It is. Typo.

And I think Ralph Wiggum should be included just for that extended meta

Need to add Ralph Wiggum somehow

She’s his colleague. Maybe even work wife, even if they’ve only spoken via teams telefax.

I played a lot of D&D back in the day, and while I’m normally not a superstitious person, we did have a dice jail for poorly performing dice. That light blue d20 was a repeat offender.

Yes; pollsters and advertising platforms. They’ve got to be raking it in these days.

BuT tHeY wErE WrOnG iN 2016!1

Yes, and no. They estimated a slightly higher chance for a Hillary win over a Donald win, but they were well within the margin of polling error, and they have been for every election. Plus people have a tendency of over-valuing a “51% chance to win”.

While this is good news, it could mean nothing.

EDIT: 538 explained it better than I ever could:
"Statistically, too, there is no meaningful difference between a 50-in-100 chance and a 49-in-100 chance. Small changes in the available polling data or settings of our model could easily change a 50-in-100 edge to 51-in-100 or 49-in-100. That’s all to say that our overall characterization of the race is more important than the precise probability — or which candidate is technically ahead.”

I learned a while back that his distinctive voice is not actually his voice. It’s one he puts on as it works well for the characters he tends to play.

I was actually pretty late in watching Star Trek (but once I did, I fully committed. Started with the original series, then watched all episodes of every series), so I first noticed him in The 4400s. Seeing him in Star Trek again was so much fun.