Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 28, 2015, 07:07:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 430
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Koch brothers to spend $900 million on 2016 elections on: January 27, 2015, 04:15:42 pm
Would you rather the Koch brothers merely keep the money for themselves?

Yes. I would rather that they built castles for themselves and whole counties as hunting preserves for themselves. By buying the political process the Koch family establishes tyranny far worse than what George III ever imposed upon American colonists.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Koch brothers to spend $900 million on 2016 elections on: January 27, 2015, 04:12:08 pm
I don't get why the Kochs are Satan for making contributions, but all the leftist groups get a free pass.

"Leftist" groups don't have that sort of money. 
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In London speech, Jindal criticizes "no go zones" in European countries on: January 27, 2015, 01:53:18 pm
What a embarrassment to the Indian American community. Pandering to the white nativist Christian faction of the party? Dude, you're brown, a son of immigrants, and raised in a different faith. You're not fooling anyone.


What a stupid POS. Junk Governor!
^^

I kind of wish we had a more sane Indian-American governor or congressman.

We will probably get one soon enough. The demographics of Indian-Americans resemble "Jewish-American" in many respects, and that means participation in politics at high levels.


4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Political Correctness and Hillary Clinton 2016 on: January 27, 2015, 01:49:36 pm
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York about his concerns regarding political correctness.

In one section, he ponders the effect on the upcoming presidential election.

Quote
The most probable cause of death of the first political-correctness movement was the 1992 presidential election. That event mobilized left-of-center politics around national issues like health care and the economy, and away from the introspective suppression of dissent within the academy. Bill Clinton’s campaign frontally attacked left-wing racial politics, famously using inflammatory comments by Sister Souljah to distance him from Jesse Jackson. Barbara Jordan, the first black woman from a southern state elected to the House of Representatives, attacked political correctness in her keynote speech. (“We honor cultural identity. We always have; we always will. But separatism is not allowed. Separatism is not the American way. We must not allow ideas like political correctness to divide us and cause us to reverse hard-won achievements in human rights and civil rights.”)

Yet it is possible to imagine that, as the next Clinton presidential campaign gets under way, p.c. culture may not dissolve so easily. The internet has shrunk the distance between p.c. culture and mainstream liberal politics, and the two are now hopelessly entangled. During the 2008 primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the modern politics of grievance had already begun to play out, as each side’s supporters patrolled the other for any comment that might indicate gender or racial bias. It dissipated in the general election, but that was partly because Obama’s supporters worried about whether America really was ready to accept its first president who was not a white male. Clinton enters the 2016 race in a much stronger position than any other candidate, and her supporters may find it irresistible to amplify p.c. culture’s habit of interrogating the hidden gender biases in every word and gesture against their side.

Or maybe not. The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. 

Is his assessment correct? What type of factor could this play?
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 26, 2015, 11:37:54 pm
So what happens if there is an appointed Senator? Let us suppose that one of the Senators of both Michigan and Minnesota both leave office for some reason, and State legislators appoint Senators to complete the terms of office of the Senators who leave. Michigan appoints a Republican (the State legislature is majority-Republican) and Minnesota appoints a Democrat. Until one sees whether those legislators choose to do run for election, color the state appropriately and put an asterisk in the blank spot for electoral votes.    (I am not saying that this will happen).



Red -- Democratic incumbent
Blue - Republican incumbent


Now let us suppose that the new Senator from Michigan chooses to run for electoral ratification in 2016 and the new Senator from Minnesota chooses not to. Michigan appears in green with the asterisk intact until polls come in. Minnesota goes white and its asterisk goes. Any depiction of the approval of the new Senator from Michigan remains even after polls start appearing. 




Because appointed pols usually lose, I am going to show percentages for 40 to 55 for them -- should there be any. Let us suppose that the new Senator from Michigan has an approval rating of 44...




