What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (5 Viewers)

prefontaine said:
I know this thread is geared primarily to the Democratic nomination contest but I found this to be an interesting Politico article on Florida, especially in context of the latino vote. 

“Trump is in trouble,” pollster Fernand Amandi said, noting that 23 percent of all Florida Republicans said he doesn’t deserve reelection. “When that many people from your own party don’t support you, it means you have to spend more time consolidating your base.”
Click to expand...
The guy has spent half his Presidency in the state and somehow he's lagging national polls there. I'm really not sure what else he can do but this could be more about Florida specific politics.
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple and I brought up the point the day of the midterms.  There's a massive influx of PR residents who have come here to live permanently.  In addition, there was a resolution passed to allow convicted felons who have served their time and are in good standing with authorities their right to vote again.  With GOPer Scott, he was picking and choosing who would get their right to vote back.  I don't think you'd be shocked by the demographics if you had to guess who was typically allowed to vote again and who wasn't.

 
The Commish said:
It's pretty simple and I brought up the point the day of the midterms.  There's a massive influx of PR residents who have come here to live permanently.  In addition, there was a resolution passed to allow convicted felons who have served their time and are in good standing with authorities their right to vote again.  With GOPer Scott, he was picking and choosing who would get their right to vote back.  I don't think you'd be shocked by the demographics if you had to guess who was typically allowed to vote again and who wasn't.
Click to expand...
Those are good developments for Florida dems but that state is still a tough nut for us to crack. It's one of the few states where the numbers of conservative older voters are getting constant reinforcements.

I can almost see Georgia going blue before Florida but either of those states would be a great get. Republicans stand little chance without winning Florida.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Those are good developments for Florida dems but that state is still a tough nut for us to crack. It's one of the few states where the numbers of conservative older voters are getting constant reinforcements.

I can almost see Georgia going blue before Florida but either of those states would be a great get. Republicans stand little chance without winning Florida.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it's had a GOP governor for 2ish decades or something?  Not sure...we just moved here a couple years ago.  It's still uphill to flip things, but there are many around me who took a flyer on Trump that aren't happy.  And the voting populace seems to be poised for grassroots change....Gillum was more successful than anyone could imagine against the "Trump guy"....though as it turns out, he's not much of a Trump guy after all....the local trump followers aren't all that happy with DeSantis.  Oddly enough, I am pleasantly surprised, though it could go off the rails at any time.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
From my perspective the only chance it has of passing and getting upheld by the Supreme Court is if there’s an election where the Republican wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention, again my opinion only, that I think it'll be a while before Republicans win another popular vote. Donald may win next November but he won't win the popular vote and in '24 they're gonna get their butts handed to them regardless of what happens in '20. After that they'll have to track back towards the middle because 15 million new voters every cycle will vote against an anti-science agenda by a 2-1 margin. But if I've learned anything in nearly five decades of voting, it's that American politics is cyclical. The GOP will recover from Trump.

 
The Commish said:
Yeah, I think it's had a GOP governor for 2ish decades or something?  Not sure...we just moved here a couple years ago.  It's still uphill to flip things, but there are many around me who took a flyer on Trump that aren't happy.  And the voting populace seems to be poised for grassroots change....Gillum was more successful than anyone could imagine against the "Trump guy"....though as it turns out, he's not much of a Trump guy after all....the local trump followers aren't all that happy with DeSantis.  Oddly enough, I am pleasantly surprised, though it could go off the rails at any time.
Click to expand...
I love the fact that something like 1.2 million citizens got their voting rights restored -- even Republican voters had to have voted for it to some extent. I just don't have a good feel if that particular demographic will turn out in high enough numbers (and on the right side) to swing the state blue next year. 

What Stacey Abrams did and what's happening in greater Atlanta, though, should scare Pubbies to death. A liberal black woman came within a point and a half of winning the governorship and the counties forming metro Atlanta are turning blacker and bluer every year.

Let the voter suppression efforts begin.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I forgot to mention, again my opinion only, that I think it'll be a while before Republicans win another popular vote. Donald may win next November but he won't win the popular vote and in '24 they're gonna get their butts handed to them regardless of what happens in '20. After that they'll have to track back towards the middle because 15 million new voters every cycle will vote against an anti-science agenda by a 2-1 margin. But if I've learned anything in nearly five decades of voting, it's that American politics is cyclical. The GOP will recover from Trump.
Click to expand...
Yup.  I think people are underestimating the possibility that he'll get absolutely trounced in the popular vote but still win the electoral college.  As we become more and more polarized individual state results become less and less correlated.

And if people think America is divided now, imagine what will happen if Trump is re-elected while losing the popular vote by 6 million. Even worse, imagine if that is followed by a recession during Trump's second term (one is definitely coming before 2024) after Trump wasted so many bullets juicing an already thriving economy during his first term in order to help himself win re-election. The anger and resentment will be off the charts, and justifiably so.

 
Here's a map that would give Trump a second term despite getting killed in the popular vote. If he loses big in the popular vote that presumably means he loses Pennsylvania and Michigan, but he could still hang on to Wisconsin (fewer minority and suburban voters) and the rest of the states he won in 2016.

 
In today's Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein writes that Trump has settled on his re-election strategy -- present himself as the only one who can protect the aging, diminishing white Christian base. Unlike candidates in the past, who have pledged to be the president of us all, Donald has returned to the strategy that worked in '16, playing to the base and ignoring likely Dem voters.

The veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin told me the evidence from 2018 suggests that in 2020, at least 10 million more people might vote than in the 2016 presidential election—most of them from constituencies hostile to Trump.
Click to expand...
Btw, Tobias, a six million edge for the Dems in the popular vote is also what I'm generally predicting. And I wonder if that'll be enough (nice system we got here). But if turnout increases by 10 million, from 135 to 145 million, then I don't think Don can arrange the votes favorably enough to overcome that because most of those new voters will vote against him.

 
Sherrod Brown - thanks, but no thanks.

JUST IN: Sen. Sherrod Brown says he will not run for president in 2020:

"I will do everything I can to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in 2020. The best place for me to make that fight is in the United States Senate."

Curious decision - only from the standpoint of demographics - but I think the right decision.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Sherrod Brown - thanks, but no thanks.

JUST IN: Sen. Sherrod Brown says he will not run for president in 2020:

"I will do everything I can to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in 2020. The best place for me to make that fight is in the United States Senate."

Curious decision - only from the standpoint of demographics - but I think the right decision.
Click to expand...
It's good from the standpoint of not losing the Senate seat in Ohio.

 
Nate Silver was giving him more credit than I would have:

Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538

First person who I actually thought had a chance to win who isn't running.

 
prefontaine said:
Still think he's a prime Veep candidate (esp for Kamala)
Click to expand...
If he/Dems don't want to burn his Senate seat for a presidential campaign I can't imagine they'd want to burn it for a VP spot.

If Harris is the nominee I like Pete Buttigieg for VP.  Young, energetic, Midwestern, military experience, focused on economic issues and obviously would be groundbreaking. I'd worry a bit about losing some senior vote with a youthful-looking ticket since Harris looks much younger than 54, but that's a minor issue.

 
TobiasFunke said:
If Harris is the nominee I like Pete Buttigieg for VP.  Young, energetic, Midwestern, military experience, focused on economic issues and obviously would be groundbreaking.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be dismissive of Buttigieg because he's an interesting guy. But that would be an entirely unnecessary Game Change like selection. 

The Democratic nominee is going to be the favorite. They need a strategic, don't-screw-this-up pick, not a Game Change. A VP on the ticket that will not carry his home state, is 37, gay and married, and whose only government experience is Mayor of a 100k town is just crazytalk. 

 
prefontaine said:
I don't mean to be dismissive of Buttigieg because he's an interesting guy. But that would be an entirely unnecessary Game Change like selection. 

