Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 24, 2019, 07:46:50 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2018 Gubernatorial Election Polls (Moderator: Brittain33)
  IA Des Moines Registar: Hubbell +2
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: IA Des Moines Registar: Hubbell +2  (Read 3054 times)
Zaybay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2018, 04:57:08 pm »

Bloomberg said he would run third party if Sanders win nomination. Dems are gonna nominate BIDEN, Booker or Gillibrand
If anything, a run by Bloomberg as a 3rd option should pull away more moderate voters who held their nose last year for Trump, not the voters from the Democrats.

Sort of like a 1992 situation.

Bloomberg would appeal to approximately 5 Trump voters. If anything he'd be an outlet for Romney-Clinton voters who the Democrats very well may end up needing.

The idea that Romney-Clinton voters exist in large quantities is rather unfounded.


As you can see, only 8 seats are actually Romney-Clinton seats, compared to the 11 Obama-Trump seats. Their location is also important. All of the Obama-Trump areas are in the midwest and North East, areas the Dems need to win the presidency. The Romney-Clinton seats, however, are in rather unimportant areas, where them going for a 3rd party wont make a real difference.

Also, the way to win the EC in 2020 is through 3 states, MI, WI, and PA. Trump was able to win MI and WI on the backs of suburbanites who didnt really like him, and rural Rs who loved him. If Wakasuha county were to have a significant amount of votes go to Bloomberg, then Trump loses the state. Same with MI. PA is a bit more complicated, and as the suburbs there are more D friendly. But, if say the Democrat is a person who wins back Obama-Trump voters while losing Romney-Clinton voters, then the state is D once again.

Also, if you think that only white hicks voted for Trump and not, as data shows, a large amount of upscale suburbanites who didnt like Trump, and were open to a third option(like a rich guy former R who argued for good old Republican policies), then you may be in for a surprise.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2018, 05:09:53 pm »
« Edited: September 23, 2018, 05:30:27 pm by IceSpear »

^I didn't say that Romney-Clinton voters existed in large quantities. I said that Dems could very well need them in a close election. Trump only got 46% of the vote, which is rather pathetic for a major party candidate. It was the same percentage McCain got as he was being curbstomped and actually less than Romney got when he lost handily. And considering Trump currently has a ~90% approval rating among Republicans and and the ~10% who disapprove mostly already voted for Clinton or third party in 2016 anyway, I see zero reason to believe that Bloomberg would draw more from Trump than from the Democrats. Also, let's just apply some common sense here too. The guy is about as good a "cultural fit" for Trump voters as a black triggered transgender college leftist kneeling at an NFL game. A coastal elitist NYC billionaire who is now a Democrat that rails against large sodas and guns and is in favor of unironic globalism, unironic neoliberalism, multiculturalism, free trade, and open borders? Give me a break!
Logged
Scottholes 2.0
Wisconsinite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 771
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2018, 05:26:09 pm »
« Edited: September 23, 2018, 06:04:13 pm by BlueFlapjack »

Iowa gives me hope about Wisconsin's governor race, and one of my old college friends who lives in Iowa cannot stand Kim Reynolds. Like Walker, she stripped collective bargaining rights away from public workers and also passed one of the strictest abortion laws in the country.
Logged
Spenstar
Spenstar3D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,124
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2018, 06:19:21 pm »

Bloomberg said he would run third party if Sanders win nomination. Dems are gonna nominate BIDEN, Booker or Gillibrand
If anything, a run by Bloomberg as a 3rd option should pull away more moderate voters who held their nose last year for Trump, not the voters from the Democrats.

Sort of like a 1992 situation.

Bloomberg would appeal to approximately 5 Trump voters. If anything he'd be an outlet for Romney-Clinton voters who the Democrats very well may end up needing.

The idea that Romney-Clinton voters exist in large quantities is rather unfounded.


As you can see, only 8 seats are actually Romney-Clinton seats, compared to the 11 Obama-Trump seats. Their location is also important. All of the Obama-Trump areas are in the midwest and North East, areas the Dems need to win the presidency. The Romney-Clinton seats, however, are in rather unimportant areas, where them going for a 3rd party wont make a real difference.