The maps in this post exist to illustrate a very contrived scenario.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Koch brothers to spend $900 million on 2016 elections on: January 26, 2015, 06:04:00 pm
American democracy dies if the Koch family gets its way.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 26, 2015, 06:00:03 pm
Although we have only three states polled, we must recognize that Chuck Schumer at an approval rating of 62% will be difficult to beat even if we don't have match-ups at the ready. A first-rate opponent is unlikely to risk his career in a quixotic effort to replace him in the Senate. He represents New York State, which is strong-R under normal situations.

So far Pat Toomey can't yet break 44% in a vote share against unknown pols, non-pols, and a recent loser against him -- and they all come close. Although he is likely to win almost all Republican voters, that will not be enough. The 28% approval rating is not going to help him raise his vote share much beyond 44%. Were his approvals in the 40's I would think otherwise. After four years in the Senate he should be better known in Pennsylvania.

   
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 26, 2015, 05:08:26 pm
Here's how I rate them from a complete Republican takeover to a 51-49 Democratic majority

R .......  D

64  VT  36
63  NY  37
62  HI  38
61  MD 39
60 WA  40
59 OR  41
58  CT  42
57  PA  43
56  CA  44
55  IL   45
54  WI  46
53  NV  47
52  CO 48
51  NC 49
50  FL  50 (the Veep decides)
49  NH  51

In this range I need not discuss the subtlety of the different chances of John Thune and Mike Crapo.


Iowa goes way up the list if Grassley retires. Alaska might join the list if the lunatic fringe knocks Murkowski out in a primary. California becomes a prohibitive favorite for the Democrat if any Democrat gets on the general ballot as the result of the jungle primary but drops into the Solid R category if the two Senate nominees on the general ballot are Republicans.  

My early guesses will surely become more scientific as polls come in on Senate races. A hint:  Late polls of likely voters in IL and WI showed approvals for Kirk and Johnson in the thirties, Ayotte (NH) at 49, and Rubio (FL) at 40.
9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: January 26, 2015, 05:06:02 pm
Starting over. I made a serious mistake in interpreting Nate Silver's "Myth of 50%". I apologize for deleting the old thread and losing some of the interesting writing... but that is the only way to correct errors that I made.

The current map of US Senate seats up for grabs



Red -- Democratic incumbent
Blue - Republican incumbent

Independents are placed as they caucus.

A lighter shade involves an open seat due to a retiring incumbent.

An asterisk indicates an appointed incumbent. (We have none of those as of January 22, 2015).

This is exclusively for US Senators able and choosing to run for re-election. So far only two polls have shown approval ratings for incumbent (Toomey at 28%, Burr at 31%, both by PPP; Schumer at 62% by Quinnipiac) since the 2014 elections.

Because this is of incumbent Senators running for re-election, I can promptly drop Barbara Boxer in California. Use white for open seats.  I am also shading red to orange and blue to green, all in pastel shades -- except where there is a poll -- in which the shade is shown in Atlas colors with intensity reflecting the approval rating with the number suggesting the percentage.  



A critical zone for approvals is in the 40-49% range. I intend to put ratings between 40 and 49, inclusively -- but not others -- in the box. Remember -- the typical elected incumbent on the average gains 6 to 7%  from approval rating early in the campaign season to a vote share.  

To show how that would work I am showing a favorability poll for Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire at 47%. (I do not use favorability polls -- but I use this one as an illustration in part because this one would have the worst visual effect -- a double-digit number in a tiny state in New England)

Because appointed pols usually lose, I am going to show percentages for 40 to 55 for them -- should there be any.

10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Obama had picked a different VP... on: January 25, 2015, 06:38:03 pm
One reason for selecting Joe Biden was that he lived off his Senate income with practically no personal assets other than his home and his savings. He could never be connected to any corrupt deals or conflicts of interest.
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 25, 2015, 05:49:29 pm
Are we really going to still say Q is less accurate than PPP? After the disastrous cycle PPP just had?

PPP has a better model for a high-turnout Presidential election.

The harsh negative ads that GOP front groups flooded the media with may have confused people and discouraged them from voting. Those may be more effective in a midterm election.   
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Here's my prediction. on: January 25, 2015, 11:24:52 am
2016 : I predict that Governor Scott Walker will win the election. Why ?

