View Poll Results: What will the electoral vote count look like?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Clinton Landslide: 350+ EVs

    6 5.66%
  • Clinton strong win: 325-350 EVs

    25 23.58%
  • Clinton solid win: 300-324 EVs

    53 50.00%
  • Clinton close win: 280-299 EVs

    14 13.21%
  • Clinton barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    4 3.77%
  • Tie: 269-269 EVs (also vote here if neither candidate get to 270)

    1 0.94%
  • Trump barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    1 0.94%
  • Trump close win: 280-299 EVs

    2 1.89%
  • Trump solid win: 300-324 EVs

    0 0%
  • Trump strong win: 325+ EVs

    0 0%
Page 5 of 825 FirstFirst ... 345671555105505 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 16489
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    1968, 2004
    I'd say 1980, as well.

    But I tend to agree that there's nothing in foreign policy, at the moment, in this cycle that's a game defining issue, or even anything that really moves the needle.

    Republicans spent two years laser focused on Benghazi and it got them very little; I think the public generally would see it as old, stale news if it's a prominent part of the case against Hillary. The GOP candidate may talk about Obama's record and try to tie Clinton to it, but there's enough nuance to the big matters in global affairs right now that (IMHO) nothing's a clear winner or loser, and his legacy is not defined one way or another. The Ukraine/Crimea situation sort of stinks, but I'm pretty confident a vast majority of the population (and 100% of the multinational corporation population [= big GOP donors]) is not itching for a war with Russia, and I don't know what position there may be for a Republican to stake out right now that both contrasts with current U.S. policy and doesn't significantly increase the chance of a war with Russia. ISIS as a phenomenon is pretty hard to lay at the feet of a single President, and if someone attempts to make its growing strength the issue, any good politician brings GWB's policies and the vacuums they created back into the conversation and muddies the water.

    A Republican could make hay, I suppose, by making ISIS out to be an existential threat and tooting the war horn to say we need troop force in Syria, etc. That may be something that Clinton's in favor of, anyway (she's always been pretty hawkish on her own account), but more to the point it seems like a risky strategy to run for POTUS on a warmonger platform right now. Who knows, though? Public opinion does seem to be moving in the direction of favoring a war stance again. Perhaps making this upcoming election a referendum on whether or not we send American troops back into the Middle East would the most effective way a Republican could make foreign policy a big part of the equation in said election.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Perhaps making this upcoming election a referendum on whether or not we send American troops back into the Middle East would the most effective way a Republican could make foreign policy a big part of the equation in said election.
    I could see it being a big part of the GOP nomination process, and then sort of dropping it for the general election.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    1968, 2004
    Ummm, as I said the only times Foreign Policy moves the needle is when we are talking about a war or terrorism. 1968 was the height of the Vietnam War and 2004 was the Invasion of Iraq. There is nothing even remotely similar to that this time around (unless Obama puts a meaningful number of US troops on the ground to fight ISIS).

    My point was that if the GOP tries to make Hillary's Foreign Policy record into a major campaign issue, I think that would be a bad strategy. They'd be far better off asking her creds as someone who can steer the US Economy given that her policy experience in the Senate is fairly light and her job as Secy of State has very little to do with the economy (other than trade deals).

    -Jason "I actually think the best GOP attacks may be to remind folks of Hillary's failed healthcare efforts in the first Clinton admin and use that to tie her to unpopular Obamacare" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    But hey, why would the press even think about these kinds of complicated questions when they can randomly ask Scott Walker if he thinks Obama is a Christian, and then, when he reasonably makes a reply to the effect: "I don't know, I've never talked to the man about his religious views, why don't you guys ask about something relevant", blast the headline: "Gov. Scott Walker: 'I don't know' whether Obama is a Christian" Dog whistle! Strong job, Post.
    In a vacuum, it is absolutely ridiculous for a reporter to be asking about a possible POTUS candidate's views on the religion or "love" for America of the sitting President. In the wake of a former, fairly serious, POTUS candidate saying flat out that Obama doesn't love his country, however, I would submit that this is decidedly less ridiculous. Not to mention this happened at a reception for Walker. It's well-acknowledged (I think) that some elements have spent a lot of energy over the last 6+ years attempting to delegitimize Obama, and have felt license to demand birth certificates and college transcripts, and whistle to a lot of dogs about where he was born, where he grew up, whether he was eligible for office, whether he's really Christian, his Islamic-sounding name, etc. People wouldn't be asking whether Walker thinks the President's a Christian had there not been others (unprecedentedly) questioning it publicly in the past.