Also, the way to win the EC in 2020 is through 3 states, MI, WI, and PA. Trump was able to win MI and WI on the backs of suburbanites who didnt really like him, and rural Rs who loved him. If Wakasuha county were to have a significant amount of votes go to Bloomberg, then Trump loses the state. Same with MI. PA is a bit more complicated, and as the suburbs there are more D friendly. But, if say the Democrat is a person who wins back Obama-Trump voters while losing Romney-Clinton voters, then the state is D once again.

Also, if you think that only white hicks voted for Trump and not, as data shows, a large amount of upscale suburbanites who didnt like Trump, and were open to a third option(like a rich guy former R who argued for good old Republican policies), then you may be in for a surprise.

(psst the real number is 13, you add the C-R-M and the C-R-O seats together)
Logged
Zaybay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2018, 06:25:39 pm »


There are many problems with your argument as it stands.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, but leaves out important key information. 2016 had a lot of votes siphoned to 3rd party candidates. The Libertarian and Green Parties got record amounts in votes. By pointing out how badly Trump did misses how great 3rd parties did, and also misses that these 3rd party voters would likely revert to Trump, unless a Bloomberg were on the ballot, considering the GCB was R+1.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he is currently approved by 90% of Republicans. When he started office, and in the first year, he wasnt. Republican support hovered around 60-70%, until shooting up around January. It also misses how many Republicans have jumped ship to independent. They are still partisan Republicans, just not in name. They voted for Trump, didnt like him, may possibly be open to him, and would certainly vote for him against a likely Left Democrat. Bloomberg fixes that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, so many strawmen, so little time to deconstruct. Well, lets start.
1. The voters who voted for Trump constitute a large amount of Obama Democrats, and those have been swinging back. The Romney Republicans, however, have become more open to Trump as time has gone on. There are large portions of Republicans who dont agree with Trump on some of those issues, but would still vote for him over a Democrat. That is one of the biggest motivators for voting, to stop the other side.

2. I dont know what your obsession with beating down on rural voters is. Many of these guys have had the biggest swing towards Democrats. Its been the suburbs, the ones who voted for him by plugging their nose, and swung a bit Clinton, that have been the biggest obstacle. The fact that we are competitive in MT, and not in the GA suburbs show this.

3. You still dont understand the dynamics of what would happen with Bloomberg. Bloomberg would run as the centrist moderate, a guy on both sides, a guy who can bridge the gap, blah, blah, blah. Who would that attract? The Republican who hates Trump but cant stand Democrats? Or the moderate Democrat who is a bit irked by the Democrat but Hates Trump? Most likely, due to the patterns we have seen in 2017 and 2018, the Republican who jumps ship, just like they did in 2016.

Anyway, the idea to win the suburbanites over is maybe good for the house(according to data, it isnt), or the senate(again, it isnt), but for the presidency, it completely is. The Democrats dont need the Romney-Clinton voters in TX, CA, and UT to win, they need the Obama-Trump voters of WI, MI, and PA to do so. Even if, in whatever world it happens to be, more Ds go to Bloomberg than Rs, it doesnt matter if its all suburbanites in these states. What matters is that the Obama-Trump voters, who would have little reason to vote for Bloomberg, come back.
Logged
Zaybay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2018, 06:26:59 pm »

(psst the real number is 13, you add the C-R-M and the C-R-O seats together)
True, but doing the same for the other side, adding T-O-O and T-O-M gets 12 seats, and, as my argument goes, these seats are more critical to the presidential race than the C-R-M and C-R-O seats.
Logged
Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2018, 06:37:02 pm »

Iowa is one state I will never understand.

Glad that the Democrats are expected to do well this year though.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,771
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2018, 06:37:44 pm »

Iowa is one state I will never understand.

Glad that the Democrats are expected to do well this year though.
Iowa is more elastic than a rubber band.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,114
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2018, 08:01:42 pm »

Iowa is one state I will never understand.

Glad that the Democrats are expected to do well this year though.
Iowa is more elastic than a rubber band.

I've been saying this for over year, in spite of it voting further right than Texas in 2016. Using your rubber band metaphor, if you stretch a rubber band all the way, eventually it snaps the other way. We may very well see that very thing happen this November.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2018, 08:07:05 pm »
« Edited: September 23, 2018, 08:18:55 pm by IceSpear »

This is true, but leaves out important key information. 2016 had a lot of votes siphoned to 3rd party candidates. The Libertarian and Green Parties got record amounts in votes. By pointing out how badly Trump did misses how great 3rd parties did, and also misses that these 3rd party voters would likely revert to Trump, unless a Bloomberg were on the ballot, considering the GCB was R+1.

