of convenience, but I repeat myself. Before Palin was nominated, even Republican hacks like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan treated the possibility as a joke. Or just look at Karl Rove's comments on mayor/governors when he thought Obama might pick Tim Kaine of Virginia:
Consistency: the mortal enemy of Republicans.
I have to agree entirely. Hilary lost because she insisted on being in the spotlight for years leading up the the campaign; this is the main reason her supporters and haters were so divided.
No. The #1 reason she lost was her support of the Iraq war and refusal to apologize for it. If she had opposed the war from the beginning like Obama, she would have had the blowout victory on Super Tuesday that she was expecting.
But she still could have had this in the bag if she and her team weren't so damned arrogant. They completely ignored the caucus states, which was how Obama sealed the deal with his 11 state shutout in February. They went all in on a one-two punch with Iowa and New Hampshire and thought Super Tuesday would seal the deal.
She lost my vote early on when she revealed her true colors as a censorship machine.
Flag burning. Don't forget the flag burning. But she's not so much a censorship machine as a pandering machine.
You were doing pretty well at showing the inferiority of Republicans to Democrats, until you listed those things.
Nope, he's still doing fine.
Some Democrats are in strong agreement with Republicans on those issues. Some Democrats vote to outlaw porn, they vote to outlaw drugs, they voted for PATRIOT, and the voted for the FISA amendment.
Fixed that for you. Many Dems should be tossed out of office (Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller), but it's better to have a partly rotten party than a 100% rotten party.
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
I would suggest any two of the following for you:
1. castration by way of a bench vise @one turn per hour
2. HALO jump from 15,000 feet with a bandanna for a 'chute
3. skinny-dipping with piranhas
4. 'snake charming' a nest of vipers with bagpipes
Racism is so last century.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
William Jefferson D-New Orleans AKA the cold cash democrat was re-elected by a wide margin.
Obama got roughly 95% of the black vote. His third largest block by percentage were Jews, 80%, But the second largest block, 90%, were Jew haters. So go figure. Somebody is going to be quite surprised.
4. 'snake charming' a nest of vipers with bagpipes
That's an AWESOME mental image. A scottish snake charmer.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
hey retards : ted stevens (republican) hasn't chaired a committee since 2004.
Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997 to 2005, except for the 18 months when Democrats controlled the chamber. The chairmanship gave Stevens considerable influence among fellow Senators, who relied on him for home-state project funds. Due to Republican Party rules that limited committee chairmanships to six years, Stevens gave up the Appropriations gavel at the start of the 109th Congress, in January 2005. He chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the 109th Congress.
Herp Derp
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.