Dan Rather, on Morning Joe, just said something a handful of minutes ago that will dominate a lot of chatter today and will have implications for the race going forward. Asked by Tiki Barber about his take on Fox News' release of the Jesse Jackson off-camera video, Rather premised his take by noting that in today's 24/7 news media culture, you had better be ready for anything you say to be on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow, after being all over TV the day before.
Rather then proceeded to talk about his respect for Jesse Jackson, who had certainly "paved the way for Osama bin Laden." (Yes, the whole name.) Nobody reacted or said a word, and Rather did not notice. To drive the irony point home, he then finished by referring back to the "front page of the newspaper" a 2d time.
Rather has just given carte blanche for Republicans to "slip" and negate the hue and cry with "Rather made the slip too... innocent mistake!" Wonder if McCain himself will do it in one high profile way and Plead the Rather.
EDIT: slight quote correction (video link here)... "paving the way for an Osama bin Laden."
7.18.2008
Ready for the Next Mini-Maelstrom?
@ 7:52 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
166 comments
Rather shocking this.
Hey, he's 76. Oh, wait, McCain would be 76 at the end of his first term.
Also on the news watch, NPR this morning both quoted (possibly clipped) McCain as saying Obama had never been to Iraq and repeated that lie themselves. Obama visited Iraq in January 2006.
well? he could have literally meant that. lots of americans have helped the bin laden family over the years, especially the bush family. Jesse Jackson has spent a lot of time abroad helping former friends-who-are-now-enemies and also former enemies-who-are-now-friends.
after all, jackson is a self styled "peace maker."
I agree with fractal. Jesse Jackson's career has been dominated by racial divisive rhetoric that has guaranteed that his platform would never be taken seriously. It certainly didn't pave the way for a decent, hard working man like Obama.
I thought that's what he said, but no one reacted, so I figured SURELY I misheard him...
*sigh*
Hey all,
I´m from Germany and my english ist not good enough to understand this psot. Can anybody explain why it may become a Maelstrom, what Rather said? And to whom it may become it?
Thanks
Val
Maybe Rather was trying to subliminally mind-mess with the elderly viewers? Still this isn't as shocking as McCain and a joke he allegedly told in 1986 concerning a gorilla (that's a lovely one to google).
I was also watching Morning Joe and while I noticed it the second it was said, my grandmother thought nothing of it. Then when I pointed it out she was shocked that she had missed it. I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Furthermore, if and when the McCain camp does it, it will seem tasteless and only be base rattling, not appealing to independents . Maybe I'm an optimist and give too much credit but to me, low information voters won't here about it and high information voters won't be affected either.
What everybody is failing to realize in the likely voter screen is that older people are much more likely to vote.
They are skewing toward McCain. In fact, McCain is probably underrepresented in these polls because young voters will not go to the polls in November.
How many ex-presidents depended on young voters to win an election?
Val - Republicans have been trying to get people to associate Barack Obama's name with Osama bin Laden by "accidentally" saying things like "Barack Osama" or "Obama bin Laden." Having a major news media figure say the same thing gives them an excuse to keep doing it.
Maybe Obama should formally change his name to "skinny kid with a funny name."
Off topic...
Obama campaign just reports $52M for June.
kerry,dukakis,mukakis: Ha, I see through what you're trying to do - goading the young into turning out for obama -nice one!
Thanks Anonymous!
I have to say, I thought this might be the reason, but I was sure, he would never have been so stupid.
I did not know Rather and had to Wikipedia him. After that, I was sure, he really MEANT that Jackson paved the way for bin Laden because of some implied "Anti-American-Politics" he might have made. (I don´t think he has).
*oph* If he let it "slip", it was a sign of his age but also his fundamental believings.
Also: A good journalist would have corrected him.
Thanks again and greetings from Germany! We all (80-90%) want Obama as POTUS and follow your election! We even will have a Election-Night-Party here in Aachen-> www.jusos-aachen.de
Val
I heard the same thing, but I think we have to stop making a big deal out of it. Clearly Rather respects Obama and let's face it, the names are easy to mix up.
"Republicans have been trying to get people to associate Barack Obama's name with Osama bin Laden"
Huh?
I liked 538 back in the good old days before all these partisan people showed up, and it was just election math geeks.
new rasmussen poll. obama mccain tied in va, leaners mccain up 1.
This is only proves that the senile should not be on TV, nor President
Shame on you, nick for this line: "Wonder if McCain himself will do it in one high profile way and Plead the Rather."
By all account McCain has run a squeaky-clean campaign. So much so that it frustrates the republican faithful, like myself, who think that Obama's lack of moral approbation towards people like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn disqualify him for the presidency.
Might as well have typed "I wonder if Obama will spend significant parts in his campaign tour working out in gyms to exacerbate fears about McCain's age event though medical reports show him to be in excellent health." Oh, wait...
I think it's funny liberals have been accusing conservatives of trying to engage in racist or fear-mongering accusations in trying to discredit Barack Obama.
To me, the three biggest and most appalling racial gaffes have come from the left or left-sympathizers:
1) Bill Clinton's condescending dismissal of the Obama campaign as a newer version of 1984 Jesse Jackson. quote - "Give me a break!"
2) Jesse Jackon's own mouth.
3) The New Yorker's satirical cover.
All those were from the left. Don't give us this holier-than-thou crap about racial politics. The left has shown more disgusting behavior among its more influential people than the right has with isolated pockets of rednecks and hillbillies in the South.
To me, the three biggest and most appalling racial gaffes have come from the left
Lucky for you that you can now blame the racist left for voting against Obama.
Dan Rather is about 150 years old. He can plead senility. McCain better not make the same slip because that defense isn't open to him.
It is very hard to measure subliminal attitudes, but it is undeniable that there is an association between Obama’s Muslim name and our enemies. He himself commented on it the week of July 4th when he spoke of his improbable candidacy in light of his very name and then went on to mention in a stage whisper, "And, oh by the way, he's black."
Given the attitudes in this country towards Muslim extremists, it does seem improbable that we would elect a President of Muslim heritage. If stranger things have happened in electoral politics, please advise.
That said, something has made this a horserace. Probably the unpopularity of George Bush which primarily comes from a once unpopular War, as to which public opinion is shifting. The downturn in the economy has also hurt deeply, but facts be credited what we have seen thus far is mild and possibly not even technically a recession and there remains the potential for recovery, possibly as early as September's statistics.
As noted in another post here, Obama has a terrible Iraq problem. I framed the discussion around the youth vote, which appears now to be more up for grabs according to Sean that we had thought, but it a good general assessment of where the race stands today and I will repeat it below. Here goes . . . .
It is an interesting point about the level of engagement of young versus old. It seems the old folks who are paying less attention have made up their minds. McCain can bank their votes.
As far as the youth vote goes, it may still be up for grabs. While Obama has a certain youthful dynamism, he is being increasingly portrayed as humorless and sententious. Over time, he may wear down his personality advantage.
Worse as these younger voters continue to scrutinize the issues they may become more and more disaffected with Obama's shifting policy positions. If we are to believe what we have been told that so much of his youth support comes from his opposition to the war, Obama's steamrolling "Iraq Problem” (CNN Anderson Cooper 360 lead story last night), may wind up haunting him.
On the war, McCain has very effectively put him in a box and is letting him twist in the wind on having announced his policy position before having done any fact finding. The longer he waits to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (still not scheduled) the more the damage will accumulate. The trip to Europe will seem odd – a Presidential candidate stumping in Berlin? Wait and see how that spins!
Obama’s not going to the war zone right now is a political calculation here that he must do in order to stop the bleeding in the polls before the convention or he risks a draft Hillary movement in Denver. The ruling forces on the left that control the Democratic party made it very clear the week of July 4th that they will tolerate no apostasy on Iraq and the pull out. Before he wins any potential votes in the middle by taking a reasoned approach to the war he will lose his left wing base. For him Iraq may be at best a zero sum game.
Obama is looking to buy time and knows that the trip to Iraq will only showcase the foolishness of his plans. As the WaPo editorial of the other day made clear, the sorts of soft timetables that the Maliki government is talking about are much further in the future than Obama's 16 months. And even the NYTs had to report that Obama while having extended his charisma to the Iraqi people they are fearful of his pull out plans, as they know full well their security still depends on the presence of US forces and more time is needed to consolidate the present victory.
Afghanistan is an interesting dodge by Obama, claiming that that is where the focus should be. McCain has very effectively made the case that Obama has abandoned his responsibly in the Senate there and his opposition to the Iraqi surge points out that he has no cred as a tactical commander.
The War issue has now fully pivoted on Obama and he must feel like he is staring into the barrel of a howitzer.
To return the theme of young people, no one feels the pinch at the pump more than they do. Obama has a nice plan for the Birkenstock crowd (but those were the kids of the 70s). These young people will want more immediate relief. Again, John McCain and the Republican party offer a position they can understand and relate to: find more oil here in the US of A.
Rasmussen will be out soon. I expect further tightening and if the present drumbeat on Iraq continues to batter Obama, you may see McCain on top by Monday's reports in both trackers.
I'm generally sympathetic to journalists accidentally saying Osama instead of Obama. If you have been reporting almost daily on Osama Bin Laden and saying his name for 7 years, it's only human to accidentally say it at some point when referring to someone with a name as similar to it as Obama. I don't think it's fair to be all up in arms about it.
And please, to all of you who have read to the post above, PLEASE ignore Pete Kent's posts. He's just an immature troll trying stir sh*t up. Don't fall for it.
"The left has shown more disgusting behavior among its more influential people than the right has with isolated pockets of rednecks and hillbillies in the South."
And the black people I've talked to have said they encounter more prejudice in the North than in the South. No joke.
There's a lot of 'racial separatists' in the South, but it does seem like overt racism has been more of a Northern thing, especially if you include West Virginia and Kentucky as Northern (they wore blue 145 years ago). And as far as I can tell racial separatists don't seem to have a problem with Obama.
When I said "Republicans have been trying to get people to associate Barack Obama's name with Osama bin Laden," I didn't mean all Republicans, and should have specified that. Hell, I'm still registered GOP. There have been plenty of fringe-ish radio hosts and whatnot who have been pushing the association, though. I was trying to make a simple point, not lower the discourse.
Costa - I strongly disagreed with you on the topic of Pete Kent until, having just replied to his post on the last thread, I came here and found him repeating it word for word!
On the topic of Obama/Osama, I'd broadly agree. My girlfriend made that slip just the other day, and by no means is she engaged in subliminal Republican propaganda! But using the whole name, as Rather did, is quite extraordinary.
Here you go, Citizen Grim:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/hewitt-award--8.html
Pete may be right, costaman - I don't see how ignoring truth helps Obama get elected.
Costa,
I beg your pardon, and you may disagree with what I had to say, but my post was a thoughful analysis of where the race stands at them moment, especially in respect of the two pivotal issues in the campaign.
if you would like to offer counterargument, please do so. But trying to shut me up won't work.
I repeated it here because it had salience in both places and I have noticed that different threads attract different posters.
Not all of us troll through every thread.
Long is not equivalent thoughtful.
Your post is 14 paragraphs, only the first of which is on-topic, and the second is partially. If you really cared to discuss the topic at hand, rather than just make noise by pasting some sort of flyer you worked on, you would have stopped there.
If you really want to randomly just shout your opinions to anyone who'll listen, I suggest you start your own blog. :)
What's the frequency?
"I think it's funny liberals have been accusing conservatives of trying to engage in racist or fear-mongering accusations in trying to discredit Barack Obama."
So if Bill Clinton did it, that means Republicans could not have done the same thing? I guess it's no surprised that you're amused by such weak logic. I imagine you're one of those types who sits around giggling in your mental oblivion.
This stuff doesn't hurt Obama, in fact I think it helps him. Every day the media is consumed with this crap instead of IRAQ or something, Obama wins.
Another note on Obama's press coverage. Joe Scarborough among others are claiming Obama gets favorable press treatment. Thats not true. He gets more press treatment. Obama was getting great press treatment, but that ended in February and all the numbers back that up.
He gets more positive, and he gets more negative. The MSM has basically ran with the McCain talking points on Iraq. Bill O'Rielly and the like should stop crying over the press. If Obama makes a blunder overseas, he will be hammered for it. If the trip goes well, it will be praised.
Lamont said:
"So if Bill Clinton did it, that means Republicans could not have done the same thing? I guess it's no surprised that you're amused by such weak logic. I imagine you're one of those types who sits around giggling in your mental oblivion."
Mental oblivion? You need to get a clue, although I'll admit my use of the word "funny" was probably inaccurate. It's more like sad. I never said (some) Republicans weren't guilty of race-baiting. They have been. I was just pointing out that many on the left act as if it's solely a conservative problem. Race-baiting and fear-mongering have been used by both parties.
Republicans have used race-baiting and fear-mongering tactics to scare people into thinking that others not like them are out to get them and have pandered to that uninformed vote.
Democrats have done about as bad, race-baiting in the opposite direction and smearing many undeserving convervatives and pandering to minority votes by saying, "Those evil white mean Republicans are going to hold all of you minorities down and don't want you to be treated equally."
I was simply pointing out that before liberals point the finger at conservatives for race-baiting, they should take a long look in the mirror because it's rampant in their party as well, top to bottom.
It's no good for either side or the country to use such tactics.
Now, go drool yourself to sleep in your own deluded world who ignores such things.
This whole “his name sounds like Osama” argument/tactic smacks of desperation by the reactionary fringe of Republican activists. God help us if Americans are actually swayed by such foolishness. I think the truth is that the type of person who would base their vote on rhyming names and fear of anything vaguely Islamic sounding, would never have voted for Barack anyway. I don’t think it will make an impact on the swing voters who are concerned with the fact that they are in danger of losing their jobs and their houses and don’t have time to listen to talking heads play the name game.
I guess the left sees an orchestrated effort by Republicans to make Obama out to be a crazed Muslim. As a stupid conservative I sort of see this kind of background noise as the inevitable result of having a major party candidate who is a lightweight with limited time on the national stage, limited accomplishments before his emergence, a dicey coterie of benefactors and enablers in his hyper-ambitious rise and a willingness to change positions at the drop of a hat for political expedience. I don't think he is or ever was a muslim but then again I don't know what the hell he is other than a blank slate for lefties to project their hopes and dreams.
Quoting Pete Kent:
"While Obama has a certain youthful dynamism, he is being increasingly portrayed as humorless and sententious. Over time, he may wear down his personality advantage."
Translation: "I want you to imagine Obama as a humorless and sententious guy."
Expect more of this from both sides in the coming months
This post has not been removed by the author.
To Anon at 928:
Pls read maureen Dowd in this week's NYTs. No friend of Republicans she! I am not imaging this. It is real and bad for him.
This author has been removed by the post.
Pete Kent said:
"Given the attitudes in this country towards Muslim extremists, it does seem improbable that we would elect a President of Muslim heritage."
Barack Obama would not be a President of Muslim heritage. I suggest you look at the dictionary for a definition of "heritage". A belief system abandoned by the father before the child is born does not qualify as "heritage".
Also, you do realize that Maureen Dowd is "no friend of Democrats" either, right? Her shtick is mocking everybody with the level of seriousness one finds in middle school.
This really gives me the sense that they all know how the election is going to turn out and they're playing with us.
Pete,
Please to back up your assertion that Obama will lose youth support with any data. ANY data.
Pete
You're not imagining the media's coverage, but for goodness sake, be a little skeptical of the media!
Case in point, fundraising. Media points: Oh McCain can't raise $$$, nope, nothing, no money.
And then he has, for him, a very good fundraising month.
Then the media narrative changes to: "Oh my goodness, McCain's closing the fundraising gap! RNC still ahead. Obama multi-state strategy in trouble, in trouble I tell you!"
And how accurate is that narrative now with Obama's latest fundraising numbers? It's not, but it takes up TV time and print space.
This is just one example of why to distrust the media and its coverage of the race, for EITHER candidate. In the end the media wants a close race and will do anything possible to make that happen. Even if the race is not close, they will cover it like it is (either way, partisanship takes a backseat to selling the story).
Certainly candidates will have personality problems, but I would not rely on a Dowd article or the NYT...for much of anything.
Whispers:
His whole family in Africa are Muslims. that his father is said to have abandoned the faith does not cahnge family history, apst or present. His step dad was a Muslim and took him to the mosques . . .please let's not get started on this.
In the abstract there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. I just think this is an interesting time to elect someone with Obama's backgournd and family history to the Presidency.
Call me racist or whatever - -if you are interested in predictiing who the next Prez will be you will face facts and limit discussion through your PC filter.
it's what has given academia such a bad name.
Pete Kent:
Dowd is no friend of the Republicans, sure, but neither is she really much of a respected source for these sorts of things. To illustrate, do you buy into any of the numerous attacks she's made on McCain? Frankly, she spends too much time trying to psychoanalyze these people she's never met. It's a fun parlor game, but rather useless, and often wrong.
I mean, Obama's the guy who "brushed his shoulders off" in a speech. He said he couldn't answer if Clinton was "The First Black President" 'cause he'd never seen him dance. His sense of humor is actually quite sharp, and anyone who says otherwise is just grasping for something, ANYTHING, to attack him on.
Pete Kent's statements appear to me to reasoned discourse. The Iraq war has no gone as Osama (oops I mean Obama) planned. Just a few months ago he had a verbal tirade in the senate about how sending a surge is catastrophic to the American Armed forces and would not and could not work. It was a brilliant analysis of all the reasons not to do a surge.
On the same topic McCain got up and gave just a brilliant analysis, coming from someone who had both been in the military, but prior to getting into politics was a strategy liason for the Navy between the Senate and the Pentagon.
Obama was clearly wrong, and showed no aptitude for understanding military affairs.
McCain was clearly right, and clearly understands and has aptitude for being commander and chief.
On Military affairs Obama is as prepared as Bush but with the opposite agenda.
Bush was fight, fight, fight,
Obama will be concede, concede, concede, do not use the military.
We clearly need someone who understands military interaction and can make wise, informed decision regarding our interests.
Obama is neither of these.
Alex;
Data exist to support post hoc supposition. You must first anlayze where the elction is today and then wait for the polling to catch up.
Obama has been slipping in the polls because of flip flopping and untenable positions on the Iraq and Energy. I asserted this weeks ago, but only now are we beginning to see the confirmation.
For any valid data we may have to wait until the (suspect) exit polls.
I understand the issues and have seen how they play out. The news cycle and the vectors continue to turn against Obama snd the polling will catch up.
Please show me CURRENT data to the contrary. You can't: it does not exist.
Or maybe Rather is so damn boring/uninteresting that no one was listening to him. I bet this is what happened. He puts me to sleep too...
The interesting thing about the fund raising is that if I were an Obama supporter I would be pissed. The fund raising emails going out are outright lies about how bad things are right now. Why not just tell the truth to your people and allow them to decide to give or not. This constant barage of crying about being in bad shape financially and being beat up financially by the republican bully is terrible and distorted.
Nate--you're concern trolling! This will get some chatter, especially since Dan Rather is a lightning rod for the GOP, but it's not going change opinions much.
BTW, Rasmussen now has it 47-46 Obama.
Higglytown - I'd rather have someone who knows when and where to use the military than someone who will use it anywhere, but have a better grasp of tactics. "Commander-in-Chief" is not the only role of a president.
Well said Anon at 9:26, I guess the left sees an orchestrated effort by Republicans to make Obama out to be a crazed Muslim. As a stupid conservative I sort of see this kind of background noise as the inevitable result of having a major party candidate who is a lightweight with limited time on the national stage, limited accomplishments before his emergence, a dicey coterie of benefactors and enablers in his hyper-ambitious rise and a willingness to change positions at the drop of a hat for political expedience. I don't think he is or ever was a muslim but then again I don't know what the hell he is other than a blank slate for lefties to project their hopes and dreams.
Obama has shown no reason to believe he will know when and where to use the military. He has been anti-everything. He wanted to negotiate with the terrorists after 9-11. His statements were that we need to bring healing between the terrorists and America through polite discourse. There is no reason for me to believe he has any insight into the proper time and place to use a military response.
Show many any sign that he knows when and where to use the military. Back that up with facts.
WORST. SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO. EVER.
Usama not Obama. If you use the correct phonetic spelling for Usama - there won't be the accidental slip. Oh well, people still say Bag-Dad ....
Higglytown, your analysis of McCain and Obama's national security ideals is entertaining and engaging, but simplifies the situation to the point of not being very useful (as entertaining, engaging rhetoric often does.)
Obama was RIGHT about Iraq in general and RIGHT about the surge (it has NOT provided the political solutions that are necessary, and apparently it has NOT allowed us to end our time there, or even bring back the troops who were PART of that "surge").
He was also apparently RIGHT about Iran and RIGHT about Afghanistan, as now Bush and McCain have adopted his positons on those issues.
But moreover, you cannot say he is "concede"-minded with any basis in reality. He supported the action in Afghanistan, to the point where he wants to send more troops in there. He is willing to send troops into Pakistan to get Al Queda, even if Musharref balks at it. He even wants to expand the military- hardly the action of someone who's just going to stand down at every turn.
So, while your post may be good politics, it's not good facts, and one of the things I like about this site, at least so far, is that it DOES deal in the facts much more than most political blogs.
Hanker said: Dan Rather is about 150 years old. He can plead senility. McCain better not make the same slip because that defense isn't open to him.
In fact, a particularly shrewd politician could theoretically take such tactics off the table for his opponent by having a supporter make such a mistake in a high profile place and then vocally, publicly blame it on something like old age, forgetfulness or senility.
It then becomes nigh impossible for McCain to make the same "mistake" without having it look bad for himself.
To me, the three biggest and most appalling racial gaffes have come from the left or left-sympathizers
Wish he wasn't right, but nearly everything out there came from the Clinton campaign, not McCain's.
I guarantee you when the RNC starts ads (or when the special interest groups start them) they will NOT be about his race. They won't have to be, because they have so much other stuff to try and scare people with.
The nasty e-mail smears will continue, but I highly doubt McCain will partake. If he slipped up and said what Rather had said, it would sink his campaign. Period. The media loves reporting on gaffs, and the best that this could be spun would be "McCain didn't actually mean it, he's just too old and senile and sometimes he gets senators and terrorists confused" which is not a message he wants to send out.
...Also, this isn't a post appropriate for a statistics website. This is something I'd read on the DailyKos. Try to keep the partisan accusations to a minimum, please? I like coming here for the statistics.
Higgly:
"He wanted to negotiate with the terrorists after 9-11."
Please back this up with evidence, such as a link from a reputable source. Even in his speech opposing the Iraq war, he said his opposition was based on the fact that we needed to continue the war against Al Queda, and Iraq could only distract from that.
"Show many any sign that he knows when and where to use the military. Back that up with facts."
He opposed the Iraq War in favor of continuing to fight Al Queda. That pretty definitively shows that he knows when and when NOT to use the military.
the media creates their own narrative. fortunately the blogsphere lets other narratives (like truth) survive. as for the commenting here....it's all eyes and sharp sticks...
I am a republican and I don`t even think this election will be close, I expect Obama to win easily.
Unless McCain can win in Michigan or Pa. there is no way he can get to 270.
Also they say Obama`s voters are 4 times more enthused, so who is more likely to show up. I am expecting him to win and will give him a few months until I complain about him.
I also bet McCain will screw up in a one on one debate that isn`t a townhall type, His mind just isn`t as sharp at his age.
He wanted to negotiate with the terrorists after 9-11.
Huh? Unless you mistakenly believe that Obama opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, I have no idea where this is coming from.
There is no reason for me to believe he has any insight into the proper time and place to use a military response.
Like when he opposed going into Iraq?
I can just picture one of McCain's supporters in, say, Kentucky or Alabama watching the Dan Rather clip, gesticulating and saying to himself:
"well gosh darn-it, that turrrist Osama bin Laden turned into that there De-moh-cratic neeegro! Yew can't pull a fast one on Celtus, nosireebob! Betsy-Lynn-Mary-Lou-Bobbie-Jo, have yew seen mah teeth?"
I really think this country is just too divided to ever come together. The ideologies and mainstream values of the South, Plains, and Big Sky states is vastly different from those on the West Coast, Upper Midwest, and Northeast.
It's probably best that the current state of the union be divided before the fighting turns us all against one another. I'd be for it...a modern secession. Dividing of the lands and the people. Seriously wouldn't that be best for all of us. The two new nations could be allies and active trading partners, but divisive politics would be greatly reduced and prosperity restored in my opinion.
Give Alaska and Hawaii their independence too. That idea has to work.
We might be the most powerful country in the world, but we're also the most backward of the industrialized. Americans seem to revel in their close mindedness.
We don't need those educated folk telling us how to do things. Global warming my ass. When my daddy was young, those negros weren't allowed property. There ain't no Muslim goin to be president.
MyWorld:
The plains and mountainous West will come around.
However, I agree that the South should secede and form its own third-world colony so that it doesn't continue to hold America back, as it has done by foisting the likes of Bush, Lott, Helms, et al on the rest of the country.
More likely, Olbermann feigns offense at his own network tonight and goes on a two-minute tirade about how stupid this is and how it doesn't give anyone permission to make the same mistake without a similar apology, and thus sets the standard of future apologies that should come after similar gaffes.
Can someone explain why Tiki Barber is now an MSNBC political analyst?
SG,
I don't know about the plains and mountainous west "coming around."
I consider Kansas a plains state, and they're more staunch than any southern state.
I agree that the southwest and central mountainous portion of the west - NM, CO, and NV are turning blue and could remain that way for a while. But I'm reckoning that UT, WY, MT, and ID are as red as they have been and will stay that way along with the south. Even though, there's been a modest tilt, I also think NE, SD, and ND are still pretty staunchly in the red corner. So aside from a few defections, I have to say for the most part I disagree with your assessment that the South is alone as a "third-world" colony.
DONATE TO OBAMA !
WE NEED YOU
ITS EASY TO DONATE ONLINE
DONATE NOW !
*** CLICK HERE ***
Thanks for the quote correction; that's actually more important than it seems. I'm a little concerned by the emphasis he put on the "an." It makes it seem more intentional, since the "slip-up" is the difference between a name beginning with a vowel and one beginning with a consonant.
How is this related to polls and projections?
Whats going on in Indiana. The regression has Indiana going for McCain by 10 points, but we've seen no poll even close to that. Chucky T believes Indiana may be in play for a number of reasons including the Chicago influence.
Any word on a new Indiana poll?
what the ni**** is going on here ?
SECURITY FEARS SHADOW OBAMA TOUR
Fri Jul 18 2008 06:26:46 ET
www.drudgereport.com
Obama 's planned trip to Israel and the West Bank has raised security concerns to levels not seen since the Illinois senator began his presidential bid, officials tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Coming just weeks after shots were fired at Israel's TLV airport during a farewell ceremony for France's Sarkozy, from an apparent suicide of a security guard, Obama's trek to the region has become a serious logistical and safety challenge.
www.drudgereport.com
"I would prefer if he did not make the trip to Ramallah," a concerned government official explained Thursday night from Washington. "And he must use extreme caution throughout Israel at this time, in my opinion, especially Jerusalem."
A planned foot tour of Jerusalem's Old City has been called off, a senior source reveals.
[Obama's specific itinerary is not being made public.]
The six-day foreign adventure is set to begin. Campaign officials have announced stops in Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England.
Developing...
www.drudgereport.com
I'm confused. Why the fuck are they still talking about Jackson's balls comment?
LATEST NEWS
www.drudgereport.com
they are talking about 'balls' because the Mass media don't have any 'balls'
fu** the mass media
Any new polls coming out today ?
why is Obama going down ?
:-(
great site nate
even my kids like this site
For me what is surprising is not that he made the gaffe -- as others said, it is a somewhat easy gaffe to make. What is surprising is that
1) He gaffed the whole name, including as someone else said putting "an" in there.
2) NO ONE flinched or noticed or did anything!
3) He prefaced what he said with all of that "what you say will be on the front page" stuff. He gaffed while talking about a gaffe. That is the most surprising thing to me. But maybe that makes it less surprising in a way. Maybe subconsciously he was so nervous about misspeaking that he was subconsciously thinking "gotta not say Osama, gotta not say Osama" which made him say it.
oh and I'll reiterate what the last anonymous person said: I love this site! I checked "electoral-vote.com" every day but now that I've found your site I like it even more. So now I check both every day.
Hello, my name is Pete Kent. I believe in family values, incarcerating women for having abortions, and converting heathens to Christianity.
So this November ask yourself, can we really elect a Muslim to the highest office of our land?
Osama bin Barack, no.
John McCain, yes. =)
I'm Pete Kent and I approve this hate message.
Rather is a drunk.
As a liberal leaning, recent college graduate from Alabama (and yes, we do exist in larger numbers than one might expect) who appreciates both the statistical analysis and thoughtful comments on the site, I (and I'm sure others as well) would appreciate it if the region bashing could be kept to a minimum. Let's act like the grown-ups that we are.
Also, concerning this:
"However, I agree that the South should secede and form its own third-world colony so that it doesn't continue to hold America back, as it has done by foisting the likes of Bush, Lott, Helms, et al on the rest of the country."
Need I remind you that both Bill Clinton and Al Gore are from Southern states? And that technically, Bush is from Connecticut?
People like ANON @1021 give the lie that Obama's ascendency will heal the nation. If his supporters have there will there will most like be a purge! You guys are one scary bunch!
To Sam at 1120: Obama is going down in the polls b/c McCain has shown how wrong he is on Iraq and how he lacks credibiity on Afghanistan. McCain has also grabbed the popular high ground on energy exploration.
Obama has been frozen in his tracks by his left wing masters. Jesse Jackson did not have to castrate him: Move on . org, Katrina Vandenheuval, Arianna Huffington and George Soros already did that long ago.
You will nominate a Eunuch and he will lose. Send him to the Zenana to live with other men’s wives, he won't make it the White House.
MyWorld: But I'm reckoning that UT, WY, MT, and ID are as red as they have been and will stay that way along with the south.
Montana: two Democratic senators, and a popular Democratic governor.
Wyoming: a tougher sell for Dems, very doubtful Obama will win that state. But Democratic House candidate Gary Trauner lost by just 1,012 votes for the House seat in 2006, and this year's race looks competitive.
Walter Minnik has a shot at Bill Sali's seat in Idaho.
Of the four states, only MT is probably contested at the presidential level, but, the region is not a solidly red as in previous cycles.
New Alaska poll by Research 2000 for DK:
Obama: 41
Mccain: 51
Looks like AK has gone out of the pick up opportunities.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/18/05546/5743/983/553284
Good points, dsimon. But I'd be careful deducing too much just because there's a D or an R besides someones name in terms of their ideology.
I can't speak too much of the pols you speak of and their policies without research, but I know that in Arkansas, 5 of their 6 representatives to congress are democrats. And that's a pretty red state. The difference is that, even though their dems, they are mostly pro-life, anti-gun control moderates. There are other issues they lean center or center-right on which gives them appeal to a broad electorate. I'm assuming the same could be said for the dem politicians you referred to in red states.
I was talking about a divide on ideology, not party affiliation. There's far-left, left, center-left, center, center-right, right, and far-right for just about every position. The regions I mentioned are split as the majority of people lean in one direction or the other on ideology, not party lines.
I'm a conservative independent, and I'll take a moderate, centrist democrat over a hard right-winger in a heartbeat. I don't think Obama is as centrist as he likes to portray himself, but that's my opinion, and please don't anyone open a can of worms on my opinion.
Nate,
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with what has become of the comments section on this site.
I was really hoping we could have intelligent discussions about the polls, their implications, crosstab issues, projections, even what-ifs as to turnout models, etc.
Instead so many posts have become : "X is gonna win because I say Y" , "troll" , "racist", etc.
I wish we could all discuss "election projections", which implies data, instead of just repeating people's belief systems.
Just one point apart in Gallup now. Barack ( Middle Name that shall not be mentioned) Obama has apparently dropped down to 46%, lowest yet in July.
Less maelstrom, more storm in a teacup
We all do things like this, it has nothing to do with senility. I'm 39 and make worse slip ups every day. Kudos to the interviewers for just letting it go, rather than making something out of nothing.
Stevie:
Don't you watch Colbert? Data has a liberal bias because it may contradict truthiness.
Nate:
Love the work you do. I should have never bothered reading the comments. As with most politically charged subjects it devolves into the eventual ... abyss of absolute nothingness.
Relating to Dan Rather's comments?
Barack: "Call me anything ... except late for the late for the inauguration."
http://embedded-in-the-noise.blogspot.com/2007/08/page-eleven.html
~JQP~
.
Looks like obama might just plunge through the X-Axix on the Supertracker earlier that I had projected.
Average the two most respected tracking polls and you have Obama +1.5. Who sang that epic lyric, "slip, slidin' away?"
To Dan Rather,
It's called "retirement". Look into it. Television is no place for having senior moments.
My World,
I agree that one shouldn't necessarily infer ideology from party affiliation. And there may be people who are right of center who would still prefer a moderate Democrat over a hard right-winger (that looks like the choice in ID Minnick-Sali contest), so electing a Democrat in a particular match-up may not necessarily reflect the political leanings of the population.
But I don't think any of those Democratic pols I mentioned are right of center, certainly not as conservative as some of the Southern Democrats who have won recent traditionally Republican districts. The fact that a moderate Democrat can compete at all in the mountain states shows, I think, that the region is not as partisan as in the past.
Many people in those areas are looking for the government to protect the environment against rampant energy development. Gun control is no longer a litmus test for the Democratic party, and having guns for hunting doesn't help much if the animals go away. And health care problems don't discriminate depending on the terrain. Once the gun issue is put aside, it's not hard to see why Democrats have made inroads. Also, there's a difference between hard-right conservativism and a those with a more libertarian bent, and some areas of the West tend more towards the latter.
I don't think many people ten years ago would have predicted that New Hampshire would have two Democratic House members, a Democrat favored for a Senate seat, and be a swing state in the presidential race. Though things may change, it seems to me that some places in the West are undergoing the same moderating trend.
To be fair, ol' Dan Rather is about 100 years old. I think he's right about the 24/7 news cycle - that was his point. It's sad that it will be missed because of a miss-statement. That's the whole thing really... Cable news blowing up every little meaningless thing while not looking at the big issues at all. It's sad.
Who is bigger for their time? Obama or the Beatles?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4353782.ece
Things like this go far beyond left vs right. These are flaws that are inherent in us all, despite whatever many of these partisan hacks will tell you. I'm a strong Obama supporter and have more than once forgetfully called him Osama during conversation. I am not an agent of some far-reaching Republican psy-ops campaign. I am a human being that is, last I checked, entitled to my mistakes. You and I are no different than each other, nor is Dan Rather.
Dan Rather does look like he's in need of serious tapioca. Makes you think that CBS invented the Bush ANG memos just to push the old feller out the door.
ABC News and The Washington Post issued staggered releases of the results of their latest poll, withholding from their first release results favorable to Sen. Barack Obama, including the finding that 50 percent of registered voters would vote for Obama for president versus 42 percent for Sen. John McCain. The next day, the Post ran an article headlined "Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions," which did not mention Obama's 8-point lead over McCain. Later that day, ABC News and the Post issued a second release with additional poll results that stated: "Obama continues to hold most of the advantages in the presidential race
A lot of people are complaining because posts do not discuss election predictions. Last I saw about 2/3s of Nate's posts do not discuss election predictions. Nate's analysis of Dan Rather's mess up is totally off point to the polling numbers. What do you expect responses to be to a plainly liberal blog, that has nothing to do to polling. "I know Nate is discussing off polling items on his web page and blog, but I dont see why other people are doing so." This site devolved from numbers analysis, to part numbers analysis part DailyKos. If Nate stays on point to the site, it would probably be a better argument for others to do so.
Maybe you should check the poster´s name again Higglytown. ;)
The trail on my Obama as wanting to engage terrorists in negotiation began with the October 17, 2001 Chicago Tribune article, where Obama states Military may be needed, but could be innefective.
He then says we may not have the moral high ground on the terrorism mess and that we should engage and reeducate the extremist parts of society, because it is religious education and poverty that causes this sort of terrorism, therefore if we engage them and make sure they have money and quality education terrorism will go away. I have a couple other sources I will find, but my dislike for him on foreign policy began way back in Oct 17, 2001. He was tirading about not liking security checkpoints to enter buildings and airports that day.
Sorry, didnt even know there were different people contributing to the main blog subjects, I apologize Sean for the wrong attribution. I do not pay that close of attention, just come on the site to BS a little. Nothing serious from me.
Higglytown - Here's the quote, it was from the Chicago Defender:
”We're engaged in a military operation. I don't know how effective that operation is, but it's absolutely vital that we pursue a military response and a criminal investigation to dismantle these organizations of violence that have cropped up.”
"We should also examine the foreign policies of the the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particular, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity."
"For nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, or much of the Middle East, young men have no opportunities. The only education they are receiving is that provided to them by religious schools that may not provide them with a well-rounded view of the world.”
"They see poverty all around them and they are angry by that poverty. They may be suffering under oppressive and corrupt regimes and that kind of environment is a breeding ground for fanaticism and hatred.”
"It's absolutely critical that the U.S. is engaged in policies and strategies that will give those young people and these countries hope and make it in their self-interest to participate and create modern, open societies like we have in the U.S."
He didn't say anything about "negotiating with terrorists," he said that we should try to ameliorate the conditions in other countries that can lead people to join terrorist organizations. He's saying that we should engage nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan (*not* terrorist organizations) where poor, uneducated people might be drawn to al Qaeda because they don't have many options. It's actually a very intelligent statement, and provides a great contrast to a lot of the hysteria that was going on back then.
For those (including me) wondering why the national polls are so tight yet Obama is looking much better thank Kerry in most swing states...there's this:
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/state-polls-indicate-obamas-tidal-wave-potential-national-polls-are-tight-both-are-rig
Hey Mr. Kent,
My whole family is Catholic. Am I some secret Catholic by proxy?
With Obama at +1 on both national tracking polls, we should see several states change color.
Turning dark red: Alaska, South Carolina, Indiana, North & South Dakota.
Turning pink: Virginia.
Turning darker Pink: Nevada, Montana.
Turning white: Ohio, Michigan & New Mexico.
Pete Kent:
Your writing honestly ISN'T that bad. I could easily psycho-analyze you to be a racist. I could also take your words at face value and determine you're an energized conservative.
That is moot, however. What is important is environment. This site is dedicated to statistics, probabilities, and the crunching of numbers. Nerd stuff, to be sure, but fascinating to those in the know. Nate's work isn't revolutionary, but it's refined and evolutionary, like a fine multi-filtered vodka in a world of rotgut.
Your posts, while very solid compared to most conservative idealogical arguments you'd find on the web, don't fit this mold. As other posters have said, you rely on 'truthiness', gut feelings, and mainstream narratives to attempt to argue your points. On the MSNBC First Read comment sections, you'd be at home amongst the other MSM-styled commenters. Here, you stand out as a dinosaur, a troglodytic fool who doesn't follow the ethos of the site.
I know this is a hypocritical post, a call-out without numbers to bash someone who doesn't use numbers, but please, give up the Rev. Wright, the Jackson, the Foreign Policy, the "experience question", Obama's level of humor, etc, unless there is tangible poll data supporting an intellectually sound hypothesis.
The signal to noise ratio of these comments use to be insanely good. Now it's nearly zero, with only a few posters like Modeller and Cugel routinely asking the questions that provoke rational debate, as opposed to partisan jingoism and talking points.
Please help return it to that status. Do your part Pete Kent. Half the time you enrage me, the other half you actually make me want to get into a reasoned debate with you. Not everything needs to be quantitative, to be sure, sometimes smell tests are apt to propose, but the way you argue most things has been the political equivalent of posting "I dunno, I see Jeter pirouette and I KNOW he deserves the gold glove" or "But Jimmy Rollins does deserve the MVP because he is such a spark plug and has a lot of hits". Which, if you study baseball statistics, are two bad arguments to be make, and Nate would likely want to smack you.
NAte, oh Nate! I loved this site when it was just you wonky math guys. Let's get rid of these other people, please and get back to the stats. I don't understand everything you do (and I wish you would explain when the electoral numbers for Obama drop as they have in the past few days), but I respect your knowledge of the methodology. And while I think you may have scooped Drudge and Huffington on this gaffe today, maybe if you just stick to the math, these trolls will disappear.
And by the way -- so glad the Germans are pro Obama! Europeans understand and study politics so much more than we do.
Anyone can post with Peter Kent name. Maybe I will start a Clark Kent persona.
Citizen Grim writes:
I liked 538 back in the good old days before all these partisan people showed up, and it was just election math geeks.
Thanks, CG, you've given me a perfect lead-in to carp, once again, about the fact that since June 19th we've lost one decimal of precision in Nate's state-by-state Win % line.
It used to say:
AZ Win % 10.9%
Now it says:
AZ Win % 11% 89% Likely GOP
We gained a lot of information we can figure out on our own and we lost information that is now known to Nate alone.
Now that's an issue that means something! What's more, Nate can actually do something about it; but do you hear people echoing my complaint? You do not! All you get is people checking You-Tube to see if any reporter from the 40's ever said "Hitler" when he meant to say "FDR"
Sheesh!
Getting back to, you know, polling, Rasmussen released a poll of Maine which has Obama leading 46-36 without leaners, 49-41 with leaners. The Maine poll a month ago had Obama leading 55-33.
"The biggest change this month is among unaffiliated voters. Among voters not affiliated with either candidate’s party, McCain and Obama are now essentially even. Last month, Obama had a 57% to 30% lead among those voters. Obama has support from 78% of Democrats in Maine, while McCain is backed by 72% of Republicans."
TPM seems to be the only place I can find it, but another Rasmussen poll of the ME Senate race has Collins ahead 53-43 (was 49-42 last month).
"Jack-be-quick said...
With Obama at +1 on both national tracking polls, we should see several states change color.
Turning dark red: Alaska, South Carolina, Indiana, North & South Dakota.
Turning pink: Virginia.
Turning darker Pink: Nevada, Montana.
Turning white: Ohio, Michigan & New Mexico."
Look at the individual state polls and you'll see that this is untrue - Rasmussen has McCain +1 in Virginia today and Obama +2 in Nevada yesterday. All of the Michigan and New Mexico polls have shown a definite tilt towards Obama - at this point, NM is a better chance for him than CO in my opinion. The closing in the national polls is coming from the dissatisfaction of the Democratic base about FISA and Iraq, which is why places like Maine and Oregon are dropping from mid-double-digit leads for Obama to high-single-digit leads. So far, Obama has the advantage in the projected Electoral College because of his likelihood (at this point) to pick up OH, IA, and NM... quite possibly NV, VA, MT and ND as well. That said, the race is certainly tightening and will probably remain this way until the VP's get picked/the conventions occur.
and by "mid-double-digits", I mean mid-teens, or low twenties in the case of Maine
Let me join the chorus. Sean's post on "Likely Voters" was on point. The Rather posting was not. It gaff piece seems intended only to draw out the Peter Kent trolls.
I would "rather" see posts that focus on polling, projections and election prognostication. For example, why not discuss why the election is now closer in 2-way race compared with the 4-way candidate race?
SelenesMom writes:
WORST. SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO. EVER.
Sublime response:
As a poster asked earlier: "Kenneth, what's the frequency?"
Straightforward response:
If Nate doesn't do some clean-up soon I'm going to have a lot less fun on this 'site (but I'm addicted I'll come hear even if it's troll infested.)
c.b.: The closing in the national polls is coming from the dissatisfaction of the Democratic base about FISA and Iraq...
Actually, Gallup posted this article a few days ago, suggesting that if FISA affected his support among Democrats, it isn't showing up in their data. (The current iteration of the FISA mess started the week of June 16. Since then, his support among both liberals in general and liberal Democrats has gone up by 2-3 points.)
stevie314159 writes:
Nate,
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with what has become of the comments section on this site.
I was really hoping we could have intelligent discussions about the polls, their implications, crosstab issues, projections, even what-ifs as to turnout models, etc.
Instead so many posts have become : "X is gonna win because I say Y" , "troll" , "racist", etc.
I wish we could all discuss "election projections", which implies data, instead of just repeating people's belief systems.
There is so much trash on the lawn I can hardly see the flowers. And the flowers are the best on the 'net!!!!!
new rasmussen poll ME, mccain down 10.
leaners 8. pretty interesting how he's had such a big drop for obama.
"Actually, Gallup posted this article a few days ago, suggesting that if FISA affected his support among Democrats, it isn't showing up in their data. (The current iteration of the FISA mess started the week of June 16. Since then, his support among both liberals in general and liberal Democrats has gone up by 2-3 points.)"
I happen to agree; that has been my (unprofessional assessment). I think it may have helped him in some areas as he has since gained in some red states and even is ahead of McCain in AZ according to the latest Zogby poll.
Anon at 3:12:
Kerry won there by about the same amount within the margin of error...that state could be returning to its mean. Rasmussen comments that this has occurred in several states; could be the end of the post-nom bounce.
Whoever mentioned Pollyvote...bless you. WOW...they really did predict 2004, within a percentage point.
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out.
Chris Matthews did it .... and he did it again.
[Good Lord, I can't wait until we have a live thread that's devoted to NUMBERS.]
"Peter Kent" said:
Anyone can post with Peter Kent name. Maybe I will start a Clark Kent persona.
Anyone can post as Pete Kent. It's kinda like the end of "Spartacus".
The new Rasmussen Maine poll (+8 with leaners) is a big drop from their last poll (+22), but pretty much in line with all the other polling from Maine (all in the +10 to +14 range for Obama). For reference, Kerry won Maine by 9; Gore won it by 5.
It'll be interesting to see what the next round of Ohio polls say. Rasmussen, Survey USA, PPP and Quinnipiac all did polls of Ohio almost exactly a month ago, and there's been essentially nothing since. Obama has a number of possible paths to victory, but the simplest one may be (Kerry states)+ OH. Also, it's pretty hard to see how McCain wins without Ohio, since he'd have to pick up a Kerry state or two to do it and most of them look harder for McCain to win than Ohio is.
I'm obsessively watching all the polling, but keeping the closest eye on Ohio and Michigan (the big Kerry state most likely to flip). If Obama wins those two, everything else is gravy. I know and agree with the arguments about building as big a coalition as possible and about helping down-ticket races, but 2000 taught me that once in office a president can govern the same whether he has a large popular mandate or (ahem) not.
Paul Bradford:
That extra decimal place whose disappearance so upsets you does not represent lost information. It is rather the elimination of noise.
If you have a measure that is plus/minus 1%, inserting an additional decimal place, even though it is calculable, does not supply real information. Thus 49.4% is indistinguihable from 49.0%. Moreover, 49.9%, even if rounded upward to 50%, is not distinguishable from 49.0%.
The elimination of the faux precision subtracts nothing real and makes the data easier to comprehend.
The fun thing about Maine is that it can go 4-0 or 3-1. If it gets close, the Second Dist. might flip.
For some reason, based on nothing actually, I expect Obama to fall behind to McCain in OH. Some parts of the state are 'southern-like' and except for a couple of exceptions, Obama has fallen further behind in Southern states.
As for MI, if McCain selects Mitt Romney, he picks that up. I am wondering if Obama will then pick Bayh, to get him Indiana...
Rasmussen Tracking Poll predicted the race almost to the exact tenth of a point.
I think this is why Nate gives it such great weight.
Yeah, except everyone was in solidarity with Spartacus.
Paul Bradford @ 3:04 -- That really says it all!
OT, ha ha: I had an acquaintance named Kenneth some years ago who lived in midtown, and was convinced that that message had been intended for him (I think the incident took place on 52nd Avenue or thereabouts) because he was a ham radio buff. No he didn't resemble Dan Rather a bit.
Does anyone else think that as we approach the end of the Eastern time workday this site gets busier?
I'm not so sure about how much help Romney would be in Michigan. He was (reasonably) popular with Republican primary voters, getting 39%. But I think he might be pretty divisive. Republicans might like his business background, but "Reagan Democrats" (kind of an outdated category by now) may not take so kindly to someone whose business experience involved maximizing profits while being indifferent to whether his actions created or destroyed American jobs.
I think in the current economic climate Romney might be a tough sell in Michigan, despite his father having been governor there.
Anonymous at 3:33:
On what basis are you assuring us that Mitt Romney as VP would cause McCain to carry Michigan? Based on nothing, I could predict for McCain to carry New York and Obama to carry Utah, but is it really interesting to read claims based on nothing? Your claim about Ohio at least has some reasoning, but I can't see that your confident declaration on Michigan does.
I doubt McCain would be so cynical as to confuse their names deliberately, then "plead the Rather." It might happen by mistake, though; McCain makes enough missteps that it could certainly happen. Now, McCain's GOP operatives, I'm not so sure about.
Rather has just given carte blanche for Republicans to "slip" and negate the hue and cry with "Rather made the slip too... innocent mistake!" Wonder if McCain himself will do it in one high profile way and Plead the Rather.
I'm not so sure about this. For one, it was a slip because Rather is old. I'm not sure McCain would want to draw attention to that. Secondly, Rather was yakking on a TV show with a former NY Giants running back. McCain is running for POTUS. The two situations are a bit different.
"ajb said...
I'm not so sure about how much help Romney would be in Michigan."
Romney's dad was a favorite Governor. People love the family. Two buildings downtown at the capital that house the MI House and Senate are the Romney Buildings. Name and family recognition can be big, especially in Michigan.
There is consideration about putting up a Romney pro family monument in Michigan which would be off a family picture of his, and would have a statue of Mitt Romney as a young boy, Michigan's favorite son. Romney is still big in Michigan, It would be great timing to unvail the monument with Mitt Romney the vice presidential nominee standing there sometime in mid to late October.
"Your claim about Ohio at least has some reasoning, but I can't see that your confident declaration on Michigan does."
Confident? I hope you are not mistaking me for a McCain fangurrrrl. I am an Obama supporter who is trying to be realistic. I am looking at the landscape from what I know. MOreover, google SurveyUSA and see what their polling shows, albeit this was from late May. McCain/Romney beat any combo of Dems. Yes, it was late May, but it also speaks to Romney's popularity in MI.
Could Romney help carry Michigan? I do not know. I know the state is fed up with the Dems taxing at the state level with things not improving. Granholm, governor, ratings are down near Bush ratings. If the Repubs had any candidate whatsoever the last time around to throw at her they could have one. Heck I campaigned for her, when Mr. Amway was running for governor. Only the Devos and VanAndel families and Obama believe in Pyramid schemes. (Check posts from others describing his organization as a pyramid scheme, not from me.)
Unions are strong here, but have lost strength and numbers every year for about 10 straight years now. Delphi, GM, Chrysler, Ford, all downsized in the last 4 years, members transfered out of state. The unions have made us the incredibly shrinking state, and it is mostly Union Members and young college grads leaving (the people that need jobs)who happen to be two very important Democrat constituencies. Detroit over the past 15-20 years has gone from 1.8 million citizens down to just under 500k, which is another major Obama constituency.
In the meantime, Republican strongholds like Grand Rapids, Mount Pleasant, Traverse City, etc.. have had extraordinary growth, no recession at all in my neighborhood, unemployment almost non-existent in this part of the state.
So can Michigan be turned, probably, would Romney help, sure he would, is it likely, no. Not unless Ohio and FL (We refer to as South Michigan, half my clients also own property down there) go McCain first.
Word has it that Barack is hung like an over-sized donkey and McCain's peter is pretty small.
I know I want my candidate to have the biggest unit possible.
Check it out at http://www.barackishung.com
Recall that this was a thread dealing with a gaffe. I took it as opening to discuss general trends in the election and my hypothesis as to why the polls have been moving McCain's way.
As I said before, we are here to predict the outcome of the election. Polls are one means of prediction and they are informed by the issues.
As it stands I believe my analysis of the state of the race is as cogent, if not more so, than any that has been offered here.
The most interesting assmessment offered here explaining the state of the polls was the one suggesting that the movement in the national polls was caused by diasaffected democrats in the big states melting away from Obama, not enough to change the outcome in those states, but enough to affect the national margins.
That could be. But if that is true it should happen proportionately in the battleground states (absent some other explanation), in which case we should see them tip as well.
Could it be that liberal voters in VA and OH feel their vote is more important to the outcome so they cannot waste it on protest votes like they can afford to do in CA and NY.
"I think it may have helped him in some areas as he has since gained in some red states and even is ahead of McCain in AZ according to the latest Zogby poll."
Those polls are garbage - the only way McCain will lose Arizona is if he hits a baby on national TV, or something equally ridiculous.
(He's not losing Arizona).
That said, your basic premise has some merit. However, the broader backdrop of this race is that everything is tightening. The same positions that hurt Obama in blue states where he can afford it are helping him in red states - or so he hopes.
"Pete Kent said...That could be. But if that is true it should happen proportionately in the battleground states (absent some other explanation), in which case we should see them tip as well.
Could it be that liberal voters in VA and OH feel their vote is more important to the outcome so they cannot waste it on protest votes like they can afford to do in CA and NY."
I believe that that is in fact the case. You'll see typical Democratic margins in the solid blue states and typical Republican margins in the solid red states barring landslides on either side, because the disaffected voters will eventually 'come home' unless one of the candidates does something that really ticks them off/encourages them. And I don't think either McCain or Obama is pulling a cure for AIDS out of their pocket anytime soon.
Higgly:
2007 Census estimates put the population of the City of Detroit at 916,952 and the Detroit-Warren-Flint, CSA at 5,405,918.
Detroit has suffered population decline, but not nearly to the extent you've outlined.
Furthermore Higgly, it's been around 50 years since the City of Detroit had over 1.8MM citizens, not 15-20.
1940 1,623,452 3.5%
1950 1,849,568 13.9%
1960 1,670,144 −9.7%
1970 1,514,063 −9.3%
1980 1,203,368 −20.5%
1990 1,027,974 −14.6%
2000 951,270 −7.5%
Est. 2007 916,952 −3.6%
Anonymous and Higglytown:
Thanks for the content-laden analysis of Michigan.
Anonymous, please don't take me for someone with a partisan line on criticizing election predictions. I'm just as critical of predictions in Obama's favor as in McCain's favor, if the way I read the posts is that those predictions are based on hopes or fears, rather than something more tangible such as the data you just supplied.
Honestly, this is not a big deal and I doubt anyone (except 538.com and other blogs) will be harping on it.
Judas Priest writes:
That extra decimal place whose disappearance so upsets you does not represent lost information. It is rather the elimination of noise.
What you say may be true ... or it may not. Nate posted the Win % to three decimals for quite some time and then dropped it when he gave the 'site a facelift. You're pointing out a question of accuracy vs. precision. I noticed that we had lost some precision, but I have no idea how much accuracy his model allows for.
As I said, you may be right. It may even be that it's only accurate to one decimal place and the '3' in the 43% note is noise. I'd be interested in hearing what Nate says about the sturdiness of his projections.
let's face it, the names are easy to mix up.
It's easier to mix up "John McCain" with "Elton John" than it is to mix up "Barack Obama" with "Osama bin Laden".
Perhaps this notion that they're easy to mix up is behind the claim that those who were upset by the New Yorker article lack a sense of humor -- because after all, it's easy to confuse mocking right wing nutcases with mocking the Obamas. What? What's he talking about?? See, if that really was mockery of the right wing nutcases, then it would be they who lacked a sense of humor about it, not Obama and his supporters. But over and over again the cretins and propagandists who berated people for getting upset about this failed to make the distinction as to who was really being mocked.
Nate:
Undeniable proof in the thread here ... of what I said earlier . . .
~JQP~
@ Embedded in the Noise
Honestly, this is not a big deal and I doubt anyone (except 538.com and other blogs) will be harping on it.
Well, it does take a certain amount of intelligence to understand what's significant about it.
my dislike for him on foreign policy began way back in Oct 17, 2001. He was tirading about not liking security checkpoints to enter buildings and airports that day.
Typical shallowness of Obama's detractors, twisting his caution about reactionary haste and excess into a negative.
It's amazing to me that no other blog or website or cable channel picked up the Rather "misspeak". Did I miss something? Did NO ONE notice this? I think it's odd.
Why is this even here? We're so hard up for non-news?
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 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, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 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, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
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!! 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