Patterico's Pontifications

8/11/2010

Politico: Dems’ Chances Lookin’ Pretty Good

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:16 am



Politico:

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, who have been starved for good news through much of 2010, finally received a generous helping Tuesday night.

Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing up in polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election 12 weeks from now.

In each of the four states that held primaries Tuesday, the GOP either nominated or gave an overnight lead to candidates tarnished by scandal, gaffes or some other significant vulnerability.

If we let them make this election be about the personalities, we lose. If we make it about the issues, we win.

Simple as that.

57 Responses to “Politico: Dems’ Chances Lookin’ Pretty Good”

  1. tangential to the topic, but our most excellent congress has passed a law entitled “The ___________ Act of _____.” yes, just like that. no, i am not making that up.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100808/22161110540.shtml

    So we have devolved from not reading the laws you pass, to passing a law in order to learn what is in it, to now passing laws without looking at the title page.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  2. Ken Buck in Colorado shoved a win down Meghan’s daddy’s throat and made him choke on it and that’s never not good for America.

    I didn’t even know about this but my friend newrouter mentioned it today. I think it’s unhelpful how much is under the radar while we bibble babble about Sherrods and Schlaflys.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  3. That’s a triple negative feets, but it does punctuate Vander Leun’s axiom ‘Republicans they
    thirst for death”

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  4. Btw, i blogged on the subject of my first comment, here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/08/not-sure-whether-to-laugh-or-cry.html

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  5. If we let them make this election be about the personalities, we lose

    I don’t disagree we’re better off focusing on the issues, but what is so wonderful about the Democrats’ personalities that the GOP is destined to fail?

    steve (369bc6)

  6. Politico was on the Journolist, true?

    It was a good night for Democrats, Dems won every Dem primary.

    Of course, this has not always been the case. A few years ago the mayor of Hazelton, PA (A repub) won both the Republican primary and the Dem primary (with a write-in campaign). He (and the city council) had taken a strong stand against illegal immigration (against the law to rent a home or apt to an illegal) which had strong support.

    Looking forward to more objective, insightful, commentary from Politico (not!).

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  7. Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing up in polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election 12 weeks from now.

    If only the Republicans would nominate high quality candidates, the sort who are clearly capable of instantly taking on the responsibilities of office.

    People like Al Franken. Or Barack Obama.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  8. True, MD, and if I recall, that is the Colorado version of the Village Voice, so they really have
    conservative interests at heart

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  9. There is a good column over at NRO pointing out how Republicans can dissipate their lead on topics that are not going to determine the election.

    Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built.

    I think this is very good advice, which is why I wonder of the GOP is capable of seeing it.

    MIke K (d6b02c)

  10. that’s an excellent essay I think

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  11. Mike K – If it is good advise, you can be assured that it will not be followed.

    JD (abc2eb)

  12. There is a good column over at NRO pointing out how Republicans can dissipate their lead on topics that are not going to determine the election.

    A libertarian who thinks the GOP should ignore non-libertarian issues. Who’d have thunk it?

    If the GOP follows his advice, the economy will be the least of our worries. Here’s a hint for the clowns at Cato – those “immigrants you love so much hate libertarianism with every fiber of their being.

    They must be hard up for cash at National Review, judging by their recent habit of renting out space to non-conservatives.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  13. that’s an excellent essay I think

    Comment by happyfeet

    I rest my case.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  14. Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

    If Tanner was not being paid to say otherwise, he’d have to admit that it was Big Government Libertarianism, of the sort he himself espouses, which brought down the Republican Revolution.

    Republicans need look no further than last year’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie did not run as culture warriors.

    Stupid and dishonest.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  15. If immigration is not a significant issue, when will it be, when the Mexican flag flies over the Alamo?

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  16. I remember in 2006 when Karl Rove insisted that despite predictions of huge GOP losses in Bush’s second midterm election, he had exclusive internal polls suggesting that not only would the Republicans hold their legislative majority, they might even pick a significant amount of House seats up.

    We know how THAT turned out.

    L.N. Smithee (aae218)

  17. This election will be decided by turnout. The Dems nominated stay-the-course Obamatrons. The Republicans nominated insurgents. Which do you think is more likely to get their folks interested?

    In Colorado, I expect that many of the Dems who supported the challenger will stay home, while the Republicans who supported Norton will still show up and vote Republican. Anyone but Obama’s guy.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  18. Case in point: I expect that, given the choice again, feets would still vote for McCain, while many young people would be less enamored of Mr. First Black Guy.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  19. The Democrats found a surefire way to win elections starting in the 1930s. If you promise to take money from person A and give it to person B and C, and you deliver on that promise…then you’re going to win most of the elections, people being what they are.