1. Obama Fatigue..... Democrat or Republican, you got to admit that Obama is damaged goods. So Probably Republicans will present their candidate as new and fresh and that leads me to the second one.

Many voters still want what President Obama promised but the GOP made impossible after 2010. Democrats can run on Obama promises this time and win.  

Quote
2. Hillary Clinton. Now I have a lot of respect for her. But her age and her connections to Obama kind of puts her in a disadvantage compared to Marco Rubio should he decide to run. And  don't forget about the Benghazi thing.

Did you have a problem with Ronald Reagan being as old as he was? Hillary Clinton won't be that old.  As for Benghazi -- do Republicans really wax nostalgic about Moammar Qaddafi, whom President Obama did nothing to keep from falling?

I have no use for a murderous tyrant who sponsored terrorism, invaded neighboring countries, and disseminated a steady stream of anti-American propaganda. 

Quote
3. Governing Experience. One of the many reasons why we have dysfunction in Washington is because Obama with all due respect has no Governing record. Governor Walker on the other hand has a strong governing record.

Bullhist! Dubya had experience as a Governor of a large state, and he proved awful by any objective standard. I hardly deny that Walker is a decisive leader unafraid to make unpopular decisions. Making Wisconsin a state to bleed by out-of-state interests is not my idea of how to run Wisconsin.

It's easy to make decisions if one is a puppet of the Koch syndicate. Transforming America into a plutocratic oligarchy turns the United States into a nightmare at home and an Evil Empire overseas.
 

Quote
4. The Republican Party will be much more united then in 2012. In 2012, Romney came out of it bruised and tattered thanks to all the crazy candidates out their. I think that the Tea Party base will warm up to Walker more.

Guess what? Most of the crazy candidates are back! In a high-turnout election the Democrats will do better than in 2010 and 2014.

Quote
What do you guys think ? And can anyone provide a map ? And who thinks should be Walker's running mate should he run ?

Senator Pat Toomey. He's likely to lose a re-election bid in 2016; he's ideologically compatible.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 25, 2015, 11:08:14 am
While I'll still continue to question the accuracy of this one poll, I do have a theory about the high percentage of "no opinion" respondents in polls about non-long time or non-high profile members of Congress.

Don't worry; there will be more polls. Quinnipiac polls Pennsylvania often. Q is more R-leaning than PPP... and if the poll showing Toomey with an approval rating of 28% is an outlier, then that will be rendered irrelevant. But 28% has to be a monstrous outlier. Show a credible poll with Toomey with  more than 40% approval and I will change my assessment.   

Quote
Consider this: in this hyper partisan atmosphere of the last seven years or so, I feel as if a plurality of people just don't have an opinion unless you're one of the big time national players. The Cruz's, Warren's, Paul's, Sanders' of the world really suck the air out of the room now. If you're not using their tactics, you're not getting the headlines or the passionate responses. And it's not even necessarily true that Senator X elected in 2010 is unknown (though, in comparison to the people I named, it's possible). He or she might just not generate enough excitement for the average voter to have a strong opinion.

Senator Toomey will be running for re-election in Pennsylvania. Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders will appear in Pennsylvania largely for fund-raising events. Senator Toomey is wise to not expose his firm belief in plutocratic oligarchy (he was President of the right-wing Club for Growth, basically a John Birch Society for Corporate America) as a 'loud' Senator. He could be more of a Big Player in American politics if he doesn't breathe fire until he is re-elected should the Republican Party be fully entrenched in American politics. He wisely bides his time.

Creating excitement? It depends upon the sort of excitement. When fear is bigger than the thrill one lets up on the gas pedal or cuts short the mountain climb. 

Quote
I don't care if you like or dislike the person in question here; you can't say he's anonymous. I just think it's boiling down to a difference in how people view their elected officials in this world dominated by whoever is constantly on 24-7 cable news or whoever is hot on social media.

Silver's model showed Senator Russ Feingold, whom I happen to like, in severe danger of being defeated in 2010 -- and he was defeated. If Senator Pat Toomey can be pinned to belief in cheap labor, tight cartels, and brutal management as cures for economic distress then he goes down. He does not have time in which to redefine himself as a moderate.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 24, 2015, 11:30:56 pm
Polls that I would most like to see (and figure are likely to be shown):

1. Florida. We can decide once and for all whether Marco Rubio has any relevancy to the Presidential campaign.

2. Ohio. Has voted right in every Presidential election since 1960.

3. Colorado. Terribly ambiguous in 2014.

4. Wisconsin. Is Scott Walker a genuine possibility?

5. Nevada. Is Harry Reid holding his ground politically?

6. Georgia. A campaign-killer for any Republican who loses this state -- and there is an obvious choice to challenge Isakson.

7. Missouri. We can see whether Hillary Clinton can win back some Clinton-but-not-Obama voters there. It has potentially a weak Senate incumbent. Surprisingly similar to Georgia in its voting habits, but six fewer electoral votes than Georgia.

8. New Hampshire. How well is Kelly Ayotte doing in a D-leaning state? If she loses her seat, then the Democrats are nearly sure to end up with an effective majority in the Senate because the Vice-President will be the President of the Senate and have the deciding vote.

9. Virginia. No Sen ate seat, but very close to being the tipping-point state for the Presidency.

10. Indiana. Lots of luck on getting a reliable Indiana poll. If Indiana is a 10-point or less loss for the Democratic Presidential nominee, then the Democrat wins. 

Tie for 11 -- and highly contingent -- Arizona (in case the health of John McCain goes bad) or Iowa (likewise for Chuck Grassley).


15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The GOP's latest line of attack against Obama's economic policies... on: January 24, 2015, 11:08:21 pm
Possible explanations:

1. Teenagers leaving the workforce so that they can concentrate more effort on their studies.

Good thing.

2. Retirement-age workers leaving the workforce or not staying in because they have some solid assets and need not work just to stay afloat.

Good thing.

3. Married women leaving low-paying jobs as their husbands' pay becomes adequate to allow them to become full-time housewives and children.

Often good -- for the children.

 
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 24, 2015, 07:06:11 pm
How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?

It continues to amaze me that posters on this thread continue to see America as a country where racists comprise a majority or at least a substantial minority of the voting population.  I'm not going to say that racism doesn't exist anymore, but as a Republican born to a multiracial family I'm getting really tired of this narrative that it's enough to swing an election significantly today.

Obama won decisively in 2008, not because he was black nor in spite of his being black.  He won because he captivated America's hearts and minds with a message of optimism and transcending partisanship to build a better nation for all Americans.

There were huge regional differences in the vote. Barack Obama won like Reagan in many Northern and Western states but lost like McGovern in many Southern states. There were big differences in white voting patterns between the South and other parts of the country.

Whatever the explanation he won firmly enough. I simply say that Republicans aren't going to win the Deep South by margins like those of Nixon against McGovern in the South again.
17  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 24, 2015, 04:38:55 pm
Pbrower and OC in a serious contest on who can out stupid the other. Could Pbrower really be bested by a robot? Stay tuned.

Do you understand what a 28% approval rating really means for an incumbent Gobernor or Senator? Even if it is an outlier (which is possible) it is inconsistent with "likely to win re-election". That is almost Corbett '14 territory.

What is possible with such a low approval rating for an incumbent ?

1. He could be enmeshed in a scandal.
2. He could be a bad ideological fit for his state.
3. He might be failing at the job.
4. The political winds are changing, and not to his benefit.

We can rule out #1 -- scandal.
#2 -- he barely won during the Tea Party wave in 2010, and with a different electorate less amenable to the Hard Right, he loses. Pennsylvania is slightly-D, so a Republican has to be very good to get re-elected.
#3 -- he has wisely avoided the limelight, but it is questionable that he has done anything for Pennsylvania. It may be to his credit that he has stayed away from the pork barrel -- but it is bad for political survival.
#4 -- possible, but I can't see the evidence for it to my satisfaction yet.

An earlier PPP poll (late November) showed him with a 36% approval rating, which is not quite so abysmal -- but it is poor.

He has inordinate work to get re-elected. Just about everything has to go right for him to get re-elected.   He will need

(1) an unusually-weak opponent
(2) a political climate much like 2010 or 2016, which is asking for much
(3) successful legislation with his name on it
(4) a major scandal involving the Democratic Party (especially the President)
(5) copious funding of his electoral campaign

Putting money on the Toomey campaign could quickly become a waste of money, and it would be perceived as such quickly. The Republicans have 23 other incumbent Senators to defend, and he will be among the three with races that they can most afford to lose. They are not going to risk the re-election of Kelly Ayotte to protect Pat Toomey, especially if they see Senators Kirk of Illinois and Johnson of Wisconsin going down to defeat.



18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Steve King-athon Iowa Freedom Summit Jan. 24: commentary thread on: January 24, 2015, 04:12:23 pm
Nobody in a red suit, spiked tail, and pitchfork?
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WaPo / ABC nat. poll: Clinton leads Bush/Christie/Huck/Paul/Romney by 13-17 pts. on: January 24, 2015, 11:40:52 am
I guess many pollsters assume minority turnout will be as high as in 2012 and Hillary will only narrowly lose white voters. Seriously? Those polls are ridiculous!

The formidable campaign apparatus of President Obama has gone completely over to Hillary Clinton. Count on it to know exactly how to reach the minority voters that he reached in 2008 and 2012.

Millions rejected Barack Obama because of you-know-what. It wasn't intellectual merit or inadequate promises.   
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Chance Clinton Doesn't Run on: January 24, 2015, 09:19:08 am
It looks as if Hillary Clinton's chances of not being the Democratic nominee are essentially actuarial (as in health).
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Michael Dunn sentenced to life in prison without parole on: January 24, 2015, 09:12:45 am
I'm still surprised he was convicted at all. He said it was self-defense and usually that's accepted as the gospel in these sorts of cases.

Self-defense requires a reasonable (even if mistaken) cause to fear either death or severe bodily harm with a need for forceful defense, typically where escape or retreat is impossible. Fear of another due to ethnicity, culture, or religion (animus) does not qualify.   
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 23, 2015, 11:24:56 pm
Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.



Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.
He gave up 21 electoral votes... for no reason?

Are you daft?

He gave up on 21 electoral votes so that he would do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning two Senate seats.  Someone challenging or running for an open Presidency usually tries to expand the map of possible wins until he has a reasonably sure thing. Trying to win re-election he was more intent on getting a surer win than a bigger win. He played "Beat the Cheat" in 2008 to make sure that there was no single state into which the Republicans could apply every effort to win on the assumption that that would be enough (Gore losing Florida and Kerry losing Ohio). In 2012 he played a nickel defense against the Republican Party. He let the Republicans make easy but meaningless gains on the map while using the calendar as his ally.

He was going to win without them; he was going to do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning the Senate seats in question.  If he was going to win either Indiana or Missouri he was also going to win Ohio anyway, which would have been enough.

Remember: Barack Obama is one of the shrewdest campaigners ever in American history. He has to be, for obvious reasons. In 2016 the Democratic nominee will not have quite the same set of skills -- and detriments. How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: January 23, 2015, 11:10:37 pm
A federal judge...U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, ruled that Alabama's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, known as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, violates the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.

"If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children," Granade writes. "Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/alabama-gay-marriage_n_6535610.html"
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: January 23, 2015, 05:09:25 pm
To be sure, this is "favorability" and not approval... but the two are obviously related:



http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll01192014.pdf
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 23, 2015, 05:06:50 pm
Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.



Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.

(Really I think that Arizona is more likely to go for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than either Indiana or Missouri. Rubio is the wrong sort of Hispanic to win Arizona as a Republican). Nebraska's Second Congressional District? It voted out a Republican incumbent in the House in a wave election that went for the Republican Party.

This time Indiana and Missouri both have incumbent Republican Senators, one of whom might be vulnerable to defeat in the general election. Should either of those two be vulnerable and Hillary Clinton be have the near-lock that Obama had late in 2012, then you might expect Democrats to challenge them -- and Hillary Clinton will not avoid the state. Unlike President Obama she will not likely have the same political liabilities.   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 430


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines