So, I have a little bit more trouble getting worked up over polls in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut than I do in swingier parts of the country. But these are a very good set of numbers for Barack Obama, and I think they do tell us something.
There are two new polls out in Connecticut. Quinnipaic has Obama leading by 21 points, and Rasmussen has him ahead by 17. In the previous editions of those polls, Obama held leads of 17 and 3 points, respectively. The 3-pointer from Rasmussen might have been partially responsible for The McCain campaign's insistence that Connecticut was a toss-up, but it was the only poll conducted since the new year to have shown McCain within single digits of Obama in Connecticut.
Perhaps the more important news out of the state, however, is that Joe Liberman's approval ratings have fallen to 45 percent. A rating that low is relatively unprecedented for a Senator who was just re-elected 20 months ago and has not had a major scandal befall him. The piece of longer-term fallout from this is that we might now expect Liberman to try and make good with the Democrats if Barack Obama becomes President, figuring that he'll have four years to rehabilitate his reputation. Whether the Democrats would welcome him back is another question, but frankly I'd expect them to be so giddy if they won the Presidency that they might be in a generous mood. If John McCain becomes President, on the other hand, Lieberman had better hope that McCain has a 60 percent or better approval rating by the time they both come up for reelection in 2012.
In Massachusetts, Rasmussen has Barack Obama up by 20; that's up from 13 a month ago. And in New York, Rasmussen has his lead reaching 31 points -- it was a 19-point lead in late May.
So what's that little something these polls tell us? Whatever else the consequences of Obama's perceived shift to the center, it certainly hasn't cost him among the Democratic base.
7.02.2008
Today's Polls, 7/2
by Nate Silver @ 10:26 PM...see also connecticut, lieberman, massachusetts, new york, today's polls
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

51 comments
fyi wisconsin is on the tipping point state list twice. Also any chance we can get the must win states similarly
"Whatever else the consequences of Obama's perceived shift to the center, it certainly hasn't cost him among the Democratic base."
How can you make that assumption just from those polls? Those states may have more strong Democrats than other states, but a fair amount of moderate to liberal Republicans too. Perhaps Obama's perceived shift to the centre has caused some defection in this group, while there might be a smaller cost to the base.
I've got to think Joementum is banking on a Cabinet post in a McCain administration by this point. Not only are his chances for reelection in 2012 pretty slim, but it's hard to imagine his chances of keeping his chairmanships with the Democrats in 2009 are much better. He's got to know that campaigning for the other party's candidate is going to seal his fate once the D's don't need him for a majority. He's hitched his wagon to McCain and McCain is probably his career's only way forward.
The map is already starting to look like what it did before you pared down Obama's lead for projection purposes. It's looking like an inevitable blue invasion.
1.Can someone explain the tipping point diagram. What do the colors mean?
2.It's not Obama moving to the center that worries the left, its the speed with which it occurred. Its like he woke up one day and said,"O.K., primaries over, time to change to centrist Barack." For someone who won the Democratic primary running against people who "Don't say what they mean or mean what they say," he's disappointed people who believed he wasn't a typical politician. I don't believe he's a "typical" politician, but he's definitely a politician. I'm skeptical this move will be as effective as his campaign believes, but I trust his judgment. Its about winning.
The republicans will do anything to win, the Democrats need to be just as ruthless. Barack seems to be turning into Bill Clinton right before our eyes. I think we had better get used to the politics of triangulation. Like Bill Clinton or not. He won. He was the Republicans worst nightmare. If Barack can duplicate that feat, I couldn't care less what the left wing thinks about it.
The 31 point lead in NY scares me. If Rasmussen has Obama +5 nationally Obama ahead by ~30 points in NY, IL, and CA then is Obama falling behind in the swing states not really being polled now?
Nate,
I wonder if you have looked at what is going on at the outlier points on your super tracker. Is there some kind of pattern there that you could account for. For Example, all of today's polls were from heavily democratic states. Are the outliers all days where all the polls released were from states that heavily favor one party?
I've got to agree with Oliver.
If McCain wins, Lieberman gets a cabinet post. If Obama wins and the Dems gain at least several seats, they won't need him that much and will likely strip him of his chairmanships. On the other hand, if he resigns, the current gov of CT is a Republican who gets to appoint the replacement, so they might not want to make it so bad for him that he resigns, although he may do that anyway.
