Quinnipiac is out with polling this morning in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Barack Obama holds a lead in all three: he's ahead by 7 points in Pennsylvania, and 2 in each of Florida and Ohio. But also in all three states, his lead is diminished from last month, when Quinnipiac had shown him 4 points ahead in Florida, 6 in Ohio, and 12 in Pennsylvania.
The media is likely to focus on the near-term trendline -- one that shows movement toward John McCain within the last month. The last set of Quinnipiac polls were conducted near the peak of Obama's post-primary bounce, and there is no doubt that he has lost a little bit of ground since then.
We like looking at trendlines too. But focusing on only the last month risks failing to see the forest for the trees. Fundamentally, the news is that Obama is ahead in all three states -- two of which are states that Democrats have made a habit of losing. Moreover, if you compare his performance not just to the most recent number, but to all other instances of the Quinnipiac polls -- this is how our model looks at things -- the results are pretty decent for him:Month FL OH PAThis is a weaker performance for Obama than in June, but a better performance for him than in any month but June. Our model weights those two factors, and concludes that the status quo has more or less been preserved. As of last night, our model gave Barack Obama a 68.0 percent chance of winning the election in November. With these polls rolled in, he has a 67.7 percent chance.
Feb M+2 M+2 O+1
March M+9 O+1 O+4
April M+1 M+1 O+9
May M+4 M+4 O+6
June O+4 O+6 O+12
July O+2 O+2 O+7
There's nothing really dramatic here, in other words. And to the extent there's any news at all, it's that Florida and Ohio continue to move toward one another in the polling, which has a lot of implications for resource allocation going forward.
EDIT: Here's the other type of spin to watch out for. Quinnipiac's Peter Brown implies that the movement in the polls reflects a negative reaction to Barack Obama's overseas trip: "The $64,000 question is whether Sen. John McCain's surge is a result of Sen. Obama's much-publicized Middle Eastern and European trip, or just a coincidence that it occurred while Sen. Obama was abroad," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
This might be a perfectly valid point of view -- if Quinnipiac had conducted polling 10-14 days ago, immediately before Barack Obama embarked on his trip to Europe and the Middle East. But it didn't; the last time the Quinnipiac polls were in the field was six weeks ago. In the period intervening mid-June and Obama's Iraq trip, a number of different things happened: Obama took a lot of criticism for flip-flopping, the McCain campaign began to champion offshore drilling as a wedge issue ... the campaigns really picked up their advertising spending. Our model sees some decline in Obama's numbers over this period. But it also thinks that the decline has halted -- and has possibly begun to reverse itself -- since that time.
"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to fill their gas tanks," Brown added.
7.31.2008
Today's Polls (AM Edition), 7/31
@ 7:24 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
282 comments
He won't pick Lieberman for the same reason that Obama won't pick Hagel. Its interesting to think about, but you'd spend all fall talking about your differences instead of your similarities.
I agree with tomtress and Jeffrey.
The people don't want to hear that we are not in recession. In fact, McCain is very careful to stay clear of any such rhetoric.
The notion that we are in an economically calamitous condition remains a Democrat and media creation nonetheless.
I am not here to campaign. There are few, if any votes, to be won here. My interest is to engage in discussion about the horserace and people's perceptions and where they might differ from reality.
A campaign built on false premises is built on a weak foundation. It is more likely to tumble than not.
I point out the fallacious economic reasoning of so many here who support Obama to let them know that the intelligent among us know that the foundation of his candidacy is weak and fragile.
You who worship THE ONE here are all the same folks who slaver over the Nation, get woozy reading the Daily Kos and think George Soros is sexy. Heck, you'd even take fitness tips from Michael Moore.
Y'all gonna wake up on November 5 and say , "Wha happen?"
Pew National poll:
Obama 47
McCain 42
Down slightly from 48-40 in June.
Another tidbit:
54% think the economy is in recession;
a further 18% think it's in a depression;
only 10% think it's doing well.
http://people-press.org/report/438/inflation-economy-obama-overseas-trip
Stephen-
You have heard of the phenomenon of "Internet Speculation", haven't you? It's the equivalent of a land rush. Someone buys up a bunch of domain names for a couple of bucks on the chance that someone with deep pockets wants it later. They can do whatever they want with it. Put up ads for C14LA$, or if they want to save on bandwith, they can redirect you to another domain. I wouldn't read into that too much.
MATT JH "Obama will turn the tide in the right direction however he must give great care not to go too far."
The problem is Obama is promising to go too far. This turning of the Social Security Pension Program into the biggest welfare program in history is just that, too far. This promising more stringent environmental regulation when the current regulations are putting the small guys out of business is going too far. This committing the United States to be a part of a group of nations that donates enough to end world hunger and violence is going too far.
He has no balance on the economy, just spend like crazy, and tax like crazy. It just does not work. The additional 12.4% marginal tax rate increase on incomes over $250,000, to fund Social Security as a welfare program, will be the single greatest tax increase on business and business men since FDR. We are back to pre Reagan numbers and higher with that promise.
"Again, as with Robertson's Rudy endorsement, the leaders of this movement have made clear that "the war on terror" is the foremost issue in their mind, not abortion or gay marriage, and there's no more extreme a champion for them on this issue as Lieberman."
The "leaders on the movement" were also willing to go with Romney and really disliked Huckabee. I think part of the issue is that the leaders don't speak for their members anymore.
You mention the Robertson endorsement without mentioning the considerable fire he took within his membership for giving it.
A Lieberman, Romney or Crist pick would be very dangerous for McCain. I don't think he can risk it.
agree with tomtress and Jeffrey.
The people don't want to hear that we are not in recession. In fact, McCain is very careful to stay clear of any such rhetoric.
The notion that we are in an economically calamitous condition remains a Democrat and media creation nonetheless.
I am not here to campaign. There are few, if any votes, to be won here. My interest is to engage in discussion about the horserace and people's perceptions and where they might differ from reality.
A campaign built on false premises is built on a weak foundation. It is more likely to tumble than not.
I point out the fallacious economic reasoning of so many here who support Obama to let them know that the intelligent among us know that the foundation of his candidacy is weak and fragile.
You who worship THE ONE here are all the same folks who slaver over the Nation, get woozy reading the Daily Kos and think George Soros is sexy. Heck, you'd even take fitness tips from Michael Moore.
Y'all gonna wake up on November 5 and say , "Wha happen?"
Well said on race, VA Conservative. Yes, Obama pre-emptively went over the line slightly. No, I don't think the McCain campaign's response is a great idea. I tried to wade into a Washington Post thread on the issue this morning and people are throwing the N-word around left and right.
But who knows, the tracking polls suggest a tightening after McCain adopted his new negative strategy. I think the last 5 days of Gallup have been Obama +7, +5, +4, +3, McCain +4. At the very least the bases are being energized and a lot of slightly Obama-inclined independents are so turned off by the negativity that they're holding off on making a decision until the fall.
"Because they don't conform to what you expected this year (an Obama landslide?)"
No...because CNN is full of shit.
I noticed something else they're doing, too, in one of today's online articles:
"At three stops in the battleground state of Missouri, Obama told audiences that his opponent is trying to make voters 'scared' of him because he doesn't look like past presidents -- an apparent reference to being black -- and has a 'funny name.'
'Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face,' Obama said at an appearance Wednesday in Springfield, Missouri. 'So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky.'"
I don't agree with Obama playing the race card either - but the hard fact that the author of this article, in sympathy to the McCain campaign (or maybe in sympathy to "spicing up" the story), missed outright is that he never said that McCain himself ("his opponent") was playing it. He said that "they" were, and "they" are. There are plenty of attack dogs out there who aren't directly associated with the McCain campaign, but ARE making "Obama/Osama" and "Obama/Farrakhan" and "militant black anger" and "secret Muslim" smears. I've seen quite a few of them on this very website, actually.
CNN has lost a lot of its journalistic integrity since it started trying to beat FOX at its own game of rabidity and sensationalism. That's just one example.
Hillary won the Texas primary barely because of Chaos. The Texas caucus, which is much harder to make mischief with since it requires much more of a commitment than just casting a quick vote, went decisively in Obama's favor.
On racial issues:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52f_1217434061&p=1
Lots of white people are going to freak out. Good job, Luda.
John-
Explicit racial attacks might work short term, but they do long term damage among independents and tend to energize minority turnout.
"If you want the real picture you have to go to the guy that called 2004 correct when everyone else was in the tank for Kerry like this place is in the tank for Obama. His name is Scott Rasmussen."
You seem to have a different memory than I do of 2004. I thought the whole way through 2004 that it was a close election but the Democrats were narrowly losing. I think I was right. Now I think its a close election that the Dems are narrowly winning.
BTW, the focus on Rasmussen exclusively is odd. For one thing, he still shows the Dems winning. For another, I think we can all agree that judging a pollster by 1 election is like judging a baseball player by one at-bat.
I've never said that Rasmussen is systematically biased. I've questioned some of the internals of his polls, like yesterday's Mississippi poll that showed Obama getting a lower turnout among Afr-Amer than Kerry did. But I question the internals of all polls.
Stephen-
Oh yeah... Because your "Typical White Person" is going to give two cents what some rapper has to say. Seriously, I don't think we're going to see Obama making an apology to Hillary, McCain and Bush for that. Get real.
Pete Kent,
"Y'all gonna wake up on November 5 and say , "Wha happen?""
Well, according to you all of the young black male vote has already been alienated from Obama and will stay home.
