If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The true genius of Nate Silver is not math, it's journalism   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 78
    More: Interesting, GDP growth, electoral colleges, Real Clear Politics  
•       •       •

2523 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2013 at 12:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-24 11:18:40 AM
I hope he focuses more on politics than sports at ABC. I can't imagine he'd have a better impact on the world at the sports level unless we're talking about examining football injury data or making a case for paying college athletes.
 
2013-07-24 12:06:48 PM
...which should clue some folks into why he's really leaving the NY Times...
 
2013-07-24 12:41:48 PM
It's almost like scope and context are far more important in politics than someone's game changing tweet or 30 second soundbite.
 
2013-07-24 12:46:28 PM
No, it's the math, though he does explain himself well.
 
2013-07-24 12:47:38 PM
There is nothing special or genius about Nate Silver.  Everything his writes is pretty much meaningless until a couple of days before an election.
 
2013-07-24 12:48:12 PM
who?
 
2013-07-24 12:58:25 PM
It's more analysis than "journalism".  I appreciate his work but he's not really breaking any news himself.
 
2013-07-24 12:59:09 PM

WTF Indeed: It's almost like scope and context are far more important in politics than someone's game changing tweet or 30 second soundbite.


Sure, but you try giving scope and context AND carry the American 18-49 demo through the commercial break.
 
2013-07-24 12:59:50 PM
The article claims that anyone with access to polling data could do what he does.  The author seems to forget that the average person can't add two digit numbers together.
 
2013-07-24 01:00:43 PM
Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.
 
2013-07-24 01:02:48 PM
There definitely is some truth to Silver's talent being in not just crunching the data, but presenting it in an interesting way.  But it's still a matter of him finding a compelling story inside the data, rather than making up a story and using data to justify it.
 
2013-07-24 01:02:58 PM
We get it: he's a witch.

/favorite quote from 2012 was from Jon Stewart to Nate was like "If Romney had won, the Republicans would have used you as an example to prove math was wrong"
 
2013-07-24 01:04:37 PM

TheBigJerk: Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.


Not sure if troll or idiot.

Could be both.
 
2013-07-24 01:06:18 PM
Why did Wang get it right and Silver get it wong?


/snicker
 
2013-07-24 01:08:27 PM
I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.
 
2013-07-24 01:18:14 PM

Dr. Whoof: I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.


Yeah, and that apparently caused a lot of resentment towards him at the NY Times.  I remember in particular that after the first Obama/Romney debate, the media narative was how Obama had let Romney back into the race, but Silver's numbers were showing it had a pretty neglible effect.  Silver was showing that Romney really never had a chance.
 
2013-07-24 01:21:04 PM
About 9 months ago, Sam Wang made a blog entry saying basically the same thing.   Nate Silver did a good job of posting interesting "color" commentary and wasn't foolish enough to muck up his model.   His model wasn't that different than ones like Andrew Tanenbaum was doing in 2004.
 
2013-07-24 01:23:22 PM

TheBigJerk: Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.


it's in the comments at least.

The true genius of Nate Silver is not math, it's journalism objectivity not selling a obviously made up horse race
 
2013-07-24 01:28:35 PM
Nate is good at both the math and at presenting it to the public. When the role you have chosen is one of communicating math to the public, you kind of need to be good at both.
 
2013-07-24 01:33:56 PM

bdub77: I hope he focuses more on politics than sports at ABC. I can't imagine he'd have a better impact on the world at the sports level unless we're talking about examining football injury data or making a case for paying college athletes.


You're giving his political analysis too much credit.

MugzyBrown: There is nothing special or genius about Nate Silver.  Everything his writes is pretty much meaningless until a couple of days before an election.


And you aren't giving it enough.

Silver had a small but real impact in keeping the election narrative from being wholly manufactured. Without him there would have been a lot more stories wondering why Obama didn't have as large a lead as he was expected to. This might have lead to an actual shifting of votes, if Silver wasn't there to ground us in reality.

But that was just a small impact. He was just looking at what other people were doing and telling us what that was. There is little difference between that aspect of politics and watching baseball or any other sport. It *shouldn't* have an impact, but people are more likely to vote for a winner, so it does.
 
2013-07-24 01:39:52 PM

jake_lex: Dr. Whoof: I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.

Yeah, and that apparently caused a lot of resentment towards him at the NY Times.  I remember in particular that after the first Obama/Romney debate, the media narative was how Obama had let Romney back into the race, but Silver's numbers were showing it had a pretty neglible effect.  Silver was showing that Romney really never had a chance.


It did have an effect; Nate's forecast showed Obama dipping down to a 65% chance of winning briefly. It just wasn't as wide-ranging or long-lasting as the press would have us believe.
 
2013-07-24 01:40:47 PM

D135: TheBigJerk: Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.

it's in the comments at least.

The true genius of Nate Silver is not math, it's journalism objectivity not selling a obviously made up horse race


So what are they going to do to sell papers in '16 when Nate's model ALREADY shows Hillary crushing any and all Republicans like ants on the sidewalk?
 
2013-07-24 01:42:54 PM
Oh, and Nate's true genius is in his ability to break down complex math into terms anybody can understand. He's the Carl Sagan of statistics.
 
2013-07-24 01:44:15 PM

jake_lex: Dr. Whoof: I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.

Yeah, and that apparently caused a lot of resentment towards him at the NY Times.  I remember in particular that after the first Obama/Romney debate, the media narative was how Obama had let Romney back into the race, but Silver's numbers were showing it had a pretty neglible effect.  Silver was showing that Romney really never had a chance.


And, it's a bit of an aside, but I can't help but think of the kind of Homeresque moron they're trying to reach with the "ZOMG BACK IN THE RACE" strategy.

"Well, I was going to vote for the candidate that best represents my political and economic worldview, but shiaaat, I don't want to vote for a LOSER!  Guess it's the other guy!"
 
2013-07-24 01:44:41 PM

jake_lex: Dr. Whoof: I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.

Yeah, and that apparently caused a lot of resentment towards him at the NY Times.  I remember in particular that after the first Obama/Romney debate, the media narative was how Obama had let Romney back into the race, but Silver's numbers were showing it had a pretty neglible effect.  Silver was showing that Romney really never had a chance.


Silver explained it in his posts at the time: yes, Romney was finally ahead in a good portion of the polls, and his model showed a drastic shift in percentiles as a result (pre-debate Obama's reelection chances were in the 80's and dropped into the 60's IIRC) but the model showed him more likely to win still because:

1) The model is designed to assume regression to the mean: as he always has to explain "momentum" in the polls is a media fantasy, and any event that is going to have voters changing their minds isn't going to cause more people to change their minds unless the event is drawn out. Any dramatic swing in the polls will start to decay before you know it.

2) By the time the number of polls showing a Romney bounce became signifant portion of them, the bounce was already diminishing in the daily tracking.

3) Obama had his "wall" of swing states that he was maintaining a better-than-national-average advantage in. During the same period Romney's chances of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote shot up.

Anyway, Silver is great because of the way he does keep the process transparent and shows you the structural advantages each candidate has in the race.

I'm waiting for that day he says someone has a 63% chance of winning and they lose, because we'll get to see the idiots who don't understand math saying he "got it wrong" when in fact the fact that his projections have so consistently turned out to reflect the winner is a sign his model overly favors the underdog.
 
2013-07-24 01:49:32 PM

Stone Meadow: D135: TheBigJerk: Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.

it's in the comments at least.

The true genius of Nate Silver is not math, it's journalism objectivity not selling a obviously made up horse race

So what are they going to do to sell papers in '16 when Nate's model ALREADY shows Hillary crushing any and all Republicans like ants on the sidewalk?


Ever heard the expression "That's why they play the games"?

Hillary still has to actually campaign and run, and we actually have to hold a vote. Personally, as much as I like Hilldawg (supported her over Obama until the Bosnian sniper fire and 3am phone call diverted me), I'd rather see someone else run in '16 - including, possibly, someone whose star has not yet risen (though that becomes increasingly unlikely with each passing day).

// not Biden
// how about Governor Carcetti (O'Malley, from my home state of MD) or even Cory Booker?
// also Liz Warren or Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders or Jon Stewart or Al Franken or any of a million other Dems? (not Wendy Davis. Yet)
 
2013-07-24 02:00:19 PM

DarwiOdrade: No, it's the math, though he does explain himself well.


HeartBurnKid: Oh, and Nate's true genius is in his ability to break down complex math into terms anybody can understand. He's the Carl Sagan of statistics.


^ Bingo.  His book is a great example of this on a larger scale.  A really good read for those who like math and modeling type stuff.  It's thick, but not incomprehensibly so.
 
2013-07-24 02:04:01 PM

Grungehamster: Anyway, Silver is great because of the way he does keep the process transparent and shows you the structural advantages each candidate has in the race.


Well, he also didn't just look at the overall popular vote.  He was looking at electoral votes and Obama was mostly a lock for almost all of the votes he needed.  Meanwhile the media kept covering the popular vote angle only, never pointing out that Obama's advantage in the electoral vote was nearly insurmountable and would have required an unfeasible number of wins for Romney.

It's funny how they didn't really even start talking about the states needed to win until just before the election - the media was obsessed with the popular vote percentages and completely ignored the actual evidence that Mittens had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

/Math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.
 
2013-07-24 02:11:09 PM
I've enjoyed 538's math, explanations and analysis during the past 2 prez elections.

Vegas (and international) odds-makers never had Romney in front either, but the networks have never bothered with their numbers either.

It always struck me as odd that the average Joe doesn't "follow the money".
 
2013-07-24 02:21:43 PM

Dr. Whoof: Grungehamster: Anyway, Silver is great because of the way he does keep the process transparent and shows you the structural advantages each candidate has in the race.

Well, he also didn't just look at the overall popular vote.  He was looking at electoral votes and Obama was mostly a lock for almost all of the votes he needed.  Meanwhile the media kept covering the popular vote angle only, never pointing out that Obama's advantage in the electoral vote was nearly insurmountable and would have required an unfeasible number of wins for Romney.

It's funny how they didn't really even start talking about the states needed to win until just before the election - the media was obsessed with the popular vote percentages and completely ignored the actual evidence that Mittens had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

/Math Republicans do to make themselves feel better.


Devil's advocate: more firms do national polling than state-wide polling, and reporting state-wide polling as a headline gives you a limited perspective about how other parts of the country feel. Reporting on every fraction of a percent movement on the national level may be simplistic, but reporting with the same zeal for 7+ swing states every broadcast wouldn't be much better. Simply put, national polling is less accurate but more convenient.
 
2013-07-24 02:26:22 PM

Dr Dreidel: / how about Governor Carcetti (O'Malley, from my home state of MD) or even Cory Booker?
// also Liz Warren or Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders or Jon Stewart or Al Franken or any of a million other Dems? (not Wendy Davis. Yet)


O'Malley - Essentially unknown outside of Maryland.

Booker - Let's work on actually being elected beyond Mayor of something, shall we?

Warren - You will never see a better-financed anti campaign.

Wyden - Oregon.

Sanders - Not a Democrat.

There's maybe a few Democrats who could step up in 2016, but none of them appear to want it, since no one appears to have laid any groundwork. Hillary had better run, else start getting ready for Bush Part Three - The Jebbening.
 
2013-07-24 02:28:00 PM
No, it's math.
The journalists are the ones who kept saying stuff like "Well, the polls show Obama's up in Minnesota, but my gut tells me people in Minneapolis prefer a presidential candidate with a name that's a synonym for 'glove', so I think Obama's in a losing fight there!"
 
2013-07-24 02:28:08 PM

Grungehamster: Simply put, national polling is less accurate but more convenient.


The media was wrong and lazy? That sounds about right.
 
2013-07-24 02:29:08 PM

NkThrasher: His book is a great example of this on a larger scale. A really good read for those who like math and modeling type stuff. It's thick, but not incomprehensibly so.


The section of weather forecasting was just plain wrong in some respects, and I thought he went way too far out of his way to be a nice guy to Rumsfeld, but other than that I agree.  The breakdown of Kasparov vs. Deep Blue was really interesting.
 
2013-07-24 02:31:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: Stone Meadow: So what are they going to do to sell papers in '16 when Nate's model ALREADY shows Hillary crushing any and all Republicans like ants on the sidewalk?

Ever heard the expression "That's why they play the games"?

Hillary still has to actually campaign and run, and we actually have to hold a vote. Personally, as much as I like Hilldawg (supported her over Obama until the Bosnian sniper fire and 3am phone call diverted me), I'd rather see someone else run in '16 - including, possibly, someone whose star has not yet risen (though that becomes increasingly unlikely with each passing day).

// not Biden
// how about Governor Carcetti (O'Malley, from my home state of MD) or even Cory Booker?
// also Liz Warren or Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders or Jon Stewart or Al Franken or any of a million other Dems? (not Wendy Davis. Yet)


Oh, I get that. My question was really more rhetorical than actual.

And while I understand the tendency for even progressives to wish for someone other than recycling Hillary, she is the one who can win. And we need another solid Presidency if we are to see progressive movement in this country. The Old White Protestant Paradigm may be down for the count, but it's still thrashing, and may still have a White House in its future if Democrats run a weak or divided campaign in '16.

So I'm going to campaign for her again, and I hope she brings in lots of fresh faces on her coattails.
 
2013-07-24 02:35:17 PM

Cagey B: Dr Dreidel: / how about Governor Carcetti (O'Malley, from my home state of MD) or even Cory Booker?
// also Liz Warren or Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders or Jon Stewart or Al Franken or any of a million other Dems? (not Wendy Davis. Yet)

O'Malley - Essentially unknown outside of Maryland.

Booker - Let's work on actually being elected beyond Mayor of something, shall we?

Warren - You will never see a better-financed anti campaign.

Wyden - Oregon.

Sanders - Not a Democrat.

There's maybe a few Democrats who could step up in 2016, but none of them appear to want it, since no one appears to have laid any groundwork. Hillary had better run, else start getting ready for Bush Part Three - The Jebbening.


O'Malley may not have name recognition, but he's got a liberal resume that will look mighty good next to those of Clinton and Cuomo. And barring another economic meltdown in the interim, whoever the Democrats nominate will have a good shot at the White House.
 
2013-07-24 02:39:05 PM
It concludes, basically, that so long as Mitt Romney is the nominee, "the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers." Even in a scenario where GDP growth was an amazing 4 percent in 2012, it gave Obama only a 60-40 shot over Romney. As it was, GDP growth was 2.2 percent in 2012, and yet Obama never fell behind Romney in the battleground states. I think a fair read of the election suggests that Obama's chances were much more robust than Silver's early model indicated.

I think the fairer read is that Romney turned out to be so much worse of a candidate than anyone ever imagined.
 
2013-07-24 02:41:36 PM

Cagey B: Dr Dreidel: / how about Governor Carcetti (O'Malley, from my home state of MD) or even Cory Booker?
// also Liz Warren or Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders or Jon Stewart or Al Franken or any of a million other Dems? (not Wendy Davis. Yet)


O'Malley - Essentially unknown outside of Maryland.

Booker - Let's work on actually being elected beyond Mayor of something, shall we?

Warren - You will never see a better-financed anti campaign.

Wyden - Oregon.

Sanders - Not a Democrat.

There's maybe a few Democrats who could step up in 2016, but none of them appear to want it, since no one appears to have laid any groundwork. Hillary had better run, else start getting ready for Bush Part Three - The Jebbening.


I gotta say, I saw Liz Warren on some news clip a week ago, and she is a much better speaker than she used to be.  She used to stammer her way through Daily Show interviews, but now she's very polished.  She's got a lot of work to do in the Senate, and she's extremely valuable there, but she'd make a great President.
 
2013-07-24 02:43:16 PM
Also, Ron Wyden would be a great choice if people actually care about NSA / privacy issues.
 
2013-07-24 02:44:22 PM

theknuckler_33: It concludes, basically, that so long as Mitt Romney is the nominee, "the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers." Even in a scenario where GDP growth was an amazing 4 percent in 2012, it gave Obama only a 60-40 shot over Romney. As it was, GDP growth was 2.2 percent in 2012, and yet Obama never fell behind Romney in the battleground states. I think a fair read of the election suggests that Obama's chances were much more robust than Silver's early model indicated.

I think the fairer read is that Romney turned out to be so much worse of a candidate than anyone who didn't watch the '08 campaign ever imagined.


FTFY

/i'm running for office, for pete's sake!
 
2013-07-24 02:52:05 PM

Wendy's Chili: theknuckler_33: It concludes, basically, that so long as Mitt Romney is the nominee, "the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers." Even in a scenario where GDP growth was an amazing 4 percent in 2012, it gave Obama only a 60-40 shot over Romney. As it was, GDP growth was 2.2 percent in 2012, and yet Obama never fell behind Romney in the battleground states. I think a fair read of the election suggests that Obama's chances were much more robust than Silver's early model indicated.

I think the fairer read is that Romney turned out to be so much worse of a candidate than anyone who didn't watch the '08 campaign ever imagined.

FTFY

/i'm running for office, for pete's sake!


I don't think too many people were watching very closely that early. Romney dropped out early in February. Other than the fact that he was the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama (granted, not a good feather in your cap), I don't think many people remembered much about his short-lived campaign in '08. Hell, he was out before Huckabee (and RON PAUL!).
 
2013-07-24 02:53:10 PM
What, being honest while every other news outlet with a bank account was pushing a, transparently to anyone who knew how to count, false horse race narrative to drive ratings and ad revenue, or alternatively to keep morons seeking only confirmation bias from slitting their wrists in despair?

Shiat, even then Silver was more charitable to Romney than he had any right to be. Silver himselfsaid on more than one occasion he'd lowballed Obama's chances for the sake of argument, and even focused in his writing on the couple of infinitesimally unlikely ways in which Romney could actually win.

Yes, apparently speaking truth makes you a genius and a wizard nowadays.
 
2013-07-24 02:53:56 PM

Krieghund: bdub77: I hope he focuses more on politics than sports at ABC. I can't imagine he'd have a better impact on the world at the sports level unless we're talking about examining football injury data or making a case for paying college athletes.

You're giving his political analysis too much credit.

MugzyBrown: There is nothing special or genius about Nate Silver.  Everything his writes is pretty much meaningless until a couple of days before an election.

And you aren't giving it enough.

Silver had a small but real impact in keeping the election narrative from being wholly manufactured. Without him there would have been a lot more stories wondering why Obama didn't have as large a lead as he was expected to. This might have lead to an actual shifting of votes, if Silver wasn't there to ground us in reality.

But that was just a small impact. He was just looking at what other people were doing and telling us what that was. There is little difference between that aspect of politics and watching baseball or any other sport. It *shouldn't* have an impact, but people are more likely to vote for a winner, so it does.


Silver had a huge impact on destroying the lie Zionist Media was trying to force-feed America. Little wonder the NYT buried his pieces and eventually let him go. Can't have math getting in the way of the US Embassy being relocated to Jerusalem after all.
 
2013-07-24 02:56:38 PM

Stone Meadow: D135: TheBigJerk: Search for word, "objective," be disappoint.

it's in the comments at least.

The true genius of Nate Silver is not math, it's journalism objectivity not selling a obviously made up horse race

So what are they going to do to sell papers in '16 when Nate's model ALREADY shows Hillary crushing any and all Republicans like ants on the sidewalk?


Same thing they always do - sell the narrative and wax philosophical about the effects of "X said Y".  If anyone calls them out on their BS the SOP is to say "there is a compelling story to be told" and then quickly change the subject.
 
2013-07-24 02:57:34 PM
Apik0r0s: [redacted]

Your "I hates them joos!" schtick is boring.

/plonk
 
2013-07-24 02:57:42 PM
Arkanaut: ...but she'd make a great President.

She could, but a Warren campaign would have one real consequence: a billion-dollars in anti-Democrat campaign spending out of 501(c)'s  alone. That hit $400 million in 2012 alone, and that was against a President who's only slightly less corporation-friendly than his Republican opponent.
 
2013-07-24 03:00:00 PM

that bosnian sniper: Arkanaut: ...but she'd make a great President.

She could, but a Warren campaign would have one real consequence: a billion-dollars in anti-Democrat campaign spending out of 501(c)'s  alone. That hit $400 million in 2012 alone, and that was against a President who's only slightly less corporation-friendly than his Republican opponent.


Don't discount the effect of being blah.
 
2013-07-24 03:01:40 PM

jake_lex: Dr. Whoof: I thought the whole point was he didn't lie about the data.  He didn't call it close, or say Romney had a shot of winning when clearly he didn't.  So yeah, it's journalism, in so much as he plainly told the truth while everyone else was trying to sell a false horse race to keep people watching and clicking on ads.

Yeah, and that apparently caused a lot of resentment towards him at the NY Times.  I remember in particular that after the first Obama/Romney debate, the media narative was how Obama had let Romney back into the race, but Silver's numbers were showing it had a pretty neglible effect.  Silver was showing that Romney really never had a chance.


Oh, come on.  Care to take a wild guess where on the chart the first debate happened?
imageshack.us

Nate Silver didn't paper over it at all.  It changed a 87% chance to a 61% chance.  Obama might not have lost the lead, but he certainly gave Romney a big chance.
 
2013-07-24 03:04:20 PM

theknuckler_33: Wendy's Chili: theknuckler_33: It concludes, basically, that so long as Mitt Romney is the nominee, "the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers." Even in a scenario where GDP growth was an amazing 4 percent in 2012, it gave Obama only a 60-40 shot over Romney. As it was, GDP growth was 2.2 percent in 2012, and yet Obama never fell behind Romney in the battleground states. I think a fair read of the election suggests that Obama's chances were much more robust than Silver's early model indicated.

I think the fairer read is that Romney turned out to be so much worse of a candidate than anyone who didn't watch the '08 campaign ever imagined.

FTFY

/i'm running for office, for pete's sake!

I don't think too many people were watching very closely that early. Romney dropped out early in February. Other than the fact that he was the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama (granted, not a good feather in your cap), I don't think many people remembered much about his short-lived campaign in '08. Hell, he was out before Huckabee (and RON PAUL!).


Their loss.
 
2013-07-24 03:05:35 PM

Stone Meadow: Don't discount the effect of being blah.


The guys who can throw seven-figure donations at 501(c)'s and 527's don't so much give a hot damn what color the guy is, so long as he's the one who can make the money flow fastest. Of course, these are also the people who throw money at  both sides, just in case one wins they're still in-pocket.

The "blah" thing is just what keeps the rubes voting.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report