The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 16, 2024, 07:00:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1273785 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4200 on: March 19, 2010, 03:22:54 PM »
« edited: March 19, 2010, 03:25:45 PM by pbrower2a »


Ohio, Oregon, Washington, SurveyUSA. Georgia by Rasmussen, and it is toward the top of the beige category. California, a rare Field poll that changes nothing.  

We have had problems with polls from SurveyUSA, haven't we? The last ones seemed to not have much sticking power. Somehow I think that Rasmussen has less of an R bias than does SurveyUSA.



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months:

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), and more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Z- no recent poll (maximum 180 days) before December 1, 2009 except Montana (November 2009), which rarely gets polled.
 




Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,039
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4201 on: March 19, 2010, 06:45:06 PM »

Georgia (Rasmussen)Sad

44% Approve
54% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Georgia was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 17, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/georgia/toplines/toplines_georgia_governor_march_17_2010

He seems to be holding up surprisingly well there.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4202 on: March 19, 2010, 07:32:40 PM »

I just remembered this all of a sudden...

Remember in 2005 when President Bush's approval ratings were lower state by state than his numbers nationally and it puzzled us all? Then, very quickly, the state numbers caught up and his approval sunk nationally? I have a feeling the same thing is about to happen to President Obama.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4203 on: March 19, 2010, 07:59:24 PM »

My prediction map

198 DEM
308 REP
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4204 on: March 19, 2010, 10:37:34 PM »

I just remembered this all of a sudden...

Remember in 2005 when President Bush's approval ratings were lower state by state than his numbers nationally and it puzzled us all? Then, very quickly, the state numbers caught up and his approval sunk nationally? I have a feeling the same thing is about to happen to President Obama.

George W. Bush

1. Was a dreadful speaker. Once he got into trouble he had no way of talking himself out of it.

2. Had performed the silly "Mission Accomplished" stunt.  That would bite back hard.

3. Had two wars going on, both bungled badly, for which he was increasingly held at fault.

4. Had yet to experience the consequences of economic collapse on his watch even if such was then a certainty.

5. Bungled the response to a natural disaster.

6. Was in a Party waxing corrupt and arrogant -- and headed for a nasty fall.

7. Had few legislative achievements other than that on behalf of special interest groups that funded his campaign.

8. Was utterly incompetent as a diplomat.

I'm not going to conclude that the falling numbers for Barack Obama aren't real. They can be transitory.  Sure, there may be analogies, but if one uses the right analogies one can make a Yorkshire terrier seem much like a tiger.

Has any President endured such a well-funded, well-organized smear campaign from an interest group intent on demolishing a part of his legislative agenda? Of course it is risky to challenge a well-heeled special interest with a commanding height in the economy even if the commanding height is used only to wring wealth from everyone else.

We will have a vote on the health care bill, arguably the most important legislation in years., on Sunday afternoon.  I can't predict the results -- but it will be more important than the Final Four this year. Next year there will be another Final Four; we can't be sure whether there will be any change except for the worse in the way we do medical care.

If the bill is defeated, then it is nothing ventured, nothing gained, and we will have a health care system whose main purpose is to line the pockets of people who do nothing to cure any disease or treat any injury, or make hospitals work as anything other than a conduit of cash to some profiteers, and we have the world's worst method of administering health care. If it passes, then it's on to something else.  Either way the catcalls come to an end.
Logged
Saxwsylvania
Van Der Blub
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,534


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4205 on: March 20, 2010, 10:00:58 AM »

Obama's numbers can improve ... but don't expect it to happen this year.  His best bet is to have Republicans take back both houses of Congress, then shift to the center a la Clinton.  The problem is that Obama is no Clinton, he's too much an ideologue.  If a Republican takeover occurs, expect deadlock and government shutdowns and no legislation passed.  Obama should then hope for Sarah Palin as his opponent or that the economy recovers.  From November 2010 to January 2013, he'll be effectively a lame duck.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4206 on: March 20, 2010, 11:27:18 AM »
« Edited: March 20, 2010, 01:38:25 PM by J. J. »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%

Disapprove 56%


"Strongly Approve" is at 23%.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 44%.  Both are unchanged.

Today's polling represents a tie for Obama's lowest approval and highest disapproval numbers on Rasmussen.  This, in what could be an ominous sign, puts his "Strongly Disapprove" numbers ahead of his Approve numbers.  This makes the first time this has happened.

This is but one day of polling, however.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4207 on: March 20, 2010, 12:42:52 PM »

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different. Of course a short-term trend is not to be treated as a long-term trend unless there is such an underlying cause as erratic behavior, an economic collapse, a military debacle, or a scandal. Does anyone see any of those?  A legislative failure is not doom for a President in the sense that erratic behavior, an economic collapse, a military debacle, or a scandal is. Think about this: with few legislative successes, George W. Bush was re-elected.

Never extrapolate a short-term trend that doesn't have some irreversible cause behind it.

On Sunday the bill passes both Houses of Congress or it doesn't. Period. That's Game 7 of the World Series, ninth inning, and one must ask whether Barack Obama has a 7-4 lead with Mariano Rivera pitching to the Cubs with their #7, #8, and #9 hitters due at the plate, or whether his team is the Chicago Cubs. Within what seems an eternity we will have definitive results.

As I see it, President Obama took what he thought was a low-risk (of failure), high-reward  gamble on the most important legislation since the Great Society programs. The risk of failure has proved greater than he expected, but the rewards for success are as high as ever.

What has been happening? The health insurance industry has been funding repeated ads denouncing the legislation and in consequence any politician supporting the legislation is getting a rhetorical tarring-and-feathering. Huge profits for doing little more than organizing the paperwork of low-paid clerks will be defended ferociously. Privileged elites 'earning' easy money always defend their privilege against any challenge.

Once the bill is passed or defeated, the campaign of vilification will be over. The heavy advertising to thwart the legislation will become either futile or irrelevant. Much of the rent-a-protest tea party activity will go into hibernation as its corporate support looks for something else.   



 
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,868


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4208 on: March 20, 2010, 02:08:23 PM »

Uh, pbrower, the Senate isn't voting tomorrow...
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4209 on: March 20, 2010, 02:57:55 PM »

Uh, pbrower, the Senate isn't voting tomorrow...

Sure. The Senate is a done deal or all but done. So is a Presidential signature.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4210 on: March 20, 2010, 03:53:39 PM »

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different.

I agree with that, but what do you mean America "becoming something very different?"
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4211 on: March 20, 2010, 05:29:33 PM »

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different.

I agree with that, but what do you mean America "becoming something very different?"

You really don't want to know. Really. Anyone who thinks that Bush, Rove, and Cheney didn't go far enough will be very happy with the new America. That's all that I need say.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4212 on: March 20, 2010, 05:55:18 PM »

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different.

I agree with that, but what do you mean America "becoming something very different?"

You really don't want to know. Really. Anyone who thinks that Bush, Rove, and Cheney didn't go far enough will be very happy with the new America. That's all that I need say.


The people pushing the Bush 43/ Cheney ways are the Dems.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4213 on: March 21, 2010, 01:11:00 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45% +2

Disapprove 54% -2


"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -2.

This could be a bad sample dropping off.
Logged
xavier110
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,784
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4214 on: March 21, 2010, 01:25:27 PM »

Huge Gallup swing

50 (+3)/43 (-4)
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4215 on: March 21, 2010, 01:49:12 PM »

HCR boost, presumably?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4216 on: March 21, 2010, 02:02:37 PM »


Before anyone makes any predictions, we should wait a few days. The Big Vote is this afternoon/evening. I think that most Americans, whatever their side on the health care reform want the ugly process over -- definitively over. We just have had some of the most intense politics in recent decades.

So far as I can tell the vote will be close. The tension will abate quickly.

First, watch national polls, as those will portend how statewide polls will go for at least the remainder of March and into early April. It will be difficult for Obama to have 44% approval in Georgia and either 55% nationwide approval -- or 35% national approval. States close to the national average on approval, like Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, will make big shifts.

The political discord will almost certainly abate. Tension is not good for approval ratings for anyone (the President) or any political institution (Congress) involved. For now I will not predict the direction, as some of us will have plenty of opportunity to say "I told you so!" very soon, I won't say whom, as the vote is yet to be done.

Second -- there just is too little to say yet.   
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4217 on: March 21, 2010, 02:30:29 PM »


I think it's more a very bad day rolling off the average.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4218 on: March 21, 2010, 02:43:28 PM »


On Rasmussen, no.  Yesterday's numbers were remarkably low.  Obama tied for his highest disapproval and lowest approval numbers on record.  It looked like possibly a bad sample.

His current Rasmussen numbers were actually slightly better last week at this time than today.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4219 on: March 21, 2010, 10:31:41 PM »

The bill passed. The Orwellian catcalls from fronts for the health-insurance racket come to an end. The tea-bag protesters will have to turn to something else. Don't worry; April 15 is but 25 days away.

Things have been tense. Tension is bad for the approval of any politician, and this will be the same for Republicans in Congress as for President Obama.

I was not sure of how the vote would go until I saw two contrasting deliveries on C-SPAN: House Minority Whip giving a hysterical oration on how the health-care reform bill would run afoul of everything that Americans hold dear, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi giving a calm, reasoned, and even dull presentation of the desirability of the bill.  Maybe both knew something that I didn't know (no surprise there!)

Can I predict that the next Rasmussen poll of Iowa next week of "likely voters" will give a 57% approval, should there be such a poll? Hardly. We have several effects working at once:

1. Everybody likes a winner -- and President Barack Obama just won. BIG!

2. The tension in political life is released. Perhaps the edginess will diminish enough to let people have better feelings overall.

3. Many people still thought this bill a disaster and still will.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,930
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4220 on: March 21, 2010, 10:46:46 PM »



material adapted from another post:




Note: approval polls from March 13. Little has changed, and the point was one in which things looked as if political realities between 2000 and 2008 were still relevant.



Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow 
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green>60%: 80% Green


 



Here is a prediction of how states would vote based on how things were on March 13. 

I think that we can reasonably assume that DC, Hawaii, and Maine  (including its two Congressional districts, which give electoral votes as the district votes -- same as Nebraska) will vote for Barack Obama in 2012. We can also reasonably assume that Mississippi, Nebraska (except perhaps NE-02, Greater Omaha, which votes very differently from the rest of the state), West Virginia, and Wyoming will reasonably vote for any Republican.

Any state in which approval for Barack Obama by "likely voters" is 50% or greater (this is a very rigid standard) will go for Obama -- or else Obama has surely lost. Color those states and the "sure things for him" of the preceding paragraph in deep red (maroon).  In medium red are those states (except South Carolina, which may not belong in the "aqua" category, and I will explain why) are states in which Obama has equal or higher approval greater than 45%. That adds Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Obama's weakest wins from the so-called Blue Firewall, in 2008 -- one of which, Wisconsin, gave a bare (and some say "tainted") Kerry victory in 2004.  Basically these states and DC are the ones that have not voted for a Republican nominee for President after 1988 -- even once.

Now we get to the "sand" category in the top map (and I am adding South Carolina to it) in which approval for Obama is lower than disapproval but above 45%.  Three states from this category -- Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico -- have voted only once for a Republican nominee for President (Dubya in both cases) after 1988. I color those pink because they have more of a habit of voting Democratic than the other states in sand in the higher map.  Obama won each of those states by at least 9% in 2008. It will not be enough for Obama to win all states in maroon, red, or pink in 2008, and it will be even shorter of being enough in 2012.   

Now we get to the other states in sand.   Obama won every one of those except South Carolina, and I am including South Carolina in this group because its approvals of the President fit this group better than any others, and South Carolina is surprisingly stable between pollsters in the last five months. They will be the legitimate swing states in a close election, unlike those in pink, where the habit of voting D is much stronger and the Democratic Party has stronger organization. You can count on much of the campaigning to be done in these states in the autumn in a near 50-50 election.

So why do I not have Indiana and NE-02 (which Obama barely won in 2008), Missouri (which he barely lost), Georgia or Montana (both of which he lost by 5% or less), or Arizona (which would have been close had someone other than John McCain), let alone Nevada (which he won by a huge margin in 2008) in sand? These would seem to be on the fringe of contention in a 50-50 race. The pale blue indicates that if the Republican must defend any one of these in 2012, he is in as much trouble politically as Obama is if he has to defend something in pink, let alone medium-red.
 

All of those states show approval ratings under 45% right now, and if that is coincidence, it fits. Nevada voted for Obama by a huge margin because of the real-estate collapse. 70% of Nevada housing is underwater, and not because of any flooding except for bad loans, and that won't be resolved before 2012. That Senator Harry Reid is fighting for his political life indicates that the lending mess is far from settled in the state. Neither Montana nor NE-02 is likely to decide the election (I am guessing on NE-02) on its own or separately. Obama can't win Indiana without winning Ohio, Georgia, without winning both North Carolina and Florida, or Arizona without winning Colorado and Nevada.

 Obama wins Missouri if he makes significant headway in states in lgreen that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 but Obama got clobbered in because  even if northern Missouri and greater St. Louis and Kansas City vote as a whole like Iowa, southern Missouri votes more like Arkansas or West Virginia.  I do not now predict that  Obama will gain anything in the states in  green; so far, President Obama is the wrong sort of Democrat to win any of those states until I see otherwise. I have so little hope that Obama could win any of those states (although Tennessee surprises me slightly) that I consider Texas, both Dakotas, and NE-01 all in medium  blue all more likely to go to Obama in 2012. If John Vitter can be re-elected in Louisiana after a sex scandal fatal to his career in almost any other state, then that shows how strongly Republican Louisiana has become. Navy and dark green indicate states that Obama are even less likely wins for him than Texas. 





