Reply With Quote
September 2024 Prediction (Millennial_Messiah)
HARRIS vs. TRUMP
ALGORITHM:
Safe: >=15.0 %
Likely: 5.0 <= x < 15.0 %
Lean: 1.5 <= x < 5.0 %
Tilt: < 1.5 %
Had to make a new one because the original one I made last year unfortunately features Biden vs. Trump, "The Rematch".
September 2024 Prediction (Millennial_Messiah)
HARRIS vs. TRUMP
ALGORITHM:
Safe: >=15.0 %
Likely: 5.0 <= x < 15.0 %
Lean: 1.5 <= x < 5.0 %
Tilt: < 1.5 %
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 3 Weeks Ago at 05:14 PM.
SENATE PREDICTION
(Some of these results may buck the polls and come as a bit of a surprise, but they keep in-line with historical trends of GOP candidates in certain states overperforming Trump and/or the top of the presidential ticket, while in states like Arizona, and, to an extent, Montana, underperform, but not by as much as you might think or the polls might tell you.)
HOUSE PREDICTION
I don't know why this would be an unreasonable prediction. I don't buy the "NY is going to decide the House" narrative. There's room for both sides to grow and lose, but certain in bents are positioned well, and the presidential ticket should carry the direction of the open seats that don't have an in bent.
good luck, MM
if any of these predictions turn out to be right, you'll break your streak of being wrong every time!
Will Hunting your weigh - in on these.
I have no idea what to make of the presidential race. Not gonna try to guess and even if it’s wrong I think your prediction is reasonable so not gonna make fun of it after the fact. I think it’s about as much of a coin flip as a race can get. Gun to my head Id have said Trump before the debate but Harris seems to have momentum now.
As far as senate I’m fairly confident then Dems end up with 49 seats. A poll of MT’s first district came out today that was horrible for Tester but Sherrod Brown is polling well and I have it on decent authority that he’s got a lot of oppo research on Moreno that should be dropping soon. Gallego would probably be the underdog if he was against a conventional tax cuts Republican but he’s up against radical lesbian Kari Lake. Then there’s Nevada where Jackie Rosen isn’t losing to Freddie Kruger. I think the Michigan race was very winnable for Rs but they’re not sinking any money into it or taking it seriously. Casey and Baldwin I also think are just too strong as in bents to lose even though McCormick and Hovde aren’t bad candidates.
OK your presidential map is fine but this is I think a ridiculous prediction. The party that just had a midterm turnout advantage rarely gains more seats 2 years later (the last time it happened was 2008 which was obviously a unique cir stance). Every other presidential election recently has had the party that just made midterm gains losing seats (2012 Rs lost seats, 2016 Rs lost seats, 2020 Ds lost seats).HOUSE PREDICTION
I don't know why this would be an unreasonable prediction. I don't buy the "NY is going to decide the House" narrative. There's room for both sides to grow and lose, but certain in bents are positioned well, and the presidential ticket should carry the direction of the open seats that don't have an in bent.
-The MD-06 prediction makes no sense. It's a seat Biden won by double digits and it has too many blue Montgomery County suburbs to flip red.
-I'm not sure why Rs refuse to give up hope on NM-02 but if they couldn't hold it as the in bent in 2022 they're not flipping it this year.
-It's hard to see the map so I can't tell if this is what you have but I don't see any reason that the Akron seat flips either.
-This very well could happen but Kildee's, Slotkin's, Wild's and Carwright's seat all flipping red would require a bad rustbelt environment for Dems that the polls don't indicate.
-Perfectly fair to predict WA-03 and ME-02 flip but I don't see it. Both seats have great in bents, and Golden's opponent is the worst one he's ever faced.
-Arizona I'm fairly pessimistic and don't think the Dems flip either close district but having the Tucson district flipping is fair, my pessimism is more re: Schweikert's seat
-Predicting Rs hold every red seat in CA isn't unreasonable but it just indicates an environment more red than what polls show.
Long story short a lot of very close house races that are gonna be decided by the environment, which is why my thinking is that whatever party takes the White House is probably taking the house too, but I don't see any scenario where either party has less than 210 house seats. No matter which side wins the house it's gonna be a slim majority.
Perfectly reasonable analysis, but my justification is:
-The MD-06 prediction makes no sense. It's a seat Biden won by double digits and it has too many blue Montgomery County suburbs to flip red.
Perfectly fair to make this point, but it's also an open seat where I do expect Hogan to lose by less than 15% and have some down-ballot coattails (not up-ballot; Trump will get killed there). Aside from Andy Harris's seat, this is by far the reddest seat in MD, with the western panhandle being WV-level dark-red, albeit less populated.
-I'm not sure why Rs refuse to give up hope on NM-02 but if they couldn't hold it as the in bent in 2022 they're not flipping it this year.
I don't agree with this, personally. I believe this is the cycle NM turns a proverbial corner to the right on the presidential level, and down-ballot Domenici surprises by losing statewide by only a lean margin; energy is a major issue in this district and with the Latino-American male population heavily trending Trump/GOP, and Harrell being the ex-in bent, I do see this region flipping back red. The state will still be on the blue side especially areas north of ABQ.
-It's hard to see the map so I can't tell if this is what you have but I don't see any reason that the Akron seat flips either.
It could go either way, but you have a weak, young, vulnerable first-term in bent who won rather narrowly against a Boebert-esque GOP candidate in an open 2022 election there, and that part of Ohio is zooming red. On the flipside, I could definitely see the Cincinnati seat zoom blue, though, especially since the Dems now have the in bency and knocked off a very difficult GOP in bent in 2022.
-This very well could happen but Kildee's, Slotkin's, Wild's and Carwright's seat all flipping red would require a bad rustbelt environment for Dems that the polls don't indicate.
It's very possible the Dems hold 1 or more of these on a good night (Harris victory night, likely), but this is a product and function of the national environment. Both MI seats are open, while both PA seats are held by vulnerable in bents in red-trending areas that won last time out largely on the backs of the up-ballot candidates (Fetterman, and, to a lesser extent, Shapiro). It's in-line with my Trump "tilt R" PA prediction and my McCormick (very low, I think around 1.7-1.9%) "lean R" prediction. I do have DeLuzio holding the Beaver County west of Pittsburgh seat, to be fair, even though that might be one of the two or so places McCormick outperforms Trump IMO. As for the Michigan seats, the margin by which the GOP lost them in 2022 to in bents was much less than the top of the ticket (I agree governor isn't the best indicator, but that's all we have for Michigan in 2022) and now both seats are completely open. Kildee in particular was a major performer, but the Dems would have to win Michigan by a lot up and down the ballot to hold that seat, for instance. And keep in mind the rust belt polls underestimated Trump and the Senate candidates bad in 2016 and 2020, and the Senate candidates in the rust belt for the GOP not only way overperformed polling but also slightly overperformed Trump, which is also why I have Moreno winning Ohio by a lean margin even if he's a below-average candidate.
-Perfectly fair to predict WA-03 and ME-02 flip but I don't see it. Both seats have great in bents, and Golden's opponent is the worst one he's ever faced.
WA-03 is a red district at the federal level, and Trump on the ballot carries Joe Kent to victory here. There was a lot of infighting on the GOP side in 2022, and you've got a one-term vulnerable in bent again here. To be fair, I also have OR-05 flipping from red to blue for VERY similar reasons, to balance this out. As far as ME-02 if Golden wins it's only because of ranked-choice voting, and he could absolutely hold on narrowly, but his gun comments last year are anathema to that part of Maine which will go to Trump by quite a comfortable margin. Also, I vehemently disagree on Theriault being worse than Poliquin; Bruce Poliquin is the one who was objectively the worst candidate for that district, being a non-populist, tax-cuts, old "Arizona GOP" McCain-esque type that is a horrible fit for that district (but maybe a better fit for New Hampshire). Theriault may be the inexperienced young NASCAR guy but he's baggage-free unlike someone like a Madison G Gilbert of 2022. I expect it to go down to the wire. If Trump has a good enough night he's carrying ME-02 by 10%+ which gives Theriault the upper hand even accounting for ranked-choice voting. To be fair, I have NE-02 flipping blue to essentially balance this out, and a lot of Dems are pessimistic about taking out Don Bacon but once again I think top-of-ticket is too much for Bacon this time. If not, he loses in 2026.
-Arizona I'm fairly pessimistic and don't think the Dems flip either close district but having the Tucson district flipping is fair, my pessimism is more re: Schweikert's seat
Yeah, I don't expect Schweikert to lose this time around, but watch for a potential flip there in 2026. He's a tough in bent like a Steve Chabot type and very vocal in the House himself but even that wasn't enough to save Chabot from urban sprawl in Cincinnati in a relative regional blue-wave midterm, so we'll see. The east Tucson district could go either way, I just see a vulnerable one-term in bent in a state that I have Kamala and Gallego both winning so it makes sense for me to put this as as a blue flip. If I had Trump winning, the GOP in bent probably narrowly holds, IMO, and may lose in 2026.
-Predicting Rs hold every red seat in CA isn't unreasonable but it just indicates an environment more red than what polls show.
Polls consistently underestimate the GOP down-ballot in California, especially recently, look at 2022. I don't think many people had Duarte winning in the first place on their bingo card, but now he's a fairly rock-solid, moderate Reagan-style CA-GOP Latino perfectly tailored to that region similar to Valadao. To be fair, I have the Dems holding Katie Porter's vulnerable open seat, which is a toss up and it seems like moderate Orange County has turned a bit of a corner back towards the GOP over Newsom's and local far-left policy. I could see the GOP picking up this seat, as in bent Porter only won this by 3.1% in 2022 and now there's no in bent, but I have the other LA metro GOP in bents holding so I picked the Dems for CA-47 to be fair. These are all definitely fairly heavy split-ticket districts, in favor of both the Democrat presidential candidate and the down-ballot Republican, so keep that in mind.
-I don't see Tester doing much better than Steve Bullock did. Pre-polarization, he'd stand a chance, but expecting a massive federal to federal split ticketing even in a state that's historically known for it 2012 and before in this era is too folly. The key to remember is that Tester won re-election in a low turnout midterm in 2018 by 3.6% where the voter turnout pool was Trump + 3.0%. That would, in theory, signal a 6.6% split-ticket factor, very much exactly in-line with Trump's performance over Biden (Trump + 16%), versus Daines' performance over Bullock (Daines + 10%), netting a larger sample size of an almost exactly like result there, in the polarized era where up-ballot partisan lean on a presidential ballot means far more than something like in bency. You give Tester a point or two for being a three-term in bent but subtract them when you realize that his last victory was against a scandal-plagued Rosendale. I'd expect Tester to overperform Harris by 6-8% and lose by high single digits to Sheehy.
-I don't look too deeply into the polls favoring Brown in Ohio at the moment. He's a three-term in bent, sure, and he's politically and optically very similar to Tim Ryan, who performed well in 2022. However, the sink-shipper for Brown is that he's on a presidential ballot in a state that zoomed red off a cliff in 2016 and has since had trends in both directions in opposite parts of the state, and to boot Moreno, even though I think he's a Blake Masters-tier candidate (certainly not Oz or Walker tier), has already proven to be an overperformer in the primary against Dolan et al., performing very well in Youngstown and surrounding regions that are must-win if Brown wants any semblance of a chance to win a fourth term in a state Kamala will likely lose by near or low double digits. And then you add in Springfield which is sure to move the state even further to the right, as if East Palestine isn't enough. The state GOP is pissed with DeWine and are trying to gather votes to impeach/recall him in 2025, but acknowledge they have an election to win first. I do think Brown will outperform Harris, not due to his in bency but due to Moreno being a little too polarizing and Vance-esque, by around 4-5%, but it won't be enough. Polls will be polls, but any opposition research on Moreno won't be enough to produce a massive enough federal-vis-a-vis-federal ticket-split in a state where historically Trump actually underperforms the down-ballot federal. Either way, GOP flip, and also justifying my OH-13 flip prediction. (I wanted to flip OH-09 bad but even on a presidential level and not facing Majewski, it's just too much to predict 20-term in bent Kaptur to lose at this time.)
-Pennsylvania is the one Senate seat I see coming up aces perhaps a little out of the blue for McCormick, a seat that was an afterthought for a long time because Casey has always been seen until recently as this juggernaut in bent. But, if my Trump+1(ish) prediction in PA holds true, McCormick IMO wins by an even slightly higher margin. Recall that the last time Trump ran with a PA Senate race on the ballot, Pat Toomey overperformed Trump by 0.8%. Sure, in bent and all. But the polls have actually been somewhat worrisome for Casey even compared to other purple-state senate races, and let's not underestimate the shy McCormick voter again after the near-miracle he pulled off in the primary on May 17th, 2022, even in the face of Trump, McConnell, and other big names stupidly endorsing Dr. Oz. McCormick is an overperformer. He will do very well and likely overperform Trump in exurban and suburban Pittsburgh, as well as the Philadelphia collar suburbs. I can see Casey slightly overperforming Harris in the Scranton area, but that may not be enough to negate that. The way that PA is set up, I don't expect much Trump/Casey ticket-splitting in the dark-red areas of the state. They turned out for McCormick in droves in 2022, and didn't turn out for Oz in the general. Those voters still exist. Some are more MAGA and some are less, but McCormick has a unique coalition and Lean R (maybe McCormick +1.7% is my call for now), but don't be shocked if mighty Casey strikes out this time. Heck, it's very likely that Fetterman is already the stronger of the two PA in bent senators, due to his recent improvements as senator. Fetterman comes off as candid, like a more progressive Trump, and the average PA brute responds well to that. Casey comes off as an oligarch and elite. Outside of the high-education collar burbs, PA doesn't like that.
-As someone who actively works for this state party I actually have firsthand evidence to the contrary that the national and MI GOP are absolutely taking the Mike Rogers race seriously. I do think this state is the narrowest at the federal level and right now I have Kamala by about 0.2%. That said, Rogers is a quality candidate, very well qualified and polished overall, not a culture war hawk and doesn't reek of the Tudor Dixon/James Craig era nor the Rick Snyder era. He bridges the gap beautifully and even though Slotkin's team will inevitably outspend him, it won't be by as much as polls think and duly recall that John James slightly outperformed Trump in 2020, so that just might be enough to put Rogers just narrowly over the hump if Trump narrowly wins or narrowly loses by under a percentage point. Other than that, it's a pure toss up. Close to a coin flip. Could just as easily see Slotkin winning, especially if Kamala wins MI by over 1%.
-Eric Hovde is also a solid candidate and not a culture war hawk. I don't agree with either you or Bill O'Reilly that Baldwin is the strongest in bent especially compared to someone like Klobuchar. You brought up lesbians? Kari Lake being a lesbian is at best funny with respect to her hairstyle and at worst outright fake news, but Baldwin is both a lesbian and a very far-left progressive with similar optics, tendencies, policies and voting habits as Elizabeth Warren. Of Massachusetts. She's a poor fit for the state as a whole. Better than Mandela Barnes? Yeah, but not a very high bar to clear. The issue for Republicans is that, well, Baldwin is a perfect fit for Madison, which has had massive increases in turnout, recently. WOW has overall shifted a bit left away from Trump to some extent and while I do think Hovde will overperform Trump by a point or so, bucking the polls very similarly to Ron Johnson vs. Russ Feingold in 2016, in this scenario I have Trump losing Wisconsin by about 2% due to the combination of juiced Madison turnout and WOW regression, so Hovde loses by around 1% in this scenario. Out of PA/MI/WI, Wisconsin is easily the least politically charged state of the three (outside of the lefties in Madison), which helps Democrats, but this won't be the ultra low propensity elections of 2022 and 2023. Still, I have Dems slightly favored in both races, as Madison has grown drastically in recent years.
-I agree with you on Lake in the sense that Gallego would be an underdog against a Ducey type, paired with Trump not being on the ballot. A Trump/Lake up-and-down ballot is simply too much cancer for moderate, Reaganite/McCain Republicans and right-leaning independents in Arizona to stomach. I think they hurt each other, in fact. Yes, Martha McSally was a poor candidate and 0-2 despite being a twice-appointed in bent, but at least she's not a conspiracy theorist extremist extreme election denier like Kari "Loser". I also think Gallego is a poor candidate on the Dems' part and too fiscally and culturally progressive for the average AZ voter to stomach..... if he wasn't up against Lake (and Trump, to some extent). Dems got lucky there, because otherwise you're probably best off sticking with Sinema or nominating a relative moderate like Greg Stanton.
-I don't think Rosen is a good candidate at all for Nevada (oligarch elitist non-practicing jew, carpetbagger from Chicago). However, Sam Brown is a less than stellar candidate. The physical optics are a problem but far from his worst problem. He just doesn't have a personality. He's not an extremist or a perv or anything, he's just..... bland. Boring... mundane, rudimentary. Personality of a brick. Adam Laxalt didn't run but I'd have him the favorite if he did, even factoring in the 2022 loss (he conceded, fwiw). Just a missed opportunity on the part of the GOP. I think that this seat runs relatively even with the top of the ticket, and in this scenario I have Harris narrowly carrying the state, so I have Rosen carrying it by a roughly equal margin. I don't think either candidate wins or loses by more than 2%, fwiw.
Bad news for Jared Golden. Theriault is ahead in ME-02 polling which massively underestimated Trump in 2016 and 2020:
https://www.wmtw.com/article/theriau...lling/62287240
Golden is trying to win the old vote on the same ballot is Trump by playing to Theriault's young age and inexperience, which is laughable because the median old person up there is a hardcore Trumper with 21 guns and 87 fishing rods.
If the polling miss translates well vis-a-vis the House and POTUS federal levels, it could be enough to carry Theriault even taking ranked choice voting into account. Not sure if this poll factored that in, but the only third candidate in the running seems to be Diana Merenda running a write-in campaign, which is almost certainly excellent for Theriault and horrible for Golden.
As for Peltola's seat I've gotten a lot of pushback from my friends on the right for calling it likely to safe D but the issue is she got 50.9%, an outright majority, in the open primary without ranked-choice voting, and even though the other (R) besides Begich dropped out this time unlike Palin being an idiot in 2022, now Peltola is an in bent with strange unique moderate appeal and you've got to believe that she's getting all the second-place votes from voters voting for the other (D) in the race in 2024, unlike with Palin and Begich in 2022. I don't see how Peltola loses, she might end up with 54-56% or more honestly after RCV is factored in.
I also don't agree with this. Obama being a "generational candidate" at the start of a financial recession largely blamed on Bush is a unique cir stance, but the screwy-louie shenanigans pulled by the Dems in 2024 with an un-democratically nominated candidate replacing the in bent president that vowed to stay on the ballot all the way until just before the convention, paired with two assassination attempts of the former President running for President again, all of this coming off a once in a century pandemic which messed up the 8-year-cyclical continuum in 2020, with record inflation and illegal immigration on top of that isn't a unique cir stance? The GOP underperformed in 2022. If they had performed to expectations in 2022 and won their 230-245 seats they were supposed to back then in a red wave then I say they for sure lose seats in 2024 but they didn't. They went up bit by bit and redistricting has gone both ways but overall has slightly favored the GOP, any way you slice it. You have a decent amount of legacy Dems in red or purple trending red districts which is a problem for the Democrats. You have popular well-funded GOP moderate in bents in light blue districts which is also a problem for the Dems. For every Marcy Kaptur there's three Brian Fitzpatrick's. Yes it is theoretically possible the Dems could win back the House but it'd take a pretty sizeable Kamala win and unexpectedly good night for the Dems, it's not wishcasting to say the House starts off as "Lean R".
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 3 Weeks Ago at 12:20 AM.
Sorry, but as things stand, Trump isn't winning PA, IMVHO, that's pure wishcasting. He won in '16 when he was a complete unknown, but 2020 is a far better indicator. I actually suspect he'll lose by a wider margin this time around.
And without Pennsylvania, his avenues to a win get much dimmer. He would need to win both AZ and GA, which is not impossible, but unlikely.
He's winning Georgia. PA is a pure toss up. Arizona I have going narrowly blue but it could go either way, but it's not a state Trump should comfortably rely on for sure. But the thing is PA is the tipping state because if Harris wins PA then Trump can win GA and AZ and NV (and NC, FL, TX etc) and still lose 270-268 assuming Harris wins NE-02 which she should because it's an urban district.
PA is as it stands now is the reddest of the three upper rustbelt states... it's a most win for both sides honestly, because I don't see Trump losing PA but turning around and winning MI and WI both (assuming he also flips back GA). At that point AZ/NV which won't be called on election night because of re ed counting wouldn't matter, but, it's too wishful thinking.
If one side or the other wins both GA and PA there's a 99.9% chance that side wins the election, and those two are most likely to be called reasonably early on election night considering they're in all eastern time and their counting procedures have drastically improved since 2020. AZ/NV will be counting until Thanksgiving. But if Trump has won PA and GA that means he's also won NC and he doesn't need either of AZ or NV, nor MI nor WI, to get to 270.
Long conversations with Germans lately, intrigued bout the USA election process. I respond neutrally.
In comparison to other people I've chatted with, over the years. Germans it takes a long time to finally get them to state their option/bias. They legit are great listeners and respect the response. Refreshing people to chat with.
I give Dennison a 3% chance of winning PA. NV is not in play either, IMHO. He's just a bad candidate. He will win NC comfortably, and AZ, GA are the true tossups.
Agreed. But we saw the same thing during the last election. Andy with his big walls of copium text meant nothing at the end of the day
And Kacklemala the San Francisco democrat is? That's the issue for Dems. If Shapiro were the alpha nominee, I'd agree about PA. Well, maybe not 97%, but maybe closer to 75-80%. Even Biden post-debate was a much better candidate for PA.
But you've got even objective Dems saying it's a coin flip in this thread, you're the one with the hopium.
NV is in play but it hasn't flipped since 2004 so I've always been hesitant unlike most people in just putting it in Trump's column. Also the polls historically tend to skew R there unlike most the other states. What's your take on MI/WI if you think Trump has a 3% chance to win PA and zero percent in NV? Because he literally can't win the election with just AZ and GA + his 2020 holds. That takes him only up to 262 electoral votes. He'd still need to win one of WI/MI/PA or pull an upset in a state like VA.
She's a terrible candidate, who lucked out to be running against perhaps one of the most unlikeable, weakest candidates of all time.
As I mentioned previously, this is a reversal of the 2016 race, when Trump, who was an unknown quan y then, happened to run against Shillary.
True, tbh... he's going to come in here and swear Trump is done, and somebody take the GOP keys away from grandpa, etc etc etc
Then, he'll vote for him again.
I haven't voted nor had a valid voter's registration card since 2012
The only POTUS candidate I've ever voted for was Mitt the Twit to this point. I did at least have the honor of getting to vote for Cruz. Before he became "Based Cancun Cruz". I remember voting for like 2-3 dems like way way way down ballot simply because it was a male dem vs. female gop/other candidate and I was 18 and a male supremacist lol.
What does that has to do with voting Trump again and again after swearing you're done with him?
Obama was also an unknown. Not sure what that says about Americans this century except that we're a country full of morons.
Luckily Obama turned out okay.
Lol "was"
Who's the one "voting Trump again and again"? Surely not me. Didn't you read my post? I haven't voted since 2012. I agree with what Aaron Rodgers said about voting on Joe Rogan's podcast in 2021. That part of the reason why partisan polarization is such a divisive problem in today's American society, breaking up friendships and relationships etc now more than ever is because of social media and the big orgs, big companies, big donors, big media etc shoving the "vote! vote! vote!!!1! vote or DI3!!!one!!" narrative in-your-face these days more than ever, especially in 2020, it was crazy, it was all over NFL stadiums in specific swing states even if there weren't any fans at the games. It was every other TV ad in 2020. It was every other social media post, brought up in places where it never had been before, heck even pervasive and metastatic on online dating sites and apps. It's become toxic and it's massively carcinogenic and has massively contributed to societal decay. Heck, you went from being proud to have "never voted for a (D) or an (R)" in 2016 -- your own words in 2016 -- to becoming one of the most partisan leftists on this site who isn't a bot or a troll, under eight years later. I respect your opinions, but, seriously.
Sure, the right to vote (for citizens and citizens only) and preserve the democracy is fine and all, but as Rodgers stated, the right to not vote is also equally important, and being pushy about it is not just uncons utional and wrong, but it's conscriptionist.
Well, I'm 30 1/2 years old this Saturday, so definitely not 18 anymore. The rest of the sentence still applies to a certain degree, but I'm also not stupid and not going to cut off my nose to spite my face these days. I do believe that biologically, it is primal nature for men to do the leading in the vast majority of cases, and that neo-feminism is largely poisonous counterculture. This is an atheist's perspective, one who believes in science, and not a "muh jeezus" bible thumper's.
Still annoys me that if the democrats don't win the house, it'll be because the NY Dems had the power to gerrymander and decided not to + the CA Dems tried to gerrymander but were ing terrible at it.
One of the justices on the New York COA literally wrote a concurring opinion telling the NY Dems how they could justify gerrymandering the Staten Island district by calling it an "Asian opportunity district" yet they still decided to not even try.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