    To tie back to the subject here, though, of the upcoming presidential race, while it's true that Giuliani's opinion is not important, the subject is not terribly germane to anything, and these issues have generally receded, the questions to Walker did not come out of nowhere. It's all anyone was talking about last Thursday/Friday. And it's not like he's the first to be asked these sorts of things; there's a pretty well-worn script here. Walker's responses are exceptionally tone deaf for someone with serious national aspirations (unless they're indicative of his real feelings, or calculated to push some rightwing buttons). There are obvious, easy and field-tested answers here: just chastise Rudy and make some declarations about not needing to impugn the patriotism of someone in order to disagree with them on matters of policy. I applaud the general thrust of the portion of Walker's responses where he basically said "Stop it with the gotcha b.s. and report the news," and I understand it's difficult to throw a supporter under the bus and have his lines become the story of a reception that was supposed to be about you. But the rest of his answers sound like "Not ready for prime time" to my ears. He gave a categorical "No" when asked if Giuliani was over the line. I have no doubt a lot of people will agree with that assessment, but I also suspect it's fewer than Walker might think.
    Last edited by Mal; 02-23-2015 at 02:05 PM.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    A Republican could make hay, I suppose, by making ISIS out to be an existential threat and tooting the war horn to say we need troop force in Syria, etc. That may be something that Clinton's in favor of, anyway (she's always been pretty hawkish on her own account), but more to the point it seems like a risky strategy to run for POTUS on a warmonger platform right now. Who knows, though? Public opinion does seem to be moving in the direction of favoring a war stance again. Perhaps making this upcoming election a referendum on whether or not we send American troops back into the Middle East would the most effective way a Republican could make foreign policy a big part of the equation in said election.
    I think you're right about Hillary being for a more aggressive anti-ISIS presence, and she could, and would, very likely distance herself from Obama's less popular/successful promises (his red line in Syria and his commitment to avoiding ground forces in Iraq). She and any likely Repub candidate would probably have essentially the same approach to managing ISIS. And that's the only foreign policy issue that's likely to resonate with your average American voter right now. Benghazi is buried under waves of news cycles unless some really big "gotcha" comes up to show Hillary was intimately involved in crafting a lie (many Repubs think she is, but there's no conclusive proof of that, and the Repubs who think she would never vote for her anyway). Investigative reporting shows that Hillary was a driving force to US intervention Libya, which has backfired, but no one has ever seemed to pay much attention or care about that...and it's old news. Syria is also out of the current news cycle and the big soundbyte-worthy gaffes there belong to Obama and Kerry, not Hillary. Russia/Ukraine has never much grabbed American attention.

    ISIS, and to a lesser extent, Boko Haram and Al Shabab, get most of the attention because they keep finding new ways to horrify sane human beings. And Hillary's on solid footing there because she has a history, even within the Obama administration, of advocating a more aggressive stance against those groups.

    I do think the Repubs biggest hope running against Hillary is to attack three things:
    1) Force her to explain how her economic approach would be different than Obama's. The general perception of the state of the economy is not good, although the dropping oil and energy prices (drill, baby, drill; frack, baby, frack) have helped recently. Still, that's 6 years into a terribly tepid sorta-kind-recovery. The Repubs need to tie her to big-government economics and force her to either defend those principles or distance herself from them.

    2) Tie her, however fairly or unfairly, to Obama's foreign policy. She was his SOS, and his foreign policy approval is weak.

    3) Go just enough into her own past credibility issues to try to portray her as untrustworthy, but Repubs should NOT harp on that. It's mostly old news, and while you can argue that it may speak to character, Hillary has maintained reasonably good popularity despite most of those issues having been around for years. Ultimately, and unfortunately, I think voters are so jaded by politicians lying, cheating, and stealing, that they just don't care that much if the politician that they otherwise support lies, cheats, and steals. Plus, if Repubs want to go down that road, better make sure they've got their own candidate thoroughly background checked. Wouldn't do much good to attack Hillary as being ethically challenged if the Repub candidate has significant baggage of his own.

    At the same time, the Repub nominee, if his name is Bush, will have his own struggles with items (1) and (2)...how would Jeb's economic approach be different than W's, and, if Jeb takes a more hawkish stance about ISIS, Iran, and Syria, what assurance do we, the people, have that Jeb won't go "adventuring" in the Middle East?

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    In a vacuum, it is absolutely ridiculous for a reporter to be asking about a possible POTUS candidate's views on the religion or "love" for America of the sitting President. In the wake of a former, fairly serious, POTUS candidate saying flat out that Obama doesn't love his country, however, I would submit that this is decidedly less ridiculous. Not to mention this happened at a reception for Walker. It's well-acknowledged (I think) that some rather base elements have spent a lot of energy over the last 6+ years attempting to delegitimize Obama, and have felt license to demand birth certificates and college transcripts, and whistle to a lot of dogs about where he was born, where he grew up, whether he was eligible for office, whether he's really Christian, his Islamic-sounding name, etc.

    To tie back to the subject here, though, of the upcoming presidential race, while it's true that Giuliani's opinion is not important, the subject is not terribly germane to anything, and these issues have generally receded, the questions to Walker did not come out of nowhere. It's all anyone was talking about last Thursday/Friday. And it's not like he's the first to be asked these sorts of things; there's a pretty well-worn script here. Walker's responses are exceptionally tone deaf for someone with serious national aspirations (unless they're indicative of his real feelings, or calculated to push some rightwing buttons). There are obvious, easy and field-tested answers here: just chastise Rudy and make some declarations about not needing to impugn the patriotism of someone in order to disagree with them on matters of policy. I applaud the general thrust of the portion of Walker's responses where he basically said "Stop it with the gotcha b.s. and report the news," and I understand it's difficult to throw a supporter under the bus and have his lines become the story of a reception that was supposed to be about you. But the rest of his answers sound like "Not ready for prime time" to my ears. He gave a categorical "No" when asked if Giuliani was over the line. I have no doubt a lot of people will agree with that assessment, but I also suspect it's fewer than Walker might think.
    Perhaps, but a fair number of those agreeing vote in GOP primaries, which is the only constituency that matters.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    Since she had nothing to with the Clinton or Obama economy, she'll need a narrative that is more nuanced than I'll do what Bill and Barrack did.
    Since when has any general election candidate needed a nuanced narrative? The economy will either be doing okay or it won't - if it is, she wins easily. If it isn't, she loses.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    The general perception of the state of the economy is not good
    Question for everyone: is the above assumption actually true? What's the polling on this like? Are voters still unhappy with the state of the economy right now, or is this just perception, or conventional wisdom among some pundits? If it's accurate, do we think this is a messaging issue, i.e. Democrats need to do a better job of touting their record? Has our collective short memory made us forget where the economy was in late 2008? Or were we so scarred by the Great Recession that we just aren't willing to think rosy thoughts yet?

    I sort of think it's the last of these. On the one hand, you've got a recovery that's heretofore been more centered on lower wage jobs than ideal, and consequently not a particularly strong recovery in terms of middle class pocketbooks. But on the other hand, the stock market is soaring, interest rates are very low, the housing market's improved considerably (not hard after its worst collapse in half a century), you've got decreasing deficits, a rate of economic growth that outstrips most of the rest of the first world and is back at pre-Recession levels, shrinking unemployment even after a lot of the people who took themselves out of the labor market have started to get back in, and in recent months some of the jobs coming online are looking more and more like real jobs/career paths instead of openings at a new Starbucks store. The CW for the '12 campaign was that if the economic trajectory seemed good enough (and we all operated on the assumption that people gave Obama a bit more leeway than most Presidents due to the depth of the economic downturn he stepped into), he would win easily. For whatever reason or reasons, he won easily. It would seem the economy's almost indisputibly in better position now than it was 30 months ago, right? At least this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/181586/ec...campaign=tiles would suggest people are starting to feel that way. Is that really just due to cheap gas pump prices? All caveats about the limited role of Presidents in actually steering the aircraft carrier that is the U.S. economy apply, of course, but I would posit that if current trends hold, Clinton should be embracing the Obamaconomy a year from now, and focusing the disagreements needed to distinguish herself from a guy burdened with the usual 8-years in office fatigue on the foreign policy arena. Because it's starting to feel like Republicans are going to have to argue "It's not better enough" or "It's better but only because of __________" or "It's a mirage" or similar when it comes to the economy. My eyes are biased, however, so what sayeth the Board?

    Somewhat related, but interesting to me strategically for 2016 nonetheless (for both parties): if I recall, the postmortem on 2000 had a lot pundits saying Gore tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton. Bill was enormously popular by the time he left office, of course, and Obama's been locked in a very tight spectrum on approval/disapproval ever since 6 months into his presidency, so while he's now breaching 50% on the + side again, he's never going to hit the 65-70% approvals that Clinton had at the end of his 2nd term. Nevertheless, it's not entirely clear to me that running strongly against Obama's legacy will get Hillary all that much mileage, unless it's to whip up progressives frustrated by Obama not being Elizabeth Warren.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Ummm, as I said the only times Foreign Policy moves the needle is when we are talking about a war or terrorism. 1968 was the height of the Vietnam War and 2004 was the Invasion of Iraq. There is nothing even remotely similar to that this time around (unless Obama puts a meaningful number of US troops on the ground to fight ISIS).

    My point was that if the GOP tries to make Hillary's Foreign Policy record into a major campaign issue, I think that would be a bad strategy. They'd be far better off asking her creds as someone who can steer the US Economy given that her policy experience in the Senate is fairly light and her job as Secy of State has very little to do with the economy (other than trade deals).

    -Jason "I actually think the best GOP attacks may be to remind folks of Hillary's failed healthcare efforts in the first Clinton admin and use that to tie her to unpopular Obamacare" Evans
    Actually, you wrote attacked with war and terrorism in parenthesis so Vietnam is clearly outside your definition. I'll grant you that 2004 was a stretch. I agree with you that it would be folly for the GOP to attack Hillary primarily on foreign policy. I think the republicans will attack Hillary on everything they can dig up. But if state of things in the middle east and with Putin don't improve, Hillary will have plenty to answer for. If there is a successful attack on the homeland before the election, then all bets are off.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Perhaps, but a fair number of those agreeing vote in GOP primaries, which is the only constituency that matters.
    True, and fair enough. Perhaps tactically no big deal for him, but strategically it could still backfire, if he's asked about it again come a general race because he punted the first time around. On the other hand, Rubio, Paul and Bush (and even Perry) chose the less inflammatory response, so Walker wouldn't have lost anything to them by doing the same and has now given them (Bush, especially) an arrow in the "That guy's a hardliner/naif/divider who could never win the general elecion" quiver. I would think the calculus would be fear of greater net loss by not toeing the line than thinking you'll gain a lot by going against the grain on the matter, but who knows.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    I had no problem with Walker being asked about Giuliani's statement about Obama's love of country. Those were the comments Giuliani made at the Walker event. But Giuliani made no statement about the Prez's religion, and Walker has never made a comment about it. That was a question in a vacuum, and the Post's headline was factually correct but very misleading in implication.
       

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Since when has any general election candidate needed a nuanced narrative? The economy will either be doing okay or it won't - if it is, she wins easily. If it isn't, she loses.
    Ding, ding, ding, ding! Duvall is dead on target here. If the recovery does not flounder in the next 18 months, it is going to be extremely difficult to beat the Dem nominee, especially if it is someone closely tied to Obama. A weak economy will open things up a lot and give the GOP nominee a much stronger chance.

    -Jason
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Question for everyone: is the above assumption actually true? What's the polling on this like?
    From Gallup, the "Economic Confidence Index":


  14. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    If there is a successful attack on the homeland before the election, then all bets are off.
    You know, ordinarily a terrorist attack would be really good for someone like Hillary, who has a wealth of foreign policy experience, but I think it would also really help Bush due to the strong approval of how his brother handled 9/11. Jeb almost gets the credibility of an incumbent due to his last name.

    -Jason "of course, this battle is really just for about 7-10% of the electorate. 90%+ of voters have already decided without even knowing who the candidates are" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    You know, ordinarily a terrorist attack would be really good for someone like Hillary, who has a wealth of foreign policy experience, but I think it would also really help Bush due to the strong approval of how his brother handled 9/11. Jeb almost gets the credibility of an incumbent due to his last name.

    -Jason "of course, this battle is really just for about 7-10% of the electorate. 90%+ of voters have already decided without even knowing who the candidates are" Evans
    Respectfully, I think if--God forbid--the homeland were to be attacked between now and November 2016, the reaction would be more nuanced than this.

    Jeb Bush has zero foreign policy credentials, and zero military credentials. There's no obvious reason for voters to flock to him in the wake of an attack, because even though people rallied around and supported his older brother in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I do not think there's a strong argument that the kneejerk reaction now would be to rally around candidate Jeb Bush...or candidate Hillary Clinton, for that matter, unless one did something to distinguish themselves in the immediate aftermath of that hopefully ever-fictitious next national tragedy.

    Now, if one of the candidates had been running on, "We're in danger and need to re-prioritize the war against terrorism or else," and then we were attacked, I could see a spike, no matter the person's name or credentials (unless that person was Dennis Kucinich or someone similarly out of right or left field, who will never see an electoral surge).

