ChrisWeigant.com

Obama Poll Watch -- June, 2014

[ Posted Tuesday, July 1st, 2014 – 16:06 PDT ]

Downturn

President Barack Obama's poll numbers took a serious downturn in June, which essentially wiped out the progress he's made in the public's opinion since the beginning of the year. There's no real way to sugarcoat it: Obama had a bad month last month. About the only positive thing that can be said is that it wasn't his worst month ever -- but that's not really saying much, is it?

Let's start by taking a look at the chart.

Obama Approval -- June 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

June, 2014

At the start of last month, Obama's monthly job approval had climbed back up to where he was before the Obamacare website rollout disaster, last October. He seemed on a steady (but rather slow) increase. But in June, this all reversed.

June started out with some fairly good news on the jobs front, but later in the month it was revealed just how terrible the economy did as a whole for the first quarter of the year (down by 2.9 percent -- a major drop), so even on economic news the month wasn't a great one for the president.

In both domestic and foreign policy, June saw a steady drumbeat of bad news. What seemed to be pretty good news at the end of May turned sour, when Republicans fanned the flames of outrage over the prisoner swap with the Taliban. The questions surrounding the American servicemember's capture plus the five-for-one deal were all attacked by Obama's political opponents. The scandal at the VA hospitals didn't really get worse (as Shinseki was already gone when June began), but the hard numbers showing the scope of the scandal were revealed in several reports during the month. While the Republicans in Congress were busily trying to gin up other scandals to hit Obama with, everyone soon agreed that the VA scandal wasn't just political opportunism -- there are real problems which run deep and broad throughout the VA system which need to be fixed. At least four other top VA officials lost their jobs during the month, although Obama's announcement of a new appointee to run the VA (at the very end of June) may help stem the tide in the future. Obama also got handed a few defeats at the Supreme Court during the month (June is a big month for Supreme Court decisions to be handed down), and even the good news from the court didn't amount to total victories (the EPA, for instance, won the right to regulate something like 97 percent of the emissions it was trying to, but lost on one technical aspect). In the previous two years, Obama won some big decisions at the end of the court's term (on Obamacare and on gay marriage), but that scenario didn't really come to pass this year. Domestic political news mostly focused on the struggle within the Republican Party, which didn't really affect the public's view of Obama much. The only Democrat making waves with the inside-the-Beltway set was Hillary Clinton, who started her book tour -- again, which didn't reflect much on Obama one way or another.

The cumulative effect of all this bad news helped drive Obama's job approval numbers down, but what probably influenced public opinion more than the rest was the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. The public's own feelings about Iraq are conflicted (as indicated in polling on the subject), to be sure. Most Americans agree that the initial decision to go to war was a big mistake (no matter what Dick Cheney says now), and most feel strongly that America should not send ground forces back in. At the same time, however, they don't feel all that great about Obama, even though he's doing exactly what the majority wants him to do (keep us out of it, this time around). It's post-Vietnam syndrome writ large, in fact: we know the war was a big mistake, we don't want to go back in, but we feel bad about the waste of life and money it took for us all to realize this (again, I'm not just guessing, all of this is backed up by polling). There was one bit of good news on the foreign policy front (Syria completed its removal of all declared chemical weapons), but it was buried in the wave of bad news.

All of these news stories took a heavy toll on Obama's job approval rating. Obama's average monthly approval fell 1.6 percent to wind up at 42.4 percent for June. His disapproval monthly average rose a corresponding 1.7 percent to end up at 53.4 percent. This essentially puts Obama back where he was between December of last year and January of this year -- wiping out all of the gains he's made for the entire year. About the only silver lining is that Obama has not fallen to his absolute lowest point, as his numbers are still above his all-time low (which he hit in November, 2013 for his approval, and December for disapproval). Still, he charted his third-worst month ever, so even that silver lining is small comfort, at this point.

 

Overall Trends

The overall trends were pretty bad in June, too. The magnitude of the drop in Obama's poll numbers wasn't as great as other bad months he's had (his worst absolute month ever -- not counting the slide down after his initial honeymoon period -- saw a drop of 2.9 percent, which puts June in a bit of perspective). But the impact of June's drop was indeed large, as you can see when we expand the chart to see more detail:

Obama Approval Detail -- June 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

As you can see, all Obama's gains from December onwards have now been erased. More important is the change in trend, though -- Obama's charted five positive months out of the previous six, but it was all eradicated by one bad month in June. The only "good" news was that he didn't hit rock bottom -- he didn't chart a new all-time high or low in either his monthly or his daily average numbers. But while he had struggled back from being 12.5 percent "underwater" (disapproval number minus approval, in other words) to being only 7.7 percent down before last month, this shot back up to 11.0 percent in June. Which means that even if Obama now manages to turn the tide of public opinion back to a positive trend, he's got a long ways to go before he breaks even again.

Obama's numbers dropped pretty steadily throughout the month of June, hitting his daily high for the month (approval) and his daily low (disapproval) on the first day of June. His numbers changed (for both approval and disapproval) an absolute total of 2.2 percent during the month, as he hit a daily low of 41.5 percent approval and a daily high of 54.1 percent disapproval by the 24th of June. Since then, his numbers have shown some improvement, but it's way too early to say this is a turnaround in trend for him yet. He could (at the very least) stabilize his numbers in July (especially as there is one extreme outlier poll which will drop out of the rolling average in early July), but even that is not assured at this point.

But while June was a bad month for Obama, it wasn't as bad as some are trying to make it out to be. Here is a detail chart which shows where Obama and George W. Bush were, at this point into their second terms:

Obama v. Bush Detail -- June 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

As you can clearly see, Obama is nowhere near as badly off as Bush was, at this point. In June, Bush's numbers were 36.8 percent approval and 58.4 percent disapproval, which followed a month where he only managed a 33.6 percent approval and he charted a whopping 61.2 percent disapproval. Bush managed to climb back, later in the year, to an approval rating just over 40 percent, but that would be the last time he ever saw such highs, as you can see in the full comparison chart between the two presidents:

Obama v. Bush -- June 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

So, like I said, things could certainly be a lot worse. But they certainly could be a lot better, too. Obama could still fall as far as Bush, given the fact that he's still got over two years in the job to go.

But the one overall trend to watch for the next few months may be the House Republicans announcing that they're going to politically overreach in a big way. If John Boehner really follows through on his threat to sue President Obama, then Obama could see a strong surge of support from the public. Bill Clinton's approval shot up to over 60 percent in the year he was impeached (steadily over 60, for the entire year) -- the highest marks he ever got as president. Obama could -- and I stress the word could -- see a similar backlash from the vast center of the public who don't pay a whole lot of attention to politics, but who also do react when they see one party using ridiculous methods in their political overreach.

If Boehner does move forward and file a lawsuit -- especially before the midterm elections -- he could actually become the savior of Obama's poll numbers. That would indeed be an ironic outcome (and if it comes to pass, you can say you heard it here first), but it is in no means guaranteed. There are a number of possible outcomes, after all. Boehner could make a lot of smoke and noise, but then not actually file a lawsuit; Boehner could file the lawsuit and the disinterested middle of the American public could wind up agreeing with the Republican position; or it could wind up having not much effect one way or the other. About the only conclusion, trend-wise, that can now be drawn is: time will tell. That's a weak way to end this column, but if Boehner does go ahead in the next few months, then we won't have to wait all that long to see.

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology

ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings "poll of polls" graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month's data into a single number -- which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a "poll of polls of polls," if you will...). You can read a much-more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our "About Obama Poll Watch" page, if you're interested.

Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

 

Obama's Second Term Statistical Records

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 1/13 -- 52.7%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 11/13 -- 41.4%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 12/13 -- 54.0%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/13 -- 42.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 1/31/13 -- 52.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 12/2/13 -- 39.8%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 12/2/13 -- 55.9%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 2/24/13 -- 42.3%

 

Obama's Second Term Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
05/14 -- 42.4 / 53.4 / 4.2
05/14 -- 44.0 / 51.7 / 4.3
04/14 -- 43.4 / 52.1 / 4.5
03/14 -- 42.9 / 52.8 / 4.3
02/14 -- 43.3 / 52.3 / 4.4
01/14 -- 42.7 / 52.7 / 4.6
12/13 -- 41.9 / 54.0 / 4.1
11/13 -- 41.4 / 53.9 / 4.7
10/13 -- 44.2 / 50.8 / 5.0
09/13 -- 43.9 / 50.8 / 5.3
08/13 -- 44.4 / 50.2 / 5.4
07/13 -- 45.3 / 49.2 / 5.5
06/13 -- 46.5 / 48.5 / 5.0
05/13 -- 48.3 / 46.9 / 4.8
04/13 -- 48.6 / 46.8 / 4.6
03/13 -- 48.5 / 46.3 / 5.2
02/13 -- 51.1 / 43.0 / 5.9
01/13 -- 52.7 / 42.6 / 4.7

 

Second Term Column Archives

[May 14], [Apr 14], [Mar 14], [Feb 14], [Jan 14], Dec 13], [Nov 13], [Oct 13], Sep 13], [Aug 13], [Jul 13], [Jun 13], [May 13], [Apr 13], [Mar 13], [Feb 13], [Jan 13]

 

First Term Data

To save space, the only data and statistics listed above are from Obama's second term. If you'd like to see the data and stats from Obama's first term, including a list of links to the full archives of the Obama Poll Watch column for the first term, we've set up an Obama Poll Watch First Term Data page, for those still interested.

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

17 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- June, 2014”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops!

    [Thanks LizM for pointing this out...]

    I guess when I posted this, I inadvertently set it to "no comments" somehow. This was entirely unintentional, and it now should be working.

    My apologies for the snafu. I had to deal with the final day of car problems (hopefully... knock wood) yesterday, so I pre-wrote this article and hastily posted it.

    In any case, have at it -- didn't mean to shut the commenting down at all.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whew.

    I thought, for a moment there, that the commenting gods were conspiring against me.

    Don't even ask.

  3. [3] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Aw, Liz,

    Don't be shy! Now I'm curious...

    Besides, it'd be comforting to know that I'm not the only one they take such perverse pleasure in torturing.

  4. [4] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey CW-

    When will you be creating the mega two term satisfaction mega graph where all previous two term presidential data is "smoothed" to show us a trend?

    While I will be the first to go along with stating that from a pure statistical value it is not really something that would be useful, I do however think that it would be interesting to see a "smoothed" out comparison graph of all of the previous two term presidents combined compared to the current sitting president.

    Is Obama unique, or is he just following in the averaged foot prints of those who came before him trend wise?

  5. [5] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey CW-

    When will you be creating the mega two term satisfaction mega graph where all previous two term presidential data is "smoothed" to show us a trend?

    While I will be the first to go along with stating that from a pure statistical value it is not really something that would be useful, I do however think that it would be interesting to see a "smoothed" out comparison graph of all of the previous two term presidents combined compared to the current sitting president.

    Is Obama unique, or is he just following in the averaged foot prints of those who came before him trend wise?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, LD, it's just that some very strange things have been happening over at Huffington Post since they "moved the conversation to where we want to have it" and they seem to be uniquely happening to me.

    You see, early last month, HP put their comments entirely under control of Facebook, replacing their comments sections with Facebook "conversations".

    A few months before that, I reluctantly opened a Facebook account for the sole purpose of being able to continue commenting at HP. To be clear, I would have left HP a long time ago but there is one blogger there with whom I have enjoyed - for the most part ... heh - conversing with on a number of political and cultural issues.

    Since the move to a Facebook comments platform, a variety of very weird things are happening with respect to my posted comments and whether they can be seen by others. Despite having received a couple of replies from other commenters, my comments cannot be seen by this blogger (though he sees and replies to comments made by others, all of which I cannot see) and, consequently, our fun discussions have been effectively and permanently moved to oblivion, thanks to this new and improved HP/Facebook hybrid comments system.

    I've tried everything to remedy the situation but, I seem to be left in the position of no longer being able to discuss at HP and, as if to add insult to injury, of having a Facebook account I never wanted in the first place ... all a sure sign to me of some decidedly nefarious conspiratorial activity! :)

    Anyway, you get the picture and I'm guessing you're sorry you asked. Though, I feel better for the venting!

    So, what's your situation with the comments gods? I'd love to commiserate, as it were ...

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    goode trickle [4] -

    There's really only 4 complete predecessors to even use. Not all presidents serve two terms, and we've had quite a number of incomplete (but multiple) terms recently as well (Nixon, LBJ, and Truman all didn't fully serve two terms). The only ones to fully compare are GWB, WJC, RWR, and DDE. (FDR data is sketchy, at best, and previous to FDR accurate polling didn't really exist in the modern, public sense).

    Anyway, type this into your browser, and then take a look at the comparison charts which I do provide (see the icons in the left border):

    http://www.obamapollwatch.com

    Then let me know if further charts are necessary! All comparison charts are updated monthly...

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    goode trickle -

    OK, you piqued my memory. I did do one of these charts, a long time ago. What I was measuring was the first "crossover" point, where presidents slip "underwater" for the first time.

    Here's the column (July, 2010)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/08/04/opw1007/

    And here's the chart itself:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/xover1.jpg

    You really want me to update that? It wouldn't be that hard, technically, but it might be such a mess, visually, that it wouldn't be very useful. Let me know.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Don't know exactly what you're talking about, but this may help. I cannot comment on HuffPost any more. Shocking, but true.

    I refuse to have a Facebook account (I have a freakin' BLOG, I don't need some fake blog... hmmph!). Therefore, I cannot log in and answer comments any more on HuffPost. Bummer.

    I've been thinking about updating my "footer" (the little blurb that runs at the end of my HuffPost columns) to add something like "I cannot answer comments here at HuffPost, if you'd like a response, please leave a comment at my site" -- but I don't know if that's going to annoy the HuffPost folks or not.

    Anyway, don't know if that answers any questions or not, but there it is...

    :-(

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I was wondering what you thought about the new comments system at HP; fortunately, you have your own wonderful home site.

    Changing your footer is a great idea - you can word it so that HP wouldn't even know what you're up to much less get its collective shirt in a knot over the implication.

    I'm sure you're going to be missed by all of your fans there and, optimistically assuming that a lot of them are still there, they will find their way over here, with or without a change to your footer ...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I thought, for a moment there, that the commenting gods were conspiring against me.

    You and me both!!!

    All sorts of scenarios were going thru my head. ALL of them bad... :D

    Changing your footer is a great idea - you can word it so that HP wouldn't even know what you're up to much less get its collective shirt in a knot over the implication.

    That would be awesome to get more diverse users here in Weigantia!! :D

    Fresh meat!!! MOOOOWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

    CW,

    [Thanks LizM for pointing this out...]

    Ahem.... :D

    In any case, let us begin.. :D

    First off... I was (AGAIN) wrong... Obama didn't dip below 40..

    How, I DO take some perverse pleasure in knowing that ya'all were sweating bullets that I might actually be right this time!! :D

    At least, that's how it played out in my mind. :D

    Having said that, it is simply undeniable that Obama got slapped down and slapped down hard..

    And the best (worst??) is yet to come. We're going to find out a LOT more about the IRS scandal, what with allegedly "lost" emails are going to start trickling out...

    The debacle at the southern border has moved northward and a small California community is in the spotlight.. Ironically enough, it's where my parents live..

    So, while I am going to forgo making predictions about actual numbers I CAN say, with complete conviction, that Obama's troubles are just getting started..

    It's going to be a banner year for Republicans, election-wise...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Boehner does move forward and file a lawsuit -- especially before the midterm elections -- he could actually become the savior of Obama's poll numbers. That would indeed be an ironic outcome (and if it comes to pass, you can say you heard it here first), but it is in no means guaranteed. There are a number of possible outcomes, after all. Boehner could make a lot of smoke and noise, but then not actually file a lawsuit; Boehner could file the lawsuit and the disinterested middle of the American public could wind up agreeing with the Republican position; or it could wind up having not much effect one way or the other.

    Since it likely got lost in the normal FTP shuffle... :D I am going to repost my FTP response to this here..

    You seem to be stuck in the mode that, because the Republicans got their wee-wees slapped when they impeached Clinton, that the same thing is possible to happen when they impeach Obama.. IF they impeach Obama...

    There is a big difference between impeaching Bill Clinton then and impeaching Barack Obama now...

    First and foremost, the country was doing pretty well under Clinton.. Clinton was popular BEFORE the impeachment, so he had the advantage of looking "picked on" by the mean old Republicans..

    In there here and now, the economy is in the crapper.. Our prestige across the planet is at it's lowest point in this country's history..

    And Obama's approval AND likability AND integrity AND trustworthy numbers are low and sinking fast.. There is not ONE SINGLE positive in ALL of Obama's poll numbers. Every factor that CAN be polled about Obama is underwater...

    To put it in context, Clinton's approval numbers were in the low 60s at the beginning of the impeachment process..

    Obama hasn't seen the plus side of 45 in quite a while.... The American People have, for all intents and purposes, issued a vote of NO CONFIDENCE for this POTUS..

    Hell, the polls show that Obama is the WORST POTUS since WWII and further show that a plurality think that, in hindsight, ROMNEY would have been the better choice for POTUS...

    Further, Clinton's impeachment was because of perjury and obstruction of justice.. Crimes that really didn't affect Joe and Jane SixPack..

    Obama's crimes are affecting a wide swath of Joes and Janes across the country...

    In other words, when the GOP impeached Clinton, the American people were, like, "Eh?? So he lied about boffin' some bimbo.. Who wouldn't???

    But Obama's transgressions are really screwing over the American people.. They are affecting, in a very VERY bad way, millions and millions of Americans..

    The facts (if you can call "polls" facts) clearly show that the it's entirely likely that Americans would support an Obama impeachment..

    Now, how would this impeachment play out, you ask....

    I am glad you asked...

    The way I see it, two things will have to happen for a successful impeachment of the POTUS.

    1. The GOP will have to take the Senate...

    2. Obama's poll numbers will have to sink below 40% and stay there for a while...

    As to #1, this is all but a forgone conclusion. The GOP will control Congress after the midterms..

    #2 is also extremely likely as there are so many hits going against Obama right now and the possibility that there is more bad news coming is a very real and distinct threat..

    Look at the IRS scandal.. Lerner's two years of emails were obviously disappeared for a reason. Does anyone here honestly believe that, if there was no smoking gun, that those emails would have been lost forever?? It's a forgone conclusion that those emails contain very incriminating information. And, since there is a very real possibility that these "lost" emails are going to be found and are going to start to trickle out from the IRS scandal will create a "death from a thousand cuts" syndrome for the Obama Administration.

    Another area that is pounding at the Administration is the southern border situation. The Administration tried to float the BS story that it was violence in the countries that prompted the mass migration. But that lie was immediately shot down by reports from the border that overwhelmingly confirmed that it was Obama's DACA pronouncement that brought the refugees to the border.. So, the attempt by the Administration to shirk responsibility was DOA... As it continues to worsen, as US resources are stretched WAY past the breaking point, the Obama Administration will bear full ownership of the debacle...

    And, of course, there are still the VA scandals (a Veteran got a letter saying that the VA approved his move to another VA facility.... TWO YEARS AFTER THE VET DIED!!!), Bengahzi is on simmer and the Obama Administration is STILL getting hits from the Fast/Furious scandal...

    Now, you rub all these facts (and they ARE facts, regardless of what Obamabot fanatics will tell you) together and they all point to the VERY REAL threat that Obama will not only be impeached, but that it actually might pass the Senate and Obama will become the very first sitting POTUS to be removed from office...

    All it will take is the GOP to take the Senate (all but assured) and Obama's poll numbers taking a dive, which is what is happening right now...

    Of course, having said all of the afore, one thing might derail the impeachment process and could possibly dissuade Republicans from following this course of action.

    President Joe Biden....

    :D

    Now, personally, *I* don't have a problem with this. Biden, despite his gaffs and chronic foot-in-mouth condition, has proven to be a (somewhat) honorable man. For a Democrat politician anyways... :D

    And, it's forgone conclusion that Biden could not do worse than Obama, even if he tried... NO ONE could be THAT bad..

    And, finally, even if a President Biden tried to be Obama's mini-me, there would be a limit to the damage he could do. POTUS Biden would be way too busy picking up the pieces of a demolished Democratic Party to do TOO much damage to the country...

    So, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not President Biden would be enough of a deterrent for Republicans pursuing impeachment..

    The prevailing thought governing the impeachment action would possibly (likely??) be that ANYONE is better than Obama...

    I'de be very interested in your thoughts. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you want to know why I believe that Americans would likely support an Obama impeachment??

    OBAMA SUPPORT DROP
    2 points among men (44% to 42%)

    4 points among women (49% to 45%)

    5 points among 30-49 year olds (51%-46%)

    4 points among Democrats (81% to 77%)

    7 points among Independents (39% to 32%)

    7 points among Liberals (83% to 76%)

    6 points among Hispanics (73% to 67%)

    10 POINTS among African Americans (86% to 76%)

    5 points among voters in union households (65% to 60%)

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-zogby-is-it-all-over-for-obama/article/2550415

    These numbers CAN'T be spin'ed away...

    There can simply be NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION save that Americans across the board, are abandoning Obama...

    If Bohner does sue, the American people will likely be on his side...

    If the GOP does impeach??

    The American people will likely be on their side...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Boehner does move forward and file a lawsuit -- especially before the midterm elections -- he could actually become the savior of Obama's poll numbers. That would indeed be an ironic outcome (and if it comes to pass, you can say you heard it here first), but it is in no means guaranteed. There are a number of possible outcomes, after all. Boehner could make a lot of smoke and noise, but then not actually file a lawsuit; Boehner could file the lawsuit and the disinterested middle of the American public could wind up agreeing with the Republican position; or it could wind up having not much effect one way or the other.

    ***EPIC FAIL***

    Seems like I convoluted the statement above with your FTP Point #2....

    Obviously, I was simply looking for an excuse to address the Impeachment issue and read the above statement w/o really READING the above statement.. :D

    Can we just pretend you were talking about Impeachment instead of the House lawsuit?? :D

    I would be ever so grateful... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Thanks Liz,

    Your travails actually do make me fell better! Since I abandoned commenting on HuffPo when they demanded I get a Facebook account!

    I'm not big on people telling me I must do business with third parties and provide them personal info to publish. (Actually, I'm not big on people telling me I have to do anything!) Call me old-fashioned but I still think businesses must accommodate their customers, not demand customers accommodate them.

    I can see why you stayed, but there was nothing unique about HuffPo that I didn't want to lose.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're absolutely right, LD!

    I've wasted so much time lately trying to figure out why my comments at HP/Facebook appear to be posted alright but are unable to be seen by anyone.

    So, I'm officially done with HP and Facebook, freeing up more time for what has always been and will always be my favourite place in the internet(s) and the best site for commenting and engaging in fun discussion.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    (Actually, I'm not big on people telling me I have to do anything!)

    Unless, of course, it's The Messiah telling you that you HAVE to buy health insurance... :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.