“Nobody wins unless everybody wins.” That’s the line Bruce Springsteen would drop before launching into “Born to Run” during the 1984 Born in the U.S.A. tour. You can hear it in the clip below: Click for the wisdom, stay for the song. I’ll be here when you get back.
Anyhow, I’ve been thinking about that line in light of an article Ezra Klein wrote this month for the New York Times about a conversation he had with elections forecaster Daniel Shor. It’s garnered a lot of attention as a kind of come-to-Jesus moment for Democrats. Shor was only 20-years-old in 2012 when he was formulating daily electoral models for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. With the exception of Ohio, Shor correctly called every swing state on the map within one percentage point and pegged the final tally of the national vote within 0.1%. Now Shor is telling Democrats they’re doomed.
The basic problem facing Democrats is the skewed distribution of Democratic voters. Shor predicts if Democrats win 51% of the vote in the upcoming 2022 senate elections—and remember, midterms are typically rough on the party in the White House, so 51% is pretty generous—they would still likely lose a seat and control of the chamber. Now just imagine what happens if Democrats do worse than that. The bigger challenge, though, looms in 2024. Shor projects if Democrats win 51% of the vote that year, they’ll lose seven seats in the Senate. In other words, going forward, Democrats can’t just win to stay in power; they need to win big.
Now that number is kind of tricky because the states with senate elections that year include California and New York, which are very populous states expected to send Democrats back to Congress in landslides. But that also illustrates the problem: Democratic voters are concentrated in large states with large urban populations, and there are many small rural states dominated by Republicans that get the same amount of representation in the Senate.
Still, that’s just the beginning of the catastrophe Democrats are barreling toward. The bigger problem is that the country is dividing itself along educational/class lines, with college-educated Americans voting with Democrats and non-college-educated Americans gravitating toward Republicans. The states Democrats will need to win in the Midwest and where they have often been successful in the past—places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa—are seeing more and more non-college-educated voters casting their votes for Republicans. Meanwhile, it’s taking longer for diversifying states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina to fully come online for Democrats.
Klein didn’t really mention this next bit in his article, but the problem isn’t just going to be the Senate or the House (which a lot of pundits think is going to fall to Republicans in 2022) but the presidency. It’s getting to the point where it’s a very real possibility Democratic presidential candidates regularly win not just a plurality but a majority of the popular vote and still lose the White House. If you consider the margins of victory in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia in 2020, Biden came within about 43,000 votes of having that happen to him in the last election.
If Democrats hope to remain competitive at the national level over the course of the next decade, the party will need to find a way to win over not necessarily a majority but certainly a good chunk of White non-college-educated working-class voters. Shor believes the reason Democrats have lost so much ground with this demographic is because the party has been captured by liberal college-educated activists who are out of touch with non-college-educated White voters. This leads the party to focus on issues that excite their liberal base—issues like climate change, racial justice, LGBTQ rights, and liberal immigration reform—rather than an agenda that resonates with the interests of the White working class. (There is also some evidence suggesting Democrats are losing ground with working-class minority voters, particularly Latinos.) To remedy this, Shor thinks Democrats should do a bunch of polling, figure out which issues are popular with the White working class, and talk about those issues incessantly while avoiding all the stuff that doesn’t sit so well with them.
Shor’s ideas make a lot of intuitive sense, but there are many, like Rachel Bitecofer, who think his approach is dead wrong. Bitecofer made a name for herself in 2018 when, as a little-known political science professor at Christopher Newport University, she nearly nailed the size of the Democrats’ new majority in the House. Bitecofer argues the key to winning elections is turning out the party’s base. These are the voters who either are already inclined to support the party or would be most receptive to the party’s basic messaging. If a party takes its base for granted and runs to the middle of the electorate by watering down its messaging and policy ambitions, it risks alienating its core supporters and depriving campaigns of the sort of energy that builds enthusiasm for its candidates. Shor’s approach is regarded by analysts like Bitecofer as an inefficient and ineffective way to campaign, since genuine swing voters make up a relatively small slice of the electorate (most independent voters have a tendency to lean toward one party or the other over time) and are fickle by nature. Bitecofer would therefore argue candidates don’t win elections by focusing on swing voters; the key instead is getting voters receptive to partisan appeals to the polls.
This debate obviously has massive repercussions for the future of the Democratic Party. At this precarious time in American history, it can’t afford to get the answer wrong. So who’s right?
Maybe this feels like a cop-out, but aren’t they both kind of correct? I wouldn’t say Shor’s approach and Bitecofer’s approach are necessarily mutually exclusive if one assumes White working-class voters continue to constitute a big part of the Democratic Party’s base. Here’s a breakdown of the racial composition of the Biden and Trump electoral coalitions from the 2020 election provided by the Democratic data firm Catalist.
Racial Composition of the Biden and Trump Coalitions (2020)
Much is made about how popular Donald Trump is with working-class White voters. They make up 58% of his coalition, and more working-class White Americans voted for him than voted for Joe Biden. Yet this breakdown also shows working-class White voters are the biggest segment—nearly a third—of Biden’s coalition too. Maybe White working-class voters are not the base of the Democratic Party the way they are now for the Republican Party, but they are definitely a base of the party. When Shor says Democrats need to appeal directly to the White working class and Bitecofer says Democrats need to appeal directly to their base, it could be said they are saying the same thing.
Some might look at that chart and say, “Wait, if Democrats are losing ground with White working-class voters, why not make up the difference with White college-educated voters?” It is true Democrats are surging with White college-educated voters; in fact, as Catalist shows in the chart below, they went from losing them in 2012 to winning them by 2020.
Support for Democratic Candidates, 2012-2020
The same chart shows Democrats gained more ground among college-educated Whites (8%) than they lost among working-class Whites (3%) during the same time period. The problem, though, as the chart below demonstrates, is that while the share of the overall electorate that is composed of White working-class voters has been shrinking (-7% since 2008) the White working-class make up a much bigger portion of the electorate overall (44% in 2020) than college-educated Whites (28%).
Racial Composition of the American Electorate, 2008-2020
Consequently, the Democrats’ relatively large gains among college-educated voters can easily be offset by relatively mild losses among working-class voters. And again, the complication is that White working-class voters make up an even bigger share of the electorate in many states Democrats need to win.
Both Shor and Bitecofer would probably push back against my claim that the particular White working-class voters Shor is talking about are a base of the Democratic Party. I think both would say these are actually voters outside the Democratic tent. Shor believes some of these voters could be enticed to come inside if Democrats quit projecting themselves to the public as woke liberal activists. (Shor would likely state this in stronger terms by saying they “need to” be enticed to vote for Democrats if Democrats hope to retain power in Washington this decade.) Bitecofer would insist most of those voters are already out of reach for Democrats, meaning Democrats would be better off rummaging around inside their tent to find more voters.
I’m admittedly torn about what Democrats should do going forward. Conventional political science indicates most voters are fairly constrained—that is, they tend to remain faithful to one party—and that the main choice most voters wrestle with isn’t who to vote for but whether to vote at all. That suggests Bitecofer is more right than wrong in this argument when she says the key for a party is to identify those already inclined to support you, give them the reasons to do so, and then get them to the polls. After the 2020 election, however, which saw historically high turnout for our current era, can Democrats keep going back to that well before it runs dry in must-win states? And how many Democrats are sitting out because the party isn’t liberal enough vs. because the party has become less conservative?
That would suggest Democrats need to expand their appeal. That would be great; I’m always for expanding Democratic appeal, especially among the White working class. But I think there are limits to that, too, that may come with some costs. I am aware of the fabled “Obama-Trump” voters who swung between the parties in 2012 and 2016, but I’m not sure how many there are (even though in a close election they can make the difference) nor how persuadable they are after 2020 if they didn’t swing back to Biden. Maybe 1/6 changed their calculus somewhat, but I just feel if someone voted for Trump twice after everything that transpired between those two votes, they’re all-in on the Republican Party. Democrats can throw everything they’ve got to winning them back, but I don’t think that would be an efficient use of time, energy, and resources.
Additionally, in order to win those voters over, Democrats would probably have to follow Shor’s advice and moderate their appeal, but that could end up deactivating their core supporters. I’m not arguing here that Democrats should instead swing hard to the left or turn a blind eye to aspects of their party that turn-off more moderate voters. It’s just that in the past, when Democrats have “moderated,” they’ve done so in ways that are advantageous to corporations and the well-to-do and disadvantageous to working-class Americans, which has only demoralized the working-class voters Democrats count among their base. It also plays into Republican strengths, as we’re seeing now in the haggling over the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. In order to burnish his moderate credentials, Joe Manchin keeps emphasizing the costs of the package and how he’s trying to rein them in (a conservative talking point) rather than the bill’s benefits (which would play to Democratic strengths.) Of course, it is impossible to separate costs from benefits, so conscientious politicians have to talk about how to pay for the things they want to do, but Manchin’s efforts to moderate the bill are only encouraging the voters Democrats need to win over to think of the bill through a conservative lens rather than a liberal lens. If Shor wants Democrats to talk about popular things, he will find that “keeping government spending under control” and “policies that directly benefit working Americans” are both popular, but only debates about the latter are waged on terrain favorable to Democrats.
Economic moderation, however, may not be what Shor has in mind with his critique (although it is unnerving to me to see him refer to the “ancient political wisdom” of the Bill Clinton era.) He seems more focused on getting Democrats to downplay hot button cultural and environmental issues. Yet it would be immoral for Democrats to dismiss issues like racial justice or climate change (Shor says liberals who discuss climate change sound “weird,” but climate change deniers sound weirder to me) even if they upset people or turn-off critical segments of the electorate.
But more importantly, I think what Shor—and to a certain extent Bitecofer as well—is missing is a sense for how a potential Democratic majority could unify around a message. Both Shor and Bitecofer seem to assume that talking to one part of the electorate will necessarily turn off another part of the electorate. To a certain extent, that’s true: Politics reflects social divides, and parties and politicians will adopt positions that lead some voters to dismiss them out of hand. In some cases, that can’t be avoided. Yet the mere presence of these divides doesn’t mean politics is a zero-sum game in which one group wins only if another group loses. That approach to politics is a legacy of Donald Trump, who rallied his supporters around the idea that if the diverse liberal coalition won, his coalition of predominantly White Christian Americans would lose not just electorally but existentially. He pit one group’s success against another’s.
Democrats can’t play that game—their coalition is too diverse—but in post-Trump America (is it accurate to describe us as “post-Trump”?) it’s all too easy to assume that’s how the game has to be played. That leads some to think Democrats have to choose between directing their appeals to White working-class voters or their liberal multiracial coalition. A better way to approach the problem would be to find a frame big enough to unite the otherwise fractious majority Democrats need to compile to win elections. Maybe something like “Nobody wins unless everybody wins” would do. Something along those lines would provide Democrats with a way to discuss contentious political issues within a moral context a broad base of voters could relate to and signal to voters that Democrats are not just trying to deliver narrow benefits to the various interest groups that make up their coalition but are working to make society overall—a society containing both Republicans and Democrats—more just and fairer. It can also help people see that their struggles are shared by others who are not necessarily like them and unite them behind a common cause. Finally, it’s a direct and powerful counter to Trump’s zero-sum conception of politics that claims “You only win if those other people who aren’t like you lose.” Maybe that’s an idealized vision of American politics, but for Democrats looking to draw people into their coalition without alienating their progressive base, it may be the most practical way forward.
—
Pitchfork’s 200 Best Albums of the Last 25 Years, According to Pitchfork’s Readers
As promised a few weeks ago, here’s the link to the list. I predicted either Kid A or OK Computer by Radiohead would land at #1. Those albums were actually #1 and #2, with In Rainbows at #4. (Kanye West’s My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is #3.) I wouldn’t say there’s anything particularly surprising on the list; in fact, I’d say it kind of reads like a list of 200 albums from the past 25 years that Pitchfork readers would guess the staff of Pitchfork would put on their own list of the best 200 albums from the past 25 years. I was hoping for a more idiosyncratic list—maybe a surprise appearance by P!nk or Scissor Sisters—but I guess if you read Pitchfork, these are probably the albums you’d like.
—
Garbage Time: A Preview of the 2021-22 NBA Season
(Garbage Time theme song here)
Sorry, this turned out longer than I had hoped, but if you’re watching a Milwaukee Bucks game, you can read it in the amount of time it takes Giannis Antetokounmpo (pictured above) to shoot a pair of free throws. What follows is an assessment of which teams I think can make the NBA Finals (not the playoffs. Half the teams make the playoffs in the NBA. As long as you don’t say “the Oklahoma City Thunder,” you’ve got a better than 50% shot at picking a playoff team just by naming the first squad that comes to mind.) And by the way, I made my MLB playoff predictions a few weeks ago and I had the White Sox beating the Rays and the Dodgers beating the Brewers with the White Sox over the Dodgers in the World Series, and right now the Dodgers are the only team still playing so, hey, if you want more accurate NBA takes, they got smarter people than me over at TNT. Check them out.
Eastern Conference – Atlantic Division
Boston Celtics – NO. If Jayson Tatum goes Full Kobe, this team could be a tough out. Jaylen Brown is a solid running mate. Who doesn’t love Marcus Smart? But the Celtics have been in a slow decline for years, and unless Brad Stevens—the boy genius who was apparently doing such a bad job coaching the team that he got promoted to Danny Ainge’s old job as GM—adds another superstar, the Celtics won’t be playing in June.
Brooklyn Nets – Of course this team should make the Finals! YES! But I’ve almost got to see that before I’m ready to believe it. They’ve got a Big Three—Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Kyrie Irving—but one of them is always hurt, so they never play together. In their second round series against the Bucks last year, Harden left seconds into Game 1 with a hamstring injury and Irving rolled an ankle in Game 4. Neither played again and it still took overtime in Game 7 (after KD’s game-winning 3 pointer at the end of regulation was changed to a 2 because his toe was on the line) for Milwaukee to put them out of their misery. Now everyone’s healthy again but Irving has chosen not to get a COVID-19 shot, which means he’s prohibited by NYC law from playing in home games. That’s led the Nets to sideline him until he gets the jab. Irving has said his refusal to get the vaccine is a matter of personal conscience, which lines up with his history as a social justice advocate. But he’s also seriously entertained the idea that the world is flat, so call it what you will. (I wonder if Irving has ever thought those who could use a powerful voice like his right now are those who have to work in settings without vaccine mandates.) Maybe the Nets can trade him, but even if they don’t, they still have James Harden and the best basketball player on the planet in Kevin Durant (who also owns the best nickname: The Slim Reaper.) That’s more than enough to get them to the Finals; it may even be enough to get them the trophy.
New York Knicks – Congratulations on fielding a competitive team again, but NO.
Philadelphia 76ers – Ha ha ha NO. The Sixers have two really good players. Joel Embiid is big and dominant and was almost last season’s MVP but he’s also slow and clumsy and always seemingly out of shape and prone to injury. Their other really good player is Ben Simmons, who is a great defender but literally can’t shoot, which it turns out makes him not a really good player. Like, people don’t guard him. They foul him to make him miss free throws. Opponents tell him to shoot the ball. He gets subbed out in the 4th quarter because he’s an offensive liability. After the Sixers got bounced early from the playoffs last season, everyone blamed Simmons, so Simmons refused to report for training camp and demanded a trade, but SURPRISE! No one wants him on their team (or at least don’t want to give up a lot of value for him; problem is he’s got a pretty big contract any suitor would have to match.) Now he’s reluctantly back with the team but definitely disgruntled. He just got suspended for a game by coach Doc Rivers for refusing to take part in a practice drill. It’s like the guy doesn’t want to play, but does that really increase his trade value when every GM in the league assumes he still can’t shoot? Wouldn’t it help to prove you can? This Process is in meltdown.
Toronto Raptors – Sorry, but you can’t spell “Toronto” without an N and an O.
Eastern Conference – Central Division
Chicago Bulls – No Michael Jordan, so NO.
Cleveland Cavaliers – No LeBron James, so NO.
Detroit Pistons – No Isiah Thomas, so NO.
Indiana Pacers – No Reggie Miller (who only got you to the Finals once anyway) so NO.
Milwaukee Bucks – YES. I guess this is a diss, but someone’s got to make it to the Finals from the East. They were there last year, so they know how to do it, but it definitely wasn’t pretty. They had a really hard time with a depleted Nets, and it took an injury to Trae Young in Atlanta for them to finally put away the Hawks. The Suns went up 2-0 and looked to have the Bucks on the ropes but then Giannis Antetokounmpo seemed to figure the whole Finals thing out and was absolutely unstoppable the rest of the way, capping it off in Game 6 with 50 of Milwaukee’s 105 points. Khris Middleton and Jrue Holiday are good complementary players, but the Bucks’ entire offensive scheme comes down to letting Antetokounmpo impose his will on the opposing team. That works because Antetokounmpo is the most dominant player in the league, but I still want to see the Bucks pass tougher tests before I begin thinking of them as more than mere title contenders.
Eastern Conference – Southeast Division
Atlanta Hawks – NO. Sorry, you made it to Game 6 of the Conference Finals last year, but you need more firepower than a 6’1” All-Star point guard who can drain threes from the logo can provide for a return appearance.
Charlotte Hornets – NO. Kelly Oubre Jr. could not get Steph Curry into the 8-team tournament last year with the Warriors so why should the Hornets believe that signing him will get LeMelo Ball any further? (Insert crying Jordan meme here.)
Miami Heat – Um, YES? They made it there two years ago (and last season was a disappointment) but maybe that was the Bubble talking. I just don’t want to put anything past this team. They’ve got a smart coach, a smart front office, and a smart system, and good players in Jimmy Butler, Bam Adebayo, and Victor Oladipo (if healthy). They added Kyle Lowry and PJ Tucker, who are old but scrappy and made of championship material. If they need to, GM Pat Riley can flip some of their players at the trade deadline for difference makers. Their window is also close to closing, too, so there’s probably some urgency all around. Beyond the Nets and the Bucks and the idealized yet non-existent version of the 76ers, this is the Eastern Conference team with the highest ceiling.
Orlando Magic – Oh hell NO.
Washington Wizards – NO. The Wiz were terrible last year because COVID ravaged the team early on but then were awesome near the end of the season. Bradley Beal was phenomenal and almost beat Steph Curry for the scoring title; like the Celtics’ Jayson Tatum, he’s the sort of player who could single-handedly lead his team on a run through the playoffs. But then Beal was supposed to be on the Olympic team this past summer but missed the flight to Tokyo because he was in COVID protocols and then revealed a few weeks ago he still isn’t vaccinated. He said he needs to learn more about the vaccine, which, like, Christ, the team has doctors! YOU LIVE IN THE SAME TOWN AS ANTHONY FAUCI TALK TO HIM! Unlike Irving, though, that won’t keep him from playing regular season games in Washington, where he’ll be teamed-up with most of the good players on the Lakers last season not surnamed James or Davis since Washington traded Russell Westbrook to L.A. over the summer. Is that enough to get them into the playoffs? Probably. Enough to get them to the Finals? Nah. And if the new-look Wizards don’t click? That’s when Beal gets traded to the Heat or, if the Wizards really want to tank, to the 76ers for a certain player who can’t shoot.
Western Conference – Northwest Division
Denver Nuggets – Uhhhhh… NO. Sorry. Tough call. They’ve got the MVP in sweet-passing generally non-dunking big man Nikola Jokic. Michael Porter Jr. could be an up-and-coming star. Aaron Gordan was a nice mid-season acquisition. But even if point guard Jamal Murray hadn’t torn his ACL, it still feels like Denver needs something more, especially in a stacked Western Conference. (Is it just me, but don’t Jokic and Luka Dončić seem destined to win a championship together?) No matter who they face, though, they’ll be a hard out at elevation.
Minnesota Timberwolves – I’m not as down on the Wolves as others are, but you can’t just stumble into the playoffs in the West like you can in the East, so NO.
Oklahoma City Thunder – More like the OklaNOma City Thunder.
Portland Trail Blazers – Is this team even going to be in one piece by the time the season ends? The Blazers have been a good team year-in and year-out ever since they drafted Damian Lillard, and they’ve made deep runs in the playoffs, but it seems everyone knows this team has reached its ceiling. The Blazers would have to be great (by which I mean top 2-3 teams in the West) for management not to blow this team up because another heroic play-off performance from Lillard followed by an embarrassing exit is not going to cut it anymore. Maybe Dame puts the team on his back. Maybe they make a deep playoff run. Or maybe they’re sold for scrap by the trade deadline. No matter what, though, the current iteration of the Blazers seem like one of those really good teams that never gets over the hump. Therefore, NO.
Utah Jazz – YES. This is a deep team. Rudy Gobert is an elite rim defender. Donovan Mitchell is a small but explosive player. Mike Conley is an underrated point guard. Jordan Clarkson is a rising star. These guys could wear a team out. They’re not the favorite to make the Finals, but if they do what they did last season and finish the regular season with the best record and dodge an under-seeded contender in the first couple rounds, they could definitely take out a favorite in the Western Conference Finals. I’m just not sure they’re built to run a playoff gauntlet, though, so they’ll need to stay healthy all winter.
Western Conference – Southwest Division
Dallas Mavericks – I’m a hesitant NO on this one. Luka Dončić is destined to win a bunch of rings and he’s got to start making runs to the Finals at some point. He’s still only three years into his NBA career, though, and the Mavericks don’t have the pieces around him yet to compete for a title. Dončić is the kind of player who could carry a team to the Finals all by himself, so it’s not out of the question, but there are just too many good teams he’d have to go through in the West to pull that off. Just don’t be surprised if it happens.
Houston Rockets – They want to lose, so NO.
Memphis Grizzlies – Ja Morant is fun, but NO.
New Orleans Pelicans – Zion Williamson is fun, but I believe it’s spelled NEUX.
San Antonio Spurs – To quote coach Gregg Popovich from one of his in-game interviews, “NO.”
Western Conference – Pacific Division
Golden State Warriors – YES YES one thousand times YES. I love the Warriors so maybe there’s some bias here, but I have to believe they’ve got another run in them. Yes, their stars are starting to get old: Steph Curry is 33, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are 31, and returning sixth man Andre Iguodala is 37. They had a sneaky good draft but their young players are still works in progress; any production they get from them will be pure bonus. It will take a few months to get Thompson back with the team (he tore his ACL last year) and once he does it will take some time for him to get back to 100% (which was his prime when he got hurt.) The Warriors looked hopeless when last season started, but they were rolling by its end; add Thompson to that mix and they could be lethal once again. Now of course, they lack Kevin Durant—every team except the Nets does—so they’re going to have to run Andrew Wiggins (he got his vaccine!) and Otto Porter Jr. (who can shoot 40% from behind the arc) out in his place. The Warriors can make this work though. We know how they play, and this team is well situated to play to their strengths. When they do that, the Finals is definitely within their grasp. Let’s just hope Father Time hasn’t caught up to them.
Los Angeles Clippers – NO. This team is starting to look snakebit. They crashed in the bubble, and then when they seemed set up for a run to the Finals, Kawhi Leonard tore his ACL. Paul George played great in the playoffs, but this team needs Leonard to push them to the top of the West. The earliest Leonard would probably make it back is sometime in the playoffs, which is not when a player coming back from that type of injury would want to start playing again. Save the champagne for 2023. Not saying they’re a bad team, just not a Finals team.
Los Angeles Lakers – YES. But I’m not sure. The Lakers fell apart at the end of last season, and while his play could be attributed to injury, LeBron James (he got his vaccine!) for the first time in his career looked to be slipping. L.A. has addressed their concerns by trading a big chunk of their team to the Wizards for Russell Westbrook, a triple double machine who is also very ball dominant and rather inefficient. Besides Kendrick Nunn, they’ve also signed a bunch of veteran players past their prime (Carmelo Anthony, Rajon Rondo, DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard, Kent Bazemore, Trevor Ariza). It seems James prefers to play with experienced veterans who still aren’t learning the ways of the game, but all this makes the Lakers old. It’s not hard to imagine this team falling apart or failing to gel or just getting gassed. Anthony Davis is in his prime, though, which so long as he’s in uniform and not a suit and tie is enough to make the Late Show formidable, and James is the sort of athlete who can adjust his game as he ages, so I wouldn’t bet against them. It’s just LeBron James hasn’t looked this vulnerable since he took on the Goon Squad.
Phoenix Suns – I am aware they made the Finals last season and Devin Booker’s awesome and all, but…actually, look, the West is kind of wide-open this year, and if the Lakers and Warriors do age out and Kawhi Leonard can’t get onto the court for the Clippers and if you’re not buying the Jazz, someone’s got to win the West, so YES, the Suns can get to the Finals. They’re just going to need help getting there.
Sacramento Kings – Please. NO.
Thanks for reading.
Exit music: “Higher Love” by Kygo and Whitney Houston (2019)