6.28.2008

Bob Barr Not Going Viral

The New York Times ran a feature today on Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr being a spoiler. But there is little evidence so far that Barr is gaining much traction in this election.

Consider, for instance, the rather modest fundraising goal established on Barr's webpage. He seeks to raise $88,000 by July 4, of which $27,000 has been raised so far. Candidates generally do not set fundraising goals that they do not expect to meet, so let's say that Barr succeeds and raises another $61,000 over the course of the next week to beat his goal. In fact, let's say that Barr beats that goal by 50 percent and raises $90,000.

A candidate who is raising $90,000 per week will raise approximately $1.7 million dollars between now and Election Day in November. How would this compare to the amount of funds raised by other recent third-party candidates? The amounts below reflect the total amount of individual contributions to third-party candidates in 2000 and 2004, ignoring PAC money, self-loans, etc.:

2004
Nader Independent $2.5 million
Badnarik Libertarian $1.0 million
Cobb Green $0.5 million
Peroutka Constitution $0.3 million

2000
Buchanan Reform $15.3 million
Nader Green $10.8 million
Brown Libertarian $2.1 million

There was a huge reduction in the amount of funds available to third-party candidates between 2000 and 2004, perhaps because Ralph Nader's impact on the 2000 election led voters to realize that third party candidacies weren't such a cute little idea. But a fundraising haul of $1.7 million would be relatively modest, even by the standards of your typical third-party candidate. Of course, this is just the roughest guesstimate of what sort of money Barr is bringing in, and fundraising may be a relatively small part of the story for a third-party candidate -- Pat Buchanan got more than $15 million from individual contributors in 2000, and had all of 0.43 percent of the vote to show for it. But so far, the Ron Paul money has not been flowing in.

In fact, Ron Paul's website is still getting two or three times as much traffic as Barr's, and appeared to be getting something like 30-40 times as much traffic at its peak in January versus what Barr's is getting now.

It's still early in this election, but perhaps less so for a third-party candidate than for a major party one. There's really very little going on right now on the campaign trail, making it a good time for a third-party candidate to get some free media impressions from a bored press corps. But once the Beijing Olympics begin on August 8th, the country will be distracted for two weeks by those and then we begin the mad dash to the finish, with the conventions and the debates and both sides ramping up their advertising and their opposition research. So Barr has about five or six weeks left to do something newsworthy, or he's going to find it hard to get media oxygen later on.

43 comments

Ephus said...

The bigger news about Bob Barr is that he attacked both McCain and Obama for being pro-comprehensive immigration earlier this week, and did so in nativist terms. Barr will be running a strong anti-immigrant campaign, which likely will find traction among some on the right. It was telling that the NY Times did not mention Barr's immigration stance, which likely was due to an editorial concern about fanning nativist fervor.

Even if Barr does not attract money on the same scale as Ron Paul (and I think he will), he is going to have a real impact in states that have a sizable anti-immigrant vote (Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia for starters).

Anonymous said...

TYPO: "He seeks to race $88,000. . . ."

John said...

I feel this is a moment for the right 3rd party candidate. If a serious female candidate ran as a 3rd party with a centrist message (perhaps under the banner of liberal economic issues and conservative military issues), that person and party could be a real spoiler

I would imagine the candidate could get at least 8-10% of the vote simply by reaching disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton who don't feel symbolically represented by either Obama or McCain (since neither one is a woman).

Don't know if it will happen, but a smart 3rd party wanting to make an electoral dent should think about nominating an energetic, qualified woman.

Anonymous said...

All he has to do is have an affect on Georgia to change the outcome of this election and there's little doubt he'll at least be able to do that - even if he's broke.

Another Mike said...

It's time for some maxed-out Democratic donors to get out the checkbook for Barr.

Juris said...

I would think Barr and Nader both need to get some traction if they're to have any case for being invited to debates against McCain and Obama on national tv. Though I kinda doubt either would be invited no matter what.

judas_priest said...

John,

Now is clearly not the moment for the candidate you hypothesize, since ballot access laws make it just about impossible for a such a late starting campaign to get onto the ballot in most states.

hosertohoosier said...

Dead-on analysis, I have been watching Barr's numbers on his site since he got the nomination and it just isn't happening. He raised about $10,000 in a money bomb - these are Mike Gravel numbers.

As to the person saying "this is the election cycle for a third party", absolute rubbish.

1. The economy is not in long-term trouble. There has been robust economic growth and productivity growth since the mid-90's. The present problems are short-term, and small - it looks like economic growth will come in at 1%. A bad year, but not a recession. Compare that to the early 90's which featured high levels of unemployment, and long-term economic malaise.

2. Unlike 1992 foreign policy issues are still a big deal. Most of the political real estate there is occupied by the big two parties. Since Obama is already lying about how fast you can withdraw troops from Iraq (see the Samantha Power interview where she admits this) one simply can't outbid him on that front. Moreover, third parties are rarely credible on national-security issues. You can get some crazy billionaire to run and talk a good game on economic issues, but not foreign policy. You get foreign policy experience from government, or in other words, from being part of the major parties.

3. Americans are angry at Bush, not angry at the state of America. Want an example? McCain is thus far competitive with Obama, in what should be the worst election cycle in a long while. Obama realizes that, which is why his central message is this McSame thing that his faithful robots keep spewing. That is also how Obama can run on "change" without, you know, changing anything.

4. Ross Perot was credible because he drew centrists. Some Alan Keyes or Ralph Nader can never win the presidency because they are competing for the extremist rump of the GOP and Democrats, respectively. There are more centrists, however. Perot had a chance - a small one - of being president because he was positioned where the votes are. Save Bloomberg, I don't think there are many prospective independent candidates that are so situated - moreover they would have to run against a senator with a reputation as a maverick, and another that likes to talk about bipartisanship, who has always done well among independents.

Juris said...

Hoser: You lost me at #1, but rescued me with the rest of your analysis. The economy is simply a big question mark -- if one could be as certain as you are about how bad things are/might be there wouldn't be nearly the turmoil in the markets as we are now seeing. There is huge risk of a continued inflation cycle on an international scale, with energy costs being just part of the problem. At the very least, this remains a big uncertainty.

However, the "major" third party candidates of record are not only lacking funds but don't have an ideological leg to stand on -- or rather not one with any substantial followings. At least Barr has a potential regional (i.e., Georgia) base, and that could matter even if he only got a few percentage points there.

mtvcdm said...

You know what I think would be a cool idea?

I've always wanted to see the results of individual simulations, but you're the only guys who can hit the 'run simulation' button right now. So I think after you do the 10,000 simulations for the day, open the current model up to the readers and let them run the numbers.

When they do, the results of each simulation get added into the day's projections. The number of simulations would vary from day to day, however, 10,000 was likely picked because it would take that many to get a suitable average. Any more may not change the numbers much or be statistically significant, but A, at the very least it wouldn't HARM the projections since we're still using the same numbers, and B, it'd just be fun.

KQuark said...

I live in GA and Barr will have his biggest impact in this state. GA will be very close and could go Democratic for the first time in a long time because of Barr.

BTW what is up with the Gallup tracking poll. They seem to be the only presidential poll where Obama does not have a lead. I just wonder why they are the only poll different than the others if 538 could investigate that issue it would be of great interest to me and others.

Anonymous said...

Anti-immigration seems like a decidedly non-libertarian stance. Are Barr's positions on immigration in sync with that of the Libertarian Party?

obsessed said...

Even if Barr does not attract money on the same scale as Ron Paul (and I think he will), he is going to have a real impact in states that have a sizable anti-immigrant vote (Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia for starters).

From your lips to the ears of the nativists. This issue will drive a deep, emotional, and financial wedge between the corporations and a large segment of Republican electorate. It's something that Karl Rove would love to use against the left but he can't because his corporate masters can't stop drooling over all that cheap labor.

Checkmate, Karl. And the best part is that the states with the largest "nativist" blocs are at the top of Obama's battleground list. If Obama wins the Kerry states + Iowa, all he needs to push him over the top is North Carolina, OR Georgia, OR C0+NM, OR VA+NM. This is without OH or FL.

obsessed said...

Anti-immigration seems like a decidedly non-libertarian stance.

I'm not a libertarian so maybe someone who is can clarify, but I think they see it as an extension of isolationism. They want to seal off the country first, and then, within that closed system, let "the markets" have their way. It seems stupid to me, given the size and power of modern corporations, but I'm for anything that takes votes away from the Strayed Hawk Express.

JGabriel said...

Nate,

Was there another methodology refinement? If so, I think this one may be the ticket.

First, most of the concerns I raised in comments to the previous post have been alleviated. VA is now showing as a solid toss-up, rather than the light red of the previous simulation; and ND has slightly, but significantly, lower R win percentage in line with it's low polling information.

Also, NV is showing as slightly redder, which also seems more in line with current polling trend.

From a personal point of view, as an Obama supporter, I can't say I'm crazy about the simulation results - for instance, I thought (hoped?) PA would run a little bluer, but I can't think any of sound arguments to support that contention either.

So, whatever the last two packages of changes were - and I hope you'll post a comment describing them soon - this looks like a pretty solid projection and methodology. At least, it seems to match up with polling and intuition - whatever that's worth.

.

Ryan Langrill said...

A great majority of Libertarians are pro-immigration; it is incorrect to specify Libertarians as isolationist, because we believe that we should pursue friendship and trade with other countries - we just want to avoid entangling alliances. Libertarians want the free flow of both labor and goods across borders.

Now, the reason that some Libertarians are anti-immigration is because, as I think Milton Friedman said: "You can't have open immigration and a welfare state at the same time." (I probably butchered the quote.)

I, personally, don't even buy that argument. Set citizenship requirements for welfare or whatever... If Barr continues to push a nativist agenda he will lose my support; I am a registered, dues paying member of the Libertarian party, but if Barr's strategy is to get the people too right-wing on immigration for the Republicans he loses a lot of credibility.

obsessed said...

Thanks for the clarification Ryan.

I guess it comes down to whether the ideal is a libertarian country or a libertarian globe.

Brianterrel said...

As one of the many sorts of libertarian (it is a big umbrella), I can say that anti-immigration is most certainly not a libertarian position.

There is a big split among libertarians about what to do with the conflict between immigration and the welfare state. One faction would like to open the borders, believing this would bring about the collapse of government redistribution programs. The other faction wants to close down the borders until we can eliminate the welfare state, as they believe an influx of down trodden will only push us further toward a socialist system.

In an ideal setting however, most libertarians would readily agree that traveling freely to seek opportunity is a natural right. It is only the non-libertarian current environment that sees some libertarians (mostly from a conservative backgroung, ie Ron Paul and Bobb Bar) advocating closed borders.

This issue did actually make many libertarians (myself included) a bit cool on Ron Paul, and many see Bob Barr's selection as the presidential candidate as a takeover of the party. The Libertarian party convention was very heated this year, and IIRC Barr only won on the 4th or 5th ballot.

Brianterrel said...

For anyone who's still curious, Reason Hit and Run (the blog portion of Reason magazine, a libertarian rag) did a bit of a breakdown on the Milton Friedman quote that is the basis for the split on immigration.

Also, if you search that site for Bob Barr or Ron Paul you can get a sense for the sorts of divisions their conservative backgrounds engender in the libertarian community.

Cheers

Juris said...

To Brian Terrel: any chance that's your real name and you grew up in Los Angeles area (S.F. Valley)? I knew someone with that name -- a long time ago!

Brianterrel said...

It is my real name (first and middle), but I grew up in the Central Valley (modesto), not southern California.

Rhode Island X said...

Nate: Thank you for the information, as always! I would disagree on your last point, of Barr needing to gain major traction before the Olympics...I could see something happening at the Ron Paul convention/rally. (The one Paul is holding nearby and during the GOP convention.) As you said, the Ron Paul crowd hasn't been mobilized yet...And I don't know why. It seems fairly certain it will happen, but if there's information on the contrary, I'd be open to hearing it.

And my 2 cents on the current discussion: Barr has as close to no chance as mathematically possible to win the Presidency, but I expect him to put on a pretty good show. Most likely grabbing 3-5% of the popular vote, concentrated in certain states. Especially if it looks like the election won't be close...Libertarians and Nativists will feel like making a statement against McCain with their vote if it isn't likely to change the outcome.

Finally, a quick question. Why do some of the comments disappear? I know a couple of mine have, after they've been up for some time. I'm sure it's nothing malicious, but I'd like to know...Thank you. (I'll check these comments for a reply, or email Cyan092@hotmail.com)

Juris said...

RI-X: Comments don't disappear unless they've been deleted by the moderator, and if that happens a notice is left where the post was deleted.

Here I think is the answer to your question. There is limited space allocated to comments in the normal setup, so if there are a lot of comments to a given article the earlier ones scroll off the top.

BUT if you click on the title of the given story or article -- e.g., in this case, click on the red lettered "Bob Barr Not Going Viral" -- then that particular story comes up as a separate thread, and all comments on that article will show up under the article.

Jake Larocca said...

Cue conservatives wishing they'd run Romney in 3...2...

sniperct said...

Somewhat OT, but one thing I've been wondering is if there's any weight to bellwether states? (Missouri, NV, etc)

John P Slevin said...

The article is thoughtful, but it seems to rely on an assumption that Barr somehow is falling short and it is Barr's fault. The article suggests that Barr's campaign strategy and execution somehow is inadequate.

That assumption is incorrect.

Barr only has been running about one month. Obama and McCain have been running more than one year.

Barr's just beginning to get any national media attention, and of course it's far, far less than that being given to Obama and McCain, who have received extensive media attention for the better part of two years.

Sure, Barr isn't raising money at their level.

The free media given Obama and McCain, and the exclusion of others from that coverage largely dictates who the voters know and who they do not know.

Interestingly, this article runs alongside a lenghty list of presidential polls, all of which list ONLY McCain and Obama.

See the point?

Anonymous said...

John P.: You say it's "not fair" to compare them, but campaigns aren't fair. Given that the press is only talking about him as a possible spoiler, and not a real contender, he has a huge hill to climb and there's no evidence that he's going anywhere.

Just from the online "buzz", I would say that Ron Paul is STILL getting more than he ever has. I see no indication that most are embracing him with anything but a collective yawn.

In short, if Ron Paul couldn't get anywhere with as much excitement as he was generating, Barr is going nowhere fast.

Bob Barr Sinister said...

Ironically, the more media exposure that Bob Barr gets, the worse he will do in November. Reasons:

He looks and sounds creepy, especially lacking in appeal to women. According to a recent profile, he has no close friends.

He is an outrageous hypocrite. Exhibit A: Bob Barr has railed against Roe v. Wade for decades. The voters of GA threw him out of office after it was revealed that he drove his second wife to a clinic to get an abortion that he paid for. His apparent reason was to avoid paying child support once he married his mistress who became his third wife.

Check out his wikipedia entry if you want to see how grotesque a politician can be. He will get no more than 1% of the vote, and maybe 4% in GA.

Adrian said...

I think it is a good point that he has only been running for a very short time. That's true -- I didn't think of that. But, it is definitely disconcerting to see his extremely modest fund raising goals. I don't know that the Ron Paul contingent will support a Libertarian candidate in a stright run for the presidency like they did a republican for nomination. The two propositions are completely different.

In terms of borders, it is not clear to me that Bob Barr is really that much in favor of *closed* borders or that that is even the issue at all. The issue is *secured* borders, and perhaps that is a bigger issue than the open/closed border issue to "closed borders" libertarians. It certainly IS a big issue, and the issue is not whether or not we let those "dirty immigrants" into our country to steal our jobs or tax our welfare system but whether or not we can actually stop known terrorists and criminals from coming into our country and wreaking havock. That latter point -- that we should not let terrorists or criminals into our country -- is not at all unlibertarian -- not even to most libertarian extremists or purists.

Personally, I think the best thing we can do to *secure* our borders is to open them. It is essentially the "prohibition effect". By making it difficult to get here under legitimate means, we have only created a vibrant market for coming here illegally. And now, it is easy for anyone to get in here without us knowing anything about it. Although some of those "dirty immigrants" might steal some jobs or even go on welfare, at least by letting them through legitimately, we can monitor the flow of traffic and the only plausible means of getting here will be through us. Then, criminals and terrorists won't have a well worn, well established, completely workable to the point of almost being mundane way straight into our country without us knowing about it. The market for coyotes will just dry up.

Eric Dondero said...

The only goal Bob Barr needs to accomnplish to be judged a great success, is to overcome Ed Clark's 1980 Libertarian Presidential vote total of 920,000 (1.1%).

Barr is already polling 3% nationwide in various top polls, and 6 to 8% in some statewide polls.

That's at least 3 to 4 million votes on election day.

That means he would have beat Clark's 1980 total 4 times over.

That's nothing less than a stunning victory for the Libertarian Party. An Amazing one in fact.

The Winch said...

Ron Paul was not simply a liberatarian like candidate. He was a real straight talk express. He was clearly against the war. He was so obviously better than any third party candidate excepting Nader, that any so-called analyst who thinks Barr will be in the same league with Ron Paul's success, clearly has spent no more than a few minutes on that "analysis".

John P Slevin said...

Anonymous said: "...if Ron Paul couldn't get anywhere with as much excitement as he was generating, Barr is going nowhere fast."

So which is it? Paul's campaign was a huge success. He generated a ton of excitement, and of course many of those people are still out there, working for his causes. That's success.

The system is rigged, to hold Barr to polls (most of the polls don't even include Barr) is absurd.

The goal is advancing the cause...of course winning is nice too. When a politician cares only about winning, well, they run as either a Democrat or Republican.

Cedric said...

If you're really going to vote for Mccain or Obama this fall... do us all a favor.... kill yourself.

That goes for anyone in marketing too ;)

The Winch said...

Ah, leave it to the best political team in the world (CNN) to make this stupid statement:

"So, with a proposed budget of $40 to $45 million"

These clowns will swallow any ludicrous idea someone passes to them.

Anonymous said...

Barr received the nomination on the 6th ballot because of the way the LP does business. We eliminate the lowest vote-getter on each succeeding ballot, provided no one received a majority. Thus each constituency gets a pretty fair shot for their candidate.
Barr's fundraising was nearly $400,000 prior to the $88K one week goal. Let's see where the fundraising is one week from today (Sun.).

Mike H in Cali said...

As Nate could tell you, media-covered third party candidates traditionally poll higher in June than they do in October and much higher in June than the percentage they actually get on election day. Ross Perot, George Wallace, and John Anderson are the classic examples of this.

For that reason, many pollsters will not mention Barr or Nader by name till we get closer to the election.

3% in a poll now for Barr probably ranslates into 1% on election day.

Sarah said...

I'm hoping Barr picks up steam as I think he could turn this election into a huge blowout for Obama. If conservatives who don't like McCain think they have a real option in Barr... This could get real ugly for McCain.

I agree with your analysis that Barr isn't picking up much steam yet - But I do think he'll end up getting a lot of support from Ron Paul people once they realize Paul isn't running in the general election.

Anonymous said...

Fundraising for minor candidates is slow to build steam. Ron Paul raised $600K in Q1 2007 but $20 million in Q4. Barr doesn't have the luxury of time, but linear extrapolation is foolish. If he can raise $90K/week in June he'll be raising $250/week in September and likely raise $4-5 million total. Still too little to make an impact in its own right, but enough to keep him on the campaign trail.

By the way, your Buchanan stat is misleading. Buchanan received about $12 million in general election public funds in 2000 after gaining the Reform party nomination (which qualified based on Perot's 1996 showing). The rest he raised as a Republican before abandoning the primaries to Bush. Nader is the only non-major candidate to raise more than a couple million since 1980. Perot never solicited contributions.

信次 said...

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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

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~!!

freefun0616 said...

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,

,