Harold Ickes keeps shouting about 600,000 votes in Michigan being thrown out. But as I've pointed out before, the turnout situation in Michigan wasn't remotely normal. According to Jay Cost's spreadsheet, turnout in Michigan was equal to 24 percent of John Kerry's vote in 2004. However, the average in other states with open primaries was 79 percent. In other words, turnout was only about one-third as much as it should have been. The judgment of two-thirds of the voters in Michigan was essentially that the primary didn't matter and wasn't worth their time.
Florida was a little bit more normal. Turnout was equal to 48 percent of John Kerry's vote; the average in other closed primary states was 59 percent.
5.31.2008
Michigan's turnout
@ 6:54 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments
Christ, I think WA State, where I live, had a bigger turnout for the caucuses. Clinton's arguments with respect to Michigan are flatly bizarre.
One of the problems with the rhetoric in this debate has been the ambiguity of the word "voters," and how to protect the rights of the "voters."
To the Clinton camp, "voters" has a narrow meaning: those people who actually cast ballots during the FL and MI events. Only the will of those voters matters to that side.
The real issue is protecting the rights of the citizenry, which is a different interpretation of the word "voters." That objective would include everyone, and especially the un-name-able and innumerable citizens who would have voted but did not (or, in MI, who voted differently because of an incomplete ballot).
Poblano's latest post shows us that Ickes' argument - invoking what we might call a "statistical voter" - cuts both ways, and IMHO ultimately justifies the RBC decisions.
Nate, you have a great way of visually presenting a compelling mathematical argument. This is a great graphic that conveys the problem with the turnout-as-validation argument. I hope that people see this.
Wow... the RBC was actually a but harder on the Florida and Michigan than I would have been. I was always a big fan of the "wait until this thing is decided and then seat them all (possibly with some symbolic vote reduction) when they can can no longer have an effect on the result" theory. However, once it became clear to me that the RBC was gonna do something, I switched to the "seat all the delegates with half votes and joint vetting of uncommitted Michigan delegates by candidates off the ballot" theory, mainly because that way, if the Republicans tried to use it as an election issue, we could point out that there solution gave the states the same amount of presidential representation, and potentially less platform representation. (Joint vetting essentially means Obama, because Richardson and Edwards endorsed Obama, and Biden knows he's gonna be the nominee.)
I really thought the 59-69 thing was really an either-or with regards to half votes, not both. Of course, the advantage of this solution is it preempts any attempt by Clinton to claim to be ahead in the popular vote counting Michigan.
And, of course, he only needs a max of about 26 more supers to cinch it, including the three remaining contests. I just hope Ickes isn't serious about taking it to the credentials committee... we might really need to laugh these guys off the stage.
The chart is somewhat skewed and the turnout discrepancy would have likely been even greater if MI and FL's elections had been sanctioned by the DNC. Note that states holding elections on Super Tuesday tend to have much lower turnout than all others (presumably because more time to campaign in a state leads to higher turnout). If the FL and MI contests had been sanctioned, the more valid turnout comparison would be to non-Super Tuesday contests, which had a much higher turnout.
Note that states holding elections on Super Tuesday tend to have much lower turnout than all others (presumably because more time to campaign in a state leads to higher turnout). If the FL and MI contests had been sanctioned, the more valid turnout comparison would be to non-Super Tuesday contests, which had a much higher turnout.
Huh? That chart lists all the states that had primaries - pre, post and during Super Tuesday. They are all there.
The issue remains, why was Florida in the ballpark of other closed primary states when Michigan voters clearly understood how it would not count? I don't think intelligence is the answer - heck, many FL voters are retired Michiganders. I remain convinced that the ballot initiative was a big deal. But either way, the argument that the MI voter must be respected is silly - the MI voter stayed home.
For closed primaries I find a better metric (though not easily accessible through an RCP) is turnout among registered Democrats. Comparison to Kerry voters overstates red states like Texas, Indiana, and West Virginia. The result would be about the same - Florida would still be in the middle of the pack.
anon@6:46 - Protecting the rights of non-voters is a fine principle, but since there is no hard data as to who was "disenfranchised" it is a slippery slope to imposing whatever result is desired.
Politically, the Rules committee made a colossally stupid mistake by assigning 4 Clinton delegates to Obama. Not only did they needlessly irritate the Clinton campaign, but they gave them a perfect excuse to file an appeal and win public sympathy, and to question how evenly the rules are being applied. The committee thus prolonged the problem they were trying to solve once and for all. And for what? A swing of 4 half-delegates to Obama? Whether their decision is "justified" by conjecturing what might have been means little in the public relations arena when contrasted with actual voters whose votes were arbitrarily assigned to another candidate. Obama has been hanging his hat on the "rules" for so long and criticizing Clinton for "moving the goalposts" that accepting an arbitrary reallocation of delegates like this raises the spectre of hypocrisy. Do two wrongs make a right? Does Michigan moving up its primary date justify bestowing unearned delegates on Obama, especially Clinton delegates? It doesn't matter what you or I think - it's a huge opening for the Clinton campaign to beat this horse into July and beyond.
To the Anonymous Clinton troll above.
I suppose you think a primary where all candidaes said wouldn't could at the time it was held, that was known not to count, would have similiar turnout and voting patterns to a primary that counted in the same state?
Please.
DC Economist -
I actually agree with the anon that it was a stupid PR move for the DNC. they should have just done half delegates all around, with joint vetting (which, as I said above, means uncommitted = Obama). And I'm an Obama supporter. I'm just worried that the RNC will have a field day (or dozen) with it. I didn't like the 59-69 solution when it was full votes, and it's even worse with half votes.
Another Obama supporter here who thinks that uncommitted should go to Obama (since Edwards, Richardson, and Bioden essentially consented to it), but that it should have been 73-55.
The real issue is protecting the rights of the citizenry, which is a different interpretation of the word "voters."
Actually, the real issue ought to be protecting the rights of Democrats (and I say this as a registered Independent). The primary process is supposed to be about a party determining its nominee. Much muddies these waters, especially "open" primaries and caucuses.
But if I were in the leadership of the Democratic Party, in the long run I'd be worrying about the rights of other members of my party. (Though I suppose one needs to, in open primary states, also be concerned with the rights of non-Democrats who might vote in the primary...talk about a murky number!).
Finally, all the speculations about the PR impact of this far overestimate how much the public cares about the RBC. This is real inside baseball (pardon the metaphor, Nate). And to the extent the public does care, validation of the Florida and Michigan results as "hard numbers" in any meaningful sense can be used by the Clinton campaign to play Calvinball on the popular vote issue. So, from a PR-angle, to the extent that anyone cares, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Moreover, nothing but nothing is going to get Clinton to concede or move toward "unity" before Denver. So coming up with clever formulas for appeasing her campaign is a waste of Obama's and the RBC's time. The willingness of even neutral RBC members to hold the line is one price that Clinton is paying for her refusal to negotiate or argue in good faith.
anon@20:55, the votes cast in Michigan's illegitimate Soviet-style straw poll were not "arbitrarily assigned" anywhere. That is Clinton propaganda. The RBC made clear that they were trying to give voice to the est. 1.4 million Michigan citizens who would have voted in a fair primary. That is what they did in reassigning delegates. No one who voted for Clinton had their vote "stolen" or "reassigned." Nor did anyone who voted for uncommitted in support of another candidate Obama. Rather, the RBC refused to play the Clintonian game of ignoring the 70% of the electorate that didn't show up. They made an attempt to reflect those citizens who would have voted.
It was a blatantly unfair attempt. Too much weight was still given to the other 600,000. Nate's work here has clearly demonstrated that there is no basis for assuming Clinton would have any advantage over Obama in a fair Michigan election. If the state was going to be seated at all, in absence of a free and fair election, the split should've been 50/50. Sham elections should never be recognized. Clinton herself said "This election they're having is not going to count for anything."
As Chuck Todd reported, Obama had the votes for a 50/50 split. He gave Clinton a "win" in Michigan as an olive branch.
If your argument is that Michigan's primary was unrepresentative and abnormal - an argument I accept - how do caucuses survive on those same merits?
This is not to say that Clinton should win - by the rules, she lost. Insofar as super-delegates have some subjective ability to weigh the rules, the popular vote, and winnability, they have, and again, she lost.
However, I would think that there is a clear need for reforms of the primary process.
Great point. Reform is imperative, but only for reasons of fairness, which is why I doubt much will change. I loathe caucuses and hope the Democratic Party abolishes them in the future, but this is very unlikely because they are cheap and help with party building.
Caucuses indisputably suppress the vote (which is one of many reasons why the "popular vote" is not a legitimate metric under this primary system). However, they are also indisputably superior to elections that don't have major candidates on the ballot. They were also agreed to under the rules, were an even playing field for all the candidates. As much as I'm against caucuses, I'm even more against changing the rules after the game starts.
Here's a superb legal analysis shredding Ickes' fraudulent arguments: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/72643/08080/210/526590
You all have the nerve to argue as if Obama was forced to take his name of the ballot, Obama pandered to the voters of NH & Iowa by volunterily taking his Name off the ballot... To give him delegates based on the Exit Polling is absolutely absurd... What about Caucuses.. Not everyone can make it the caucuse site..Should we take polling data from Utah, Kansas, Nebraska because Obama doesnt Really have a 35+ lead in those states if they actuaklly held primary,,, THE FACT THAT THEY REWARDED OBAMA FOR PANDERING TO NH & IOWA AND JUST HANDED HIM DELEGATES HE JUST DIDN'T EARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST SAD!!!
the RBC did the best it could--no one but extreme partisans are upset with their compromise. their goal was simply to placate two large states for the general election, not to help any particular candidate.
the florida delegation was seated as cast, but with only half votes--this is same thing the republican party did here to penalize the republicans for jumping the line (i live in florida). and by using the michigan delegation's own proposal, the RBC allowed the sate in question to come up with it's own solution.
the only thing that angered me from yesterday was ickes and the clinton camp threatening to take this denver, something that they have continued to say in the morning talk shows today--and for this i am truly beginning to despise her and her supporters. for those here who support clinton--had she been given exactly what she wanted, she would still be behind, she would still lose the nomination--so what is that you really want? the only thing that you all have achieved is to cast a pall over the presumptive nominee's legitimacy--but to what end?
there are only two possible outcomes of hillary taking this to the convention and continuing to delegitimize obama:
1. either she still loses, and destroys the democratic party in the process by making it impossible for her supporters to reintegrate
2. or she has party bosses (i.e. super delegates) negate the will of millions of votes, and the last six months, by stripping the people's choice of his fairly won nomination, which destroys the democratic party
either way, the party is destroyed (perhaps irreparably) and we lose in November.
why do you think you have the right to set aside the will of the majority of those of us who did not chose your horse? why do you think you have a right to hold the party hostage? maybe clinton would make the strongest general election candidate (though i doubt this), that does not give you the right to destroy the party.
anon@8:20, Utah was not a caucus. But even if it was, it still would've been something approaching democracy, far superior to the "elections" recently held in Michigan and Russia.
The Michigan pledge was not to "participate" in the election. In objecting to their names being on the ballot, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson honored that pledge, just as Gore and Bradley did in 2000.
Clinton said that it didn't make any difference whether or not her name was on the ballot, because the election wasn't going to count for anything. Ergo, it's intellectually dishonest for her to say it should count, and morally bankrupt to say Obama should get no votes because he chose to leave his name off the ballot.
When it benefitted her, she said the ballot was inconsequential and the election wouldn't count. When it benefitted her, she said the election counts and Obama gets no votes because he left his name off the ballot.
And if this were really about the voters and democracy, there would at least be some attempt made to give voice to Obama's would-be voters in Michigan. But there is none, because this is all about Clinton and always was.
Lastly, Clinton never had 73 delegates from Michigan, so none were taken away. The "election" was sanctioned, never recognized. The bipartisan Michigan Democratic Party sent a delegation of 69-59. That is what the RBC recognized.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
當舖或專利或商標或存證信函都歡迎討論。專利或商標或存證信函或當舖都很重要。
關鍵字:當舖,當舖,專利,專利,商標,商標,存證信函,存證信函,商標設計,自創品牌,關鍵字。
當舖或專利或商標或存證信函都歡迎討論。專利或商標或存證信函或當舖都很重要。
關鍵字:當舖,當舖,專利,專利,商標,商標,存證信函,存證信函,商標設計,自創品牌,關鍵字。
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment