Let's give this until at least the middle of next week before we conclude that Obama hasn't gotten some kind of bounce from his trip abroad; some of the polls that came in after the deadline today were pretty good for him. But one speculative conclusion might be as follows: placing more emphasis on foreign policy may not be a winner for Barack Obama -- even if he closes the gap with McCain on the issue.
We might think of it like this. Suppose that, in the status quo, 75 percent of voters base their vote on domestic policy, and those voters go to Obama 60:40. The remaining 25 percent base their votes on foreign policy, and they vote for McCain 70:30. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by five points:[Status Quo] % Voting Obama McCainNow suppose this: Obama emphasizes foreign policy. As a result, he cuts his deficit with McCain on that issue from 70-30 to 65-35. But he also increases the percentage of the public that base their decision on foreign policy from 25 percent to 35 percent. (Indeed, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, attention to Iraq and Afghanistan has increased by about that margin within the past week). The electorate now looks as follows:
Foreign Policy 25 30 70
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 52.5 47.5[FP Emphasis] % Voting Obama McCainNow, instead of leading by five points, Obama leads by just two-and-a-half -- even though the strategy succeeded in improving perceptions about his ability to handle foreign policy.
Foreign Policy 35 35 65
Domestic Policy 65 60 40
============================================
Total 100 51.25 48.75
What you're hoping for in the long-run, of course, is something like this:[Long-Term?] % Voting Obama McCainThat is, in the long-run, the public's emphasis shifts back to domestic policy, which is where Obama wants it. But among those voters who do want to vote on foreign policy, he has assuaged some concerns and made some permanent gains. This results in him leading by 7.5 points rather than five.
Foreign Policy 25 35 65
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 53.75 46.25
Granted, this has been a rather arbitrary exercise. But it wouldn't surprise me if something like this is going on. You're still giving McCain a sort of home-court advantage by fighting every day over foreign policy, even if you're winning some of the skirmishes.
The other substantive takeaway is that it may be a mistake for Obama to pick a Vice President who shifts the emphasis to foreign policy. So those of you who had Mssrs. Biden, Clark, Reed, Hagel, or Nunn in the Democratic Veepstakes, it may be time for a short.
7.25.2008
Lessons from the Overseas Trip
by Nate Silver @ 3:22 AM...see also foreign policy, obama, vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

69 comments
Does the VP really shift the public attention so dramatically, though, that we get a situation like your second chart? It seems to me that, based on your previous analysis of the impact the VP makes, a Biden, Hagel, etc. pick won't really shift the debate all that much, but will instead shore up Obama's numbers *should the debate swing towards such issues*.
In other words, the VP may just be for insurance in case the public's priorities for voting begin to migrate, rather than presenting an overall general election focus.
morning, Nate.
nice post to start the TGIF off.
I tend to agree that it seems that if Obama acknowledges his security issues he seems to be playing into a McCain issues trap.
However, if Obama pulls a rabbit out of his hat on Foreign affairs & military [like Powell for VP - or an advance agreement that Powell would serve in his cabinet] then he would trump any possible McCain move on what many believe is his strongest issue.
But the contrarian take on this might be expressed this morning by Joe Klein @ TIME "McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration ".
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html
His take is that Obama is intentionally needling McCain on the "Surge worked" issue. The end game ? maybe get under John's skin & get him to lose it. Show his temper & change the political landscape.
In other words, pretend to play into McCain's trap to change the political landscape.
Bold & brilliant IF it works !!!
Nate, I think Obama will get a bump, eventually, from the overseas trip. It takes the general American public quite awhile before they catch onto world events...look at how the Iraq war started. Eventually Americans wake up to political commentary, just not as quick as those who are politically inclined.
I think the trip will give a bit of a short-term bump. Because Americans want to be proud of their country, they want to be proud of their president, they want their president to be liked and respected as their proxy on the world stage.
But I'm sure the trip wasn't done for short-term reasons. It was done to reduce the role of foreign policy in the campaign. (That's why it's in July, not October). Now it's done, he can come back and focus on the economy, and that little doubt that some people have ("Yes, but can he hold his own with other world leaders?"), consciously or unconsciously, will be assuaged. I think a lot of people have a sort of threshold test for foreign policy -- as long as he passes that threshold, they can go back to making their decision on domestic grounds.
This is a really insightful post. Let me add one possible dynamic: The timing of the trip leaves Obama plenty of time to refocus the debate on domestic policy. I'm sure that's in the playbook. But in debates with McCain, foreign policy stuff will come up, so it's important that he doesn't look like a fish out of water when they do. And after this trip, he'll be able to deflect these questions well by saying that as president, he would restore our alliances yadda yadda. And that will sound plausible and impressive, given our memories of him in front of 200,000 adoring Berliners.
If he can convince the skeptic that he'll be "maybe OK" on foreign policy, that skeptic will probably vote primarily on some other issue, and that's good for Obama.
Honestly, I think there are few swing voters that use foreign policy as the tiebraker for choosing a president. The only large groups in the US are Hispanic economic immigrants, Cuban immigrants, Zionists and anti-war moderates. The "boot up the terrorists' ass" Americans are also many, but overwhelmingly not swing voters.
I think that Obama has done well to reassure the undecided groups who will decide their vote based on foreign policy.
So if we short Biden, Reed, & others, who do we long? Who helps Obama on economic issues? Bayh, I guess, or Sebelius?
At first glance the D field looks pretty weak on economics, actually...
Nate, it's still July. Obama was wise to get the trip in NOW, so that his foreign policy credentials are established, but leaving him plenty of time to focus the election on the economy. If he picks, say, Clark as veep and makes a trip abroad in Sept/Oct, then I would share your concern. At the moment, it looks to me more like he's anticipated your point and working actively to solve the problem.
The issue here is one of defense - McCain might have decided to attack Obama with a "he's so inexperienced, if he ever tried to get up on the world stage he'd mess it all up via poor internationl diplomacy" line. So now Obama is innocculated againat that. That's the baseline in terms of benefits - any bounce is a bonus, but this far out 'bounces' are worth less than the innocculation effect.
Obama doesn't really need a bump now from this trip.
What this trip needed to do was get Obama over the "CINC threshold." It probbaly did that, and it's only still July.
Now he can focus on domestic issues almost entirely and answer any foreign policy questions with "been there, done this and that."
It also probably frees him up to select a more economic oriented VP.
Remember, Obama doesn't have to beat McCain on the CINC issue, just reach a threshold where the voter can ignore the issue and move onto domestic ones.
Looks as if at least some smart folks stay up late at night...
I agree with the foregoing posters. I think the trip also proved a number of things:
1. Foreign leaders take Obama seriously, and he commands attention and respect.
2. Foreign populations are as enraptured of him as many here.
3. The preceding two points generate the notion that he will be able to heal the ruptures and strains in foreign relations that Bush has caused.
4. His foreign policy ideas have been closely matched by developments, giving credence to his thinking.
5. The respect he engendered will allow him more easily to stay above the fray and to assume the mantle of dignified leader, making McCain evermore petty and mean-spirited.
All of which means, I think, that what Obama really needs to do now is to pick a street-fighter vice president - the person who can break out the brass knuckles and hit below the belt when necessary. Someone who is quick on his/her feet, and is nearly as verbally adept as Obama, himself. Hillary comes to mind. Maybe the Gov. of Montana (his name escapes me at the moment). Biden, I think, should be in the mix. But certainly not Mr. Nice Guy Bayh and probably not Gov. Sibelius (who strikes me as a female Obama in her demeanor and carriage).
Point taken, Nate. The formal element of shifting the debate to foreign policy has as much impact as anything you can actually say, messaging-wise.
But doesn't something like the Maliki comments, which largely undermine McCain's position (to many or most voters, at any rate) change this calculus? In other words, is it possible for the messaging to be so corrosive for your opponent that you can change those perceptions large scale? How would we be able to tell?
It never fails to amaze me how people see what they want to see from polls. Yes, the Quinnipiac polls show Obama's lead shortening but he is stily way ahead of where Kerry was. Also, the poll was taken from July 14-22 so doesn't fully record the effects of Obama's trip overseas.
Much has also been made of the Rasmussen poll in Ohio which showed McCain up by 10. Good news for McCain indeed but it is a single poll with survey work done on July 21. Survey work done after July 21 seems to show an Obama recovery eg Obama is up in Colorado per Rasmussen by 7 (3 with leaners), up in Florida by 1 (2 with leaners), up in NH by 6 (4 with leaners), up in Pennsylvania by 5 (6 with leaners.
The lesson here is clear. Unless you're a moron, don't try to extrapolate on the basis of single polls. Look at the trends and then make a judgment.
My prediction (I'm happy to be wrong, I don't seek to state my views as facts) is that the trackers are going to show a widening of Obama's lead. Rasmussen has already picked up a small surge with Obama now leading by 4 (3 with leaners) from a tie just days ago. Gallup has Obama's lead at 2 but today his worst night of polling will roll out of the figures and I expect it to increase. Let's see.
A post script. All of this week's news will be history in short time. VP choices and the conventions will be the next focus. So far we've just had the hors d'oeuvres. Enjoy
Very good post!
The whole trip was part of a battle on foreign policy experience and judgement. McCain challenged Obama to go to Iraq and he did it. The trip created so many nice pictures that the whole issue of military/foreign policy credentials is off the table.
But the McCain campaign was wise enough to have shifted the focus more on the economy. It certainly creates the picture that Obama is somewhere out there holding nice speeches while Americans can´t fill their tanks - that´s what matters in Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania. In addition the McCain campaign can now also spread their "He´s not one of us"-message that should work in socially conservative states, too.
So this election will be about the economy - it´s not the war, not social issues, not even health care. That´s the issue McCain CANNOT affort to concede to Obama (although he already did before, when he said that he doesn´t know much about the economy). And additionally, that´s the issue where democrats have a generic advantage.
A gas-tax holiday is a short-term solution (and holiday season will soon be over)... it will not matter in November except you expand the gas-tax holiday over the next 10 years, until off-shore drilling comes into effect. Off-shore drilling is the supposed long-term plan and seems to have an effect in the polls right now. In addition, there is no democratic vice-presidential favorite who can match Romney´s credentials. Now, with Jindal out of the race, how can McCain not pick him? And then McCain will seek to counter every small state gain by Obama with a strategy to capture Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania (yet risking to lose Florida, and the states where green energy/green jobs play a factor: Montana, ND, SD).
In agreement to the posters above, it also seems to me that Sebelius and Bayh are the only choices (Schweitzer as a "back-up" pick). Sadly, both of them lack the experience of leading a business. Both however managed to balance their state budgets without new taxes. Sebelius is a bit more "glamorous", being a woman, very pro-choice, and anti-coal - but Bayh´s blandness isn´t necessarily a disadvantage if you recall Clinton/Gore. Both of them even have a shot at Ohio, the one being a neighbor, the other one being the daughter of an Ohio governor.
I have posted here before how Sebelius was my favorite because she´s from Kansas and allows Obama to focus on his "I am from the heartland"-message. That´s probably the one advantage she has over Bayh - but he might actually win his state - if the Democrats play their economic card right.
So, in the short term there might be a bit of a backlash, if there are more people voting on the economy than on the war/foreign policy. In the long term, Obama has nailed the debate on the economy. Every argument he makes will be stronger because of his grown stature and the impossibility of McCain reshifting the focus on foreign matters. But the McCain campaign is not without tactical measures, yet, Obama should do well, arguing from a long-term point of view.
Bob is correct in his premises but not his conclusions: Hillary can do good work for Obama without being on the ticket - she and Bill are the only Democrats who can draw a crowd without Obama having to be there too so it would be waste to make her the vp. What Obama has to do is put them to work sharpish - bag a few more rural voters. Biden might be an unnecessary headache for Obama- constantly worrying about whether he'll 'misspeak' or not. Furthermore, his 'attack-dog' qualities are probably better used on those conference call thingummies rather addressing the nation or rallies. I think they should be doing some polling on which of Bayh and Sebelius provides the more attractive pairing - my personal pref. would be the latter.
Looking on from Australia with great interest. Congrats on your work Nate.
I have concerns about Scott Rasmussen's 'reassuring' appearances on Fox programs. I've noted Rasmussen polls coming out in safe states or when they seem to find 'the right 500 people' to make John McCain look good. Something Scott Rasmussen said on Fox a month ago about McCain riding it out until after Labor Day a month ago set a few alarm bells ringing.
Have you ever tried a trial without Rasmussen polls to check the difference?
Very interesting analysis, Nate. Two thoughts...
1) The exercise is a bit artificial. There may actually be voters who say to themselves "I'm going to vote on X...so whom do I like better on X?" but I don't know many who do. However, perhaps this works as a way of modeling the effect of a trip like this.
2) Your proposed model of the effects of such a trip tacitly assumes--fairly in this case--that the candidate in Obama's position (i.e. losing on foreign policy) is not trying to fundamentally reframe foreign policy questions. That is, Obama's vision of foreign policy is substantially similar to McCain's in its broad outlines: emphasize the military, sabre-rattle at Iran, see the "War on Terror" as our biggest foreign policy challenge, and so forth. The clearest differences between these two candidates largely concern emphasis (McCain: Iraq; Obama: Afghanistan). As a result, Obama's calling attention to foreign policy does, in fact, play into McCain's perceived strengths in this area. Were Obama putting forward a more sharply different vision from McCain, the results of this trip would potentially play out differently.
It's Brian Schweitzer from Montana. He would be a great counterpoint to McCain's strengths as a straight shooter.
Interesting how you see the foreign policy angle working. I am glad this trip has been taken, and that is now over (almost). Sort of had to be done - but shouldn't define the campaign. The Middle East portion worked beautifully for Obama - way beyond expectations. So when foreign policy comes up Obama needs to take it there: al Maliki, King of Jordan, Israelis and Palestinians - there wasn't a sour note.
I do hope the Obama campaign does start to hammer on McCain. They needn't get into the gutter, but they do need to get off defense.
I think the third part of Nate's post is what Obama wants to do. He wants to emphasis the foreign policy bonafides NOW and close the gap and then hammer the economy home all day long
Exactly what I was thinking, Nate. Right now I would say Obama has been doing fairly well in the national security fight, but he shouldn't have done anything about it at all, like Bill Clinton in 1992. Just focus on the economy, and eventually the voters would follow you.
Nate,
I hate to say this, but at this point, one has to consider if the floor for McCain is quite high/ rock solid, because the hurdle is very high for Obama to move some of the older folks under McCain's floor, who are simply unable to get over the race issue??
So, the question is what percentage of Americans will simply not vote for Obama, no matter what. My guess is that, that percentage is at least 30% of voters.
Interesting analysis, Nate, but I tend to see it a little differently. The goal is not so much to close the foreign policy polling gap with McCain as to lower the importance of foreign policy to the voters.
Suppose there are voters who were worried that Obama would be a complete disaster on foreign policy, and that he convinces them that he would be OK. They might still think McCain would be better. So the 70:30 foreign policy number for McCain doesn't change. But rather than 25% of the electorate basing their choice on foreign policy, only 20% do, because they no longer perceive the differences between the two candidates as stark.
We've been seeing that phenomenon on Iraq already: as the candidates move closer together in their proposals, the importance of Iraq goes down. I don't think it's so much that people are "forgetting" about Iraq (a common explanation), as that they are deciding that it's not the biggest difference between the two candidates.
Watch for the importance of foreign policy in the voting choice to go down in the polls: that will be a sign the trip has succeeded.
I agree that your logic is Axelrod's logic. I've believed the same thing, but it's nice to see how the numbers work.
But one thing that you didn't factor is that this was the cheapest way to increase his percentage. If he'd had to pay for this much coverage, it would have cost him tens of millions.
Now he's going to spend five million on the Olympics. That's five million that he has because he didn't go toe to toe with McCain in advertising over the last two weeks. McCain countered the Obama foreign policy bounce with money. Let's see what happens when Obama spends that money he was saving.
Rasmussen national tracking has Obama back up +5 (both w/ and w/out leaners). That's back to where the numbers were through most of June.
Bouncing beginning?
Nate,
First of all, kudos on your site..excellent and balanced.
Secondly, I don't think this trip was intended to bolster Obama's foreign policy credentials with the voting public, rather it was to defang the media with respect to his naivete. From now on, they have to admit, however grudgingly, that he has standing with the international community and would be fine dealing with the heads of states of countries really important to us. This entire week was an exercise to take away one of John McCain's planks with the media.
I suspect Senator Obama will quickly put this behind him when he returns and start hitting hard on the economy.
Great analysis as always. I was wondering the same thing before about whether shifting the focus to a strong point of an opponent was futile- and your scenario was a great way in showing the problems with moving away from your areas of strength.
But McCain doesn't want to talk about anything else (smartly according to this analysis), and he's doing it in a way that needs a response. Plus, his gaffes need to be highlighted it seems. You can't not respond to essentially being called a traitor about the surge-but this analysis shows a better way to do it.
In response to the traitor-like claim and the gaffes I feel Obama needs to clearly say that Iraq can't be simply "won," and that had we not invaded the war on terror (Afghanistan mainly) would be better- that Osama is still on the loose- and that McCain foreign policy=Bush foreign policy (while McCain holds an advantage- like most republicans- on foreign policy Bush would not). Then the real key part is to say what could have been done with the billions upon billions of dollars at home (shift focus to domestic).
Try this response:
Iraq is not like any wars of the past where winning is an achievable endpoint. Iraq, like the greater war on terror cannot just be won by troops and wars- but through changing the global community in a way that fights terrorism as the world fought communism (theme of Berlin speech). We must not quibble about patriotism or accuse others of self-serving goals as my opponent has done, but we must listen to the voices of Americans and Iraqis and find a way to make us all safer by improving or chances in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
The choice to invade Iraq was one that weakened our nation's safety, economy, and standing in the world. The Bush administrations clear lack of regard for law, facts, and the will of the global community has lost America the goodwill that the Clinton administration had brought to our nation, and replaced it with no fuel for terrorist recruitment.
America will be less safe in fact if we stay in Iraq as long as John McCain has advocated for. Without the troops being available elsewhere, or the money being available at home Afghanistan and those who attacked us on September 11th are still at large, and the war in Afghanistan has been worsening- and the gains of hate and terror threaten the chance for democracy and hope both in the Middle East and throughout the world.
We cannot fight terror by instilling fear in our populace and by taking away our own rights in the name of protection, but by combating the forces of those who wish harm against our way of life.
America would be better served with the billions of dollars he at home than in Iraq. The price of gas has quadrupled since the invasion despite what Bush and his cronies had claimed would occur. The response to Katrina was full of blunders and the lack of funds and equipment to deal with the issue. Indeed, even the infrastructure in place to help protect and serve are people has dropped to the point where Katrina and the Midwestern flooding could have been avoided to at least some degree were we able to spend that money on rebuilding America. We could all be safer had we begun the project of making America green- and ending our reliance on oil from hostile nations that fuel the terrorists that we must then combat.
Our schools could catch up to the numerous nations whose education systems have surpassed our own- making it harder and harder for young Americans to compete in a more global world.
Our economy would not be crumbling under the lack of funds, mismanagement, and gas prices had we looked at the facts about Iraq, and taken steps to rebuild America.
Alternative energy is not something to be laughed at and ignored like the Bush administration has by rejecting climate change, and infuriating other global leaders. Had we taken steps to build the infrastructure to create this change like Eisenhower had done with the highways than we could drive down the price of oil- keep investments at home saving our economy, our planet, and avoiding aiding our enemies.
I've said all along that Obama should place his foreign policy talent in the SoS and SoD jobs.
His VP should be a governor that brings executive experience.
I still favor Sebelius despite (and perhaps because of) the sexist Hillary supporters' objections.
I agree with Stevie. The point of this trip was to get Obama over the Commander in Chief threshold, so that voters can at least see him as a potential Commander in Chief and lower his "risky candidate" numbers. Once he has reached that point, he will be free to refocus his attentions on the domestic issues that will win him the election.
You've all pretty much nailed it that actions now are preamble to the big event, not the big event itself. Often in our obsessive microanalysis of every dip or bump, we forget that. In both directions: getting overly confident based on a moderately narrow lead or overly upset over narrow shifts in a few state polls.
Tactically Obama needed to get the background worry over his international capability neutralized some. This will do that significantly (and it could have gone badly - cheering crowds of Palestinians for example). He came off statesman like. A bump? No need. It is a long term need and will allow for more focus on domestic issues as we get closer to the election. The data is now out there: the world is excited to work with Obama. The images are out there too. And Obama has achieved some real fact finding and relationship building, which will serve him well both in the campaign and in his Presidency.
VP speculations? Yes, number one is someone who can serve as President and who shares most of Obama's basic vision. If that person happens to bring something else as well - like military or FP or economic or energy gravitas - or a demograohic or a state - or more than one of those - that's gravy. But it is not the main course.
Hillary could do that but her baggage (including that outsized husband) is substantial and distracting. Richardson as well has the chops, is an energy wonk, a FP wonk, brings a state or two and a demographic. An all minority ticket may be too much though and he is not a great campaigner. Bayh? Sure, he'd do. And I like the long shot of Zinni. But these speculations belong in another thread!
Sometimes we focus too much on who wins the 24-hour news cycle and les on the underlying fundamentals. Obama had a fantastically successful overseas trip and goes a long way toward alleviating inexperience fears that some swing voters may have. When he returns, he'll be able to go after McCain on domestic issues hard, without having to worry about his foreign policy flank. He's simply a much more electable candidate now than he was a week ago, and if he pays a small price now by focusing on foreign policy, it will more than repay itself in the months ahead. So, bounce or not, it was a great week for Team Obama. I just hope his administration is run as competently as his campaign has been (and heaven help us if President McCain runs his administration as incompetently as his campaign has been run!).
I also agree with Nate's VP lesson-learned point. I suspect the Obama campaign has internal polling to guide them, but there does not seem to be a need to take a foreign policy person for VP. As McCain and Bush change course to match Obama on Iraq, it will become a less important campaign issue and the economy will become even more important. I still think Mark Warner would be the ideal VP pick--too bad he's declined. After Warner, I lean toward Bayh as the safe, solid choice with the bonus of regional strength in the midwest.
a persuasive post, nate.
Wasn't Clark the one who said global warming was a national security issue?
If you get someone agile enough, a military heavy pedigree makes for someone with good business sense.
Besides. Clark got a degree in Philosophy Politics and Economics at Oxford.
FISA FISA FISA
Obama tanked his principled image with that vote. I really think this effect hasn't been fully explored. There are a LOT of pissed off independents who were Obama-leaning primarily because he was perceived as the rule-of-law candidate.
Abandoning the filibuster over telecom immunity was a dagger to the heart of that image.
Nate, I agree with your analysis on the whole including the implications for the VP selection. But I think Scott also has a point that the goal of Obama is just as much to lower the saliency of foreign policy (or international creds of the candidates) in the voter's calculus as it is to close the candidate foreign policy credibility gap. He never had to "win" that argument, just to reduce McCain's large advantage.
In any case, the lesson from Clinton 1992 -- all economy all the time -- is clear. Obama needs to focus sharply on this both substantively and in terms of how he delivers his messages.
One theory for Obama's relative weakness in the polls (until today) is that some Clinton diehards don't like Obama's "grandstanding" and "rock-star" attitude.
I don't know, Nate. It seems to me that when you venture (as in these last two posts) away from concrete data-analysis into speculative narrative-analysis, you really lose some perspective.
It's a little jarring, as if a guy who spends his days compiling OPS+ and PECOTA ratings leaves work and immediately calls WFAN to gripe about how A-Rod is "soft" and will never be a True Yankee.
You go to great lengths to account for days-to-the-election in your polling analysis, yet in these posts you consistently seem to forget that it's freakin' July.
The whole foreign policy/CINC-test issue is both overrated and unavoidable. We are fighting two wars after all. Obama needn't pass McCain on this question, but he must establish a comfort level with a critical mass of voters so that his so that his fundamental issue advantages can seal the deal. This trip, like the campaign's emphasis on on-the-ground organization thus far, is about laying the groundwork for the battle ahead, not about any short-term "bounce" or lack of such. And it's fairly shocking to see you so alarmist about a lack of polling movement before the trip is even over. 100 days is quite a long time in this game.
You may want to talk to Al Giordano about "Chicken Little-ism".
p smith had already noted that Rasmussen had measured an Obama uptick after the Berlin speech. Now Gallup http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx reports the same. Up by 6 today. With both reporting the same thing one has to believe it is real. So whaddaya know? Good long term positioning and a bounce in the short term to boot!
Obama's guys do know how to win the spin it seems. Today even RR has to concede that "52% say Bringing Troops Home More Important than Winning the War".
How does McCain defuse that ? He is about to lose it [his temper] as well as the election...
plus today RR has "55% Rate Obama’s Berlin Speech Good or Excellent "...
double whammy. TGIF
I think I agree. The point of this extended trip overseas was to create a memory for those interested in foreign policy. In the future, McCain will not be able to make the same claims against Obama, at least not with the same validity.
McCain has already shifted his rhetoric: Obama has now not 'consistently' talked to General Petraeus. This is a big change. And this careful shift implies that McCain is more able to tune his words than it has appeared this week, which is scary.
I agree with others on this. Obama doesn't need to win the foreign policy debate at this time so much as neutralize it. And the way to do that is to show that he meets the confidence threshold some people have for CinC.
But among those voters who do want to vote on foreign policy, he has assuaged some concerns and made some permanent gains.
That seems right to me. Obama hasn't been playing for short term advantage, his strategy is to win at the polls in November, not July. We saw the same methodical game plan in the primary - he was constantly preparing the ground for contests months in the future and targeted voters in places nobody thought he had a chance. His numbers didn't match Clinton's until just before the first votes were cast, and she didn't have a post Super-Tuesday game plan until it was too late.
Lately, Obama has been defining the debate on his own terms and to his own advantage. We're speaking about foreign policy because he's been on tour in Europe and the Middle East.
McCain can no longer make silly accusations ("Obama would change his view if only he'd visit Iraq"). He can't make the argument that Obama's Iraq plan is defeatist without explaining why Maliki wholeheartedly agrees with it. He can't accuse Obama of being weak on Israel's security without being asked why a majority of Israelis prefer the Democrat to the Republican. And he can't bring up foreign policy in general without reminding everyone that 200,000 Germans came out to see Obama's speech in Berlin.
It blows my mind that anyone thinks that McCain is better on foreign policy than Obama when McCain seems rather clueless about what's going on in Iraq - has to have Lieberman help him with names - gets his timelines totally wrong - and was of course entirely wrong about going into Iraq in the first place. WTF?! I just don't get it. Why is the "bomb bomb bomb Iran" guy considered a good bet on foreign policy? In my view Obama's advantage on foreign policy should be even bigger than his advantage on the economy.
McCain is really laying into Obama in his speech in Denver - and I can objectively say that he's doing a MUCH better job than in previous publicized speaking endeavors. (That green backdrop speech in Lousiana was hilarious!) I'm confused by the Latino angle though. I'm curious to see how Obama will respond - or if it'll be a non-response.
I feel like this + the German soldier cancellation will probably mean the next round of national polling will go back towards McCain.
The German soldier cancelation issue?! You have got to be kidding if you think this makes it past the blogs. If any swing voter pays attention to it, which I extremely doubt, it will just reinforce the idea that Republicans make petty attacks, desparately attempting to avoid discussion of the real issues facing America.
I think this analysis is dead on. This is also why you do this trip in July instead of September. Brilliant move by the Obama campaign. Now for a pivot to domestic issues.
synonymous: I haven't heard the McCain speech yet, or any sound bites from it, so I won't comment there. But I don't think the German soldier cancellation will affect the poll toplines. It's just too hard to hang your hat on--Afghanistan, Iraq, and places like Walter Reed are the key PR opportunities; I doubt that most Americans born after World War II think about American bases in Germany much. Having said that, it does serve to fire up the conservative base a little, and poll internals certainly show that conservatives need something to get them excited.
The markets give Obama a boost of 6 in the expected number of electoral votes, to 305.5. This translates to an increase in the probability of 270 or more for Obama of 3.3%, to 68.5%. The corresponding change in the expected margin is 12 electoral votes. The overnight change was all positive, with 9 states and DC increasing expectations. Who needs polls?
Ditto what I am reading here. The point was never McCain versus Obama. The point was Obama as Commander and Chief. He doesn't need to beat McCain. He just needs to pass the Commander and Chief threshhold. It's a subtle point that makes all the difference. Foreign policy isn't going to turn this election. The economy is. But, Obama had to pass the commander and chief threshold to talk about the economy. It was actually a very smart play over time IMO.
Maybe I've missed something, but the only German soldier cancellation story I've heard is that the Pentagon canceled Obama's trip to visit injured troops in Germany.
How does that help McCain?
To complete my comment...
The overnight predictive market response is highly favorable for Obama the day after his Berlin speech.
I read "Home Run for Obama".
Great site for political junkies.
New Gallup tracking poll out (July 25) has Obama at 47 and McCain at 41.
Is this the post World Tour bounce?
Nate, I'm normally you're biggest fan but I totally disagree with you on this one. I think that most people will base their decisions on a combination of foreign/domestic policy. They want to vote for Obama for dom but they are slightly scared on foreign policy. The trip is a defensive play. Its point is "I might not be your favorite on foreign policy but I won't be a complete disaster". I think this is a smart preparation for what McCain's main line of attack will be.
another mike - I know this is probably odd, but I actually make a concerted effort to watch Fox News and read newspapers with more conservative slants. What I clumsily called the German solider cancellation thing - perhaps I should have come up with a clever x-gate - is already on them. It's my attempt to understand how the other half thinks.
SLScott - Perhaps you're right. But I've already seen plenty of "Obama skips out/disses/etc. Soldiers" headlines. When it's reduced to that, it seems like it's pretty easy to package, even if a half-truth.
Jinchi - B/c what I've read indicates that the Pentagon only told him no video cameras and no campaign staffers. Basically, no media entourage. I feel like that almost makes it worse? Again, it's very easy to spin into the larger Anti-American/Unpatriotic theme.
But if this election is a referendum on Obama, perhaps this does nothing to sway people from one camp to the other, but just makes folks on both sides dig in deeper.
My larger question, where are these undecided voters? For real, everyone I know has an opinion on Obama either way, and hardly any are middle of the road. This myserious swing/independent voter definitely does not seem to exist in metro-Atlanta or GA in general.
From my perspective, the market saw a potential hazard (a risk) in Obama going off shore. From two weeks ago his expected EV's dropped from 295 to 294 and back to 295 after a week. The week that followed showed an increase of five to 299, a net gain of 4 as Obama resolved uncertainties in his favor. Today, as of 9:13 PST, the overnight gain was +6 to 305. His performance in Berlin was clearly well recieved by the market with 5 times the average daily movement, and no negative response.
SarahCambellScott:
Excellent analysis of the issue of Obama's earning at least a certain level of comfort with the public on National Security/Defense?International issues.
Have you ever looked at some of the mathematical psychology models of individual choice? Some 40 years ago I took Math Psych from Clyde Coombs (I think I remember the first name correctly) who at the time was the real guru of the field.
One of the models for individual choice in evaluating options in at least two dimensions is that the individual needs the object of perception (in this case Obama) to have at least a satisfactory level on all the variables. Beyond that, the individual may stress look almost exclusively to other issues, but the minimum level is necessary.
Your description fits that model perfectly.
Obviously Obama has jumped up in the national polls over the last couple of days. How meaningful is this?
As yet, not very. Most of the variation in the day to day polling that is not caused by sampling error or Poller Introduced Error is due to people with low involvement and low information being temporarily swayed by very short term influences.
Just as I shrugged off Obama's dip, I do not get elated by this rise. It's still July - show me a trend toward Obama in September and I'll be a lot more enthusiastic.
If it stays this high for the next three weeks, then maybe I'll begin to believe a 5-6 point lead is real.
Market Update: California back to neutral after an overnight gain of 2.2 and Michigan down .8 for a retrace of 3 in expected electoral votes, to 302 for Obama. Still a gain of 3 on the day, but not unanimous. KY slightly positive and MI going against the trend.
Ohio, no change. I guess the McCain German Restaurant ploy didn't do so well in OH, but touched the heart and soul of MI.
Let's see, 3 a day for the next 25 days gives Obama 377 for Denver...
As things now stand, I believe this is going to be the most depressing presidential election ever held. The ground has shifted so momentuously since the beginning of the primaries.
67% of Americans don't believe climate change is man made. And the Dem energy/oil prices policy is predicated on carbon reduction.
Have you bothered to look at the lastest Pew research on this? Even YOUNG people are moving towards offshore drilling - and there was a 19% movement towards it among Independents. 18% of women have changed their minds and now approve of it.
There is no way Obama can win this election unless he either changes his policy on drilling OR somehow manages to change the way voters perceive it - and that latter I don't believe he can do.
Think for a moment of families who are struggling now to cope with all their budgetary pressures. How the hell do you think they'll react to the idea of having to swap to an electric car? Where are they going to get the money to do that?
And why would you vote for a candidate who promises a windfall tax on oil companies when you know damned well that just means they'll pass that tax on to YOU in higher prices?
It's all too depressing for words.
Regarding the viral e-mail blasting Obama fro snubbing the troops, snopes.com has identified the allegations in it as "False."
here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
It appears that the good captain wasn't there and that he violated US military regulations by signing a political post with his service status and rank.
I'm also puzzled by his self-identification as "battle captain." I am possibly ignorant, but in the days I spent some time studying military history I never heard that the army had such a rank, and a quick scan on the internet turned up no ground force references to it except in connection with the Soviet army.
Anna..
Obama can do several things other than open offshore areas for drilling rights immediately. First, he can release oil from the national reserve to stablize prices. Second, he can push through higher milage requirements for fleets. Third, he can request legislation requiring drilling of existing leases or face loss of lease. Fourth he can bring SUV's under milage standards for autos. The oil lease holders are the true speculators, holding their reserves in the ground until their value increases to a tipping point for alternatives, currently synthetic oil from coal. Believe me, the actual reserves are much greater than the "proven" reserves and the Bushies have tripled their value in the world market at our expense. Obama can bring them to heel with a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
I think that outside of polling, he *had* to clear the "presidential" bar somehow. This was the most time-effective way to grab the public's attention and get that job done.
Now the rest of the debate can be about economic issues and energy and health care. I'm not sure McCain even has an economic platform.
Oh, and just to comment on the VP situation, your analysis would but Bayh, Kaine, and Sebelius on the table. Of the three I would prefer Sebelius, because I think she has the strongest track record and the most upside, and I always believe in picking the best talent as a strategy. She also doesn't cost us a seat as either Bayh or Kaine would. But I wouldn't be disappointed with either of the other two choices. They're both quite good, and very savvy picks from an election standpoint. Kaine's pro-life stance might be a sticking point, though.
Poblano should stick to stats.
Obama can now return to issues where he holds a 20 point edge on McSame secure in the knowledge that he is quite capable of representing the US to the rest of the world
That not today's Gallup tracking poll was the point of the Tour
Duh
Baseball been berry good to you. So don't give up the day job
For once, I disagree. Nate's conclusion would be right only if we assumed that Obama intends to keep the focus permanently on foreign policy, but there is no evidence for that. By contrast, there is a lot of evidence for the fact that Obama's main weakness is his perception as the risky choice. In that regard, his generally well-received trip could help even if there is no lasting bounce in the polls. The fact is that Obama is ahead and he does not need a "game changer", as they say, to win. What he needs is to harden his soft support and assuage doubts about his "riskiness" among undecideds. If all that he achieved with the trip is that his soft supporters are now less likely to change change their mind, then that may not show up in the polls but is in practical terms just as good as winning over a few undecideds as soft supporters.
FreeThinker, I agree about what Obama can do to offset McCain's promise of cheaper lives through drilling, but there is one additional thing he must do: pound home the numbers comparing those things with drilling.
In a study four years ago the Federal Energy Information Administraion completed a projection of ANWR drilling. They concluded that it would take ten years from the political decision to drill before the first drop of oil would be pumped. It would then take nine years to hit peak production. There are several unkowns that would effect peak production - things like the amount of oil, the quality of the oil, the size of fields are all unknown.
In the best case scenario, the EIA projected that in 18 years - at peak production - ANWR oil could lower prices by $1.44 per BARREL, though their mean projection was 75 cents per barrel - and their worst case scenario was that ANWR oil would lower oil costs by 41 cents. Whether 41 cents or $1.44, these reductions would amount to absolutely nothing for ten years, then pennies per gallon by 2028. Read the non-partisan report.
Even if ANWR exceeds the best case scenario estimate - and even if Gulf oil would quadruple the effect to $6/barrel - the net effect is less than a bad day in the speculative market (between June 5 and 6 the price of oil increased by more than $15/barrel. Are going to jeopardize pristine wilderness to save a few cents per barrel 18 years from now? This is an energy policy?
Obama needs to make this simple. And when seen simply, it is ridiculous.
McCain had a rare moment of candor when he said that drilling would have no near term benefits other than psychological.
Obama needs to sign on to Al Gore's challenge to make us fossil fuel free in ten years. It would immediately create jobs, lower energy costs, and improve our national security situation.
But the simple soundbite that needs to be hammered over and over is that drilling is a placebo. It won't have any effect for years, and it's ultimate effect will be tiny - a miniscule percentage of the worlds oil supply lies in ANWR and FL combined. And he needs to keep quoting McCain's admission of that.
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,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊
成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優
成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊
a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
Post a Comment