The following is a map of the relative performance of Barack Obama to John Kerry. If a state is colored blue, that means Obama is outperforming Kerry in his current polling avarages. If it's red, John McCain is outperforming George W. Bush.
Note that these results are based on the polling numbers only -- they do not include the regression -based component of our state-by-state ratings.
EDIT: One way to characterize the states where McCain is performing materially better than Bush:
1. John McCain's home state (Arizona).
2. John Kerry's home state (Massachusetts), and its immediate neighbors.
3. Hillary Clinton's home states (Arkansas and New York).
4. The states where Obama didn't campaign (Florida and Michigan).
5. Appalachia.
6.05.2008
A New Map
@ 8:32 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments
The fact that Arkansas is the deepest red here shows, I think, the impact of Clinton still being in the race (as of the latest polls) on the overall national McC vs. BO picture. Presumably, the effect is likely reflected in all the states to some degree.
Ahhh yes. If it isn't our old friend Appalachia.
Ahhh, Ore-kin-sawww. Home of Wal*Mart and Tyson chicken slauterhouses/forced labor camps.
What a shocker that the State is redder than Tyson carvers' covered in chicken blood!!
We'll see how red their faces get when Barack Obama becomes President desipte those good old boys' votes for McLame.
That map SOOO made my day. People like Obama.
On a side note: I want more Nevada Polls! That's a state which should be good for Obama... to say that the state has a MAJOR libertarian streak may be a bit of an understatement, and Obama by and large overperforms in the interior west... Of course, I sorta wonder how much exposure McCain gets in the Vegas Media Market...
I've got a question for the regression model. As you note, Obama is doing relatively poorly in Michigan and Florida. But there are two plausible explanations for this:
a) People have not been convinced to vote for him by his campaigning
b) People are bitter at him for DNC-based reasons (i.e., "Why doesn't Obama want our votes to count?")
I'd like to see these disentangled. Can we perhaps find out how much of the differential is accounted for by the lack of campaigning time alone?
Even in NC, Edwards home state, Obama is outperforming Kerry.
I have to admit I made one of these maps myself a few days ago (using your state averages of course) and it made my heart warm.
Brian Schweitzer, prairie populist govenor of MT, can win over low income, working class blue collar voters like no body else.
Put him on the ticket and give him 4 months on the stump and MI, NV, CO, NM, PA, OH are guranteed, while NH, VA and MO are likely to go blue in november.
Obama/Schweitzer 08, and unbeatable dream ticket that represents a new Democratic party, one that can build a large enough coalition to bring about real change and lead us into a glorious, energy independent future!
Poblano,
The important question at the moment for projection of the November election appears to be how transient the "Clinton effect" is. With the exception of Arizona and Mass., which are home states of McCain and Kerry, the ability of Obama to outperform Kerry seems to be a function of Obama's vote in the primary. The question then becomes whether or not this is due to pro-Clinton voters who haven't come around yet, anti-Obama voters who didn't vote for Obama in the primary and won't vote for him in the general, or a lack of campaign appearances by Obama driving low support in both the primary and general.
Do you have the data on which these maps are based posted somewhere? I'd be happy to do a few simple plots of variables related to these different effects to see if one of them is having a bigger influence.
Never mind... the maps are simply the Obama-McCain 538 regression difference minus the Kerry-Bush actual result, right? I may make some plots if I find the time...
It's hard to say what's really going on in WV--we've only got one poll, now over 3 months old. I really, really wish we had more frequent polling in the state. Feb 27 is ancient history in Presidential race terms.
I'm really curious how things have moved. Obama dropped some bucks on TV advertising and also made two trips here before the Dem. primary. McCain made one brief visit as well.
The next poll will be very telling to see how many Clinton supporters move with her to support Obama.
I notice another one of the McCain leaning Appalachian states on your map, TN, hasn't been polled since April. Another state to watch for movement with a new poll.
There's a really funny article that compares the different reactions to Obama's victory around the globe: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/05/obama_victory_makes_world_hate_6973.php
Obama's going to win, heck if a hurricane hits the gulf it'll be a landslide
Sifu Tweety of The Poor Man recently mentioned hearing from somebody in Massachusetts that she couldn't separate Barack Obama from Deval Patrick in her mind, so Patrick's various stumbles in his first year-plus as governor reflect badly on Obama. I suspect that some of that is contributing to Obama performing worse than Kerry in Massachusetts, aside from the obvious Kerry favorite-son effect.
(There's a little more going on here than "they all look alike to me"--Obama and Patrick are of the same generation, have similar professional backgrounds, are friends, and, as was briefly notorious, even share campaign rhetoric. But I still think it's terribly unfair to Obama, who after all is not the same person as Governor Patrick. It reminds me a little of the "secret Muslim" e-mail smears that basically substituted Obama into stories that were originally about Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who actually is Muslim and was sworn in on a copy of the Koran, though he's about as far from a radical Islamist as you can get.)
This map confirms it: McCain is toast.
This is so naive. One major Obama scandal and he'll be the new Dukakis. The same applies for McCain. If the polls look a bit better than today on Nov 4th you can post this again.
Cool map! And the states most worth noting are the "purple" states, where improvements over 2004 actually matter. (Doing much better than Kerry did in, e.g., North Dakota doesn't help Obama much. It turns a 27-point loss into, say, a ten-point loss.)
Looking at the swing states, MI, FL, NH, WV, and NV are concerning for Obama--he's underperforming Kerry in those states. FL is particularly troubling for Democrats: FL was just barely a swing state in '04. Kerry lost by five points there, and this analysis suggests it may be out of reach for the Dems in '08. McCain should look at this map and conclude he has no need to pick Charlie Crist as V.P.
By contrast, MN, IA, WI, MO, VA, NM, CO, OR, and (surprisingly) OH are heartening for Democrats: these are states that were close in the last election where Obama is now besting Kerry's score. It may be quite awhile before the Obama caravan goes anywhere near St. Paul again!
Wait...Whaaaaaaaa?
Essentially, your map this has Obama doing significantly better than Kerry, yet your electoral vote polls have him in an almost dead heat w/ Mcain. What gives?
Anon 20:38...
It's probably the 538 regression.
Right now it looks like a big Obama win, with him carrying VA, MO and OH, IA and almost all of the Kerry states
Wow. The similarity between that map and the primary race is striking.
Can you compare with 2000? It's close enough historically, apparently rather like the current shape of 2008, and it was a tie - outperforming Gore is the essence of victory. (Kerry came close, but with a very EV-efficient strategy compensating for a bad result).
I don't see this map as particularly good news. Look at how many of these states where Obama is polling better than Kerry are either longshots or no-shots for Obama.
Who cares if the Repub strongholds only go for McCain by 15 points instead of 25? Either way we're getting nothing in the Southeast, nothing in the Plains, and nothing in Big Sky country.
To me the takeaway is that he's trailing Kerry in Florida and Michigan, and it's a jump ball in PA and Ohio. That's horrible news.
Ah wow, and there is a new "Scenario" thing on the right side. I´ll add that to my sheet later today, I´m a little bit busy because the macros run absolutely slow today and I have to find out why.
This looks great, but I imagine it'd look less impressive if it was compared with the Kerry/Bush numbers from June 2004.
Either way, it would be nice to have this map alongside the others on the right-hand side and see how it progresses over time (and talking of progress over time, would it be possible to have a daily archive of the maps and stats so that we can monitor changes and trends)?
Ah, you took Clinton away on the left frame? But adding McCain?
McCain´s just 100-Obama, that should be clear.
Mikey:
The republicans are having so much trouble raising funds this time around that they will be forced to practically omit many states from their campaign, namely all of the democratic and republican strongholds. In addition they will likely only lightly cover states that lean republican strongly but aren't guaranteed. To contrast, Obama has enough money already to not just carry out a fifty state strategy but do so aggressively. He will be able to move all of the republican leaning states slightly more center than they are now.
What this means for the election is that there will be around ten states that the republicans assumed they were going to win, in each of which Obama has a 15% chance of winning. This may seem unimportant at first glance, but if you do the math this works out to an 80% chance of Obama winning at least one of them. That is in fact huge, and if you discount such scenarios then Obama's win percentage at the top of the page would be much less than 52.8%. Remember that a couple months ago people were saying that Obama had very little chance of winning New Hamshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, or Missouri but altogether Obama wants to win at least one of them in over 21.4% of scenarios (otherwise he loses that scenario).
So, with huge money discrepancies like we have this season, the longshot states do matter.
Love the "Scenarios" list!
What stands out to me the most: for all the talk of changing the map, this really highlights the continued importance of the same Rust Belt battlegrounds. If either candidate can win all three of OH, MI and PA, he wins the election more than 99% of the time.
Though come to think of it, "Obama loses Ohio, wins election" at 18.25% is not that bad. Win a win percentage of 52.8% it means about 35% of his wins are Ohio-less.
You know what would be really interesting, would be characterizing those 35% no-OH Obama victories. Were they mostly victories through the mountain west with CO, NM, NV? Kerry + Iowa + Virginia? It's hard to imagine him winning a landslide but not picking up OH, so most of those victories are probably squeakers. Any way we could get some statistics on this?
Oh, and no maps in 10000 being the same as 2004 blows my mind. On the face of it it seems like it must be a fluke. What is so very different? Does Obama win Iowa too much or something?
All this and Draft Day too, it's almost too much. Great great work as usual!
What's the deal with Nevada? It has similar demographics to Colorado and borders California, the Dobson factor alone can't swing him that much in Colorado, why the 10 point difference in how he's doing?
Oh shnap lots of changes are rolling out. The round-the-clock dedication to this sight is highly impressive!
Anonymous on Nevada:
Despite the small border, Arizona I believe is having an effect. Note that much of Nevada's population is concentrated toward its southern parts and they are also geographically and culturally similar.
Anonymous on Nevada:
Despite the small border, Arizona I believe is having an effect. Note that much of Nevada's population is concentrated toward its southern parts and they are also geographically and culturally similar.
Oliver:
Unfortunately 18.25% is the ratio of Obama wins out of the scenarios where he loses Ohio. (939 of 5145) not out of all scenarios. So, as the must-win states shove Ohio, and a lot of other states, is very often won by the winner.
Forget my previous post, way too hasty in my conclusions. Let's wait until Nate explains the new features.
Anonymous @ 3:13: Those 15% probabilities are not independent of each other. The point is good, but the probability of Obama winning one of those states is a good bit less than 80%.
wanna pet that distribution
Øystein - you're right, for "Obama loses Ohio, wins election" I was too hasty, it's not 18.25% of all 10000 scenarios, but 18.25% of a subset of 5145. It makes sense like you said that the 5145 are all scenarios where he loses Ohio - they can't be all scenarios where he wins, because that wouldn't make sense with the next couple entires (like "Obama loses OH/PA, wins election" is 47 out of 2898, so I assume 2898 is the number of scenarios where he loses OH/PA) but actually his number of victories is pretty close to the number of times he loses Ohio, both around 51-52%, so he's also (if I understand this right) losing Ohio about 18% of the time he wins.
And if I am reading this right, then it is even rarer than I said before for a candidate to lose OH/PA/MI and still win. For Obama it's 5 out of 10000, or 1/20 of 1%!
We should probably wait for the Natexplanation, but it's hard not to play with the numbers. I'm still curious about the distribution of non-Ohio Obama victories!
Anonymous :13, I appreciate your optimism but I'm still dubious about the implications of this map.
As an exercise in pure probability, I understand that taking ten shots at a 15% chance will likely result in at least one being converted. As a practical matter I don't think the logic applies to this scenario.
For example, if I gave you ten chances to draw one card to a straight in five-card poker, would you offer me 4-1 odds that you would draw at least one straight? Sure, why not?
But if I gave you ten states in which Obama's average chance of winning is currently around 15% according to poblano, would you really lay me 4-1 odds that Obama will take one of the ten? I can't believe you would. If you would, I think a lot of people would line up to take that bet!
I have very much a traditional Dem view of this year's map. PA, OH, MI: Best two out of three wins the presidency. Maybe I'm stuck in the past. I've felt all year that Obama's ability to dramatically change the map is greatly exaggerated. I'd love to be wrong.
I am confused about some of these diagrams. What does the electoral vote distribution and must win states mean?
I believe the electoral vote distribution is the same as before, just more accurately represented now. That is, it's a plot of the number of times Obama got each electoral vote total in the 10,000 simulations. The vertical axis isn't that important because the point is the relative values (because theoretically the distribution would look similar were one to do 100,000 runs instead) but it looks like each horizontal line represents 10 results.
The tipping point states are the states which, when ordered from highest to lowest percent of the vote for Obama, contain the 269th electoral vote the most often, with the percentage of the time it occurs for each state. Equivalently, these are the states which, when ordered from highest to lowest percent of the vote for McCain, contain the 270th electoral vote the most often, with the percentage of the time it occurs for each state.
Comparing with the scenarios chart, the Must-Wins are the states which are most frequently won by the victor of the election, with the percentage of the time the state goes to the winner. So, for instance, if you are the candidate who won Ohio then you have an 84.4% chance of winning the whole thing currently.
I wonder about some results of your "scenario list", or to be exact: Almost all of them.
You know, I tried to rebuild your spreadsheet (for some reason I have a Obama Win% of 54,6% in the moment, but it´s close to yours otherwise. 273,7 EV for Obama, Popular Vote 50,1-49,9 Obama. And it´s without the most recent MO and KS poll.)
I tested all scenarios with my last 10000 trial heats and got some really different results out. Some of that is because is certainly because of some slight differences in the methodology, but probably not everything.
Obama loses PV, wins EC:
You got a chance of 4,65% for that, I got 8,03%. But that´s probably just random noise and different range of random numbers.
McCain loses PV, wins EC:
The same.
You got 2,89% out, I 5,89%.
At least we both agree that McCains chances to do that are smaller than Obamas, and at about the same ratio.
Electoral Tie:
I found 63 scenarios where that happened, you 50. Random noise, when I consider your post one or two weeks ago, where you found 65 of 10000 or something like that.
Obama Landslide:
You:9,71
Me: 5,32
McCain Landslide:
You 8,53%
Me: 4,07%
I think I know why this is: Your range of random numbers is bigger than mine, so theres a greater chance of a landslide (and some other scenarios as losing PV while winning the EC) for both sides.
Now it gets interesting:
Obama lost Ohio while winning the Election in 939 of 5145 runs in your sheet.
In mine he did that in 1711 of 5056 runs.
That means, he wins 1 of 3 elections where he loses Ohio. That´s a lot more than you have. What do you think is more realistic looking at the numbers and not running them?
For McCain, thats 1199 of 4944 elections, or
24,25%.
Also a lot higher, almost 2:1.
For OH/PA:
Obama: You say that there is a 1.62% chance of winning the election while losing OH/PA.
I found 2390 simulations where he lost OH/PA and he won 396 of them, that is still 16,6%.
McCain loses both states in 4252 trial heats, and wins the election in 817 of them: That´s a 19,21% chance.
For OH/PA/MI:
Obama loses all of them in 2049 elections, but wins 293 of them:
14,29%.
This is maybe a bit high, but only 5 of 2583 elections in your Scenario Analysis?
I can think of many winning coalitions excluding PA, OH and MI.
For McCain thats 315 out of 2907 elections, or a 10,83% chance.
Now Obama wins all Kerry states.
You assume that he has a 25,22% chance to do that, my sheet says it´s about 10%.
But the striking difference is in the next scenario:
McCain wins all Bush States.
You say he has a chance of 9,03% to do that, I DID NOT FIND A SINGLE SCENARIO WHERE HE WAS ABLE TO DO THAT.
Remember, he has to hold Iowa.
And you give him only a 17% chance to do that.
That means, he has to win ALL Bush states in more than 50% of the scenarios where he wins Iowa.
He must win Colorado, where Obama is the favorite, he must win New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia- and in all these states Obama has a realistic chance to win.
I don´t think your number is realistic here, and then the other results could be wrong, too.
I also did not find any map identical to either the 2004 or the 2000 map.
Anon at 4:41 AM
Yes, I understand it the same way.
And I´d think the horizontal line represents 20 elections.
great redesign!
-obsessed
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the state-by-state breakdown, but McCain wins Ohio only 50% of the time on the left and yet he wins it over 51% of the time on the right. What the dealie, yo?
Also, it wasn't clear from my wording above, but the Must-Win percentage works both ways. That is, the winner of Ohio wins the whole thing 84.4% of the time and the winner of the whole thing wins Ohio 84.4% of the time, and similarly for each of the other states (this is easy to see because each state is won in each simulation and the whole thing is won in each simulation so you're really only comparing where the two match to where they don't).
What made Obamas Win% drop by 0.7% or so right now?
DId you add new polls or change something in the regression?
(National Polls? But that would actually be GOOD for Obama)
What this means for the election is that there will be around ten states that the republicans assumed they were going to win, in each of which Obama has a 15% chance of winning. This may seem unimportant at first glance, but if you do the math this works out to an 80% chance of Obama winning at least one of them.
This is wrong.
You're assuming that the factors driving outcome in each state are independent to one another. Bad assumption. They are all linked. The factors that cause North Dakota to vote for McCain are the same factors that cause Mississippi to vote for McCain.
Put it another way: if McCain wins West Virginia and South Dakota and Montana then the chances of McCain also winning Alaska are significantly increased. Much higher than the 82% it was without this information.
In 2006, the Democrats won nearly every Senate contest that was "in play". If we think of each contest as an independent event, then this is statistically unlikely. But in actual fact it was unsurprising. The same factors driving voters in Missouri to vote Democratic were the same factors driving voters in Virginia to vote Democratic.
loftus,
That´s right, his Win Percentage for Alaska moves up to about 92,5% in that case.
The point about the "10 unlikely States" is that each of them will generate scary polls for McCain, forcing him to spend resources there, reducing his chances in Michigan.
Nate!
In your list of characterizations, didn't provide an explanation for one of the pink/red states: Oklahoma. Other than Arkansas it's the only pink island in the sea of heartland blue.
Why?? I mean, granted Sooners like the color red, but still. I don't buy a "next door to Clinton" argument, because 1) the Clinton name is much maligned in Oklahoma, and 2) the other states next-door to Arkansas are not pink.
So what is it? Is there really that much racism in the state? I've been stunned at how strong the anti-Obama rhetoric is here. Projections are like a 65/35 split in November, maybe even more lopsided than that.
So what do you guys think?
This map is misleading. Obama is doing better in states like Idaho, but he isn't likely to win there unless it is a landslide. Can you drop the ones that are not competitive?
One more 2004 effect to note: Obama is doing better in George W. Bush's home state of Texas.
Please clarify.
Is this how Obama/McCain are doing, relative to the Kerry/Bush polling in June 2004? or is this how Obama/McCain are doing, relative to the final results in November 2004?
I'm guessing that it is in comparison with June, 2004. For examnple, the map has Mississippi tied between the two years, but Bush won Miss. by 19 points, while McCain is only ahead by 13 right now. Same thing with Delaware. The map has it tied, but the gap is 11 between Obama and McCain, while Kerry only won Del by 8.
Nate,
Look at your Highlands! I'd say this map confirms your early decision to define the region that way, including Oklahoma. It really is a distinctive fraction of the country: one I love and one that can make me nuts at the same time
Nate,
having trouble understanding the color-coding here...hopefully there'll be a key eventually?
Also, if you could restrict your color spectrum & avoid the palest pinks & blues, you'd really help yourself with the all-important moderately-color-blind demo! :-)
Lastly, am I off in thinking a similar comparison to Bush/Gore 2000 would be of equal or greater value?
You aren't considering the hidden racist vote. Look at the internals of the polls. Obama rarely breaks 50% and there's at least 10% undecided, and most of the undecided are white people.
If you think these undecided people are going to break for Barack Obama after the 527's have their way with him, you got another think coming. The white undecideds will break for McCain just as they did for Hillary.
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,
^^ 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,
a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊
成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優
成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊
a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,
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