Since we began compiling our polling results in early March, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have very nearly reversed positions. Whereas Obama was initially attributed as having about a 60 percent chance to win the election to Clinton's 40 percent, Hillary has now charged ahead of the 60 percent threshold while Obama is idling in the low 50s.
In my debut feature at the Guardian, I present a series of objections that the Obama campaign might raise about these dynamics. Can the Clinton numbers be taken at face value? I think there is at least one reason why they probably cannot:
Please see the article for the other objections, which I think are significantly more debatable.1. Apples-to-oranges
Increasingly, while the Obama-McCain polls are measuring an actual election matchup, the Clinton-McCain polls are measuring a hypothetical one. The polls presume an instance in which Clinton spontaneously replaces Obama as the nominee - the "Obama is struck by lightning" scenario. But in order for Clinton to actually get from here to there, a lot of blood would be shed in the process. Her nomination (1) would require her to take her case to the convention in August, and (2) would be actuated by an overwhelming number of superdelegates siding with Clinton and contradicting Obama's advantages in pledged delegates, the current Obama-Clinton national polling and some or most versions of the popular vote count.Were this to occur, what fraction of Obama's supporters would feel as though the nomination had been stolen from him? And how many of them would turn out for Clinton in November? There is no way to know for certain. But at the very least, Clinton would need to tie down a lot Democratic votes that aren't usually in play, and would have only three months between the convention and the election to do so.
40 comments
There is a misformatted link (to Pollster.com) in section 4 of the article. As a result, most of that paragraph is not displayed.
In light of today's rumors that clinton will be stepping down tuesday night, and that both obama and clinton will be in NYC wednesday... (dream ticket??) where are the obama/clinton vs. mccain/? polls?
First the NY Post, now the Guardian. What are you going for next?
Exactly exactly! The Hillary supporters are already disaffected (at minimum) and that's being reflected in the Obama-McCain head-to-heads. The required slight to Obama supporters and the overall damage to the legitimacy of the Democratic nomination in the case of a long-shot Hillary hijacking is not being reflected in the Hillary-McCain head-to-heads.
Regarding your points in your column:
2. state by state polling from surveyusa indeed shows Obama does as well as or better than Hillary in cross-party and independent support in most states, although Obama cross-party support seems to be in a steady decline as more of his liberal voting record beliefs become public.
3. no comment
4. The polling also doesn't reflect the demographic breakdown of the actual voter turnout, and so far we've seen almost the entire black electorate willing to turn up at the polls to vote for Barack. Similarly, I'm not sure the polls are reflecting the considerable number of extremely conservative voters that would be spurred to turn up at the polls simply to vote against a Clinton ticket. I think we could see unprecedented Republican turnout in a McCain-Clinton matchup.
5. Obama clearly has a much broader base of financial support than either Clinton or McCain. And indeed, the fact that Hillary blew her own nomination that was all but a foregone conclusion, and that McCain alternately clawed his way back from running fourth last summer to capture the nomination, does not bode well for her success in a general election.
nice picture.
Congratulations! The Guardian is a great improvement on the Post. Are you on their paper version as well?
Dude Your website is the ultimate culmination of state polling to come up with an Electoral Predicition in the Fall... It is the Highest Level of Partisan Hackery to write an article claiming that the polls that Favor Clinton don't really count,,,, Boy U R a Hack,,, A Shill... and just Pathetic
I will be very interested in the next few weeks' worth of polling.
Very soon, Obama will go from being 1 of 2 Democratic candidates to being THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, and the mythical Clinton-only Democrats (who in the vast majority aren't campaign activists) will very rapidly turn to being what they are: DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.
I think this dynamic will rapidly change a lot of current extrapolations.
Anonymous 14:14
What makes this site what we think is the best is that for the overwhelming majority of posts, we are respectful of others, even if we do not agree with them. When we disagree with someone, we back it up with something intelligent, not just hyperbole.
Troll 14:14
You can only be called a hack if you are wrong. Clearly, Nate has pwned everyone in his predictions this election, most notably, his Super Tuesday predictions, NC, and IN predictions.
It sucks that your candidate lost, but don't take it out on the messenger.
Also, he might point to this:
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/may25.html
Ta-da!
Aaron, I also like Nate's predictions - that is why I am happy to use them to make Clinton's electability argument (or in other words, Frankenstein's monster endorses Clinton).
I think Nate's argument understates a few important factors.
1. Obama's support is the base of the party that cannot be expected to go to McCain (they will at worst sit at home). Clinton's is among moderate, old, working class, Catholic, and Hispanic voters, who would be fairly comfy with McCain.
2. I have rarely heard anything BUT vitriol from Obama supporters describing Clinton. Do you really think the "usurping the throne" factor isn't already calculated in?
3. For Clinton to win the nomination she would have to win over super-delegates with a compelling "legitimacy" argument (as well as electability). Any such argument would have to outweigh the expected fallout of a Clinton insurgency. Anyway, by design, Clinton is only going to succeed in an insurgency if Obama is involved in 1. a sex scandal, 2. something criminal RE: Rezko or 3. overtly racist statements on youtube by either him or Michelle. 4. Assassination.
None of those are extremely likely to happen (I'd take 10-1 odds for).
5. There is a better way to argue "Obama will do better". Obama's poor poll performance is a result of Clinton defections. That should be obvious - I have seen a number of polls where Obama only runs 4 points better among women than men. Kerry ran 14-15 points better.
At some point, Clinton will endorse Obama. When that happens, a good proportion of those Clinton supporters will come home. Not all of them - but considering Obama is on average, tied with McCain right now, ameliorating that animosity would put Obama ahead.
The main problem with the Hillary vs McCain poll is that it exists in a vacuum where somehow Hillary is the nominee but doesn't have to "steal" it from Obama.
Main reason for disparity between relative positions of Obama vs McCain, and Hillary vs McCain:
1) Obama supporters figure he has won and are willing to be magnanimous in imagined scenarios with Hillary.
2) Hillary supporters, for the moment, are angry at Obama and haven't actually looked closely at McCain's policies.
I think Obama will get a sizable boost once Hillary "suspends" her campaign (hopefully Tuesday).
Obama's supporters definitely hate Clinton. However, they have moved mentally to GE and therefore hate McCain even more and say that they will vote against him come what may, even for Clinton. Clinton's people are not in GE mode.
I think an awful lot of the Hillary supporters aren't bluffing when they say they'll never vote for Barack. They may not vote for McCain, either, but they won't vote for Barack. They're just too disillusioned by the nomination process.
You weren't kidding when you said the other points were debatable. A few of them may even be arguments against Obama's electability.
2) If Obama's holding his lead with the help of independents, then it makes his lead that much more fragile. It would be better if he had been trailing among independents, but had a strong base. Bitter Democrats who don't want to vote for him won't change their minds based on any campaign soundbite or debate performance. Independents, however, can be swayed by campaign performances. In this case, swayed over to McCain.
3) While it's true that Obama has been pummelled more than Clinton this cycle, I think that's because the Republicans had already established their case against her before the primaries even started. Every Republican loyalist can rattle off the official reasons why they should hate Hillary. What's good about the numbers you provide is that if Obama has been hit this often this early, it's already being factored into the polls, so we shouldn't expect to see his poll numbers go down as they trot out new attack ads. But I doubt Clinton would be hurt much by attack ads if she was the nominee.
4) The reverse bradley effect will probably only come into play in weaker Republican states with a large black population like Virginia. It may not be enough to swing the election his way. Remember that blacks are a much larger subset of democratic voters than they are of the total population, especially in southern states. Young voters are indeed probably being under-represented based on their poor turnout in previous elections (they are not 'likely voters'). It is a question mark as to whether they will come out this time. Hopefully so.
5)"if Clinton had relinquished a 20-point lead against Obama, who's to say she'd hold a two-point advantage against McCain?, etc" You should know by now that what happens in the primaries has zero relation to what happens in the general. As to fundraising, the lingering question I have is: "has the long primary season started to tap out Democratic resources?" Clinton and Obama alone have raised about half a billion already, while the Republicans haven't really begun to tap their base (about 250 billion between the top 4 fundraisers). Of course, this isn't a Clinton vs Obama issue, but it's something that can hurt the democrats in the general. It will be interesting to see if campaign receipts pick up as the primaries come to a close.
I think it doesn't really matter to anyone if Obama supporters actually believe a majority of Clinton supporters will vote against Obama -- they will.
Many of us are Reagan Democrats. Many of us have voted for Republicans many times. Most of us are not liberals.
The first Democrat I ever voted for was Al Gore; I shocked the entire time, watching how Democrats eat their own. Now, after the treatment of far-more-electable Hillary Clinton by the DNC, I am very ready to get off this train before the trainwreck comes in November.
There are 17 million Clinton supporters and we are already doing the math. We know now that we only need just a few hundred thousand votes in a few precise swing states to keep BHO from winning the general election.
We know he will do great in the GE polls because of his over-whelming support from blacks. But, unfortunately for him, blacks don't give him a single state in the electoral college.
(It would so ironic if he won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, wouldn't it?)
Active campaigns are up in the swing states of NH, NV, NM, OH, PA, MI, MN, and WI.
I live in New Hampshire. There's no way it will be in the D column, after watching Obama's congregation cheer "GD America" and hearing that BHO tell us that typical white people are bitter and cling to their guns. She won the state BEFORE those insults came out; no way he wins it after those bombshells.
Also, a decent number of Clinton supporters will change their registration from Democrat to Independent if Obama announces that he has "won" the nomination. That one isn't quite as organized yet, but if you are a Clinton supporter reading this, look up the phone number for your local election board and get ready to join us the moment the DNC calls for "unity."
"if Obama is winning independents, he could afford to lose some Democrats, because the Democrats' substantial edge in party identification gives him a cushion"
Epitomizes just how out of touch the radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party is, the wing that has effectively driven 5-10 million easily out of the Party to become unaffliated. Wait until the convention. You can be as high as you desire to. But it is only half a dozen states that will decided the GE. It simply does not look good for the guy his supporters insist is greater than Jesus Christ. Not only can he lose Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin that Kerry won. He can also lose Connecticut and Pennsylvania. How many votes are in Colorado and Iowa? I'm not sure he can even win Iowa. Colorado, probably. New Mexico with a large Latino population will be hard. Bush did carry it in 2004. Nevada splits its EV's based on district results, so he may win a couple but not all of them.
The Party has given as many as TWO winners in the last 40 years both of whom were centrist except that Jimmy Carter was so inept. Obama even smells like a Jimmy Jr. Republicans have used winner-take-all in the primaries; you can dismiss that as a coincidence notwithstanding the fact that they have been MUCH more successful. Both Kerry and Dukakis were way ahead of Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. respectively by June. Even Bill Clinton would acknowlege Ross Perot MADE him the president in 1992.
Since March 1, Obama has won Vt., Wyo., Miss., NC, Ore. Clinton would win Vt. and Ore. if she were nominated. Obama won NC and Miss. essentially because of the Black block. Is anyone high enough to believe Obama can win Wyo., Miss. or NC in the GE?
Clinton has won Tex., RI, Ohio, Pa., Ind., WV, Ky and PR. Sure PR won't vote in the GE but there are more Puerto Ricans in the 50 States (including Fla.) than in PR. They also share a lot in common with Latinos than with Blacks. Clinton would carry Ohio, Pa., WV and probably Ky. and Ind. if she were the nominee.
We DON"T care how much Hillary wants us to vote for him. If Hillary really believes Obama is a superior potential president than herself, she will have conceded a lot time ago. We will NOT even vote for Obama EVEN IF Clinton is on the ticket with him. PERIOD. I speak for many of my friends and coworkers as well as family. Lose many White women, Asian Americans (Chinese, Korean and others), Hispanics and even Jews. Good luck with your math.
"The polls presume an instance in which Clinton spontaneously replaces Obama as the nominee - the "Obama is struck by lightning" scenario. But in order for Clinton to actually get from here to there, a lot of blood would be shed in the process."
Wow. WOW. Please delete this shit.
This is 10000000% more suggestive/offensive than anything HRC ever said.
Wow. Some crazy stuff above.
I wanted to say that I find the cell phone argument pretty compelling. I'm a 25 year old grad student, and that argument applies to myself and almost all of my friends. None of us have land lines, but we all voted in the primary, mostly for Obama, and will vote for him again in the general. I see him getting a boost from the youth vote-he's getting more youth to turn out than is normal, and I think that will carry over into the general election.
It's weird to read the comments above from Clinton supporters who say they'd vote for McCain before Obama. Why? The policies Obama and Clinton are running on are different in only trivial ways; the differences between either and McCain are huge. I'm a democrat. I voted for Obama, but only because Edwards had already dropped out by that time. I can say with 100% certainty that in the general, I will vote for whichever democrat gets nominated. I'm not crazy about Hillary, but I would take her over McCain in a NY second. So for those above who would vote for Hillary, but not Obama, why, not? Can you point to specific policies of the two candidates that makes one preferable to the other?
Thanks. I would truly like some insight on this.
Nate,
Anonymous 6:51 is correct. Though you were clearly figurative in your phrasing, the image invoked is not a nice one. You should consider editing.
Great article. One thought I would suggest is the effect of the "Regan Dem's". I have a strong suspicion that many of them are claiming to support Clinton in the general at this point. I have my doubts on how true this support really is though, she would be only the second Democrat to get a large chunk of this vote since 64. I don't see what makes it likely she will actually hold these votes in November once the cultural issues really start to pop up like abortion. Most of the polls seem to show Obama holding a similar percentage if not a tad higher than Gore and Kerry of Dem voters.
The one number though that does worry me is the decreasing support of (white) women recently. I don't think there is anything at all he can do on this either, this will come down to how Cliton exits the race and moves forward.
Nate (or anyone else): Is there any evidence at all that early polls like these are correlated with the final election outcome (esp. after controlling for state of economy and presidential approval rating)? I am asking because I want to understand the purpose of Nate's writing. Is Nate simply presenting debating points? Or does Nate actually believe that his points are true? That is, does Nate really think that his points are evidence that Obama might do better than Clinton in an election against McCain.
There are a lot of "random" ups and downs in presidential race (e.g., four weeks ago Obama was easily the stronger against McCain). I pay a lot of attention to the race because it is fun, but I don't give brief shifts any real weight for predicting the final outcome.
Of course a couple things do seem to be correlated with election outcome: state of economy and presidential approval rating. But these favor Obama and Clinton equally.
I don't want to be party-pooper here. I love reading and thinking about the horse race. And I am not an expert. I am just throwing this out there.
Anonymous 6:27 and 6:37,
If Barack loses the election, it's not because he's fundamentally unelectable. It's because his own party refuses to support him. The last time this happened we voted Nixon into office. Is it really worth that much to you guys? Are you really willing to risk our collective future to vote out of spite?
Because I, as a Republican, am willing to swallow my pride and vote cross-party to keep McCain from starting a third Bush administration. If I'm willing to do that, is it really asking too much for you guys to vote your party instead of your pride?
I also thought that the "lightening" comment was in poor taste. I wonder if Keith Olbermann will find that to be "unforgivable".
I will probably vote for Obama in the fall but I feel that I will be a LIFO voter for him. (last in...first out)
I just don't like him all that much and I don't get the infatuation. Hilary supporters and Edwards supporters saw their candidates for who they are. With Obama supporters, it seems that you have to love Him or else...
Having said that, I agree with Nate's analysis. Most women will come home no matter who is on the ticket. I am unsure about the white working class men.
Anonymous 7:18, the 25-year-old grad student,
I've been looking into it (Nate can correct me if I'm wrong), and most pollsters have weighted their polls demographically to account for the loss of cell-phone-only users. If that hadn't been the case, we should have seen a universal underreporting of support for Barack, and that hasn't been the case.
Egads. Was there like a big billboard recently put up in the reality-challenged community pointing to this place? The discourse is rapidly deteriorating.
New Mexico is bad for Obama because of the Latino vote? That's his *strength* in that state. They are the only reason he could win. I could go on and on, but I'm not even going to bother.
Good article, Nate. I'm also looking forward to more contributions from Sean.
Here's a suggestion for an analysis that should enable these projections to be put away once and for all: a historical comparison of months-to-go polling matchups to November results, which correlates the time left to the general election with the margin of predictive error in the current polls.
I used to think the most meaningless statistic in the world was the halftime score of an NBA game. Somehow I think these poll numebrs are even less valuable, for essentially the same reason: the real game hasn't started yet.
Dave in CA
I have been reading this blog for a shor while, but I have enjoyed reading the comments because of thier objective discussion of facts without the bluster that is found on other blogs. Whomever people sided with, they stuck to the facts without name calling. The clinton supporters who have started to post are simple repeating arguments tht can be found on an of the other big pro0hillary sites which is strange because this site is based on facts and thier comments appear to be based solely on what Larry Johnson said today.
I have been reading this blog for a shor while, but I have enjoyed reading the comments because of thier objective discussion of facts without the bluster that is found on other blogs. Whomever people sided with, they stuck to the facts without name calling. The clinton supporters who have started to post are simple repeating arguments tht can be found on an of the other big pro0hillary sites which is strange because this site is based on facts and thier comments appear to be based solely on what Larry Johnson said today.
I am going to repeat what I wrote above:
What makes this site what we think is the best is that for the overwhelming majority of posts, we are respectful of others, even if we do not agree with them. When we disagree with someone, we back it up with something intelligent, not just hyperbole.
Some of the last posts are more hyperbole than bringing something to this site. If you have an opinion on why Obama or Clinton will fail, back it up with a poll or something, not just rhetoric. Again, we are respectful of others on this site.
Wow Nate. Your on the rise! Great article.
That was a fantastic article.
John McCain will take this from me if you let him.
You bring up a good point but I think the better point is that no one has been campaigning AGAINST Hillary for over a month. Obama and McCain have been going at it and Hillary is going after Obama and occasionally McCain. Obama and McCain are giving Hillary a free ride in fact they have both only have said positive things about Hillary lately. In the only contest that is real going on right now which is not Obama versus McCain but Obama versus Hillary, Obama is beating her by an average of 9-10 points.
A comment...and a metacomment:
Comment: However many Clinton supporters don't "come home" to Obama, I think it's safe to assume that the percentage who now say they won't vote for Obama is higher than the percentage who won't vote for Obama in November. How much higher? That's the key question. My guess is quite a bit. But I have a very hard time believing that any new voters will join the most outraged Clinton supporters in their rather hysterical view of a candidate who is, on the issues, nearly identical to Hillary Clinton. And even with the current level of Clinton-supporter anger at Obama, he is predicted to narrowly beat McCain in November. We may not quite be at the peak of Clinton-supporter hatred of Obama, but we're almost there and by the end of the convention we'll be beyond it. All that being said, I completely agree with the NBA halftime score analogy.
Metacomment: Is there anyway to convince all the anonymous commentators to adopt clever (or even non-clever) noms de plume? It's very hard to generate a conversation when one has to constantly check to see which "anonymous" someone is replying to (and time stamps don't entirely work to solve the problem; I'm pretty sure one can set the blog to display different time zones).
Alternatively, Nate can switch off the anonymous option in the "Choose an identity" field, not to prevent actual anonymity (pseudonyms will allow that just fine) but simply to make the discussion clearer.
Obama hasn't run a Rove-like campaign against Clinton. As much as the Clintons complain about the media, the media have not delved into her past nearly as much as they might with the same fervor – they’ve generally reacted when the campaigns have raised the issues. Obama is a relative unknown but the Republicans are in no mood and it isn’t their style to allow the public to forget all that’s troubling with the Clinton candidacy.
For every Rev Wright, Ayers & Rezko, Clinton has ten fold skeletons in her closet (see Hillary Project.com). It was Rev Wright, et al who were used to knock Obama's lead down. Clinton would by living in a fantasy world not to privately acknowledge that the same and then some would be coming her way if she was the nominee. I feel that’s why the Republicans wanted her to be the nominee. They could splatter her with a different past controversy every day of the general election and still not get through them all.
For months, Obama’s been taking it on two fronts and the full force of the Democrat surrogates haven’t been able to defend him because half of them were with Clinton. That’s about to change and will help give him a boost once this is all official.
If Clinton ‘stole’ the nomination, I do think she’d suffer a significant bash lash. But I also agree with those who suggest a significant portion of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama and that it may be in larger numbers than it would have been for Obama supporters. Racism has been a significant factor in this contest and will continue to be a significant factor for Obama to overcome no matter what is done. If feel that all other things being equal, if Obama was white, he’d be running away with it.
Because Bush has been so poor and McCain seems to be embracing another four years of Bush policies, Obama’s got a decent chance to overcome the race issue. Hopefully he can because if he does, it could help further reduce the problem for generations to come.
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,
ed hardy tanks
ed hardy tank top
ed hardy twist specialty tank
ed hardy jeans
ed hardy men Jeans
ed hardy women jeans
ed hardy bottoms
ed hardy women platinum drawstring pants
ed hardy women stretch miniskirt
ed hardy swimwear
ed hardy bikini
ed hardy women's one piece swim suit
ed hardy underwear
ed hardy men underwear
ed hardy lingerie
ed hardy belts
ed hardy sunglasses
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