EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3637
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 20 2016 08:15 Leporello wrote: I think this is the tragedy of having two candidates -- you blame anti-Hillary sentiment on Bernie. And that's just too simple. The fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and Bernie has little to do with that. Many liberal-minded people didn't even want her to be Secretary of State. After all, she had zero prior experience in diplomacy. Her career is built on opportunism. Not just in campaign contributions, but in measures such as the Clinton Foundation, the question isn't who she's taken money from, but rather who hasn't she received money from. It's a shame Biden isn't running, to clear this false dichotomy. Because as it is now, Clinton supporters have taken this stance that she is the party leader, and any questioning of her character is an assault on the party, and now you've got a singular name and face to blame for that "assault" -- her singular opponent, Bernie. But it's really not Bernie. If there were other people in the race, such as Biden, maybe you'd see the obvious fact that people have very good reasons to not trust Hillary. No, anti-Hillary sentiment is very largely the result of 25 years of GOP smears and attacks on her character, with the most recent attacks having the most effect. Saying "the fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" is meaningless without context. When she left her office of Secretary of State in 2013, Hillary Clinton was at an average favorability rating of +34,8. That was obviously partially the result of her association to Obama, but she was favorably seen throughout her mandate, and she also enjoyed pretty high favorability ratings as senator, with the exception of a relatively short period. This means that there are specific reasons for her drop in favorability since early 2013 -- "people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" doesn't explain change. And the biggest reason for her drop in favorability has been the relentless character assassination Republicans have been engaging in over Benghazi; plenty of non-partisan reports have shown how deceptive their attacks have been, but they've been extremely effective none-the-less. The GOP then piled on the e-mail "scandal", completely blowing out of proportion an act of carelessness which was not more than that, and which certainly did not mean she was not serious about the job she was doing or the policies she was defending. This was the state of affairs towards the end of 2015. Clinton's name had been dragged through the mud by Republicans & Fox News (and, to an extent, by others in the media who love a good scandal), and no matter how unjustified the shit that was thrown against the wall was, some of it stuck due to how often it was being repeated. Enters Bernie. I and others have already extensively documented on this board the increasingly negative turn that his campaign has taken since early March, but some of the attacks on Hillary's character were already being used by many of his supporters and others on the left before that. This was exactly what the right was inciting some on the left to do -- they actively tried to get their traditional opponents to fall for GOP talking points by framing them in a way that would appeal to some on the left, in order to further weaken Hillary as a candidate. Now, is Bernie responsible for the 25 years of smears that Hillary has been facing from the right, and for the outrageous claims some have levied against her on Benghazi in particular? Of course not. But it doesn't change the fact that he has gone increasingly negative on her, and that instead of debating her on the issues like he initially claimed (and sincerely hoped) he would do, he has been attacking her character through dishonest attacks that seek to portray her as corrupt when 1. there is zero evidence of her ever being actually corrupted by any industry, 2. the evidence actually points to the opposite to be true, 3. she does not receive more money from the industries Sanders targets than Obama and plenty others on the left and 4. it is actually easier to make a case for Sanders to have defended the interests of the industries donating money to him, supporting his campaigns, or spending money in his state (the NRA, the dairy industry, the defense industry). Decrying Citizens United and the system in general is perfectly fine. His rhetoric against Clinton in particular isn't. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for issues she cared about since way before she ever aspired to a public office, let alone the highest public office. I'm absolutely not saying she's perfect -- she has many flaws, and there are several areas on which I disagree with her. I would describe myself as to the left of Sanders, in fact. Yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize baseless character attacks for what they are, and how damaging they could end up being to the Democrats and the progressive cause in general. This election is a historic opportunity for Democrats to make their biggest gains in a long time, and it's a fundamental election to win given the state of the Supreme court membership. It is profoundly egoistical and irresponsible for Sanders to be accusing Hillary of being corrupt and of "stealing the election" -- he knows it's not true, and he's doing it as part of a last-ditch effort to win the nomination. In doing so, he's handing the GOP ammunition they'll happily be using in the general election. It's perfectly fair for Sanders to be still hoping and campaigning to become the Democratic nominee, but it's pathetic for him to be smearing Clinton's character like he currently is. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 20 2016 09:21 darthfoley wrote: What percentage of the NY Democratic voters are Bernie people? Surely not 60+%, and those Bernie or bust people might view dividing it as a positive, so not sure what your point is My point is that if we assume NY to be 50% Bernie and 50% Clinton, with Clinton being the "incumbent", people supporting her are less likely to view Bernie's impact as favorable. Similarly, people supporting Sanders are often really motivated by shaking things up. I think it is fair to say 90% of Sanders supporters voted "Has energized it" because they feel more energized by Bernie than they did Clinton. So if we were to assume the population of NY is 100 so units of study (percent) can be taken as just numbers, 90% of 50 is 45, meaning 46% of Clinton voters would have voted "Has energized it" because Clinton + Sanders needs to sum to 68. My point is that there are essentially 2 populations voting very differently. It's also worth pointing out that these two answers aren't entirely contradictory. Being energized and divided is the only time actual divisiveness is present. But it can be energizing without being dividing. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say this election hasn't energized the democratic party. The answer should be 100%. The fact that this is being asked the way it is heavily skews in favor of energizing since people will only say it is dividing if they really, really believe it has been dividing. I, in all my resentful bitterness, would vote "has energized it", but I would not say it has been entirely positive. I don't support Bernie continuing his campaign if he loses NY. But I do agree he has energized the campaign. As such, I don't think that poll shows Bernie's campaign as entirely positive. The questions are asked in a questionable way. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On April 20 2016 09:28 kwizach wrote: Like I already said in my fairly lengthy previous post that you have yet to respond to, there is little reason to attach any sort of meaningful significance to this "ammo" that Sanders' primary strategy is supposedly handing to Republicans. By your own admission, Republicans already have a huge stockpile of attacks ready and waiting for the general election, and yet, much like those attacks ended up falling flat against Obama, popular consensus and the general trend towards leftish policies suggest that attack-based strategies have waned in utility by huge margins since the days of John Kerry. Accordingly, in light of the fact that most polls suggest that "Bernie or Bust" folk are in the minority, it is nigh impossible to substantiate the claim that Sanders' chosen method of attacking Hillary in regards to her success among monied interests is doing any sort of real damage to the progressive cause. While the hyperbole is certainly disappointing, it is hardly damaging in the manner being alleged.+ Show Spoiler + No, anti-Hillary sentiment is very largely the result of 25 years of GOP smears and attacks on her character, with the most recent attacks having the most effect. Saying "the fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" is meaningless without context. When she left her office of Secretary of State in 2013, Hillary Clinton was at an average favorability rating of +34,8. That was obviously partially the result of her association to Obama, but she was favorably seen throughout her mandate, and she also enjoyed pretty high favorability ratings as senator, with the exception of a relatively short period. This means that there are specific reasons for her drop in favorability since early 2013 -- "people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton" doesn't explain change. And the biggest reason for her drop in favorability has been the relentless character assassination Republicans have been engaging in over Benghazi; plenty of non-partisan reports have shown how deceptive their attacks have been, but they've been extremely effective none-the-less. The GOP then piled on the e-mail "scandal", completely blowing out of proportion an act of carelessness which was not more than that, and which certainly did not mean she was not serious about the job she was doing or the policies she was defending. This was the state of affairs towards the end of 2015. Clinton's name had been dragged through the mud by Republicans & Fox News (and, to an extent, by others in the media who love a good scandal), and no matter how unjustified the shit that was thrown against the wall was, some of it stuck due to how often it was being repeated. Enters Bernie. I and others have already extensively documented on this board the increasingly negative turn that his campaign has taken since early March, but some of the attacks on Hillary's character were already being