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Corey View Post
    Jeb Bush has zero foreign policy credentials, and zero military credentials. There's no obvious reason for voters to flock to him in the wake of an attack...
    Ask Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland about that one.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Now that the country is starting to think a bit about the 2016 race, polls are going to start to mean at least a little something.

    PPP has a national poll that finds more support than you might think for Hillary.

    PPP's newest national poll finds Hillary Clinton leading all of her potential Republican candidates by between 7 and 10 points. She has 7 point advantages over Rand Paul (47/40), and Rick Perry and Marco Rubio (48/41). She has 8 point advantages over Ben Carson, Chris Christie, and Scott Walker all at 48/40. Her advantage over Mike Huckabee is 9 points at 50/41, and she's up 10 points each over Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz at 50/40.

    What's really striking about Clinton's numbers against the Republicans is how steady they are no matter who she's pitted against. Clinton is between 47-50% against all 9 of the GOP hopefuls, and each of the GOP hopefuls is polling at either 40 or 41%. This is quite different from 2012 when Mitt Romney tended to be a good deal stronger against Barack Obama than all of the other GOP contenders.
    If Jeb cannot play the "I'm the most electable" card, then it probably really opens up the GOP race.

    What's interesting is that Hillary's lead is not shared by other Democrats. Warren and Biden, for example, would trail much of the GOP field. Biden would be down 6 points to Jeb (Obama administration fatigue?) while Warren would trail Jeb 43-41. Hillary actually runs really well among self-identified GOP voters, with 15-20% of them saying they would vote for her. That's much higher than usual in a country that has become highly partisan. I wonder if it might be some excitement over the possibility of a female president.

    Hillary has a huge lead in the race to be the nominee. 54% to 16% for Biden 12% for Warren, and 5% for Sanders. Considering that both Biden and Warren seem to be leaning against running, it seems like Hillary is a near-lock to take the nomination.

    The full cross tabs can be see here.

    -Jason "Jeb has the highest disapproval ratings of any GOP candidate -- thanks, Bro!" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Hillary actually runs really well among self-identified GOP voters, with 15-20% of them saying they would vote for her. That's much higher than usual in a country that has become highly partisan. I wonder if it might be some excitement over the possibility of a female president.
    All I can offer is some anecdotal evidence. My sister is an independent, except she is much more conservative than I am. I'm a flaming Liberal ... she's just a touch right of center. She even explored the Tea Party for a awhile until she was turned off by the racist direction it was headed (her words, not mine). But economically, she was very comfortable in their circles.

    Back in 2008, my sister was ga-ga for Hillary. She campaigned for her. When she lost the nomination to Obama, my sister was crushed. I'm pretty sure she ended up voting for Dole.

    In her case, at least, there is a feminist element of identification -- far beyond policy or party.

    The Democrats already get a strong majority of the women's vote, but I do believe that the gender gap will increase if Hillary runs in '16.

    I'm not sure there are a lot of right-leaning (but not far right) women like my sister who would jump on Hillary's bandwagon. But the poll Jason just cited seems to indicate that it's a substantial margin.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    All I can offer is some anecdotal evidence. My sister is an independent, except she is much more conservative than I am. I'm a flaming Liberal ... she's just a touch right of center. She even explored the Tea Party for a awhile until she was turned off by the racist direction it was headed (her words, not mine). But economically, she was very comfortable in their circles.

    Back in 2008, my sister was ga-ga for Hillary. She campaigned for her. When she lost the nomination to Obama, my sister was crushed. I'm pretty sure she ended up voting for Dole.

    In her case, at least, there is a feminist element of identification -- far beyond policy or party.

    The Democrats already get a strong majority of the women's vote, but I do believe that the gender gap will increase if Hillary runs in '16.

    I'm not sure there are a lot of right-leaning (but not far right) women like my sister who would jump on Hillary's bandwagon. But the poll Jason just cited seems to indicate that it's a substantial margin.
    I have to agree with this. My mother is a R who would vote for Hillary for the exact reasons you listed (she values her feminist platforms over her other policies).

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Back in 2008, my sister was ga-ga for Hillary. She campaigned for her. When she lost the nomination to Obama, my sister was crushed. I'm pretty sure she ended up voting for Dole.
    That IS taking the nomination loss pretty hard.

    But yeah, I think there'd be some excitement amongst a lot of people in having a female president.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Football Recruiting
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 770
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:32 AM
  2. Euro 2016
    By gumbomoop in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 06:45 AM
  3. K to Rio in 2016
    By Tripping William in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 05:32 PM
  4. IL Loves the Class of 2016
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 06:16 PM
  5. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •