Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 23, 2017, 06:03:37 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 366
51  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CO-Senate 2020: Alexa Wesner (D) as a likely opponent for Sen. Gardner (R) ? on: January 15, 2017, 06:17:07 pm
House members have been elected in the past with ambassadorships as their main experience (such as Francis Rooney in 2016, or Ann Wagner in 2012); it is uncommon but not unheard of. I can't think of a single Senator who has done it, though.
52  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of "Resist!" on: January 15, 2017, 06:14:15 pm
Freedom word by definition, regardless of who is using it, no?
53  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should the US break off diplomatic relations with Russia? on: January 15, 2017, 05:28:50 pm
This would be counterproductive in the extreme. No.
54  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will California be the most Democratic state in 2020? on: January 15, 2017, 05:26:15 pm
It matters to Bernie himself, and if the rift between the 2020 nominee and Bernie is more severe (Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Clinton; suppose Bernie pulls a Rubio and endorses the nominee but refuses to campaign for him) I could see more of Bernie's supporters choosing not to back that candidate.
55  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What type of person are you ? on: January 15, 2017, 05:24:08 pm
All juices are more or less the same, so if I was in the mood for juice and the waitress brought me a different kind, I doubt I would ask for something else and in fact I might not notice until I started drinking. But, generally, for most things (for the main course, for instance), I'd insist on the thing that I ordered. Your example is just very petty. Voted Person A because that's what I'd do in this specific scenario, though really personality-wise I'm more of a Person B.
56  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Have you ever seen a president in person? on: January 15, 2017, 05:19:40 pm
Saw Obama and Trump, both at a distance, prior to their presidencies. I rather enjoy going to rallies to see politicians, so there are several future Presidents I have either seen at a distance (Sanders and Ryan) or actually briefly spoken to (Rubio and Kasich). None of them are particularly likely, but then again, who is?
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will California be the most Democratic state in 2020? on: January 14, 2017, 10:59:40 pm
I strongly suspect Hawaii trends heavily Republican in 2020, considering the pattern in 2004/1984/1972 and so on. And I strongly suspect that Sanders will run for and lose the Democratic nomination a second time, leading to a repeat of the Vermont write-in phenomenon. (If anything, I could see the 2020 Democratic nominee being a more openly corporatist Booker or Zuckerberg type leading to write-ins strengthening, not weakening, in Vermont). So...yeah, it would actually make sense.

Voted "yes". But these things can be very hard to predict. Very few people thought in early 2013 that Vermont would trend so Republican in 2016, for instance. CA might trend R for reasons that aren't even on anyone's radar now.
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PSA: Voters don't give a f[inks] who endorsed who four years ago on: January 14, 2017, 10:53:57 pm
Hillary will get the blame for 2016, but her supporters will be forgiven.  The Democratic Party will implode if they're not.

Honestly, outside of this forum, I've seen very little blame given to Hillary for the defeat, and my social circle is probably a majority of Sanders supporters (with most Republicans in it being anti-Trump through the very end). Blame is given partially to James Comey, but mostly to the unfair system that took victory away from the popular vote winner. Anybody who saw Hillary favorably during the general-election campaign still sees her favorably. Nobody would give a sh**t whether someone endorsed Hillary or Bernie four years back, especially the vast majority of Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary themselves in the general election.
59  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Zuck on: January 14, 2017, 10:48:59 pm
Very conflicted about this; Zuck with a Democratic Congress would be terrible, Zuck with a Republican Congress would probably be close to an ideal government. I still want clarity on his stance on the Israeli conflict, but if he can answer that to my liking, I could well support him.
60  General Discussion / History / Re: Why did Bob Dole give up his majority leader spot to run for president? on: January 14, 2017, 10:46:24 pm
For dramatic effect? Because he was tired of the Senate and wanted to go up or out?
61  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Do Democrats need a Western strategy? on: January 14, 2017, 10:43:54 pm
Alaska is following the same trends as Colorado was in the 1990s, as there's a lot of in-migration from relatively liberal types and the state is small enough that when they get mobilized politically that change could be pretty drastic. It's also a state that has a very suburban GOP and may be susceptible to a broader nationwide trend towards the Democrats in suburbs. It's also very elastic and used to voting for both parties at the local level.

Utah, like Alaska, is broadly a very suburban state, where the suburbs can consistently outvote rural areas. Utahn suburbs, since they are very Mormon, are much more right-wing than other areas; the simple question is where the McMullin dissidents will go next. Utah has enough of a white-liberal Democratic base in SLC that if they decide to vote Democratic presidentially, the state will flip, indeed to a high-single-digits Democratic victory. I suspect this is a plausible scenario for 2020 in the event of Trump being broadly unpopular, but unless Trumpism is very successful at taking root in the Republican Party I doubt Utah will continue to vote Democratic into the 2020s. Still, the state is very young and the people have very cosmopolitan values (see Utah being the only Republican-governed state whose Governor announced that Syrian refugees were welcome); it is an option for the immediate future.

The other states seem less likely. A Mormon third-party that captured all Mormons would put Idaho into play, but it's clear that rural Mormons weren't that offended by Trump and Idaho Mormons are much more rural than their Utah counterparts. Montana Democrats are dependent on white working-class votes and it doesn't seem like a very logical place for modern Democratic Party gains.

I suspect Wyoming is vulnerable to an influx of liberals like what happened to VT and CO, and is happening to AK; the parallel seems to be areas where tourism is a very big part of the economy, and WY has that going for them; they're also small enough that it wouldn't necessarily take a very large influx to radically change the state's political culture. But...it clearly isn't happening yet. And it would take 15-20 years to play out.

Well...yeah. Every losing party has a few bright spots. Gerlach, Shays, and Heather Wilson all survived 2006. Boren, Ross, and Giffords all survived 2010. But if 2018 is a big-ish wave (not implausible if Trump's approvals are perpetually sh**tty), I'd wager that 3/4ths of the Clinton Republican congresspeople will lose. People like IRL, Curbelo, Comstock, Coffman, Valadao, and Paulsen, all seeming to be electoral superstars, would be fighting for their political lives. Then there'll be all those people who sit in marginal Trump seats (like you mentioned) that would be toppled in such a scenario. Dems only need 24 seats total, though they should shoot for more like 35-40 to allow for ideological flexibility to account for the Collin Petersons and Kurt Schraders of the caucus.

People are severely underestimating the odds of a Speaker Pelosi redux (if Democrats can compete in formerly-safe seats that swung heavily D in 2016, and I suspect that if Trump's approvals stay where they are then they'll be able to, then the Republican gerrymanders are broken and the path to the Speakership is very straightforward) and severely overestimating the odds of SML Schumer anytime within the next six years (maybe if 2018 and 2020 are ludicrously D-favorable years, it can happen, but I suspect Democrats will need to wait until 2022 for another shot at Senate control).

My very crude universal swing model for 2018 (Rs win every seat that voted for Trump by a margin of 5 points or more; Dems win everything else) showed D+30 in the House and R+4 in the Senate. I doubt Democrats will actually gain D+30 in the House, since House races are less nationalized than senatorial ones and there's a lot of popular Republican incumbents in downballot Republican territory that Democrats would need to take out, but the point is that large Democratic gains in 2018 are a quite plausible scenario.
62  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like? on: January 14, 2017, 06:17:45 pm

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

Yes, because they put more money into those candidates towards the end.

No, it's also from what he said in interviews in 2015, the only quote you're hanging in something his EX-spokesman suggested. He has the same exact position as Christie and Santorum with regards to federal marijuana laws that Obama was not enforcing in states like colorado with regards to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is different.

...they put more money into those candidates at the end because they were doing better. Money goes to where candidates are doing well and backs off from where they're doing poorly. You're confusing cause and effect.

Anyway, I've given you quotes from his spokesman during the campaign. You've given me things from years and years ago. Even if we accept your point as fact (which it's not), this is ancillary. Give Colorado to Hillary. She still needs to sweep Virginia and Wisconsin, both of which I suspect Rubio would win.

(Cruz, incidentally, could not win CO or VA. Probably not MI or PA either. But he would still've flipped IA/OH/FL/ME-2. So the whole thing would've come down to WI, the decisive state.)

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment


By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

I actually agree with the basis of your argument here (I doubt anyone was swayed to vote a different way by the 'deplorables' comment, it just made people who already supported Trump even angrier), but I do want to note: Obama led in 2008 for most of the year; McCain took the lead in late August when he picked Sarah Palin (who was, very initially, received very well and became a broadly popular figure), but once Palin started flunking his poll numbers were dropping, and in fact Obama regained the lead just before the Lehman Brothers collapse. (The collapse, of course, led his support to increase from within-the-margin-of-error to overwhelming, but he was already winning by the time it happened).
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gillibrand’s focus on “women’s issues” on: January 14, 2017, 05:48:26 pm
Gillibrand broadened her appeal to include me when she sponsored the resolution to condemn the
UN's condemnation of Israel. I think there're very few people in the Democratic Party who'd object to what she's been doing in the Senate (though I think the idea that "campus sexual assault" is something that can be solved at a federal level is questionable at best, but whatever).
64  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like? on: January 14, 2017, 02:43:34 pm

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.
65  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Polyamory on: January 14, 2017, 02:38:24 pm
I think I'm in agreement with Anthony here in that, while I don't think it's inherently unacceptable, in practice it seems very difficult to ensure an equitable division of power in such a relationship, and to ensure that no one is abused. But as long as abuse isn't happening, well, I'm a stalwart believer that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like? on: January 14, 2017, 02:28:33 pm
Isakson in his GA senate race won the same percentage of blacks, he performed the usual percentage that republicans normally get with non-hispanic cubans, his main advantage is in FL particular demographic with cubans, by the way his senate opponent was abandoned by the dems who used the money for that race to use in other races, had they given him the full-support they originally intended, those margins would've been reduced for him. Burr 'outperformed' by a similar margin.

Keep in mind that the reason the Democrats pulled support from their nominee was because of how strong Rubio was; it wasn't any sort of Paul Babeu or Jason Lewis scenario where the national party decided this was a competitive seat they wanted to punt because they didn't like the candidate. Polling had him favored in an open seat with Rubio as the only Republican who could've won.

I don't really get the point of the comparison with Isakson, who is also a popular/competent Senator, but who faced a much weaker Democratic opponent and has never tried to sell himself as a presidentiable.

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

ME-2 is sort of unique in that we need to wait, probably for a few more cycles actually, to see if what happened there was purely Trump or if it transfers to other Republicans. The absolutely monstrous margin Trump won there (11 points -- it is more Republican than Texas now -- it is right of the median Trump electoral vote) makes me suspect any Republican would've won, though I'm unsure. I think anybody who really hammered the anti-establishment line, like Ted Cruz, would've carried it, while Bush and Rubio would probably have come close but fallen short.

Rubio would not have had problems in CO because that wasn't his position. His position was that states have the power to legalize marijuana, but shouldn't, and he reiterated this multiple times in the 2016 campaign. Many years before the campaign, he had a single remark where he said what you're suggesting was his position. Considering most supporters of marijuana legalization probably flipped over the last 10-15 years, I doubt anyone would hold it against him.

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.
67  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like? on: January 14, 2017, 12:18:16 pm
People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.

Cruz's unfavs was very similar to Rubio's initially, it didn't collapsed until Apr/May when he got more media attention, a lot of it is built in due to political polarization. And Cruz's likability overall was similar to Jeb's and Hillary's.

Cruz's unfavorables were lower than Rubio's all through the cycle, though you're right that they were similar to Jeb's and Hillary's. What this misses is that all these candidates had significantly better unfavorables than Donald Trump, who went on to be elected, so clearly unfavorables aren't exactly an all-important, determining factor.
68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like? on: January 14, 2017, 11:51:28 am
People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.
69  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Have you been in a Clinton state in 2017? on: January 12, 2017, 06:14:46 pm
Yes; I greeted the New Year in NY and then drove through NJ and PA back to OH.
70  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Rating of: Bill Nelson v. Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen on: January 12, 2017, 04:44:24 pm
Ros-Lehtinen is, or intends to be (considering 2016 was her first single-digit race since the 1989 special that first elected her...), a House lifer. She won't run for the Senate; it seems like Rick Scott has basically locked down the Republican nomination for that anyway. And if Scott doesn't run the initial favorite would probably be DeSantis.
71  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: WI Sen swing map on: January 12, 2017, 04:42:58 pm
The Senate map is swing from 2010. The presidential map is swing from 2012. Democrats were much stronger in rural Wisconsin in 2012 than 2010, so you see Democratic swings in the first map but Republican swings in the second. That's the biggest difference; adding a little bit of color is that Trump was a bit stronger in the state's rural west while Johnson was a bit stronger in the WoW counties, but the biggest difference is that the maps are comparing two different years to 2016.
72  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Conservatives only: Support or oppose TPP? on: January 12, 2017, 04:06:42 pm
Very strongly support.
73  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: First Time You Saw Hillary Clinton on: January 12, 2017, 03:49:21 pm
I first started following politics and really knowing who she was in 2007, but I think I was probably vaguely aware of Bill Clinton's wife's existence before then.

First time I saw her in person was during the 2016 campaign, at a rally in Columbus, OH.
74  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Study: Conservatives are more attractive than liberals on: January 12, 2017, 12:36:25 am
I don't much like edgy hair colors like blue or pink but a truly attractive person won't be ruined by them.
75  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Didn't Kasich Endorse Trump? on: January 11, 2017, 11:20:30 pm
Well, Joe Heck in NV, Trump ran ahead of.

Trump and Heck both lost by the exact same margin -- 2.4%. Unusually, the third-party vote was actually higher in the Senate race than the presidential one, so Trump did run ahead of Heck in the actual margin.

So, this one doesn't quite fit the pattern, but it's also doesn't completely work as a counterexample, especially since Heck wasn't in fact an incumbent and came just as close to winning as Trump did.

Again, the only politician anywhere in the country who was unambiguously hurt by her anti-Trump stance was Roby.

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

Just to clarify on two of those names....Crapo reneged on his #NeverTrump position two weeks before the election and did a re-endorsement of Trump.  Toomey simply refused to say who he was voting for, but then a day after the election claimed that he voted for Trump.  But yeah, the other names you mention were all #NeverTrump.


I mean, refusing to endorse Trump the way Toomey did is the definition of #NeverTrump, even if Toomey was pretty quiet about it. You're correct about Crapo taking it back; so did what would otherwise have been an extremely interesting case study, Jeff Fortenberry in rural Nebraska, who spent months as #NeverTrump before quietly endorsing him; Fortenberry (who was reelected 69/31) ran far ahead of Trump (who won the district 58/36), and is the only electoral evidence we have that Plains voters didn't particularly mind #NeverTrump behavior (though we have indirect evidence that many of their Representatives or Senators were at least willing to flirt with #NeverTrump, whereas Roby was completely unique and isolated in the Deep South). Senate races are enough to conclude that Mountain West voters, including non-Mormons, didn't give two sh**ts.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 366


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines