...it's one of several states that haven't been polled in months and where the highest-ranked poll is in danger of dropping below the 0.05 weighting threshold and entirely out of our averages. The other states in this group are Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont. Rhode Island would have been too, but is getting new numbers today.
From among this group, the most annoying omission is North Dakota, which Obama is visiting today and may actually hope to compete in. For good measure, it's probably also worth polling South Dakota. As to the rest of these states -- it's fairly obvious in which direction they're going to go, although Maryland is very bourgie and would therefore be helpful for calibrating demographics, and it's surprising that Illinois, which has the fifth-largest population in the country, has been polled so little when California and New York have been polled so much.
For the time being, however, what we're going to do is establish a requirement that the highest-rated poll in each state will be assigned a minimum weight of 0.25, with any other polls in that state calibrated to that number. This is admittedly a little ad-hoc, but all it's doing is affecting the extent to which we weight the polling as opposed to the regression, which was an ad-hoc decision to begin with. It doesn't feel right to completely ignore polling that has taken place in a state when that polling is the best thing we have, even if that polling is a little (or a lot) out of date.
This precedent will also be applied to our Senate polling numbers, where it is somewhat more consequential, as some Senate races are polled quite rarely.
7.03.2008
Speaking of North Dakota...
@ 8:47 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments
New poll
Rassmussen 7/3
Montana: Obama +5
New Rasmussen poll in Montana.
Obama + 5
HAHAHA...It's impossible for Obama win in Montana?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/montana/election_2008_montana_presidential_election2
TYPO: North Dakota is in your list of states with polling infrequency similar to North Dakota.
I looked the exit poll from Nevada in 2004.
Kerry lost by only 21.000 vote.
For me, it's impossible for Obama lose in Nevada with the big turnout.
Las Vegas and Clark County will be big this year.
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/epolls.0.html
I looked the exit poll from Nevada in 2004.
Kerry lost by only 21.000 vote.
For me, it's impossible for Obama lose in Nevada with the big turnout.
Las Vegas and Clark County will be big this year.
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/epolls.0.html
Man, I really really like the 50-state strategy. Not only for this year, but for all races moving forward. Sometimes, people vote a certain way out of habit and because the other party ignored them.
Well - we'll see what happens after Labor Day and after the mud has been thrown around from both sides. Obama isn't going to win Montana and lose Florida and Nevada as polling from the past week or two would indicate.
I'd take that MT poll with a truckload of salt - just as I suggested people on my side should have done when that poll of NJ showed McCain ahead a few months ago.
I totaly agree with you adam, like everyone say's the poll's dont matter now, so why do we alway's get so excited when we see a poll we like? never really get it, for states like montana how dem's love thoses and republican's hate them, but then take for instence the ga poll's all the democrats were going nut's, with obama behind 1, then the two new polls came out within the last few day's and they are talking about there being to many republicans or w/e polled. so i totaly agree with you like nj is a state that alway's show's it closer before the election then the dem's alway's vote dem, i think nc, and mt could turn into that too just depends on who the candidate is. but yes i would take this with a small grain of salt.
To be fair, Clinton did get Montana in 1992 - it's not impossible, certainly no less likely than North Dakota.
Although after looking at the numbers, Clinton only won with the help of a considerable Perot vote.
Adam--
While I agree it's too early for those of us on Obama's side to get excited about Montana, I don't think it's out of the question for Obama to win Montana while losing Florida. Southern conservatives and Western conservatives are different creatures, and Obama's been doing pretty well with the Westerners.
creatures? what on earth is that suppose to mean?.
Even if the Montana poll is a fluke, it serves a very important purpose for the Obama campaign--it makes McCain give serious consideration to devoting resources there and probably in the Dakotas as well.
By the way, what's "bourgie"?
The Rasmussen Hacks are at it again, sometimes they are on point, sometimes they mess it up.
Here the first question was a negative about George Bush's popularity, before asking the McCain/Obama question.
Then on the issues such as offshore drilling McCain gets the support. I wonder if the McCain Obama question were asked after the other questions if we would get the same result. As Nate has said question order and context do matter. Also the 500 voters with a +- of 4.5% at 95% accuracy is hardly great evidence.
+4 in North Dakota? +5 in Montana? What, was there some mass migration down from Canada in the last few years?
Stephen,
I agree. Southerners are more so-con and westerners have a more libertarian streak. But I think it's debateable just how "southern" FL is anymore considering all the transplant Northeasterners that are quickly moving there.
So while Obama is doing well now with westerners and McCain is doing well in FL, I think the ad wars will change that.
Dems will tag McCain as dangerous on Social Security. That will get Floridians' attention and make it close. And I suspect that NRA will remind Montanans that Obama signed a paper saying he supports banning hand guns.
I don't know who is going to win in November. I objectively give Obama a slight edge now - but I think that the war is going to be waged along similar battle zones when push comes to shove.
Also, DC already has no polls above the threshold.
I think maybe there are some special rules about polling in DC. I'm not positive. It's weird living in Japan and seeing everything here - in Japan, you can't do polling (aside from generic party preferences) at all!
In Illinois we're too busy watching our two first place teams to bother with polling right now.
But I think it's debateable just how "southern" FL is anymore considering all the transplant Northeasterners that are quickly moving there.
...and Midwesterners on the Gulf side.
Nate.
What does this mean?
"Maryland is very bourgie"
I live in Maryland. It is kind of the opposite of PA, with the conservative areas to the east and west and the liberal area down through the middle. It is reliable Dem, has a fairly high proportion of African-Americans and a growing Latino population. How does this relate to your statement?
SarahLawrenceScott: "By the way, what's 'bourgie'?"
Bourgeois; middle class, usually upper-middle class. Maryland has the highest per capita income in the country (as of 2007). Other bourgeois states would be New Jersey and Connecticut.
Maryland is the greatest state in the union, lived there for over 20 years, and I loved it
SUSA released poll results for Indiana on June 24. Obama 48%, McCain 47% A small lead for Obama and within the MOE but Indiana also has not voted for a Dem for president since 1964 and only for two Dem presidents in history. Obama is making a major effort in Indiana.
One thing to keep in mind about visiting Fargo, ND is that it is in the same metro area as Moorehead, MN. Thus going there gives Obama local coverage in western Minnesota, an area of the state that is not as friendly to him as the Twin Cities. The area in general doesn't get many visits and the folks there sometimes feel like they get no respect; showing up is a huge way of demonstrating you think they matter.
So it's a twofer on state visits.
Nate,
I think you can get rid of all this ad-hoc-ness if you simply include "state" variables in your regression model. The variable will capture the state-specific factors that are not reflected in the demographics.
There will be 51 such variables, and to avoid overfitting I'd once again suggest some form of regularization (ridge regression would probably work well in this case).
Once this is done, you would no longer need to average your regression model with the polls; the "state" variable would effectively handle this. Thus there would be no need to come up with some ad-hoc weight for the regression model or to set up a minimum weight for polls. You would simply weight all of the polls, use them to fit the regression model, and base the projection entirely off the regression model. The per-state-polls will be included not by an abitrary average with the regression model, but by setting the coefficient for the "state" variables in the regression model.
Just my $0.02.
Next ND poll may very well show the state turned a pale shade of blue. Yes! I'm getting behind this fifty state thing.
I do wish some firm would poll DC. Not because I doubt the result there, but simply for completeness.
Is there another 50 state poll in the works any time soon?
Can someone explain why Indiana is so close. This state hasen't been blue in decades. Not even WJC won Indiana. I know the Chicago media market influences the northern part of the state, but there must be something else going on.
No clue why Indiana is close.
But I grew up in Wyoming, and I can tell you that Obama's position on handguns will matter to fewer people than you might expect in MT, ND, or WY. The handgun is a suburban and inner city weapon. In the West, for the most part, we carry rifles -- shotguns, 30-06s, and so forth -- for hunting, for rattlesnakes ...
Many of us think there are too many people in cities carting pistols who don't know a thing about guns and gun safety. Those guns ought to be taken away from people.
Don't know if Obama can figure out how to split the difference on these ideas, but if he can, it might make a difference.
And part of why MT, WY, CO, NM, and NV are turning blue (and why OR and WA are not really purple anymore) is displaced Californians moving into wide open spaces.
Democrats also have a 5-4 advantage over Republicans in Indiana's House delegation.
The simplest explanation? For the first time in decades, Democrats are making a concerted effort to win there and discovering that the demographics are not entirely unfavorable to their candidacies.
FL ought to be much more difficult for Obama than past experience might suggest, because it is older, which appears to be a major variable in these elections. The West is, I understand, younger.
What would be nice is if Nate could publish somewhere the raw data - the demographic facts that he uses for his regression. They're all in public domain anyway, but it's appropriate to have them all easily accessible here for us to see.
Maryland's a very blue state, particularly the DC suburbs-- there isn't much polling because there isn't much doubt about how it'll go.
To the prior comment: so THAT explains why there are so many polls for New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts...the doubting as to how they'll go, right? /satire
Should you reconsider how you decay the weight of a poll considering the success of your trend adjustment?
Obviously a newer poll should still be weighted more than an older poll, but in the situation where there's no new data is there any reason to decay a poll? That is, should a polls weight be decayed only when there's new information, or possibly only decay very slowly without new information, then be decayed as normal once new information is available?
Nate time to change the shading for Montana --- it is a pale blue, not a medium dark red. Rasmussen came out with a poll today for Montana showing Obama ahead 48 to 43. His ads in Montana are having an effect. McCain better start putting up ads in Montana soon or that state is gone from his column.
Montana's not pale blue yet. Lets see a confirmation poll first.
Now if Obama can somehow get Idaho, you could drive coast to coast on I90 without hitting a red state.
Afraid he'll have to win Wyoming for that to happen.
lol, i'm sorry but are you stupid? there is no reason to shade MT blue at all yet, let alone indiana, it's only 1 poll from MT showing obama ahead, you'd have to be pretty stupid to shade MT yet, wait for a few more poll's before you should even come close to makeing it a tie let alone blue.
It's a 10-point swing from the most recent Rasmussen poll three months ago, and will probably out-weight the rest of the MT polls combined. If nothing else, it'll probably turn MT from the deep red it is now to pinkish; it'd take another poll confirming the same result to get it all the way to white. And since this is MT, we probably won't get any polling for a while.
""Now if Obama can somehow get Idaho, you could drive coast to coast on I90 without hitting a red state.""
Were you going to carry your car on your back in South Dakota?
ok, ok, I forgot that it is 94 that goes through ND, and 90 that goes through SD and WY.
Montana, throw North Dakota in there as well. I've heard so many media clowns questioning the 18 state ad buy. "Barack has lofty goals with this ad buy" they would say. "He's wasting money" I've heard.
He's not going to win all 18 states he's advertising in, but as the Montana poll proves, there are a lot of states in play that were not previously thought so.
The Montana regression is still strongly McCain...that will likely not change with one poll. I'm guessing the % win for O in MT is going to be about 30%...a big improvement, but not pale blue yet.
What I find most interesting about the MT poll is that Obama garners 48% of the vote. He leads by 5, but it's not a 45-40 lead. He's almost at the 50% threshold. Compare that to Michigan, where Rasmussen's last poll has Obama leading +3 but with only 45% of the vote.
Nate says Rasmussen are good polls, but that guy Scott Rasmussen gives me the creeps. Hannity always has him on. I lose respect for everyone who guests on that show. I question their credibility.
All this talk about Obama "wasting money" is just dumb. First of all, he needs to spend money - there is no sense in saving it for anything. More importantly, spending "more" money in Ohio or PA beyond a certain level doesn't get you that much extra benefit. Also, spending money for ads makes more sense in MT and ND, because Obama likely won't visit those states that often later - visiting MT is a whole day affair, when time is crucial in September and October. Finally, if McCain spends even 1 dollar in MT, Obama's plan has worked - McCain's resources will be much more limited than Obama's.
Montana...holy crap.
To Adam:
Well - we'll see what happens after Labor Day and after the mud has been thrown around from both sides. Obama isn't going to win Montana and lose Florida and Nevada as polling from the past week or two would indicate.
I agree that there is somewhat of a domino order among the states, but that's a ridiculous stretch to think that FLORIDA has to fall before MONTANA.
Nonsense. Bill Clinton won Montana in 1992 while he lost Florida. And Montana has a strong record of electing Democratic senators, congressmen, and governors. It is highly conceivable that MT could go blue while FL and NV remain red.
Don't forget - Montana borders on Alberta, a province with a booming economy AND zero debt. Don't think for a second that there aren't a good number of Montanans comparing that record to that of the Bush administration (trillions in debt, savings rates in negative territory, rising unemployment).
the new Montana poll is incredible. Bush won that state by over 20% in '00 and '04. I mean... this is big time. Obama is showing that his ads can be very effective for one thing. I still think a blowout is on the table. I'm not convinced it will happen yet - but it definitely seems like a possibility.
I'm interested to see how far Montana's poll carries in the regression demographic.
Will it pull up Obama's win % in ND...SD...WY...ID?
It would seem more logical to scale polls so that the combined weight of all prior polls exceeds some minimum rather than the weight of the single maximum poll (consider the case where a state was polled several times in a short period, then not polled at all for a long time afterwards).
Is there a particular reason you're scaling the maximum instead.
Now if Obama can somehow get Idaho, you could drive coast to coast on I90 without hitting a red state.
I was thinking that too (though with the correction that it's the 94, not the 90....as has been pointed out).
Would be cool to see Obama win the entire Northern tier of the country. Although Idaho is probably ever redder than Wyoming, so that won't happen.
Any way Montana or Washington could annex that northern panhandle of Idaho?
I think if you continued to poll states lik ND, SD, MT, you run out of people to poll. I guess that's why they poll MA and NY so much.
lol one thing all you people keep forgetting is that montana's sen's an gov are conservative dem's they arnt super lib's like obama, not even close. that's the only way dem's can ever get high up postions in republican state's and like republican's have to be lib to win in dem state's like vt,road island, it's not like they are true conservatives or true liberal's so dont get caught up in the fact that MT is going to vote dem, there's still so much to learn about obama, and mccain before the election's over and in the end most likely the republican's will win MT,IN,and yes VA. take for instence ohio how the dem's thought they had it in the bag, yet they lost by 2-3 point's because the republican's came out of no where, same thing might happen if people get to nervis about obama because they dont know enough about him.
lol one thing all you people keep forgetting is that montana's sen's an gov are conservative dem's they arnt super lib's like obama, not even close. that's the only way dem's can ever get high up postions in republican state's and like republican's have to be lib to win in dem state's like vt,road island, it's not like they are true conservatives or true liberal's so dont get caught up in the fact that MT is going to vote dem, there's still so much to learn about obama, and mccain before the election's over and in the end most likely the republican's will win MT,IN,and yes VA. take for instence ohio how the dem's thought they had it in the bag, yet they lost by 2-3 point's because the republican's came out of no where, same thing might happen if people get to nervis about obama because they dont know enough about him.
Look at a state like Vermont. Prior to 1992, it voted for the Democratic nominee exactly once - in the LBJ landslide of 1964. Now, it's one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country.
Attitudes change.
Anonymous at 2:08
Your assumption is correct that Blue Dogs get elected in Red areas and such, but you're taking an observation in a vacuum and making a single cause fallacy in projection for November. Ultimately, a general shift in American Zeitgiet, reflected in that fact that most people align themselves with progressive values and party identification reflects this, suggests that a fairly liberal senator (not superliberal--if you think he's more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, you're insane) has an increased chance of carrying a state particularly given strength of candidates in the same party downticket or in gubernatorial races. Like Schweitzer, Like Dem House candidates in OH-1, OH-2, OH-15, OH-16, VA-05 VA-11, AK-Senate.
Moreover, polling in areas that traditionally go one way are more likely to be obstinate to changes in the local political alliances, as they are based on either likely voters or registered voters, both of which are predicated upon past cycles. In a vacuum, your assumption is correct, but needs to be considered in that context.
Anonymous @ 2:08:
How do you get to Nervis? Do you go west at Askeered? Or would it be quicker to cut through Stupeyfide?
lol i'm not saying he's more lib then them i just find people from thoses place's to be more liberal then the rest of the country, i didnt even notice i said super lib, but yes he's more of a lib i would say then alought of american's are since this is still a center right country for the moment. just cause i miss spelled 1 word you think i'm stupid? that's a pretty bold assumtion.
You misspelled and misused eight words in that sentence, so .......................
And emphasis on sentence, since it's basically one big run-on rambling.
Anonymous @ 2:35:
I never said you were stupid. I just want to know how to get to Nervis.
I had a friend who got to Nervis a few years back and I haven't been able to find him since.
lol, well sorry if not every one is perfect. get over it this isnt a perfect world, as long as you understand what i'm atleast trying to say idc.
lol, well sorry if not every one is perfect. get over it this isnt a perfect world, as long as you understand what i'm atleast trying to say idc.
Dear Nervis,
It just helps people to understand you if you present your ideas coherently, that's all. If somebody went around mumbling and slurring their words, how long would you listen to them?
As for your idea that Obama is further to the left than most Americans, on which issues in particular is he "far left"?
gay marriage, he want's the ban over turned on it. most dont.
universal health care, yet another far left position.
Iraq, ture most people dont want us to be there, yet they want us to win. he want's to have the troop's pulled out right away most want it over time like a year, or 2.
oil drilling, he doesnt want any 60% of american's want it that's another leftist position.
If Universal healthcare is a far left proposal, then I'm going to have to inform Ukraine, Sri lanka, Oman, and Qatar of blatantly being leftist, as well as Conservatives in "left wing" countries abroad of being left wing.
Well, Montana has a very popular Democratic governor. I'm not surprised to see Obama running strong there.
As for Indiana, Gary, IN is just across the border from Obama's hometown of Chicago. IIRC, the Democratic primary was so close in Indiana because Obama won huge margins in Gary and the other Chicago suburbs.
anon, you're wrong on at least two issues - Americans strongly - well over 60% - support universal healthcare. In fact, he may even be slightly right of the median American in that he doesn't want government-sponsored healthcare as the main part of the system.
As for Iraq, Obama has proposed 1-2 years just like every other moderate democrat and just like much of the country.
Gay marriage, to some extent you're right, although it's getting way over 40% of Americans support gay marriage now. And he has said let the states decide, which I suspect would be a position that brought the support over 50%
On, drilling you are accurate.
This hardly makes him significantly left of most Americans.
gay marriage, he want's the ban over turned on it. most dont
From the 2004 exit polls:
POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES
Legally Marry (25%)
Civil Unions (35%)
No Legal Recognition (37%)
Only 37% of Americans, even in 2004, believed that same-sex couples should have no legal recognition. 60% believed that they should either be allowed to marry or have civil unions.
Obama supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Sounds like he's in the mainstream there.
universal health care, yet another far left position
First of all, Obama doesn't support universal health care. He supports mandated health care for children.
CBS/New York Times poll, 2007:
SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?
Yes 64%
No 27%
Again, Obama's position sounds like a moderate one.
Iraq, ture most people dont want us to be there, yet they want us to win. he want's to have the troop's pulled out right away most want it over time like a year, or 2.
Here, you're just misrepresenting Obama's position.
From Senator Obama's website:
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
oil drilling, he doesnt want any 60% of american's want it that's another leftist position.
You've finally gotten one right, though I'm not sure how this is a "leftist" position. You do realize that oil is a finite resource, don't you?
Obama believes that oil drilling is not a long-term solution and will not provide energy independence.
I'll give you the point on that one anyway. One out of four. Not bad, Nervis.
Anonmymous said that Obama believes that oil drilling is not a long-term solution.
He doesnt know much about geology, this Obama. We are a carbon-based life form and carbon is one of the most abundant materials on earth, perhaps second only to hydrogen. We have proven capability to extract energy from carbon (oil, coal, gas) and nuclear fuel. Yet the Democrats resist it despite overwhelming popular support.
I guess they have to stand for something! The truth is Environmentalism had become the new Communism. It is the favored way of the left to take over control of our lives which is their main goal.
As you read the bloggers here who support Obama notice the disdain they have for those who disagree with them, choosing to objectify them as stupid or retarded even.
Leftists have no real respect for the masses. Witness Obama when he made his famous "clinging" to remark.
They will use the Environment as their means of taking over your life, forcing you to buy credits and controlling your movement and everything you purchase.
Look out before it's too late!
Dear Pete Kent,
You're absolutely right about those wicked leftists! Check out this quote about offshore oil drilling:
"With those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels. We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later."
I wonder what dastardly leftist said that?
Oh wait, it was John McCain on May 29th. Thank God he saw the light and changed his mind... three weeks after he made the above statement.
Oh well... I guess he had to stand for something, right?
You're just a little disdainful yourself aren't you pete? If Democrats are so contemptuous of the "masses" why is it that Democratic candidates normally get large majorities among voters with a high-school education or less and those that make less than $40,000? Of course, candidates like Obama also do well among those with post-graduate degrees (some of whom must know something about geology and the environment).
lol i never said everyone want's it, and like you said 40% doesnt matter to them that's still the major portion of the population.
And yes about universal health care, have you not noticed how awful there economys are? why else would people from canada coming to america to get there's? it's cause it doesnt work another thing that liberal's screw up. so yeah they are leftists, big time.
Pete: "Leftists have no real respect for the masses. Witness Obama when he made his famous "clinging" to remark."
It's funny how Pete seems to bring up Obama's San Francisco speech almost any chance he can get. It's also funny how he seems more offended by Obama's speech than he is with the fact that President Shit-For-Brains has plunged this country to bankruptcy. You notice in all of his claims, he certainly doesn't claim that Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats.
So the Republicans can bash the coastal cities as elitist, but Democrats aren't allowed to point out that red-staters are too stupid (in a kinder way than that of course...but hey I'm not a politician so I don't have to hold my tongue) to realize what's truly important in life? That healthcare for their children and refraining from leaving trillions in debt for those children and grandchildren to deal with are both immensely more important than boys kissing?
"He doesnt know much about geology, this Obama. We are a carbon-based life form and carbon is one of the most abundant materials on earth, perhaps second only to hydrogen."
Nice truthiness. Are you advocating that we extract energy from people, or was there another reason to mention that we are carbon-based? For that matter, here is the composition of Earth:
"The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×1024 kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements."
Notably absent from the list: hydrogen and carbon.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
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