Matt, look at the percentages below. Also, Obama doesn't really seem to be moving. A Supreme Court decision on handguns in the home comes down, he remarks on it. It's not as though he had a different opinion on it before. Also, he had long ago indicated he would decline public funds, and he had never pledged to do so. It was McCain who signed papers with the FEC to take public funds and reneged. All Obama said was that he would talk to McCain about it, but why should he trust McCain on the issue now? Also, things like opposing a gay marriage ban in California show he's not just suddenly going to the "right" (is public funding "right"?) on issues.
I agree on Lieberman: he is hoping for a cabinet post. It is amusing to see him next to McCain giving corrections.
The NY and Mass. polls indicate that Hillary Clinton's comments during the primary that she was the one to win these states were wrong.
Yes, please explain the color coding and also (again) the projection versus the trend.
Thanks.
It looks like there are two color spectrums going on in the tipping point map. The first seems to be from whatever the max value is down to 1% (so currently 20% to 1%) with a with a scale going from red to yellow linearly by value. I think the second scale is just 1% down to 0% with a scale going from yellow to white linearly by value.
Also, I'm glad the must-win chart is gone for now. The arbitrary nature of "the race must be within this arbitrary range" to count made the information it presented less than enlightening.
The most important effect of these CT polls is that Lieberman is probably off the short list to be McCain's VP.
Sure it's possible he could swing some votes in Florida. But I think most of Lieberman's appeal was that he could swing CT into McCain's column.
Anonymous @ 10:09 here:
It seems more likely on second viewing that the first scale's upper value isn't determined by the highest value, but rather is arbitrarily set at 15%.
Is this right for Tipping States?
Start with Obama's best state - let's say Wash. DC. Give him the 3 EVs. Go to his next best state - let's say NY. Now he's got 34. Keep going until he hits 270. Whichever state pushes him over is the Tipping Point state.
Is that right?
And the colors ... the darker the state, the more often it's the tipping state, so CA and NY are white because they always get counted before he reaches 270.
Nate,
Love the new tipping point map, but you may want to make it two maps. If you split it up into "Obama wins tipping point states" and "McCain wins tipping point states" then you could get (I think) a much better picture of the election battle.
I still don't know what the Tipping Point States mean. What does the 20% for Ohio mean. 20% of what, for what?
To Anonymous at 10:03,
I'm a die-hard Obama supporter. I never voted before and never believed in a politician before. I believe in Barack. But he has altered positions. You have to be drinking the koolaid not to believe that. I really don't care about FISA, but the left is up in arms. It's not the tack to the center that worries me, its the political price of doing it that worries me. He's getting killed in the media. He's getting criticized from both sides for the same reason. Thats got to effect public opinion.
Lastly, The clown sitting in for Wolf Blitzer on CNN this week is nothing more than a discreet Shaun Hannity. I like CNN, but their coverage this week has been noticeably and unusually biased. Anyone else noticed this?
Poblano:
Once you get around to adding links to the charts and such so you can give more information than probably should be displayed around every post on ever page, it would be interesting to see what the mode electoral map is for the current simulation run. Before today the most common outcome was 293 electoral votes for Obama which produced a huge spike in the vote distribution chart, but now there are several notable spikes, three of which are larger than the one at 293, the largest being around 320. It would be interesting to know which state(s) changed from yesterday's mode to today's to cause this shift, and I'm presuming an automated chart would be less work for you than an annotative post everytime a shift occurs. If you decide to implement such a chart, I'd suggest bright red and blue indicating states that stayed and the candidates with whom they stayed, and then light red and blue indicating states that flipped and who they flipped to.
Matt,
You can learn all about tipping point states by reading the FAQ.
As for CNN, just stop watching. I found the signal to noise ratio on the news/talk channels to be depressingly low, and there is much better coverage of this election online.
obsessed: Yes, that's the correct interpretation. And the list of tipping point states is identical for McCain, you're just counting from the other end of the list. (Possible exception for the 0.3% of simulation runs that result in exact ties, not sure how Nate handles that).
Think of it as the state that spans the "median electoral vote".
Like the other poster mentioned if Obama is up 30 points in the most populist states in America what explains his small popular vote lead? Similarly what states do these national polls poll and how do they normalize for a national electorate.
New York is the most over-polled state in the nation. We know Obama will win there by a mile. We get it.
Why have there been NO recent polls from Ohio? or Nevada? or Indiana? or the more long-shot (but still credible) swing states of Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska?
Like other posters here, these gigantic margins in New York are worrisome, since they really ought to boost Obama's national numbers well past the 5-points ahead he is currently polling.
In the past you could argue that Republican strength in Texas, Georgia, and other big Southern states counterbalanced the Democratic strength in NY, CA, and IL, but not this time!
I can think of a certain Rassmussen employee who knows exactly which states are lacking recent polling while also knowing which of those states would be most interesting to have recent polling from. *cough* Poblano *cough*
I believe his explanation of tipping point states was this:
He runs 10,000 simulations, and the tipping point state is the state that gave the winning candidate the electoral votes that put him over 270 in any given simulation. Out of 10,000 simulations, Ohio provided the winning margin in approximately 2,000 of them.
Isn't that right? I should read the FAQ again.
While I'm here, I must say I love this place. The major broadcast nutworks should fire the talking heads they have and hire new ones from the posters here. Oh, nevermind, I forgot you don't need a brain to be on network news, you need a face. I'll re-phrase: Major *print* media should hire many of you.
"Like the other poster mentioned if Obama is up 30 points in the most populist states in America what explains his small popular vote lead?"
Using 2004 vote totals (just Bush+Kerry, because I already have them in a spreadsheet), if Obama wins CA, IL, and NY by 30 points ( 65-35), then a 5-point lead nationally (52.5-47.5) would translate into McCain leading Obama everywhere else by 1.4 points (50.7-49.3).
CA, IL, and NY have 107 Electoral Votes between them. Subtracting that from Nate's projected 314 EVs for Obama, McCain is currently leading Obama over the rest of the country 224 - 207, which seems right in line with a 1-2 point lead.
But those 107 Electoral Votes count too, which is why Nate has Obama as the prohibitive favorite right now.
Nate,
You know people. Can you ask for no more NY, CA, CT, MA, WA, etc. polls for a while! Not until there are more MO and ND and MT polls!
the amount of polling for states should fall in line with how close they are-so the following states need lots of polling: VA, IN,NV,FL, NC, and MO since they are the closest states.
NM, CO, OR, NH, IA, MI, OH, PA need the next most since they are all Obama somewhat safely so it'd be nice to make sure that stays- plus, if Obama starts to flater in polling it won't truly matter until he starts losing some of these states- and thus his projected 270+ EVs.
MT, ND, AK,GA, MS, NE (Omaha region) would be polls that would be nice since a big Obama bump or a big McCain falter could mean they become in play- these are the blow out states because Obama would likely win clsoer states like NV, MO,IN, VA, FL, and even NC before he gets very close in these states- and if he is winning those it will be a big day for him on elections already.
Other than that all the states are pretty set and polling isn't needed. Yes its nice to see pollsand see changes- but that just tells us about the base etc. We don't really need to see NY, CT, AZ, LA polls etc., they won't be close- I wish the polling reflected this rather than the constant unimportant polls.
+30 in NY is completely consistent with +5 nationally, seeing that Gore (+0.5 nationally) was +25 in NY.
LIEberman...(sp).
It seems to me that Obama is making more and more states turn as time goes on. Early on he added NM, CO, IA, and OH to the map (after suring up MI after not campaigning) It took a little why for OH, and all the while he sured up the other states. Then all of a sudden VA, IN, NV, and MO are new swing states along with FL. VA and IN have steadily become more and more Obama states, but FL MO and NV are the new elusive states. It will be interesting if they can switch. And if so which states would be next? GA, NC, ND, MT, AK???? We shall see....
Can't understand why Obama can't take off in Nevada.
Doesn't Las Vegas represent something like 50% of the state's population? How is it possible that the GOP is so strong there?
We haven't had an NV poll for two weeks now, and I bet if we had Obama would gain another three points there, making it even. Not exactly taking off, but decent for having lost their primary and for the state that borders and has similarities with Arizona, McCain's home state.
Also, Las Vegas supports a lot of the population, but that population is somewhat spread out once you discount tourists, so it's not exactly a liberal urban center. Also, just as is usual, the wealthy in high-population areas are disproportionately conservative as are the spread out white poor, and this is roughly how vegas is constructed, with the poor workers bussing in and then gambling away a lot of their paycheck before bussing out. That all is not even to mention that Nevada is relatively apolitical (largely due to it's rapidly changing population) so it's difficult to get momuntum there.
I can't believe so many people are falling for this whole "tack to the center" meme. I guess it's just an example of how effective the GOP has been at portraying Obama as an extreme liberal. However, if you'd followed Obama's career long term you'd realize that he's always been a pragmatic idealist and that his positions are actually fairly consistent.
On FISA, he argued against the immunity provision, but his biggest sticking point was due process and oversight. The amended bill has that, so that's why he's willing to accept the imperfect compromise. On the second amendment decision he's taking a pretty similar position to the gun control lobby, which is that they're happy that the most conservative members of the court acknowledged the right of the community to make laws regulating gun ownership and use. So, he's emphasizing the positive aspect of the decision. I'll admit, that's a bit of a shift in emphasis, but nothing drastic.
On the faith based initiatives, Obama hasn't changed his position at all. His proposal is entirely in keeping with his arguing for Democrats to engage religious voters and his history of working with community and religious groups in fair and pragmatic ways.
On campaign finance, I agree that Obama's opting out of the system is a shift from his past positions to some degree. However, he's been working toward reform of the system for a while, and placed very explicit terms on his pledge to take public funds. Given how the McCain campaign grows increasingly Rovian in their approach, I can't see that he had much choice. He could have done what McCain's doing, and set up a combined fund allowing massive donations (up to $70k per donor for McCain). He could claim that the 527s were not his responsibility, just like McCain did. However, I appreciate that he's actually being straight about it, and not sticking to the letter of the law on public funds while completely undermining the intent of it in practice.
Finally, on the death penalty issue, most people may not understand that Obama made his name for himself in the Illinois legislature by pushing through bipartisan legislation that reinstated the death penalty by reforming how confessions and other procedural aspects were handled. He's always supported the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes, and never claimed that those crimes were limited to murder. It may not be the common liberal position, but it's always been Obama's position.
So, as an Illinois resident who's been following Obama's career for quite some time, I'm entirely comfortable with the decisions he's making and don't see it as a dash to the center. If anything, I see this as the media focusing their harshest criticism on the front runner in order to keep the race interesting. After all, McCain's been flipping like an acrobat, but he's not getting anywhere near as much attention for it.
From yesterday's poll from realclearpolitics.com:
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Strategic Vision (R) McCain 49, Obama 41 McCain +8.0
how come this poll isn't mentioned? It's one of the worst for obama for florida so far...
Nate,
I am not surprised by these polls and your sense of relief is palpable. Two observations:
One they were taken too early to measure any impact on Obama's swing to the center. Expect to see that in state polls that bear dates say between 7/2 and 7/8 when the story has percolated further.
Two: Obama is piling up big leads in those traditional liberal states, yet remains virtually within the margin of error in the two most credible national polls. This tells me that Obama has a problem with his vote dispersion. Again wasting votes in his strongholds and having fewer to spread around in the battlegrounds. McCain by contrast seems to have more even support, with safe (but not overwhelming) leads in his base states and with votes to spare for places like OH, FL, MI, NV, CO, etc.
Bear also in mind that all of us here are political junkies, so we absorb news must faster than 95% of the electorate. For the average voter the narrative on Obama is absorbed in fits and starts and whiffs. The notion of him lacking essential honesty in his positions and his shifting core will contribute to a perception, already slightly rooted that he is not to be trusted, but it will take time.
Once he adopts the McCain/Bush position on Iraq -- maintain the troops and preserve Iraqi security and oil, as he must do, if he is to have any credibility as a leader -- then all of his about faces (on FISA, on Guns, on the Death Penalty, on Faith Based Initiatives, On Trinity United Church, On his Grandmother) will come to the fore and an overwhelming perception will become manifest that he has not been honest and is just saying what he needs to say to be elected.
This coupled with his lack of experience, which he has cleverly tried to make into an asset, will doom his candidacy.
"This tells me that Obama has a problem with his vote dispersion. Again wasting votes in his strongholds and having fewer to spread around in the battlegrounds."
Comedy gold, Peter. So there's this fixed amount of votes for a candidate out there, and each one you get in one place is one you don't get somewhere else. Got it.
Pete Kent,
I suppose I should have figured it out before. The attempts to paint Obama as an extreme liberal were just a prelude to this whole flip-flop thing. The problem is that your first volley never hit the mark. So, now just look confused by changing your talking points so quickly.
Look, I get the fact the the Republicans selected the least objectionable candidate in a weak field. I appreciate that McCain has had to flip-flop on everything in order to appease the hard right--well after the end of the primaries. So, I understand that you don't have a lot to work with, and the best you can do is pretend that Obama is somehow as bad as McCain. I think everyone here gets that it's the only option available. So really, is all that posturing necessary here? Can't we forgo the contrived and absurd party lines and stick to the facts here?
In reply to Spike and anonymous (839).
The point about vote dispersion speaks of what is going on at a moment in time. If at any given time you see evidence of a massive tilt to Obama in a few big states while the national polls are showing a close race, you can bet that in the unpolled states the race favors the other candidate. After all if Obama is racking up pluralities of millions of votes in NY, CA, MA, NJ, IL but only has a few point lead in the national polls, then McCain must be attracting support somewhere. because we don't poll all 50 states at one time it is hard to say, but my suspicion is that things are more favorable to McCain in places like OH, IN, MI and even PA than many of you may suppose.
I do not deny that Obama is an extreme liberal. Indeed he ran as one in the democratic primaries. He is banking on the fact that only the political junkies were listening and that in the general election he can try and change his identity.
It is that chameleon like character that has Arianna Huiffington up in arms and Katrina Vandenheuval in tears! As the far left wing stokes these fires in order to bring the creature they created to heel, they will arouse suspicion in all quarters about Obama's bona fides.
McCain has reacted to shifts in both the electorate (immigration) and conditions (drilling and taxes). Obama is holding fast to his environemntal priciples and on taxes he is virtually indistiguishable from Bush in that he would only raise taxes on people amking kore than $250,000 - -a tiny sliver of the population. Like the difference between him and Hillary on healthcare it is meaningless.
Pete Kent,
Dennis Kucinich is an extreme liberal. Barack Obama is not.
One of the things I like about him is the expectation that we will be part of the change, he expects WE THE PEOPLE to stay involved through the government website upgrades, the 'fireside' Internet chats and our well developed keyboard musket activism. Pair this with his relative inexperience and you get someone who is not so over confident (or insecure) that he will act on his own ideas before he takes plenty of others into account.
Which brings me to the difference between Hillary and Obama on health care. It isn't so much the actual programs, which are meaningless. It is the thinking behind them. Obama knows a single payor system is the way to go. He has stayed with the insurance companies because 99.95% of DC is convinced we can't get rid of them. What we will get to do is convince him that even if we only start working towards the single payor, it is ok as long as we keep making significant changes that will ultimately establish that as our way of paying for health care in America.
Just because some ususally intelligent, well informed people still don't get this:
Single Payor is NOT socialized medicine. I have no idea how small a percentage is advocating that, probably about = to the number who want alternative medicine only. Single payor has a large % of advocates. Including 59% of doctors.
Just to rub some salt in here. We do have socialized medicine in the US. The military and the VA are truly socialized medicine. Want to bet who has the best cost and the best care of the socialized, non profit, and for profit providers?
I would love to see some polls on this. Need more education first. Just got the hard copy of a presentation at Denver Health Medical Center (the old Denver General, regional Level One hospital for a lot of the states around here) by an ED physician.
"The Perfect Storm"
The Current Crisis State of US Health Care.
Vince Markovchick MD
Director of Emergency Medicine, DHMC
Professor of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine.
University of Colorado.
You want stupid? Every year, at least 18,000 people die from lack of health insurance. That's 123,000 +/-, since 9/11/01.
Speaking of stupid, I work nights (critical care RN) and it's bedtime. Sorry if you have some comments/questions. Maybe I'll get back before work tonight.
Ginny in CO
Pete, I am by no means the math guy that many others on this sitge are, maybe even yourself, b ut this
If at any given time you see evidence of a massive tilt to Obama in a few big states while the national polls are showing a close race, you can bet that in the unpolled states the race favors the other candidate.
is a logical fallacy. If Obama moves up, let's say 10 points in NY (a MASSIVE shift), how much impact do you think that has on the difference nationally? My quick and dirty calculation - NY is 20m, US is 300m. NY is 6.6% of the population. 10% x 6.6% is .66% impact on the national poll from a colossal shift that is exactly captured in some national tracking poll. Your statement just doesn't add up
Good news, Rasmussen has Obama 5 points ahead in Montana.
Don't get too stressed about the 5 points Obama leads nationally.
In reality Obama's national leed may be higher thean the MSM is reporting.
Again just look at the IntraMarkets (they're always on target)these give Oabam a 65% porbability of winning the general elections.
Have a glass of wine mates.
Pete Kent,
It's so funny how you blindly attack Obama with arguments that are far more applicable to McCain. Of course, you're aware of that, otherwise you wouldn't need to close your attack by making excuses for McCain.
Regardless, I still stand by my earlier statement that people come here for the facts. So, while I normally get a good chuckle out of watching people like you scrambling to assemble a hollow talking point, it's just not what I want to do at this site. So how about we take this a step above the silly gamesmanship, please?
Spike and Anonymouses:
Spike, you clearly are not a math guy. And I am no teacher! Again, if you look at the race at a single point in time and at that time Obama has a 2% lead nationally, but is leading in all the big states that are polled by 20%, you have to wonder why is the race close at that time? The answer is because McCain has support elsewhere, in places that are not being polled. Otherwise the two results would be contradictory.
It has been historically said of elections in America that a 3% lead or so for the Democrats in the national poll represents a potential electoral defeat because they have traditonally wrung up huge margins in the big liberal states essentially wasting votes that would be better dispersed elsewhere (the midwest) to rack up an EV majority.
I am sorry if Anonymous does not like my bringing up the issues in the campaign, but it is issues and the perceptions of the candidates that moves the electorate and the polls. I am tyring to point out that Obama is getting harshly criticized for his about face on numerous issues that have traditionally been important to his base. This creates concern among those in the middle because they are still trying to figure him out. Opinions regarding McCain are much more solidly held and it takes more to move them, so he can afford a bit more flip flopping.
Obama must be like Caesar's wife: above suspicion. So far he is not succeeding.
If he cannot present himself in a way that appeals to the people and cannot get on the right side of the issues (gas and Iraq), he is done. The jury is out on who he really is. He is stubbornly refusing to articulate an energy policy that the people can understand, and events in Iraq have turned strategically against pulling the troops out while gas prices have made preserving access to some of the world's largest oil reserves an imperative.
I see Obama in a political quandry and I look to polls for confirmation.
To Pete Kent,
Your posts are filled with factual inaccuracies and smears.
What Obama said about his grandmother was that even people you love may harbor objectionable views. I can't understand what's wrong with that.
On the death penalty: I'm reading his book, The Audacity of Hope. He stated that he favored the death penalty for child rapists in the book (2005). Not a flip. On
faith-based initiatives: he's always been in favor. Not my position, but it's always been his.
He's always been in favor of the right to own a gun. He said it in the primary, he said it again after the Supreme Court position.
BTW. McCain is not leading in OH, MI, CO.
For Pete Kent and all the other people who think McCain must be doing better than 538 says in swing states if Obama is only up by 5 nationally but has huge margins in CA, NY, MA.
Those states are about 1/4 the population, so if he's up almost 20 points there (and has a +5 nationally), he basically is up zero on average in the rest of the country... so a close race? No, not really. It's an even race for the remaining states with Obama already locked in to 20% of the total EV.
With CA and NY removed in this hypothetical example states like Tx are now balancing states that used to be purple.
What about McCain being up by 8 in Florida and Georgia? No comment, Nate?
I am a CT voter who canvassed for a candidate during the primaries and as a whole, am pretty involved. I will say that I am disgusted by Lieberman's current positioning and undermining of the Democratic candidate. While the incredibly narrow dem primary population did not stand by him, his election in the final senate race was largely by rank and file democrats who have always been supporters of his. However, I am seeing evidence here of that support eroding. You should hear people at work talking about his current actions. I don't really remember him being a topic of conversation previously, except for a "you voting for Lieberman"... "yep"... "me too" sort of way. Now I am actually a bit taken aback by how betrayed people seem to be. It also seems people who usually would not notice, because of lack of attention to the news, are noticing because of how high profile this campaign has been so far. Bad news for Lieberman. I know I won't vote for him again.
"But he has altered positions. You have to be drinking the koolaid not to believe that. "
Yeah, sure, even though all the facts say otherwise. Your sort of certainty in the mantra is exactly why it is so widely believed.
If at any given time you see evidence of a massive tilt to Obama in a few big states while the national polls are showing a close race, you can bet that in the unpolled states the race favors the other candidate.
One thing that you can bet on is tht McCain supporters are stooopid.
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,
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