MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:40:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 119
Author Topic: MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25  (Read 230431 times)
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #300 on: March 18, 2017, 05:56:54 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #301 on: March 18, 2017, 06:06:09 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #302 on: March 18, 2017, 06:15:29 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #303 on: March 18, 2017, 06:26:51 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
We'll see but nothing they do as a party right now inspires confidence
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #304 on: March 18, 2017, 06:32:46 PM »

To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all

http://isps.yale.edu/node/16698

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mfranz/final_published_FranzRidout.pdf

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!


Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #305 on: March 18, 2017, 07:14:53 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all

All due respect, but you're objectively wrong about this (especially when we're talking about a state like Montana). 
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #306 on: March 18, 2017, 07:21:54 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all

All due respect, but you're objectively wrong about this (especially when we're talking about a state like Montana). 

I mean Windjammer is wrong about this either way; in small states candidate campaigning and field is crucial, in big states ad buys are basically the only way to reach semi-apathetic voters that swing elections.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #307 on: March 18, 2017, 07:45:54 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all

All due respect, but you're objectively wrong about this (especially when we're talking about a state like Montana). 
Well, I maintain my words. The results of this election will be driven by the political climate at national elvel. He won't win or lose by spending 20 millions or 2 millions.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #308 on: March 18, 2017, 07:50:47 PM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."




Goddamn this party how can a group that made Obama president be so out of touch with the ground noise

To be fair, I'd be shocked if they don't jump in here by mid-to-late April/early May.  At least Quist seems to be winning so far.
To be honest, campaigning doesn't matter a lot. If they jump later, it wouldn't be catastrophic at all

All due respect, but you're objectively wrong about this (especially when we're talking about a state like Montana). 
Well, I maintain my words. The results of this election will be driven by the political climate at national elvel. He won't win or lose by spending 20 millions or 2 millions.

Please look at the links I posted. All due respect but you're just wrong.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #309 on: March 18, 2017, 10:48:42 PM »

So I see this thread is going well... Anyway, campaign mailings and internet ads on the Quist side aren't being reported, so it's not as if he's spending nothing. I'm highly skeptical that money will make a big difference in this race anyway.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #310 on: March 18, 2017, 10:55:04 PM »

So I see this thread is going well... Anyway, campaign mailings and internet ads on the Quist side aren't being reported, so it's not as if he's spending nothing. I'm highly skeptical that money will make a big difference in this race anyway.

That's definitely true. In fact, (not)Gov. Gianforte can tell you that money isn't everything.

TNVol: You're obviously on the other side of the aisle, but do you have any idea what Quist's campaign infrastructure looks like? I'm not sure I trust a 70yo first time politician to be a champion organizer, but the party could have put him in good hands.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #311 on: March 18, 2017, 11:21:56 PM »

So I see this thread is going well... Anyway, campaign mailings and internet ads on the Quist side aren't being reported, so it's not as if he's spending nothing. I'm highly skeptical that money will make a big difference in this race anyway.

That's definitely true. In fact, (not)Gov. Gianforte can tell you that money isn't everything.

TNVol: You're obviously on the other side of the aisle, but do you have any idea what Quist's campaign infrastructure looks like? I'm not sure I trust a 70yo first time politician to be a champion organizer, but the party could have put him in good hands.

I don't know much about it, but he's holding many campaign rallies and obviously has a sizable number of volunteers. The MDP is 100% united behind Quist, so that's not an issue. I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #312 on: March 19, 2017, 02:09:49 AM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #313 on: March 19, 2017, 09:00:55 AM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.
But Montana is rural so we can never win despite the fact we have the perfect match-up no GA-6 needs all our resources because district trending an suburban an stuff like that 
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #314 on: March 19, 2017, 09:31:50 AM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.

Only one Texas district.
Logged
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #315 on: March 19, 2017, 11:42:33 AM »

So I see this thread is going well... Anyway, campaign mailings and internet ads on the Quist side aren't being reported, so it's not as if he's spending nothing. I'm highly skeptical that money will make a big difference in this race anyway.

That's definitely true. In fact, (not)Gov. Gianforte can tell you that money isn't everything.

TNVol: You're obviously on the other side of the aisle, but do you have any idea what Quist's campaign infrastructure looks like? I'm not sure I trust a 70yo first time politician to be a champion organizer, but the party could have put him in good hands.

I don't know much about it, but he's holding many campaign rallies and obviously has a sizable number of volunteers. The MDP is 100% united behind Quist, so that's not an issue. I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
IIRC, he had 100 volunteers for the day of his launch?
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #316 on: March 19, 2017, 11:52:13 AM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.

Only one Texas district.
I mean the TX-32 should've also had a candidate. It's a majority minority district and we let the Republicans have it for free. Even Green party got 10% of the vote there. It's utterly embarassing.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #317 on: March 19, 2017, 12:49:43 PM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.
But Montana is rural so we can never win despite the fact we have the perfect match-up no GA-6 needs all our resources because district trending an suburban an stuff like that 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with investing in GA-6; we should be competing in both districts.  That said, I obviously agree that it is ridiculous to ignore a seat like the open one in MT.  Fortunately, I expect the Democrats to jump in there soon enough, but a strong DCCC would've already had this on their radar.  That said, I can't stress enough how much worse it would've been with Sean Patrick Baloney as chair instead of Lujan.  The former has argued that you can use data metrics to successfully predict how every house seat will vote without fail months before the election and that the DCCC should be more reliant on a #Data is King strategy.  Maloney is a good fit for his district and I don't really mind him or anything, but he'd have been an absolute disaster as DCCC chairman.  

Rahm Emanuel may've been an awful, third-way corporatist with no understanding of why a 50 state strategy is so vital, but the man was also a pretty dam* competent DCCC chair (much as I hate to admit it) who understood that data metrics weren't the only factor that should be considered when deciding where to compete.  I'd have preferred to see Lujan replaced with someone who excelled in the two areas where Emanuel made his greatest contribution to Democratic efforts to take back the House in 2006: candidate recruitment and being ruthlessly aggressive about seizing every opportunity to expand the playing field.  Overall, House Democrats have had absolutely awful candidate recruitment.  It is embarrassing that Jay Sidie (KS-3), LuAnn Bennett (VA-10 where a strong candidate clearly would've won in 2016), Mike Parrish (PA-6), Shaun Brown (VA-2), Michael Wager (OH-14), Michael Eggman (CA-10 where once again, a solid recruit clearly would've won in 2016), Emilio Huerta (CA-21), Scott Fuhrman (FL-27), Joe Garcia (FL-26 although Annette Taddeo wasn't a strong candidate either), etc, etc, etc were the folks we ended up nominating in their respective districts.  

And then you have folks who were either obviously a terrible fit for their districts (ex: Emily Cain) or blew winnable races by running horrible campaigns (ex: Monica Vernon).  The DCCC has also constantly knee-capped their efforts to retake the house by ignoring opportunities to compete in Republican leaning districts and even moderate/Democratic-leaning seats with popular/entrenched incumbents.  Democrats won't win back the House unless they can put a massive number of seats on the board.  Recruiting top-tier candidates such a small number of districts that the Democrats need to essentially run the board to have a shot at a narrow majority is a surefire way to keep the House in Republican hands.

Data can be extremely useful in a whole host of ways, but it isn't the only important thing to look at when deciding where to compete either, especially when there are the potential conditions for a wave election.   One would've hoped the DCCC would have learned this after 2016 (or better still not needed to be taught this lesson in the first place).  That said, the fact that Perez and Ellison (admittedly DNC leaders rather than DCCC folks) seem to be pretty open to a return to a 50 state strategy is cause for cautious optimism and I'm going to reserve judgment for now as I suspect national Democrats are going to get involved here sooner rather than later.

That all being said, I can understand districts like TX-32 not having a candidate in 2016.  There was literally no reason to think Sessions could even theoretically be vulnerable.  It's a very conservative *and* partisan district that probably had PVI of at least R +10 and a weak-to-nonexistent Democratic bench at best.  Furthermore, it has a strong incumbent in House leadership who won his closest election by double-digits and isn't wildly to the right of most of folks in the district who actually vote.  It's a majority-minority district on paper, but that's about it.  I'm still not convinced we can win here even if it were an open seat in a huge Democratic wave, but I do think we should at least try to run wave insurance candidates here (or at least the closest thing we have Tongue ) for the next two cycles and see what happens. 

It's also important to remember that in many ways, it's still far from clear whether or not 2016 was a massive fluke or a true re-aligning election.  Honestly, we may not even know until the 2020 election cycle is over, but we certainly don't know right now.  The thing about realigning elections though (if that's what 2016 even was) is that they tend to be pretty hard to predict.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #318 on: March 19, 2017, 01:15:04 PM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.
But Montana is rural so we can never win despite the fact we have the perfect match-up no GA-6 needs all our resources because district trending an suburban an stuff like that 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with investing in GA-6; we should be competing in both districts.  That said, I obviously agree that it is ridiculous to ignore a seat like the open one in MT.  Fortunately, I expect the Democrats to jump in there soon enough, but a strong DCCC would've already had this on their radar.  That said, I can't stress enough how much worse it would've been with Sean Patrick Baloney as chair instead of Lujan.  The former has argued that you can use data metrics to successfully predict how every house seat will vote without fail months before the election and that the DCCC should be more reliant on a #Data is King strategy.  Maloney is a good fit for his district and I don't really mind him or anything, but he'd have been an absolute disaster as DCCC chairman.  

I don't disagree with any of your points, in fact I agree that the "data is king" approach was pretty discredited last year and we can't write off anything, but it still kind of stings every time my congressman gets dragged through the mud Tongue

If Lujan is still a bit of a downer though, who do you think would have been the best possible DCCC chair?
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #319 on: March 19, 2017, 07:49:55 PM »

I'd be really surprised if the DCCC didn't get in here soon as well.
I think you severely underestimate the stupidity of our national party. There were multiple Texas districts that Hillary won where we didn't even field a candidate. If there's anything I have faith in it's they're ability to completely screw up our congressional power.
But Montana is rural so we can never win despite the fact we have the perfect match-up no GA-6 needs all our resources because district trending an suburban an stuff like that 

Rahm Emanuel may've been an awful, third-way corporatist with no understanding of why a 50 state strategy is so vital, but the man was also a pretty dam* competent DCCC chair (much as I hate to admit it) who understood that data metrics weren't the only factor that should be considered when deciding where to compete.  I'd have preferred to see Lujan replaced with someone who excelled in the two areas where Emanuel made his greatest contribution to Democratic efforts to take back the House in 2006: candidate recruitment and being ruthlessly aggressive about seizing every opportunity to expand the playing field.  Overall, House Democrats have had absolutely awful candidate recruitment.  It is embarrassing that Jay Sidie (KS-3), LuAnn Bennett (VA-10 where a strong candidate clearly would've won in 2016), Mike Parrish (PA-6), Shaun Brown (VA-2), Michael Wager (OH-14), Michael Eggman (CA-10 where once again, a solid recruit clearly would've won in 2016), Emilio Huerta (CA-21), Scott Fuhrman (FL-27), Joe Garcia (FL-26 although Annette Taddeo wasn't a strong candidate either), etc, etc, etc were the folks we ended up nominating in their respective districts. 

And then you have folks who were either obviously a terrible fit for their districts (ex: Emily Cain) or blew winnable races by running horrible campaigns (ex: Monica Vernon).  The DCCC has also constantly knee-capped their efforts to retake the house by ignoring opportunities to compete in Republican leaning districts and even moderate/Democratic-leaning seats with popular/entrenched incumbents.  Democrats won't win back the House unless they can put a massive number of seats on the board.  Recruiting top-tier candidates such a small number of districts that the Democrats need to essentially run the board to have a shot at a narrow majority is a surefire way to keep the House in Republican hands.

I agree completely. Plus, running retreads doesn't often work; Doug Owens in UT-04 can tell you that.
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #320 on: March 20, 2017, 08:29:53 AM »

I'm guessing that this quote is probably pretty representative of their attitude. Which is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

"None of the five contests pose a threat to the Republicans’ majority in the House. Four of the five seats have been under GOP control, and save for Georgia and to a lesser extent, Montana, they’re all but guaranteed to remain red districts in 2017 and beyond.

“It’s not like we lost these districts by 5 points last time,” one Democratic strategist said of Georgia’s 6th District and Montana’s at-large House seat."

Whatever happened to the 50-state strategy? I don't care if they're "unwinnable", you should be putting time into every single race, even ones that you know you're not going to win. And MT-AL and GA-6 are both winnable.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #321 on: March 20, 2017, 10:26:58 AM »

Shocker, Democratic "Strategists" don't want money going out of their pockets to competitive elections. This may explain why MILLIONS were given to strategists, while the NH State Party, which included competitive Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial, AND state legislative elections, were given only $75,000.

Thankfully, actual leadership under Perez will help end the cronyism of the Democratic Party (not sarcastic or ironic).
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,099
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #322 on: March 20, 2017, 11:08:11 AM »

Honestly I think Quist could pull this off without outside help. What'll make a difference is turnout.

Still, I think Gianforte is favored at this point, unless the race changes.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #323 on: March 20, 2017, 01:51:37 PM »

Honestly I think Quist could pull this off without outside help.

This, so much.

Also, Gianforte has launched his second ad.
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,980


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #324 on: March 20, 2017, 03:05:14 PM »

It's my impression that Gianforte spent a ton in the 2016 MT-GOV race, so won't his ads be much less effective because Montana has seen so much of him so recently?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 119  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 13 queries.