We'll see whether that happens?!?!
I'm still waiting for an explanation on that one.
Oh, and Darien?
Your "gold standard" site includes poll averages from this site in it's balance of power calculator. Nate and Rass. Reps. have a partnership. So even they think that something Nate is doing here is worthwhile.
"Another example of the Bradley effect: HRC won the TX primarily handily but lost pretty bad in the caucuses. Folks were plain intimidated at those things!"
YE GODS! Not that idiotic imaginary "Bradley Effect" again! There's NO SUCH THING!
For there to be a "Bradley Effect" in this election, voters would have to be EMBARRASSED to admit they are voting for McCain! That's the ONLY way you can get voters to lie to pollsters.
I.e it's "politically incorrect" to say you're voting for the "clearly less qualified" candidate, over the superior candidate. If you take away all people's legitimate reasons, they'll lie, rather than change their views. That's all.
Right now the credible (at least in the media's eyes) campaign McCain is running gives every voter "cover" for their racism if they need it. Instead of lying "I'm voting for Obama" because they think they have to, they say "I'm voting McCain" because: [insert McCain talking point]
1. Obama's "too inexperienced."
2. McCain's "more trustworthy" or "more reliable."
3. Obama's "too liberal."
4. Obama has "radical associations."
5. McCain is "more like me."
6. McCain's "more like me on the issues" -- without having to be able to name a single issue on which they agree with McCain.
etc. Tons of excuses.
Tons of excuses = NO Bradley Effect.
Hillary lost in the caucus states because she ignored them, not because of some imaginary "Bradley Effect." Obama put hundreds of organizers into those states months before the primaries, but Hillary gave up on them and concentrated her campaign on winning the larger voter primary states. Her idiotic strategy cost her the nomination!
Example Colorado: She hardly campaigned here at all. In the caucus her supporters were badly out-organized and whipped. The campaign tried to come into the state the last week and whip something together by having a meet-and-greet with Bill. They desperately phoned up voters like me to attend in a last minute desperate search for caucus local supporters. Needless to say it didn't work.
You can't organize for a caucus at the last minute!
She could potentially have won if she'd contested each and every state the way Obama did putting troops on ground instead of giving up almost hundreds of delegates without a fight!
This was another of those brilliant Mark Penn decisions that worked so well for her overall.
I think Hillary supporters are really almost in the league of people like VA Cons. and Pete Kent for selective memory.
That was one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory. She nearly won? She had an overwhelming starting advantage! That she came back at the end when it was too late hardly affects that point.
I'd be sweating bullets right now if Hillary were the nominee and she was still getting advice from Mark Penn! Even bigger idiot than Karl ("there are NO voters in the middle") Rove!
You seem to have a different memory than I do of 2004. I thought the whole way through 2004 that it was a close election but the Democrats were narrowly losing. I think I was right. Now I think its a close election that the Dems are narrowly winning.
I think that perhaps the biggest difference between 2004 and 2008 so far in terms of polling is that this year has been so much more consistent. In 2004, the lead went back and forth, both nationally and in swing states, with great frequency. This time round, not so much. The national tracking polls and most of the swing state polls give consistent leads to Obama this year; sometimes very narrow leads, sometimes more comfortable leads, but it's the very rare poll that shows McCain ahead nationally or in a "tipping point" state.
What does this mean for November? I don't know. But I do think it means that 2004 isn't an especially good guide to 2008. Late July 2004 is an especially poor guide to late July 2008, of course, since in 2004 this was the week of the Democratic convention, one of Kerry's highs before the Swift Boaters came along.
THERE IS NO "BRADLEY EFFECT!" It's an urban myth like Alligators in the sewer!
Only idiots refer to it.
To get a "Bradley Effect" in this election voters would have to be TOO EMBARRASSED to tell pollsters they were voting for McCain.
Instead, McCain has given racists plenty of excuses. They can say:
1. Obama's "too liberal."
2. McCain's "more experienced."
3. Obama has "radical connections."
4. McCain's "more like me."
etc.
Lots of excuses = NO Bradley Effect.
As for Hillary losing the caucus states that was because she didn't bother to organize them!
Mark Penn convinced her to skip most of the caucus States and concentrate on winning the primary states. Another in a brilliant series of decisions that campaign made.
She might well have won if she'd contested every state the way Obama did, but she felt only the "big" states were important and concentrated her resources there. This was well documented in the primaries.
I suppose right-wingers weren't paying much attention and don't know why Hillary lost.
Stephen said...
Try going to: mccain-lieberman.com
Then try the same thing replacing Lieberman's name with that of any of the other commonly discussed potential McCain VP choices.
Try mccain-romney.com; that's probably what made the McCain campaign decide to start buying up all those domain names.
Mule,
Perhaps you should ask the Republican governor, who signed the law.
