Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Stats Government Math Republicans United States Politics

Poll-Based System Predicts U.S. Election Results For President, Senate 519

Posted by timothy
from the pyschopathic-narcissists-for-the-tie dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Election Analytics is a website developed by Dr. Sheldon Jacobson at the University of Illinois designed to predict the outcomes of the U.S. presidential and senatorial elections, based on reported polling data. From the site: 'The mathematical model employs Bayesian estimators that use available state poll results (at present, this is being taken from Rasmussen, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac, among others) to determine the probability that each presidential candidate will win each of the states (or the probability that each political party will win the Senate race in each state). These state-by-state probabilities are then used in a dynamic programming algorithm to determine a probability distribution for the number of Electoral College votes that each candidate will win in the 2012 presidential election. In the case of the Senate races, the individual state probabilities are used to determine the number of seats that each party will control.'" You can tweak the site by selecting a skew toward the Republican or Democratic tickets, and whether it's mild or strong. Right now, this tool shows the odds favor another four years for Obama, even with a strong swing for the Republicans.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Poll-Based System Predicts U.S. Election Results For President, Senate

Comments Filter:
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Friday September 07, 2012 @07:41PM (#41268775) Homepage Journal
    Fox news tells me that Romney will win 59 states and sweep Obama and his extreme socialism away forever.

    Meanwhile, 13 out of 10 slashdotters are supporting Ron Paul, so clearly he is the only possible winner.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      MSNBC told me that 2+2=4! That's biased towards those dam socialist mathematicians and scientists. Every good free-thinkin' fam'ly values-lovin' 'Mur'kin knows that 2+2=5!

    • Re:Not possible! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by udachny (2454394) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:04PM (#41269013) Journal

      Funny.

      BTW., Romney already lost because he is now trying to out-Obama Obama, out-Democrat the Democrats. How is that going to work at all? Clearly he is not a Democrat, if somebody wants to vote for Democrats they will vote for Obama.

      My point is that the entire 'intellectual' debate of the Right is now: we are going to do a better job PROTECTING Medicare (and SS I guess) than Obama would.

      That's a lost fight right there.

      • Re:Not possible! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:19PM (#41269639)

        What are you talking about? Romney is pretending to be more right-wing than he really is in order to appease core republican voters. The only reason he's the republican nominee is that many people in the GOP thought they needed a more moderate guy in order to beat Obama. Now that they have the guy it seems they are worried about their voter base, which is why Romney has drifted to the right and they nominated Tea Party darling Ryan as vice president.

        • by Kimomaru (2579489) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:48PM (#41269887)
          Not true. He's the nominee because they ran out of Republicans. Remember Michelle Bachman? Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum? John Huntsman?! I'm sure I'm forgetting half a dozen more.
          • Re:Not possible! (Score:5, Informative)

            by pitchpipe (708843) on Friday September 07, 2012 @10:33PM (#41270229)

            Remember Michelle Bachman? Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum? John Huntsman?! I'm sure I'm forgetting half a dozen more.

            I'm a atheist liberal utahn, some would even say socialist, and I'm here to tell you that John Huntsman does NOT belong with that group of whackos. I even think he'd make a really good president.

        • Re:Not possible! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday September 07, 2012 @10:54PM (#41270361)
          He promises to do things for the right wing base? Then he's right-wing. Doesn't matter if he's just doing it to get elected of if he would do it if voters didn't care, the effect is still the same.
        • Re:Not possible! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Shavano (2541114) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @12:14AM (#41270787)

          What are you talking about? Romney is pretending to be more right-wing than he really is in order to appease core republican voters. The only reason he's the republican nominee is that many people in the GOP thought they needed a more moderate guy in order to beat Obama. Now that they have the guy it seems they are worried about their voter base, which is why Romney has drifted to the right and they nominated Tea Party darling Ryan as vice president.

          The point is that once you get a Republican talking about Medicare and Social Security -- two major Democratic programs that nobody really believes Republicans support with any enthusiasm, he's on the losing side of the argument. Bringing up those programs is a giant mistake for any Republican who wants to get elected.

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          Paul Ryan's position on the ticket was more likely straight up bought with campaign dollars as he is totally loyal to a few specific billionaires who don' trust Romney's ties to Bain Capital, when it comes to cash Mitt just can't say no. Not only has Paul Ryan failed to garner any new support he has lost a swag of support especially amongst those who wanted Ron Paul (Ron Paul says what he believes right or wrong, Paul Ryan says what ever he is paid to say apart from the odd trip into pathological lying whe

      • I don't see how you can claim Obama is a clear winner. Look between the conventions - Obama gave a re-run, with no plan at all on how he plans to help anyone do anything. Just a lot of vague numbers like he has always given.

        Romney meanwhile, actually laid out a five point plan:

        (1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels (Obama has delayed this at every turn, instead propping up failed green energy companies run by big donors).

        (2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2012 @10:46PM (#41270309)

          I don't see how you can claim Obama is a clear winner. Look between the conventions - Obama gave a re-run, with no plan at all on how he plans to help anyone do anything. Just a lot of vague numbers like he has always given.

          Romney meanwhile, actually laid out a five point plan:

          Do you understand the irony of your own post?

          You start by saying Obama has no plan, then list Romney's plan and write in brackets how Obama's plan sucks in comparison.

          THEN, you turn around and point out that folks here may not like Romney's plan but at least he has a plan. However, you don't apply the same standard to yourself.

          Bravo.

        • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Friday September 07, 2012 @10:58PM (#41270385)

          I don't think a bad plan is necessarily better than no plan. Furthermore, I think it's better that Obama has plans rather than a simplistic list of bullet points that can be reduced to the size of a /. comment. Also, the more specific things a candidate insists they will do the less I believe them: the president rarely has the power to do the things most candidates claim they will do and their agenda should be fluid and open to compromise. So a presidential candidate with an impractical five point plan strikes me as a fool, a liar, or both.

          Just for the sake of argument, since you accuse Obama of being vague:

          1) What does promoting domestic energy entail? Giving large subsidies to oil companies so they can 'research' domestic energy opportunities? That's what it sounds like to me. Nice and vague.

          2) Standing up to China . . . oh dear, he must be a fool. How does he intend on doing this? Very vague.

          3a) What job training programs? Are they actually even worth a damn? Even if, is this something the government should be subsidizing?

          3b) Stand up to teacher unions? Because those damn teachers are leaching all our tax money by making as much as factory workers. I guess they stand in the way of 'student choice' by politically opposing government subsidizing private and charter schools. Why, for a conservative, does Romney want to subsidize so many things? Also, how exactly does one blame teachers for the country's educational woes when statistics clearly show that the biggest deterrent one can have from receiving a quality education is simply being poor? In the same classroom, with the same teacher, the wealthier children will consistently outperform the poor children. But let's not look at 'vague numbers' - let's make vague accusations that imply that teachers in general are incompetent and greedy (make sure you ignore that unlike the majority of Americans, they're college educated and most could make more doing something else).

          4) The deficit is hardly the scary monster everyone pretends it is. It's like college loans. You can't make them go away, they're a big scary negative number, but even if your wages get garnished they'll never really drive you to being destitute. So, even though on paper you really have less money (a large negative number) than the bum you pass everyday walking into the office (probably a smaller negative number - or maybe a positive one consisting of the sum of his change cup), you never envy the bum and you never consider him better off than you. In this case, Greece is the bum. Our debt is an inconvenience, their debt ruined them. That's because the number on paper is pretty irrelevant - it doesn't account for one's resources, it's not the be all, end all of one's worth. But it's easy to be vague and scary and behave like the graduate who's freaking out b/c they're a hundred grand in debt.

          5) This is a vague way of saying: dog-eat-dog. Washington's regulatory climate does little to stifle small businesses. It's local regulation that stifles small businesses. Hell, the economy in general stifles small business. National regulation prevents banks from doing things like fraud. It prevents dirty industries from polluting the way Chinese factories do. Want more small businesses? Provide universal healthcare so people can afford to take the risk of starting a small business: As it stands, once a person gets a decent job with good benefits, he becomes scared to quit for the sake of a risk. Healthcare's like taxes: The middle class pays for most of it and it takes a huge chunk of their income. The rich pay more than anyone else, but a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class (basically, it's an inconvenience, the house isn't being put up for mortgage). The poor pay nothing. So, economically, it makes more sense to be a bartender that doesn't report most of his tips and receives welfare than to be a teacher. Make too much money, and all of a sudden you have to pay for health insurance (and co-pays) and now you technically

        • by RicktheBrick (588466) on Friday September 07, 2012 @11:54PM (#41270689)
          So lets look at jobs. How many jobs were created from 1/1/90 to 1/1/00? 22 million. How many jobs were created from 1/1/00 to 1/1/10? less than 0. How many jobs were created from 1/1/10 to the present day? 4.5 million. Even though the republicans gave away trillions of dollars to the rich and started two wars they could not conclude they had 0 jobs growth. Obama and Clinton started and concluded wars during their time with no loss of American life. Bush started two wars with over 5,000 American deaths and over a trillion dollars and failed to conclude either one. Bush had more time in Afghanistan to conclude that war than the amount of time Obama will have if reelected and his plan is carried out. Now lets talk about debt. Bush was responsible for over 6 trillion dollars in debt. When he left office the country was in the worst recession since the depression. So how much of Obama debt can the directly attributed to Bush. First he has to pay the interest for the 6 trillion dollars of Bush's debt. Second he has to pay for the unemployment insurance caused by Bush. Third he has to conclude both of Bush's wars. Fourth he has to do this with reduced income caused by Bush's great recession. Now lets go back 50 years to 1962. How many Americans have lost their life in foreign wars under republicans and how many under democrats? The republicans are so far in front of the democrats and yet you want another republican to be president.(hint over 16,000 dead in 1969 under Nixon).
        • by mwa (26272) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @12:59AM (#41271003)

          Allow me to translate:

            1. Screw job-creating clean energy technologies and drill, baby, drill.

            2. Gut what little worker protection we have; outsource to the lowest bidder.

            3a. Save $$ by shifting responsibility to states that we all know can't pay.

            3b. Turn education over to private companies who are only interested in
                        increasing profits.

            4. Cut the programs that aid people in need but don't touch defense that
                  fund megacorps and generate kick-backs.

            5. Screw clean water, clean air, safe food, safe medicine, safe work
                    environments, safe vehicles, safe bridges, protection of civil rights,
                    a free and open internet, private property rights* or anything else
                    that might reduce profits.

          The entire plan can be summarized: Maximise profits by socializing the risks
          and costs. It's the Bush III plan.

          * like granting unsupervised emminent domain power to a foreign corp
          (TransCanada) to take land so they can move highly toxic sludge that no
          one knows how to clean up (see "Enbridge") through the entire middle of our
          country so they can ship it to other, foreign companies.

        • by Uberbah (647458) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @11:41AM (#41273667)

          Because the whole thing is a farce.

          Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels (Obama has delayed this at every turn, instead propping up failed green energy companies run by big donors)

          Are you being ignorant or dishonest here? Obama's energy policy is indistinguishable from Bush/Cheney's: "all of the above". Record new amounts of land and sea opened for drilling. Billions for nuclear power and perpetual motion machines, I mean, "clean coal". The eastern seaboard and coast near ANWR have been opened for drilling, something not even Bush tried to do.

          Not blocking domestic energy production or things like the keystone pipeline. No subsidies required.

          I ask again: are you speaking out of ignorance or dishonesty? Obama has approved the bottom half of the pipeline, which means he approves of the top half of the pipeline. The only "blocking" was a slight of hand for his liberal base, which of course was eaten up at DailySheep. They pointed to Obama's action as if he was blocking the pipeline, when his only disagreement was with the route. Same as when they hailed his veto thread of the NDAA and pretended that Obama was against military detention of American citizens, when he was of course demanding that power.

          Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements

          Obama has signed three new trade agreements just like NAFTA.

          Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states

          What the fuck is increasing supply (qualified workers) going to do to solve the actual problem (a lack of demand)?

          going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction

          Sure, he says that. And he's lying. Where's your "school choice" going to be when Kaplan owns every charter school within a hundred miles of you? Do you conservative geniuses think about what killing teachers unions and public schools is going to do to quality affordable education?

          You guys like to whine about lazy students being coddled, but what happens when said lazy student happens to be the son of Upstanding Business Owner and Member of the Community who happens to own a 15% stake in your charter school system and can get his teacher fired at the drop of his hat? How about when that rich kid turns into bully starts kicking the shit out of your kid?

          Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases. (Obama clearly has the opposite idea here).

          You mean "austerity" which has been a fucking disaster for every country that has tried it? The only entity capable of jump-starting demand in a depression is the government. Slashing government spending is only going to make that depression worse, far more so when your cuts target social social spending before the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-survellance complex.

          Slashing spending results in a death spiral of a collapsing economy, which results in less tax revenues, which results in more demands from fools and tools to slash more spending. A vicious cycle that took Grover Norquist decades to perfect.

          reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it. (We have a metric ton more regulations now than when Obama entered office).

          For the third time: are you speaking out of ignorance or dishonesty? Obama has cut or forestalled regulations, not brought new ones. Oh, and the lie about "small bushiness" don't hunt no more. We know perfectly well that when Republicans talk about "small businesses", what they really mean is a small number of shareholders. Which means Koch Industries is a "small business" because it is owned by the Koch family. Which means when Republ

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Fox news tells me that Romney will win 59 states and sweep Obama and his extreme socialism away forever.

      Well, Paul Ryan ran a marathon in 43 seconds, so how could his ticket lose?

    • 59 states? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:42PM (#41269831)

      Pretty sure you meant 58 states [youtube.com], Mr Obama

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      You make jokes but I'm afraid that all the polls are forgetting one little thing that will most likely saying "President Romney"...shudder, next year and that is.....The Halo 4 effect.

      For those that don't know Obama LOST most demographics in 08, it was the youth vote that put him over the top in many swing states. Well now after 4 years of watching him flip flop and kiss Wall Street ass the group that has lost the most faith in him and in voting in general? the youth voters. And guess what is released on th

  • by pubwvj (1045960) on Friday September 07, 2012 @07:43PM (#41268801)

    "Right now, this tool shows the odds favor another four years for Obama, even with a strong swing for the Republicans."

    I'm not surprised since the incumbent has a strong advantage and we have a weak opponent on the Republican ticket. It is next election when the Republicans will logically field a strong candidate as they'll have far better odds of winning.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:12PM (#41269069) Homepage Journal

      and we have a weak opponent on the Republican ticket

      "We"?

      Who's there with you? Or is this the royal "we" as in, "My maid was cleaning the silver with a paper towel and I had to explain to the wretched girl that we don't use paper towels on the silver here at the Romney house. I'm seriously thinking of sending her back to Ecuador."

      • by pubwvj (1045960)

        "We" as in We the American people who go and vote in November. You read entirely too much into things. Don't be so paranoid.

  • Must be true... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2012 @07:50PM (#41268859)

    Then again there is this one http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win/ that has been correct every time since 1980 that says Romney will win big.

    • Re:Must be true... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:36PM (#41269273)

      Then again there is this one http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win/ that has been correct every time since 1980 that says Romney will win big.

      That model is a joke. It didn't exist 6 months ago. Just look at it! PA for Romney? It's not even considered a battle-ground state anymore and the Romney campaign has pulled ALL advertising and has none scheduled.

    • by Fred Ferrigno (122319) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:28PM (#41269723)

      Did they predict all of those elections ahead of time? I'm guessing not, otherwise we would have heard about it sometime around 1992. If not, the fact that it produced the correct output for every election is actually a huge red flag. Elections are complicated things with many factors that are unique to a given election. You'd expect any model that can be written down on paper to be wrong at least some of the time because there's no way to account for everything.

      Likely they just went data-dredging until they found a set of variables that correlate with the election winner. Problem is, there's usually *some* set of variables that correlate with the outcome for spurious reasons. The meal preferences of an octopus, for example. [wikipedia.org]

    • Isn't remotely true. (Score:4, Informative)

      by neoshroom (324937) on Saturday September 08, 2012 @02:40AM (#41271395)
      That model is far too simple. It only uses the economy and it only works since 1980. All the model says is "in bad economic times, people tend to vote out presidents." So, yeah, that model alone predicts a Romney landslide. However, in some bad economic times people tend to keep presidents, FDR for example, which is why they have to limit the poll to 1980. The polls alone show that that model is not currently a good fit for the current situation.

      Most statistics of this election predict an Obama win. [nytimes.com] If the race would be held today this is what it would look like [realclearpolitics.com] and if you look back, the math has been relatively stable. For Romney to win he'd have to pick up Florida, Ohio, Virginia and then another state besides that [nytimes.com]. Obama has had a fairly good if small lead in most Ohio polling [realclearpolitics.com] and has been slightly ahead in Florida [realclearpolitics.com] and Virginia [realclearpolitics.com]. Also, your model has Romney losing Pennsylvania, which I think is pretty much not going to happen [realclearpolitics.com]. The FiveThirtyEight model linked to gives Obama a 78.1% chance of winning currently and on Intrade Obama futures have given a roughly 60% chance. I think these are much more realistic models than your totally-base-the-election-on-one-thing model.

      Every year since 1980 means the model has worked 8 times. In statistics 8 is a pretty lousy sample size.
  • by smoothnorman (1670542) on Friday September 07, 2012 @07:53PM (#41268901)
    It's renown among serious pollsters as a paid-for propaganda site.
  • by tverbeek (457094) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:01PM (#41268973) Homepage

    It's worth noting that this analysis includes data from Rasmussen, a pollster whose track record at predicting election outcomes is marred by a persistent, consistent bias. Not that they're faking the results (as some overtly partisan pollsters do), but their methodology appears to over-represent demographics that are more likely to vote Republican. According to one analysis, they overestimated votes for Republicans by 3.9%. Andrew Tanenbam's web site [electoral-vote.com] has a concise explanation of what's wrong with Rasmussen's numbers, and why he maintains a separate map that omits them from his own Electoral College projections. So if a system that includes Rasmussen data projects that a Democrat is going to win the presidency... that's a pretty strong indicator of which way the wind is blowing.

    • by awilden (110846)
      These algorithms aren't just going and computing an equally weighted average. In a data fusion task you can correct for some pretty extreme error terms if you can estimate them. If you understand what Rasmussen is doing and how it differs from everyone else then you can use that to your advantage.
  • not really new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... org minus author> on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:04PM (#41269015)

    It's an interesting model, but feeding a poll aggregate into a statistical prediction algorithm has been standard practice for years now. On the internet, fivethirtyeight [nytimes.com] is probably the first prominent site to have done so (originally as an independent site, before the NYTimes bought them).

  • by Seumas (6865) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:05PM (#41269025)

    I predict that our next president will be an asshole.
    And the one after that, too.
    And the one after that.

  • by pridkett (2666) <slashdot@@@wagstrom...net> on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:06PM (#41269029) Homepage Journal

    So aside from being a visual disaster and not providing all of the background numbers, how is this different from what Nate Silver has been doing for the last four years? Okay, it allows you to assign a swing, but it's a lot more opaque and seems a lot less robust than what Silver has been doing over at fivethirtyeight.

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:27PM (#41269193)
    is that he just said he doesn't think the troops are important [fark.com] and somehow he's still in the running. That's the kinda gaff that should've broke him. It's amazing what unlimited funds can do. Thanks Citizens United.
    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:01PM (#41269505)

      Romney: "When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important"

      Not the best phrasing, but it's clear even to me as an Obama supporter that he means the speech was crafted to highlight points that would be advantageous to his campaign. The game of pretending your opponent meant something he clearly did not is not very persuasive to people not already on your side.

    • by hey! (33014)

      Look, I'm a Democrat and I'm fairly sure most Tea Partiers would call me a socialist, and even I can see that's not what Romney meant, any more than Obama meant "You didn't build your business." Romney's point, after he fumbled around for a few sentences, is that he said he was for a strong military, and that he sees supporting "the military" as being the same as supporting "the troops". That is an interesting in itself and debatable on several levels, but he clearly didn't intend to say that the troops w

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Friday September 07, 2012 @08:34PM (#41269253)
    One shows Romney by 1 and the other shows Obama by 3. The state breakdown is the most telling to me. The fact Romney has to win most all the swing states to win makes it a tough road for him. All Obama needs to win is Florida or there are several two state combos that make it an Obama win. It's going to be close but unless Trump digs up that mythical African birth certificate then it's likely an Obama win. The joke is the Congressional elections are far more important. If the Republicans win the house again it's likely 4 more years of gridlock. If they win both houses then Obama gets spoon fed Republican plans. The outlook is bleak no matter the results.
  • by presspass (1770650) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:22PM (#41269665)

    Plot summary

    In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held.

    The story centers around Norman Muller, the man chosen as "Voter of the Year" in 2008. Although the law requires him to accept the dubious honour, he is not sure that he wants the responsibility of representing the entire electorate, worrying that the result will be unfavorable and he will be blamed.

    However, after 'voting', he is very proud that the citizens of the United States had, through him, "exercised once again their free, untrammeled franchise" - a statement that is somewhat ironic as the citizens didn't actually get to vote.

    The idea of a computer predicting whom the electorate would vote for instead of actually holding an election was probably inspired by the UNIVAC I's correct prediction of the result of the 1952 election.

  • by Bryansix (761547) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:47PM (#41269877) Homepage
    Polls are usually wrong by enough to matter in a close election. This is a close election and the margin of error is too great for the polls to predict anything except that we get to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwich. That being said, I'm going with the turd sandwich who hasn't had a chance to mess things up yet.
    • I'm going with the turd sandwich who hasn't had a chance to mess things up yet.

      So you want to give him the opportunity to mess up as well? Tell me more about how that's a good thing...

  • by superwiz (655733) on Friday September 07, 2012 @09:53PM (#41269923) Journal
    A weak President (D) and a strong Congress (R). At least there is the impeachment hearings to look forward to. Republicans just finally get their wet dream of impeaching a democratic President. It's ok though. It works out for both parties. Republicans will validate their belief that Democrats are pro-crime and Democrats will validate their belief that Republicans are racist. You see, the problem is that you can't make TV for smart people anymore. Smart people find out too fast how to watch it for free. So you only get TV for dumb people. Impeachment hearing will cost tv studios zilch. Aah... I just love it when there is fun to be had.
    • by PPH (736903)
      So, which format would you choose? Survivor [wikipedia.org] or Wipeout [wikipedia.org]?

"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner

Working...