6.19.2008

Today's Polls, 6/19

For the Democrats, it must feel like 2000 all over again. A day after Quinnipiac and American Research Group showed Barack Obama with his first leads in Florida, Rasmussen finds him still 8 points behind. That's a slight improvement from Rasmussen's last poll in Florida, which had shown Obama trailing by 10 points, but obviously a long way from something that would get the job done in November.

We talked a little bit yesterday about the differences in accounting for party identification between the different pollsters. Those differences seem as though they're particularly large in Florida, where Rasmussen has consistently had Obama way down, but Quinnipiac more competitive.

At the end of the day, however, what matters is not so much the Florida result in the abstract, but where it stands relative to other states. Our model calls Florida a toss-up -- but it's also giving Obama credit for about a 5 point lead nationally. If the election tightens, is Florida still a state in which he wants to invest resources? Were I running his campaign, I'd commission some internal polling of the state, as Florida is so resource-intensive that a decision may need to be made on it relatively early.

That's about it insofar as the polling goes today. Rasmuseen's national tracker still has Obama ahead by 3 points; Gallup will not be releasing numbers today. Economist/YouGov also has some national numbers out that I'd failed to be mindful of; Obama leads by 3 points in their poll conducted this week, and led by 4 last week, after having trailed in most of The Economist's polling throughout the month of May.

97 comments

Aaron said...

Nate-

Is there any place where we can see the national polls that you are using? I think it might be appropriate to include a national "state" where we can see thoes polls and their weights.

Anonymous said...

Florida is an example of why you shouldn't use national polls for states where there is data regularly coming out. The demographics of Florida are not that representative of the country as a whole in some respects. And there are polls on Florida literally every week. I trust the Florida polls as predictors better than an aggregation of national polls. The Democratic party's handling of the Florida party primary hurt them there too, and that won't be captured in national polls. You have changed your measures to help Obama in Florida by adding in the national polls, though it appears 'objective' when it really isn't.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Anon @ 12:24, there were three polls of Florida in the last two days, but no other Florida polls since May 19. It looks like everyone polls Florida only once a month, and they're all at the same time. So until yesterday, we had no idea what had been going on in Florida in the past month!
That, and the regression Nate uses is all about things like the demographic differences between states.

Ben said...

For one thing, both the Republicans and Democrats stripped Florida of 1/2 of its primary votes. The GOP and Dems ended up treating Florida exactly the same.

Another thing, he didn't "change his measures" to use national polls in Florida. Do you have a problem following this site? He said that the model shows Obama ahead by 5 nationally but a tie in Florida. Thus, in a tie nationally, he could easily fall behind in Florida. He wasn't saying that national polls will count in the Florida model.

Nate said...

@11:24: If you take the average of the three new Florida polls, Obama is ahead by 0.3 points. I have him ahead by 0.9 points. So ... I'm not sure what your point is.

Alex said...

If Obama is within 5 points of Florida, an advertising push there is worthwhile for him. He has a lot of avenues to a win without Florida; McCain has almost none. The major media markets in Florida are quite expensive, so Obama could put a huge drain on McCain's more limited coffers by mounting a Florida attack. Even if he still loses Florida (and I want to see the next two weeks of Florida polls, if the Republicans push the oil drilling issue hard), he gains a strategic advantage in other states like Michigan and Ohio, not to mention states like North Dakota and Alaska. Pushing at Florida is a good plan for Obama.

sdf said...

Are there breakdowns of Party identification in the Rasmussen poll vs. the Quinnipiac and/or ARG polls? Twould, of course, be interesting to compare.

unertl said...

In addition to already making a few stops in FL, the Obama campaign hired Steve Schale to head state operations. They've made it abundantly clear that they are going to fight for Florida. I have a feeling they've already done extensive internal polling and picked their battlegrounds otherwise they wouldn't be contesting Georgia either (they clearly see something the rest of us don't)

sdf said...

Nate, what are the percentages for both candidates on "loses Florida, wins election?"

kubla000 said...

Nate, Take a Bow man!

Obama is Reading 538, or at least his team is

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/obama_airs_first_general_elect.php

They've DROPPED Oregon, Washington and New Jersey in their ad buy (From the original Organizing 17) and added North Dakota, Indiana, Montana and Alaska (Redefining their idea of swing states)

kubla000 said...

Sorry, link here

MVRed.com said...

The issue I have with this site is you guys putting far too much weight on national polls, when you post your state data.

McCain is winning Florida right now. Hell he is leading in every poll there except two, and that Quinnipiac surely looks to poll more Democrats if you look at their polls across many states.

I like what you are doing, but clearly questioning the way you are doing it. You are thinking too objectively with these polls.

Think November, and predict it that way. WV and Indiana are locks for the GOP, but you have them as toss up's or lean Democrats. C-mon now...

Anonymous said...

North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska are all super-cheap to advertise in, so they probably figured, why not?

Anonymous said...

I'm just waiting for someone to declare that McCain has an advantage because he has better team chemistry and intangibles. He's a Proven Veteran, after all.

Alex said...

MVRed,

When you say he's "leading in every poll there except two," you're missing the whole point. Previous polls in Florida (beyond the two showing Obama ahead and one behind) were taken at least a month ago, at a clip of two per month. Those polls are no longer really relevant, with Obama wrapping up the nomination and pivoting to the general election. They are rightly weighted far less than polls that were completed over the last few days.

Nate is projecting towards November. We don't have new poll data for Indiana and WV, so we can't say that they are locks for anyone. What we do have is poll data from regions that are demographically similar to those states, so we can use those to predict how they would react.

How can he be "thinking too objectively" with polls? Are you saying that the conventional wisdom that WV and IN are red states is more powerful than what the people of those states (and people that are like them) are actually saying?

Anonymous said...

To Ben: "For one thing, both the Republicans and Democrats stripped Florida of 1/2 of its primary votes. The GOP and Dems ended up treating Florida exactly the same."

The "exactly the same" part isn't true, and you know this. The GOP gave 1/2 delegates before the primary, while the Democrats waited to do that only after declaring candidates shouldn't campaign in the state (and they didn't, except for fundraisers) and only post hoc alloacted 1/2 delegates once it was moot for the final delegate totals. Anyone living in Florida probably ran into Giuliani or McCain at the grocery store before the primary while Obama and Clinton were nowhere to be found. The DNC screwed up the handling of Florida, even if the final outcomes of 1/2 delegates was the same on paper.

Aaron said...

MVred:

The issue is that most of the florida polls are old, taken during the democratic primary. Since two of those polls show a bounce and one shows no effect, and we are seeing a bounce nationally and in dozens of other states, it makes sense to adjust the OLD data in accord with the national bounce. This is in the post "adjustment II: we know more than we think." Furthermore, new polls are not adjusted.

In Florida's case, the adjustment is small +0.6. It's really not worth nitpicking.

Stephen C. Rose said...

Beginning to think there will be a serious anti-McCain Barr Effect.

Aaron said...

I just want to point out how ridiculous it is that all the republicans on this site are moaning about what a bad idea it is to take into account time-adjustment for momentum and to include national polls into the model.

It will all help McCain just as much once he has some momentum of his own in the polls. The knee-jerk reaction "you must be wrong about every state that Bush won because there is no way they could possibly be won by a democrat" is just uninformed and annoying.

Anonymous said...

I'm anon @11.24. Nate said "@11:24: If you take the average of the three new Florida polls, Obama is ahead by 0.3 points. I have him ahead by 0.9 points. So ... I'm not sure what your point is."

You wrote this: "Our model calls Florida a toss-up -- but it's also giving Obama credit for about a 5 point lead nationally." It sounds like you are combining recent polls in Florida with national polls to predict your Florida outcome. This seems wrong, or else I misunderstand. Either way, you need to either clarify what you are doing or if I am correct, drop the national polls as part of your specific state predictions.

I like this site, but it is almost like you need to consult a statistician who favors McCain (or just someone who doesn't care for Obama) before going public with some of your posts, just for balance. Too often you are presenting 'objective' and good analyses--but sometimes with the 'best' data available (e.g., you are giving Obama a Florida bounce by including national polls).

So your statewide 'bounce' column from yesterday has not yet been updated with the new polls from Rasmssuen. It give the misleading suggestion that there is an Obama bounce in Ohio, but there may not be when we consider Rasmussen. That is the sort of way this page is getting just a bit biased.

And then of course the posts by Sean are just biased and bad.

Anonymous said...

To Aaron, I'm not a Republican. I don't particularly care for either major-part candidate in the election, but will probably vote for Obama. I don't think including the national vote is necessarily a good idea for state-level predictions. It's bad stats. Florida does not resemble the country. Neither does South Dakota or Texas.

Aaron said...

Anon above-

If this site is so "biased," then why has Rasmussen Reports teamed up with fivethirtyeight.com for it's "balance of power" calculations?

Give me a break.

jbryan said...

I'm absolutely delighted seeing Alaska, North Dakota, North Carolina, Georgia, Montana, and Indiana in the Obama campaign's general election ad buy.

It's also good that he realizes he really doesn't need to play that hard for Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, and Maine. But the offensive, expansive nature of the ad buy is really promising to me; I hope he keeps it up and aggressively goes after these marginal or Republican-leaning states throughout the summer.

Anonymous said...

One other issue with Florida. Your regression based projection on Florida has Obama +2.8%. Is a variable for Latinos included? And is this based on past voting in Florida only--or nationally? Florida Latinos, with a large proportion of Cubans, are more Republican.

And finally, what about undecideds? There is a good case to be made based on academic research by Berinsky that people in the don't know/undecided category, if they are white, are more likely to vote for a white candidate. Racial bias occurs in non-response in polling, not in outright lying. So might we need to subtract 1-3% points from Obama in states with large %s of undecided white voters?

Anonymous said...

Well the polls here make me feel good because they are optimistic for Obama, but I agree that putting Indiana leaning blue is wishful thinking as well as Florida. I wish you'd keep the old map up along with this new version.

I'd like to see how Obama is faring against McCain using your old model also. Forever during the primary you had him with slight leads over McCain, and then boom one day a dramatic shift to a huge lead.

MC said...

I live in Tampa where Obama just opened his offices for the state.

Florida's numbers are very malleable at the moment because there's been very little campaigning here. Neither candidate campaigned here though McCain did make an appearance early with Governor Christ after he won the state. Obama didn't step foot in the state until very recently. A lot of the results are driven by name recognition. Were it me I'd give a wide standard deviation to any Florida results this month.

With the establishment of field offices and the debate over offshore drilling beginning we are starting to see actual campaigning in the state. Poll results over the next few weeks should begin to stabilize.

As for the party identification issue, Florida is a very conservative state and Florida Democrats have tended to be conservative. Democratic members of the congressional delegation tend to be conservative however younger Democrats tend to be more liberal since younger conservatives are simply joining the Republican party.

In the end the entire thing is a mess and right now I would give any polling results in Florida a large deviation. Expect the numbers in Florida to stabilize in the next four to six weeks as field offices open up and campaigning really gets going.

Anonymous said...

Well, I now value Rasmussen less. I wonder if Scott Rasmussen read what Sean had to say in his ridiculous posts. I'm now questioning Rasmussen's credibility too (which means the Qpac numbers are probably better).

Anonymous said...

Nate,

A while back you listed the swing states and compared them to obama's and mccain's list.

Obama just released a new general election ad — airing in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Are all the above states swing states? Kinda surprised New Jersey, Oregon and Washington are not on the list, and of course I am sure you notice Alaska is on the list ... Indiana too

Cugel said...

What is so complicated to figure out about Florida?

If you assume as Rassmussen does that Florida has a 47-39 (+8) Republican voter I.D. advantage, you find McCain at +8.

If you assume, as Quinnipiac does, that Florida has a 47-43 (+4) Democratic voter I.D. advantage, you find Obama at +4.

If you assume, as ARG does, that Florida has a 49-43 (+5) Democratic voter I.D. advantage, you find Obama at +5.

That tells us that Florida is an absolute dead-heat right now and which side you give the advantage to depends entirely on whether you believe that Democrats have increased partisan voter I.D. in Florida or not.

If they do and if these new Democratic voters show up on election day, then Obama wins. If not, then McCain wins.

Nothing could be more simple to understand.

Now, we need some reasoned argument about what the hell the REAL partisan voter I.D. in Florida actually is, because that's the only way to resolve this discrepancy.

Anonymous said...

I think the real debate ought to be about when we give Florida back to Spain.

Richard said...

To everyone complaining about the new trend adjustment, it's very easy to make your own, non-trend-adjusted predictions using the Polling Average and the 583 Regression, neither of which are trend-adjusted. I don't see what the problem is.

SG said...

Why do people seriously think Florida is in play?

It isn't.

This election will not be about Florida. Rather it'll be about the Western states, several of which seemed poised to flip. Florida is old news. The South is a Republican lock, so be it - who cares? I even conservative-minded folks in Colorado, Nevada, and even Montana and Alaska are getting tired of the Southern hicks running the show.

Obama should run a strict West-Mid-West (and yes, that would ABSOLUTELY include a trip to Alaska) and forget Florida. Obviously, I'm assuming the Eastern seaboard north of Virginia remains solidly Blue.

If he does that, he'll win.

MC said...

Alex @ 11:28: Even if Obama doesn't win Florida making Florida a big fight is a win for him because of the resource reasons you listed. There are four metro areas large enough for a professional sports franchise to advertise in (Tampa Bay, Miami, Jacksonville and Orlando) plus a few smaller ones (Gainesville, Tallahassee and Pensacola). Putting McCain on the defensive in these markets is going to make it expensive to defend.

Cugel: the problem with partisan ID in Florida is that we are schizophrenic. A lot of older Democrats are conservative while the younger Democrats are liberal. There are still people in this state who will never register as a Republican and who will never support a Democrat for federal office. Being Registered as, Identifying as and Tending to support are three different questions that often have three different answers here in Florida.

SG said...

My above comment should read "a strict West-Midwest CAMPAIGN"

Juris said...

Comment on FL: I do think the Q and ARG polls were probably OTL, and the Rasmussen one catches reality as of 3 days ago. All just "my opinion," of course. And that's why we like to have multiple polls using somewhat different methods.

But then in the last two days McCain made the mistake of raising the offshore drilling specter, and yesterday Bush reinforced it, followed by Gov. Crist.

This has the effect of once again tying McCain to Bush, and now Crist to both of them, on an issue that many Floridians are sensitive to. You can read editorials in St. Pete Times and Miami Herald today on the "pandering" by McCain and Crist.

McCain created his own wedge issue -- one that will wedge environmentally conscious Floridians of both parties away from his candidacy, and take their minds off some other issues.

So FL may well be in play in part because McCain made a major misstep and possibly a miscalculation on this issue. And Bush tied a large rock to McCain and Crist -- alienating them from a significant part of the Florida voters.

But of course, time will tell, and we will be especially interested in what further polling might reveal.

Anonymous said...

Cugel- where did you get those numbers about the varying voter ID advantage in FL polls?

Stephen said...

SG--

Abandoning Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida when polls show them all in play and Obama is at an advantage in resources would be insane. The polling averages for McCain's lead in North Carolina are around the same as for Obama's lead in PA and OH--and you bet those states are going to be contested. He's actually *ahead* in Virginia (consistently) and Florida (inconsistently) in the most recent surveys. These three states are every bit as "in play" as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Obama's going to contest this thing across the map.

Phil, OH said...

SG, What in the world does Obama have to gain by ignoring states entirely? The whole point of a fifty state strategy is to avoid being put into a hole where you have only one way to win, and then have that hole closed off. Obama has a lot of ways to win this election, and a lot of them run through the South. Virginia, the carolinas, florida, yes, and maybe even georgia can be had. John McCain doesnt have the pulling power George Bush did down south. Don't count a Democrat out, especially with the Republican brand in outright retreat this year.

To Richard said...

You have a point well taken. But I'm not running a web site and trying to present objective data. 538.com and Nate had excellent data analyses of the primaries, based on regressions and poll trends. I felt like I could trust the data. That's what brought me to this site. But, wisely, he didn't use national polls to smooth out the primary data. Now, based on his reputation developed from the primaries NOT using national polls to infer state-level predictions, he has changed his methodology. The change has resulted in a slight Obama probability of winning to a massive probability of winning. Reporters now trust Nate because of his previous work in the primaries, so they assume Obama is now a shoo-in. But they are oblivious to the methodological change. It's troubling, actually. I'm wondering if the primary was a way to bring us in using good, objective analysis, but now that the general is on, can I trust these data and predictions?

Anonymous said...

any more polls coming out today ?

when is the next TX poll coming out ?

Juris said...

Having a 50 state strategy does not mean that you devote the same time and financial resources to each state. The rarest of your resources as a candidate is your own time in the field. He can't travel to all 50 states, even if he "doubles" up in some ways.

Nate's point is that FL is a resource intensive state because of multiple separate media markets and distance (400 mi. from Tallahassee to the Keys, 180 to JAX, 200 to Tampa St. Pete).

Sure, you can run ads in every major market, and criss cross certain critical states by planes, trains, and automobiles; and saturate them with field offices. But you still have to optimize on your resources.

Thus a 50-state strategy means only that you don't rule out any state a priori, and you can try to broaden the playing field from that of the last few elections, but you have to make choices.

Stephen said...

To the bloke who keeps complaining about national polls--

You make it sound as though Nate's taking a national poll and saying "well, if Obama's up 4 point nationally, he must be up 4 points everywhere!" That's not what he's doing at all. He's taking national *movement* in the polls and applying similar *movement* to states without recent polling. Note that in, say, Ohio, the "trend adjustment" result is almost the same as the actual average of the most recent polls. This is a method to keep what we know about national polling (which should be, of course, in theory nothing more than the sum of the state polls) from being ignored based on old, invalid data. There's nothing anti-objective about it--and if Obama's numbers dip nationally, you'll see the exact same swing play out in reverse, this time benefiting McCain.

Alex said...

SG,

I believe Florida is in play because the most recent polls indicate that it is in play. A couple people have come and simply declared that it is not, as if they have knowledge that no one else does, but you play the cards you're dealt. Polling averages for this month say Florida is a toss-up.

In regards to competing in various parts of the country/the 50 state strategy: I have to believe there is diminishing returns on spending campaign resources in any one state. At some point the market is saturated with your advertising and your message, and people make their decisions, tune out or turn against you.

Obama has so much money that he could easily saturate any one state he turned his eyes to. The key, then, is not to use his resource advantage only in a few states, and beat McCain simply by shouting louder than him. It is to spread the money around so that he is getting the best marginal return for each dollar country-wide, and force McCain to drain his own coffers in defense. Force McCain to go all-in on a state (as Kerry did Ohio in 2004), and we'll see how much better that strategy plays in 2008.

Another Mike said...

unertl said...

"otherwise they wouldn't be contesting Georgia either (they clearly see something the rest of us don't)."

I really wonder whether Obama has internal polling showing a significant Barr effect that hasn't yet made its way into the public Georgia polling, which has generally been limited to Obama and McCain.

Alex said...

Whoa! New browser icon!

Anonymous said...

Any chance you could post each candidates best and worst showing in a projection? It'd be interesting to see what the best and worst case scenarios are at the moment.

Another Mike said...

MVRed.com said...

"I like what you are doing, but clearly questioning the way you are doing it. You are thinking too objectively with these polls." (emphasis added)

Thinking objectively is the reason I read this site. I can go a million places on the internet to read some talking head's opinions, 99% of it either banal or junk.

bgordon555 said...

I find this odd. If you read the report on Rasmussen for the Florida poll, it almost sounds like a PUSH poll, in which they mingled the oil drilling/gas price issue with presidential preference.

I tried searching for a more professional report of the poll, but couldn't find one.

Leo said...

To Richard: What has resulted in an increase in Obama's odds is the fact that more people are saying they will vote for him. Approximately 5% more. You are correct that the current analysis is based in part on interpolating changes in the candidates' support in some places based on demographic analysis of changes in other places. But the alternative--assuming that month old polls are still reliable--is far more suspect.

At any rate, there will be ample opportunity for this model to prove itself (or not) over the coming months. As new polls come out, we will be able to assess whether the time-trend adjusted numbers tend to accurately predict the candidates' level of support.

Finally, remember that this site is making a probabilistic projection. Saying Obama has a 75% chance of winning isn't saying he will win. It's saying he has a good chance of winning. Given the current polling, anyone who doesn't think that is true is not operating from reality.

obama08 said...



OBAMA'S FIRST NATIONAL TV AD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVTBiGh00c

Cugel said...

Basically, how can different results in all these polls be reconciled?

By seeing that everything depends on whether you think there are more Democrats than Republicans in Floria or vice-versa.

If McCain is drawing the same level of support from Republicans as Obama is from Democrats (simplifying assumption), or if the Independent vote offsets whatever advantage exists, then pure partisan ID will determine the race.

In most states we can use the national polling to add an "extra poll" to weight the results one way or another. This of course favors Obama right now, which is why Florida is light blue on Nate's map.

From what some have said, though Florida seems to be a particularly hard state to judge real partisan I.D. since there are LOTS of older voters who are lifelong "Democrats" who will NEVER consider registering themselves as "Republicans" (the party of Lincoln and all), but who have voted reliably Republican in every Presidential contest since 1968.

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that's a real polling problem in Florida.

If you simply ask people "who are you voting for?" and use that as "Partisan I.D.", then you probably make it too volatile. If you ask "who did you vote for in 2004" and use that, too UNDER-volatile, since it under-represents the changes in Voter I.D. since the last Presidential election, due to Bush-fatigue.

I'm starting to think Florida is going to be an especially tough race to get a real read on -- no matter how many polls are used.

Remember that to get mathematically significant results from such a small sample size you have to make BIG assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the poll is going to be wrong too.

If you weight by partisan I.D. that is one assumption,

If not (as SurveyUSA does not) then you have to use demographics to determine who will vote and in what percentages (i.e. who is a likely voter), etc. Even if you use "registered voters" this introduces it's own error because not all "registered voters" vote or are at all likely to vote -- based on past elections.

I personally don't like Gallup because of their use of the "likely voter" model, which I think is dubious this far out in the election. Of course, by election day, it's pretty good. Even so, what impact will huge registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns have on the "likely voter" models?

That's why Nate's throwing everything into the mix and then running simulations is so great. At least we have some boundaries from multiple polls showing multiple results.

But, if you're asking "who's really leading in Florida" I'm afraid you're rather like those 19th century astronomers who stared at Mars with telescopes that weren't big enough to see any Martian ground features -- and used their imaginations to "see" canals!

We just don't really have a good read on each individual state right now.

We can say "Obama's winning overall" and likely to win an electoral college majority, but which states will he win? And by how much? Who the hell knows?

Another Mike said...

Anonymous said...

"I don't think including the national vote is necessarily a good idea for state-level predictions. It's bad stats."

That's not really what 538 is doing. It is using national polls along with state polls to estimate how the race has changed over time and then adjusting the older state polls accordingly. That's the Trend Adjustment and it's listed for each state. If you think it's bad projections, Nate has been open enough about his methodology to list the polling average before the trend adjustment. So, if you prefer, just go with that number. Personally, however, Nate's trend adjusted averages have been much closer to the new polls than the non-trend adjusted polling average, proving its predictive worth, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Too many polls. I love this site but it's driving me crazy. I am taking the summer off from all the polling. I will be listening to Barack and McCain speak on issues and hope that common sense ultimately prevails later in the year. I will come back after Labor Day and will then gleefully participate in what I hope is the biggest Democrat rout since LBJ crushed Goldwater.

Keep the faith y'all.

Richard said...

Nate: several people have asked this question, and I've tried to find the answer myself to no avail: how exactly does Rasmussen handle party ID? Are they using party ID figures to weight the polling results demographically a la Zogby? And if so, do you have any idea where they're getting their information on party ID from?

Anonymous said...

Rasmussen is essentially a Republican Operator. I've had this discussion before, having caught on to how every single Rasmussen poll skews Republican relative to every other poll (no kidding). People who know more about it than me agree, and point to the people who write articles on Rasmussen - many Republican Operatives. I think you should take Rasmussen out of the mix of polls or designate them an internal Republican poll, since they are essentially spewing Republican propaganda.

Anonymous said...

To the last anon- do you also feel that was about PPP, a Democratic pollster?

Rasmussen has been quite accurate in the past. And Nate weights the polls based on their past performance... so if Rasmussen had a track record of being "propaganda," his polls would have little weight here. That's just not the case. His FL result does favor McCain more than other pollsters, but (for example) no other pollster has shown Obama performing better in NC.

Sugerfunk said...

Nate, I am curious if you are using the Favorability/Unfavorability index in your regression or trend adjustments, and if not, whether you think it could be used as a coefficient to narrow down the potential error even further.

Lucas said...

As mentioned above, the Rasmussen poll combined the offshore drilling issue with the standard state polling. But I see this as supporting the conclusion that McCain is actually up there. As the results indicate, a majority of Floridians believe that offshore drilling will help the price of gas. Since this is a breaking issue in the campaign, I see it as something that ought to be taken into account and leading to the conclusion that Obama faces an uphill battle there.

Juris said...

Anonymous wrote:
Too many polls. I love this site but it's driving me crazy. I am taking the summer off from all the polling. I will be listening to Barack and McCain speak on issues and hope that common sense ultimately prevails later in the year. I will come back after Labor Day and will then gleefully participate in what I hope is the biggest Democrat rout since LBJ crushed Goldwater.

Keep the faith y'all.
2008-06-19 14:41


Oh noooooooo! Anonymous is leaving? What a shame!! (It was nice of Anon to tell us this. But I bet she doesn't actually leave. Anyone want to bet otherwise?)

Charles Pluckhahn said...

Help! Help! I'm drowning in good news, and as a Democrat I have no life preserver that works against too much good news! I can hardly wait until the polls start reflecting Barr's encroachment into McCain's numbers.

MVRed.com said...

This is what I am trying to get at. Rasmussen releases poll every single day of the year and they are consistent most of the time with their results. It's interesting to note that their daily tracking poll has Obama up +3, the same day they have McCain up +8 in Florida.

I'm making a big deal here becaues PPP and Quinnipiac release a poll every 1-2 weeks, while Ramussen releases 2-3 polls every day. So who has the longer track record? Ramussen.

You guys can go back historically and follow different Rasmussen polls and what the eventual outcome actually was. Rasmussen right is reporting Obama, with leaners, has 273 electoral votes, something I can buy, as opposed to the 335 on here.

Stephen said...

mvred--

First of all, while Rasmussen has the longer "Track record", Q has the larger sample size--and, further, the number of people polled is not the only factor, the way polls are worded and the way they're weighted make huge differences. I'll be the first to admit that Rasmussen has been a strong pollster, but that strength is factored in to Nate's system. Rasmussen can be and has been wrong in the past. Right now, they're against the trend in Florida (though, to be fair, their poll history in FL shows significant movement to Obama as well).

Further, Ras currently as Obama with only 273 EVs--but that's with about 25 unaccounted for, meaning he could have about 300 by their methodology. Also, Rasmussen has not polled every single state since Obama's boost, so it's hard to argue that their rankings are better than Nate's when Nate's numbers are based on a larger pool of recent data.

Something they probably realize, as they're moved to partner with him for their balance of power calculations.

KAP said...

Two comments:

1) Love the favicon.ico; surprised that nobody's noticed it.
2) Did we lose the tenth-percent significant digit in win percentage in the new state tables? I for one would much prefer to have that back than the meaningless % sign repeated over and over.

Matt said...

MVRed, that's just the point that you and just about every other GOP poster on here is missing. Nate is not trying to tell you where the race stands today based on polls, but rather what the map is likely to look like on election day, based on all polling information, current trends and historical information. How hard is that to understand?

Mike H in Cali said...

For those who complain about Rasmussen being Repub-biased any time they don't like one of his polls, I point out that 538.com, run by the pro-Obama Nate, ranks Rasmussen as the third most accurate pollster in the country (after Seltzer (limited to Iowa manily) and SurveyUSA).

If you average Rasmussen with SurveyUSA, you'll get a good idea for any state.

Anonymous said...

MVRed,

This site has Safe DEM + Likely DEM + Lean DEM = 317, not 335. If Rasmussen style numbers (fewer categories and a weaker attempt to assign electoral votes) makes you less uncomfortable and less likely to continue your curmudgeonly postings here, then either stick with Rasmussen or simply average this site's (Safe DEM + Likely DEM + Lean DEM) with (Safe DEM + Likely DEM). Currently that will give you (317 + 238)/2 = 277.5. Presumably that is close enough to Rasmussen's 273 to ease your troubled mind and give the rest of us some peace.

Anonymous said...

THIS SITE IS SO BIASED TOWARD OBAMA! WTF!
And someone explain that "Obama Electoral Votes" thing with the red and blue lines, and wtf do those percents on the "Swing State Analysis" thing mean?
this site is stupid

Stephen said...

Anon 3:46--

LOL! That was friggin hilarious.

Alex said...

Check out my 1:13 post, KAP ;).

Random thought about the "Must-Win State" meter:

There's been some contention as to how we've defined "must-win." Right now as I understand it's the percentage that a state sides with the winner of the election, but only for close states (otherwise, strong states would have a must-win % that tracked directly to their candidate's win %). I think a better description of this particular classification is "Bellwether." In other words, these states are the ones we hear about "...as goes _______, so goes the nation!"

The higher the "Bellwether" % of a state, the greater predictor it is of the national election. This may be a more intuitive way to describe what you're scoring there.

Matt said...

New Colorado poll from Rasmussen

Obama 43
McCain 41

Anonymous said...

Relatively good news for McCain. Got much tighter and 50% say Obama is inexperienced.

John Peterson said...

I'm just waiting for someone to declare that McCain has an advantage because he has better team chemistry and intangibles. He's a Proven Veteran, after all.

Funny that you say that, because I was thinking that with regards to baseball, I reject the received wisdom and traditional metrics and embrace modern statistical analysis. I would not say that such analysis detracts from, or is separate from, my enjoyment of the game.

However, with politics, the study of the numbers, which is taken to be "politics," actually has nothing to do with the enjoyment of its benefits. Whether done using flawed methodology, or as accurate as possible as on this site, it is totally irrelevant and disconnected from the enjoyment of politics' benefits, i.e. who gets elected and what policies are enacted. These metrics are concerned solely with accurately measuring who plans on voting for whom at this juncture. Thus, I am totally uninterested in its methodology. It has nothing to do with actual law-making and enforcement, the actual purpose of politics. Until you consider the reciprocal self-fulfilling prophecy of it all: policies change because of the numbers, and the numbers change because of policy.

Weird. And another thing. While I consider myself a baseball progressive who rejects the received wisdom (in re: proven veterans and the like), I find progressive liberal policies in politics to be, for the most part, incredibly naive and stupid, based more in whimsy than reason. Thus it is perplexing to me that so many of my peers, rational in other studies, choose feel-good nonsense in politics.

Thanks for letting me share.

Julia said...

How come Obama is doing well in Colorado

its a RED state

these polls make my heard hurt

mhigh said...

Hmm, a little disturbing to see it so close (in that one poll) in Colorado -- I had always counted it as a pretty solid Obama-lean state.

But what I get out of that poll is that 16% are undecided. Is it just me, or has there been a marked increase in undecided voters in recent polls?

Anonymous said...

Dear Republicans,

Please don't feed the animals with your comments. If you have insightful comments on the modeling, please don't leave them! Nate has set up a very nice, very well thought out website, but he is a known Obama supporter and Daily Kos denizen. His models are not unreasonable, but clearly are based on some suspect assumptions. Let them be ... in middle of an Obama bump for winning the Democratic nomination, it will appear that he is going to wipe out McCain. Don't worry, things will settle down and it will be a long, hard slog. Get your van ready and your sneakers comfortable, but don't give the Dem's poster material or better models to work with ... Sheesh!

Stephen said...

john peterson--

Funny how perception works. I always find right-wing politics so ludicrous because it's feel-good nonsense based on wishful thinking rather than a sober analysis of our problems. Funny old world.

John Peterson said...

Stephen,

One example off the top of my head is energy policy. Plenty of liberals my age (under 30) seem to think that the goal of our energy policies should be to reduce our use. That is just not going to happen and is wishful thinking that takes us away from the real issue: having cheap energy that we don't have to make hostile nations rich in order to acquire.

Yet all of the liberal-sponsored energy policies increase our dependence on foreign oil and make it more expensive. They are against drilling offshore and in the Arctic. You know, because of the environment. They are against extracting oil from pil shale. You know, environment. Ludicrously, they are against the safest and potentially the cheapest form of energy: nuclear power. We subsidize ethanol production, which merely drives up the price of food and doesn't save the environment. We place restrictions on carbon emissions. Etc.

I honestly don't know what most of the candidates' positions are on these things, and for the most part, they are both probably on the wrong side of most of them.

But to characterize left-wing politics broadly, I'd say they, not the right-wing, are based on mere fantasy. The world's not going towards less energy use. That's a pipe dream. Any policy that pretends otherwise will needlessly cripple the economy and lessen American prosperity.

I know this isn't the place. Sorry..

michael said...

for those who are interested, Rasmussen's political leanings are easily discerned by going to the political commentary page, where rightwingers Dick Morris, Robert Novak and Michael Barone are featured. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary

That does not axiomatically mean the polls have a bias, but when they are out of step with the other polls from the same place, it is something to take into account, which is why the hot and bothered polls over Ohio, Florida and Colorado by Rasmussen should be taken with a grain of salt until some other reputable pollster such as surveyusa, gallup or quinnipiac confirms them. Bias can be subtly woven in, but there is no doubt that Rasmussen is a partisan...and yes, I would say the same thing about PPP, but the sheer volume of Rasmussen polls feels like a bit if a thumb on the scale. I do believe you should take a look at that, Nate, especially in light of your partnership with Rasmussen You know how the trolls and haters would be flooding this site if your alliance were with PPP...

SG said...

My read on Florida is that it is a victim of inertia. It's not the kind of place these days that will flip, and the resources necessary to get it close will be ENORMOUS there. Of course any election there will be relatively tight given that Broward and Dade counties are more like New York City than anywhere in the South, however, I see McCain winning Florida by the same 5-point margin that Bush did in 2004.

This election will see a dramatic shift in voting patterns in the West, and that's what Obama should be nurturing. He must visit Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and foremost, Colorado, in addition to the obvious large MidWest battlegrounds.

Forget the South. It's a lost cause and quite frankly, I'm happy to let the Republicans have it.

To those who mentioned Virginia - yes indeed it is in play. It's the one Southern state (and it's only borderline anyway) that I would recommend Obama spend significant resources.

Florida is not winnable this year.

Modeler said...

Cugel:

I agree that the underlying demographic data in the polls tells us a lot. The question I've been pondering is whether Nate should fit his regression model to the top-line demographic data from the poll, or data from the states. There are pros and cons to each.

Alex:

Wrong thread! We've been talking about the "must-win" situation on another thread.

I agree with you about the "As so goes..." interpretation. (See my June 17 9:11 comment). Right now, I'm thinking the best way to represent this is, perhaps intuitively, by using correlation. Correlation is also somewhat consistent with Nate's "must-win" definition.

I'm not sure if we should call them bellwether states though; a bellwether fortells, which would make no sense for a west-coast state like NV. I was thinking "telltale" states, but I suspect there's a better term.

Indicator states?
Signal states?

Modeler said...

OK, yes, I know that NV is not actually on the coast.

Stephen said...

John Peterson--

This is a perfect example of how we differ.

1: The idea that energy consumption can't come down is flatly wrong. Oil use has actually marginally declined in the US in the past--technology exists to make it decrease further (even dramatically, if we're willing to upset the auto companies with dramatic fuel efficiency increases). But, of course, the right wing obstructs these measures to protect the economy, as if the way to produce more wealth is to continue to make products that are empirically *worse*.

2: The real happy-smiley delusion in the field of energy is the idea that we can just keep drilling and everything will be okay. This is where the right wing is really in the land of magical fairy dust. The fact is, all those vast oil resources the right wing wants to open up amount to very nearly *nothing* in the scheme of global oil--and in any case, the very soonest they could be brought into production would be *fifteen years* from now. The fact is, hard choices need to be made. Yes, that includes embracing more nuclear, I agree. But more than anything else it means sacrificing short-term economic self-interest to get us off of oil.

Paul Bradford said...

I've asked this question before, but I haven't gotten an answer to it.

Why do some of the states that haven't been polled go up, and others go down?

Today we got a poll in FL that showed Obama trailing McCain. Obama's chances of victory there have dropped from 62.6%(yesterday) to 53%(today). OK. That makes sense, I understand that. What I don't understand is how Obama's chances in ND have gone up 12.1%. It was 27.9% yesterday and today it's up to 40%. Obama's chances have gone up by 5 points or more in NM, MT, SD, AK and WI. What happened today to justify that adjustment?

Obama's lost ground in other states. He's lost three or four points in MO, TN and WV. Something appears to have happened today to improve his chances in the West but worsen them in Appalacia. What am I missing???

apip0115 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

John,

You're absolutely right that there is no stopping the increase in energy use. In fact, increased energy use is exactly the hallmark of a developed (and advancing) civilization. We should not hope to ever decrease our energy use unless we are planning on reverting civilization dramatically.

However, and here's the key point, the way that we use energy right now is both inefficient and detrimental to future energy use. When you talk about a gasoline engine in a car, you're seeing less than 25% efficiency (with a Prius pushing 30%, maybe). If everyone drives an electric vehicle and you consolidate electricity production, you can get much more bang for your energy input--60% efficiency or so. So that's one step: use less input to generate more output.

Step two is realizing that the carbon-based energy system is overwhelming climatic processes. You can argue whatever you'd like as to if the planet is warming, cooling, boogieing or pop-locking, but you can't deny that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Bicarbonate/carbonate in the ocean and biological carbon fixing can't keep pace with the carbon dump-out that is occurring from finding locked carbon sources (oil/gas) and taking them out of the ground.

That being said, my point is that we can and should be finding other ways of harvesting energy. If that's solar, wind, tide, whatever, great. Fixed hydrocarbon energy can only take us so far, and with unknown and probably dangerous effects. Finding other sources is important if we want to continue our energy use-growth.

Regarding nuclear power, it's tough to say how truly safe it is. I read a recent SciAm article about dealing with the waste...currently much of it is just stored in casks and awaiting transport to...somewhere. Where it'll be radioactive forever. In France they reprocess it (or ship it out to be reprocessed), but that leaves them with tons and tons of lightly-radioactive bomb-grade plutonium that no one knows what to do with. I'm not saying nuclear is bad (far from it), but that it has problems that we've never really dealt with that go beyond just "the environment." One day I hope we can just blast it all off into space, but God forbid it blows up en route and showers us all with mutagens.

Long winded point short, left/right wing politics are both marked by overreactions and low-information demagoguery. Many left wing people knee jerk on the environment, many right wing people on taxes, terror or energy. No one stops to think through both sides, it seems. But one of the reasons I like Obama so much is that he does seem to listen to what other people have to say (on most issues--he is not perfect). National Republicans seem exactly the opposite to me. Your mileage may vary, and I'd love to hear stories about how they are open to new thoughts and new ideas, but I won't hold my breath.

Alex.

Alex said...

Thanks for the point-out, Modeler. You definitely beat me to the punch on that idea ;).

Anonymous said...

Hooboy! Love the site, but it sure would be great to see embedded comments, rather than time-sequential. A lot of the anonymous (and occasionally non-anonymous) comments and responses later on with "XXX @ 12:41 said" etc. can get frustrating.

But yeah, love the site. And for what it's worth, I think it's a great idea to contest every state to the extent of our ability, which fortunately is Howard Dean and Sen. Barack Obama's plan as well. Judging by the enthusiasm so far, the record new Democrats registering, the factors against Republicans this year (including their presumptive nominee), it looks like a whole lot of states are now up for grabs. Who'd have expected this even a year and a half ago?

Modeler said...

Alex: No problem. It's nice to know someone agrees with me. :-)

John Peterson said...

Alex,

I agree with you for the most part. But about nuclear energy, most of the waste is waiting to be moved to a planned facility in Nevada, but Democrats have blocked this, without offering any solutions.

Other nuclear countries re-process spent fuel for weapons manufacturing.

Two points you're wrong about:

1) Nuclear waste is actually very small in volume. There just isn't that much of it, especially when compared to waste from burning carbon fuels, which ends up in the environment and not in safe, contained facilities.

2) Radioactive material gets less radioactive over time. And even when it is fresh waste, the amount of radiation that would leak out from storage facilities is much, much smaller than the amount that causes problems to the environment and human beings.

Juris said...

Paul Wrote:
"I've asked this question before, but I haven't gotten an answer to it.

Why do some of the states that haven't been polled go up, and others go down?

Today we got a poll in FL that showed Obama trailing McCain. Obama's chances of victory there have dropped from 62.6%(yesterday) to 53%(today). OK. That makes sense, I understand that. What I don't understand is how Obama's chances in ND have gone up 12.1%. It was 27.9% yesterday and today it's up to 40%...."


Hi Paul, let me take a stab at an answer. I'm not sure this is completely accurate but it's my understanding.

If you take a look at the available polls from ND, you'll see that there are just two and they are quite old -- from February and March. Mainly for that reason, they have very low "weights" in the regression analysis and those weights decline every day until they fall below .05, at which time the poll is totally dropped.

So even in the absence of new polling, the projections are going to change. But what determines the projection if there are just two very old polls (or if there were none)? The "538 regression," which was set up exactly to compensate for the lack of recent polling in many states.

In addition, under the new methodology introduced last week-end, the projections can also be affected to some degree by trends at the national level. In a case like ND, the projections are more sensitive to national trends than in a case like, say, NY, in which there are many polls to rely on. As the election goes forward, however, we can expect to get many more polls for ND and other states.

You have noted large swings in the probability of winning in ND from one day to the next. But if you had instead focused on the projected vote percentage shares by McCain and Obama, you would see that the change there is pretty small and the difference between the McCain and Obama percentages as of today is just 2.6 percentage points.

But any change in the percentage of votes received by McCain or Obama is amplified when the vote margin is translated into a "probability of winning," which also takes into consideration the margin of error in the projection and the likelihood that a given projected vote margin will translate into a majority on election day.

I tend to pay more attention to the projected division of the votes than to the projected probabilities, because I'm more comfortable with thinking about the relationship between the polls in a state and the projected vote shares in that state.

I hope this helps. If anyone else wants to chime in here, please do.

Anonymous said...

Insider Advantage poll of Georgia:
McCain 44
Obama 43
Only one poll, but still, wow.

Anonymous said...

New SUSA poll in Iowa has Obama +4

Paul Bradford said...

Thanks, Juris for writing...

Another Mike said...

Paul, besides what Juris wrote, which I believe is entirely correct, there may be an additional factor. As noted, the 538 Regression basically controls those states with very little and very old polling. However, the 538 Regression for a particular state is not fixed. If I understand it correctly, Nate looks at all the polls and, using regression analysis, determines the various weight to be given various demographic factors. He then calculates the 538 Regression for a particular state based on its unique demographics. The key point here is that new poll results in one state can strongly affect the 538 Regression for a demographically similar state. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if the change you observed in ND resulted from a good Obama poll in a demographically similar state.

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,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,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,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,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,

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,

,