Jill Stein voters would revert to Trump if Bloomberg wasn't on the ballot? That's quite an interesting theory you have there. It makes about as much sense as Bloomberg drawing more from Trump than from Sanders, lol. And there's zero evidence to suggest third parties in general would've broken to him if forced to choose. Considering most of these people were Obama voters or first time voters and skewed young, I'm highly skeptical of that claim. Sure, there was a small amount of Obama-Trump voters, but there were far more Obama-Clinton voters (obviously, considering she won the popular vote by 2 points.) What evidence is there to suggest that all these third party voters would've joined the small Obama-Trump group rather than the massive Obama-Clinton group if forced to choose? And the generic ballot doesn't mean anything. Democrats only won it by 1 even while Obama won by 4 in 2012. It just means voters were splitting their tickets.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. This might be the most intellectually disingenuous "point" I've ever seen made on Atlas, and that's saying something. You literally cherrypicked a single example, ignored all elections that occured before and after it as well as tons of recent polling, then made a trend out of it. I'm very impressed, in all honesty. Luckily I already made a rebuttal to this stale year and a half old argument.

KS-04: Thompson kept it relatively close because he cleaned up in Wichita and the suburbs, even winning Sedgwick County. He got crushed in the rural areas.
MT-AL: Quist mostly ran up the score in what passes for urban/suburban areas in Montana like Missoula, Bozeman (Gallatin County), Helena (Lewis and Clark County), and Butte (Silver Bow County.) He still got curbstomped in the rural areas.
VA-Gov: Northam did even better than Clinton in NoVa which hardly anyone expected, while also making massive improvements in the Virginia Beach and Richmond suburbs. He did far worse than even McAuliffe in the rural areas.
AL-Sen: Moore actually did better in the rural areas than he did in 2012. He lost because he got burbstomped in the Birmingham/Mobile/Huntsville cities and their suburbs, along with the Black Belt. Look at the swing in Jefferson, Shelby, and Madison Counties.
PA-18: Lamb won because of the Pittsburbstomping in Allegheny County, he was still soundly rejected in Washington/Greene/Westmoreland Counties.
AZ-08: Dems got a massive swing in a heavily Republican district that consists entirely of Phoenix suburbs.
OH-12: Same story as PA-18 basically, with a slightly different ending. O'Connor dominated in suburban Columbus (Franklin County) and put in an amazing performance for a Democrat in suburban Delaware County. It wasn't quite enough to make up for the thumping he got in the rural areas of the district.

Really the only counter example and the reason the whole "suburbs are fools gold" narrative got started is because of GA-06, which is a pretty obvious outlier at this point.

On top of that, since that post we've gotten multiple polls showing Comstock, Rothfus, Paulsen, Coffman, Harkey, and Yoder getting curbstomped, and I doubt they're the only ones. And their districts are almost entirely suburban. It's time to give up on this narrative about the "stubborn suburbs."
Logged
DTC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,132


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2018, 08:09:38 pm »

The only real exception to the rural swings might be Joe Manchin. I still can't explain why Manchin has the appeal he does given how polarized America is, but I suppose WV is still a really bizarre state.
Logged
Silurian
Virginia C
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,429
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2018, 08:40:17 pm »

2. I dont know what your obsession with beating down on rural voters is. Many of these guys have had the biggest swing towards Democrats. Its been the suburbs, the ones who voted for him by plugging their nose, and swung a bit Clinton, that have been the biggest obstacle. The fact that we are competitive in MT, and not in the GA suburbs show this.

That seems a little disingenuous. GA-06 might not have swung any further left, but it maintained it's 2016 swing more or less, and that is a big deal given how Republican-leaning it was before. Something I think you are not really noticing is that not only have Democrats improved somewhat on 2016 in some places, but a lot of suburban districts that flipped to Democrats at the presidential level in 2016 still reelected Republicans, but now appear poised to kick them out. Orange County, CA is an example (although Latino voters may necessitate waiting to 2020 to finish flipping all of those districts). Districts like CO-06, MN-02, MN-03, KS-03, IL-06, a smorgasbord of New Jersey districts and even some North Carolina districts.

