A word on polling (1 Viewer)

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I'm breaking this up into 2 parts for readability. This first part is actually mostly background to explain what polls are and aren't, the second part (which I'll reserve the second post for) is to discuss what I think is actually going on with the polling.

There are two primary fallacies people seem to fall into when looking at polling data.

Fallacy #1 - Polls are fact

Polls are not facts. At least, they are not scientific facts. Despite this, people really want to treat polls as if they were intended to be statements of fact.

The surest test of this is the myriad of different polls widely different results, well outside of each others margin of error. ABC had a poll recently with Clinton up by 12% with a margin of error of 3.5%, IBD had the election tied at 41% with a margin of 3.6%.

One of these polls is wrong, and possibly both. So polls are not facts.

It's better to consider polls more theories. Or models, or hypothesis, or something along those lines. Polls involve a lot of untestable assumptions that aren't verified until election day. At which point it starts all over again.

The final vote count is the fact. Polls are models/theories/hypothesis about what the final vote count will be. Some are wrong, some are close to right. None should be considered fact on their own,

Fallacy #2 - Polls are "skewed"/"rigged"/partisan

This one defies logic and is far more annoying than fallacy #1. Fallacy #1 is something common to most people when dealing with a large range of types of statistics. Numbers "look" authoritative. So while it's frustrating, it's understandable. Fallacy #2 requires a special kind of stupid.

Polls are absolutely not "rigged". To understand why we can know this, it's important to understand why anyone even "polls" at all.

Polls have been around for awhile, but the shining moment in American political polling was arguably 1936. The Literary Digest had been in circulation for most of the 20th century and in 1936 conducted a straw poll about the US Presidential Election. They'd correctly predicted the 1920, 1924, 1928, and 1932 elections, each of which had boosted its circulation. In theory this increased their sample and therefore should have improved the accuracy of their polling.

The problem is their circulation was heavily skewed to northeastern Republicans. So their "sample" was fine for Republican elections in 1920, 24, 28, and everyone knew FDR would win in 32 (for obvious reasons), but they badly missed in 1936 predicting the Republican, Landon, would win.

This is a bit like taking an instant poll on the Drudge Report asking who won the debate between Trump and Hillary. In defense of the Literary Digest, they didn't know any better. Polling was in its infancy. Someone who did know better was Gallop, a person, who got the 1936 election right using a much, much, much smaller sample that was "scientific" (thousands verses the Literary Digest's polling of millions).

Gallops win was, as you'd expect, a coup. You can correctly predict complex outcomes using small numbers of people? Pretty valuable stuff.

And not just to politicians. Movies, advertising, politicians at all levels of government, foreign countries, the US government, everyone. Polling is incredibly valuable to everyone and, consequently, lots of polling organizations have proliferated over the years (which is why we seem lousy with them now).

I am going through this history lesson for a reason. Polls have to be accurate. If they are inaccurate they are worthless. And presidential polls are the benchmark for accuracy. You cannot pay a polling organization enough money to "throw" their results because that has very serious long-term ramifications for them. It would effectively bankrupt them just like it did the Literary Digest (which folded shortly after 1936).

A good example of this is Rasmussen Reports. In 2012 its final poll predict Romney 49%, Obama 48%, the final result was Obama 51% and Romney 47%.

Ironically, this was actually within the margin of error. However it was at the end of the ranges and worse than all of the other polls. In 6 months Scott Rasmussen was forced out from his own polling organization and Rasmussen revamped their methodology.

Bad results are serious business for these folks. Rasmussen's results were actually still mathematically sound, not skewed, just had a slightly bad model of the electorate and it still almost killed the organization and did force out the founder. These people are not "rigging" anything.

Part 2 below
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Part 2 - How about those polls huh?

A little more context, I'll try to dispose of quickly.

So polls do not just call 1,000 people and report the percentage who say Clinton vs Trump. They also, contrary to Donald Trumps current fever dreams, do not specifically poll percentages of democrats or republicans. Party affiliation has been found to be a lot more malleable from a polling perspective, so it's not a good filter mechanism. Today's "Republican" who is voting Jeb Bush can easily become an "Independent" tomorrow when Donald Trump gets nominated. Traditionally, democrats have had greater voter loyalty and get more people identifying as "Democrat" while Republicans are more likely to identify as "Independent" even though they only vote straight Republican. It usually evens out.

Polls typically like to divide the electorate along demographic and sociological lines. Back in the 1960s they may pay attention to the number of Catholics they poll verses Protestants. That matters less now. But if you're conducting a poll in Nevada, you better make sure you represent the white, middle class, educated Mormons as a distinct group from other white, middle class, educated but protestants because they have very different voting patterns.

This matters to go over for a couple of reasons.

First, from a "news of the day" perspective, Podesta asking for Latinos to be "oversampled". Oversampling doesn't mean anything. Podesta may want polls to poll 500 hispanics instead of 100, not because he wants the poll to be turned worthless (which makes little sense). The "weight" of the hispanics is the same no matter if they poll 1 or 1,000 (say, 10% of the results if thats what the polling agency projects the turnout to be). The purpose of oversampling is to get more precise results for that demographic. This would matter
to an organization if, say, your opponent promised to build a wall between the US and Mexico.

Second, and more importantly, polls are more an expression of the polling agency's model of the electorate than raw results

That's why they are not "facts". It's not that ABC asked 1,000 people who they would vote for and 50% said Hillary. That's not very useful (though ironically it would be a "fact"). The raw percentage of their sample who voted Hillary could be wildly off 50%. But they then weight the results based on what they feel are the distinct demographics present in the electorate (white people, black people, mormons, latinos, cuban-latinos, jewish people, etc) and how likely those demographics are to turn out on election day.

This is done through a combination of old data, old voting results, new census type data, smaller micro polls you never see to gauge different demographics, etc.

The result is each poll has its own "secret sauce" if you will that models the electorate. When you see polls with wildly different results, what you're might be seeing is very different models of the electorate. This is what Rasmussen saw in 2012, where they overestimated the white vote and underestimated Obama's turnout factor amongst minorities.

Hopefully you're picking up on a couple of key things

- How you choose to conduct a poll can affect the model.
The obvious example is young people and landlines. A lot of polls have tried to get around this, and have been trying to evolve their collection methodologies. Rasmussen for example has included more online results lately trying to anticipate this wave of the future. There are some problems with that, primarily being new methodologies are "new" and therefore harder to control for. Other peoples try to deal with it by sticking to tried and true methodologies but just weighting stronger (Nate Silver's preferred method). The problem with that, of course, is smaller samples are more volatile.

If it sounds like there isn't a good answer for this, that's because there isn't.

- Polls can be slow to anticipate changes in voting bloc demographics
Whether you were catholic or protestant in 1960 mattered a lot in how you might vote, and polls would do well to account for that. Controlling for that in 2016 has little effect. Being "college educated" verses "not college educated" mattered less in 2004 than it does in 2016 if you're white. If you're slow to account for the redivision or realignment of the electorate, your model electorate can be very wrong.

Now, let's not go overboard. These are very smart, very experienced people who are trying very hard to get things right. Polls are not bunk or worthless. They are all more intelligently done than you're probably giving them credit for.

But they are models. And it's reasonable, in fact good that there are many different models of the electorate out there.

This is why sites like Nate Silver's 538, Realclearpolitics, and others use composites of all of the polls. And that's why polling indexes are fairly reliable, even if individual polls are not necessarily so.


Geez, I think I need a part 3. I'm sorry for being so long but I feel like it's worthwhile information. I need a break at the moment though.
 
Last edited:
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
One last word about polling accuracy. Always trust state polls over national polls. The model for national polls are poorly tuned in comparison to state polls.


There, so what do we see? Well Hillary Clinton is definitely going to win this election. She's winning virtually every demographic no matter which poll you look at. This means variances in polling numbers are likely more to do with proportioning of the electoral vote, and specifically how they weight uneducated white men.

The popular Trump theory is that this demographic is full of shrinking violets hiding in shame from the liberal media that will turn out when the voting really starts, carrying him to victory. This is fantasy.

First of all, just anecdotally, Trump supporters are not shrinking violets.

If there is a "silent majority" so to speak, it's probably of white college educated males. More of them voted for Romney than Obama, and more of them used to identify as Independent or Republican than Democrat. The polling we see suggest they are very unenthusiastic about all of the candidates and fluctuations in this group have generated most of the overall movement in polling for Hillary. This group does not want to vote for Hillary and is more motivated by hatred of Donald Trump. If anything, this group might be underrepresented. Possibly in terms of turnout, possibly in voting for Hillary (this demographic makes up a disproportionate amount of undecided voters as well).

This group defecting from the Republicans to the Democrats accounts for the majority of the shift we're seeing in states like Virginia and Colorado to "safe democrat", in North Carolina to "likely democrat", and putting states like Georgia in play. The resiliency of states like Ohio for Trump come from the lack of this group. If you're a white college educated male, congratulations, you're all that's left of a "swing" voter (for this election that is).

Overall, this dynamic makes it all but impossible for Trump to win. If Hillary gets reasonable minority turnout and there isn't some secret well-spring of uneducated white males for Trump, then Trump cannot win highly educated states like Virginia and North Carolina, which effectively ends the election the minute the polls close. He may overperform in states with low education (like *cough* Alabama or West Virginia) and keep the overall vote count in the 4%-6% range, but he has no chance of holding Hillary to 300 or less electoral votes.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
33,295
Reaction score
32,347
Location
Covington
Offline
Dude...thank you.

I've never read anything as easily and succinct as you just presented. It was always a question I had regarding polling and results (specifically are they getting more independents/R/Ds and how they figure that out)

Thanks spam

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Dude...thank you.

I've never read anything as easily and succinct as you just presented. It was always a question I had regarding polling and results (specifically are they getting more independents/R/Ds and how they figure that out)

Thanks spam

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
By the way, the "headline number", the "41% verses 41%" number they publish, is just for glitz and attention. The "money numbers", the ones people pay for, are things like "nationally blacks poll 89% to 3% Clinton to Trump, but they only poll 68% Clinton to 12% Trump in educated Durham North Carolina, where they turnout at a 6 to 1 rate verses uneducated blacks in rural North Carolina". Why? So Hillary can spend $800,000 in that specific media market targeting that specific demographic (maybe with his comments about women since they know from other polling that college educated women give them the most bang for their advertising buck in terms of movement) as opposed to carpet bombing the state with a generic message.

Trump does not understand or get this. He never had a chance.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
33,295
Reaction score
32,347
Location
Covington
Offline
By the way, the "headline number", the "41% verses 41%" number they publish, is just for glitz and attention. The "money numbers", the ones people pay for, are things like "nationally blacks poll 89% to 3% Clinton to Trump, but they only poll 68% Clinton to 12% Trump in educated Durham North Carolina, where they turnout at a 6 to 1 rate verses uneducated blacks in rural North Carolina". Why? So Hillary can spend $800,000 in that specific media market targeting that specific demographic (maybe with his comments about women since they know from other polling that college educated women give them the most bang for their advertising buck in terms of movement) as opposed to carpet bombing the state with a generic message.

Trump does not understand or get this. He never had a chance.
Yeah I imagined they glean way more info from the data than just "ooohhhh I'm winning ".

It's macro on the surface but micro behind the scenes. Something that I would think many just don't take into account unless involved in this discipline.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
18,184
Offline
Thanks, spam, this is very good. One thing I wondered, how do pollsters account for the number of people who have never been registered to vote before this year, but are planning to vote?

Do they just weight for overall population? They'd have to take likelihood to vote into the equation, I'd think, and the proportion of people who vote versus those who don't has been fairly stable in the past. But what if the proportion of voters goes way up? That could certainly skew their predictions.
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Thanks, spam, this is very good. One thing I wondered, how do pollsters account for the number of people who have never been registered to vote before this year, but are planning to vote?

Do they just weight for overall population? They'd have to take likelihood to vote into the equation, I'd think, and the proportion of people who vote versus those who don't has been fairly stable in the past. But what if the proportion of voters goes way up? That could certainly skew their predictions.

Short answer, voter registration is tracked in many states (actually all states of course, but I mean "broken down" by party, race, etc in many states). The pace of voter registration can then be gauged for 2016 vs 2012, 2008, etc. So it can be accounted for in turnout models absolutely.

There's been work on that. Supposedly that was Trumps ace in the hole. If you remember in the primaries all of those stories of Trump bringing people to the Republican party who never voted Republican.

They weren't democrats, they had never voted, period. And they didn't register for Trump. That's why Trump consistently under performed his primary polls during the primary, and why I expect a landslide election for Hillary.

Those Trump supporters go to his rally's, respond to surveys, but do not register and will not vote.

And we can check this. Let's take North Carolina.

Since 7/1/2016 until 10/22/2016 North Carolina has registered 49,005 democrats and 45,330 republicans. The deadline to register to vote is November the 5th and guess what those "ground operations" everyone talks about Hillary having over Donald really do?
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
18,184
Offline
This is helping out my mild case of "Trump anxiety". Well this and an NPR article about how the early votes are going in Nevada. :9:
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
This is helping out my mild case of "Trump anxiety". Well this and an NPR article about how the early votes are going in Nevada. :9:
Try this on then

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

That's the minimum. Honestly, in my opinion, the minimum is higher than that, but even the most pessimistic assessment of all possible information puts this as Hillary's bare minimum.

Any single "toss-up" gives her 270+.

That includes states like New Hampshire where Clinton is +8%
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Or Florida where Clinton is +3.8%
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein


And don't kid yourself, pollsters have the Florida electorate down pat. You might see large polling errors in places like Alaska, but you won't see it in Florida.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
22,185
Reaction score
19,921
Age
49
Location
Between here and there
Offline
One other thing which just adds to as this is the best synopsis of polling since I took whatever class it was 24 years ago in college. Generally people who have never voted in previous elections that they have been eligible, yet never registered to vote in will rarely follow through in the general election. So when you see these people at Trump rallies who are registering because they have never voted before generally won't this time either. Voters are generally habitual. If they vote they always do, and if they don't they rarely if ever will.

With a couple exceptions. The minority vote was higher than thought because Obama was the first minority president, therefore energizing that base. I would expect a large turnout from female voters this time because even though they may not publicly support Hillary, the fact that there is an extremely good chance of the US having its first female president is important.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
That's true to an extent (regarding the minority, specifically black, vote). It's not reasonable to expect the black turnout to mirror what it was for Obama. It went from 60% to 70% in 2008, accounting for the shift in states like North Carolina, and then from 70% to like 67% which flipped it back.

That said, the black vote in swing states tends to be urban and more susceptible to ground games/turnout operations than, say, rural white voters in Ohio. Hillary certainly won't hit Obama's 2008 number. She probably won't hit his 2012 number either. However black turnout had steadily improved the 2 decades previous to 2004 (when 61% turned out) and Obama's data heavy/grass roots heavy turnout operation didn't vanish just because Obama can't run for a third term. You should expect it to easily beat the 2004 number and may even touch the 2012 number.

That said, that cost Obama North Carolina. The big difference between Obama 2012 and Hillary 2016 is white college educated voters.
 

Alan

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
2,374
Offline
One last word about polling accuracy. Always trust state polls over national polls. The model for national polls are poorly tuned in comparison to state polls.


There, so what do we see? Well Hillary Clinton is definitely going to win this election. She's winning virtually every demographic no matter which poll you look at. This means variances in polling numbers are likely more to do with proportioning of the electoral vote, and specifically how they weight uneducated white men.

The popular Trump theory is that this demographic is full of shrinking violets hiding in shame from the liberal media that will turn out when the voting really starts, carrying him to victory. This is fantasy.

First of all, just anecdotally, Trump supporters are not shrinking violets.

If there is a "silent majority" so to speak, it's probably of white college educated males. More of them voted for Romney than Obama, and more of them used to identify as Independent or Republican than Democrat. The polling we see suggest they are very unenthusiastic about all of the candidates and fluctuations in this group have generated most of the overall movement in polling for Hillary. This group does not want to vote for Hillary and is more motivated by hatred of Donald Trump. If anything, this group might be underrepresented. Possibly in terms of turnout, possibly in voting for Hillary (this demographic makes up a disproportionate amount of undecided voters as well).

This group defecting from the Republicans to the Democrats accounts for the majority of the shift we're seeing in states like Virginia and Colorado to "safe democrat", in North Carolina to "likely democrat", and putting states like Georgia in play. The resiliency of states like Ohio for Trump come from the lack of this group. If you're a white college educated male, congratulations, you're all that's left of a "swing" voter (for this election that is).

Overall, this dynamic makes it all but impossible for Trump to win. If Hillary gets reasonable minority turnout and there isn't some secret well-spring of uneducated white males for Trump, then Trump cannot win highly educated states like Virginia and North Carolina, which effectively ends the election the minute the polls close. He may overperform in states with low education (like *cough* Alabama or West Virginia) and keep the overall vote count in the 4%-6% range, but he has no chance of holding Hillary to 300 or less electoral votes.
Wrong.

Though you are spot on in advanced corruption.

Ohh look...Obama's own words regarding Russia.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bowhUWl6rxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Top 10 of alt-right
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iFD4nQARR4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Keep buying the hype!
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8k1-PdKfKX0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(BTW: THAT IDIOTIC H SIGN WITH THE ARROW THROUGH THE MIDDLE IS AN ISNULT)


Did we skip the Duck party?
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEQvsK5w-jY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One "fired"
One "stepped down"

Sounds like "nothing" right?

And people seriously consider her better than someone with an action plan as well as proposals to curtail corruption? Ohh yeah..my bad...woman number 11 (who happened to kick off an online porn store) had something bad to say in response to all the allegations TWO WEEKS BEFORE AN ELECTION!!!!! Also a fantastic way to distract folks from real things....sex sells ...AMIRITE?

Play book is old. How about we instead turn inwards...to the VERY people who proliferate SR? I am sure that there may have been a few people who advocate the EXACT same thing as Trump. Dare I dive into HISTORY and out them for their OUTWARD view?

Let's take this from a purely LOGICAL point of view....if CHUCK said...ALAN ...DON'T say (insert phrase) THEN I WOULD [MOD Edit :nono: ] LISTEN!!!! WHEN THE MAJORITY OF RETIRED MILITARY SAY DON'T DO THIS....I am going to have to pause and ask WHY! WHEN I STUDY HISTORY AS WELL AS [MOD Edit :nono: ] is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW....I have to ask [MOD Edit :nono: ] IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

My memory isn't that far gone as to where "lobbyists" (#DRAINTHESWAMP) were one of many TARGETS on this very board. I can also remember folks raising a FUSS about term limits! Yet here we are...not understanding exactly how far we have come in an open society.

Does the MSM actually believe the following? Worse.... DO YOU BELIEF IT?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_X16_KzX1vE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Regarding DNC leaks...


HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH AND HE HAD MORE SACK THAN 99% OF THIS BOARD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shemp

Veteran Starter
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
314
Reaction score
752
Offline
Wrong.

Though you are spot on in advanced corruption.

Ohh look...Obama's own words regarding Russia.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bowhUWl6rxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Top 10 of alt-right
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iFD4nQARR4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Keep buying the hype!
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8k1-PdKfKX0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(BTW: THAT IDIOTIC H SIGN WITH THE ARROW THROUGH THE MIDDLE IS AN ISNULT)


Did we skip the Duck party?
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EEQvsK5w-jY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One "fired"
One "stepped down"

Sounds like "nothing" right?

And people seriously consider her better than someone with an action plan as well as proposals to curtail corruption? Ohh yeah..my bad...woman number 11 (who happened to kick off an online porn store) had something bad to say in response to all the allegations TWO WEEKS BEFORE AN ELECTION!!!!! Also a fantastic way to distract folks from real things....sex sells ...AMIRITE?

Play book is old. How about we instead turn inwards...to the VERY people who proliferate SR? I am sure that there may have been a few people who advocate the EXACT same thing as Trump. Dare I dive into HISTORY and out them for their OUTWARD view?

Let's take this from a purely LOGICAL point of view....if CHUCK said...ALAN ...DON'T say (insert phrase) THEN I WOULD F'N LISTEN!!!! WHEN THE MAJORITY OF RETIRED MILITARY SAY DON'T DO THIS....I am going to have to pause and ask WHY! WHEN I STUDY HISTORY AS WELL AS What the Fork! is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW....I have to ask What the Fork! IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

My memory isn't that far gone as to where "lobbyists" (#DRAINTHESWAMP) were one of many TARGETS on this very board. I can also remember folks raising a FUSS about term limits! Yet here we are...not understanding exactly how far we have come in an open society.

Does the MSM actually believe the following? Worse.... DO YOU BELIEF IT?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_X16_KzX1vE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Regarding DNC leaks...


HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH AND HE HAD MORE SACK THAN 99% OF THIS BOARD.
That's a lot of words, but I don't think that you've said anything. Can you condense this rambling stream of conciseness into a point of some kind that a regular guy can digest? Because I feel like I'm reading something that the Riddler wrote...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
lilflcajun What’s word on Gardner-Johnson? Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 17

Similar threads



Headlines

Top Bottom