A month ago, we brought you the battleground states based on the site's model, and it's time for an update. Recall that the projection is not what would happen if the election were held today (that's the snapshot), but what 538 projects will be the November result.
Based on the data, we project 11 states inside of five points:
Five points is somewhat arbitrary (why not four, six, seven, etc.). One argument supporting five points is that ground organization and GOTV tends to not be able to make up much more margin against an accurate poll of voter preference. Whatever the dividing line, it is important to pick one number and stay consistent over updates. We've used five before; we'll stick with it.
Since the mid-June update, New Hampshire and North Dakota have moved outside the five-point range, toward Obama and McCain respectively. They remain the next two closest states outside the five-point dividing line (Pennsylvania ties New Hampshire at a 6.0% projected Obama win). Colorado has moved into the range, and all the other states have remained in place. Within the battleground group the states have jostled for ranking position, but given that Nate's tweaked the model a bit in the interim it's not worth attaching much importance to the tiny changes.
As for the Penumbra States, the model projects, eight McCain states will finish between 5-10 percentage points, for 81 EVs:
Seven Obama Penumbra States project between 5-10 percentage points, for 67 EVs:
Obama's safe base states (projected double-digit wins) total 175 EVs, while McCain's safe base states total 79 EVs. We project Minnesota as an 11.6% Obama win.
Adding in the 5-10 point projected wins, the totals are Obama 242, McCain 160. Last month, this projection was Obama 247, McCain 157.
Obama needs 28 EVs out of the battleground group for a clean win, 27 EVs for a tie and a messy but near-certain win. We predict Obama will win 51 EVs out of the 11-state battleground group.
The 538 mid-July projection: Obama 293, McCain 245.
Other 538 breakdowns:
Polling Average: Obama 309, McCain 229
Trend-Adjusted: Obama 309, McCain 229
538 Regression: Obama 298, McCain 240
Snapshot (if the election were held today): Obama 303, McCain 235
7.16.2008
538 Battlegrounds as of Mid-July
@ 5:16 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
138 comments
I think the changing demographics plus the Mark Warner landslide will push Virginia into the Obama column. Just my take.
Respect for the model, I guess, but it seems a bit nonsensical to move ND out of the battleground classification when the only change is a moderation in the Obama trendline adjustment nationally, considering that the only ND poll to come out in a long long time came out both recently and strikingly pro Obama.
Not that it matters, of course. Thanks for the update =).
You are using the term WIN% differently than Nate does. What you are calling WIN% is what Nate calls Margin.
This may cause confusion.
I doubt the potential Mark Warner landslide will do much, Charles, unless there are personal fans of Mark Warner that might not have otherwise voted, who will be motivated to turn out to vote for him for Senate. I don't see that happening... if you're a big enough fan of a politician to vote for Senator, you're already going to want to vote for President.
What might hurt McCain more in Virginia, I would think, is the same motivated/unmotivated numbers we see elsewhere. But that's independent of Mark Warner fans.
I wonder how, and could you enlighten us, how are Nader and barr figured in here? Pollster shows them pulling Mccain out of any type of contention in most every state they appear. And nationally - they pull McCain 10 points behind Obama.
John: I think what Sean means by Win % is actually "projected margin of victory", which corresponds to the
"Projection" lines in the table on the right.
alex: ND is still fundamentally underpolled. (Though I'm grateful for what we got... how long did we have to stare at that lonely, shrinking February result?).
at Sean: It would be cool to see what the battleground states were a month ago, using today's methodology. That would be the real way to look for changes.
Interesting to observe the movement. I confess to being confused by the fact that North Dakota has moved out of the five point win percentage 'battleground' window towards McCain, considering that the only news out of the state has been a surprisingly favorable poll for Obama showing a dead-heat (as well as similarly auspicious results in neighboring states of Montana and South Dakota.
Holy Smokes! NYT article says Obama will hold a press conference tomorrow at 10 ET. Supposedly, he will be discussing his dual faith in Christianity in Islam. It's going to hit the fan now!
Field has Obama 54 - McCain 30 in CA. Their previous(May) poll was +17 for Obama.
No way. This will confirm a lot of people's suspicion that he does have strong ties to the Muslim community. Look for polling numbers to plunge but it should remain close!
I enjoyed this very much. Thanks Sean.
Barack needs to start advertising in South Dakota. It has to be cheap. Plus although they have different media markets, advertising in South Dakota would help in North Dakota. Remember that Dakotans divide their own states east and west (mentally). "Only" the remaining 48 states divide them north and south.
Nice summary, Sean. Thanks for laying it all out so clearly.
I do have one minor objection, though: at a winning projection of 0.1%, VA would fall into recount territory.
Perhaps it would be a good idea, even for these summaries, to separate out states that are "too close" to call. Pick a close (if arbitrary) number such as 1% or 0.5%, and if a state falls within that range, then mark it as tied or potential recount for the projection summary. That would leave the current 538 EV projection as:
Obama 293, McCain 232, Too Close To Call 13.
Nate uses <= 0.5% as the Recount marker in the Scenario Analysis, so that might be the best number to use for separating out states that are essentially tied, for consistency -- if you decide this argument has any merit.
.
Holy smokes! McCain will hold a press conference tomorrow where he will be discussing how his supporters have their heads thoroughly shoved up their asses.
It shouldn't affect him at all in the polls because, well, his supporters have their heads thoroughly shoved up their asses.
What's the difference between trend-adjusted and snapshot?
Looking at this it is difficult to justify putting in much of an effort in Florida.
Michigan is probably a lot safer than indicated. There is probably still some residue resentment over skipping the primary, and Hillary did a good job of blaming Obama. That will fade.
That leaves only 10/11 EV's. There has to be safer & cheaper options than fighting for the 27 of Florida.
Besides there has to be poetic justice. The local Democratic Party did absolutly nothing to stop Hillary taring Obama with their mess.
Let them be ignored for the General Election too. No coat tails, no advertising revenue.
Tybalt: I doubt the potential Mark Warner landslide will do much, Charles, unless there are personal fans of Mark Warner that might not have otherwise voted, who will be motivated to turn out to vote for him for Senate.
No, Charles has a point. It's not that personal fans of Warner will push Obama over the winning line in VA - as you note, they probably would have come out to vote for the presidency anyway.
Instead, Warner might have some coattails among independents in the voting booth, and may help in locally getting out the vote for Obama in a way that a less popular Senate candidate might not.
One could argue that such effects will be balanced out by ticket splitters, and that is a possibility, but given the general anti-Bush and anti-Republican trend these days, the former scenario seems more likely.
.
1magine has a point. Pollster.com shows a 6.8% combined vote for Nader and Barr in a four party race with McCain losing the most both in nationwide and in state polling. The discussion of the decline in third-party support as elections approach has be rather thin on this and other sites. I would like to see more evidence that none of the "other" candidates will have any impact on the election this time around.
Why is the regression added to the trend-adjusted polling average *before* applying the discount to Obama's lead for the difference between Snapshot and November Projection? If the "Regression" is based on relatively stable demographic factors, why apply the time-discount to it instead of taking it as a baseline that will not change from here to November, unlike the more volatile polls? Wouldn't it make more sense to average the Regression with a poll-based and time-discounted projection for November?
Warner might have some coattails among independents in the voting booth,
How? Independent Warner supporters won't be punching a straight ticket, leaving them still contemplating whether to vote R or D. If you're an independent, you don't care about splitting your ticket.
Now, what I did NOT consider was the potential for Obama and Warner to campaign together and for Warner to put his considerable personal political muscle behind Obama. That, I can see actually working in Obama's favour.
Let's take a third angle on the Virginia question:
The VA Senate race is unlikely to be close. If it were biggest race on the VA ballot, we'd probably expect some reduction in turnout. But where would that reduction be most acutely felt? It seems likely it would depress GOP turnout.
But what happens if you put the presidential contest, which likely will be close, at the top of the ticket?
Anon@4:40pm: Holy Smokes! NYT article says Obama will hold a press conference tomorrow at 10 ET. Supposedly, he will be discussing his dual faith in Christianity in Islam.
Really? Wow, where's the link?
Oh, wait, there isn't one because no such article exists.
Liar.
Just another Anon troll looking for McCain Points.
Nate & Sean, is there any way to remove such obvious and easily debunkable smears? I know you guys can't spend all your time reading and moderating comment threads, but maybe some volunteers could be appointed to the task?
.
Considering not just Warner's popularity, but what a bad candidate Gilmore is, I wonder if the Senate race might compound the enthusiasm gap from the presidential race.
