Nothing like a manifestly unpopular governor/crook

to allow the opposition party to make a comeback.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 19:53:05 PM UTC

The 7% solution for PPP is

the disappearing voter.  They have fled Florida for places  unknown.  If you reduce by number of GOP & Democrats types in this poll  by a net 7% (plus divide that reduction equally between the parties)to account for this change in polling pools.  What happens?  The results change by 5% or so.  Naturally the poll has younger and more liberal voters then in Nov 2010.

To me this Jensen polling magic.  His polls have more democrats then 2008 and there are are liberal.  It guess more or less.  I might add he has his standard disclaimer that he cannot quantify the margin of error that hangups and refusal to poll have on his poll.

I can't recall seeing polling from Jensen in March 2007 so this guess on party ID in his poll seems to be based on a hunch as opposed to polling expirence.  Put me down as skeptical.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 19:56:58 PM UTC

I cannot make heads or tails of this comment

So far as I know, PPP doesn't weight by party, which is a Good Thing.

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 19:59:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PPP does not weight by party

Period.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:01:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've been making these accusations repeatedly

And I think it's time to move on - or back up your claims. I especially dislike your unsubtantiated accusation about using "magic." That's just shy of accusing a pollster of phonying up numbers.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:01:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think that's quite fair David

Every pollster in the known universe has a secret sauce of some kind (i.e., how they determine their initial screen, whatever it is). What's pernicious is after-the-fact manipulation. I leave that to Zogby.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:09:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Every pollster

Except PPP. They are now the most transparent pollster in the industry. For the polls they do for DK/SEIU, we publish the raw, unweighted data as well. There's sauce, but it ain't secret - anyone can compare the weighted numbers to the raw numbers. I have a strong feeling that Tom is treating his in-house polls the same way.

As for screening, for the early polls, Jensen has said that he contacts people who have voted in one of the last three elections. That's it. It's only late in the game that they do tighter screening.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:18:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think there's a good case

for an even looser screen this far out (i.e., people who say they will probably vote in the next election). The PPP screen you identify here has the disadvantage of missing every single likely voter who has never voted before. And there's no question that there are such people.

And last I checked, PPP doesn't do things like rotate answers randomly or test the "voice" they use in their recordings. I don't know how much these things would add, but I assume it isn't nothing.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:25:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct re no rotate or changing the voice

I'm pretty sure it's just Tom who records the scripts. But that has nothing to do with "secret sauce." That's just (potentially) pollster-induced error.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:42:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, these are exactly the kinds of issues

that SUSA has promoted itself on for some time.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:52:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are three types of polls that I am aware of.

1. adults-you just poll and one assumes a good pollster will have a blend of adults to match the population of the USA.  For if instance if poll adults and get 65% women your poll of adults is not correct.

2. registered voters-you poll registered voters.  How do you balance your poll for accuracy?  If you poll registered voters and get 65% women your poll is not accurage.  A registered voter poll should match the blend of registered voters in your state by race, age, party ID and ideology. There is only one acceptable way of doing a registered voter poll.  You need to come close to matching your pool of registered voters.  If you have too many AA's or too few hispanics your registered voter poll is out of wack.

3. Likely voters. You screen to see who is voting.  You poll registered voters and get a base of likely voters.  This poll can be judged on past turnouts.  If you poll OH and get 56% D likely voters you can question that.

PPP is using some sort of blended system between a registered voter poll and a likely voter poll.  He is not basing it on registered voters or exit poll info  from previous years. He is not claiming to take a "likely voter" poll as he is not claiming to determine intent to poll.

So exactly how is he coming up with his pool of voters in his poll?  Its not a likely voter screen.  Its also not a registered voter based poll as he is not using registration stats or anyknown exit poll information.  

David he has his own special blend of voters for his polls.  Call me a liar but that is what is he is doing.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:23:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

First off

No one called you a liar.

Second off, it is definitely time for you to move on.

Thirdly, what part of "voted once in the last three general elections" do you not understand? That is the screen PPP applies. They take a voter list and then they see who has voted at least once in the last three elections. If you haven't, then you don't get called. If you have, then you might get called. That's it. End of story. Really simple.

Yes, it's somewhere between a pure RV sample and a likely voter sample, but you need to seriously stop acting like this is some secret Tom is keeping from the world. It's been explained to you repeatedly.

Oh and this?

If you poll registered voters and get 65% women your poll is not accurage.  A registered voter poll should match the blend of registered voters in your state by race, age, party ID and ideology. There is only one acceptable way of doing a registered voter poll.  You need to come close to matching your pool of registered voters.  If you have too many AA's or too few hispanics your registered voter poll is out of wack.

Women, whites and older people simply answer polls more frequently. This is a fact. Every pollster will tell you this. You think you pick a list and your respondents somehow magically match up with the expected electorate? It doesn't work like that. People's voting habits differ from their "answering phone calls from strangers" habits. That's just life.

So anyhow, like I said, time for you to move on.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is I my last comment on PPP for today.

Moving on after this.  I detailed what Jensen is not showing on another thread.  Basically what you are saying is that he is calling from a list of what we might call active voters.  They are registered voters who are active voters since 2006-2008-2010.

That's fine-that's his priviledge and right.  He owns the company. I understand he has a list of active voters from 2006-2008-2010 and those are the people he calls.  He is randomly calling voters throughout the state and is setting goals for voter types.  Just whoever answers that who he polls.  

So basically he is just calling a list of active registered voters. He is not pre-screening for a set number of republicans, democrats or indies.   If he comes up with a pool of "active registered voters" that is more democratic, less independent, younger and more liberal then who voted in 2008 that's just who polling and taking the calls?  

All I note is that his % of indies, democrats and liberals vary from exit polls in 2008/2010.  I consider 7% variance in indie totals to be quite significant.  I apologize to PPP for implying they are cooking their books.  Jensen has no magic formula, based on your information, or targets for partisan ID.  I do note, however, that he is finding more democrat & fewer indies &  more liberals then previous exit polls have found in Florida.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 23:08:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW

He explained the drop in independents this year. He switched to a 5 point scale for partisan identification (trong Democrat, lean Democrat, independent, lean Republican, strong Republican) instead of using the 3 point scale (Democrat, Independent, Republican) that he used in past years. He did the same thing with the ideological scale (liberal, independent, conservative vs. strong liberal, lean liberal, moderate, lean conservative, strong conservative). He did this so he could see the differences in preferences of lean and strong Republicans/conservatives in the Republcian primary.  

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

---

by: JonathanMN @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 23:19:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry posted too soon.

I forgot to add that, when given more choices, "independents" from the 3 point scale will tend to split in to the three middle categories - lean Democrat, independent, and lean Republican. Weak partisans vote with the party they lean toward within a few percent of strong partisans so lean and strong get grouped together in to a new category of Democrats and Republicans that is slightly higher than what is found using the 3 point scale. This results in fewer indpendents which is actually the case if we could study everyone's voting behavior.

21, Progressive Democrat, MN-08 (home), MN-05 (college)

---

by: JonathanMN @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 23:23:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PPP has made it clear in the past...

That they weight for both age and gender. I do not believe that they weight for race, and they certainly do not weight for political affiliation.

They make sure the sample is adjusted to represent the demographics of the registered voters of the state.

---

by: LordMike @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 06:58:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's different from what I hear

So I had to look it up and found http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

While this excerpt is probably too big, I think it's worth quoting the whole thing:

I'm assuming (not sure) that PPP is still weighting in the same way. Bolding mine.

Background: one of the toughest decisions PPP had to make in conducting its polls last year was whether to weight for party id. Ultimately we decided not to. The main reason was that we really weren't sure, if we did weight for party id, what numbers we should be using. Should we use past exit polls? The most recent Gallup data? The most recent Pew data? What if party id shifted back and forth over the course of the year in relation to various events? Weighting to an out of date or incorrect party id target in a particular state could foul up an otherwise well conducted poll.

Ultimately we decided just to weight for gender, race, and age and let party id fall where it fell

and given that a Wall Street Journal analysis of swing state pollsters soon after the election showed us as one of the two most accurate in the country I don't regret it.

It was a decision we took some flak for, particularly from Republicans, because the party id breakdowns our polls found tended to be much more Democratic than what the exit polls showed even for the very Democratic year of 2006.

I have a feeling Democrats in the next few years may use the Gallup data to criticize our polls for being too Republican in their party breakdowns.

---

by: tietack @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 13:27:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I appreciate your comment

and yes I think secret sauce is the right word.  I looked at dozens or maybe hundreds of PPP polls.  I don't the following information on his polls.

1. What question does he ask before question 1.  For instance if you are a registered voter punch 1. If you vote in every GE punch 2. If you intend to punch in GE punch 3. What people does he include in his polls?

2. Total number of calls and total number of respondents.  I don't see that information.  

There is a lot of vital information that PPP is not releasing.  I go back to my point. If this is a likely voter poll he needs to say so.  If this is just a registered voter poll he needs to match the demographics of registered voters for that state.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 22:06:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you have looked at a hundred polls

You will know they have a history of accuracy in their toplines but the crosstabs more often that not don't reflect actual election results. Tom has told everyone time and time again that the polls are a hybrid model, less than LV but more than just RV. The firm is THE most transparent polling operation in business today. I really don't know what more you want.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 22:36:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think you get it

He starts with a list of registered voters. He doesn't ask whether respondents are registered - he knows that they are. He also doesn't need to ask voting frequency because the list he gets also tells him whether someone has voted in the last however many elections (in PPP's case, three). Have you ever seen a voter file or voter list before?

As for #2, no pollster on earth releases that information - and if they did, I'm sure people would complain about it, because the response rate is very low. The thing is, it's low for everyone.

The fact that you are calling PPP out for not releasing this information when literally no one does and no one ever has is b.s. and frankly, evidence of a lack of good faith on your part - or an indication that you have a lot more learning to do before you style yourself a critic of pollsters. If it's the latter, then a little humility would do you well. I didn't start off my career as a blogger slagging pollsters - I spent a lot of time learning first.

Oh and by the way, PPP is owned by Dean Debnam.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 01:52:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I posted the above post

before I read your post explaining the PPP method.

I did not realize PPP called from a list of active registered voters.  I feel the gist of my of major  point are still valid.

Jensen polled 500 active voters in Florida.  So they voted in 2006 or 2008 or 2010. The composition of those 500 voters still have to measured against some standard.  I could poll 500 active voters in NY and if I reached 400 republican voters my poll would be inaccurate.  Any poll with 80% Republicans in NY state would be silly.  

My main point on Jensen and his 500 active voters is this.  Jensen polled 500 active voters and his respondents were more democratic, less independent and more liberal then the exit polls found  in Florida in  2006 or 2008 or 2010. That's it.  

I am cool with Jensen polling 500 active registered voters. I will not even comment that voting in 2008 means you vote in 2012. I am not going there.  

The composition of his 500 active registered voters have to been compared to something if you want to judge the accuracy of his results.  Jensen is not claiming these are likely voters just a pool of polled "registered voters who have voted".  I contend that his pool of "active registered voters" leans  to the democratic side in Florida.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:23:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Physical demographics

These are the standards measured against. SurveyUSA do exactly the same thing. It probably isn't an accident they are the two most accurate national firms. The poll is no different from what Mason-Dixon found recently. So why really do you have a bee in your bonnet over this?

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:20:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The dissappearing voter?

what does that mean? Florida's population is booming, not shrinking. There aren't mass amounts of people "fleeing Florida for places unknown". Or did I misunderstand you? And what does this have to do with PPP being favorable to Democrats?

And what do you mean "I can't recall seeing polling from Jensen in March 2007?" PPP's was definitely polling then. This isn't some fly-by-night group that just opened up yesterday.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:01:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Florida is shrinking.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/b...

But the shrinking started too late in the decade to be reflected in the Census. But if it continues, then I won't be surprised to see Florida lose electoral votes in 2020.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:12:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very interesting

I had no idea. But that article seems to suggest that it was the recession and the housing crash that caused it (which makes sense), so I'm not sure that it will continue all the way until 2020.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:19:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Housing crisis hit Florida like a mofo.

De-regulation and massive speculation created one of the biggest bubbles in the nation in Florida.  Speculators were making fortunes off of the expensive and valuable real estate up for grabs.  Then, it all went to hell and many people lived in underwater valued homes.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:25:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even before the crash

cost of living took a toll, with property taxes, insurance, etc. I don't see that going down there anytime soon.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A temporary blip

That seems like a temporary blip causes by the housing crisis, which hit Florida hard. I can't see the state losing Electoral votes in 2020 unless other states far surpass its rate of growth.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:44:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you talking about?

I can't really figure out what your point is.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:05:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I put you down as clueless?

Reread the weekend thread for a much needed lesson. This idea that PPP are cooking the books is preposterous. What little polling that we've seen from other firms in state after state supports their work. Mason-Dixon in FL, a couple polls in MT, SurveyUSA in MO, polls in NJ and on and on.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 22:29:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whatever dude

Scott is a joke, and unfortunately the Floridians have figured it out subsequent to the election and now will have to suffer the consequences.

PPP is very damn transparent, unlike Scottie "Quaker Oats" Rassmussen.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 23:08:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans are more reliable voters

Findings like these are why Democrats should temper their enthusiasm over the new census numbers that show this country's hispanic population growing. The demographic groups that make up the Republican Party's base are FAR more reliable voters than those who make up the Democratic party's base. Say what you want about Republicans, but you can count on them to vote. Democrats need to be cajoled a lot harder to go vote.

Even if the hispanic population is growing in size, it won't matter unless a) it is eligible to vote and b) it actually casts votes.

---

by: jdb316 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:12:54 PM UTC

The enthusiasm is warranted, but the benefits are more delayed than many of us wish......

The main issue with Hispanics is that a large percentage are non-citizens, and a significant percentage of the non-citizens are undocumented.

The real statistic that tells the story of the future is the under-18 racial/ethnic population breakdown.  The turnout gap in the future will be much smaller among under-18 Hispanics than it is among today's Hispanic adults, since the under-18 Hispanics have a much larger percentage of U.S. citizens than their elders and also, growing up here, have a much deeper emotional investment in America.

About 20-25 years from now, when today's Hispanic and other kids are voting en masse, we'll see a national electorate that is 20% Hispanic and close to 40% nonwhite overall, and that will make America into California:  completely unwinnable for conservatives, and for Republicans winnable only for the Rockefeller-types, if any are left.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 14:20:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Variability

One thing I've learned drawing Maryland maps is that looking at election percentages for a precinct isn't enough. You have to look at votes and vote margins.

For instance, if you're trying to draw a Democratic district, the precinct that contains the town of University Park, despite being only about a 70-30 district for Dems, can be a more valuable asset than some precincts in other parts of Prince George's County where virtually no one ever votes Republican.

There are parts of the Dem base who are pretty reliable voters, but it usually takes more than those people win elections.

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 16:54:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The comparison I like to draw is MN

with our GOP state legislature and DFL governor, things are going to take awhile to solve but it's going to be an all-around shit show where everyone either looks bad or everyone looks like they compromised and came up with a solution for the state.  When it comes to fixing the economy right now, it really is damned if you damned if you don't.  The Dems get attacked for growing the deficit and being big spenders, the GOP are going to get hit for kicking the elderly off their health insurance and cutting education spending.  

Would Sink really look that great when proposing her own cuts and tax raises?  With a GOP state legislature, yeah, because she has final say and has an easier path to making herself look like the grown-up in the room.  With a Dem legislature where they'd probably want to raise taxes as the main way to fix the budget, probably not.  Everyone has to make decisions that look bad because the economy sucks and it's the only thing to do, and divided government offers the balance between the two extremes of fixing budgets and economies.  And the media certainly doesn't help with their striving to be moderate.  I read my paper and they attack Dayton for wanting to raise taxes and they attack the GOP for wanting to cut spending, well then what the hell do you want to happen?

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 00:58:04 AM UTC

Very astute.

As far as your last line, I can't remember where, but recently, I read a simple headline that said something along the lines of "Public Against Spending Cuts, Tax Increases." (I'm guessing it was related to the federal budget, but it could just as easily be related to state budgets.) That pretty much describes the dilemma politicians are in, which is why they really do take a little from here and a little from there. It's like a smack to the face: as long as it doesn't knock you out cold, you will recover, even if the pain is long-lasting.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:26:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Magic

reminds me of an e-mail I got from Amnesty International that said President Obama needed to do something about Libya, but shouldn't use military action.

And I thought "We're going to defend the citizens of Bengazhi with what? flowers and songs?"  

---

by: DNick @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:37:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's exactly

what I thought of when McCain claimed in on of the debates that he'd cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget all within four years.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 04:27:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jedi mind tricks

You don't want to reduce Benghazi to rubble. You want to send all your mercenaries home and book a one-way ticket to Venezuela.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 16:18:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Governors Scott, Walker, Snyder and Kasich

I think they have turned four vital swing states in the 2012 election to "lean Obama".  Republicans are going to have a tough time selling much in those states after those guys have shown their true colors.

---

by: flatblade @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 06:01:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More than that...

They've made themselves such high profile faces for the GOP, that they will likely have similar drag on their party as the unpopular Dem governors did in 2010.

---

by: LordMike @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 07:03:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope you are right.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 13:27:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regardless of the upthread stuff

This poll shows PPP's strength.

Like all polls, the topline doesn't really matter.  What matters is the composition of the sample.  What we get here from PPP is a few things...

First, the sample is not the same as the 2010 electorate.  That's neither good nor bad.  It just is was it is.

Second, if an election was held today, and this was the turnout, Scott would lose.  Whethere turnout would be like that or not isn't important.  It just shows what would be if it would be.

Third, Scott has less support among people who didn't vote in 2010 than those who did.

Fourth, no matter what, this sample shows that among those who did vote in 2010, Scott loses support.  If the subsample of people who did vote in 2010 voted then the way they think now, Sink would have won.  

That fourth one is the key point.  Whatever occurs in the next election will be the result of turnout, and the actions of the independent-ish voters who do change loyalties.

PPP's strength is getting people to answer questions basically relaibly, and in disclosing a great deal of information about their samples.  Sometimes their samples are right on, sometimes they a not.  In either case though, they allow you to look under the hood and adjust the numbers yourself -- either because you think they are wrong, or as a way to run various "what if" scenarios.

The bottom line here is no matter how you slice it, Scott has lost support.

---

by: tommypaine @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 01:04:45 AM UTC

Would Sink Have Faired Much Better?

I wonder how much of Scott's unpopularity has to to with overreach and how much has to do with the fact that any governor would have to make painful and unpopular decisions to resolve Florida's budget problems. Sure, I think Sink would have been a better choice, but surely whatever Sink would have done to get the budget in line would have hurt in the polls as well. I just don't know what the difference in the numbers would be.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:12:52 AM UTC

Couldn't she have

vetoed anything that was too harsh? Also, wouldn't she have accepted the transportation money?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:20:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The main point is true

Basically everyone who wins these days is screwed because everything is so broken it can't be fixed.

Still, from a swing state perspective, so what?  Dems had a good year in 2008.  Reps had a good year in 2010.  So far in 2011 it seems voters are not happy with swing state Republicans in power.  That doesn't mean they'd be happy with Dems if they had won, but the Dems didn't win, the Reps did, and the flipfloppy independents aren't happy with the results.

---

by: tommypaine @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:33:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He was pretty unpopular

Before he actually did anything. At least she wouldn't have started with that handicap.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:19:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]