Or the restaurant industry, which opposed the law, but without much vigor:
The legislation was vigorously opposed by the California Restaurant Assn., which argued that it would not substantially affect public health because people eat 75% of their meals at home.
The decision on what restaurants use in cooking should be based on the desires of customers, not government officials, said association spokesman Daniel Conway.
Even so, he said, "given the fact that our industry is already phasing out trans fat in response to customers and that there is a delayed timeline for implementation, we are confident our members will be able to meet the mandate of the law."
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-transfat26-2008jul26,0,6105346.story
There IS no Bradley Effect! It's an urban Myth!
Only idiots talk about it!
For there to be a "Bradley Effect" in this election, voters would have to EMBARRASSED to admit they are voting for McCain!
If McCain were seen as a wholely not-credible candidate, but racists didn't want to support Obama, you could conceivably see some voters lying to Pollsters.
But McCain has wide support among conservatives, so there's no likelihood anybody will have to lie.
If you don't like Obama cause he's black you invent an excuse:
"Obama's too inexperienced."
"McCain's more trustworthy."
"Obama has 'radical connections.'"
"McCain's more like me."
etc.
Mule Rider-
No. We will not answer. We talk polls, polling, and poll mechanics here. Please don't try and bait a stupid discussion on the glories of trans-fats.
Can we please put to rest the fiction that Kerry ever had a large and sustainable lead?
His convention caused him to bounce up to 2 points. Bush's convention brought him back.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
Nobody should ever take in-between-conventions miniscule stats as a sign that anybody is convinced a candidate is going to win.
While we're on the subject, is there any site that lists the polls from 1988? I keep hearing that 17 point Dukakis lead stat. I'm curious as to whether that was a sustained lead or a single outlier poll. I can't seem to find an archive of 1988.
Well said on the caucus issue, cugel; Clinton ran a crappy campaign, and that's why she lost.
McCain don´t put Liberman in the ticket. If he want the conservative vote, he´ll put Huckabee, but no Liberman and no Romney.
But the Huckabee´s problem is he isn´t the key for win in the northern swing states like Ohio and Michigan. And he´s a problem in Florida too.
Mule rider-
You have to think of the "no trans-fat" liberals as the Rick Santorums of our side. I'm kinda hoping they go to the same fate as Senator ManDogLove, personally.
I don't know if Huck would hurt McCain that badly; people up north would vote the top of the ticket, not the bottom, and it just might reassure his conservative base.
Of course, the Huckster insists that he hasn't been asked to turn over any tax returns, so it's a fair bet he's NOT on the short list.
The Bradley effect doesn't exist anymore.
In the Mass governors race in 2006, Duval Patrick's victory was in line with the polls.
What about the south, you ask? In 2006, Harold Ford actually *over-preformed* the polls in his Senate race. The Bradley effect is a 1980s anachronism. People just aren't that racist/dishonest anymore.
Christ, Mule Rider-
If you can't see the difference between the state regulating sales of products and the state regulating which medical procedures you can have, then there's no hope for you.
Transfats were in food because they were cheap, easy to make, and had properties that allowed them to replace lard in baking and butter on bread. They're also horrible for your heart because they increase LDLs and decrease HDLs. Once that was discovered in 2006, many consumers started agitating for them to be removed, sometimes by filing lawsuits, and sometimes by bugging legislatures. It seems people don't want stuff that kill them faster in their food when there's a perfectly acceptatble substitute that will kill them more slowly or have no effect on health. Compaines and regulatory bodies have responded.
Interseting factoid: Crisco, the 800 lbs. gorrilla in shortening, was ahead of the curve. J.M. Smucker (it has to be good) came out with a zero transfat blend it 2004.
It'd be way too easy for the Democrats to make a McCain/Huckabee ticket out to be a bumbling duo of Bush-esque dummies. I can hear the "neither of them can find Pakistan on a map!" cracks already...
If McCain wants to avoid that sort of situation, he should pick a running mate who provides a contrast to him, rather than a running mate who can be compared to him at every turn. Sarah Palin would have been a good choice before that scandal business broke (still might be salvageable, actually) and Bobby Jindal would be at the top of my list if I were McCain. Eric Cantor would be a decent pick, but Palin and Jindal have handy "soundbite" summaries of what makes them special or unique, while Cantor would require a bit more lengthy an introduction to voters. Romney, Crist, and Pawlenty would not draw significantly more votes than McCain will be getting by default, nor will they appeal to a great number of moderates or young voters, and I don't think they'd be good picks.
(Then again, I might be biased on one count by my intense hatred of Mitt Romney the ineffectual flip-flopping lying dog abuser. But I like to think my point is sound regardless of that.)
McCain's short list is down to six names (Huck ain't one of them):
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/07/21/daily45.html
Powell seems extremely unlikely. Rice has indicated that she isn't interested. Palin and Pawlenty seem not well-known enough nationally to be game-changing.
There's already a hit out against Romney:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/evangelicals-warn-against-mccain-romney-ticket/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/romney_a_mistake_for_mccain.html
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13563
I'm feeling Joe-mentum....
From what I read the scandal surrounding Palin is already falling flat on its face. MAybe this was intentially done before the pick, to get rid of all the bad press?
Matt JH:
i thouhgt the Whitey Tape busn came from the Clinton camp. can you prove what you are saying or just throwing it out irresponsibly?
Under/Over on Bradley Effect: McCain plus 3.
The "whitey tape" stuff came out after Clinton dropped out and endorsed Obama.
Wow, Pete can twist statistics to make them favorable for his guy almost as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign could! And look how far that got her!
Looks to me like the Palin scandal isn't going anywhere either, but who knows. It might turn out to be radioactive, or it might be much ado about nothing. I think the public's small capacity for paying attention to Alaskan political scandals is already more than consumed with Senator Ted Stevens and his indictment.
Mule Rider
You cannot conflate those who belive abortion should be banned and those who believe that health, rape, and incest exceptions should exist.
That is very dishonest. Try again.
(Oh... and as for that "health exception"??
We'll be hearing a lot of this:
Patient: Ooops... I took cocaine and drank a forty before I knew I was pregnant. Is my baby gonna be OK?
Sympathetic OB: Quite likely, no. Is Thursday a good time for your procedure?)
virginia conservative wrote:
30% of conservative Democrats say they will vote for McCain, according to Rasmussen.
What were you guys saying about that great Party ID advantage again?
You left out the part of the poll results showing only 18% of Democrats self-identify as conservatives. So it's 30% of 18%, or about 5% of Democrats. Big deal. Barr probably takes more of McCain's support than that.
And if McCain picks Lieberman as his running mate, I will just laugh and laugh as Obama picks up 30-40 states on Election Day.
A question for Nate:
What's going on over at Intrade? I know that prediction markets are, at least at this point in the race, a lagging indicator--mass amalgamations of the CW--but there's been a particularly odd pattern lately.
While Intrade's numbers for Obama decayed a little bit during the emergence of the flip-flopper meme, they never fell far below 2:1. Now, in the last day or two, the numbers have suddenly plummeted below 60 for the first time since he clinched the nomination.
Are people that psyched-out by McCain's Rovian turn? Are Intrade's investors reacting a week late to the dip from which 538 has recently seen Obama rebound?
Have you theorized the relationship between prediction markets and models such as your own? What's your opinion of operations like Intrade? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
Pew has Obama up 5% nationally - "no post trip bounce" - blah blah blah - yawn
but the bit that got my attention was "Obama runs about even with McCain as the candidate better able to handle foreign policy (43% McCain vs. 42% Obama). In September 2004, George Bush held a 16-point lead over John Kerry on foreign policy"
16%? That's about as dumb as an electorate gets
MR-
Fine, it's not you doing the conflating. That doesn't make it any more correct. "No access" is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to "limited access". One allows for exceptions, and the other doesn't. That's the problem with an absolute postition. The minute you allow for any execption to your absolute position, you've changed your position. This study treats absolute belivers on both sides with those who believe in conditions as the same, and that is a flaw. That you quote a fundamentally flawed stat as if it's not flawed is dishonest.
And besides - What's your problem with other people getting abortions anyway? It ain't your kid.
MR-
Stop being an asshole. Please?
MR-
In addition to being an asshole, you're also not very good at linking to things that, you know, actually support what you're saying.
Your link doesn't differentiate between groups like you think it does. It's a three answer survey, not a four answer survey, so there's no way to know what the 52% of people in the middle think. Put bluntly, it doesn't ask what restrictions we're talking about. Is it the big three? Parental notifacation? Waiting period? Those are vastly different, have a vastly different effect on patients, and probably have vastly different numbers of support.
I note that "health of the baby" is still supported by more than half of those polled right up until the third trimester. That still leaves the door open for "unintentional FAS"-abortions.
Obama has slipped under 60% on Intrade for the first time since Hillary dropped out. McCain is up to 38%.
Maybe we should go back to arguing about trans fats :).
I think both parties feel that their stance on abortion is a vote-winner for them, and I suspect they're right. My read of the polling data is that there are three large groups of voters on abortion: the categorically pro-choice, the categorically pro-life, and those who feel the pull of both camps and hold somewhat contradictory positions which can give polling questions different answers depending on what question is asked. This third group is also, I suspect, much less likely to vote based on abortion, which few voters seem to do anyway.
In any event, it's clear that none of these three groups commands a clear majority of public opinion, but that the passionate pro-life and pro-choice groups are large enough to make it smart strategy for one party to endorse each group's position. The result: stasis on the issue.
Stephen, do you have anything other than your own personal musings to suggest Lieberman is an electoral plus? No one likes the guy, so it's difficult to imagine that he helps McCain, but if there's polling . . . .
Speaking of VPs, I'm convinced McCain's best choice would be Huckabee. That guy is sharp and likable and really pulls in the evangelicals. On the downside, he's not an attack dog and McCain probably needs to pursue this strategy if he is to have any chance of victory.
Hell.... the writeup even calls US abortion views "Complex", right before it states that more than half the people believe that abortion is morally wrong and 51% of the people belive it should be left up to a woman and her doctor.
It's like they shrugged their shoulders and said, "Meh... We don't know what people think."
Tx - 50/41 (+9 McCain)
Mt - 45/44 (+1 McCain)
Ky - 49 39 (+10 McCain)
anothermike,
I'm fairly skeptical how much this really tells you, but Rasmussen reported favorability ratings for VP candidates a couple of days ago:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/huckabee_lieberman_have_highest_favorables_among_possible_mccain_veep_choices
They found that Lieberman had Fav/Unfav of 46/39, for a +7 that was better than any other GOPer except Huckabee (47/39, +8). Pawlenty and Jindal had matching 22/21 numbers and Romney, Crist, and Palin all had unfavorables at least 6 points higher than their favorables.
I'm more with the CW of this thread - Lieberman's probably not a good choice because he turns off strong conservatives (e.g., VA Conservative here) without bringing you liberals who hate him for supporting the Iraq War and jilting the Democratic Party.
New Rasmussen polls just out for:
Montana: McCain 45, Obama 44
Kentucky: McCain 49, Obama 39
Texas: McCain 50, Obama 41
Again, there's little to no discussion of 'polling' in this abortion back and forth.
Personally, as son of a doctor and a nurse, I'm in favor of letting a woman decide if she should terminate a pregnancy. Ergo, I would support a candidate who states support for abortion rights, even in a limited context over someone who wants to eliminate the practice without exceptions.
But there is something surprising me right now. Why aren't there more pro-life ads out to stir up the evangelical base, as hypocritical/misogynistic as they are (eg, god allows man to choose to sin, man does not allow women to choose to sin), when it is the typical rallying cry for moral values?
Is it simply too early in the cycle to start that kind of 'debate' (or debacle, in my view), or is this election year so badly stacked for the 'moral values' argument that the right doesn't want to try to engage people's pocketbooks vs their hatred of gay marriage?
Of course, delaying that attack for the very end may be the play to make, as it lets the fundies incensed easily to try generating a last-minute rush, something that would only really show up in exit polls.
Huh. Because I keep hearing how Palin has some of the highest approval ratings in gubernatorial history (most recently pegged at 80%, post-"scandal" break). And Lieberman's image nationally is unfavorable: Democrats hate him for ditching the party and supporting the war, Republicans don't trust him because he votes with the Democrats on everything except the war.
Obama could do with campaigning a bit in Montana, because that's a state that I think he can flip pretty easily.
New Rasmussen polls out for Montana, Kentucky, and Texas:
Montana: Obama 47, McCain 47 (Tossup)
Texas: McCain 52, Obama 44 (Leans McCain)
Kentucky: McCain 49, Obama 39 (Likely McCain).
Interesting to see Texas in single digits in most polls and Kentucky now tightening to ten points.
So hes down in Montana, too. Still stronger showing than usual for a Democrat candidate though. I don't think Kerry or Gore ever came close in Montana. Whats going on there? Its not like its seen a big demographic shift in four years.
Also interesting to note the ground Obama has lost in MT...
Daniel, your TX and MT numbers are with leaners. To be consistent, KY is 52-43 with leaners.
Bush won Montana by 20 both times. Obama can't be unhappy to be in a virtual tie there, even if he's lost ground in the last month. Always good to make the other guy defend his home turf.
Last I have on this:
From your link, MR, 53% of Americans call themselves "pro-choice" whereas 42% call themselves as "pro-life". Thus, "This is my own personal opinion, but of the ~40% [sic] who say abortion should be legal in limited circumstances, a vast majority consider themselves "pro-life," is just that - your own personal opinion, unsupported by fact or evidence qual or quant.
Since 28% of the total sample are unrestricted access, that means that of the people surveyed, 25% of the total group or slightly (1-2%) under half of the limits crowd are people who identify as pro-choice/some limits. It's a majority who are anti-choice/some limits, but it's not a "vast majority".
And one final comment on the Abortion issue to try and shut it down:
Let's take an extreme case. Barring evidence that unwanted children tend to have behavioral problems, violent tendencies, etc, what if the pregnant woman commits suicide before or directly after an abortion and before arrest/charges are filed?
In either case, the child is dead, but there is no one to punish, making the law moot.
Keeping in mind that the mother dying during or immediately after childbirth has almost been entirely eradicated due to modern medicine within the last century, what legal or ethical grounds exist to say that the life of the child is of equal or greater merit than that of the mother?
Of course, there needs to be responsibility for one's actions, practicing safe sex, using contraceptives (which some sects hate, right?), but in cases where the mother is unable to choose if she wants to get pregnant, she should be able to choose if she wants to STAY pregnant.
Unless the pro-lifers want to take away and regulate guns, legal drugs, cars, heights, cleaning products, knives, pillows, ropes/chains, hooks, coat hangers, etc. etc. etc....
The mother can terminate her own life and kill the fetus anyway.
Any objections to that scenario? So what if it's not likely. That's not the point. The point is that banning all abortions is mixing religion with politics and claiming it as mainstream values for something that won't work, trying to turn it into a polarizing issue that only comes up in an election year, and, as with gay marriage, will never be settled because it helps the GOP keep the evangelicals under control.
Can we get back to poll-related discussions now, and leave this tired argument behind?
Liberal or conservative, we're looking at the data and giving opinions on why the NUMBERS read one way or another.
If Nate says: "Hey guys, looks like abortion is going to be a major issue based on screens that are being used in these new polls", then we have cause to discuss the merits of the questions.
Until then, keeping the comments clean of posts like this one is something the majority of readers and commentators appreciate.
Mule Rider-
Define limited circumstances. To you it may mean the big three. To someone else it may mean parental notifacation of a minor patient, a waiting period, and a South Dakota style speach. They don't define the term "limited circumstances" so you can't infer what people think from how they answer that question.
Instead, you have to look in the text where they directly address such questions:
"The highest levels of support for legal abortions are seen for the severe hardship cases -- those performed for health problems related to the woman or fetus, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. There is some variation in these attitudes according to which trimester the abortion would occur in. Most Americans support abortion to protect the life or health of the mother right into the third trimester, but support for terminating a pregnancy in which the baby would be born mentally or physically impaired drops below half in the third trimester."
"The lowest levels of support for legal abortion are for those sought for lifestyle or financial reasons, or for when the mother does not want to have the child. Only about 4 in 10 Americans think abortion "when the woman does not want the child for any reason" should be legal in the first trimester, and support drops well below that in the third trimester."
New state polls from Rasmussen:
Texas: McCain +8%
McCain 52% (50%), Obama 44% (41%)
Kentucky: McCain +10%
McCain 49%, Obama 39%
Leaners aren't mentioned? Weird.
Montana: Tie
McCain 47% (45%), Obama 47% (44%)
Obama improvement in Kentucky, McCain improvement in Montana, Texas same. Some odd mixed results.
New state polls from Rasmussen:
Texas: McCain + 8%
McCain 52%(50%), Obama 44%(41%)
Kentucky: McCain + 10%
McCain 49%, Obama 39%
No leaners info? Weird.
Montana: Tie
McCain 47%(45%), Obama 47%(44%)
Texas has remained mostly static with both Obama and McCain gaining equal ground from undecideds.
Kentucky has shown about 4% gains for Obama and McCain shows a small 2% loss, but drops under 50% for the first time.
Montana shows the reverse of Kentucky, with a 4% drop for Obama and a 2% improvement for McCain.
I'd say all-in-all today was a polling tie. Montana remains competitive, and the other 2 states are not.
Sorry for the double post -- I thought the first one didn't go through.
I'm pretty happy with the new polls. Yes Obama is down from the 5% poll in Montana, but I never totally believed that poll anyway. We now have more evidence that Montana is a swing state. It is kind of hard to believe since Bush won it by 20. Montana does have Democrats in both senate seats and the Governor's seat.
Its kind of funny, RCP still doesn't list Montana as a toss-up even though they have McCain's lead there as less than Obama's in Michigan which they do list as a tossup.
I think Obama has a genuine shot at Montana. I still don't think he'll win it but he's got a shot, especially if McCain stubbornly decides to all out ignore it. If Obama is the only one on the air, he has won it.
The Kentucky and Texas polls are encouraging as well. Obama won't win there, but it does show he is making some progress into solidly red territory.
We haven't seen anything out of WV in quite awhile. The Kentucky result reminds me how curious I am about WV. I have a feeling it won't be as much of a blowout as was implied by the primary. Its still not a swing state, but I am curious.
Another example of the Bradley effect: HRC won the TX primarily handily but lost pretty bad in the caucuses. Folks were plain intimidated at those things!
There is no Bradley effect, and no reverse Bradley effect. There are just wrong polls. This must not have a reason. UNdecided Voters may do this by random, as far as we know (not ONE undecided voter, for sure, but I argue that out of a crowd of 1 Million undecided voters McCain and Obama have the same chance to eek out an advantage.Compared to their result with the other 95% of voters.)
And the Bradley effect in 2008 is basically based on NH and CA, I´d also add MO, even if there weren´t many polls. On the other hand, we´ve had states like NC, SC, VA, WI, OR,SD where most to all polls underestimated Obamas margin- yes, there are some southern states in that mix, but also a midwest and a pacific state.
After all there is no prove of Bradley or Reverse Bradley this year- just of the fact that polling isn´t as accurate as we´d wish.
People in Fla don't want to drill. They're veterans of this debate see through the talking points. McCain may gain ground in OH and CO with this issue but will lose ground in Fla.
Of course, it's a chance he has to take since nothing else is gaining traction.
If Obama wants to win the energy debate, he has to push the point that oil companies aren't drilling in the places they already have rights to, and he needs to start bandying about a bold sort of new alternative energy initiative. His "new kind of politics" rhetoric is in danger of wearing thin; he needs to challenge McCain on the "straight talk" front by serving up some candor of his own, which he hit out of the ballpark back with that "A More Perfect Union" speech and has appeared to sidestep ever since.
Shockingly, it actually seems plausible that McCain could lose Florida. I thought he would be a dead-on favorite there. But between the offshore drilling issue and the "social security is a disgrace" gaffe, he is shooting himself in the foot.
McCain cannot win without Florida. Assuming that Iowa is in the bag for Obama, even losing New Mexico AND Michigan would still lead to an electoral vote tie. That's an absolute best-case for McCain minus the Florida result. And it's very unlikely Obama will lose New Mexico.
I think Obama may actually win the state if the narrative doesn't change -- his polling numbers there are surprisingly good across several different pollsters and so far the issues are favoring him.
Gaining a ground in a state like Kentucky is very good news for Obama amidst what I would consider a lot of troubling news. Clearly Appalachia is growing more comfortable with him, which won't get him Kentucky but will help him in PA and OH.
All the polling shows that drilling is as popular in Florida as it is anywhere else. Obama should not talk about drilling at all unless he absolutely has to.
I think Obama's got a very good shot in Florida. I'm surprised because I didn't use to think this. McCain cannot continue to ignore Florida. It is an absolute must-win for McCain. Money that McCain was planning on devoting to Cincinnati is now on its way to Tampa. That has to be frustrating for his staff.
"All the polling shows that drilling is as popular in Florida as it is anywhere else. Obama should not talk about drilling at all unless he absolutely has to."
Drilling's going to go away as a major campaign issue. Gas prices always peak in the summer and they've already started falling. Come fall, gas prices will be well under $4 a gallon and the gas spike of this summer will be viewed as a warning about our need to move away from gas and toward alternative fuels without the urgency to bring down prices.
The value of high gas prices as an issue for McCain is going away and I'm not sure that he has a lot else on the economic front - I would guess that he'll shift to taxes as his economic issue, but I'm not sure how much that's going to help.
Nate, are you being overoptimistic?
Gallup lead is down to one. You've got his lead at 2.8%
and he's at 50%. Can it really be?
Mike,
You are selectively reading polls.
Gallup has him at +1, but Research2000 has him at +12 and CNN at +7, I think the average is somewhere around +4. 2.8 seems to be conservative to me.
Mike,
You are selectively reading polls.
Gallup has him at +1, but Research2000 has him at +12 and CNN at +7, I think the average is somewhere around +4. 2.8 seems to be conservative to me.
Becky Sharp is exactly right on drilling (and VA Conservative is exactly missing it). The federal EIA lays the numbers out pretty clearly.
We currently consume 21 million barrels of oil per day, of which 6 million are produced domestically and fifteen million we must import from OPEC nations. New leases will take ten years to develop and eight more to hit maximum capacity. As a long term energy plan that might make sense. Except...
At maximum capacity we would be able to get at most another 2 million barrels per day - still needing to import 13 million barrels from OPEC, who would still entirely control the price. And of course with 18 years growth in the economy, we'd be importing even more than the 15 million barrels we do today.
Even if oil were not a dirty source of energy, it would still be an absurd energy plan. Until we produce significant amounts of energy from sources other than oil, we sacrifice our energy independence, environmental health, and economic security to the whim and greed of OPEC and commodities speculators. Drilling is not an energy plan. It is spurious pandering to the current pain at the pump, will provide profit only to oil companies, and will continue to jeopardize our economy and environment.
I apologize that this is not about today's polls, but it is incredibly frustrating that this is never discussed clearly in the MSM, so I feel it's fair to respond to posts like VA conservative's about the brilliance of drilling as a solution to our energy needs. It's not just wrong because I'm a hippy environmentalist. It's wrong because the very conservative math doesn't add up.
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,
Post a Comment