Tier 1: Really-solid Democratic in a 50-50 race -  206 EV        206
Tier 2: absolute must-wins for Obama, 2012 - 41 EV               247 (Kerry - NH)
Tier 3: fringe of Republican contention -16 EV - 16 EV             264 (Gore + NH)

Tier 4: Legitimate swing states - 90  EV                                    355           

Tier 5: fringe of Democratic contention  - 56 EV                      411

Tier 6: Obama landslide begins   - 41 EV                                   452

Tier 7: Everything else


(based on electoral votes in 2008).
                                                                                               


So why is 45% so significant? Nate Silver estimates that any incumbent has about a 50% chance of winning if his most recent Gallup approval rating going into the election is at 44%, and the chance of re-election rises rapidly above and falls rapidly below that point.  The incumbent, unless a turkey, has most of the structural advantages in a contest against any challenger. Within four years, the incumbent should be well established for what he believes and doesn't believe. He should have gotten some of his legislative agenda passed and it should show the positive effects early.  What applies to the nation probably applies just as well to states.

In contrast, the challenger must be very strong at offering an alternative to the apparent failures of the incumbent. If at 50% approval the incumbent does not need to campaign much to win, then between 44% and 50% approval the incumbent's campaign can rely heavily upon negative advertising that casts doubt upon the coherence of the challenger's promises.  Think of 2004, when many Democrats thought that John Kerry would win because Dubya was awful (the judgment of history so far); Dubya won! The incumbent's campaign worked to dampen enthusiasm for Kerry, to shore up support among usual constituencies for conservative policies, and to discourage many people who might have voted for Kerry from going to the polls. Such may explain why incumbents choosing to run for re-election have won 72% of their chances since 1900, inclusive.

Note also that most of the state  polls (heavily Rasmussen) are of what Rasmussen terms "likely voters", which may undercount likely Democratic voters in 2012. "Likely voters" may mean people who have a proven high likelihood of participating in elections based on prior behavior. Obviously anyone born after November 4, 1990 has yet to show any likelihood of voting in any future election, and very young voters of 2012 may vote very differently from the electorate at large. In contrast, Rasmussen cannot predict what "likely voters" will fail to vote because they fail to live long enough, and if those voters are more conservative than the electorate as a whole, then that also undercuts the likely Obama vote. 

Since then some states have "moved", but I am not certain that polls since then to date  will reflect reality as of April 1.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,666
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4221 on: March 22, 2010, 07:53:42 AM »

Just wait for the vote on health care reform. Not until the bill is definitively passed in both Houses of Congress will we get to see how things turn out. The current trend looks like Obama as a one-term President with some right-wing nutcase becoming President with a stooge Congress in 2013, with America becoming something very different.

I agree with that, but what do you mean America "becoming something very different?"

You really don't want to know. Really. Anyone who thinks that Bush, Rove, and Cheney didn't go far enough will be very happy with the new America. That's all that I need say.


The people pushing the Bush 43/ Cheney ways are the Dems.

Not this one.

Or any other I know either come to think of it. We're too busy working to clean up the mess left behind.
Logged
Convicted Felon Donald Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,382


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4222 on: March 22, 2010, 09:17:24 AM »

People claiming that President Obama is seeing or going to see a boost in his approval rating due to the passage of health care reform are misguided.  If anything he's going to see a drop.  I would say he'll hover around the mid to low 40s (about where he is right now) for the rest of the next month or two after which he'll see a slow decline.  He'll be in the 30s by the end of the year when Republicans will sweep by houses of Congress, again because of health care.

Sure, people like a winner, and like to support the winner.  But it depends heavily on what said winner has won, and what the President and his Congress have just won is something that the American people overwhelmingly object to, as evidenced in every single poll taken on this topic.  *Note that I said "his" Congress.  The Congress no longer represents its people; if they did, this bill never would've gotten as far as it did and the entire issue would've been dead months ago.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4223 on: March 22, 2010, 09:30:23 AM »
« Edited: March 22, 2010, 06:58:04 PM by J. J. »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47% +2

Disapprove 53% -1


"Strongly Approve" is at 29%, +3.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, -1.

Over the last two days, Obama's "Strongly Approve" numbers jumped up six point.  The rest has moved slightly, but generally within 3 points.

Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,039
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4224 on: March 22, 2010, 09:32:37 AM »

People claiming that President Obama is seeing or going to see a boost in his approval rating due to the passage of health care reform are misguided.  If anything he's going to see a drop.  I would say he'll hover around the mid to low 40s (about where he is right now) for the rest of the next month or two after which he'll see a slow decline.  He'll be in the 30s by the end of the year when Republicans will sweep by houses of Congress, again because of health care.

Sure, people like a winner, and like to support the winner.  But it depends heavily on what said winner has won, and what the President and his Congress have just won is something that the American people overwhelmingly object to, as evidenced in every single poll taken on this topic.  *Note that I said "his" Congress.  The Congress no longer represents its people; if they did, this bill never would've gotten as far as it did and the entire issue would've been dead months ago.

Weren't you a Clinton supporter?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 ... 410  
« 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 0.158 seconds with 10 queries.