Point being that I think you're undervaluing suburbs here. The evidence of their continued swings to Democrats is pretty well-established by now. Lastly, Montana is an interesting example. Democrats tend to do well there in statewide/federal races. They've had a bad run in the House seat, but not Senate elections. So it really shouldn't be that surprising. All this is to say that regardless of the merits of your argument, Montana isn't a good example for it.
Logged
Zaybay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2018, 09:35:35 pm »

2. I dont know what your obsession with beating down on rural voters is. Many of these guys have had the biggest swing towards Democrats. Its been the suburbs, the ones who voted for him by plugging their nose, and swung a bit Clinton, that have been the biggest obstacle. The fact that we are competitive in MT, and not in the GA suburbs show this.

That seems a little disingenuous. GA-06 might not have swung any further left, but it maintained it's 2016 swing more or less, and that is a big deal given how Republican-leaning it was before. Something I think you are not really noticing is that not only have Democrats improved somewhat on 2016 in some places, but a lot of suburban districts that flipped to Democrats at the presidential level in 2016 still reelected Republicans, but now appear poised to kick them out. Orange County, CA is an example (although Latino voters may necessitate waiting to 2020 to finish flipping all of those districts). Districts like CO-06, MN-02, MN-03, KS-03, IL-06, a smorgasbord of New Jersey districts and even some North Carolina districts.

Point being that I think you're undervaluing suburbs here. The evidence of their continued swings to Democrats is pretty well-established by now. Lastly, Montana is an interesting example. Democrats tend to do well there in statewide/federal races. They've had a bad run in the House seat, but not Senate elections. So it really shouldn't be that surprising. All this is to say that regardless of the merits of your argument, Montana isn't a good example for it.

What you say is true, and I agree. The 2016 shift has been maintained in suburbs. What I am pointing out is that its only been maintained. And in some areas, like in IL and Orange County, its subsided since 2016. This is why some places, like VA-10, are voting Dem by large margins, they were D to start off with. But areas like PA-01, or IL-06, which are closer to the mean PVI, or are just plain stubborn, are seeing tight races. In rural areas, however, the swing has been large, though it has not equaled to a victory. What I am arguing, in that comment, is that the suburbs have been tougher to win over, and have needed more resources and investments than rural districts, which seem to be naturally swinging over.

Its also a matter of resources. Most resources of the D party have been going to these suburban areas. If we look at the FCC numbers for places like Orange County and other suburban areas, its rather massive in D spending. But compared to rural areas, even with rather large media markets, its not that high, yet Ds are competitive. It can also be seen in the swings from the congressional specials, where

To summarize, my point is that its taking a Trump presidency and a Blue wave to finally make the suburbs vote like they do for presidential races, and even then, its tenuous, while a lot of rural areas have experienced shifts that havent been expected, even though these large swings wont result in many wins.

I would rather not start an argument over the ability for different areas of the US to swing in a poll tab, though.
Logged
Wisconsin SC Race 2019
hofoid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2018, 10:12:22 pm »

If Reynolds, Blum and Young all lose, thatís terrible news for Joni Ernst and Trump's chances in IA in 2020.

Maybe, but Democrats for example got blown out in Tennessee in 94 and Clinton still carried the state two years later. A lot can happen.

Trump is much more polarizing than Clinton/Obama were and nowhere near as skilled a politician as them, plus he most likely wonít have the luxury of facing someone as or more unpopular as Clinton in 2020. Iím pretty sure Democrats will be as fired up in 2020 as they are right now, and I donít see any reason why the Trump 2016 voters who are either abandoning him right now or not showing up to vote at all will do so in 2020. If Republicans get crushed in IA this year, thereís no way the state is anything worse than Toss-up for Democrats in 2020. Iíd say itís even Lean/Likely D with someone like Sanders.
I liked Obama, but him not being polar entity? Yikes, someone's forgotten the birther movement alone.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2018, 10:42:38 pm »

If Reynolds, Blum and Young all lose, thatís terrible news for Joni Ernst and Trump's chances in IA in 2020.

Maybe, but Democrats for example got blown out in Tennessee in 94 and Clinton still carried the state two years later. A lot can happen.

Trump is much more polarizing than Clinton/Obama were and nowhere near as skilled a politician as them, plus he most likely wonít have the luxury of facing someone as or more unpopular as Clinton in 2020. Iím pretty sure Democrats will be as fired up in 2020 as they are right now, and I donít see any reason why the Trump 2016 voters who are either abandoning him right now or not showing up to vote at all will do so in 2020. If Republicans get crushed in IA this year, thereís no way the state is anything worse than Toss-up for Democrats in 2020. Iíd say itís even Lean/Likely D with someone like Sanders.
I liked Obama, but him not being polar entity? Yikes, someone's forgotten the birther movement alone.

We get it, Obamaís black.
Logged
Moscow Mitch
Zyzz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,652


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 24, 2018, 06:38:58 pm »

Iowa voting for Trump in such a blowout in 2016 was so weird to see. I get Hillary was a bad candidate and terrible fit for Iowa, but so was Trump. Trump was a big city Yankee authoritarian. Iowa is also not part of the rust belt, it's farm country so they knew tariffs hurt farmers, not help them.
Logged
Smaug
Thunder98
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,334
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 24, 2018, 06:44:56 pm »
« Edited: September 25, 2018, 03:29:42 pm by Thunder98 »

Bloomberg said he would run third party if Sanders win nomination. Dems are gonna nominate BIDEN, Booker or Gillibrand

Actually he wanted to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2016, not 2020? Where are you getting this from?  Huh

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-bloomberg-mulls-third-party-run-president-article-1.2507017

Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26,639
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 24, 2018, 07:17:56 pm »

Terry Brandstand was hugely popular in 2016 and Reynolds signed a partial abortions ban and Grassley's mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination lead to a Dem win
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,114
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 24, 2018, 07:26:34 pm »

Iowa voting for Trump in such a blowout in 2016 was so weird to see. I get Hillary was a bad candidate and terrible fit for Iowa, but so was Trump. Trump was a big city Yankee authoritarian. Iowa is also not part of the rust belt, it's farm country so they knew tariffs hurt farmers, not help them.

For some reason Trump's privilege and inability to relate to average Americans is invisible to many of those average Americans. It's what he has managed to coast on to get elected. Hopefully those people are waking up now. I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm a bit more optimistic about it at the very least.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26,639
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 24, 2018, 07:53:06 pm »

Bloomberg said he would run third party if Sanders win nomination. Dems are gonna nominate BIDEN, Booker or Gillibrand

Actually he wanted to run as a 3rd party canidate in 2016, not 2020? Where are you getting this from?  Huh

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-bloomberg-mulls-third-party-run-president-article-1.2507017



Booker and BIDEN are running for president and so is Sanders. Bloomberg and Sanders only take WWC votes away from BIDEN, without Iowa or NH, Booker seals the deal in SC, due to Clayborn, GILLUM and Abrams winning Governorships
Logged
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 465


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 24, 2018, 08:41:37 pm »

Bloomberg said he would run third party if Sanders win nomination. Dems are gonna nominate BIDEN, Booker or Gillibrand

Actually he wanted to run as a 3rd party canidate in 2016, not 2020? Where are you getting this from?  Huh

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-bloomberg-mulls-third-party-run-president-article-1.2507017



Booker and BIDEN are running for president and so is Sanders. Bloomberg and Sanders only take WWC votes away from BIDEN, without Iowa or NH, Booker seals the deal in SC, due to Clayborn, GILLUM and Abrams winning Governorships

Stop.  Yelling.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 26, 2018, 03:27:19 pm »

An incumbent down 2 and at 41% overall? Not hard to read the writing on the wall here.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,548


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2018, 02:38:19 pm »

Lean D. Branstad, Reynolds, and the Republicans have done awful things to education, health care, and collective bargaining rights in this state. All of these terrible decisions are deservedly unpopular and seem to be the main issues of the campaign so far. Also, Reynolds is basically just seen as an extension of Branstad. She seems to have no real message establishing herself as a candidate independent of him.
Logged
Bagel23
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,249
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -1.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 13, 2019, 05:00:03 pm »


*A poll from a well respected Iowa pollster shows an incumbent Republican down 2 and at 41%*

Bagel: "Strong Lean R."

Correc
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC