What is a sunk cost? In financial terms, it's a lost cause -- you're paying for something that has lost its value to you. Let's say I spent $200 on one of those beautiful, 6-foot-high, glass-blown water bongs and named it Barack Obonga. And let's say I smoked a little too much of the special hydro weed they give to cancer patients, decided someone was watching me through my front window, ran outside in my underwear with a baseball bat, and eventually spent the next two hours sitting in a tree waiting for the imaginary guy to come back before my neighbors called the police. And let's say the whole experience made me say, "You know what? I need to quit smoking pot, it's making me a little crazy." Maybe I'd try to sell the bong on Craigslist to no avail, and none of my friends would take it because there's nothing grosser than owning someone else's bong. At that specific point, Barack Obonga would become a sunk cost; that money is out the window. It's gone. I need to accept this fact and move on.
October 31, 2008
Perhaps the best description of a sunk cost ever
From Bill Simmons' latest article:
Sorry to spam ...
... but if you still aren't convinced of victory, read this article "10 reasons McCain might win." When you see how hard this guy is trying, you will know there's no chance.
My favorite is #6, where he claims that McCain taking Pennsylvania and Ohio means he wins the election. You guys hopefully know better by now.
My favorite is #6, where he claims that McCain taking Pennsylvania and Ohio means he wins the election. You guys hopefully know better by now.
Is Arizona Close? (UPDATE)
Update: We have our first poll of the 2010 Senate race.
"If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between [current governor] Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?"
Janet Napolitano - 53
John McCain - 45
**************************************************************
Arizona has tightened rather dramatically in the last four or five days. On 10/24 I showed McCain up by 17.5 and ranked as the 45th bluest state. By 10/29 it had closed to 6.2 and reached #35. This didn't raise too many alarms, because pollsters have largely seen AZ as a waste of time this cycle, so either result could have been an outlier based on a lack of good polling data. But with over a half dozen polls in the last week, and the state now at McCain +4.3, what is going on? The media of course loves this story because it shows Obama's dominance reaching so far as to hit McCain's home state. So I just wanted to clear things up.
You can see there was no polling for a while (between 9/29 and 10/18). Then all of the sudden this one poll came up showing McCain only up 2, and the pollsters invaded.
Well, here's chill-pill time. Even if I drop all the pre-10/18 polls, McCain is still up 3.75. And as we've already seen today, it would be difficult for me to call that a swing state. Obama's never led a poll here, he slightly underperformed in the primary, and he has no ground game of any kind in the state. I'd still call this one Safe McCain, but I'll keep an eye out.
Update: Interestingly, SurveyUSA has not polled AZ since 02/28. Of all pollsters with more than 10 polls this year (and they've probably put out around 150) they are the best-rated pollster on 538, so if they say anything interesting in the next day or two, I'll definitely drop a line.
Here's a sloppy screenshot:
"If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between [current governor] Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?"
Janet Napolitano - 53
John McCain - 45
**************************************************************
Arizona has tightened rather dramatically in the last four or five days. On 10/24 I showed McCain up by 17.5 and ranked as the 45th bluest state. By 10/29 it had closed to 6.2 and reached #35. This didn't raise too many alarms, because pollsters have largely seen AZ as a waste of time this cycle, so either result could have been an outlier based on a lack of good polling data. But with over a half dozen polls in the last week, and the state now at McCain +4.3, what is going on? The media of course loves this story because it shows Obama's dominance reaching so far as to hit McCain's home state. So I just wanted to clear things up.
You can see there was no polling for a while (between 9/29 and 10/18). Then all of the sudden this one poll came up showing McCain only up 2, and the pollsters invaded.
Well, here's chill-pill time. Even if I drop all the pre-10/18 polls, McCain is still up 3.75. And as we've already seen today, it would be difficult for me to call that a swing state. Obama's never led a poll here, he slightly underperformed in the primary, and he has no ground game of any kind in the state. I'd still call this one Safe McCain, but I'll keep an eye out.
Update: Interestingly, SurveyUSA has not polled AZ since 02/28. Of all pollsters with more than 10 polls this year (and they've probably put out around 150) they are the best-rated pollster on 538, so if they say anything interesting in the next day or two, I'll definitely drop a line.
Here's a sloppy screenshot:
Election day weather
In hopes of finding even more reasons to be excited for Tuesday night/Wednesday morning I decided to check the national weather forecast for Tuesday. Here is the Weather Underground map for mid-day Tuesday:
And here is the hilariously useless and patriotic map from AccuWeather:
In the end it seems as if weather won't be too much of a factor in terms of its impact on voter turnout. On the east coast there is not too much in the way of precipitation, but perhaps the Georgia senate race and the southernmost part of North Carolina will see unexpected voter patterns. Assuming Chris' predictions come true (especially Ohio) the weather on the west coast may be irrelevant, with its impact overwhelmed by the impact of the returns from the east coast.
So as it turns out this post says nothing. At least we now know that Earth has one more layer than previously known: a gigantic American flag that stretches north to south from Canada to Mexico and east to west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Finally we know the true boundaries of manifest destiny. Thank you, AccuWeather.
And here is the hilariously useless and patriotic map from AccuWeather:
In the end it seems as if weather won't be too much of a factor in terms of its impact on voter turnout. On the east coast there is not too much in the way of precipitation, but perhaps the Georgia senate race and the southernmost part of North Carolina will see unexpected voter patterns. Assuming Chris' predictions come true (especially Ohio) the weather on the west coast may be irrelevant, with its impact overwhelmed by the impact of the returns from the east coast.
So as it turns out this post says nothing. At least we now know that Earth has one more layer than previously known: a gigantic American flag that stretches north to south from Canada to Mexico and east to west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Finally we know the true boundaries of manifest destiny. Thank you, AccuWeather.
I Call Ohio for Obama
This is a tough call. Ohio's a big prize - you don't want to blow that one.
In many ways this race seems close. It's currently Obama 48.9, McCain 44.8. Obama slightly underperformed Nate's model in the primaries.
But here's why I called it. I currently project Obama to win by 3.75 pts. That's a lot of ground to make up, and it's not like it's only a statistical fluke - it represents a weighted average of 83 polls, including 30 in October. What really did it for me was recent polling.
Obama hasn't trailed in a single non-partisan poll (there have been 14) since October 19. His latest leads are 4, 4, 9, 4, 7, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 10. It's tough to argue with those numbers, and tough for McCain to overcome them.
Obama will now be working from a core of 311 EVs on election night.
In many ways this race seems close. It's currently Obama 48.9, McCain 44.8. Obama slightly underperformed Nate's model in the primaries.
But here's why I called it. I currently project Obama to win by 3.75 pts. That's a lot of ground to make up, and it's not like it's only a statistical fluke - it represents a weighted average of 83 polls, including 30 in October. What really did it for me was recent polling.
Obama hasn't trailed in a single non-partisan poll (there have been 14) since October 19. His latest leads are 4, 4, 9, 4, 7, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 10. It's tough to argue with those numbers, and tough for McCain to overcome them.
Obama will now be working from a core of 311 EVs on election night.
"Too Much Fear"
excerpts from Sophia Carroll's latest HuffPo piece...
Obama's speeches are vigorous and inspiring, but they lose significance when they are part of a bigger picture in which our democracy lacks serious debate. McCain's failure to make a serious case for his side has victimized the whole country because now, whoever wins this election won't have won because of ideas or vision, but because fewer people are worried about the threat he poses to our way of life.
Weight-loss strategy can be of use, here: to change an outcome, identify problem behavior. What is making us particularly vulnerable to fear today? Well, people on the left feel our democracy has been deliberately and systematically destabilized by the current president's consolidation of power to the executive branch, and we are all affected by his administration's insidious tendency to justify foreign policy in personal terms (implicitly the president's), rather than, say, the interests of the country as a whole. I'm not sure many would disagree that the president signifies far more today than he did eight years ago, and that this has been done deliberately. Scary.
Insisting that America show things like resolve and determination, for example, has re-located our national character away from where it belongs, with the people and into the person of the president. The truth is, wanting to show "strength" and "resolve" is no more relevant a justification for military action than the desire to show "happiness" would validate buying every Iraqi a balloon. If this bothers Americans even at a merely subconscious level, that's a good thing, because such personification evokes the exact system of government that our nation formed in order to reject: monarchy. If we're still uncomfortable with that, all is not lost.
But can a people remain democratic and self-reliant when its choices are dictated by fear? Democratic government's great advantage lies in its ability to express the will of the people, but can a people even have a 'will' under such conditions, other than to survive? [Katie-reaction: I'm not sure I 100% agree with this - I think most Americans-and many people for whom voting is a given - are still too rich to truly worry about "survival" - we're worried about keeping our stuff.] If so, it's barely appearing in the campaign coverage. We see voters on each side who are terrified that the opposition will destroy the country should he win, and other issues are all secondary, 'politics as usual.'
I am in the same boat, because I can't stop myself from fearing a McCain victory ... Both McCain and Palin seem unpredictable, undignified, and barely in control of any situation. These are not traits that characterize an America I want to live in, and much as I oppose our monarchic turn, this election does feel like a moment in time when our body politic is about to switch heads.
While Obama may be a good candidate for new 'head', we are a nation founded in pursuit of self-reliance, and as such, the position should not be available. Whoever wins, we must find a way to thrive under his administration without being ruled by it (I doubt Obama would disagree). It is precisely because democracies do not mistake the desires of their leaders for those of the people that we don't tend to start wars. America has begun blurring both lines, and we need to stop.
It is looking like the Democrats are going to do very well in this election, which may help: a bigger government would necessitate the spreading of power. But it will be at our nation's peril if the new, left-leaning leaders interpret their victory, as Bush did his narrow 2004 win, as a clear mandate to institute the kind of broad social changes that so many of us liberals would dearly love to see. They need to restore trust in our democracy first, and to do that they have to restore our trust in government itself by resisting the urge to treat legislation like a game of tetherball, forcing as much through as possible while they're in control.
If Obama and Biden win, after all, it will be because conservative Americans feel they cannot trust McCain with all that power, and not because they have had a sudden change of heart about the estate tax. While I may be writing this from a position of fear, I believe it: those conservatives are going to save this country by voting Obama, and they should not be thanked having their values ignored. To do so would be to ignore the national conversation that has been taking place over the past two years, and they deserve better.
We all deserve better, because all of America needs a government we can trust--not love, but trust, so that, for example, campaign promises to shrink and weaken the government seem as ludicrous as they would in any other job interview. Once we don't need to rely on the president to embody all that we stand for, we can focus on his job performance and evaluate him accordingly without getting swept away in persona.
Such scrutiny makes leaders better leaders, and it is why democracy works. I hope our leaders start working to earn back the public trust in the next few years, so that our next elections feel a little more democratic, and a lot less scary, to everyone.
Obama's speeches are vigorous and inspiring, but they lose significance when they are part of a bigger picture in which our democracy lacks serious debate. McCain's failure to make a serious case for his side has victimized the whole country because now, whoever wins this election won't have won because of ideas or vision, but because fewer people are worried about the threat he poses to our way of life.
Weight-loss strategy can be of use, here: to change an outcome, identify problem behavior. What is making us particularly vulnerable to fear today? Well, people on the left feel our democracy has been deliberately and systematically destabilized by the current president's consolidation of power to the executive branch, and we are all affected by his administration's insidious tendency to justify foreign policy in personal terms (implicitly the president's), rather than, say, the interests of the country as a whole. I'm not sure many would disagree that the president signifies far more today than he did eight years ago, and that this has been done deliberately. Scary.
Insisting that America show things like resolve and determination, for example, has re-located our national character away from where it belongs, with the people and into the person of the president. The truth is, wanting to show "strength" and "resolve" is no more relevant a justification for military action than the desire to show "happiness" would validate buying every Iraqi a balloon. If this bothers Americans even at a merely subconscious level, that's a good thing, because such personification evokes the exact system of government that our nation formed in order to reject: monarchy. If we're still uncomfortable with that, all is not lost.
But can a people remain democratic and self-reliant when its choices are dictated by fear? Democratic government's great advantage lies in its ability to express the will of the people, but can a people even have a 'will' under such conditions, other than to survive? [Katie-reaction: I'm not sure I 100% agree with this - I think most Americans-and many people for whom voting is a given - are still too rich to truly worry about "survival" - we're worried about keeping our stuff.] If so, it's barely appearing in the campaign coverage. We see voters on each side who are terrified that the opposition will destroy the country should he win, and other issues are all secondary, 'politics as usual.'
I am in the same boat, because I can't stop myself from fearing a McCain victory ... Both McCain and Palin seem unpredictable, undignified, and barely in control of any situation. These are not traits that characterize an America I want to live in, and much as I oppose our monarchic turn, this election does feel like a moment in time when our body politic is about to switch heads.
While Obama may be a good candidate for new 'head', we are a nation founded in pursuit of self-reliance, and as such, the position should not be available. Whoever wins, we must find a way to thrive under his administration without being ruled by it (I doubt Obama would disagree). It is precisely because democracies do not mistake the desires of their leaders for those of the people that we don't tend to start wars. America has begun blurring both lines, and we need to stop.
It is looking like the Democrats are going to do very well in this election, which may help: a bigger government would necessitate the spreading of power. But it will be at our nation's peril if the new, left-leaning leaders interpret their victory, as Bush did his narrow 2004 win, as a clear mandate to institute the kind of broad social changes that so many of us liberals would dearly love to see. They need to restore trust in our democracy first, and to do that they have to restore our trust in government itself by resisting the urge to treat legislation like a game of tetherball, forcing as much through as possible while they're in control.
If Obama and Biden win, after all, it will be because conservative Americans feel they cannot trust McCain with all that power, and not because they have had a sudden change of heart about the estate tax. While I may be writing this from a position of fear, I believe it: those conservatives are going to save this country by voting Obama, and they should not be thanked having their values ignored. To do so would be to ignore the national conversation that has been taking place over the past two years, and they deserve better.
We all deserve better, because all of America needs a government we can trust--not love, but trust, so that, for example, campaign promises to shrink and weaken the government seem as ludicrous as they would in any other job interview. Once we don't need to rely on the president to embody all that we stand for, we can focus on his job performance and evaluate him accordingly without getting swept away in persona.
Such scrutiny makes leaders better leaders, and it is why democracy works. I hope our leaders start working to earn back the public trust in the next few years, so that our next elections feel a little more democratic, and a lot less scary, to everyone.
Poll Closing Times
Note that the first polls close in Indiana at 6:00 PM eastern. If Obama wins Indiana you can call it right there. Polls close an hour later in Florida, Virginia, and (I guess) Georgia, which also would mean Grandpa McCain can go to bed early.
my weakness for cute kids is spilling over into this blog...
...but aaaaaw.
yeah, I'm done now, I promise.
The fourth paragraph is my favorite...
...finally, someone's gotten specific about this whole "change" thing...
my first time quoting a Whig...
"Passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed...do about as well as principle and reason in a party contest."
- Thomas Elder, Whig party politician, 1840
- Thomas Elder, Whig party politician, 1840
I Hate Election Campaign Post-Morterms. So Here's Mine.
Every cycle the election campaigns are completely overanalyzed, with everything the loser doing being labeled "idiotic" (though Kerry put together a losing campaign like fewer others could) and everything the winner did being "visionary." Look, campaigns are important, and it's important that both sides play well. But just like soccer, most of the game is a wash, except for a few huge plays. So why did John McCain lose? Here it is, in four easy steps:
1. George W. Bush
Barack Obama certainly deserves credit for associating McCain with Bush nonstop. It's a great move and where it's really helping is downticket, because it's just hurting the Republican party all over. But listen. What this factor is really all about is every time you said to yourself "how is this race so close?" If these two are running in 2000 (even if it is McCain 2.0) I see McCain with a slight advantage. But Bush is on the verge of being the least popular president ever, so the deck was stacked before the campaign even began.
2. Economic Meltdown
Democrats' best issue is the economy. Republicans' best issue is national security. Imagine if 9-11-01 had happened on 9-11-04? Bush may have carried every single state. Of course an economic crisis is less emotionally acute than a national security crisis, but in essence that's what we have here.
3. Sarah Palin
The first two factors are things John McCain simply couldn't control. But he did control his VP pick. Now, these things are always analyzed, and the losing canididate will always be scrutinized for his VP pick. But if McCain won you wouldn't see Joe Biden on this list. John McCain really blew it with this pick because he did not vet her and because she's not competent. All the other people on the list - Romney, Lieberman, Huckabee (not Pawlenty) were at least vetted and competent. So they might not have helped, but they couldn't have brought down the ticket. He violated the first rule: do no harm (Bart and Carly - you guys remember my endless VP emails). As I said the other day, (1) Obama deserved praise for keeping this in mind and resisting the Hillary temptation, and (2) I think the idea of appealing to the base is nonsense (unless there's reason to believe you will face significant third-party opposition). I need to stop because you can go for years about Sarah Palin, but there's one other important thing: when he picked her, he instantly lost all credibility with the words "Maverick" and "experience."
4. Wasted Time
Could you imagine if the Red Sox won an ALCS six days before the NLCS wrapped up, and they spent the in-between time partying? That's essentially what John McCain did. He more-or-less locked up the nomination in January. In the seven months until the RNC, the only thing he really did was put out an ad saying "Barack Obama is Paris Hilton." He sat by idly for months. And not knowing who the nominee would be was no excuse. He should have been distancing himself from George W. Bush and saying things like "Well, no surprise here. We don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate, but we do know it's going to be yet another tax-and-spend liberal."
And that's it. That's all there is to it. There were small things like McCain's age, or Obama's debate performances, or the recent line about "spreading the wealth" (which I would guess is actually pretty effective on the six undecided voters left), or Obama's poor response time on the energy issue, or McCain's poor resource allocation decisions, but none of them were game-changers like the four listed here.
1. George W. Bush
Barack Obama certainly deserves credit for associating McCain with Bush nonstop. It's a great move and where it's really helping is downticket, because it's just hurting the Republican party all over. But listen. What this factor is really all about is every time you said to yourself "how is this race so close?" If these two are running in 2000 (even if it is McCain 2.0) I see McCain with a slight advantage. But Bush is on the verge of being the least popular president ever, so the deck was stacked before the campaign even began.
2. Economic Meltdown
Democrats' best issue is the economy. Republicans' best issue is national security. Imagine if 9-11-01 had happened on 9-11-04? Bush may have carried every single state. Of course an economic crisis is less emotionally acute than a national security crisis, but in essence that's what we have here.
3. Sarah Palin
The first two factors are things John McCain simply couldn't control. But he did control his VP pick. Now, these things are always analyzed, and the losing canididate will always be scrutinized for his VP pick. But if McCain won you wouldn't see Joe Biden on this list. John McCain really blew it with this pick because he did not vet her and because she's not competent. All the other people on the list - Romney, Lieberman, Huckabee (not Pawlenty) were at least vetted and competent. So they might not have helped, but they couldn't have brought down the ticket. He violated the first rule: do no harm (Bart and Carly - you guys remember my endless VP emails). As I said the other day, (1) Obama deserved praise for keeping this in mind and resisting the Hillary temptation, and (2) I think the idea of appealing to the base is nonsense (unless there's reason to believe you will face significant third-party opposition). I need to stop because you can go for years about Sarah Palin, but there's one other important thing: when he picked her, he instantly lost all credibility with the words "Maverick" and "experience."
4. Wasted Time
Could you imagine if the Red Sox won an ALCS six days before the NLCS wrapped up, and they spent the in-between time partying? That's essentially what John McCain did. He more-or-less locked up the nomination in January. In the seven months until the RNC, the only thing he really did was put out an ad saying "Barack Obama is Paris Hilton." He sat by idly for months. And not knowing who the nominee would be was no excuse. He should have been distancing himself from George W. Bush and saying things like "Well, no surprise here. We don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate, but we do know it's going to be yet another tax-and-spend liberal."
And that's it. That's all there is to it. There were small things like McCain's age, or Obama's debate performances, or the recent line about "spreading the wealth" (which I would guess is actually pretty effective on the six undecided voters left), or Obama's poor response time on the energy issue, or McCain's poor resource allocation decisions, but none of them were game-changers like the four listed here.
October 30, 2008
Also unrelated to most things...
But I know of at least 2 people who read this blog and appreciate Tracy Morgan's antics, so I recommend this NYT spotlight article.
And because it's the season, I must add Werewolf Bar Mitzvah for those who love it already, or those who have never seen it.
And because it's the season, I must add Werewolf Bar Mitzvah for those who love it already, or those who have never seen it.
A little advice?
This is unrelated to, well, everything, but...
How do you guys cope when you feel there's a very real danger of you falling asleep at your desk?
How do you guys cope when you feel there's a very real danger of you falling asleep at your desk?
A very strange book
I enjoyed reading these excerpts of Euonia, a new book in which each chapter contains only one of the vowels (though in each chapter the chosen vowel is used many times).
October 29, 2008
EV Report, 10/29/08
Not much to report, but I'll be out of the office Thursday and Monday, leaving only today, Friday, and Election Day for me to chip in the ol' two cents.
I added a column which is Obama's proportion in the weighted signs test. Again, my signs test is just how many polls each candidate has led in, straight up. The weighted signs test weights each poll by pollster and date, so newer better polls count more. It actually passes a common sense test for the probability of an Obama victory in nearly all states.
As reported earlier, NV finally meandered over to the safe column. Missouri and North Carolina definitely lean Obama but aren't locked up. And I still hate you Indiana.
Actually, the third column may not have been there earlier. That's the sum of the poll weights in a state. The higher the number, the higher the level of good, recent polling in the state.
I added a column which is Obama's proportion in the weighted signs test. Again, my signs test is just how many polls each candidate has led in, straight up. The weighted signs test weights each poll by pollster and date, so newer better polls count more. It actually passes a common sense test for the probability of an Obama victory in nearly all states.
As reported earlier, NV finally meandered over to the safe column. Missouri and North Carolina definitely lean Obama but aren't locked up. And I still hate you Indiana.
Actually, the third column may not have been there earlier. That's the sum of the poll weights in a state. The higher the number, the higher the level of good, recent polling in the state.
Really, Mississippi?
Just stumbled upon (not StumbleUpon-ed) this tidbit of electoral history:
1948 Presidential Election
National:
Harry S Truman (Dem) - 24,179,347 - 49.6%
Thomas E. Dewey (Rep) - 21,991,292 - 45.1%
Strom Thurmond (Dixie) - 1,175,930 - 2.4%
Mississippi:
Harry S Truman - 19,384 - 10.1%
Thomas E. Dewey - 5,043 - 2.6%
Strom Thurmond - 167,538 - 87.2%
1948 Presidential Election
National:
Harry S Truman (Dem) - 24,179,347 - 49.6%
Thomas E. Dewey (Rep) - 21,991,292 - 45.1%
Strom Thurmond (Dixie) - 1,175,930 - 2.4%
Mississippi:
Harry S Truman - 19,384 - 10.1%
Thomas E. Dewey - 5,043 - 2.6%
Strom Thurmond - 167,538 - 87.2%
Notes, Votes, and Quotes
I really enjoyed scanning through this Congressional Quarterly summary of the positions of McCain and Obama.
When he thought it could get no worse
I moved Nevada into the Safe column today, on the basis of Obama being up by an average of 7 pts in the five polls from the last week.
Now, normally a state with only 5 EVs and claims to fame like "Burning Man" and "Britney Spears' other wedding" doesn't top the list of newsmakers, but here's the thing.
I'm not ready to include Nevada in the core of 286, but adding Nevada to it gives you 291 safe EVs. Which means that even if John McCain's hail mary for Pennsylvania's 21 EVs works, he would still only reduce Obama to 270 EVs.
Five days ago I stated that if I were a McCain supporter, the news that day would be what made me give up. Today, if I were on McCain's staff, this is the news that would make me give up.
PS - It's still 364-163 with ever-so-stubborn Indiana still as a coin-flip tossup, where's it's been all year. Please Indiana, just pick a side.
Now, normally a state with only 5 EVs and claims to fame like "Burning Man" and "Britney Spears' other wedding" doesn't top the list of newsmakers, but here's the thing.
I'm not ready to include Nevada in the core of 286, but adding Nevada to it gives you 291 safe EVs. Which means that even if John McCain's hail mary for Pennsylvania's 21 EVs works, he would still only reduce Obama to 270 EVs.
Five days ago I stated that if I were a McCain supporter, the news that day would be what made me give up. Today, if I were on McCain's staff, this is the news that would make me give up.
PS - It's still 364-163 with ever-so-stubborn Indiana still as a coin-flip tossup, where's it's been all year. Please Indiana, just pick a side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
