ChrisWeigant.com

CA Democrats Refuse To Endorse Dianne Feinstein

[ Posted Monday, February 26th, 2018 – 17:53 PST ]

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior senator from California, failed to get her own party's endorsement for re-election last weekend. In a stunning vote of no confidence, the California Democratic Party not only refused to endorse Feinstein, but came very close to endorsing her biggest primary opponent instead. A total of 60 percent of the votes was needed for an official party endorsement. Feinstein got only 37 percent, while challenger Kevin De León got 54 percent. That's a pretty sharp rebuke from the state party, obviously.

Of course, none of this means Feinstein isn't still the frontrunner, or that she is going to lose her re-election bid. Feinstein winning again is still the safe bet, to put this another way. De León still trails Feinstein in the polling by 29 points, although at this point the public isn't paying all that much attention yet, so that may just be due to name recognition more than anything else. Feinstein, who will be 85 years old on Election Day, is already about as well-known as a California politician can get. Feinstein is also a prodigious fundraiser, and at the last election finance report had 30 times De León's total in her campaign chest (a third of a million dollars versus $9.8 million). Statewide California races are notoriously expensive, with spending that can top $50 million for a single candidate at times. Like a few other big states (Texas and Florida spring to mind), there are multiple major media markets which are all very expensive to advertise in, due to the number of large metropolitan areas within the state. Feinstein is well aware of this. De León, a state legislator, will be running his first statewide race.

However, California's new "top two" primary rules mean that it is likely that the primary won't decide the issue. The Republican candidates are all polling so low that it now looks like De León and Feinstein might be the only two candidates who make it to the general election ballot. So even the general election race will probably (at this point -- things could always change, of course) come down to a fight to the finish between the two Democrats.

There are some elements of this race which are unique to California, but there are also others with nationwide implications. Dianne Feinstein has been somewhat of a polarizing figure, both within the Democratic Party and among the general electorate. She is not very trusted by progressives, since her record is full of votes where she crossed the aisle in significant ways (she voted for the Iraq War, she has consistently voted for increased government surveillance of citizens, and she even voted for George W. Bush's tax cuts). On foreign policy, she is more hawkish than most Democrats. She still hasn't come around to supporting marijuana legalization in California, and in fact actually chaired the last two efforts to kill the idea. But Republican voters here have no love for Feinstein, since her signature legislation -- which she's announced she's now going to champion in the near future as well -- was the 10-year assault weapons ban. If the choices in the general election boil down to Feinstein versus De León, many low-information Republicans may vote for De León just because he isn't Dianne Feinstein -- even though De León is actually much further to the left on most issues. Stranger things have been known to happen.

Stepping back from the personalities involved, the race is being closely watched because it is another indication that progressives are not only more engaged politically than they've been in a long time, but that they're actually working within the system to effect significant change in the party's overall direction. De León didn't get 54 percent of the vote at the party convention just because he's a nice guy with a good agenda, he was able to do so because the followers of Bernie Sanders have been getting a lot more active within state party organizations all over the country. So there are more progressives voting as party delegates in the first place.

Most of the delegates interviewed didn't express any outright hatred or anger at Feinstein, it is also worth noting. The overwhelming feeling was that Feinstein had her own legacy of accomplishments, some good and some bad, but that the time has now come for the passing of the torch to a younger generation. The Democratic Party as a whole is being led by people who are (to be polite) not exactly spring chickens anymore. Feinstein is just one of the more obvious examples of Democratic politicians who may have outlived their welcome. If she does win another term in office, she will be 91 years old at the end of it.

The power struggles within the Democratic Party are going to be on full display in the 2020 presidential nominating contest. The generational struggle is a rather mild one, because it doesn't directly involve ideology. Just because a candidate is younger doesn't mean they're more progressive, to put this another way. The big struggle will be over issues of policy and emphasis, that much seems certain. It may work out that the younger candidates fall mostly on the side of being more progressive and more actively resisting Donald Trump and the Republican agenda, but it isn't strictly an age issue.

The bigger issue than what year you were born in is the continuation of the split in the party between Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters. The Bernie followers are in favor of big ideas, progressive politics, and fighting hard for their agenda. The Clintonians are more open to incremental progress and "not going too far left." But whatever appeal such centrism once had, it's clear that there is another viewpoint gaining momentum within the party's ranks. De León's biggest achievement to date was passing a single-payer healthcare bill in the state senate, which Feinstein doesn't fully support. This is merely the most prominent issue which will be debated between the two, but it showcases the ideological divide now taking place within the party.

Dianne Feinstein is a prime example of Democratic centrism. This worked well for her back in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was riding high. Nowadays, however, it doesn't feel anywhere near as representative of California's Democratic voters as it once did. Feinstein, as noted, is still the odds-on favorite to win in November, even if the race comes down to her and De León, and even if it is a lot closer than Feinstein might have liked. But what happened inside the party convention may play out differently, if Democrats truly are seeking new blood to fight for their agenda. When Feinstein gave her speech to the delegates this weekend, she ran over her allotted time, and music began playing her off the stage. She responded by saying: "I guess my time is up" -- which prompted a lively round of chanting from De León's supporters: "Time's up! Time's up! Time's up!" We'll have to wait until November to see whether this anecdote actually proves prophetic or not.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

50 Comments on “CA Democrats Refuse To Endorse Dianne Feinstein”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW -

    Far and away the best summary of the Feinstein situation I've seen anywhere!

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    DiFi should go out with dignity. I'm a centrist and, while I don't agree with all her positions (particularly marijuana - what is she thinking?), we need the older Democrats to open up some space for the next generation.

    I see this at work as well - many baby boomers have not saved enough for retirement and defined benefit plans are rare, so there is a mass of older, highly paid (due to longevity in positions) middle to senior managers who are stopping the progression of the 30-40 year olds.

    I do not advocate for a mandatory retirement age (such as the ones in France or Japan), however it might be an idea that could gain momentum, and would be a corollary to term limits in political positions.

    2018 looks like a wave election. As we know, the midterms when one party holds all the power seldom go well for the establishment. Couple that with the unprecedented distaste for the occupant of the White House, and a big swing seems likely.

    The only saving grace is the economy, however we know how fickle that can be - nobody knows when the next recession will hit (although a lot of people like to speculate then claim they were right - it is a bit like predicting the roulette wheel is going to come up Red 25 time after time until it does then claiming you have special insight). If there is a downturn in the economy then it is going to look bleak for the Republicans since they have used up all our recession ammunition on a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations (did you see Buffet's letter today - Berkshire Hathaway saw a $29B windfall from the tax bill?) This might be a particularly brutal and drawn out downturn for Main St.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump condemned officers who didn’t stop the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, saying he would have run in “even if I didn’t have a weapon.” He also said the nation needs to consider opening more mental health institutions.

    Sure, ol' "bone spurs" is suddenly a paper hero. If he thinks we are going to believe that nonsense then he should be the first inmate in his new mental hospitals.

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/politics/trump-school-shooter-florida.html

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Feinstein is 8th in Senate seniority. That's real political power. Just thought I'd bring that up.

    Neilm - "2018 looks like a wave election."

    I have come to think all US elections are wave elections. It's mostly a matter of how big the wave is, whether the wave breaks red or blue and how the districts are gerrymandered. I agree with your historically based prediction that the wave is more likely to break blue on the day...and also agree with your caveats 'bout why it might not.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    2018 looks like a wave election. As we know, the midterms when one party holds all the power seldom go well for the establishment. Couple that with the unprecedented distaste for the occupant of the White House, and a big swing seems likely.

    Keep dreaming, Neil.. :D

    Americans are actually LIKING their $1000 bonuses and the "crumbs" raises they are getting..

    With Pelosi as ya'all's leader, 2018 is simply going to be a continuation of 2014 and 2016.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure, ol' "bone spurs" is suddenly a paper hero. If he thinks we are going to believe that nonsense then he should be the first inmate in his new mental hospitals.

    Do you know how pathetically sad you sound using a tragedy like this for a lame political attack??

    THIS is exactly what's wrong with you people.. Once President Trump was elected ya'all lost ALL SENSE of decency...

    Sad....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems to me that the Democrat Party is moving away towards electibility and moving more towards Party purity...

    Kewl.... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems to me that the Democrat Party is moving away towards electibility and moving more towards Party purity...

    OK, that was kinda tortured...

    It seems to me that the Democrat Party is moving away from electibility and moving more towards Party purity...

    There... Much better.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While Bernie's efforts on state party organizations may have been an influencing factor, his efforts are still just beginning so this still appears that it could be some of the party establishment wanting to put a new face on the Big Money establishment agenda to try to stop Bernie's efforts. Time will tell.

    But it was good that you mentioned Bernie's efforts which is something you should be mentioning more often.

    And while the Democratic Party is having this possible turning point moment that could redefine what the party stands for, it also seems to be a good time to enter into the debate the reliance of Democratic candidates on Big Money contributions.

    Will there ever be a better time that is not in the past?

    Even if there is a Big Blue Wave in 2018, it won't do much, if any, good if it is still polluted with Big Money Democratic candidates.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie's efforts are tainted by the same Russian connections that taint the President Trump administration...

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of opportunities that have passed, I wonder how this party convention would have turned out and how the election would look at this point if you had mentioned my Colin Kaepernick petition when I first proposed it and Kaepernick or someone else inspired by the petition had decided to challenge Feinstein as a small contribution Democrat or Independent.

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm Your [2]

    Curious, you being a self-proclaimed "centerist", I've gotta wonder, just exactly what is it you are in the center off?? Surely not the political spectrum, right? Maybe the center of 'far left redistributionist radicalism'?

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    Americans are actually LIKING their $1000 bonuses and the "crumbs" raises they are getting..

    Can you imagine how much more 45's approval rating would have dropped if he hadn't dropped some crumbs from his table?

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Curious, you being a self-proclaimed "centerist", I've gotta wonder, just exactly what is it you are in the center off?? Surely not the political spectrum, right? Maybe the center of 'far left redistributionist radicalism'?

    I know I'm centrist because my comments are attacked by both the left and the right around here.

    In Militia Compound State anything even slightly to the left of fascism may seem to be bordering on communism, but in the real world I'm definitely a centrist.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can you imagine how much more 45's approval rating would have dropped if he hadn't dropped some crumbs from his table?

    Can you imagine how you insult the vast majority of Americans who really NEED and APPRECIATE those "crumbs"...

    Every time a hysterical Dumbocrat uses that "crumbs" bullshit, another Trump supporter is created..

    But, by all means.. Continue to treat Americans like shit..

    See if they want to vote Dumbocrat in 18 and 20...

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    “Our guys [Russian Mercenaries] were going to commandeer an oil refinery, and the Yankees were holding it ... We got our f--- asses beat rough...”

    "Our guys" are some of 45's buddy's hired Russian mercenaries that were preparing to attack our troops. We monitored them and struck first.

    Man, if the democrats get the House in November Benghazi!!! is going to look like a picnic - was 45's Russian buddy (who is indicted by Mueller already) ever contact 45 or his family or team? Did they do business together? Did 45, or his business, fund, directly or indirectly, the mercenaries? Treason is not too strong a word for this.

    Get out and vote in November - help us get the Hillary harassment payback started.

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    OK, when you've got a minute, cite a couple of those instances where you were "attacked by the left around here" (or anywhere).

    Ain't nobody gonna buy into that.

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can you imagine how you insult the vast majority of Americans who really NEED and APPRECIATE those "crumbs"...

    Don't care. It wasn't me that told them I was going to slash their taxes and then bait and switch them with (your word) "crumbs".

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, when you've got a minute, cite a couple of those instances where you were "attacked by the left around here" (or anywhere).

    Ain't nobody gonna buy into that.

    Go back a few months before you joined and look at Altohone's replies to my comments.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wasn't me that told them I was going to slash their taxes and then bait and switch them with (your word) "crumbs".

    Actually, that was you Dumbocrat's word.. But why let facts ruin a perfectly good hysterical rant..

    Don't care.

    Of course you don't care. That's why ya'all can't win elections. :D

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like we are going to repeat the experience we had in 2005 when "W" gave companies a one-off tax amnesty and they used 92% of the repatriated money for share buybacks and dividends.

    This is good news for the markets, but sort of throws all the BS about "new factories" and "more jobs" out of the window.

    This should come as no surprise. Money has been basically free for U.S. companies for the last decade, so if they wanted or needed to invest they could.

    We should also look at where they will invest the 8-10% - look at Carrier who took Indiana's money then expanded in Connecticut where the well educated workers they needed to hire were available.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Collias has forcefully backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. She wants to reform the GOP tax bill to protect “the 99% of Americans left behind” and address its irresponsible fiscal impact. She’s proposing to toughen environmental protections, implement sensible gun regulations, reform the ACA to expand its reach and make it more affordable, and hold accountable those who have collaborated with foreign enemies to corrupt our election process.

    Just to be clear, Collias is not a democrat, she is a Republican challenging an incumbent right wing nut from the center.

    Source: Chris Ladd's latest column: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2018/02/25/rational-republicans-are-finally-fighting-back/#24fea9907826

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    How Trump Wins Reelection
    Last year, it seemed certain that he would be a one-term president—if he even lasted that long. But he has a plausible path to victory in 2020.

    But recent data should trouble them. Internal polling by the Democratic group Priorities USA showed the president’s approval rating had climbed to 44 percent in early February, which “mirrors Trump’s improving position in public polls.” Gallup finds a narrow majority of Americans support his handling of the economy, and the new Republican tax law is getting more popular.

    “I think people just kind of assume he’s a goner,” FiveThirtyEight statistician Nate Silver told me recently, “but look, he’s now more in a range where presidents have recovered to win reelection. His approval rating is up to 41 or 42 percent in our tracking. That verges on being a normal number that resembles what happened to Reagan or Clinton or Obama in their second years.” (Silver noted over the weekend that Trump dipped to 39 percent in their tracking.) As Jim Messina, who managed President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, warned earlier this month, “Donald Trump can absolutely be reelected.”
    https://newrepublic.com/article/147119/trump-wins-reelection

    Suck it up, NeverTrumpers...

    Ya'all will be saying PRESIDENT TRUMP until Jan of 2025.. :D

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm Your [21]

    I'm not really up on the details of Carrier "taking Indiana's money and expanding in Conn.", but I'd say if Ind. is dumb enough to give them the $ without strings, they deserve being conned.

    But you can hardly blame any company for going where the resources are. Nobody produces steel in ID, and nobody produces Tater Tots in MI. That's kinda just a common sense thing.

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    But you can hardly blame any company for going where the resources are.

    Agreed.

    I'm reading "The New Geography of Jobs" by Enrico Moretti at the moment that examines job distribution. The job market does not follow the simple rules of economics. It is an interesting read, and the current policies from both parties are unlikely to address some of the potential downside issues Moretti raises.

    The net impact is that the split between rural poor urban (e.g. Detroit) and rich urban are unlikely to reverse course. Poor urban has a better chance, but rural communities are going to be retirement areas with little in the way of job prospects if we keep on the same path.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    The net impact is that the split between rural poor urban (e.g. Detroit) and rich urban are unlikely to reverse course.

    Should read:

    The net impact is that the split between rural and poor urban (e.g. Detroit) vs, rich urban are unlikely to reverse course.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Jared Kushner is losing his TS security clearance because lies.

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    [27] Amended

    Jared Kushner is losing his TS security clearance because lies.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9qx893w

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whatever happened to altohone?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever happened to altohone?

    I almost miss the little guy.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jared Kushner is losing his TS security clearance because lies.

    Any FACTS to support this??

    Nope, of course not.. Just "anonymous reports" as usual..

    Not a SINGLE fact to be found...

    Typical...

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Jared Kushner is losing his TS security clearance because lies.

    Do you really think that will happen considering how much Trump has relied on him to handle the workload that Trump refuses to do himself?

    My money is on Trump granting him full clearance with an executive order. I know that Trump has said that he’s deferring to Gen. Kelly to make that decision, but we all know that for Trump to make such a promise that really means he is going to do the complete opposite! Kelly will be ordered to say that he authorized Kushner’s clearance, but will he be willing to lie to the public is the question.

    Trump is like a five year old child in his bedroom who suddenly yells to his parents downstairs, “I didn’t just take a poop in the hallway closet...so don’t come upstairs!” — you can always count on him to admit what he’s done by how much he denies that he did anything wrong!

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jared Kushner is losing his TS security clearance because lies.

    And nothing in the link you posted says anything as to WHY Kushner is allegedly losing his TS/SCI clearance..

    So, once again, you have NOTHING but bullshit.... NO FACTS to support anything you say...

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you really think that will happen considering how much Trump has relied on him to handle the workload that Trump refuses to do himself?

    Oddly enough, 45 can grant Kushner permanent security clearance if he wants to. He punted and said “I will let General Kelly make that decision.”

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    RASMUSSEN: TRUMP APPROVAL 7% HIGHER THAN OBAMA AT SAME TIME OF PRESIDENCY...
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb27

    OOoooooooo!!!!

    THAT'S GOTTA HURT!!!! :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oddly enough, 45 can grant Kushner permanent security clearance if he wants to. He punted and said “I will let General Kelly make that decision.”

    Really Neil???

    . I know that Trump has said that he’s deferring to Gen. Kelly to make that decision,
    -Russ

    Do you READ anything you comment on???

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you READ anything you comment on???

    Yup, busted, jumped he gun on that one.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jesus Neil you take all the fun out of it

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    RASMUSSEN

    Aka GIGO factory. Rated C+ by 538. The Ipsos poll (rated A-) at the same time read 40-55 for a -15 approval rating.

    However I know you are desperate for happy polls, so enjoy.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jesus Neil you take all the fun out of it

    :D That was done by my mobile device and couldn't put the requisite :D to it.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aka GIGO factory.

    A poll that you don't like, so it's wrong. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    However I know you are desperate for happy polls, so enjoy.

    YOU people are the ones who are hung up on polls.. I know that ALL polls are useless. A point that was PROVEN beyond any doubt in the 2016 Election..

    I just like rubbing your noses in yer hypocrisy... :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill to completely ban all semi-automatic handguns and rifles. Anything that can hold a detachable magazine or clip would be banned. That's pretty much a total ban on all modern guns.

    Democrats are toast in the 2018 midterms..

    They might as well not even show up...

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    32

    Do you really think that will happen considering how much Trump has relied on him to handle the workload that Trump refuses to do himself?

    Of course not.

    My money is on Trump granting him full clearance with an executive order.

    Really? I'm thinking more along the lines that I wouldn't rule out the idea Trump will just let Kushner have access to everything regardless without granting a waiver whatsoever, and then another problem that's likely to arise is that word of Kushner's debt and financial entanglements and thus being a bribery target becomes more widely known than it already is, leaving the administration no choice but to accept his resignation, etc.

    Under all these circumstances, Kushner will likely never be able to obtain a security clearance but will sooner likely be handed a multiple-count indictment for lying to the FBI, lying on his SF-86, etc.

    Mueller's team has filed today a motion to dismiss against Rick Gates regarding charges 5-10 and 15-32 of the Superseding Indictment... so he must have really delivered the goods... which does not bode well for Kushner, et al.

    Trump is like a five year old child in his bedroom who suddenly yells to his parents downstairs, “I didn’t just take a poop in the hallway closet...so don’t come upstairs!” — you can always count on him to admit what he’s done by how much he denies that he did anything wrong!

    Exactly that... and his continuous projection of controversies onto his opponents. :)

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig [1] -

    Well, thank you for the kind words!

    neilm [2] -

    Yeah, I have a friend that predicts each and every election that the Dems are going to win back the House and the Senate. This time around she might turn out to be right, but it is kind of like a broken clock being right twice a day...

    Heh.

    Michale [6] -

    Do you know how pathetically sad you sound using a tragedy like this for a lame political attack??

    Wait, wait...

    Do you know how pathetically sad the president sounds using a tragedy like this for a lame attempt at bravado?

    There! Fixed it for you...

    Michale [8] -

    Did weed suddenly become legal in Florida?

    Heh. Couldn't resist, after reading your first draft sentence again...

    :-)

    Don Harris [9] -

    I don't think Bernie's personally involved in this CA race. It's more the movement he started having burrowed in to the Dem party machinery -- more subtle, in other words.

    Michale [10] -

    Wait, now you're admitting Trump actually has nefarious Russian connections? Man, that Sunshine State weed must be really powerful, dude!

    Heh. Again, couldn't resist.

    Don Harris [11] -

    I still say Joe Montana'd be a better sports-star candidate. He's pretty universally loved, at least up here in the Bay Area.

    neilm [21] -

    You raise a good point. And after that 2005 tax cut (wait for it, Michale...) there was the 2006 "blue wave" election.

    Coincidence? We'll see...

    Heh.

    neilm [22] -

    Sounds interesting, I will check the link out.

    Michale [35] -

    Not from Rasmussen, it doesn't. If you want to cherry-pick, he's down to record lows (35%) in other polls this week...

    Various folks -

    As for Kushner, well, see Tuesday's article...

    :-)

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how pathetically sad the president sounds using a tragedy like this for a lame attempt at bravado?

    So, we agree...

    PRESIDENT Trump is pathetically sad and Neil is pathetically sad..

    OK... :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not from Rasmussen, it doesn't. If you want to cherry-pick, he's down to record lows (35%) in other polls this week...

    That's *ALL* the denizens of the PROW do is cherry pick polls..

    THAT'S my point.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny thing about ya'all's "Blue Wave"....

    In generic DEM VS GOP polls, the Democrats USED to be way ahead..

    And their lead has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk and NOW it's the GOP who is ahead in a generic DEM VS GOP matchup...

    :D

    I think yer Blue Wave is going to be a Red Trickle... :D

    Bad news for ya'all.... :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oakland mayor helped criminal illegals escape, ICE chief says
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/27/libby-schaaf-oakland-mayor-helped-criminal-illegal/

    Democrats :^/

  50. [50] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Interesting, I guess some one in the white house forgot to tell Hope Hicks that #whiteliesmatter and more importantly #allliesmatter...

Comments for this article are closed.