    That’s why the Dems HAVE won most of the elections from 1932…and I reckon that’s not likely to change, unless they really screw things up (like they did in Vietnam, that little screw-up broke the longstanding Democrat stranglehold on the federal government…and they still haven’t recovered from that one).

    Dave Surls (8f52ea)

  20. Stupid and dishonest.

    Comment by Subotai — 8/11/2010 @ 8:34 am

    Here’s more of the same, as Tanner concludes:

    The polls are overwhelming. Those are the issues that voters care about, not whether two men in California get married. Republicans should focus on creating jobs, reducing spending, repealing Obamacare, and cutting the size of government — and leave the culture wars for another day.

    It’s interesting the terms that the libertarian righties put on social issues: They reflexively insist that they aren’t winning issues because they scare away independent voters who CAN be swayed by focus on economic solutions. True, neither Chris Christie no Bob McDonnell ran as “culture warriors,” but they received and continue to retain overwhelming support from Tea Party types who are regardless.

    What I would like addressed is why (as we are supposed to believe) that so-called “independents” would rather dig a deeper fiscal pit for their state or Federal government rather than give up their dream of a post-nuclear family norm.

    Mr. Tanner also fails to mention that when put up to a referendum, same-sex marriage ALWAYS loses. The only reason it is still an issue is because courts continue to deny the public has a role in defining marriage at all. As it stands with the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, states are now in the position of having to accept any and all definitions of marriage they are presented or risk being forced into defending before a judge the reasons for limits.

    Tanner says “leave the culture wars for another day.” I don’t believe he thinks “another day” will ever come — or should.

    L.N. Smithee (aae218)

  21. at the presidential level I think I’m still a lesser evil guy but not for our congress not anymore

    the lesser evil in congress has proven itself to be sufficiently evil as to bar making oneself complicit I think at least for how I want to live my one God-given life

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  22. I thought a reason for the Repub win in 2004 (?) had to do with the big turn out for all of the SSM referendums.

    I suppose if you think the American public can only remember one thing at a time then stick to jobs.

    When the majority again and again has its will thwarted by judges, you’d think they would be interested in who it is that nominates or confirms them to get there.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  23. neither Chris Christie no Bob McDonnell ran as “culture warriors”

    I don’t even know what it means to run as a “culture warrior”. Christie ran as a down-the-line social conservative: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.

    I get the impression that Tanner buys into the left-wing meme of conservatives as being “the American Taliban”. Then, when they fail to run on an “outlaw bikinis” platform, its suggested that they are hiding their true feelings.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  24. Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built.

    They SHOULD be talking about those things in some places [immigration: hello Arizona]. Every candidate is running in a different place. When someone goes on national television they should stick to the disasters of the failing recovery, exploding deficits, tax increases and Obamacare.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  25. When someone goes on national television they should stick to the disasters of the failing recovery, exploding deficits, tax increases and Obamacare.

    Immigration is tightly intertwined with all those issues. I’d go so far as to say that we would not have “the failing recovery, exploding deficits, tax increases and Obamacare” if we woke up and paid attention to immigration.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  26. I don’t even know what it means to run as a “culture warrior”. Christie ran as a down-the-line social conservative: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.

    The tea parties I have attended are basically libertarian. The two governors that you cite (“Christie ran as a down-the-line social conservative: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.”) ran on economic issues. They did not disavow their positions on the cultural issues but those issues WILL NOT WIN THE ELECTION in November.

    Feel free to talk about “American Taliban” but I sure hope we don’t lose by going down the same old road that has turned off so many independents. Remember Ronald Reagan ? He did not do a thing about abortion. His concern was economics and the military.

    It is one thing to change your position, as Romney has, or to lie like Obama, but it is quite another to bind yourself to a small fraction of the electorate like Obama has.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  27. Feel free to talk about “American Taliban” but I sure hope we don’t lose by going down the same old road that has turned off so many independents.

    The road that has turned off many independents is the Rockefeller Republican, liberal Republican, “cozy with big business and hostile to conservatism” road.

    The notion that “independents” have left the GOP because they are big fans of e.g. gay marriage is fatuous. The reality is that the “social conservative” positions are consistently more popular than any other part of the Republican platform. Californians will never vote for smaller government, but they’ll vote against gay marriage.


    Remember Ronald Reagan ? He did not do a thing about abortion.

    What more would you want him to do? He did everything he possibly could to end abortion.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  28. The two governors that you cite (”Christie ran as a down-the-line social conservative: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc.”) ran on economic issues.

    They ran on economic issues, among others. I seem to recall that the “culture war” was prominent in Bob McDonnell’s case.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  29. Mike K – this is a mini version of the response Gov Daniels got when he said very similar things about focusing on the economy.

    JD (a6eddf)

  30. Actually McDonnell probably had to downplay the social issues because of the coverage of his dissertation at REgents University if I recall

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  31. Especially when discussing Colorado, this piece’s discussion of Democrats is full of it.

    Harsanyi puts it straight.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. > I get the impression that Tanner buys into the left-wing meme of conservatives as being “the American Taliban”

    i would take those kinds of liberals much more seriously if they acted like they wanted to fight the Afghanistan Taliban. heh.

    Look, its dissociation. They rail against conservatives because they are a safe target. Like those who think the are “transgressive” insulting jesus, but wouldn’t dare insult the religion that is known to kill people who blasphemes their prophet (pedophilia be upon him). i mean seriously, i probably can never got to pakistan out of fear the government itself might kill me.

    Its like picking a fight with the Amish and declaring yourself brave for daring to do it. its stupid.

    But from a psychological point of view it allows their “war” on evil christians to serve as a proxy war for the real bad guys. you would think 9 years on they would get over that.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  33. In the link I gave above, Harsanyi was debunking an Atlantic piece about the primaries here in Colorado. I like this line:

    Ambinder claimed that “Democratic turnout was high (though a bit lower than Republican turnout).” In the Colorado Senate race, despite a registration advantage for Dems, 338,537 Democrats voted as opposed to 407,110 Republicans. Is that a “bit,” or is that a lot? Put it this way, more people in Colorado voted for Jane Norton than Michael Bennet on Tuesday.

    Jane Norton lost.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. It is one thing to change your position, as Romney has, or to lie like Obama, but it is quite another to bind yourself to a small fraction of the electorate like Obama has.

    People who care about social issues are not a small fraction of the electorate. Evangelicals provided Bush’s margin of victory in 2004. Rove worked very hard to get them out to the polls. Without them Bush would have lost. If they were the only group he appealed to he would have lost. The trick is to not run away from the social issues but talk mainly about the economy, taxes etc. I don’t know where this idea comes from that Republicans gain by telling evangelicals and Catholics who vote their values to get lost. In CA and some other states maybe it’s a different story but CA is deep blue.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  35. i would take those kinds of liberals much more seriously if they acted like they wanted to fight the Afghanistan Taliban. heh.

    Yes, but you could write that same sentence with “libertarians” in the place of “liberals”. Cato strongly opposed and opposes the fight against the Taliban and Al Queda.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  36. The trick is to not run away from the social issues but talk mainly about the economy, taxes etc.

    That’s an unproductive trick, as the economy, taxes etc are ultimately dependent on “the social issues”.

    Those “social issues” undergird every other aspect of human existence, including such ephemeral matters as the top marginal tax rate. The former Soviet Union has remained a corrupt oligarchy, which is what its been for centuries, even after being lectured on free market economics. Why? Look to the “social issues”. Look to society.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  37. Its like picking a fight with the Amish and declaring yourself brave for daring to do it.
    Comment by Aaron Worthing (A.W.)

    That is a phrase I will have to remember. thank you.

    While we’re at it, there was an effort in 2004 to get out the Amish vote for Bush mainly because of social policies. I’m sure no one wins elections by appealing only to the Amish, but it would be interesting to see how many voted in Ohio for Bush in 2004 and how much of Bush’s victory margin they made up.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  38. I don’t know where this idea comes from that Republicans gain by telling evangelicals and Catholics who vote their values to get lost. In CA and some other states maybe it’s a different story but CA is deep blue.

    Comment by Gerald A

    You are either making a point by exaggerating or you have reading comprehension problems. The issue that voters are concerned about, and that is bringing millions of tea party members out to the streets, is economics, not social issues.

    Nobody is recommending telling those people to “get lost” except Democrats. I am not advocating anything but making the campaign about the economy. Remember Carville’s sign in 1992 ? Try to remember it.

    Evangelicals provided Bush’s margin of victory in 2004

    And they abandoned him in 2000 because Rove botched the drunk driving issue. They almost got Al Gore over that one incident. Does that sound smart to you ?

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  39. Mike K – Remember Daniels’ idea of a “truce” on social issues until the fiscal house could be put in order? The Team R cheerleaders at HotAir almost blew a gasket.

    JD (02b872)

  40. The issue that voters are concerned about, and that is bringing millions of tea party members out to the streets, is economics, not social issues.

    Thirteen million voters turned out in California to vote on Prop 8. Can we drop the fiction that “nobody cares about the social issues”?

    The libertarians, to name just one group, seem to care a lot.

    Subotai (4caac8)

  41. I am not advocating anything but making the campaign about the economy.

    How does doing that help us to accomplish any of our goals? Even the economic ones?

    Subotai (4caac8)

  42. Its called winning elections.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. I think we’re better served if they ‘whistle’ up to November. If they’re not ‘whistling’ they’re tearing the country in two……for the children.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  44. Palin also campaigned and governed as a small-government quasi-libertarian, despite her personal social conservative views. And the tea party movement is about taxes and smaller government, not social issues.

    Milhouse (d84b40)

  45. Here are the latest findings from Democracy Corp, the group headed by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg:

    Monthly tracking from Citizen Opinion shows troubling trends in the public’s experience, perceptions and conclusions. Virtually every personal measure has returned to the lowest point on our seven months of tracking and macro-expectations have darkened too. These shifts coincide with news in July of slower job growth, persistently high unemployment and weaker than expected 2nd quarter GNP growth.
    These darkening perceptions have consequences: Democrats are lagging further behind Republicans on which party can best deal with the economy.

    The analysis goes on to claim this:

    Voters now give the Republicans a 49 to 36 percent advantage on handling the economy, the worst for Democrats in all of our polling.
    For the first time in our tracking, a majority of 54 percent believes that President Obama’s economic policies have done nothing to relieve the recession and run up a record deficit; just 39 percent that believe his administration’s efforts averted a worse crisis. This is not consistent with the administration’s argument about economic success.
    When asked about the vote in November, 52 percent plan to vote Republican to protest the direction of the economy — 11 points more than voting Democratic to not jeopardize the recovery.

    These are terrible numbers for Democrats, of course. What is so striking, though, is how commonplace they all seem — just another drop of bad news in an ocean of bad news.
    We are seeing a party (Democratic) and movement (liberalism) in the process of collapsing. That doesn’t mean the ruin will be permanent and irreversible; but it is happening at a remarkable speed. And it is somewhat astonishing to witness.
    Call it the collateral effects of the Obama presidency.

    ColonelHaiku (f2744f)

  46. ColonelHaiku #45 – not collateral – consequential …

    Alasdair (302007)

  47. Team R might could start with what do they want a mandate for and work backwards from there. For lack of a better phrase we might could call this Having A Plan.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  48. or deleterious… or debilitating… or enfeebling… or ruinous… or unhealthy… or…

    ColonelHaiku (f2744f)

  49. happyfrum always
    bring peyote to party
    “dance with coyote”

    ColonelHaiku (f2744f)

  50. “cozy with big business and hostile to conservatism”

    I think that Crony Capitalism is going to become the over – arching issue among the other economic ones leading into the upcoming elections. The GOP is almost as guilty as the Dems on that score, so they better wise up and listen to what the mood of the country is regarding gov’t largesse of any private company or industry. Bennett got waylaid over it in Utah, and even though you could make a good case for the TARP legislation, he definitely failed on that score. The more they act like our betters, the more imperiled their political futures become.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  51. In fact her endorsement of Handel and Fiorina, has ruffled more than a few feathers as Kingston’s bleat today indicates,she is devout in her faith, but has never pressured anyone into adopting it like Huckabee, And she believes in this country, after everything she has been through in nearly two years now,

    As for crony capitalism, she hasn’t been forgiven for taking the trough away from the majors on the pipeline, in an open bid, for challenging Murkowski big chieftain now on Exxon’s board

    ian cormac (ab2f02)

  52. All I’m going to say about this latest bunch of blather is take a look at the Republican classes of 1980 and 1994. Those two years prove that any old freak and geek can get elected in a year that goes one way.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  53. Comment by happyfeet — 8/11/2010 @ 6:19 pm

    What, isn’t being “Not Obama” enough of a plan for you?

    I realize too many of us think the experiences of 1994, and what Newt Gingrich (with a big assist from Rush Limbaugh) was able to do with SELLING IDEAS to the public, can apply to a large degree to today’s campaigns. I posit that the conservative position is thoroughly well-established in the public domain, and that any conservative positions that aren’t can be easily summed up as “Not Obama.”

    In that environment, you need personalities to help you stand out. Say what you will about Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Ken Buck, but they are personalities. Whom I might add, can be turned into sympathetic figures in a big hurry.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  54. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms:

    1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

    2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

    3. Obama fails to inspire

    4. The United States is drowning in debt

    5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

    6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

    7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

    8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

    9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

    10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

    GeneralMalaise (2deed7)

  55. Republicans will not take either chamber, as I’ve been arguing for a while. Right-wing pundits are setting up their base — as with Obama’s election, as with health care — for another great disappointment.

    But if you read between the lines, you see a different message. Though Michael Steele was shot down for suggesting the GOP might not take the house, even Boehner seemed to take a note of skepticism recently, when he said takeover would be a “challenge” but is possible.

    The Senate is out altogether. But the environment is certainly there for the GOP to take the house. I don’t think anyone disputes that.

    However, they don’t have enough competitive candidates in enough races. That was how the Democrats did so well in 06 and 08. You can’t just have a great environment (back then, it was anti-Bush). You have to leverage that environment and try to run strong everywhere, not just in a few places.

    There is also a fund-raising gap: Democrats are raising more money. This simply doesn’t make any sense and speaks directly to poor organization on the red team’s part. (I think Tea Party people are cheap. But that’s just one interpretation.)

    Take my home state, NC.

    All but one of the Democratic congressman are looking to be in good shape, except Kissell in Dist. 8, which is always a toss-up district. (Kissell also pissed off his base by voting against health care in a district with a lot of African-Americans and where he ran on Obama’s coattails.)

    The Dems are in good shape not b/c people here aren’t pissed off with the Democrats (believe me, they are), but b/c the GOP has not produced enough serious candidates. Gone un-leveraged, to pick one race, is the negative pub Bob Etheridge got with the video where he manhandled the “student.” I can’t even name who his opponent is. But these are the kinds of swing-state races the GOP needs to win to set off the big wave necessary to take the house.

    The bright side for the GOP is that they don’t need to take the house to jam up things. They’ll pick up 20+ seats, shut it down and the Dems will be stuck with the negative press b/c they will be nominally in control. This is exactly the strategy the Dems used to take control in the first place.

    And I agree that the GOP should focus on the economy. That’s a winning issue. Anything else — such as this 14th amendment nonsense — is a distraction and simply risks an own-goal score against themselves, by further annoying minority voters and maybe getting those voters to the polls in greater numbers.

    The GOP will have the turnout advantage, no doubt, with no Obama on the ticket.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  56. You are either making a point by exaggerating or you have reading comprehension problems. The issue that voters are concerned about, and that is bringing millions of tea party members out to the streets, is economics, not social issues.

    Nobody is recommending telling those people to “get lost” except Democrats. I am not advocating anything but making the campaign about the economy. Remember Carville’s sign in 1992 ? Try to remember it.

    Evangelicals provided Bush’s margin of victory in 2004

    I said “The trick is to not run away from the social issues but talk mainly about the economy, taxes etc.” Saying nothing at all about the other issues is effectively like telling people who are focusing on those to “get lost”.

    In 1992, Clinton talked about all kinds of things besides the economy. He would talk about AIDS to get the gays out to vote for him as well as contribute to his campaign, to give one example.

    The economy, taxes etc. should be the focus of their stump speeches, but they should also have something to say on the other issues in their speeches. Bush did something similar in 2004, although he was talking more about terrorism/Iraq then. Another way to do it is through focused advertising, like running ads on Christian radio, etc. The fact is there are Christians who are more focused on social issues even at a time like this.

    If they’re skillful they can tie the massive government with social issues to some degree. When talking about Obamacare, talk mainly about the cost, bureaucracy etc. but mention paying for abortions.

    What I’m saying is, work some things about the social issues into their speeches without making it the main focus.

    And they abandoned him in 2000 because Rove botched the drunk driving issue. They almost got Al Gore over that one incident. Does that sound smart to you ?

    That actually proves my point. Because they abandoned him to some degree, he almost lost.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  57. Gerald, I agree with your strategy points. However, I also think building a coalition based on fiscal concerns is much, much more stable. You can dirty trick a social conservative coalition into defeat. You cannot do this as easily with a coalition based on fiscal discipline unless the candidates have an actually bad record.

    There are many moderates on social issues who are cheering at tea parties. And it’s not an accident: that’s more important right now. It’s a real pressing disaster that must be solved ASAP.

    Not saying we should tell social cons to get lost, but that’s a better local focus, IMO.

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.8746 secs.