Obama Poll Watch -- October, 2016

[ Posted Thursday, November 3rd, 2016 – 17:23 UTC ]

A Second-Term High

President Obama is having the best year of his entire presidency, in terms of job approval improvement. In the ten months of 2016 so far, Obama's monthly job approval average has risen eight times, and only decreased twice. His job approval number has improved so much that he's now at the second-highest point of his entire second term. The only month he was at a better point was January of 2013, when he was sworn in a second time. On top of this, his daily job approval average hit the highest point of his entire second term last month. All in all, it's looking like Obama will finish his time in office in a pretty comfortable place. After falling back a bit in September, Obama roared back in October. Let's take a look at his new chart for this month.

Obama Approval -- October 2016

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

October, 2016

After falling back 0.8 points in September, Obama's average monthly job approval rose an impressive 1.2 points in October, to end up at 51.7 percent. He didn't regain all the ground he had lost in his monthly average job disapproval, however, which had risen 1.5 points in September but only fell by 1.0 percent last month, to end at 45.4 percent. This means Obama is now 6.3 percent above water.

This is due in large part to the fact that the entire political world is no longer focused on Obama, but rather on the race to succeed him. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump dominated the political news last month, as the frenzy of the presidential election draws to a close. We had multiple debates and multiple October surprises last month, but none of it had anything to do with Barack Obama.

The public is generally feeling better about how Obama's doing his job, probably because "No-Drama Obama" sure looks a lot better than the mudslinging fracas of the current general election cycle. This is the only real conclusion to be drawn, since Obama didn't make any big political news at all last month, with everyone out on the campaign trail instead.

Obama himself has been campaigning for Hillary Clinton, which sounds like a normal activity but actually hasn't happened in a generation's time. The last sitting president who actively campaigned for his successor was in fact Ronald Reagan (more on him in a moment), in 1988. Al Gore didn't want Bill Clinton to campaign for him, and nobody in their right mind would have wanted George W. Bush to campaign for them either. Which means the public hasn't seen a president stumping for his successor in a very long time. This is doubtlessly adding to the improvement in Obama's job approval, as he is not just out there making the case for Hillary Clinton, he's also making the case for his own legacy.


Overall Trends

Not all of Obama's improvement is a result of him being more visible (and more political) in the past few months, however. All of 2016 has been a pretty extraordinary year for Obama. Last December, his job approval was at a pretty dismal 43.7 percent, and his job disapproval was at 51.6 percent. He has improved his job approval a whopping 8.0 percent over the course of 2016, to put it another way. Pretty much any way you choose to measure it, Obama is having the best year of his second term. Measured on improvement alone, Obama's having his best year ever, in fact.

Lets take a more-detailed look at his entire second term, to better see how well Obama has been doing.

Obama (detail)

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

Although the last five months have been rather up and down (up one month, slightly down the next), the trendline is pretty obvious, and pretty positive overall. None of the setbacks has turned into a real multi-month downturn, and Obama has even managed to defy expectations by not hitting any sort of ceiling (I include my own expectations in that, as just last month I was predicting Obama had hit another plateau).

Partly, this is because elections tend to get everyone both interested in politics and very polarized, as voters line up behind the party of their choice. If you look at the first graph in this column, an interesting thing is happening with the "undecided" line (the black line at the bottom of the graph). Undecided rarely falls below 4.0 percent, and usually hovers one or even two points higher than that. But for the past six months, it has been below 4.0 percent, and in October fell all the way to 2.9 percent. Obama has only seen this number fall below 3.0 percent once during his entire presidency -- exactly four years ago, in October and November of 2012. Elections cause people to focus more on politics, in other words.

This wasn't the only notable data point worth discussing from last month, though. On the 16th of October, Obama's daily rolling average for his job approval hit 52.7 percent. This is a new second-term high for him, beating the 52.5 mark he set on the last day of January, 2013, eleven days after being sworn in for the second time. Obama started the month at 50.3 percent, rose mid-month, and then finished the last week solidly above 52.0 percent. If this trend continues, he could be on track to beat his January monthly average of 52.7 percent, before his second term is over. [Note for the eagle-eyed statisticians among you: Obama's January monthly average in 2013 was higher than his all-time second-term daily average highpoint, because the entire month is counted for the monthly statistic, but his second-term daily stats begin on January 20, when he was sworn in.]

Most presidents who make it through two terms get a nostalgic boost for their last few months in office, in fact. Even George W. Bush managed to slightly improve once the 2008 election was over (although he didn't even make it up to 30 percent job approval). In comparing Obama to other two-term presidents (for whom polling exists), one seems to be the most similar. Here is Barack Obama compared to Ronald Reagan.

Obama (detail)

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

President Obama is actually higher right now than President Reagan was at the same point in his presidency. Obama is now at 51.7 percent, while Regan was only at 51.0 percent. While their job approval lines diverge somewhat (Reagan doing better, Obama doing worse), they have stayed remarkably similar for the past two years -- the period after Reagan admitted that his White House was indeed responsible for the Iran-Contra fiasco (that's the steep drop in approval in Reagan's graph).

However, Obama probably won't match Reagan's final jump in the polls, as Reagan left office with an impressive 63 percent approval rating. Even if Hillary Clinton wins and Obama's approval goes up in his final months, it likely won't jump that high. Still, barring any unforeseen events, it's looking like Obama's going to -- at the very least -- close out his second term above the 50 percent mark. This is one measure (certainly not the only one) of a successful presidency.


[Program Note: On the off chance we'd see a third Democratic term in the White House, about a year ago I registered two new domain names. I wasn't sure which one I'd use, if the occasion arose, and I'm still unsure which would work better. So I put the question to my readers: If President Hillary Clinton is sworn into office in January, which do you like better -- or Let me know, down in the comments, as I just renewed my registration for both domain names. Using "Clinton" might be confusing (because of Bill's presidency), but using "Hillary" seems a little overly familiar, at least to me. So which do you like better? Let me know.]


[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology 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; 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

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%

Highest Daily Approval -- 10/16/16 -- 52.7%
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)
10/16 -- 51.7 / 45.4 / 2.9
09/16 -- 50.5 / 46.4 / 3.1
08/16 -- 51.3 / 44.9 / 3.8
07/16 -- 49.6 / 46.7 / 3.7
06/16 -- 50.0 / 46.2 / 3.8
05/16 -- 48.8 / 47.3 / 3.9
04/16 -- 48.6 / 47.2 / 4.2
03/16 -- 48.4 / 47.4 / 4.2
02/16 -- 46.3 / 49.6 / 4.1
01/16 -- 45.5 / 50.2 / 4.3
12/15 -- 43.7 / 51.6 / 4.7
11/15 -- 44.4 / 51.3 / 4.3
10/15 -- 45.3 / 50.0 / 4.7
09/15 -- 45.6 / 50.3 / 4.1
08/15 -- 44.7 / 50.4 / 4.9
07/15 -- 45.7 / 50.0 / 4.3
06/15 -- 44.6 / 50.7 / 4.7
05/15 -- 45.4 / 50.0 / 4.6
04/15 -- 45.2 / 49.9 / 4.9
03/15 -- 44.9 / 50.8 / 4.3
02/15 -- 45.4 / 50.1 / 4.5
01/15 -- 44.8 / 50.5 / 4.7
12/14 -- 42.4 / 52.8 / 4.8
11/14 -- 42.0 / 53.4 / 4.6
10/14 -- 42.1 / 53.4 / 4.5
09/14 -- 41.5 / 53.5 / 5.0
08/14 -- 41.6 / 53.0 / 5.4
07/14 -- 41.8 / 53.6 / 4.6
06/14 -- 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 / 43.1 / 5.9
01/13 -- 52.7 / 42.6 / 4.7


Second Term Column Archives

[Sep 16], [Aug 16], [Jul 16], [Jun 16], [May 16], [Apr 16], [Mar 16], [Feb 16], [Jan 16], [Dec 15], [Nov 15], [Oct 15], [Sep 15], [Aug 15], [Jul 15], [Jun 15], [May 15], [Apr 15], [Mar 15], [Feb 15], [Jan 15], [Dec 14], [Nov 14], [Oct 14], [Sep 14], [Aug 14], [Jul 14], [Jun 14], [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


45 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- October, 2016”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I vote for

    Off chance?

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I read in Rolling Stone that Tim Kaine is a big fan of the Replacements! That’s almost enough to make me vote for HilRod (if I could).

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Natasha is pretty deplorable, but her “speech” today really was the icing on the fruitcake. Our culture has gotten too mean? WTF? What planet is this alien from anyway? The Orange One is meaner than cat shit.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'd vote for

    Plus I like the fact that you didn't bother to register

  5. [5] 
    apophis wrote:

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:, of course.

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Clinton Poll

    It's about respect. Typically, society will refer to Presidents by their last names. We don't refer to Obama as "Barack" in conversations. You wouldn't do "Donald Poll Watch" if Trump got elected; you'd choose Trump Poll-a-polooza" or something similar. If anyone thinks "Clinton Poll Watch" is about Bill, then face it, chances are that they are looking for a completely different type of site!

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would definitely go with

    And I like the fact that you also registered as well..

    It restores my faith in Weigantia as a reality-based place... :D


  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I agree with Russ..

    Anyone who thinks that is about Bill is a few fries short of a happy meal anyways...


  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary is a term of endearment.

    I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

    Perhaps you should go with ...

    Actually, now that I have typed that out, my vote is for

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Now, THAT'S what I'd call politically correct.

    Not that there is anything really wrong with being politically correct but, I'm pretty sure that Trump, for example, doesn't know what the term means.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is Hillary's own political sign?

    That's right. It's not a 'C' ...

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Actually, that was pretty funny.


  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:



  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Respectful, without being too pc ...

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I think it's available ... if you act now! :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the off chance we'd see a third Democratic term in the White House,

    Looks like CW has access to the same information that I am reading..

    Yunno.... REALITY.... :D

    Most rank and file Weigantians just refuse to accept how bad this latest bombshell is for Hillary's campaign.. And it's only going to get worse between now and Tuesday...

    On another note, are there any plans for a Wiegantian Party on Tuesday? My arm should be healed enough to fully participate and my ticker will have plenty of standby meds.. :D

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    If it's not too pricey, I'd go with registering Liz's punchier

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:


    I owe you an apology regarding your comment about Comey not getting a warrant..

    A warrant wasn't required to examine the laptop because the laptop was freely given to the FBI by the owner, Anthony Weiner..

    But, because the evidence on the laptop was from a DIFFERENT case (The Hillary Email case) a warrant WAS required for that.

    Having said that, you WERE wrong when you claimed that Comey did NOT get a warrant. The issue was brought before Comey in early October. One of the reasons that reporting to Congress was delayed so long was so that a warrant COULD be obtained. CBS News reports that a warrant WAS issued to search the laptop for evidence pertaining to Hillary's SecState emails, which WERE discovered on Weiner's laptop....

    And, as I stated, there is absolutely NO LEGAL reason for SecState emails to be on a person's laptop, a person who has NO RELEVANT connection to the State Dept...

    Someone is going to jail and it's most likely Huma...

    But, regardless of all of that, you were right about a warrant being required and I was wrong...

    My apologies..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it's not too pricey, I'd go with registering Liz's punchier

    You could save a bundle (and show your patriotism) if you register using the .us domain... :D

    For the record, HRCPollwatch gets my vote, too :D

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Obama's popularity can be fairly described as eight years wandering across a valley. One year to hit bottom, seven more to climb out.

    Comparing the numbers of Obama and Reagan is fundamentally misleading. Reagan lived in a different media era than Obama. Mass media was dominated by big players. Pay cable was just beginning to ramp up in the USA. Broadcast TV had 3 major players, CBS,NBC and ABC. People still read about the news on paper, newspapers thrown on their doorstep, magazines shoved in their mailbox. I'm not sure Reagan would have polled any better than Obama if he had taken office in 2008. Pay cable and the Internet make life Hell for politicians. Their is no bell shaped political curve to play to's a flat line between extremes.

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [14],

    Thanks for the confidence builder. I had a stroke and I'm on my way back. Unfortunately, for anybody who's hoping for the longshot possibility of unseating Rant Paul, I'm not going to be able to help with that. I won't get to vote against the wacko-bird.

  24. [24] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I didn't realize that CW was looking for suggestions. I would like She's going to need to keep that WWF name after the election for her endless matches with useless GOP congress.

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The NYT Upshot page has gotten interesting in the last couple of days, with substantial differences among the 6 math model oriented prognosticators.

    Nate Silver's 538 gives HRC a 66% chance of winning, Huffpo and the PEC peg her at 98% and 99% respectively, leaving NYT and PredictWise centerists at 84%. That's BIG spread!

    If you look at the state tabulations, 538 gives Clinton only even-ish odds in 4 "battleground" states: NH, NC, FL and NV with 64 EV. Fivethirtyeight is also gives HRC less strength in some Blue Wall states (NM,PA,MN,WI,MI and ME) but this is not what's dragging Clinton down to 66%. NH is the fracture point in the 538 prediction.

    Running the 6 shops state data through my own model indicates NYT, 538, HuffPo, PredictWise, and Daily Kos are consistent with low to moderate random independence among the states. PEC's 99% only works if the states are assumed to behave with near complete statistical independence, making it harder for Trump to run up enough battleground EV.

    Let it not be said that Upshot suffers from group think!

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:


    Sorry to hear about your health issue, but I'm glad to hear you are mending. I like the way you distill an issue to just a few well crafted words. I haven't noticed any decline in your quality, so that's something you don't need to worry about!

    My prose is too prolix. :-(

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let it not be said that Upshot suffers from group think!

    Yet ALL of them pick Hillary to win....

    How is that not "group think"?? :D

    It's like I said... It's nothing but an echo chamber where the only "dissent" is to what degree Hillary is awesome....

    Your definition of "group think" needs a bit o' tweaking.. :D

    Having said that, I was negligent in not acknowledging and thanking you for your well-wishes....

    Thank you.... You are definitely NOT a horrible person, regardless.. :D

    "I don't think you're crazy."
    "Oh great, that makes me feel SO much better"




  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:


    I think it's fair to say you despise the air I breathe, but I wouldn't wish ill health on anyone here in Weigantia.. Hope you mend well...

  29. [29] 
    Sylvia wrote:

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:
  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Maybe it's just me... well, OK, I know it's just me... but sounds best.

    As for Hillary, in the history of modern polling, has any president ever started underwater... as in disapproval higher than approval?

    On the off, off Broadway chance, the same question would apply to the Trumpon I suppose.


  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sylvia -

    Welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation automatically, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly.

    Just don't use more than one link in your comment text -- multilink comments are also automatically held for moderation, which can take a while at times.

    Again, welcome to the site!


  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To all -

    Well, I just checked and is indeed available.

    Thanks to all who have chimed in on the subject. I'm still on the fence, personally. is what I'm leaning towards at the moment, but that could always change. And ListenWhenYouHear [7] -- that was indeed pretty funny! has two problems, I think. One, "HRC" also stands for the Human Rights Campaign (a gay-rights non-profit), and not everyone knows Clinton by her intials anyway. Two, there are too many capital letters. The "P" in "Poll" doesn't stand out. This isn't that big a deal (domain names are all actually lower case anyway), but it just looks wonky.

    I do kind of agree about the respect thing for last names, but then again HRC has made it a huge point to campaign solely as "Hillary," so an equally valid case could be made that is just respecting her own choice in the matter. Obama never campaigned as "Barack," in other words.

    Well, we've got a few months left to decide. And no, Michale, I did not actually register -- if he (or any Republican) won, I doubt I'd invest the energy to a monthly column tracking his poll numbers. It'd just be too depressing.


    But thanks for everyone's thoughts -- I am considering them all, even spending the ten bucks to reserve The beauty of owning them all is that I can make them all point to the same page -- so if people want, they can type in any of them and it'll take them to the same place! No matter what I ultimately wind up using, at least for the next year you'll be able to type in the other one if you so choose... (right now they both point to


  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JohnFromCensornati -

    Sending you my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery! It seems this election has been dangerous to two regulars' health, so it can't end soon enough for me!

    Seriously, get well soon and glad to hear from you again.


  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we've got a few months left to decide. And no, Michale, I did not actually register -- if he (or any Republican) won, I doubt I'd invest the energy to a monthly column tracking his poll numbers. It'd just be too depressing.

    Especially if Trump's approval numbers shoot thru the roof, as I fully expect them to do!! :D

    If Trump accomplishes even a quarter of what he's promised, it's going to be Morning In America.. Again... :D


  36. [36] 
    TheStig wrote:

    David Rothschild, proprietor of the PredictWise blog had interesting things to say in his Tues. Facebook podcast (which I just got around to viewing 6pm Thur.)

    On big poll slumps following bad news. These slumps don't tend to accurately reflect changing opinions of voters. Rather, they mostly indicate predictable changes in the sample population responding to pollsters. Voters receiving a wave of bad news about their candidate tend to not participate in polls. Supporters of the opponent of the candidate catching flak are only too happy to participate in polls. So, Clinton's steep climb in the polls was likely largely an illusion, as Trump's rise after the Comey announcement.

    About National polling data. Useful early in the game, but not this late in the season. State polls are much better predictors near election day.

    About polling in small states: It is very hard to get sufficient sample sizes, most people decline to participate in polls, and pollsters tend to run out of people to contact.

    About Nate Silver's pessimistic calls on the swing states. Rothschild thinks Silver is assuming the states are highly correlated with respect to a number trends breaking in Trump's favor. Rothschild thinks this is possible, but very unlikely.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Voters receiving a wave of bad news about their candidate tend to not participate in polls.

    The enthusiasm for Trump, while a mystery to me, is real. The lack of enthusiasm for Hillary from many of her supporters is also real.

    I was called to participate in a poll. I agreed as I was sitting for the third hour in a parking lot optimistically called a freeway and had listened to all my podcasts. Just as we started the pollster realized that I was driving, and told me they couldn't conduct a poll with a driver, so they'd call me back (who knew?). When they did one hour later and I had finally got home there was no way I was taking the call. It wasn't like I was going to vote for Hillary - just support her in a poll.

    And I'm pretty enthusiastic about Hillary.

    Hillary = your vegetables
    Trump = cotton candy

    I might not be enthusiastic about it, but I know I need to eat my vegetables and can't live off cotton candy for four years.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    You had a stroke!? Good God, I had no idea you weren't 110% ... certainly couldn't tell by your always enjoyable contributions here.

    Anyway, take it easy and maybe it would be a good idea to tune out the rest of this election until Tuesday night ... I may do the same, it's really, really getting me down ... in more ways than one ...

    which is why I always love to read your extraordinary take on things ... :)

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    there are too many capital letters. The "P" in "Poll" doesn't stand out.

    That's a pretty good reason to opt for ...

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:


    Oh, bless your heart JFC. Please take good care of yourself and follow your doctors' orders. :)

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:


    I like EM's suggestion too if Hillary wins -- which is looking good thanks to actual early vote totals in Clark County, Nevada... build that firewall Vegas -- but if you have to go with, a suggestion would be to add the 45 in there to distinguish HRC from WJC.

    Anyhoo, back to business... building a wall of votes in Clark County, Nevada, that Trump won't have an easy time breaking through on election day. :) *LOL* Trump wants a wall, and we're making that happen in Vegas, and what's happening in Vegas will be heard from sea to shining sea.

    Oh, one more thing. Is everyone aware that pollsters are probably underpolling the Latino vote?

    I hope I didn't type anything silly, I've had a few alcoholic beverages. Cheers, y'all.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyhoo, back to business... building a wall of votes in Clark County, Nevada, that Trump won't have an easy time breaking through on election day. :) *LOL* Trump wants a wall, and we're making that happen in Vegas, and what's happening in Vegas will be heard from sea to shining sea.

    And your proof of this "wall"???

    {{{chiiirrrpppp}}} {{{chirrrrrpppppp}}}

    Yea, that's what I thought.. :D


  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    The firewall in Clark County, Nevada, grew to around 73,000. Mission accomplished. Back later. :)

    chiiirrppppppppppppp, chiiiirrrrppppppppppppp


  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The firewall in Clark County, Nevada, grew to around 73,000. Mission accomplished. Back later. :)

    Yea, that's what you keep saying..

    Yet provide NO FACTS to back it up... :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, that's what you keep saying..

    Yet provide NO FACTS to back it up... :D

    Already resolved.. Please disregard...

Comments for this article are closed.