Here's another take on this: the probability, as determined by logistic regression of our latest simulation run, of the candidate winning the electoral vote based on his share of the popular vote.
So a 1-point popular vote win translates to about a 75 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, a 2-point win about a 90 percent chance, a 3-point win a 97 percent chance, and a 4-point win a 99 percent chance.
This is, of course, assuming that my simulation model is getting this approximately right. Note that I've lumped together McCain and Obama's numbers here, making the distribution exactly symmetrical. I don't know to what extent these numbers would hold with two different candidates and with a different set of states in play, but I'd bet it's pretty close to the mark.
7.10.2008
Popular Vote v Electoral Vote, Part II
@ 8:31 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments
Was that curve significantly different the last time you ran a simulation? can you superimpose the different results?
Nice work, Nate!
By the way, Glenn Greenwald -- apparently really peeved because Al Giordano won't join his FISA crusade -- accused Giordano of lying when Al mentioned the illegal surveillance and wiretapping that's been done for years in connection with the "Drug War". Giordano, however, was not and was able to prove it: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/salons-glenn-greenwald-writes-the-field#comments
Since you've been reamed out by people who are angry at you for not joining Greenwald's crusade, I thought this might cheer you up a bit. :-)
Nate,
Score another one for the model. This curve conforms to the conventional wisdom that a 4% win of the PV will always (well, almost always) result in an EV victory.
Add my applause, Nate. After the last two elections talk of still another election where one candidate wins the popular vote and loses the EC continues to crop up. In fact, of course, that outcome depends heavily on a very, very close popular vote election.
While it's theoretically possible for a candidate to pile up huge majorities in some states and narrowly lose others, the demographics and partisan distribution of the electorate makes it a more a "theoretical" than a real possibility.
Thanks for putting some quantitative muscle into that truism.
Thanks for a great site. As a numbers guy, this is heaven.
Excellent!
This is probably a weird idea, but I am wondering if you have looked at the effect of Swift Boat type incursions on past campaigns. I am tolerably convinced that Obama will be stonewalled by Swift Boat type ads of the type Director posted in another comment area here.
I doubt that such ads will be met with sufficient force to mute their effect -- unless the Will.i.ams (sic) of the world get to work dealing with McCain's vulnerabilities which include compulsive gambling and temper proclivities.
What was the effect of these incursions when Dukakis and Kerry were done in by them?
What would be the likely effect of a similar frontal attack on Obama?
Sounds like polling from ND today from Rasmussen!
Looks like you got your wish, Nate.
-Mark
Nitpick: the "loses OH, wins election" and "wins FL, loses OH" rows have 3,173 instances of Obama losing Ohio; the "wins VA/CO, loses OH" rows have 3,172 instances. (I think there might be a tie in the 3,173rd instance.)
This is all great stuff and I'm sure the simulation runs will become required practice for anyone working with predictions in the future. Nitpick: there's some weirdness in the colors of the states in the left-hand sidebar. You have FL and MO at lower win percentages for BO than e.g. NC, yet NC is red and FL and MO are purple. And MN only gets a purple for 90% BO, while IN gets a solid red for 52% JM.
Thanks for all the great work.
--UncleMonty
According to the numbers on the left, Obama's popular vote margin is +3%, so why is his winning percent not around +90%?
The state colors are based on 2004 results.
So to bring in your other line of work, this is a Jamesian "pythagoras" curve with exponent 50. That is
win prob = (votes for)^50/[ (votes for)^50 + (votes against)^50 ]
The 50 comes from the gain multiplier. A candidate with 0.505 of the vote, so 0.005 above even, ends up with a win percentage of 0.75, or 0.25 above even. That's a gain of 0.25/0.005=50.
Given that we have 50 states, it's kinda easy to remember.
Stephen C. Rose said "This is probably a weird idea, but I am wondering if you have looked at the effect of Swift Boat type incursions on past campaigns."
Stephen, for the effect on Dukakis in 1988, you can check page 10 of this paper, which clearly demonstrates the devastating effect of the Willie Horton ad, and Dukakis's failure to respond with a clear message.
As far as 2004, the effect of the "Swift boating" and Kerry's failure to effectively place his message are less clear, as Kerry never had a clear lead, and ran a generally lackluster campaign.
However, the lesson is clear. A candidate cannot let such attacks pass without a strong counter-response. It would appear that Obama has such a counter-response effort prepared. As a result, I am not convinced that 527 groups will be as effective in this campaign.
The use of 527 groups for attacks in this campaign may follow the old saw about "fighting the last war."
Nice model, I'm looking forward to see how it plays out.
I think it's interesting on the "Super Tracker" that as time goes by, you see the numbers tightening in their distribution. At the beginning of the year, you have such a wide distribution that gradually tightens up around March and April, then further into May and June. By the end of last month, the numbers are relatively clustered. Someone please remind me exactly what that's charting - is it the chances of either candidate of winning by "X" spread? In what, the popular?
Sorry, relatively new to the site, although I've been avidly watching the state-by-states and trying to make sense of everything I see.
I have said this before: Obama has such huge leads in NY, CA, IL that when you look at a national poll with close numbers (today’s Rasmussen had Obama down to 3%, yesterday’s Gallup was at 2%) it means that his electoral strength elsewhere must be weak. He is wasting votes in those big liberal states that would be better served by dispersing them elsewhere.
By contrast, McCain'sd support is not concentrated geographically as much as Obama's. Even the South (so many of you think) is not so solid for him. So should he begin to build even a modest lead in the polls, a landslide for him is more likely.
I think the current news cycle is taking its toll on Obama and I expect McCain to pass him in the Gallup and Rasmussen surveys by Sunday.
The flip flopping has destabilized his base. His comments about kids learning Spanish have not even made it to the masses, but they will. And given the hectoring and scolding way he delivered them and said he was “embarrassed” that American tourists cannot go to Europe and speak the local language I fully expect him to be further tarred with the “elitist” brush. Add to that the Iranian missile crisis (argues for keeping troops handy and next door and for drilling for our own oil) and you have the makings of a McCain surge. The only thing in the news cycle that helps him was what Jesse Jackson said about him. Now that was a gift!
Pete Kent posted:
"By contrast, McCain'sd support is not concentrated geographically as much as Obama's. Even the South (so many of you think) is not so solid for him. So should he begin to build even a modest lead in the polls, a landslide for him is more likely."
Keeping in mind that, with your comment about Obama's supposed identity as the "Antichrist" being "persuasive," you have no credibility, I wonder if you'd nevertheless humor me by giving a statistical explanation of your apparent wishful thinking above.
Rasmussen has Obama leading only 11 point in hie home state of Illinois in today's released poll.
No way, I'd bet my hose in Eureka, that Obama is at least 25 ahead in his home state of IL.
Really, something is wrong with Rasmussen polls......
> According to the numbers on the
> left, Obama's popular vote margin
> is +3%, so why is his winning
> percent not around +90%?
Because +3% is the popular vote margin today, but its not guaranteed to hold through election day. If you did a "probability of winning if the election were held today" (which Nate recently did), you should get close to 90%. Nate's model however attempts to do the near impossible, and that is to assign probabilities of the popular vote moving up or down from its current numbers. Based on the probabilities he has assigned, he comes up with a 70% probability that Obama will win on Nov. 4. Take that 70% with a grain of salt though. The outcome of the election will be determined based on public sentiment on Nov. 4, not on public sentiment today. While we can think of some of the things that might happen during the campaign, it is nearly impossible (and close to arbitrary) to assign probabilities to these events.
To Michael at 10:04--You don't understand irony, I doubt if you comprehend statistics!
Try me, Pete. Most of what you give here are talking points, NOT statistics. Explain why McCain has a better chance at a landslide if he's up a few points than Obama does it he's up a few points.
I have nothing to add, but I love S curves.
the shape of the curve (is it a tanh or does it just look like it?) is very intuitive. what is surprising is the slope..
1% in vote count results in around 60% probability of victory..
You might have answered this question before but how are you estimating the heterogeneity in turnout in different states?
Allen- That's not quite it. The projected 3.4% already includes some slippage toward an assumed 'mean' of a tie. The reason the win probability is much less than for simple 3.4% lead is that there are also large error bars in estimating the Nov. margin. Looking at the P(win) vs. popular margin curve, it shows major downward curvature in the right side. So increasing the error bars there decreases the average win %. To reiterate: the projection already includes both a regression toward 0% margin and a large range of future margins, much bigger than random polling statistics require. The regression is a somewhat iffy extrapolation from previous data, the added uncertainty is solidly based on data and common sense.
p.s. I WOuld probably just toss the ZI polls. Some combination of large net errors, systematic net bias, and seemingly flawed methods should trigger some threshold 'toss' procedure. Is there a way to formulate that as a reasonable algorithm, rather than just an ad-hoc patch?
p.ps. You still should go to a discrete convolution of states + numerical integral over global changes calculation technique to get rid of the statistical noise from your Monte Carlo simulations.
Michael said...
Try me, Pete. Most of what you give here are talking points, NOT statistics. Explain why McCain has a better chance at a landslide if he's up a few points than Obama does it he's up a few points
Imagine if you had 500 tokens to throw into any of the 50 states you chose. Imagine your opponent having the same. You throw all of your tokens into NY, CA and IL, assuring victory in those three states. Your opponent spreads his out among the other 47. He wins in an electoral landslide even though you both had the same number of votes.
There was a "Bookshelf" game out in the 70s that I used to play on Presidential Politics that perfectly illustrated this theory.
Do you understand now, Michael?
I am an old man! You must be patient with my failings!
Nate: Is there any chance of showing a simple graph showing the data points of past Presidential elections -- with the X axis number of electoral votes and the Y axis popular vote margin? That would be more informative than the current presentation.
P.S.: Will you people PLEASE stop feeding the troll!
Pete Kent keeps attacking Nate's methodology and yet he keeps coming back around because you refuse to ignore him!
As for his cracker-barrel wisdom and McCain talking points disguised as "analysis" this is a site that SHOULD be devoted to serious analysis. There's no point arguing with idiots who argue "you have your numbers, I have THE numbers." (like Rove October 2006).
@MikeW
Look at the electoral vote distribution. In Nate's model, there is some probability that McCain could get all of the votes, or Obama could get all of the votes. That is clearly much more than "slippage toward an assumed 'mean' of a tie". The only way to get something like that is to factor in the possibility of huge shifts in public opinion that can only be caused by unpredictable events. Any attempt to assign probabilities to these kinds of events is essentially arbitrary.
As most pollster acknowledge, the polls can tell us who is ahead today but they can't tell us who is still going to be ahead on Nov. 4. No one knows what is going to happen during the course of the campaign and how this will change public sentiment between now and election day. Any attempt to assign probabilities to this is essentially arbitrary.
(I suppose I should get an account name to post here.)
Pete Kent wrote:
"There was a "Bookshelf" game out in the 70s that I used to play on Presidential Politics that perfectly illustrated this theory."
Mr. President
(http://boardgamegeek.com/game/476)
I still have my copy :)
@Pete Kent:
You are correct that the national popular vote is meaningless in the election of the President. If it is meaningful in Nate's model, that is only because he has chosen to make it meaningful by linking or correlating it with the individual state outcomes. This correlation may not hold in this or any other election.
Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
The Obama states are
1)California
2)Connecticut
3)Delaware
4)District of Columbia
5)Hawaii
6)Illinios
7)Maine
8)Maryland
9)Massachusetts
10)Minnesota
11)New York
12)Rhode Island
13)Vermont
14)Washington
178.
The McCain states are
1)Alabama
2)Alaska
3)Arizona
4)Arkansas
5)Florida
6)Georgia
7)Idaho
8)Kansas
9)Kentucky
10)Louisiana
11)Mississippi
12)Missouri
13)Nebraska
14)Nevada
15)North Carolina
16)North Dakota
17)Oklahoma
18)South Carolina
19)South Dakota
20)Tennessee
21)Texas
22)Utah
24)West Virginia
25)Wyoming.
218.
Obama will do better than Kerry in a dozen of those Red States.
Alabama,Alaska,Georgia,Idaho,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,
North Carolina,North Dakota,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,and Wyoming.
as well as Montana and Indiana. and purplesh red states such as Colorado and Virginia.
Obama will perform better than Kerry in purpleish blue states such as.
Iowa,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,Oregon,Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.
That leaves Colorado,Michigan,Ohio,and Virginia as the tossup states.
Lets give Obama-Colorado, McCain-Virginia and Ohio.
Michigan becomes the state that decides who wins the 2008 Presidential election.
Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
The Obama states are
1)California
2)Connecticut
3)Delaware
4)District of Columbia
5)Hawaii
6)Illinios
7)Maine
8)Maryland
9)Massachusetts
10)Minnesota
11)New York
12)Rhode Island
13)Vermont
14)Washington
178.
The McCain states are
1)Alabama
2)Alaska
3)Arizona
4)Arkansas
5)Florida
6)Georgia
7)Idaho
8)Kansas
9)Kentucky
10)Louisiana
11)Mississippi
12)Missouri
13)Nebraska
14)Nevada
15)North Carolina
16)North Dakota
17)Oklahoma
18)South Carolina
19)South Dakota
20)Tennessee
21)Texas
22)Utah
24)West Virginia
25)Wyoming.
218.
Obama will do better than Kerry in a dozen of those Red States.
Alabama,Alaska,Georgia,Idaho,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,
North Carolina,North Dakota,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,and Wyoming.
as well as Montana and Indiana. and purplesh red states such as Colorado and Virginia.
Obama will perform better than Kerry in purpleish blue states such as.
Iowa,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,Oregon,Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.
That leaves Colorado,Michigan,Ohio,and Virginia as the tossup states.
Lets give Obama-Colorado, McCain-Virginia and Ohio.
Michigan becomes the state that decides who wins the 2008 Presidential election.
Anon @ 1119.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane!
Use the Name/URL Option and you can give yoursel and identity.
Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
The Obama states are
1)California
2)Connecticut
3)Delaware
4)District of Columbia
5)Hawaii
6)Illinios
7)Maine
8)Maryland
9)Massachusetts
10)Minnesota
11)New York
12)Rhode Island
13)Vermont
14)Washington
178.
The McCain states are
1)Alabama
2)Alaska
3)Arizona
4)Arkansas
5)Florida
6)Georgia
7)Idaho
8)Kansas
9)Kentucky
10)Louisiana
11)Mississippi
12)Missouri
13)Nebraska
14)Nevada
15)North Carolina
16)North Dakota
17)Oklahoma
18)South Carolina
19)South Dakota
20)Tennessee
21)Texas
22)Utah
24)West Virginia
25)Wyoming.
218.
Obama will do better than Kerry in a dozen of those Red States.
Alabama,Alaska,Georgia,Idaho,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,
North Carolina,North Dakota,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,and Wyoming.
as well as Montana and Indiana. and purplesh red states such as Colorado and Virginia.
Obama will perform better than Kerry in purpleish blue states such as.
Iowa,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,Oregon,Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.
That leaves Colorado,Michigan,Ohio,and Virginia as the tossup states.
Lets give Obama-Colorado, McCain-Virginia and Ohio.
Michigan becomes the state that decides who wins the 2008 Presidential election.
Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
The Obama states are
1)California
2)Connecticut
3)Delaware
4)District of Columbia
5)Hawaii
6)Illinios
7)Maine
8)Maryland
9)Massachusetts
10)Minnesota
11)New York
12)Rhode Island
13)Vermont
14)Washington
178.
The McCain states are
1)Alabama
2)Alaska
3)Arizona
4)Arkansas
5)Florida
6)Georgia
7)Idaho
8)Kansas
9)Kentucky
10)Louisiana
11)Mississippi
12)Missouri
13)Nebraska
14)Nevada
15)North Carolina
16)North Dakota
17)Oklahoma
18)South Carolina
19)South Dakota
20)Tennessee
21)Texas
22)Utah
24)West Virginia
25)Wyoming.
218.
Obama will do better than Kerry in a dozen of those Red States.
Alabama,Alaska,Georgia,Idaho,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,
North Carolina,North Dakota,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,and Wyoming.
as well as Montana and Indiana. and purplesh red states such as Colorado and Virginia.
Obama will perform better than Kerry in purpleish blue states such as.
Iowa,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,Oregon,Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.
That leaves Colorado,Michigan,Ohio,and Virginia as the tossup states.
Lets give Obama-Colorado, McCain-Virginia and Ohio.
Michigan becomes the state that decides who wins the 2008 Presidential election.
Obama can win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
The Obama states are
1)California
2)Connecticut
3)Delaware
4)District of Columbia
5)Hawaii
6)Illinios
7)Maine
8)Maryland
9)Massachusetts
10)Minnesota
11)New York
12)Rhode Island
13)Vermont
14)Washington
178.
The McCain states are
1)Alabama
2)Alaska
3)Arizona
4)Arkansas
5)Florida
6)Georgia
7)Idaho
8)Kansas
9)Kentucky
10)Louisiana
11)Mississippi
12)Missouri
13)Nebraska
14)Nevada
15)North Carolina
16)North Dakota
17)Oklahoma
18)South Carolina
19)South Dakota
20)Tennessee
21)Texas
22)Utah
24)West Virginia
25)Wyoming.
218.
Obama will do better than Kerry in a dozen of those Red States.
Alabama,Alaska,Georgia,Idaho,Kansas,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,
North Carolina,North Dakota,South Carolina,South Dakota,Texas,Utah,and Wyoming.
as well as Montana and Indiana. and purplesh red states such as Colorado and Virginia.
Obama will perform better than Kerry in purpleish blue states such as.
Iowa,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,Oregon,Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.
That leaves Colorado,Michigan,Ohio,and Virginia as the tossup states.
Lets give Obama-Colorado, McCain-Virginia and Ohio.
Michigan becomes the state that decides who wins the 2008 Presidential election.
I see that there are a small number of scenarios where there is a 269-269 tie.
there are several scenarios, but the most plausible have to do with NH going for McCain and and various splits of NV, CO and NM.
To NKpolitics:
You must be a fan of Jacqueline Susann (as in her novel, "Once Is Not Enough"). Repreating a post multiple times? Looks as though we'll need to summon the "Three Billygoats Gruff"
(For those who may not remember the story or were never exposed to it, it's a Scandanavian folk tale in which three billy goat brothers dispose of an evil troll.)
Allen- You write: "That is clearly much more than "slippage toward an assumed 'mean' of a tie". The only way to get something like that is to factor in the possibility of huge shifts in public opinion that can only be caused by unpredictable events. Any attempt to assign probabilities to these kinds of events is essentially arbitrary."
That's exactly the issue. Based on a collection of previous elections Nate makes a crude estimate of about how much things typically change from early July to Nov. It's that spread of possibilities, plus the slippage back toward a tie, which give the extremes etc. which you noticed in the histograms.
Of course you're right that big things can happen (e.g. bombing Iran) which throw a wrench in any prediction. The old data at least give some idea of how often such big events occur, and that shows up in the projected probabilities.
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,
自慰,女生自慰,美女,高潮,失戀,性高潮,女性高潮,G點,自慰,性,性感,性感內衣,內衣,性感內衣,性感睡衣,情趣內衣,比基尼內衣,人妻少婦性感睡衣,
失戀,性愛,性感,情慾,調情,挑逗,慾望,情人節禮物,自慰器,
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