used by many of his supporters and others on the left before that. This was exactly what the right was inciting some on the left to do -- they actively tried to get their traditional opponents to fall for GOP talking points by framing them in a way that would appeal to some on the left, in order to further weaken Hillary as a candidate. Now, is Bernie responsible for the 25 years of smears that Hillary has been facing from the right, and for the outrageous claims some have levied against her on Benghazi in particular? Of course not. But it doesn't change the fact that he has gone increasingly negative on her, and that instead of debating her on the issues like he initially claimed (and sincerely hoped) he would do, he has been attacking her character through dishonest attacks that seek to portray her as corrupt when 1. there is zero evidence of her ever being actually corrupted by any industry, 2. the evidence actually points to the opposite to be true, 3. she does not receive more money from the industries Sanders targets than Obama and plenty others on the left and 4. it is actually easier to make a case for Sanders to have defended the interests of the industries donating money to him, supporting his campaigns, or spending money in his state (the NRA, the dairy industry, the defense industry). Decrying Citizens United and the system in general is perfectly fine. His rhetoric against Clinton in particular isn't. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for issues she cared about since way before she ever aspired to a public office, let alone the highest public office. I'm absolutely not saying she's perfect -- she has many flaws, and there are several areas on which I disagree with her. I would describe myself as to the left of Sanders, in fact. Yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize baseless character attacks for what they are, and how damaging they could end up being to the Democrats and the progressive cause in general. This election is a historic opportunity for Democrats to make their biggest gains in a long time, and it's a fundamental election to win given the state of the Supreme court membership. It is profoundly egoistical and irresponsible for Sanders to be accusing Hillary of being corrupt and of "stealing the election" -- he knows it's not true, and he's doing it as part of a last-ditch effort to win the nomination. In doing so, he's handing the GOP ammunition they'll happily be using in the general election. It's perfectly fair for Sanders to be still hoping and campaigning to become the Democratic nominee, but it's pathetic for him to be smearing Clinton's character like he currently is. This is not to say that Sanders' platform is not susceptible to attack in other ways; his lack of platform policy granularity in some areas, hypocrisy vis a vie the supposed "positivity" of his campaign, and refusal to complicate ideological generalities are all very viable routes of criticism that, in my mind, are significantly more productive in terms of building consensus among Democrats as to how we ought best give effect to progressive ideas in a pragmatic and realistic manner. Consequently, this whole "Sanders is poisoning the well" spiel is not only ineffective for its lack of substance, it is also unproductive for the same reasons it attempts to use to indict Sanders' campaign strategy. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28850 Posts
On April 20 2016 08:19 Wegandi wrote: The great Cuba where people risk death on tiny self-made wooden rafts to become refugees in America. Please, save us from our Capitalist subjugators Cuba! Compare Cuba to Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Vietnam during Communism to today where it's pretty much communist in name only. While Pinochet was a political oppressor, Chile has been the wealthiest nation in South America. Meanwhile Brazil and Argentina are failed states. Throw in almost all of Latin America sans Costa Rica (that dirty capitalist Costa Rica), and it's one disaster after another. But, hey, hail the Socialism/Communism! (Not specifically talking about you :p) My impression really is that for de-colonizing countries, there have been a couple consistent trends depending on whether they chose socialist (and alignment with USSR) or capitalist (and alignment with US), and these largely hold true for both african and south american countries. (Asia is very different and I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any assessments there). Namely, countries that chose socialism experienced rapid growth in literacy rates and vastly improved health care services, but wealth would hardly grow at all. Countries that chose capitalism would experience rapid economic growth, but other aspects of societal development would often usually lag behind. Then I do have to concede that it was easier for the capitalist countries to later on achieve high literacy rates than it was for socialist countries to achieve rapid economic growth. However, during the 70s (most socialist countries experienced crisis during 80s and or 90s, but performed fine in the 70s if the US did not intervene), whether you wanted to live in a post-colonial socialist or capitalist society would largely depend on what you favored. But yeah, I'll concede that the ones that went capitalist have on average outperformed the ones that went socialist 30 years down the line-still not necessarily regarding health care and literacy rates, but they are close enough there also. Then there's also the argument (well imo more like undisputable fact) that countries that tried to implement sensible democratic socialism were subject to US supported coup d'états more so than capitalist countries experienced Soviet involvement, which contributed to them becoming more totalitarian / tearing the countries apart by civil war, which has obvious adverse effects on societal development. Also, while it's true that about 1 million Cubans have moved to the US, around 850k Chileans emigrated from Chile - and while I don't have precise percentages here, a large amount of that was people fleeing from Pinochet's regime.. Anyway, once again, I'm not trying to argue that countries that went socialist post-colonization performed better than countries that went capitalist, just that using 'wealth' as the metric to evaluate this is kinda disingenuous (you'd largely get the opposite result if you tried to measure their success by life expectancy and literacy rate), and if you factor in 'country torn asunder by civil war' into the equation, it becomes even more difficult to compare. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 20 2016 09:41 farvacola wrote: Like I already said in my fairly lengthy previous post that you have yet to respond to, there is little reason to attach any sort of meaningful significance to this "ammo" that Sanders' primary strategy is supposedly handing to Republicans. By your own admission, Republicans already have a huge stockpile of attacks ready and waiting for the general election, and yet, much like those attacks ended up falling flat against Obama, popular consensus and the general trend towards leftish policies suggest that attack-based strategies have waned in utility by huge margins since the days of John Kerry. Accordingly, in light of the fact that most polls suggest that "Bernie or Bust" folk are in the minority, it is nigh impossible to substantiate the claim that Sanders' chosen method of attacking Hillary in regards to her success among monied interests is doing any sort of real damage to the progressive cause. While the hyperbole is certainly disappointing, it is hardly damaging in the manner being alleged. This is not to say that Sanders' platform is not susceptible to attack in other ways; his lack of platform policy granularity in some areas, hypocrisy vis a vie the supposed "positivity" of his campaign, and refusal to complicate ideological generalities are all very viable routes of criticism that, in my mind, are significantly more productive in terms of building consensus among Democrats as to how we ought best give effect to progressive ideas in a pragmatic and realistic manner. Consequently, this whole "Sanders is poisoning the well" spiel is not only ineffective for its lack of substance, it is also unproductive for the same reasons it attempts to use to indict Sanders' campaign strategy. Do you have a link to your previous reply to me? I was away from home this last week, and before then I thought your previous post deserved a proper response that I felt I did not have the time to write at the time. With regards to what you said here, the fact that the GOP is going to attack her with the same talking points as ever is not something I'm disputing -- in this case, however, she'll be actively defending herself through her campaign, which is a significant difference from what the situation was between 2013 and 2015 (also, the media will be fact-checking those attacks in ways that they've haven't systematically been doing since 2013, in particular when independent reports on Benghazi had not yet been produced). There is, however, a substantial difference between the GOP using its usual talking points and attacks, and the GOP not only using its usual talking points and attacks but also using quotes, soundbites and videoclips from Hillary's main challenger in the Democratic primary, who also happened to have captured a huge portion of the youth vote. Will this make Hillary lose? I really don't think so -- I'm pretty confident that Hillary will be the next president. But where this might yield results for the GOP is in down-ballot races, where GOP candidates might be able to fend off their Democratic challengers more effectively if there is a lack of enthusiasm on the side of some Democrats towards the nominee. Now, luckily, most supporters of Sanders do not follow the "BernieorBust" movement, and they will overwhelmingly support Hillary in November. But Sanders' attacks on Hillary's character are clearly a step in the wrong direction, which can only serve to depress enthusiasm for her and provide ammo to the GOP. Whether that ammo will be effective or not is another matter and is harder to quantify, but it certainly makes their job a little easier than not being able to turn the left against itself. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the bernie echo chamber + conspiratorial material and view is really ample condition to produce a subculture with its spin on things. there is already the media content producers to sustain the narrative. with social media there is not even a strict need to have leadership, just 'organizers' to herd the people a bit. the ideological or feels aspect is pretty clear. democrats are an unacceptable departure from a vision of politics that is every bit as uncompromising as the tea party's view of THE CONSTITUTION. the point of bernie and his followers is this view of crisis. there is no short term real resolution to this feeling of crisis and abandonment, so you have a political movement. far from some sort of deficiency, lack of nuance is a feature of bernie's character and campaign. bernie can't control what he's unleashed. at best he's just going to limit the damage to the level of paultards except more numerous. sanders could do a lot to prevent this tea party of the left from happening, but he most likely will not stop yapping. it won't be a professionally done endorsement given what we've seen from sanders or his campaign. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On April 20 2016 09:54 kwizach wrote: Do you have a link to your previous reply to me? I was away from home this last week, and before then I thought your previous post deserved a proper response that I felt I did not have the time to write at the time. With regards to what you said here, the fact that the GOP is going to attack her with the same talking points as ever is not something I'm disputing -- in this case, however, she'll be actively defending herself through her campaign, which is a significant difference from what the situation was between 2013 and 2015 (also, the media will be fact-checking those attacks in ways that they've haven't systematically been doing since 2013, in particular when independent reports on Benghazi had not yet been produced). There is, however, a substantial difference between the GOP using its usual talking points and attacks, and the GOP not only using its usual talking points and attacks but also using quotes, soundbites and videoclips from Hillary's main challenger in the Democratic primary, who also happened to have captured a huge portion of the youth vote. Will this make Hillary lose? I really don't think so -- I'm pretty confident that Hillary will be the next president. But where this might yield results for the GOP is in down-ballot races, where GOP candidates might be able to fend off their Democratic challengers more effectively if there is a lack of enthusiasm on the side of some Democrats towards the nominee. Now, luckily, most supporters of Sanders do not follow the "BernieorBust" movement, and they will overwhelmingly support Hillary in November. But Sanders' attacks on Hillary's character are clearly a step in the wrong direction, which can only serve to depress enthusiasm for her and provide ammo to the GOP. Whether that ammo will be effective or not is another matter and is harder to quantify, but it certainly makes their job a little easier than not being able to turn the left against itself. My previous post is here. Again, though, I think that you are dramatically overemphasizing the degree to which Sanders' chosen strategy will depress electorate enthusiasm; though I don't have links at hand and the information itself is likely not too susceptible to polling anyhow, darthfoley's linked poll in the previous page strongly challenges the notion that Sanders is depressing enthusiasm among Democrats. In fact, I really don't think its hard to substantiate the claim that Sanders' continued ability to force Hilary to address things about herself or her platform that she wouldn't otherwise is actually endearing both candidates to the public at large. The strong contrast between the two parties relative to debate performances, for example, counsels in favor of the notion that Sanders' ability to present an ideologically dissimilar yet popular, if not viable, alternative to the establishment Democratic candidate is actually bettering the plight of the Democratic Party generally. Translating any of this into down-ticket predictions is highly problematic, so while I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that Sanders has necessarily bettered the odds of House and Senate democrats, I definitely think that there is room to argue that the public image of Sanders v. Clinton reflects positively on the party while Trump v. Republican Party rages on in the background. As for oneofthem's comments, the idea that Bernie won't endorse Hillary post-nomination in an effective manner is utter nonsense. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Doesn't seem like we will have any surprises in either primary. I think after Ted Cruz's abysmal week, and Trump playing it a bit smarter in the last week or two, I think the 1237 is still possible. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4999 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On April 20 2016 10:10 Mohdoo wrote: What if tonight is the beginning of his dominance? What if these numbers just continue? How many cucks could he feasibly stump long term? I think a lot. It is, Caucuses are over, primaries are where it gets good for him, and all the polls are favoring him right now. He's likely going to sweet California and New Jersey very hard, and I think he will dominate all non southern states from here on out. Cruz played it very poorly trying these bullshit tactics to get delegates he didn't deserve, people just were not happy with it. Trump at 70% with 4% reporting, damn I'm proud  I think today will be a big day to show that he can be the big unifier, and he will get a new following. On the other side of things, Bernie looking in really rough shape right now, I think that's gg right here. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On April 20 2016 10:14 Introvert wrote: Trump is going to have a good couple weeks, question is if he can do well in Indiana. If he wins Indiana, I think it's more or less a guaranteed win at that point. From California and New Jersey, Trump will get 200~ from New Jersey and California, and he will be at 850 after today, so that's 1050 right there. April 26th looks like a good day for Trump, he should win all the states, so I'd estimate he'll get 70~ of the 118 delegates (hard to predict due to 54 unbound delegates in Pennsylvania which he is a heavy favorite in), but that'd bring him up to 1120. Lets assume he loses Indiana... I'd be shocked if Trump couldn't get 120 from Nebraska, W.V., Oregon, Washington, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota (not really sure just how the primaries work in these states). I don't know why people were painting such a negative picture for Trump. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
crueler than my ex girlfriend | ||
|
Introvert
United States4999 Posts
On April 20 2016 10:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: If he wins Indiana, I think it's more or less a guaranteed win at that point. From California and New Jersey, Trump will get 200~ from New Jersey and California, and he will be at 850 after today, so that's 1050 right there. April 26th looks like a good day for Trump, he should win all the states, so I'd estimate he'll get 70~ of the 118 delegates (hard to predict due to 54 unbound delegates in Pennsylvania which he is a heavy favorite in), but that'd bring him up to 1120. Lets assume he loses Indiana... I'd be shocked if Trump couldn't get 120 from Nebraska, W.V., Oregon, Washington, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota (not really sure just how the primaries work in these states). I don't know why people were painting such a negative picture for Trump. Because, for one, if he does win CA it won't be a crushing victory, unless it's close in most/every district. He's not going to sweep. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On April 20 2016 10:39 Introvert wrote: Because, for one, if he does win CA it won't be a crushing victory, unless it's close in most/every district. He's not going to sweep. The most recent Cali poll says +18 for Trump, and I think that's demographic that will only improve for him. But I suppose the other ones have been lower, so I can reserve my judgment, but I'd expect him to take 80-90% of the delegates. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 20 2016 09:54 oneofthem wrote: to ask these sandernistas to stop doing what they are doing now, either their beliefs (e.g. hillary is deeply corrupt) or their political passion needs to adjust. neither is given. the bernie echo chamber + conspiratorial material and view is really ample condition to produce a subculture with its spin on things. there is already the media content producers to sustain the narrative. with social media there is not even a strict need to have leadership, just 'organizers' to herd the people a bit. the ideological or feels aspect is pretty clear. democrats are an unacceptable departure from a vision of politics that is every bit as uncompromising as the tea party's view of THE CONSTITUTION. the point of bernie and his followers is this view of crisis. there is no short term real resolution to this feeling of crisis and abandonment, so you have a political movement. far from some sort of deficiency, lack of nuance is a feature of bernie's character and campaign. bernie can't control what he's unleashed. at best he's just going to limit the damage to the level of paultards except more numerous. sanders could do a lot to prevent this tea party of the left from happening, but he most likely will not stop yapping. it won't be a professionally done endorsement given what we've seen from sanders or his campaign. His whole campaign is about telling the Corrupt Elites that we don't have to listen to them anymore and that democratic-Socialism will carry us forwards without having to compromise. He tells his supporters there will be a Political Revolution and that Republicans will flip over to Social-Democracy. At no point does Sanders come in and explain to his supporters how he gets Republicans to vote for his tax increases. Sanders just keeps hitting the Issues People Care About without ever getting to the explanation of how he makes it happen beyond his Political Revolution. Bernie's delusions are definitely filtering down to his supporters. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On April 20 2016 10:42 Mohdoo wrote: I couldn't have asked for a turnout like this. Wonderful. Bernie is toast. Yep, most likely such bad numbers compared to polls due to low education voters and young inexperienced voters not registering in time. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4427 Posts
| ||
| ||