On the other hand, considering that Warner has some appeal to business-oriented Republicans who are less than enthused with the takeover of the VA GOP by anti-tax and social issue absolutists, he could paradoxically increase turnout for McCain, since McCain is more in line with those voters than with the Gilmore backers.
I don't pretend to know whether either effect would be significant.
Tybalt
It's not so much the turnout of the Mark Warner fans, but the low turnout of the potential Gilmore/McCain supporters. Part of Karl Rove's great strategy was getting hot button topics on the ballot in swing states to get out the conservative vote. I think the opposite is at play this year in Virginia, where there are two GOP candidates that have lukewarm support, against two Democrats that can both energize their base. Again, this is just me speculating, I don't have any data to back me up.
Strikes me that Tybalt's final policy is on the mark. Obama shows up in parts of VA that have lots of Warner supporting independents, the two draw a huge crowd, and Warner says: "Look, you all like me a lot, and you want me to be able bring home lots of bacon for Virginia and to go out and solve the nation's problems. That task will be a lot easier if my good friend Barack is in office, so I encourage you to come out and vote for both of us on Nov. 4."
JGabriel -- I agree. The numbers-oriented threads here have had a remarkably low number of trolls, but that can't possibly hold as the campaign heats up, and I hope Nate and Sean are planning for it. "Don't feed the trolls" is only ever a short-term fix as traffic increases. Teresa Nielsen-Hayden wrote the definitive reference on this, as far as I'm concerned.
New Hampshire has moved out of battleground states to Obama's column seems a bit surprising actually. Consider that not too long ago everyone was convinced that the one Kerry state (and probably only one) that Obama had lost for sure was NH.
Guess that unity rally had some purpose after all, though it seemed a bit pointless at the time.
Looking at the 'Super Tracker' we see that Obama's recent local peak occurred on 29 June. How has he done, among 'battleground states', during his slide?
Viewed from gain/drop in win %, he's lost 9 points in MO, 7 points in NC, 6 pts in IN, 5 pts in NV. He's also gained 6 pts in MI, 8 pts in NM and a whopping 19 pts in MT.
Here's the rub, though. Obama doesn't have to worry about all the battleground states. NM, MI, OH and CO give him more than enough EV's to win and he's been gaining in all of them. And this is while his numbers are on a downturn! What does it really matter if he's losing ground in MO or NC? Those states are only frosting on the cake anyway.
The way I look at it, if his numbers look like this during the down times how are they going to look when things improve for him?
Also, just saw the McCain ad on the left trying to slime Obama for advocating talks with Iran. Guess McCain campaign didn't have a chance yet to take those down yet, after all Bush just yesterday sent his envoy for talk with Iran, without preconditions.. Hitler-appeaser!
Paul Bradford: Obama doesn't have to worry about all the battleground states. NM, MI, OH and CO give him more than enough EV's to win and he's been gaining in all of them. And this is while his numbers are on a downturn! What does it really matter if he's losing ground in MO or NC?
Paul, while many of us agree with that general analysis, the problem with its conclusion is that none of us want Obama to concentrate on a single path (or minimal number of paths) to 270 EV. We saw how that played out in 2000 and 2004.
So we want Obama to be viable in as many states as possible.
.
jgabriel's point is excellent. A single plan (Kerry + OH, or Kerry + IA + CO + NM, for example) creates a single point of failure, where any unexpected event can flip the election (for example, losing Florida for Gore in 2000).
I honestly differ with this analysis with regard to OH. The latest poll for OH is from 6/21 so we have no clear sense of how two countervailing forces may have played out: Obama clinching and unifying the party and his flip flopping on the issues. Not to mention all the other "noise" that I have brought up to the consternation of the Daily KOS crowd.
Ohio does not have a very large AA population, but it remains very conservative in its SW corner (Cincinnati) and much like rural PA through the Appalachian belt. Outside of Cleveland, the state is rather Midwestern and will behave a lot like IN, except in those aforesaid regions. The swing counties are around Dayton and Columbus as far as population centers go.
Do not forget how HRC surprised and scored a big win much of rural OH, enough to counter Obama's support in the traditional Democratic strongholds.
I have never for a minute believed the narrative that Hillary suddenly became the doyenne of the working class and her success in OH was largely predicated on anti-Obama sentiment. This vote is easily translatable to McCain, through these people will have to be wooed.
To Obama's credit I think he wins NV. His strength with younger voters and transplants along with Latinos will make up for McCain's base with seniors.
On a net basis, and having no further empirical data on which to pin my gut sense on, I give the nod to Obama 278 v. 260.
BTW: I got a good chuckle out of several of the Anon posts. They were obvious satire, lighten up!
I think the Daschle/Thune contest in 2004 is a pretty good example of coattails; Bush's strong showing in South Dakota probably played a considerable role in Thune's narrow victory.
But conversely, would we argue that George Voinovich's strong showing in Ohio gave Bush that extra boost to win that key state?
Or, to dumb it down: Do coattails run in reverse?
It's also important to note that the larger the victory in both the popular vote and the electoral college, the easier it will be for the victor to govern. Winning elections is one thing, but winning them decisively is quite another. It will help rally Senators and Congress people to his side to implement his agenda.
"What's the difference between trend-adjusted and snapshot?"
(my apologies if somebody answered this already and I missed it)
Trend-Adjusted is the weighted average of the polls, adjusted by the Super Tracker.
Snapshot also includes the "538 Regression".
redshift,
Thank you for the link to Teresa Nielsen Hayden's excellent post. I hope everyone who cares about this 'site takes the time to read it. Of course, Nate's a busy guy and 'disemvowelling' can be tedious; on the other hand, as Teresa said, Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.
The lawn looks pretty good now but weed season will soon be upon us! My suggestion is that Nate ought to do away with anonymous posts. I'm astounded that so many people on this 'site can't be bothered to give us their alias, say nothing of their name.
tybalt and jgabriel,
I agree with you both! Obama is wise to follow Howard's Deans "fifty state strategy". My point was that if he does this well in his bad weeks he ought to do really well in his good ones!
Although Obama can easily win without Virginia, a victory there would nonetheless be a HUGE coup for the Democrats and immensely strengthen Obama's mandate.
It would also mark Virginia's exit from the Confederacy and into the 21st century.
Bentley Carlyle: Do coattails run in reverse?
Not typically, but they can - especially in areas with strong political machines (Dems in Chicago, IL, Scranton and Philadelphia in PA, the GOP in Texas), or where a candidate has a strong political organization. For instance, Domenici's political organization in NM clearly helped Bush take the state in 2004, though that's not a particularly good example of reverse coattails since Domenici wasn't running that year.
Warner's organization might similiarly help Obama in VA, though with more emphasis on GOTV, and less emphasis on GOP-like dirty tricks.
.
This really continues a discussion from a previous thread. A technical question to the technically minded.
I thought about it some more and I found I don't understand the Super Tracker one bit.
1. Suppose there are three dates: X, Y and Z. They have the polling results for the States:
X - ABCD
Y - ABEF
Z - CDEF
X is better than Y in AB by two points weighted average. Y is better than Z in EF by two points weighted average. X and Z are the same for CD.
So it's not additive: X/Y at +2 and Y/Z at +2 would make you want to peg X/Z at +4, but this is the wrong way to go about it.
What's the mechanism for resolving such tensions in 538?
2. Once we have established the Super Tracker as a relative system that arranges all the dates, how do we peg this into absolute numbers? Presumably we can pick a date and run it from there - but how do we establish the absolute value for a single day? And should we not have, over time, some drift, the Super Tracker pointing at a number different from the national margins which Nate, after all, calculates differently?
Piggybacking on the Virginia Senate commentaries possible effects on the presidential race, I was curious as to what effect the Georgia Senate race might have on Obama/McCain. It's an interesting race, but not for the usual reasons, as we're pretty sure the incumbent will win.
If you're not familiar with the race (and I'm by no means an expert) here's a brief recap:
* Saxby Chambliss, the Republican incumbent is fairly safe to win re-election, but that's the boring part of this race
* The results of the primary did not produce a winner, so there's a runoff on Aug. 5th bewteen Vernon Jones, the embattled and scandal-ridden CEO of Dekalb County, who happens to be black, and Jim Martin, the darling of the local democratic establishment, who happens to be white.
Now in Georgia, as is probably the case in a few other states, many things are very racially polarized. As a transplant it's disheartening, but it seems that b/c certain districts are safely "black" and others are safely "white", perhaps people think it all balances out? Being neither black nor white, it frustrates me either way, but I'm getting off topic.
Vernon Jones, the black candidate - this is important for a later point - is running as a "Conservative Democrat" who voted for Bush twice (strange, right?), and evokes a VERY strong negative reaction amongst many people, regardless of race, but this is heightened among many conservative whites. And he also gets the blind support of a significant portion of black voters, who vote more on racial allegiance than on qualification. (Of course there's context behind why, but that's a much more complex issue.)
This senate race is interesting due to the implications of Vernon Jones possibly winning the primary, and becoming the Democratic candidate for Senate. Should this happen, there are a 2 things to consider:
* This will infuse the Republican electorate with enthusiam, even if it's based more on anti-Jones than pro-Chambliss (the incumbent). Enthusiasm is something that McCain's campaign has been lacking.
* Vernon Jones is black (sorry for being so simplistic with race), and the Obama campaign will undoubtedly increase the black turnout, which will be Vernon Jones's base. However, because he is so unpopular amongst many Democrats, a significant portion of them may actually vote Chambliss. I do not expect the black turnout to be able to counteract massive Democrat defection, ensuring a Chambliss win.
It is my thought that the anti-Jones backlash (i.e. more Republicans turning out to vote) will be a tidal wave with Republicans and will virtually ensure that Obama has NO chance of winning the state.
In this scenario, wouldn't it be in the Obama camp's best interest to ensure that Jim Martin is the Democratic candidate, and not Vernon Jones? That way the slim possibility of winning is on the table, and McCain will be forced to play (weak?)defense. With Vernon Jones on the ballot, the state is safe McCain, and that's money he can spend elsewhere, like Virginia or Ohio.
SG,
Thanks for your comment about Virginia leaving the Confederacy and joining the 21st century that proves what we already know about most liberals. They're nothing but elitist a**holes. Yeah, we Southerners are nothing but degenerates who screw our sisters. Of course, as an Arkansas native, maybe I don't have relations with my family, and maybe I DO HAVE a master's degree in economics an extensive studies in calculus and econometrics. But I'm from the South and have conservative ideals, so I'm hopelessly ignorant and living in the past.
It's that mentality that Obama should be ashamed he doesn't have more than 45-50% of the national vote. The same thing with Kerry in 2004. Bush has made a mockery of the White House and is one of the least popular presidents ever (even I'm disgusted), but it's that line of uppity thinking that you let spill from your mouth that the Democratic party has too easily embraced and is the main reason I, and so many others, will stay far away from the left-wing of politics.
Bush's approval rating is 23%, and Obama can't even muster 50% support. That's a shame. If Democrats had a f***ing clue, they'd get at least 60% this time around.
Thanks for the summary Sean!
I wonder if it will be possible to somehow include hard vs soft support and changing voter registration in the projection. The projections are mainly constructed of 2 components: Nate´s regression model and the weighting of polls. Now, the regression model is constantly adjusted to results of newer polls. But I wonder if there also needs to be an adjustment to tendencies "on the ground". I have something like the Democratic voter registration surge in Nevada in mind:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/24004419.html
I realize though that these developments cannot be taken for granted until the end of registrations, but I would guess that there will be slight changes in party affiliation that pollsters will need to adjust to. I would also guess that these polls will then show a more favorable result for the candidate with the better organization skills. It really doesn´t need to be Obama...it might as well be John McCain if the manages to increase mobilization. But I am quite sure that because of these 2 factors, the difference between hard and soft support, and changing party affiliation, Nevada and Virginia will end up in Obama´s column (by fundamentals alone, but that doesn´t keep Obama from making a mistake that might still cost him the election).
A Real...
I understand your anger (I'm originally from Alberta, the part of Canada that votes the most conservatively, and we get the same kind of treatment).
I suspect, however, that SG was joking.
a real icon:
The insults that go in both directions are most likely true.
We liberals are elitist assholes.
You conservatives are ignorant and ignore facts.
I'll take the elitist asshole to run the country, thanks.
Why McCain can't really afford a Negative Strategy:
Here's an interesting take on the Democratic Party ID advantage as found by Rasmussen for the month of June: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
election_20082/summary_of_selected_data_june
Their full month average was 42.84% Democratic, 33.48% Republican, a 9.37% Partisan Voter ID Advantage for Obama. (Rasmussen clearly pushes leaners one way or another).
Rasmussen has consistently found a Democratic party ID advantage of around 9 or 10 points since early this year, the highest in their polling history.
So, why is the Obama lead so narrow? Democrats have still not rallied to Obama the way Republicans have to McCain.
McCain has wrapped up the nomination for 4 months now, Obama for 1 month and things are still settling down. For instance, his party support among Democrats in the CBS/NYT 7/7 - 7/14 poll for instance was only 76%, although 92% of Obama supporters were either "enthusiastic" or "satisfied" with Obama, so that's a very hard 76%.
Compare the current race to 2004:
Size Bush Kerry Nader
Democratic: 37% 11% 89% 0%
Independent: 26% 48% 49% 1%
Republican: 37% 93% 6% 0%
Bush could get away with an "attack-dog" strategy in 2004. "From the start of the 2004 campaign, political strategist Karl Rove and the Bush team made its goals clear – maximize Bush’s support among social and economic conservatives – including Evangelicals and Club for Growth/anti-government conservatives – and turn them out by driving up Kerry’s negatives with harsh attacks questioning Kerry’s leadership credentials."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
When partisans hear attack ads favoring their candidate, they become more excited. I love hearing attack ads savaging McCain for wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years, despite the public opinion in both Iraq and the U.S. opposed to this policy. (Moveon.org's latest ad). But, I doubt that Independents like it that much.
Same thing for McCain attack ads saving Obama as a "flip-flopper." They enrage me and other Obama supporters, but probably encourage Republicans. Independents seeing this whip-saw of competing attack ads start to feel that "there's too much negative campaigning" and blame both sides.
It might drive up Obama's (and McCain's) negatives and rally the base of each party, but it tends to suppress Independent voters who see politics more and more as a vicious food-fight. They want "civilized campaigns."
Well, in 2000 and 2004 Rove didn't really give a damn about Indpendents, except that he didn't want Gore or Kerry to win a decisive share of them. As long as they split down the middle he was happy.
His strategy was to increase base turnout as described. Thus, he could afford to run Wolves Ads for instance.
But, since 2004 Republican party ID has declined by 3.52% and Democratic ID has grown by 5.84%, while Independent ID is correspondingly down 2.32% (to 23.68%).
Clearly, what has happened isn't tons of Republicans registering as Democrats. Mostly, it's 5% of Independents moving to the Democratic party, restoring Democrats to the same 39% they had in 2000, (according to Pew Research) and then adding 3% more.
Instead Republicans unhappy with Bush have (probably) mostly become Independents (there's no way to prove this but it's likely).
McCain might hope to regain some of these "newly indpendents" as we'll call them, by the same kind of Swift-Boating attacks Bush used in 2004. But, he risks losing more "independent" independents by doing so.
In short, 2008 is the opposite of 2004. It's Obama who can afford to run negative attack ads that attack Democrats but offend Independents. He just needs to bring up his base to win a landslide.
McCain has to walk a tight-rope of appealing to Republicans without alienating Independents who hate "negative advertising." That's not going to be easy.
Thanks, Jim S., you even raised the bar on assholedness.
Now here's my prediction. A schmuck like Nate can throw out predictions near-term. That's all good. But I'm going to lay one on the group right here for down the road, and see if it don't pan out.
Obama wins in '08. He has strong backing by Dems in Congress during his term. However, the smugness, condescension, and outright bullshit that was on exhibition by SG and Jim S. will be amplified in the Congress and Obama so much so that the electorate will make a complete reversal by then. Republicans regain the White House and bring Congress back to a 50/50 split or regain a majority. That's what such attitudes get you.
a real icon,
From your last post:
it's that line of uppity thinking that you let spill from your mouth that the Democratic party has too easily embraced and is the main reason I, and so many others, will stay far away from the left-wing of politics.
You've got a master's degree in economics. Let's talk about economics. From 1933 until 1969 there was a huge redistribution of wealth in this country away from the wealthy elite and toward the middle class. From 1981 until this present day there has been another huge redistribution of wealth -- this time it's gone away from the middle class and toward the wealthy elite.
Let me grant your premise that there are a lot more pompous jerks among the liberals than there are among the conservatives. But what's worse? Putting up with a few self-important knuckleheads or getting your pocket picked??
The Republicans are dedicated to the proposition that I ought to feel dignified and well-respected on my walk to the poor house. The liberals try to make me feel like a loser if I don't conform to their short-sighted notions about how people ought to act -- but they implement policies that work to my benefit.
Paul Bradford -- you hit the nail on the head. I don't care necessarily about the attitudes as much as the results...and from what I've seen, the results of Republican rule are disastrous, so I'll stick with the Democrats, thanks.
A Real Icon: They're nothing but elitist a**holes. [...] it's that line of uppity thinking that you let spill from your mouth that the Democratic party has too easily embraced and is the main reason I, and so many others, will stay far away from the left-wing of politics.
Nothing like seeing someone call Democrats both 'elitist' and 'uppity'. You don't even realize that's a self-contradiction, do you?
Let me define it for you. "Elitists" are rich people who describe those that aspire to their privileges as "uppity". So, it's kind of hard to be both. Oxymoronic, in fact.
Maybe people wouldn't think of conservatives as "hopelessly ignorant" if they didn't so often resort to such self-contradictory arguments and ad hominem characterizations.
But, you know, if it makes you happy to call all liberals "uppity elitists", carry on. I'm sure you'll convert a lot of people that way....
.
.
"
I thought about it some more and I found I don't understand the Super Tracker one bit.
1. Suppose there are three dates: X, Y and Z. They have the polling results for the States:
X - ABCD
Y - ABEF
Z - CDEF"
Hehe. Yes, impossible to understand, if it was like that. But the Super Tracker is based on national polling, so no states A-F, no problems.
Arrrgh...I thought you'd stopped with the crap, Nate.
Let's look at Michigan, shall we?
MI Rasmussen 7/10 500 weight .89
MI Quinnipac 6/21 1411 weight .89
MI PPP 6/22 571 .58 Weight .58
MI SurveyUSA 5/27 600 Weight .40 <----
MI Rasmussen 6/9 500 Weight .34
I call BS. A survey from back in freakin' MAY has a weight of .40? We've got four more current surveys from reputable sources, and you're using a source from MAY with that much weight?
Don't you think, I dunno, things may have changed a little bit in the past couple of months?
We have an extremely recent poll which says +8. We have two three week old polls that are +6 and +9. Somehow from this, you get an average of +5. Well, it's not somehow. It's must massively overweighting ancient polls when we have far more recent ones available.
Finally, I don't like the trend adjustment. You have it going from +5.1 to +4.7. But here's Rasmussen in Michigan:
5/7: McCain +1
6/8: Obama +3
7/10: Obama +8
That's a fairly solid trend there. While I understand that he's lost a point or two in the national polls since 6/21-6/22, the trend for Obama in Michigan is pretty darned obvious.
Or to put it another way, what was your prediction for Michigan's 7/10 poll, and how'd that work out for ya?
North Carolina has a 5/18 SurveyUSA with .32, even though there's a more recent survey with Survey USA and four more overall.
Looks like you don't change the weight based on the number of more recent reputable polls (other than from the same pollster). This is seriously overweighing polls from back in May, which IMHO are completely worthless compared to post 6/4. I mean if that's all you got, that's all you've got. But here, you've got lots better.
Paul,
Nice post. I appreciate the honest and blunt observation of both sides. I'm conservative but far from a rubber stamp for the Rep party.
I agree for the most part with your "pocketbook" assessment that Dems have generally fought harder for lower and middle class individuals and that Rep policies seem to perpetuate wealth growth among the richest few slugs.
But your snapshot assessment fails to account for one of the most basic concepts of economics - utility. Utility is where we find value in something beyond the price. Yes, Dems have fought to improve the pocketbooks of lower/middle classes. But at what cost? They've sold out so many of the social values that many Americans cling to. Take gun control - yeah, most everyone agrees that unmitigated access to all weapons is bad - but the Dem party has embraced some on the left who basically want guns removed altogether from society. That doesn't sit well with people who like to hunt or think it's their right to protect themselves or whatever. Bottom line, you can add another $1,000-$2,000 per year to someone's personal coffers through a better tax code or whatever, but if you negatively influence other things that they hold near and dear, it won't hold water. Dems have failed to understand that and think people can simply be "bought off" because they offer, in their opinion, better economics to the lower/middle class.
That's just my take.
I've always wondered what people actually mean by "elitist."
It clearly doesn't mean "rich," "from a powerful old-money family," or "Ivy educated," since nobody ever thought this Bush was "elitist" (although they did say it about his father). It's often associated with "latte-sipping," and "arugula," and other markers of yuppiedom, but I'm guessing Republican politicians and lobbyists like their lattes as much as the next guy.
I suppose it comes down to a sense that Democrats are going to tell people how to spend their money -- but then Republicans tell people what to do with their bodies, so you'd think that would average out...
JGabriel,
And maybe we wouldn't think of liberals as "uppity elitists" if when making the accusation using self-contradictory terms, we get a 4-paragraph angry diatribe in response that has to reference Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
A real icon -- that is all well and good, but honestly, I think it's all smoke screen...the social issues, I mean.
Firstly, Republicans embrace the same sort of divisive social issues that Democrats do...just different ones. Both groups pander to their base.
Secondly, do you really care if, for example, someone else across the country is getting an abortion, if you can't even get a job? When economic times are bad, suddenly, those issues don't seem like good enough reasons to elect someone.
Furthermore, how often do any of those issues really gain any traction? I think they are just distractions. Like, there were anti gay marriage amendments on a number of state ballots in 2004, but come on, was there really any traction to allow gay marriage in Oklahoma in the first place?? The whole thing is just a (fairly obvious, I think) pander.
I personally think that most issues need to be decided on a local (not even necessarily state) level. But really, both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of trying to meddle in people's lives. Republicans have just been more successful as spinning it some other way.
Anyway, that's just the way I see it.
Let me define asshole.
noun
1. the rectum; the opening between the cheeks of the buttocks that provides an exit for fecal matter in humans and many other animals
2. JGabriel
AJB: I've always wondered what people actually mean by "elitist." It clearly doesn't mean "rich", "from a powerful old-money family"...
Actually, yes, that's exactly what it means.
Unless you're a Republican, or someone who has subconsciously internalized Republican framing of the word elitist over the past fifty years.
Then it means "Democrat with some college education" or "Democrat who reads books".
.
Well, here's MY take:
This is an article about POLLING on a site dedicated to POLLING and about 90% of the comments are about useless CRAP that has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLLING!
If I want to fight with endless Trolls I'll go hang out on Redstate.com.
Will you bastards PLEASE stop HIJACKING EVERY SINGLE THREAD and turning it into a general debate about whether Liberals are "elitists" or conservatives are "ignorant."
NATE, SHAUN, I know you don't want to moderate your site, but this is getting ridiculous! Unless you step in and do something the entire worth of this site is going to be overwhelmed by trolls and intelligent discourse on POLLING will become impossible.
A Real Icon: And maybe we wouldn't think of liberals as "uppity elitists" if when making the accusation using self-contradictory terms, we get a 4-paragraph angry diatribe in response that has to reference Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
Oddly enough, I'm not seing much anger in the post you refer to. More a combination of smugness, condescension, and pity.
Nor is there any reference to Merriam-Webster's - which kind of re-inforces the point regarding self-contradictory and nonsensical.
But carry on, Icon, you're on a roll.
.
Raumfahrer,
Excellent response. I appreciate that. I don't 100% agree but definitely to some degree. Both parties have certainly meddled in people's lives. There's no doubt about that.
I can't speak for other people, but personally I care for the welfare of others (even an unborn child) even if I'm unemployed.
The abortion issues has become a major distraction. But I find both sides have equally been guilty of ignoring the ideas of the other. (Most) Dems think it's absolutely asinine that anyone else should have a say about the life of an unborn child except the mother (and maybe the father). While people shouldn't meddle in other people's business, the "personal-choice" thing has gotten out of hand to the point that we have de-valued life in my opinion...
...but on the other hand, (most) Reps have offered no good alternatives. They don't want women to be able to choose, but they are very restrictive on contraceptives and access to other things that would likely prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
There HAS to be a compromise, and it shouldn't come from the dogmatic stance that the extremes take on each side of the discussion.
Hey, not all of us liberals are elitist jerks.
See, this is what happens (to both sides). The elitist jerk liberals and the racist/sexist conservatives are simply the most loud contingent of their group. Just ignore comments like he made about Southerners. He's an outlier, but he's loud and stupid enough that he drowns out most of us that know that people in the South are well educated, have indoor plumbing, etc.
So please ignore him. He doesn't represent us...v_v
Thanks Suprak...
...and I shouldn't have been so stereotypical in my accusations either. It's never good to lump everyone under one name.
one possible way to reduce the trolling is to disallow anonymous posts
I agree with a poster above about moderation. This is an excellent site, but the comments sections are slowly but surely getting deluged with trolls of all stripes. There are some great posters here that offer insightful points and questions about polling and the strategy that surrounds it, but they are more and more lost in a sea of wanna-be narrative drivers.
Pete Kent,
In regards to your analysis of Ohio and the demographics, as an Ohioan and a current resident of Cincinnati I disagree with parts of your assessment. First of all, Dayton is usually known as a more left-leaning population center which went Kerry - albeit narrowly - in 2004 and went overwhelmingly for Strickland in 2006 - by 16-17 points. In addition, I think you might be surprised by the results out of Hamilton County this fall. There has been quite a bit of conservative white flight out of the near urban centers and out into the surrounding rural counties - so Hamilton County is likely to be more liberal collectively this time around while Warren County, for example, will probably go even more conservative than usual.
My main point is, though, Cincinnati and Hamilton County in general could come as a surprise to some in November.
Why not just disable comments all together?
People can register if they want to, there will still be those kind of posts even if anon posting is disabled.
It isnt that hard to simply skip over them and ignore them!!!
Yeah unfortunately, the stereotypical liberal is now considered an elitist which is not true. Although I do live in suburban MD near DC (there are certainly elitists here, or at least they like to think of themselves as such) most liberals are NOT elitists.
Picking up on a few comments to the beginning of the threat, I think there is some problem with Nate's regression.
Below I display for selected states (i) the trend-adjusted margin (ii) the margin according to the 538 regression, and (iii) the difference between the two (shown as how much the regression is over- or underrating Obama in relation to the trend-adjusted polls).
I start with those states where the regression is by 2 or more points underrating Obama:
AK: M +4.9; M +8.1; O - 3.2
AR: M +10.2; M +13.7; O -3.5
CT: O +18.1; O +13.9; O -4.2
ID: M +11.7; M +16.5; O -3.8
IN: M +0.5; M +6.5; O -6.0
MD: O +20.7; O +14.8; O -5.7
ME: O +17.2; O +12.8; O -4.4
MN: O +12.6; O +10.2; O -2.4
MS: M +8.3; M +15.9; O -7.6
MT: O +0.2; M +4.3; O - 4.5
ND: M +1.8; M +8.7; O -6.9
OK: M +15.1; M +24.4; O -9.3
RI: O +23.8; O +19.4; O -3.4
SC: M +6.5; M + 10.1; O -3.6
VA: O +0.9; M +1.8; O -2.3
VT: O +30.2; O +21.2; O -9.0
WY: M +11.2; M +17.4; O -6.2
First of all, as far as I recall, differences have during the last weeks rarely reached above 3 points, and I don't recall any differences in the range of 6-9 points, as we find now for several states.
Secondly, there seems to be a clear reagional pattern, namely the regression currently underrating Obama in (a) Prairie & Big Sky; (b) parts of New England, (c) parts of the South, and (d) AR/OK. The geographic pattern is too strong to just make it seem randon deviation; there seems to be some systematic error now in the regression model.
Let's secondly look at states where the regression overstates Obama by more than 2 points in relation to trend-adjusted polls:
AZ M +9; M + 5.9; 0 +3.1
GA M +8.2; M +5.9; O +2.3
KS M +10.8; M +8.5; O +2.3 (difference will probably widen when today's poll is incorporated)
KY M +17.2; M +14.3; O +2.9
LA M +16; M +8.1; O +7.9
MA O +15.3; O +20.8; O +5.5
NE M +15.7; M +10.4; O +5.3
NH O +6.1; O + 9.1; O +3.0
NV M +2.7; O + 1; O +3.7
OR O +8.2; O +11.6; O +3.7
PA O +6.5; O +8.7; O +2.2
The "Obama overstaters" display a similar regional pattern. So, the problem appears to be that there are now somehow large polling differences in supposedly similar regions, which the regression cannot accomodate anymore. More specifically, (a) NE, KS (and, in a way, also OR) are now showing different trends to most of the other Prairie & Big Sky states, as is the case with (b) MA and NH in New England and (c) LA and GA in the South.
As to the reasons, I can only speculate (and hope that Nate will provide further explanation once he is back from travelling):
1. The rift may have been introduced by including fundraising figures for the second quarter, which were due yesterday. Since Nate appears to use the amount raised, rather than the number of donors, in his regression, this may have introduced a pro-Obama drift in the regression for some wealthier states, notably MA and GA, eventually also OR.
2. Nate's "Neirest neighbour" change, which he still has to explain to us, may have altered reactions to poll changes. It may in particular be the case that he has 'anchored' his model to a few 'archetypical' states. For example, the regression is pretty much spot on for states like AL, CO, FL, IA, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX and WA, which all look like logical choices for such 'anchoring'.
3. Campaign advertisement has shifted certain states away from their "natural preference" (as estimated by the regression). That might especially hold true for the northern Prairie / Rocky Mountain states such as ND, SD, MT, but provides less of an answer for New England and Southern states. Another question would be whether such campaing-induced shifts will be just temporary, or sustain until the election(in that case the regression will need adjustment).
4. There have been some 'outlier' polls, such as the unexpectedly high lead for McCain in LA, and the surprisingly low lead for Obama in IL, which the regression cannot accommodate correctly. Once other polls come in that correct these supposed outliers, the regression will return to reasonably well fitting polling results.
Whatever it is, for the time being I suggest to take all 538 projections with some grain of salt, in particular if they concern 'swing states' or states that have not been polled recently.
"But the Super Tracker is based on national polling, so no states A-F, no problems."
Rasmus, I thought the Super Tracker was based on all polls, where national polls were treated as if they were a 51st (52nd counting DC?) "state". Which means you could get exactly the sort of contradictory results that the earlier poster hypothesized.
Maybe I have a skewed view, living in N. Va, but I have a hard time seeing McCain winning here. It's not like in 2004, when it seemed pretty obvious Bush was going to win. There's an overwhelmingly pro-Obama feeling around here.
In fact, I think if Kaine is VP, and Warner takes some of that free time he has steamrolling over Gilmore and campaigns actively with Kaine and Obama in the state, it really won't be close. But, even without those factors, it feels like VA's going Obama.
Once upon a time, Alejandro asked a an actual question (it was ignored in the flurry of "you're an asshole", "you're an elitist" crap that followed.
Why is the regression added to the trend-adjusted polling average *before* applying the discount to Obama's lead for the difference between Snapshot and November Projection?
Because, Alejandro, the regression is not an estimate of some stable time-independent demographics. The regression is an interpolation of the current state of the race for those states which are under-polled, using the data from states which are well-polled. But the point is it's trying to capture the current state of the race, by fitting a model to the current-ized (via the Super Tracker) data.
So the regression belongs as an input before the "Snapshot vs Projection" degradation, because the regression is trying to smooth the current state of the race.
6:05 Anonymous:
If I understand Nate correctly, the weekly trends of the super tracker are determined from residuals of a regression model, performed using variables for "week" and "state-pollster".
In your example, if I understand correctly, we simplify and assume it's all one pollster. So we have:
Poll AB, week X: ab + 2
Poll CD, week X: cd
Poll AB, week Y: ab
Poll EF, week Y: ef + 2
Poll CD, week Z: cd
Poll EF, week Z: ef
For the regression, we have six coefficients: x, y, and z are the coefficients for weeks x, y, and z. a, c, and e are the coefficients for polls AB, CD, and EF. Let K be the constant coefficient. We then have:
K + a + x = ab + 2
K + c + x = cd
K + a + y = ab
K + e + y = ef + 2
K + c + z = cd
K + e + z = ef
This problem is overdetermined -- there are too many variables, and not enough data points. But if we had a few more polls from each week, you could solve the above regression problem and use the values for x, y, and z to build the super-tracker.
Rasmus,
I believe state polls are used in the super tracker.
A couple of notes:
I think there is at least a small "reverse coattails" effect, e.g. in Virginia. If one party has two fairly exciting candidates in the top races, they'll get great turnout and both will do better compared to a party with only one or zero. So yes, I think Warner will help Obama at least a little (which may be all he needs) and Obama will probably help Warner (which he doesn't even remotely need).
I don't think a 50-stage strategy is really optimal for Obama for his own sake. It is good for downticket candidates (particularly if this is a good year for Democrats and they have the money) and it builds their organization for future elections. But Kerry did not lose because he focused on just the battleground states and Bush flanked him with a 50-state policy. He lost because Bush beat him in the ground game in the precise battleground states he was trying for, and because Rove successfully swiftboated him and he did not counter this attack effectively and quickly enough.
If this were just about Obama, a 40-state strategy might be about right. This would mean totally ignoring the deep south, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Arizona completely, doing only token inexpensive probing in places like Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, and maybe feints in places like North Carolina, Missouri, and Alaska where Obama does not need to win. The rest would look the same as the current strategy.
lilnev,
I'd completely skimmed over Alejandro's question. Good catch, asshole. :-)
Alejandro,
I'm sort of with you. I think the averaging the regression with the polls is a little suspect, and it would be best to just use the polls to fit the regression, and then use the regression (with a time discount) to project the November results. Much cleaner that way.
You might be interested in a post I threw up a while ago describing how a simple Bayesian model gives you a reasonable expression for the time discount.
A Real Icon:
One comment from one poster on a blog does not "prove" anything about liberals any more than the voting habits of a state "prove" something about the voters of that state.
SG and you may not see eye to eye on any issue but you share at least one commonality: the ability to generalize.
However, you far surpass him/her in your interpretive abilities. At no time did SG call Southerners "degenerates who screw [their] sisters." That you interpret a reference to the Confederacy that way says more about your own insecurities than it does about SG's elitism.
I'm from Arkansas too and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what somebody who's never been here thinks about the people of my state or my region. Why? Because I know it isn't true. Southerners are, for the most part, good and decent people. That I disagree with the majority of them on political issues is a different matter altogether. I'm certainly not going to call them "a**holes" because of it, as you've seen fit to do in your "uppity" way.
Please, don't preach to me about elitism when it is clear from almost every word that you say that you regard the bulk of a whole group of people whose views differ from your own as "a**holes" who need to get a "f***ing clue."
Yours,
Elitist A**hole
Pete Kent said "On a net basis, and having no further empirical data on which to pin my gut sense on, I give the nod to Obama 278 v. 260."
Interesting analysis, Mr. Kent. Applying the same rigorous criteria, I come up with an astonishing blowout victory for McCain, somewhere around 537 to 1.
Ahh, satire. ;-)
I can't believe McCain just future-lost the election so badly! Poor thing! And what a whipping in the safe states: 175-79. Yes We Cain.
Cugel I entirely agree with your post above about the irrelevance of much that is posted in comments. In fact today I took the liberty of placing two of YOUR salient posts on my blog with a link to the thread here.
There are no comments permitted but anyone who reads there can contact me.
I hope that was OK.
Re: anonymous & the 50 vs. 40 state strategy
I disagree with the states you think Obama should campaign in. Obviously UT, ID, WY, AZ, and the Deep South/mid & lower plain states are out of play, but the northern plains and Montana certainly are in play. Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by 5 in Montana and trailing him by 1 and 4 in ND & SD, respectively. Although there's limited polling data & it would be nice to have more, you can't just toss away those numbers. While they're only 9 electoral college votes, they take up a large swath of the map and if they went Obama, would do well to demolish the old/current liberal coasts & conservative interior perception of the country.
My personal opinion on where Obama should throw in the towel and where he should fight:
Throw in the towel: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Florida (prohibitively expensive & although it's a swing state, a $ in a different state could go much farther than a $ in Florida).
Throw the most $$$ at: Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, North Carolina, and Georgia
Spend some $$ as insurance against McCain: Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Michigan
If I was Obama, the three states I'd dump the most $$$ in would be Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (barring a Romney VP nod, which would change Colorado to Michigan).
I just don't agree with the idea of "throwing away" Florida. Period. It's too big a state, and it's close enough to be realistically winnable. There are also several competitive House races there that would be handicapped by an Obama concession of that state.
Obama's people have to concentrate on voter registration, prevention of voter suppression and electronic vote-stealing, and GOTV. McCain's people (or technically non-McCain-campaign Republican operatives) will probably concentrate on getting out THEIR vote as best they can in FL, and continuing the kind of voter suppression and vote-stealing that the Republican Party has been so successful at for the last couple of Presidential election cycles in FL.
Modeler,
what are the conditions under which there is a unique solution in which we assume a single underlying value for each week (or day - did Nate not switch to days?) and each State?
Are there conditions under which the problem is not underdetermined but, to the contrary, is impossible?
Same anon who raised the original question - a humanist by training! (But with - trying pathetically to curry favor - some understanding of mathematical concepts - set theory, logic, you get the picture).
Paul,
If you maximize the log likelihood in the Bayesian model I describe, you get the linear equation I describe.
I fit the parameters of the linear equation to the data in figure 2 of the article cited in Nate's post. I didn't have the raw data, so I just eyeballed it.
If you use the values I estimated in my post, you'd see that we should give the model 1/2 weight and the polls 1/2 weight about 84 days before the election. Before that, the model dominates, and after that, the polls do.
It's a rough model, but I was surprised by how well it explained the time-evolution of their coefficient for the polling weight.
Real icon:
Kudos to you and your noteworthy academic achievements. I hope it's not the economist in you that proposes voting once again for the party that has put the country trillions into debt.
But hey, preventing gays from screwing eachother and holding onto your sawed-off shotgun collection is more important than the economy, right?
Yes, the South is a lovely place, but too bad many of its citizens can't find their own states on a map and elect morons (Bush, Lott, Helms, Thurmond, Gingrich) that are barely qualified to organize a varmint-shooting competition.
I wouldn't care so much if they restricted their gay/guns preoccupations to within their own states, but the fact that they've brought these bullshit issues to the national stage impacts on ALL Americans.
Luckily, it appears that the GOP's Southern bloc is more than offset by utter disgust for the GOP in the rest of the country in this particular election cycle.
If I was Obama, the three states I'd dump the most $$$ in would be Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (barring a Romney VP nod, which would change Colorado to Michigan).
Can anyone explain the idea that Romney would make Michigan winnable for McCain just because his dad was governor there a few centuries ago?
I hope McCain chooses Romney, then the Democrats can replay Romney's quote about loving George Bush for "keeping our country safe".
Beautiful. Just combine that with the surplus of photographs showing McCain "hugging" the Shit-For-Brains president.
Modeler,
Thank you for answering my post. I figured it out myself just as I noticed your thoughtful response.
P
Pete Kent, Anon @ 7:26 and anyone else who can't get enough of state by state election detail, look at this seemingly first installment of a swing state analysis, starting in Ohio at RCP:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/07/swing_state_review_ohio_1.html
This gut Kent, who is he? He has his own numbers? We have this site which is the gospel for identifying where this race stands and this guy Kent says he has his own numbers?
Yeah Rasmussen has they're own numbers, and so does RCP. Theres a reason we come here for our numbers, because they are the best found anywhere.
Nobody cares about your numbers. But you can keep posting them all you want, free country and all.
Modeler, still the same non-mathematical humanist: where do you get your State variable from? After all, the super tracker ends up producing just one set of parameters - a value per given unit of time.
9:32 Anonymous,
The "state" variable is actually a "state-pollster combo" variable, as Nate describes. For the purpose of this variable, Nate treats the nation as a state.
Assuming there is no collinearity (see below), there should be a unique solution when the number of polling results is greater than or equal to the number of state-pollster combinations plus the number of weeks (or days, if that is what Nate is using now). If you included the constant variable, you need one more poll.
Now that I think about it, there should be a general problem with collinearity in this method. Collinearity is when one variable can always be expressed as a linear combination of other variables. For example, in your example you know the value of the variable "Z" is always (AB + CD + EF - X - Y). In this case, there is never a unique solution. The fact that collinearity exists in the way I've set this up makes me think that I'm missing something here. The easiest way to deal with collinearity is regularization (e.g. Ridge Regression), but I don't think Nate does that. If he did, he could probably avoid the need for LOESS smoothing.
Given that Nate is doing a least-squares fit, the problem is never really impossible. There will not be a unique solution if the problem is overdetermined or if there is collinearity, but there will always be a solution.
Paul,
No problem. It's nice to know someone is making sense of what I write.
One more thing:
To be clear, the way I have set it up is that if state-pollster AB does a poll in week X, then the value for the AB variable is 1, the value for X is 1, and all others are zero. The result of the poll is then a linear combination of AB and X, where the coefficients are "a" and "x" respectively.
Looking at the states Obama is competing in (i.e. spending money on TV), the campaign looks like they are thinking anything at about the 8.5% margin is "competitive." The only states with a smaller margin for McCain that they aren't advertising in is South Dakota and South Carolina, and the only state with a smaller margin for Obama that they aren't competing heavily in is New Jersey, although I suspect they are getting a lot of bleed-over from the Philadelphia media market. The only state with a margin above 8.5% for either candidate that the Obama team is spending money in is Wisconsin.
Another way of looking at this, and Chuck Todd made this point this evening, is that if we have even a small shift in the polls, that could produce a big shift in the swing states. Lets assume, for example, that the Obama/McCain difference increases by four points towares Obama, and that all the states move in step with the national trend (I know, it isn't accurate to say that, but this is for simplicity's sake). If Obama improves by four points, then Virginia, Montana, Indiana, Nevada, and Missouri all flip into Obama's column, and Florida and North Carolina officials (but not the national pundints since Obama will have more than enough electoral votes to make those states mute) have a long night figuring out who won there.
anon @ 7:26--
You think? Even Blackwell won Hamilton Co. (granted, it was his home field.) I was actually thinking the reverse, that voters who left the county would be moderately conservative and thus make both it and the neighboring counties more liberal.}
In the same way, Obama might crack 40% in Delaware County this year because white-collar voters moving in there might be more pro-Obama that social conservatives who were in its decreasing rural part. He's still not going to win many precincts outside of Ohio Wesleyan, but it'll be good progress in the nation's ~11th fastest growing county.
SG:
In Michigan, Romney is a hero to the uber-rich fiscal conservatives that live in the Detroit suburbs. Oh and he won the GOP primary there so he's well-liked there or something. Besides that, there really isn't anything substantial about Romney that puts Michigan into play.
Nate, Sean:
If you are reading this, please please consider moderating the comments. Having to wade through 100 comments of hijacking and trolling discourages real discussion about the numbers and polls. I'm sure there are enough of us regulars who are willing to be moderators.
OK modeler, I checked your link.
I submit that the following sums up Nate's explicit statement of how the super-tracker is computed:
"We run a linear regression with a large number of dummy variables. Specifically, we include one dummy variable for each week, and one dummy variable for each state-pollster unit. The coefficients of the weekly dummy variables give us an inkling of a time trend."
You are definitely right that there are two kinds of parameters, one for date-points, made quasi-explicit (coarse-grained graphically!) in the "published" super-tracker, one left completely implicit - state-pollster values. And you are right that the regression is linear.
As to the state-pollster variable - is it essentially an assumption such as "Rasmussen in Kansas is always RKx where x is the hypothetical national number for the given date, and RK is the Rasmussen-Kansas parameter"?
I do not quite like the simplification of this notion of a single linear equation for the state-pollster combo; though, come to think of it, the very notion that there is a single value associated with any point of time is a simplification to begin with.
Now, since you did not fathom the bottom of my ignorance, you did not specify what I meanwhile learned from wikipedia, that a regression is, by definition, a statistical operation of *approximation*, which puts my mind at ease as to the fact that the possibility of a solution is guaranteed. I would note that, being an approximation, the result should be sensitive to the specific approximation method used, and that, since the data are (I think) not overwhelmingly many, it looks possible that different approximation methods will give rise to different results. So there's quite a lot happening behind the scenes before the curtain rises (more or less) on our super tracker.
But my original point remains (my evolving tutorial in linear regression is really just an introduction to this point): this number is generated by a method which is completely distinct from that by which Nate generates his national numbers. Is there indeed a discrepancy between the two? If not, how come? If there is one, what to make of ths discrepancy?
"I just don't agree with the idea of "throwing away" Florida. Period. It's too big a state, and it's close enough to be realistically winnable. There are also several competitive House races there that would be handicapped by an Obama concession of that state."
I doubt Obama will totally write it off, but Florida is not very good demographically for him.
It's hideously expensive to campaign there and Florida Democrats tend to be retirees, the one demographic that Obama doesn't win.
If he wins Florida that means he's very probably already won Virginia and Ohio and the election. It's rather like North Carolina in this respect. By the time Obama wins N.C. he's got a landslide going and doesn't need it.
Indiana might be much better bet than Florida and it's smaller and a cheaper market. But, it's right next door to Illinois so Obama home state volunteers can easily get there.
I'd put much more effort into Virginia, Montana, Indiana, and even South Dakota than Florida.
Obama might do better with retirees after he has an ad blitz with McCain's comments about Social Security.
It might be that Florida would get more visits from whomever Obama chooses for VP than from Obama himself.
I think Obama's campaign will have enough money to compete in Florida as well as the other states that you and Nate have identified as better returns on investment.
Nate and Sean: 2nd (or nth) the motion for active moderating of the posts on this site. Even-handedly, and not entirely limited to polling topics -- but tossing pure trolls, no-substance ranting, and excessive name-calling. There is an (implicit) committee of volunteers here to help with that, if you want. (No, no, not a Committee of Vigilance, you that's not what I meant.)
.
Gresham's Law very strongly applies to posting. Teresa Nielsen Hayden's excellent analysis (aptly provided by Paul Bradford, above) makes the case very powerfully.
Virginia's ultimate swingy-ness is another strong vote in favor of chosing Kaine as VP.
Anon @ 10:58,
I truly do believe Obama will take Hamilton County this fall. For those who aren't familiar with Cincinnati's political geography, basically the near east suburbs, which tend to be white collar and upper class, is probably the most adamantly conservative demographic in the area. I'm referring to Indian Hill - one of the most, if not THE most, conservative suburb anywhere in the country - and Anderson Township. This is why a person like Rep. Jean Schmidt can have sustained success in the region. The other conservative bastion falls in the west side, where the climate is a bit more blue-collar than in other places in the city. Here, the sentiment seems to be more anti-Obama than pro-McCain. The west side is also a big part of Steve Chabot's district - again, this region has allowed the Congressman to sustain his success despite the national political situation. The urban center of the city, through the north, is the democratic portion. Recent data shows that this area is expanding, and when combined with the low level of excitement for the Republican nominee along with the white flight like I mentioned to the outer reaches of the city - and, thus, into Warren, Clermont, and Butler counties - you have the reasoning behind my confidence that Sen. Obama will prevail. Warren and Clermont have historically been conservative - Warren perhaps one of the top five conservative counties in the state - so the fact that Sen. McCain will likely win these shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. Additionally, the Obama campaign has launched an unprecedented grassroots effort in and around the city in an attempt to galvanize the base, and at this point the Obama people outnumber the McCain people over 10 to 1 in the city.
It's really anybody's guess, anon @ 10:58, and you present great points. At this point, though, I stand by my prediction.
I read the comment about Virginia leaving the Confederacy and joining the 21st century not as a criticism of the South but as a criticism of the "old South" that did - after all - create the Confederacy for the purpose of continuing slavery. There hasn't been a Confederacy for quite some time. It was a comment that was more condescending to Republicans than to Southerners, I thought. (As you yourself pointed out, there's no excuse for the Dem to poll less than 60% after Bush, so Repub voters this time around may deserve some condescension.)
Calling Democrats "uppity" sounds like you think we're all blacks who don't know our place.
Calling Democrats "elitists" sounds like you don't realize that the Republican party has been nominating old-monied, Yale-educated elitists (and sons and grandsons of military elites)
Meanwhile, the Democratic party has been nominating children of broken homes raised in relatively modest means.
Jonathan, nice job of cutting through the double-speak.
(Kerry doesn't fit you last line, but Clinton and Obama obviously do, and 2 out of 3 is pretty good.)
modeler,
oh, yes, I forgot the update, because I didn´t think that it´s a valid thing to make- the inconsistency, and he´s overfitting the model. So I didn´t spend much interest to it.
"Michael said...
I just don't agree with the idea of "throwing away" Florida. Period. It's too big a state, and it's close enough to be realistically winnable. "
A good argument can be made that it is too big.
I feel that barring total disaster Michigan is safe. The latest polls are good, and if it were to regress it would be towards a natural Democratic lead. Earlier polls just demonstrated that the Democrats had not campaigned there.
Michegan together with states projected to win by 6% or better add up to 259 EV's. Obama only needs 10 more so why pay for 27?
Even if you buy the quite reasonable argument that Obama needs insurance then Ohio is by far the better option.
Finaly you say:
"There are also several competitive House races there that would be handicapped by an Obama concession of that state. "
These would be the same Florida party officials who voted to trash DNC rules. They would be the ones who sat on their bottoms & ate popcorn while Hillary blamed the whole mess on Obama?.
It is entirly their fault that Florida is not competative. Obama is loyal to the Democratic Party, but loyalty must cut both ways.
unertl,
"In Michigan, Romney is a hero to the uber-rich fiscal conservatives that live in the Detroit suburbs."
Aren't these people overwhelmingly likely to support - and vote for - any Republican going?
Interesting posts by the anonymice. What do people think though on the VP issue: Bayh or Sebelius - isit a toss-up? The former would appeal to disaffected democrats and the latter would pull in independents so electorally wouldn't alter things much.
*Rasmussen crosstabs Kansas analysis*
I tried to get out some of the party ID crosstabs of the Kansas Rasmussen poll.
First, i think the crosstabs are without leaners, as well as the headline result and the "trends".
I think the crosstabs are the following:
Democrats: 28%
Independents: 34%
Republicans: 38%
Democrats going 65-17 for Obama.
Pretty much going to McCain, given the fact that Obama won the primary here 70-27. Looks like more than half of Clinton voters are going to McCain- or did those self-identified Dems not vote in the primary?
Independents going 51-34 to McCain.
Contains probably also some disappointed Democrat vote, as well as Republicans who don´t want to identify themselves as Republicans.
Republicans going 79-6 to McCain
Good for him, given the fact that he got only 24% of the vote in a post-Super-Tuesday primary.
The 28/34/38 split compared to the Exit Polls 2004 shows the Republicans getting Independent, but the Democrats don´t get any identification advantage. Could be reasonable given the fact that Obama seems not competitive, and the senate race neither, but you could also argue that the Dem national PartyID advantage can give them some more points., maybe like 33-30-37.
Rasmus,
Kansas was a caucus, not a primary. Explains the massive margins, and how Obama took more delegates out of it than Clinton did New Jersey.
Nate or Sean,
A small feature request.
Please add national polls to the Poll Detail graphic. Certainly not all of them. Perhaps the dozen most recent with their weightings, as well as your Polling Average and Trend Adjusted figures.
I would find it useful to see that input into the model.
Thanks.
phillip, I know that it was a caucus, and I didn´t talk about Obama/Clinton, but about McCain getting clobbered by Huckabee- and still losing only 6% of the Republian vote to Democrats.
The margin Huckabee won by (if it´s a caucus or a primary is not that imprtant here, that mcCain supporters do not go to caucuses just highlights his enthusiasm problems) is similar to Clinton wins in states like Arkansas, West Virginia, Oklahoma. And if Obama would just lose 7% of thoseDemocrats to McCain there...
I just wanted to show that Republicans seem truly united, Demorats not yet, when McCain loses just 7% of Republicans in one of his worst primary states, but Obama loses 17% of Democrats in one of his best primary states.
Obama 328
McCain 210
It's already been decided!
Rasmus,
I would say that, since this is Kansas, most of that 17% is made up of conservative Democrats who probably haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in donkey's years, but vote for right-wing Democrats for state office and Congress.
My hypothesis: Late decideding voters will break McCain to 2:1 or even 3:1 much like Hillary voters. Of course Dems will have much higher GOTV effort. Propably a wash with a Obama win in a close vote.
Humanist anonymous,
this number is generated by a method which is completely distinct from that by which Nate generates his national numbers. Is there indeed a discrepancy between the two? If not, how come? If there is one, what to make of ths discrepancy?
The numbers are generated in different ways. So yes, there is a discrepancy. I haven't worked out all the mathematical differences, but a big one is that the super tracker does not include demographic information. He later adjusts for this when he uses the super tracker curve to apply the trend adjustment.
I think he could get rid of this discrepancy by including "state" variables in his main regression model, and maybe including "pollster" variables as well to weed out any pollster bias. But perhaps his simulations have shown that the way he does things now is better.
Most heard quote of late deciders: He seems like a nice man but I just didn't feel comfortable voting for . . .
Poblano is a nice man - why would you not vote for him, Anonymous?
I am a Obama supporter. Just stating my opinion of how things will break on election day. It's sad but you need to expect it.
-Anonymous
On Hamilton County and Anon @1:11AM--
A good part of Schmidt's district stretches along the Ohio river to the eastern parts of the state. Redneck country. It was Rob Portman's old district and it is a Republican District. Both she and Chabot have run close races of late, but tend to hold on. Hamilton is more or less a pink county, not red. It may be that Obama can improve his margins over Kerry's. We will have to see.
His strength, as elsewhere, will be determined by AA turnout. Thus far other than the color of his skin, he has given black folk littl reason to vote for him, as he has ignored them along with Americans of Muslim heritage out of political expedience. Jesse Jackson may have been more phrophetic than any liberal white Obama supporters may wish to believe.
(This comment has not been approved by any moderator and reflects soley the views of this author and 100 million silent Americans who are sick and tired of the smugness of the Obama campaign)
Anon: you sound like a pretty hopeless Obama supporter.
Once again, it would be great if the partisans on each side would take their squabbling somewhere else. There are lots of sites where such arguments are appropriate and welcome. They just use up bandwidth here.
(I realize it's probably a hopeless plea.)
On a more relevant topic, I'd be interested in Nate or Sean commenting on the overall tightening of the EV estimates over the last few weeks. From what I can tell, it stems in part from the "red" and "blue" states to move slightly in the direction of their predicted homes. Is it also impacted by "decay" in the impact of older polls in some states?
I realize that the topic has been touched on in a number of posts, but it would be useful to see the issue addressed directly.
100 million silent Americans
God, I wish. Seems to me 100 million noisy Americans have posted irrelevant, thoughtless crap in this thread so that we all have to pick through it to find the good stuff.
Hey, SelenesMom,
Stop living your life through your daughter! It's time to cut the cord, sweetie!
I could not resist this thread is dying . . .
PUMA NEWS ALERT
MCCAIN IS WINNING !
THE PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE !!!
HILLARY-WE LOVE YOU
FU** PUMA
OBAMA RAISED $52 Million in June
OBAMA WILL WIN IT !!
wow...
great site
0_0
NEW MCCAIN VIDEO
-MUST SEE-(CLICK HERE)
without clicking that I'm guessing it's rickroll
UPDATE: 1% Of Americans Think Barack Obama Is Jewish!
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/10/barack-obama-secret-jew.aspx
Not only do 12% think he's Muslim, only 57% think he's a Christian of any type (Baptist, Methodist, etc.) I think we now have official proof that Americans are pretty clueless!
What's encouraging is that 28% said they didn't know, hadn't heard or refused to answer the question. At least they are admitting ignorance which means they are educable.
It's the idiots who think they know he's a "secret Muslim" that can't be reasoned with.
I'm reposting this comment here - I had originally placed it in the "Today's Polls" category for 7/17. Thanks!
Hello all-
In looking at this model, I couldn't help but wonder how it would look/compare to the 2004 election at the same point in time. I've been mulling over Nate's "Battleground" post from yesterday and wanted to share some findings with you all.
I decided to do some investigating - and using the polling data from the 2004 election cycle on USelectionatlas.org, I generated a polling average for Kerry/Bush as of July 2004 in each of Nate's currently projected 2008 battleground states. I then compared these to Nate's 2008 polling averages in these sates. I am using the basic polling average and not any of the trend/regression adjusted numbers.
For simplicity sake, I am just showing the difference between the two candidates. Also, please note that in the case of Montana, there were apparently no polls done in the '04 cycle prior to an ARG poll in September.
The results were as follows:
Polling Averages as of July
North Carolina
Bush/Kerry: Bush +6.5
McCain/Obama: McCain +3.9
Florida
Bush/Kerry: Bush +0.9
McCain/Obama: McCain +2.0
Missouri
Bush/Kerry: Bush +3.4
McCain/Obama: McCain +1.4
Nevada
Bush/Kerry: Bush +2.8
McCain/Obama: McCain +2.9
Indiana
Bush/Kerry: Bush +18.5
McCain/Obama: McCain +1.7
Montana
Bush/Kerry: Bush +25.0
McCain/Obama: McCain +0.3
Virginia
Bush/Kerry: Bush +5.0
McCain/Obama: Obama +1.0
Colorado
Bush/Kerry: Bush +5.0
McCain/Obama: Obama +3.7
Ohio
Bush/Kerry: Bush +0.1
McCain/Obama: Obama +3.8
Michigan
Bush/Kerry: Kerry +3.4
McCain/Obama: Obama +5.2
New Mexico
Bush/Kerry: Kerry +3.0
McCain/Obama: Obama +5.4
As you can see from this, McCain is doing significantly worse than Bush at this point in the cycle (compared to 2004) in everyone of Nate's 2008 battleground states, with the exception of Florida and Nevada. In those two cases, McCain is up 1.1 and 0.1 respectfully. Obama is doing better than Kerry in all the other listed states. In the cases of Indiana and Montana he is doing ridiculously better.
For me, my next step is to look at the next batch of state's Nate identified and compare those vs. the 2004 election. Anyway, I hope ya'll find this interesting. I certainly did.
The 5 PM Rasmussen poll showing Obama with a slim lead in Nevada is intriguing. It's starting to look like the blue states are slowly nibbling away at the periphery of the red. Not much, but maybe enough.
Obama is going to destroy McBush in CA, NY, entire New England area, etc...
Obama shouldn't even worry so much about the south, focus hard on Ohio, Missouri, & a couple others..
Iowa, New Mexico, & Colorado should turn blue this time...Obama has lead in Iowa for 12 consecutive polls...
Obama 08!
Rasmussen pols are discredited everywhere. Why on earth do you pay any attention to them?
Bob:
Where is this "everywhere" where Rasmussen polls are discredited, and on what basis are they discredited?
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!! 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,
^^ 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,
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