Here's a recent poll where Michele Obama came out more than two margins of errors of ahead of Trump.
Also, here's a pile of salt.

Vanilla extract.

They lose their flavor pretty quickly if you keep them on the counter.

Is the distinction more than pedantic?

Edit: I get the connotation that being hung means your dong is admirable. But in terms of the past tense of hang, both hanged and hung seem to be valid options such as in "I hung the laundry". And the alternative, "I hanged the laundry" sounds wrong. So pendantry?

It is most certainly not a small sample size. It's what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here's a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

With an 11 point margin, there's a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She's able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don't make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

* The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

A list crypto-Trumpists:

• The New York Times: "If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him."
• David Remnick of The New Yorker: "For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy—it risks the election and, most important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed as central to his Presidency and essential to the future."
• The Economist: "There are a lot of arguments for resisting such a drastic step, but the main one is that the election is barely four months away. That may be enough time for Mr Biden to recover in the polls. But with the Democratic convention in August, it would be too brief for the party to find another candidate who could campaign and win. Replacing him could divide Democrats at a time when they need to stay united. Those assertions may have been convincing once. Not any more."
• Chicago Tribune
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You're underplaying the severity of his failure. All of these publications understand what you're saying. Every single one of them know that creating uncertainty now is risky, but in their calculations, it's worth it. I, ultimately, think they are wrong, but calling them part of the Trump campaign just has to be something only someone trying to win internet points would say.

I'll end by quoting Steve Bannon Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau, "Anyone who says this is easy or that we shouldn't have this debate is not being honest."

This quote from the article really hits home:

Afterward, his aides would try to explain that he had been sick. He had seen two doctors before the debate. He had a fever, a virus. He wasn't himself.

But while he may have been sick, he was himself. That was the problem.

You're using rationality to defend your behavior instead of connecting emotionally around a fundamentally emotional issue. This doesn't mean that her behavior was justified either, but rationality will only get you so far in solving this problem. Arguably, there's an intimate and emotional reason you're together. If you're both not engaging in protecting and growing that first, then you'll end in a you vs her situation.

I can't think of worse debate performance. Nixon profusely sweating? Pretty bad, but at least he was coherent.

Mondale not being able to counter Regan's age deflecting quip? Damn. That's so tough one when the crowds turned.

The Gore eye roll? Well damn that sucks.

But this was a debate long fugue state. At best, some Trump previous incoherent ramblings are close, but still not as bad.

This was seriously bad. And everyone failing to see that and trying to minimize it is attempting and failing to gaslight everyone else.

There maybe no replacement available, but at least call a spade a spade.

I'm talking about the date and time of it being changed. You wrote:

dropped the fact checking that afternoon

But from what I can tell, the rules had been set for a couple of months.

It gets better.

I remember things getting noticably easier every doubling starting at three weeks. So it was three weeks, then six, then three months, then six, then one year and two... And that was basically when I stopped needing to count.

At around 6 months, things got easier for us. We got better at everything, he got better at, well, being alive, I guess. And we as a routine that mostly worked. Still had a long journey in raising a baby, but it got easier.

I don't know when the independence came around, but not before six months. You situation might be different. If you have family, lean on them. Get some sleep. Snuggle your wife.

Seriously, if you can, get someone to tag in once in a while. It's a grind.

I can't find anything to corroberate #4. Do you have a reference?

Uncle Iroh
I know he's a genocidal war criminal, but he lost his son and traveled a long path of tea and paisho eventually cherishing and mentoring his nephew.

Uncle Ruckus
He's a simple man, tryin’ to make his way in the world. Life’s dealt him a tough hand, but he played it the best he could. He worked hard, respected the values he was raised with, and tries to bring a bit of order to this chaotic world. He ma be rough around the edges and may not make words so good, but he believes in tough love and speaking his mind.

I was talking about collective trauma which OP was citing, though their initial term is collective PTSD.

Why would you use n-gram and not journal search engine like Google Scholar. There seems to be an engagement in the concept of collective PTSD since about 2007.

Is this an area of research or practice for you? It is not mine.

It seems to be the accepted term in the scholarly and clinical community.

Best movie ever.

First, you don't have to, it's a useful convention.
Since the middle ages, the west has used a seven note scale with five whole steps and two half steps. This gives one scale, c major, with seven natural (neither flat nor sharp) notes.

As an aside, I believe there are six note scales.

Sometimes we find inspiration where we least expect it.

Man... I remember having fond memories of it. Plus, sort of a Christmas flick. So come winter break, I turn it on for my eight year old. I get to cooking dinner and about 45 minutes in, he's shaking from it. He slept in our room for the first time in years that night. And the next night. And the next.

Literally just told his mom he's still scared of gremlins. This will be one of the parenting regrets.

Income based repayments such as SAVE calculate your payments as a percentage of your disposable income. This means it can be as low as $0 per month if you happen to be unemployed for even a short time. Interest still accrues, but doesn't capitalize with SAVE. This can result in a "significant" balance.