Here is the problem with using the results from New Jersey or Virginia tonight to judge the status of the national political environment. It's not so much that the races are "meaningless" in the abstract, but that ticket-splitting is so common in gubernatorial races that the noise swamps the signal.
Of the eleven states with a PVI of D+7 or bluer, five (Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, California and Connecticut) currently have a Republican governor. Of the ten states with a PVI of R+10 or redder, meanwhile, four (Kentucky, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming) have a Republican governor. The correlation between gubernatorial elections and elections to the House, Senate and Presidency has been very weak, at least recently. In fact, if you compare the share of the vote that the Democratic candidate got in the most recent gubernatorial election in each state to the share that Barack Obama got last November, it is almost literally zero:
Another way to expose the same concept: here are the percentage of ticket-splitters -- Obama voters voting for a Republican governor, or McCain voters voting for a Democratic governor -- in the 12 states which held gubernatorial elections last year:
As you can see, the percentages vary radically from state to state. In North Dakota, 57 percent of Obama's voters voted Republican for governor, in Utah 48 percent, and in Vermont, 38 percent. Meanwhile, in West Virginia, 59 percent of McCain's voters went with a Democrat for governor, 41 percent in New Hampshire, and 36 percent in Montana. On average, about 22 percent of voters for both candidates split their gubernatorial and Presidential ticket in these states. This compares with 8 percent of Obama voters who voted for a Republican for the U.S. House, and 12 percent of McCain voters who voted Democratic for the House. Ticket splitting is about twice as common in gubernatorial races as in races for the Congress.
Public Policy Polling thinks that, in both New Jersey and Virginia, about 15 percent of Obama voters (the ones who bother to turn out) will vote Republican for governor, whereas about 5 percent of McCain voters will vote Democratic for governor. Those percentages, coupled with depressed turnout among their base, will almost certainly cost the Democrats Virginia and possibly New Jersey. But they're also well within the range of "normal" given the local circumstances intrinsic to gubernatorial campaigns -- similar, for instance, to what happened in Washington State last year.
To be clear, the fact that gubernatorial races are not a reliable benchmark does not mean the Democrats are not in trouble in 2010 -- whoa, too many double negatives there -- nor that Democrats might not have done better if Obama's approval rating was 62 percent instead of 52 percent. It just means that New Jersey and Virginia don't have particularly much informational value -- we won't become very much smarter about the future based on what happens there. To the extent that we do learn something, it will probably be hints about turnout, motivation and enthusiasm, rather than something about the electorate's policy preferences.
NY-23 could potentially be more telling, except that the dynamics of the race are so unusual that everyone will have plenty of (good) excuses for whatever outcome might ensue. Still, I'll bet you that NY-23 -- not New Jersey or Virginia -- is actually the race monitored a little more carefully on Capitol Hill.
11.03.2009
Gubernatorial Races a Poor Yardstick
@ 8:17 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments
Doesn't Kentucky have a Democrat Governor?
I believe Oklahoma and Wyoming do as well - he probably just put "Republican" as a typo for "Democratic" there.
Anyway, the point that I was going to make is that although these gubernatorial races may be less useful as tea leaves to read than NY-23 (or perhaps CA-10 for that matter), they're certainly more important. Having one more or fewer blue dog or wingnut isn't going to make a difference for anything in the House. But having Christie and McDonnell shape policy in NJ and VA for the next four years, rather than Corzine and Deeds, will probably make a much larger difference to far more people, especially given that redistricting will go on during that time period.
Of course, this post was all about the importance of the races as barometers rather than their intrinsic importance, but I'm just pointing out that there is definitely some serious intrinsic importance there too.
Great article, Nate! to point out a typo - WY, KS, KY and OK have a Democratic governor ;)
I live in Kentucky. Steve Beshear is a Democrat, not a Republican.
This is one of the best graphs in a while. Interesting how different local and national voting patterns can be.
So *why* is this? I live in relatively liberal Minnesota and we haven't had a Democratic governor for years - and it seems to be to our endless frustration to watch Pawlently block everything the largely Democratic state politicians try to do. Is this what people want? I don't get it.
I would like to know Nate's analysis of why many people who want a conservative executive to control spending with the veto nevertheless prefer a liberal legislator to bring home pork.
Are we really so petty as to merely want to cut spending in other people's districts?
Fascinating data there. Great post, Nate.
jeff, you ask a good question. (I live in Minnesota too.) I wonder if it has to do with targeted advertising. In a state race, the voters may be a bit more homogeneous than in the country at large, so it may be easier for a candidate to craft advertising that appeals to a sufficient number of voters. It may be that voters pay more attention to presidential candidates than to governor races, so the actual policy positions of presidential candidates may have a greater impact that the ads themselves.
What I'm suggesting (with nothing whatever to back this up) is that perhaps for governor races, the candidates are not as well known, and the advertising gimmicks therefor matter more than the platform or the party affiliation. What the voters know about candidates for governor may be little more than what the ads tell them, whereas voters may have more information about presidential candidates. Thus, whoever mounts the better campaign for governor gates elected there, whereas presidential races are more about issues.
Just a theory - I'm sure holes can easily be poked in it.
Alternatively, it may be that local issues are different form national issues (but this would argue for more similarity between local representatives and the governor), and/or that voters want different approaches to problems at different levels of government.
shrinkers,
you may be on to something there, but how do you define a 'better campaign'? just curious.
Montana (the state I know best) has only voted for a Democratic president twice in the past 50 years.
But the governor and both senators are Dem. Of the 5 congressional reps 3 are Dem, 1 Libertarian and 1 Republican.
If I had to hazard a guess I would say people vote nationally on ideology because it seems further away and more abstract.
Locally they vote their own immediate concerns.
This is a convenient bit of counter-spin to what looks to be a pending GOP sweep.
Nate, we are interested in what this portends for 2010 Congressional elections, not 2012.
In 1994 there was also a wave of GOP Governors as well as Congressmen.
Stop cherry-picking your analysis. Governors races generally do portend a national shift in the electorate.
Democrats started picking up Governorships along with Congressional seats after 2004.
Why do you ignore this? It is sickening to see you cherry-pick analysis in such a ham-handed way.
Governor races do mean something. It is laughable that you argue the opposite.
Be a serious commentator, not part if the echo chamber.
@BigInJapan08
you may be on to something there, but how do you define a 'better campaign'? just curious.
I think filistro made a point similar to mine, something along the same lines.
What I meant by 'better campaign' was one that is more effective, more memorable, casts its candidate in a better light and/or casts the opponent in a worse light. It may vary by state - an effective campaign may need only to increase name recognition, so that the voters recall more easily recall positive messages about Candidate A without remembering anything about Candidate A's actual position on issues or party affiliation.
Presidential campaigns are, perhaps more complex - issues like foreign policy sometimes figure in, whereas they seldom (if ever) get involved in state races. Issues of drug policy, immigration policy, the federal debt, etc., are clearly important on the national level but not so much on the state level. It may even be that tax policy is more important in presidential campaigns than state campaigns, because (for most states) people perceive federal income taxes as being the largest tax they pay.
All of this means that issues in governor races may not be nearly as important - it may be that national issues are given more emphasis than state or local issues - so governor races are more about packaging and personality (or at least, perceived personality) than are presidential races.
I am more interested in exit polling to see who voted and why. For example, if blue NJ polls are filled with pissed off conservatives, but Corzine wins a squeaker because these voters split between the Christie and Daggett, this is hardly good news for the political left in 2010.
@Bart DePalma
For example, if blue NJ polls are filled with pissed off conservatives, but Corzine wins a squeaker because these voters split between the Christie and Daggett, this is hardly good news for the political left in 2010.
Actually, that would be great news. Such polling might encourage still more nutbat conservative wingers to run for office as third- (or fourth- or fifth-) party candidates, and split the rightwing vote still more.
Nate, you need to do something about your hair. I saw you on MSNBC this morning and your presentation was great but your hair is a disaster zone. I would suggest that if you're going to do more TV that you try something a bit more traditional. You're on a news program not an audition for American Idol.
Nate is good with numbers, poor with political spin.
Have you noticed that with every subsequent posting Nate’s trying to, using heaping dollops of Obama-esque tortured nuance, explain away his previously prognostications?
This site’s got more blinders than a Thomas Dolby concert. Oh, snap! Funny and culturally
obscure! Extra points of Walker!
Walker’s awesome election predictions:
VA Gov
McDonnell 56%
Deeds 43%
Other 1%
NJ Gov
Christie 47%
Corzine 45%
Daggett 7%
Other 1%
NY23
Hoffman 51%
Owens 40%
Other 9%
And Blue Dog leaders on the cable networks before poll closing early tonight already distancing themselves from Obama and his agenda.
Any over/under bets on whether or not Queff Overbite suffers a coronary tonight? Any bets on whether he will be wearing a goofy Guys and Dolls zootsuit?
Can you guys smell the delicious dread and gnashing of teeth among the chattering classes?
MPM-
This time I'll come to Nate's defense. He merely said the outcome of tonight's gubernatorial races provides little "informational value" and I agree. What he left unsaid is that they provide plenty of MOTIVATIONAL value; i.e. a GOP clean sweep plus a Hoffman win would undoubtedly energize a downtrodden right wing. Just like more losses by R's would feed the national perception that the GOP is in a death spiral.
Erin, what's wrong with Nate's hair?
Too much gel, too much of a towering coiff of curls? 80's style feathered bangs?
Folks on the left have already started explaining why even if the Republicans win certain races that doesn't mean the Republicans really won.
Folks on the right (as evidenced by BDP's last post) have already started explaining why even if the Democrats win certain races that doesn't mean the Democrats really won.
I think we've finally jumped up to the next quantum level of political absurdity.
Nate, you need to do something about your hair. I saw you on MSNBC this morning and your presentation was great but your hair is a disaster zone. I would suggest that if you're going to do more TV that you try something a bit more traditional. You're on a news program not an audition for American Idol.
There's just no accounting for taste. I saw him too, and thought he looked awesome. I really like that "rumpled genius" vibe he's got going now.
Very, very fetching ;-)
Shrinkers:
The conservatives are a large enough plurality to decide GOP primaries next year - especially if they remain fired up and vote in disproportionate numbers. We will be picking the vast majority of GOP nominees next year.
There my be a handful of cases where the GOP bosses manage to force through a liberal and the conservatives will go the third party route and split the vote to the benefit of the Dems. I can live with those short term collateral losses to take back the GOP.
Great graph there; it's things like that made us all fall in love with the site in the first place. You should consider, on any week where you don't have an interesting graph of some sort, doing a post featuring an interesting graph even if it's apropos of nothing. :)
Nate Blinders Example: Exhibit #23a
All this poppycock regarding whether or not today’s off-year elections have informational versus motivational value blah, blah, blah…
I am sure that if the tables were turned and that the Democrats were expected to sweet all these key three races that Nate & Co. would be saying the same thing… Yeah, right…
Bart:
You could be right about the effect of an energized far-right wing of the Republican party. I saw yesterday an article about Limbaugh and Palin calling for a purge of all Republican moderates from the party, a "war" on them in fact. And seriously, the people they are considering "moderate" now is pretty interesting.
So my possible scenario could swing the other way - that the GOP, through the primary process, winds up with a field of very narrow far-right ideologues as official candidates - which inspires a large number of third-party moderate center-right candidates. That would be an interesting dynamic.
Well, it is interesting to see that Nate, etal, have formed the exact same opinion as the last few presidential campaigns in CA. They've apparently written off the CA-10 race as a Democratic Party shoo-in. They may be right, but the first round was interesting, and there are actually five candidates in the run-off today.
One important thing to remember about NY-23: since 1982 no Democratic candidate has gotten more than 37%. 37%!!!
We'll see if Owens gets 38% or more. And I think he will!
So my possible scenario could swing the other way - that the GOP, through the primary process, winds up with a field of very narrow far-right ideologues as official candidates - which inspires a large number of third-party moderate center-right candidates. That would be an interesting dynamic.
Fascinating scenario, shrinkers.
When you ponder the dynamics of divorce, it's very seldom that splits are mutual, amicable and productive. Somebody gets pissed off and leaves, somebody gets revenge, acrimony, misery and bad-mouthing ensue, and it takes people years to recover and get their mojo back.
Who will leave in this case, do you think? Will conservatives dump the Republicans and strike out on their own, or vice-versa? Most important, who gets the kids?
Or perhaps (in fact more likely) they'll patch it up for economic reasons and struggle on, fighting all the time and tearing each other down.
Not a happy outlook, either way.
Shrinkers:
No one including Palin and Limbaugh are talking about purging "moderates" from the party. Folks like Scozzafava are only "moderate" to those on the left like the kos kidz who endorsed her.
Limbaugh has actually been pushing the old Gingrich big tent theory for months now - reestablish a conservative platform for the GOP and invite everyone who is willing to consistently support that platform on board. On short, start from the conservative base and work out.
This makes perfect mathematical sense. If you start with a plurality of 40% of the electorate and probably an even larger percentage of likely voters, the GOP only needs to bring on another 10% of the electorate to win.
In sharp contrast, if the Dems start out as liberals with a base of about 25%, they will give us the needed 10% of the middle on a platter. If the Dems start in the center-right middle, they lose their base and the conservatives end up with an even larger portion of a reduced electorate.
The GOP's current branding problem was caused by Bush replacing the conservative first model with a new center left "big government conservative" pitch. This pitch gambled that the conservatives would obediently vote GOP no matter how far left Bush governed with additional government and spending. That gamble was lost and Bush trashed the GOP brand among conservatives.
The Tea Party movement is a grass roots effort to reestablish a conservative party. If the GOP is smart, it will offer itself for the job.
Seattle, that's not important...didn't you get the memo?
What's important to remember is that if a Republican wins it's a referendum on Obama, but if a Democrat wins, or even does well, it doesn't matter at all...except to show that ACORN was suspiciously involved.
If we can learn one thing from his journey to presidency, Obama is a champion for Obama as he should be. http://www.newsy.com/videos/gubernatorial_elections_looming_for_obama
Walker and BDP-
Heres the best reason to say the governor's races are not a referendum on Obama and mean nothing either way:
In 2001, Democrat Jim McGreevey was elected governor of New Jersey and Democrat Mark Warner was elected governor of Virginia. Right after 9/11. At the high point of W's popularity. Yet the GOP went on to make gains in 2002, and Bush won reelection in 2004.
Verdict: These governorships simply tend to go the opposite direction of the sitting president, and that president's popularity is pretty much irrelevant. In short, they mean nothing either way.
@Bart DePalma
Limbaugh has actually been pushing the old Gingrich big tent theory for months now - reestablish a conservative platform for the GOP and invite everyone who is willing to consistently support that platform on board.
Wait, the Republican "big tent" is "You have to be ideologically pure in order to join"? That's not a big tent, Bart. You're using words in a rather unusual way.
This makes perfect mathematical sense. If you start with a plurality of 40% of the electorate and probably an even larger percentage of likely voters, the GOP only needs to bring on another 10% of the electorate to win.
That would be true of you were at 40%. You're at about 20%, and bleeding people in droves.
Keep thinking that the reason you're losing them is that you're not rightwing enough. That should be useful.
Honestly, when a party begins to narrow its vision, it also loses votes. Part of Obama's genius was to present extremely moderate programs, and to invite everyone to participate in the decision-making. That the Republicans decided instead to blindly oppose, and to set aside bipartisanship in the hope that they could derail the mandate that a centrist like Obama really earned - well, that accounts for a great deal of why moderates are fleeing the Republican party (or being forced out).
The Limbaugh/Palin route is suicidal - but you're certainly welcome to it.
It's already happening:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66041-blue-dog-says-dem-losses-would-strengthen-centrists-position
All I really need to sum up this post is that in 17 out of the last 20 years, Massachusetts has had Republican governor's, does this mean Republicans are a huge force in Massachusetts politics? It's all so absurd. And why do people still engage Bart in substantive conversation, he's a know nothing loon who has shown such a lack of ability to argue basic points (big tent party...as long as you agree with us, or 40% consider themselves conservative=they are Republican wingnuts, he's like a parody only not amusing in the least). Talking to him only emboldens him to keep dribbling his nonesensical, frothing rantings. As far as tonight goes, my predicition is NY23 and McDonnell win pretty handly for the right, NJ stays D, and Maine Marraige is a complete toss up (hooray for votes to take away rights of individuals).
Also, can someone please explain to me how the loss by a Blue Dog in VA and Blue Dog in NY-23 signifies a stregnthening of the Blue Dog position? It is utterly preposterous yet is somehow gaining traction. How is it that 2 candidates losing that agree with Blue Dogs is somehow good for Blue Dogs? Am I in the political twilight zone or is our MSM just simply this dumb?
Geoff:
You must have missed my post above concerning my interest in the exit polling rather than the outcomes. I want to see who is coming to the polls and why. This is a better measure of any verdict that might be rendered on the Democrat national government's hard turn to the left. If conservatives who have been AWOL during recent elections show up in force, then one can reasonably argue that these election results are driven - at least in part - by the conservative rebellion against the left turn by the national government.
You can also look at the margins of victory and compare them with historical results. For example, If the VA GOP gubernatorial candidate routs the Dem by an ahistorical margin, this is also evidence something unusual may be afoot.
It appears likley that the conservatives in general and the GOP in particular may get some bragging rights today. But today's elections are hardly iron clad predictions of 2010. A lot can change in another year. However, the results can be legitimately seen as a warning to the political class from a large and pissed off voting block to change course or else.
BDP said:
"The GOP's current branding problem was caused by Bush replacing the conservative first model with a new center left 'big government conservative pitch.' This pitch gambled that the conservatives would obediently vote GOP no matter how far left Bush governed with additional government and spending. That gamble was lost and Bush trashed the GOP brand among conservatives."
Well yes, that and the fact that Bush broke everything he laid hands on.
Nonetheless, tonight will show that Americans in VA and NJ and upstate NY either have very short memories, or consider Bush an aberration among R's, or are ready to jettison the Bush model entirely in favor of something more extreme right-wing but also more authentically conservative (the T-par-T). Although off-off-year elections surely make for poor predictors, it's nice that tonight's menu features a traditionally blue state, a red one and a historically R district with no R running.
Still, the ME and WA ballot questions will be the most instructive of the lot, going forward.
@John
How is it that 2 candidates losing that agree with Blue Dogs is somehow good for Blue Dogs? Am I in the political twilight zone or is our MSM just simply this dumb?
MSM is that dumb. After being cheerleaders for Shrub for eight years, they've lost their capacity for rational analysis.
You make an excellent observation. We should add that we're also seeing the splintering of the Republicans, and that can't really be an endorsement of Blue Dog philosophy either.
Regarding Bart's touching belief that the GOP can expand its reach by embracing its right wing...
Thsi will never, never work. The reason is related to my previous divorse analogy... there are irreconcilable differences.
I would argue that on the left, the difference between centrist moderates and left wing kooks is largely a matter of degree. Both believe the same things, but the ultra-left believes them with a pure, white- hot passion. However, they are also pragmatists and can usually force themselves to temper their passion if necessary to achieve a goal, as they did when electing a moderate Obama in '08 (and will again in '12, even though he has sorely disappointed them in many areas.)
The right wing kooks, on the other hand, are separated from the center of their party by issues of jingoism and religion, and those are two areas where people will never, ever compromise. They'll leave before they'll temper their position, and burn the house down behind them as they go.
"However, the results can be legitimately seen as a warning to the political class from a large and pissed off voting block to change course or else."
Great synopsis of the 2008 election cycle.
Sorry Bart, I withdraw my direction of that comment at you. However, it still stands against the absence of nuance in Walker's posts today.
Nate:
I believe there's a negative correlation that neutralizes the seemingly expected positive correlation.
Strong Blue or Red states typically have strong Blue or Red legislatures--ALWAYS ENTRENCHED AND FREQUENTLY CORRUPT--and voters in such circumstances seem to have a propensity to provide a check by voting for opposite-party governors. It borders on conscious tactical voting.
I live in MA and know tons of people who actually vote that way. I usually don't, being a strong partisan Dem, but when I lived inh Louisiana I voted for Mike Foster because he switched to Republican and pissed off the good ole boy Dems in the state legislature.
Don't have your data set, but I bet powder blue and pink states have a stronger positive correlation.
That would be interesting data - how many states have a state legislature that is dominated by the party other than the Governor? How many have a divided legislature, with one hose controlled by one party, and the other by the other?
Minnesota had an interesting situation a few years back. The state Senate was controlled by the state Democratic party, and the state House by the local Republicans. The Governor was an independent. Our federal representatives were nearly evenly split between Dems and Reps (slightly favoring Dems). We had one of the most conservative Republicans as one of our Senators, and one of the most liberal Dems in the Senate as the other. All at the same time.
NY-23 (Republican Party direction) and the referendum in Maine (pace of social change) are the only elections of any significance today provided Bloomberg doesn't mount a Presidential bid as an independent in 2012.
I don't have enough information regarding either to make a relevant prediction as to the outcome. It's nice to see some outside cash being infused into the economy of that part of New York.
Keep in mind that Virginia traditionally votes blue for Governor.
In the 63 years since the 1946 election, Republicans have held the seat for 20 of those years.
Virginia had Democrat Governors throughout the Reagan Revolution...
1982-1994.
*** NEWS FLASH ***
Guess who stole the NJ and VA Governorships in 1993?
The GOP.
Guess which party held them in 1993?
The Donkeys.
HMMMMMM.
The last time that VA and NJ BOTH changed from BLUE to RED was 1993.
GUESS WHAT FOLLOWED IN 1994?
HR +53 R
Senate +9 R
So here we are in 2009.
It turns out that these two states are mildly predictive.
Nate, why do you not see these things?
If Corzine loses, next year will look grim.
MPM
your post of VA governors proves the point that these are bad [or reverse] indicators of national political referendum.
during the period you cite most of the POTUS were GOP, so VA voters do tend to elect a DEM governor in these off-year elections when a GOP is POTUS...
in other words, historically the GOP were & are 'due' to win this year [and this is not news, but it does again help explain further why the GOP has had a comfortable lead the entire campaign]
your argument further undermines this as a huge GOP 'victory' [but it is a win]
Those unlikely gov holds are misleading because so many spawn from a single cycle, 2002. The economy was in horrid shape compared to the Clinton years and voters were desperate to target someone. Govs were the obvious choice since the federal races like senate maintained partisan intensity, in fact featured increased partisanship, due to 9/11 and national security concerns.
It was a distinct trend in those 2002 gov races -- the holding party booted minus an incumbent to state his or her case. In fact, that trend held up in huge percentage for 2 or 3 years beginning in 2001, although I forget the exact percentage.
That's the reason for unlikely takeovers like Hawaii, Kansas, Tennessee, Wyoming and Oklahoma, ones that maintain today. The incumbents proved popular and cruised to re-election in 2006. Maryland was another 2002 example of a state defying typical partisanship, electing jackass Ehrlich, but it was amended in 2006.
A rare exception was Romney in Massachusetts. The trend hinted a Democrat should take that seat, but O'Brien wasn't the best nominee and Romney pulled away.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the unlikely holds, that's what I'm saying. Minus that distinct economy-based situational pull from 2002, it's doubtful many of those states would have switched hands, if any of them. Plus there were variables that contributed locally, like a popular right leaning third party candidate who pulled just enough support from Largent in Oklahoma to flop the race to Henry, and obviously Largent lanced himself with the "Bullshit!" outburst when questions surfaced about his whereabouts on 9/11, and questionable related statements released by his office.
Despite Nate's claims
If you look at the following for each year back to 1992:
1. % of Senate Seats held by Republicans
2. % of HR Seats held by Republicans
3. % of Governorships held by Republicans
They are all highly correlated.
Governorships to HR seats: .86
Governorships to Senate seats: .87
HR seats to Senate seats: .92
Sorry, Nate.
Governors races matter.
If we look at the most recent mid-term "Wave" elections:
In 1994, the GOP took a net gain of:
11 Governorships
53 House seats
9 Senate seats
In 1993, the year before, Democrats lost both NJ and PA.
In 2006, Democrats took a net gain of:
6 Governorships
30 House seats
7 Senate seats
In 2005, the year before, Democrats won and held both NJ and PA.
These states are predictive.
Looking at Obama's numbers in 2008 means very, very little for 2010.
Nate has only shown there is was a fleeting "Obama Effect" in 2008 that seems to be largely gone.
Not good news.
DCM -
This depends on what you are talking about.
If we are using these as a barometer for 2010, then these states matter.
If you are looking out to 2012, these elections mean very little at this point.
Too much can happen in 3 years, which is why it is only relevant for 2010.
All I can say is that when Democrats hold these Governorships it signals good things, as in 2005.
When they lose power in these states, it signals bad things, as in 1993.
You are engaging in wishful thinking.
Together, these states are predictive.
Of course, this post was all about the importance of the races as barometers rather than their intrinsic importance, but I'm just pointing out that there is definitely some serious intrinsic importance there too.
attorney
Moremony
Post a Comment