The Democratic nominee is going to be the favorite. They need a strategic, don't-screw-this-up pick, not a Game Change. A VP on the ticket that will not carry his home state, is 37, gay and married, and whose only government experience is Mayor of a 100k town is just crazytalk. 
Click to expand...
Yeah. probably.  But my thinking is that they (unfortunately) might need a white guy with midwestern appeal to balance out an African-American woman from California. And there's just not a lot of those available, for various reasons. Brown's out for the same reason he's not running for president. Biden would be ideal if he hadn't already been a two-term VP.  Sanders would also be helpful but I doubt he'd be willing to do it since he won't even join the party.

Klobuchar might work. A ticket with two female senators seems less than ideal, but maybe the all-woman ticket thing would play well and she certainly seems to appeal to midwesterners.

 
prefontaine said:
I don't mean to be dismissive of Buttigieg because he's an interesting guy. But that would be an entirely unnecessary Game Change like selection. 

The Democratic nominee is going to be the favorite. They need a strategic, don't-screw-this-up pick, not a Game Change. A VP on the ticket that will not carry his home state, is 37, gay and married, and whose only government experience is Mayor of a 100k town is just crazytalk. 
Click to expand...
I say, why not fling the guy from South Bend onto a national stage in front of more qualified candidates?  When has that ever gone poorly? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yup.  I think people are underestimating the possibility that he'll get absolutely trounced in the popular vote but still win the electoral college.  As we become more and more polarized individual state results become less and less correlated.

And if people think America is divided now, imagine what will happen if Trump is re-elected while losing the popular vote by 6 million. Even worse, imagine if that is followed by a recession during Trump's second term (one is definitely coming before 2024) after Trump wasted so many bullets juicing an already thriving economy during his first term in order to help himself win re-election. The anger and resentment will be off the charts, and justifiably so.
Click to expand...
I think you're severely underestimating candidate Don Jr.

 
TobiasFunke said:
But my thinking is that they (unfortunately) might need a white guy with midwestern appeal to balance out an African-American woman from California. And there's just not a lot of those available, for various reasons.
Click to expand...
I think that's a reasonable thought. We'll have to look closer at the map when the time comes but maybe someone like Bob Casey or a Governor  :shrug:

But I think there may be other electoral options too. 

TobiasFunke said:
Brown's out for the same reason he's not running for president.
Click to expand...
I think that may change if/when the time comes. Winning the WH is more important and if he can bring OH and PA and any other midwest states, it's hard to lose. But I didn't realize the Governor got to select someone for the full 6-year term.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Pretty sure VP candidates from Indiana thrown up on stage with more qualified candidates are batting 1.000 in their first term campaigns!
Click to expand...
Although, if you go far enough back in history, you get to Thomas Hendricks, who was the VP nominee on the losing side of the Hayes-Tilden election.  No debates then, at least.

 
TobiasFunke said:
If he/Dems don't want to burn his Senate seat for a presidential campaign I can't imagine they'd want to burn it for a VP spot.

If Harris is the nominee I like Pete Buttigieg for VP.  Young, energetic, Midwestern, military experience, focused on economic issues and obviously would be groundbreaking. I'd worry a bit about losing some senior vote with a youthful-looking ticket since Harris looks much younger than 54, but that's a minor issue.
Click to expand...
He’s on the most recent Preet Bharara podcast. Very thoughtful and intelligent. I can’t see him winning in 2020, but he should have a future in national politics.

 
prefontaine said:
I don't mean to be dismissive of Buttigieg because he's an interesting guy. But that would be an entirely unnecessary Game Change like selection. 

The Democratic nominee is going to be the favorite. They need a strategic, don't-screw-this-up pick, not a Game Change. A VP on the ticket that will not carry his home state, is 37, gay and married, and whose only government experience is Mayor of a 100k town is just crazytalk. 
Click to expand...
Actually, Ft. Wayne's population is 265,000, but that does not change the calculus a lot.  I'm halfway through his interview with Preet Bharara this week (I listen to the podcast in segments during my short daily commute) and he comes across as a brilliant politician.  I don't think he has a chance at becoming POTUS in 2020, or even getting selected as VP running mate, but if he can get on the debate stage in the primaries, maybe he can parlay it into a run at senator or governor of Indiana.  From there, the sky is the limit.

ETA: What Maurile said.  I posted before catching up on the thread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
Actually, Ft. Wayne's population is 265,000, but that does not change the calculus a lot.  I'm halfway through his interview with Preet Bharara this week (I listen to the podcast in segments during my short daily commute) and he comes across as a brilliant politician.  I don't think he has a chance at becoming POTUS in 2020, or even getting selected as VP running mate, but if he can get on the debate stage in the primaries, maybe he can parlay it into a run at senator or governor of Indiana.  From there, the sky is the limit.

ETA: What Maurile said.  I posted before catching up on the thread.
Click to expand...
South Bend, where he is mayor, has a population around 100,000

 
MSNBC reporting that Joe Biden is 95% likely to get in the race, will announce within a few weeks. 

Certainly makes things interesting if true. A lot of people seem to think he’s a lock if he runs. I don’t. He obviously jumps into the 1st tier. 

 
timschochet said:
MSNBC reporting that Joe Biden is 95% likely to get in the race, will announce within a few weeks. 

Certainly makes things interesting if true. A lot of people seem to think he’s a lock if he runs. I don’t. He obviously jumps into the 1st tier. 
Click to expand...
Certainly better for Democrats.  His name recognition means he won’t have to pander to the “let’s ban planes” wing of the Democratic Party to get votes in the primary.

 
timschochet said:
MSNBC reporting that Joe Biden is 95% likely to get in the race, will announce within a few weeks. 

Certainly makes things interesting if true. A lot of people seem to think he’s a lock if he runs. I don’t. He obviously jumps into the 1st tier. 
Click to expand...
Going to be a very interesting dynamic. Probably the most qualified Democratic candidate. And he's the anti-Trump. Compassionate, intelligent, diplomatic, knowledgeable of foreign affairs. But he is at the opposite end of the scale of where the Democratic party is heading.  He's old. He IS the establishment. He's also moderate. It's going to be fascinating to see the shape the party takes. And if it's able to reel everything back together once the primaries play themselves out.

 
jonessed said:
Certainly better for Democrats.  His name recognition means he won’t have to pander to the “let’s ban planes” wing of the Democratic Party to get votes in the primary.
Click to expand...
Putting aside your labeling, if that wing can unify behind one candidate early (Bernie for example) they could defeat Biden. 

Others may shy away from Biden not because he isn’t far enough to the left, but because they fear he is too far to the right. That could still allow Kamela Harris to win. 

I still think that it comes down to black women in the South. They are likely to prefer either Biden (because he is the most conservative candidate, the establishment guy, name recognition, and connected to Obama) or Harris (because she is a black woman, young, with charisma). If they cannot decide between them, then Bernie could get in there by winning the more progressive states. 

So I see this as a 3 person race. Klobuchar is the one who will be hurt the most by Biden running, IMO. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
This is not the right conclusion. The Never-Trumpers definitely mattered. They’re the reason Hillary won the popular vote and almost won important states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The people who didn’t vote enough to matter were the Bernie Bros and the rest of the progressive left. You can tell they didn’t matter because Trump won. There’s a knock-down mathematical proof for you! The progressive left doesn’t deserve a second chance; the Dems should nominate someone a bit to the right of Clinton this time around.
Click to expand...
Nevermind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iowa Poll has some interesting results:

Biden: 27%
Sanders: 25%
Warren: 9%
Harris: 7%
O'Rourke: 5%
Klobuchar: 3%
Booker: 3%

I am still not convinced that Biden will actually get in the race - so I don't read too much into his lead.

I think Harris is fine if she finishes 3-4 in Iowa.

I think Klobuchar is in trouble if she does not win in Iowa.

Warren is in a tough spot - she and Bernie are competing for many of the same voters, and she is losing that battle pretty soundly.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think Harris is fine if she finishes 3-4 in Iowa.
Click to expand...
If she finishes in the top 4, she's fine I would think. But 7% may be a problem. Obviously it's a poll a year out and all but I think any candidate coming in under 10% in Iowa or NH is going to struggle for money afterwards.

I just went thru the history real quick and the only time a serious candidate didn't get at least 10% in either party was in 1992 when Tom Harkin (Senator from Iowa) crushed it. Otherwise anyone that got any traction afterwards was at least at 10%. 

Sinn Fein said:
I think Klobuchar is in trouble if she does not win in Iowa.
Click to expand...
You'd have to think. Maybe a strong 2nd holds but NH and SC seem like much tougher ground for her so she really needs a good showing in Iowa. 

It'll be interesting to see which candidates prioritize which early state. I don't think anyone can remain viable into Super Tuesday without a strong showing in at least one of IA, NH, or SC. Strong is always on a curve though, which I find weird, but seems to be true. 

 
The only people on the D side I find interesting are Gabbard and Yang.  The rest of them are like invisible Doonesbury caricatures plus Socialist Sanders.  Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy decision for half a century now, and he is the favorite...

 
So on Meet the Press today the former GOP governor of North Carolina made 3 very interesting and connected claims: 

1. As the Democratic candidates continue to pursue a progressive agenda, Trump’s approval rating will rise. 

2. If the investigations in Congress continue, Trump’s approval rating will rise. If the Mueller report comes out and does not directly incriminate Trump, and the investigations in Congress continue after that, Trump’s approval rating will REALLY rise. 

3. Trump will be easily re-elected due to these Democratic errors: the inability to provide a centrist alternative and the focus on investigations which the public doesn’t care about. 

Now or course all of these claims are self-serving. But putting that aside, and also putting aside the right or wrong of what the Democrats are doing: is this guy correct in his analysis? 

 
timschochet said:
So on Meet the Press today the former GOP governor of North Carolina made 3 very interesting and connected claims: 

1. As the Democratic candidates continue to pursue a progressive agenda, Trump’s approval rating will rise. 

2. If the investigations in Congress continue, Trump’s approval rating will rise. If the Mueller report comes out and does not directly incriminate Trump, and the investigations in Congress continue after that, Trump’s approval rating will REALLY rise. 

3. Trump will be easily re-elected due to these Democratic errors: the inability to provide a centrist alternative and the focus on investigations which the public doesn’t care about. 

Now or course all of these claims are self-serving. But putting that aside, and also putting aside the right or wrong of what the Democrats are doing: is this guy correct in his analysis? 
Click to expand...
I am not sure it is possible for me to disagree with all three points more than I do right now.

You could not get more centrist - without being an actual republican - than Clinton.  And, she lost.

 
timschochet said:
is this guy correct in his analysis? 
Click to expand...
It all depends who controls the narrative.  The obstacle for Trump is he can't focus on a single person for this narrative.  That's a heavy lift for someone like Trump who can't fart his way out of a wet paper bag.  But never say never.

 
Sinn Fein said:
You could not get more centrist - without being an actual republican - than Clinton.  And, she lost.
Click to expand...
This leads us to to the central question of 2016, IMO: did Hillary lose because of her politics? Or did she lose because people just don’t like Hillary Clinton? 

Obviously you are convinced it was because of her politics (which I think you also overstate). I’m not convinced. 

 
timschochet said:
This leads us to to the central question of 2016, IMO: did Hillary lose because of her politics? Or did she lose because people just don’t like Hillary Clinton? 

Obviously you are convinced it was because of her politics (which I think you also overstate). I’m not convinced. 
Click to expand...
It's both....not complicated :shrug:  

 
timschochet said:
Now or course all of these claims are self-serving. But putting that aside, and also putting aside the right or wrong of what the Democrats are doing: is this guy correct in his analysis? 
Click to expand...
I doubt it. As you say he’s a Republican politician trying to tamp down investigations and reaction to them.

Trump’s approval problems are caused by Trump, always have been.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everything else aside, Trump’s talent is also his curse. Trump drives the news cycle, and he does this consciously and purposefully, but he doesn’t differentiate positive from negative. Truly so long as it’s about Trump and what he said or did he’s happy with it. So everything Trump gives to himself he takes from himself. Cohen’s a lying liar who lied again to Congress? Ok and while mentioning that he supports it by revealing he discussed a pardon with him. Now yes the news cycle is changed again, and Trump supporters are wildly supportive and Trump critics are wildly shaking fists. This is how it is with him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Now or course all of these claims are self-serving. But putting that aside, and also putting aside the right or wrong of what the Democrats are doing: is this guy correct in his analysis? 
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, doesn't matter. What matters is that Dems are opening a series of doorways revealing a path to Trump re-election which are completely avoidable. This is all self-inflicted. All they had to do was run on safe ideas and it's a cakewalk for just about anyone they throw out there. But nooooooo, they just can't help themselves.

 
Biden is for sure running from everything I have been reading.

I'd say there's a chance the day he announces is the high water mark for his campaign. He hasn't gained traction in past runs. Of course a million things are different now. 

Hard to get super excited but he seems like the safest bet by far against Trump. He'll certainly be a good addition to the process .

 
The General said:
Biden is for sure running from everything I have been reading.

I'd say there's a chance the day he announces is the high water mark for his campaign. He hasn't gained traction in past runs. Of course a million things are different now. 

Hard to get super excited but he seems like the safest bet by far against Trump. He'll certainly be a good addition to the process .
Click to expand...
I like Joe - but some question his age. An average male age 76 has a 4% chance of dying within the next year. Klobuchar and Harris are in the half a per cent range for comparison. About 10 times less chance of dying.  Joe's in good physical condition and could easily beat Trump in a street fight, but I worry more about mental health at that age. The Alzheimer's Association uses numbers from this study in its 2018 Facts & Figures: 17.6% of people 75-84 have Alzheimer's Disease. I had almost forgotten that Bernie is 77. 

Do you think Biden should present some cognitive tests and/or imaging tests (MRI, amyloid PET) to support his candidacy? Florida has implemented restrictions for drivers 80 and older, including a mandatory vision test and only a 6-year renewal instead of the usual 8-year renewal for younger people. Why not some tests for someone with the nuclear football, who BTW, can't be over-ruled. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michigan Poll:

A new Emerson College poll finds unannounced candidate Joe Biden leading a Democratic field of 13 candidates with 40% of the vote in Michigan, followed by Bernie Sanders at 23%, Kamala Harris is at 12% and Elizabeth Warren at 11% round out the only four candidates in double figures (registered voters, March 7-10, mm, n=317, +/- 5.5%). 

With Biden not officially in the race, the Emerson poll asked Biden voters who their second choice would be; Sanders would be the most popular alternative with 42%, followed by Harris at 23%, and Warren at 18%. Sanders received 50% of the vote in the 2016 Michigan Democratic Primary.

Age remains the dividing factor in the Democratic primary race, as Sanders leads among 18-29 year olds 32%-27% over Biden, but, as consistent with recent Emerson polls in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, Sanders’ support drops with older voters as Biden captures over 44% of voters over 30 in the Michigan Democratic primary.

Biden 40%
Sanders 23%
Harris 12%
Warren 11%
Klobuchar 5%
Booker 3%
O'Rourke 2%
Hickenlooper, Gillibrand  1%
Inslee, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard  0%

Other 3%

Another early poll - Klobuchar has some work to do, and I think Harris needs to improve her profile here also

 
Just donated to Yang. I want to see him in the debates at least. He needs 65,000 unique donors and at least 200 donors per state in at least 20 states. Anyone else going to donate? It can be as little as $1

 
I have no doubt in my mind Biden will do very well if he runs as is now expected. But I think that 40% figure is mainly name recognition. 

At this stage in 2007 among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani ran away with the field at about 45% and his numbers stayed there throughout most of the year until he faded in January of 2008. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
312
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
805
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top