Four polls are out today, but the Presidential race looks to have settled into something of a steady state.
In Colorado, a Public Policy Polling survey has Barack Obama ahead by 4 points. The margin is identical to a poll conducted last month, although each candidate has gained a point against undecided.
In Virgina, it's McCain by one in a new SurveyUSA poll. SurveyUSA's Virginia numbers have fluctuated somewhat wildly over the course of the cycle, with margins ranging from Obama +7 to McCain +12, but this is a modest improvement for McCain from their late June edition, when Barack Obama had led by 2.
Lastly, Rasmussen Reports polls have Barack Obama ahead by 5 points in Iowa -- down from 10 last month -- and ahead by 10 points in Oregon -- up a tick from 9 points last month.
Let's set Virginia aside for a moment, as well as Oregon, which has never looked especially competitive and where neither campaign is doing any advertising. It's Colorado and Iowa, along with New Mexico, that form Obama's firewall. If Obama holds the Kerry states but wins those three, he doesn't need to win Ohio, Florida, or any of the higher degree-of-difficulty states. And so far, Obama's lead in these states has been very consistent. In 16 Iowa polls conducted since Super Tuesday, Obama has led all 16. In 11 New Mexico polls over the time span, he has led 9, been tied in one, and trailed in the other. And in 14 polls of Colorado, he has led 11 times, trailed twice, and been tied once.
If I were John McCain, I'd be very skeptical about my prospects in Iowa, where I didn't really campaign during the primaries and where my agricultural policies are unpopular. Likewise, I'd look at Obama's strong national numbers among Hispanics, and conclude that New Mexico is probably moving in the wrong direction. Which means that I'd be devoting an awful lot of resources to Colorado, possibly conceding states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota in order to do so.
8.11.2008
Today's Polls, 8/11
@ 11:48 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
98 comments
If I were an Obama supporter I'd be concerned about losing Michigan and New Hampshire. Yes Obama has had some leads for sometime in these two states, but come election day they will be a virtual toss up and could go either way.
Obama could win all of Kerry's state except Michigan and win those 3, and his chances aren't so great....
It's August though, polls are better after the convention!
I guess you don't think the Convention will help to solidify Colorado? I would be wary of Colorado because it is relatively young and, as you mentioned with New Mexico, has a large Latino population. The convention, combined with my personal perception that Colorado is a politically active state, would incline me to see New Mexico as an easier target. Just my humble opinion.
Otherwise, Michigan seems like McCain's best bet. I am completely shocked at how close that state is polling. It almost seems like it is custom made for Obama - large AA population, hard hit by the economy, union voters, Illinois adjacent, etc. Could the primary debacle really have had such an impact? I can't see any other explanation.
Obama can also win the Kerry states, lose Michigan BUT win Ohio (which seems very possible at this point) and win the mentioned 3 states to get over the top.
Look closely at the crosstabs for the Virginia poll. They might represent a reverse Bradley effect like Nate says we saw in the primary.
They have black support at 84-14. They also have the black turnout percentage at 19%.
If this is true, black turnout will actually go down from 2004. A lower percentage of blacks will vote for Obama than voted for Kerry.
Does anybody actually think this is true?
I decided to treat this poll as two separate polls...white VA and black VA.
The white VA poll has nearly 4 times the sample size.
If you assume only matches Kerry's percentages with AfrAmer/Latino/Asian/Other and the white VA poll is accurate, the poll shows that Obama is actually winning the state of Virginia by 2.59%.
Of course, I can hear the screams of liberal bias coming already. I'm saying to count the portion of the poll that looks good for Obama (white VA) and not count the portion that looks good for McCain (black VA). Clearly thats questionable.
Still the bottom line is this poll shows really bad news for McCain. It shows him doing nowhere near as well as he should in white VA.
If Obama just matches Kerry among minorities, Obama wins.
If Obama actually succeeds in increasing the AfrAmer turnout percentage from 21% to 23% and increasing his lead among AfrAmer to 92-7, he will win the state of Virginia by nearly 7 points.
The headline says McCain is winning, but I'm not sure I'd be cheering over this poll at camp McCain.
Of course, I could be wrong. If Obama does underperform Kerry among minorities...
landstander
Its the primary plus the unpopular Dem governor plus the indicted AfrAmer mayor of Detroit.
Michigan has a lot of local issues that don't look good for Obama. They are making it closer than it should be.
There's something amiss about Survey USA's methodology when it comes to gender. Though they don't weight for party they seem to demand a "balance" for gender that always includes 51% women, 49% men. That underestimates the female turnout pretty substantially, women are going to be a major force in this year's election. I think they should be getting a +4% sampling in these polls for them to be legit.
"If I were an Obama supporter I'd be concerned about losing Michigan and New Hampshire."
Why do people keep suggesting that MI is such a potential danger for Obama? This poster clearly doesn't favor Obama, which I suspect is also the case for many of those who suggest that MI looks like a toss-up that Obama should be really worried about. The state has been polled nine times since the start of June, and Obama has led in every single poll (ranging from +3 to +9). While I wouldn't call it a lock, it isn't a true toss-up either. True, the MI Democratic party might not be in the best shape right now. But I have a very hard time believing that a reliably blue state that is suffering from a poor economy and the loss of manufacturing will vote for the pro-NAFTA candidate in an election cycle that strongly favors Democrats. I suppose that it's possible, but...
I have no idea what this is, but most polls, by all pollsters, show Obama underperforming his national African-American numbers in Virginia and North Carolina.
It's either some localized reverse Bradley effect or it's something real. Either way, I'd be interested in why people think it shows up in those states in particular. (There are also a couple of other states where I think it may have been happening, but I happen to have noticed it most in those two.)
Nate,
This got lost in the noise in "The Georgia Conflict and the Case for Clark" thread.
I disagree with your analysis that the Georgia conflict represents a positive case for Clark.
The most important issue for this election cycle is energy, clearly identified in all recent polling. The theme for the night of the VP nominee's speech, "Securing America's Future," seems tailor made to highlighting Obama's energy plan, since energy independence from unreliable foreign sources will do much more to secure our future than any other action we can undertake.
I have always been one of the nutjobs for Schweitzer, and if the focus at the Democratic convention on the night for the VP nominee is energy, then I believe that points to Schweitzer, given his credibility on moving energy policy in a new direction, plus all of his other positives.
According to this site, McCain has a 32% chance of winning Michigan. Additionally, Michigan is the closest Kerry state.
Obama has better odds of winning Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Montana. And with those seven states, there are ten winning combinations.
Even if Obama loses Michigan, he's has a 50% chance of winning it all. (Better if he wins the tie-breaker.)
Arguing Obama should be worried about the polls is crazy. McCain is behind, he should be worried.
Nate,
The key number on this site is "win percentage". But that graph went away. Any chance it will come back?
Thanks.
Sedi: People say MI is close for the following reasons: The latest state polls do show Obama ahead, but most are within the margin of error; Michigan Democrats tend to be older and blue-collar, the type that voted for Clinton in the primaries and are the most likely to defect to McCain; Romney is very popular in Michigan, which would give McCain a boost if he was the veep pick.
All of which says that McCain has a good shot at winning the state with the right strategy (play up Obama's perceived elitism, have Romney as an important surrogate at least in that state). I happen to believe that Obama can win without MI, if he plays his cards right (specifically if he puts enough money into OH and VA), but Nate's simulations suggest that he may well be in trouble.
I was just looking at the poll internals again, and I'm going to correct myself. Rasmussen doesn't show an underperformance for Obama among AA's in VA and NC. The effect seems strongest in PPP, and is sort of in-between in SurveyUSA.
Does that mean it's a reverse Bradley effect? That should be less visible with robo-callers, which is why Rasmussen doesn't show it.
On the other hand, maybe it's something about the weighting methodology of the pollsters. If Rasmussen assumes that almost all AA's in the electorate are Democrats, but there are actually more independents or Republicans in there, then Rasmussen's AA numbers would skew high.
So I can make an argument either way...that the support is "really" in the mid 90's, and a reverse Bradley effect sometimes suppresses it, or that it's "really" in the low 80's, and that we're underestimating the number of non-Democrat AA's.
Does anyone have particular insight into that community in those states, so that we can hazard a guess as to which it is?
Modeler and I have been discussing a while back the possibility of a dynamic analysis of the 538 regression - which demographics react to the changes in the race and how?
Nate does not pursue this, I think because there are inherent shortcomings to the 538 regression when used for this purpose. And it is rather difficult for us to follow this question, as the regression is not archived on the site.
However, it occurred to me that we have one time capsule within the site - the final Clinton numbers - which allows a very useful comparison across two months:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/clinton-mccain-archive.html
This is a very meaningful comparison. The final pre-Clinton numbers are just prior to the June surge and are thus typical of the March-to-May stable state. We are now in a stable state post-June. Two things happened in June: a post-Primaries realignment of enduring value; and a more transient surge in Obama's support (the same as in February, I surmise). The latter has disappeared so that the comparison with June 7 is a study in the enduring post-Primaries realignment.
I compare the 538 regression numbers for each State, arranged from top to bottom in terms of how well Obama advanced. I note whether the State was a Clinton or Obama state, and whether or not it was a Kerry state.
Note: the regression itself changed. Never mind! Both now and on June 7 it represented Nate's best effort of finding the "true demographics underlying the race".
I shall try to comment on this if I have time tonight.
Overall +2.4
Major advance
WY +8.4 O
RI +8.1 C K
LA +7.3 O
CT +7.2 O K
ID +7.1 O
NJ +7.1 C K
WI +6.8 O K
MS +6.0 O
NH +5.6 C K
Considerable advance
ME +5.3 O K
PA +5.1 C K
AL +5.0 O
NM +4.5 C
MA +4.3 C K
IL +4.1 O K
NC +4.0 O
UT +3.8 O
GA +3.6 O
KY +3.5 C
Small advance
MD +3.3 O K
NY +3.3 C K
MN +3.2 O K
AR +2.8 C
CA +2.8 C K
MO +2.4 O
TX +2.2 C
OR +1.9 O K
SC +1.7 O
TN +1.7 C
VA +1.3 O
WA +1.3 O K
Stable
MT +0.5 O
FL +0.2 C
IA -0.3 O
NE -0.4 O
DE -0.5 O K
Setback
IN -0.7 C
NV -0.7 C
AZ -0.8 C
OK -1.1 C
MI -1.2 ? K
CO -1.3 O
OH -1.5 O
SD -1.5 C
VT -1.5 O K
HI -2.0 O K
KS -2.3 O
Major setback
WV -2.8 C
AK -2.9 O
ND -4.0 O
I agree with the general position of the post. I've long been advocating the position that the election will probably boil down to these three states: Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. If McCain wins all three, he wins the general; otherwise, if Obama wins at least one of them, he will win.
The one obvious correlation is with Kerry, which is obvious: the June-to-August permanent gain is the rallying of the base, which means the rallying of Kerry.
the very loud non-barking dog is Clinton. I see no clear correlation with Clinton's victory in the Primaries, which suggests that the base which is rallied is not necessarily Clinton's base. It appears as if rank and file Democrats who were not thrilled with either candidate have rallied to Obama once he became the candidate, but that there might be some PUMAs out there.
Any thoughts?
clarkejeffrey said "Look closely at the crosstabs for the Virginia poll. They might represent a reverse Bradley effect like Nate says we saw in the primary.
They have black support at 84-14. They also have the black turnout percentage at 19%.
If this is true, black turnout will actually go down from 2004. A lower percentage of blacks will vote for Obama than voted for Kerry."
clarkejeffrey,
It appears that Obama is polling better than Kerry did among African-Americans in VA in 2004. The three final polls by SurveyUSA of VA in 2004 (coincidentally, the three most recent available polls), found here, show Kerry consistently polling among AAs at 78 to 79%.
Obama is out-polling Kerry among AAs in VA, but the numbers are below Obama's national average, whereas Kerry's 2004 polling numbers among AAs in different states seemed to be more consistent.
Why? My only speculation would be that Obama may poll below his national average among AAs in the military, which might explain the discrepancy noted by sarahlawrencescott in VA and NC.
Obama needs to get real and dump resources into Michigan, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Ohio. I was an early supporter of the "play offense in the South" strategy, but since then, I've been watching his numbers teeter in some of those crucial swing states.
In my opinion, Florida and Missouri are lost causes. North Carolina is still a huge stretch. Obama is thinking he can scare McCain with tighter-than-usual margins in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, but he's not going to flip those states unless McCain is caught in bed with Dick Cheney, and playing chicken instead of playing smart smacks of overconfidence.
If Obama really wants to play offense in the West, Schweitzer would be a fantastic pick. If he wants to secure Virginia, Kaine would be his man. Sebelius, Biden, and Clark are fine candidates, but they're not going to shore up Obama's numbers in any particular set of battleground states. Bayh would trade a boosted chance at winning Indiana with a critical Dem seat in the Senate, making him a poor choice. Clinton would drive a lot of latent conservatives into the voting booths for McCain, making her a poor choice. Nunn would completely contradict every single one of Obama's campaign messages, making him a terrible choice.
I'm eagerly anticipating Obama's pick. I definitely think Schweitzer and Clark would be his best (conventional) options.
As for McCain, my gut tells me to keep an eye on Eric Cantor and Rob Portman. Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman feel like feints to me - they're far too problematic. Sarah Palin would be an interesting choice, but I don't see it happening this year. I can see a Jindal/Palin ticket as a possibility in '12 or '16, assuming McCain loses this election, but I don't think either of them are lined up for the GOP ticket this time around.
This is why I think McCain will pick Romney as his running mate. If his campaign is paying attention, they should realize that their best shot is to pick off Michigan, and their best bet at doing that is with Romney on the ticket.
Nate - Can we get a "search site for..." window? An index, so to speak.
Humanist: I suspect Wyoming holds the key clue. What made Wyoming and Idaho advance so much when Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska, and the Dakotas stayed the same or went down? (Utah also went up a fair amount, but it's a bit quirky demographically.)
If you can figure out what how Wyoming and Idaho differ from their mountain neighbors, I think you'll have a big chunk of the explanation.
Similarly, try to isolate why Vermont goes down when New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts all show sharp gains.
It appears that Obama is polling better than Kerry did among African-Americans in VA in 2004. The three final polls by SurveyUSA of VA in 2004 (coincidentally, the three most recent available polls), found here, show Kerry consistently polling among AAs at 78 to 79%
I was working off of the CNN exit polls that show that Kerry won AfrAmer vote 87-12 with 21% of the turnout. He got 88-11 nationwide among AfrAmer, so they aren't considerably more conservative in VA.
We noticed during the primaries that a number of AfrAmer reported being undecided and then going to Obama at the last minute. I wonder if thats going on in VA too. In the end, I'll be very very surprised if Obama underperforms Kerry among VA AfrAmer.
Mark--
My counter argument would be I think the Obama team learned they don't necessarily need to "dump" resources. They have the cash advantage, and they've learned that media saturation doesn't equal a win (we kept hearing about a 4 to 1 advertising advantage in PA, etc etc). People aren't lab rats, they're individuals, and their responses can be fickle and unexpected. By investing in a good ground game and a solid presence in advertising, they can put a statee in play.
Most prediction sites give Obama somewhere from 200-250 EVs solid support, states with >5% margins which are unlikely to tip McCain. Then there are something on the order of 100 EV's of swing states. With his proposed cash advantage, Obama can invest in several potential areas, and maybe drop any substantial investments later when if they need to budget.
My personal guess about the reason for investing in the random and less critical states (say Montana, Alaska) is psychological. It sounds so much better to say you have a 50 state strategy than to say really only the people of Ohio matter. By throwing minimal money at some longshot states Obama keeps more options open, but also gains an advantage of having a more inclusive countrywide feel to his campaign.
It has been suggested that a few internal polls by the Republicans in Michigan, with Romney on the ticket, give McCain a lead.
I have not seen any of them and none have been published on the web, but a few quality sources have reported that.
If that were the case: McCain must:
Advertise like hell in Ohio and Michigan and Virginia. [A lot less in PA which he is not going to win]
He also must wait for Obama to make his VP pick, which he has the ability to do with the GOP Convention after the Dem one.
He needs to have a huge convention like Bush did in 2004 with Miller, etc. Yes you Dems may say it was nothing big, but the polls tell the story and Bush SURGED out to a lead after the GOP Convention in 2004. McCain got to stay neck and neck with Bush's numbers, something he has done since June now.
In the end, if McCain wins Ohio and Michigan, a good possibility, he'll be our President I do believe. If he loses Michigan, McCain can still win with Ohio and Virginia and one of the 3 battlegrounds out west.
I want to see more polls out this week.
Romney isn't going to be popular with a lot of the base, though. He and McCain would be targeted easily as "the flip-flop ticket" and attacked for cozying up to President Bush in order to play to voters. Romney isn't going to help McCain pick up any new votes outside of maybe Michigan, and he's going to fire up independents and liberals who grew to know and hate him during primary season (which could easily counter his "favorite son" effect in MI).
There's another factor in Michigan and surrounding swing states:
If Obama picks Schweitzer, Sebelius, Clark, OR Biden, his stock with Catholic swing voters in the Rust Belt goes up. All four of them are Roman Catholic. It helps Schweitzer in particular that he's a moderate on social issues.
Pawlenty, who has also generated VP buzz for McCain, converted from Catholicism to evangelism (and don't think Catholic action groups would hesitate to attack him for that if he was the VP nominee).
I don't know how Romney would play among Catholic voters, but he took some heat from his Catholic constituents as governor of Massachusetts when the state legalized gay marriage and he came out against renewing the ban. Then again, Governor Romney and vice presidential hopeful Romney are not the same person.
I think we can now see that ridiculous Quinnipiac 7/18 poll in Colorado was an outlier just like I said. All the other polls in the last 2 months have shown Obama with a +2 to +5% lead.
Right in the middle of this is the PPP poll with Obama +4. The convention might give him a few point bounce, and we'll see whether that lasts or whether it fades like his Europe trip speech.
Colorado is now reaching the saturation point in TV advertising. About every other ad during the Olympics is a political ad of some kind, not just for Obama or McCain, but lots for local Representatives and Senator too. I don't think that TV ads are going to be able to move the numbers much when they become incessant like this.
I imagine both candidates will pour money into Colorado, but the constant stream of advertising all contradicting each other becomes like a white-noise that everybody tunes out.
I never saw this before because Colorado hasn't been a swing state before and we haven't had nearly this kind of ad blitz, but there just has to be a quickly diminishing law of returns on all these ads. I don't think the 100th+ political commercial you see has nearly the impact as the first 10 or so.
Plus, I'm getting a phone message a day from the local Democratic party about the primary tomorrow.
Really, with the Convention here in Denver, I doubt there's any way that McCain can significantly move his numbers unless the national race takes a big turn (which I suppose can happen).
But, his advertising is certainly not going to do it.
clarkejeffrey said "I was working off of the CNN exit polls that show that Kerry won AfrAmer vote 87-12 with 21% of the turnout. He got 88-11 nationwide among AfrAmer, so they aren't considerably more conservative in VA."
cj,
I think the disparity between the exit polls and the final pre-election polls show that we are talking apples and oranges. Kerry did much better among VA AAs in exit polling than in the final pre-election polling. This may hold true for Obama as well.
But if we do an apples-to-apples comparision of pre-election polling, then at this time, Obama definitely is polling better than Kerry was among AAs in VA in pre-election polling.
I agree with you that Obama will almost certainly outperform Kerry among AAs in VA, especially given that he is already out-polling Kerry's numbers at this point in the campaign.
I think the RNC could end up hurting McCain if the Dems and Libertarians can capitalize on visible ties to the Bush legacy there. That will depend on the variety of speakers, but you can expect a lot of senior administration officials to be present, including the extremely unpopular Richard Cheney.
It will be interesting to see how much buzz Ron Paul's rival event will generate. I supported Paul in the primaries, but I honestly don't think his Rally for the Republic will matter much. But if Obama does tap Schweitzer, who is the left-libertarian governor of a famously libertarian state, feelers might go out between Paul's people and the Obama camp. It's definitely a long-shot for a million different reasons, but if Paul ended up throwing his support to an Obama/Schweitzer ticket, we could end up watching McCain lose Montana, Nevada, Colorado, the Dakotas, and Alaska on Election Day by significant margins.
The likelier scenario is that Ron Paul does his thing, nothing happens, but Obama pounds McCain and the GOP using images from the RNC to "prove" that McCain will be Bush's third term, and McCain suffers a "reverse bump".
Regarding Obama's strategy: I think we will see a significant narrowing of his campaign's focus, in terms of which states he is investing in, post-convention.
If I were him I would do exactly what he is doing now: spend all that pre-convention money he has to spend trying to see if he can move a few states from "lean McCain" into true "tossup" status. It's unlikely he'll get many to change, but if he can get one or two the second act looks a lot better for him. At that point I would narrow my focus to those states which are true tossups (as well as key defense states like Michigan) and make McCain stretch his money as much as I can.
At present it doesn't look like he's done much of anything to turn (somewhat) light red states like Indiana and North Carolina into purple ones.
But then again, what do I know? I'm just an armchair strategist like everyone else...
Oh, and Cugel, could you tone down the bold lettering a wee bit? Thanks.
If he loses Michigan, McCain can still win with Ohio and Virginia and one of the 3 battlegrounds out west.
No, that's just wrong.
If McCain loses Michigan, but wins Ohio and Virginia, he still needs to win 2 out of the 3 battlegrounds out west. Winning only Colorado would give McCain 269 electoral votes and a loss in the House of Representatives. Likewise, winning only New Mexico or Nevada would give McCain just 265 electoral votes.
Unless you're making another bad assumption, such as that McCain will win Iowa (will not happen) or that McCain will win New Hampshire (not likely).
I'm tired of the ridiculous nonsense that MI should be a "safe" Democratic state, and the fact that McCain is running competitively there is a sign of trouble.
Fact is, MI always runs close. Kerry only won it by 3.4%, and Gore only won it by 5.1%. And if you want to look at polling, Kerry never really ran away with MI in the summer (except for one or two crazy outliers), and actually trailed Bush on at least three occasions before the conventions.
So, no, Chicken Little, MI being within the MoE is not evidence that the sky is falling, it's just evidence that MI is going to be a swing state. Again. Like it is every year.
yes, I agree with Mark - I think the RNC is going to be a very dangerous thing for McCain. The convention will only serve to remind people that McCain is a Republican. The party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
@SarahLawrenceScott
Idaho and Wyoming differ from those other Western states in large part due to their considerable Mormon populations.
Obama can also win the Kerry states, lose Michigan BUT win Ohio (which seems very possible at this point) and win the mentioned 3 states to get over the top.
If Obama wins OH but loses MI, he only needs IA+CO, or (IA + NM + any 3EV state).
A realclearpolitics post elucidates on why Michigan will be very tough for Obama: "The Obama/Wright/Kilpatrick Collision"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/michigan_the_obamawrightkilpat.html
Quotes:
"The night before Wright imploded in front of the Washington press corps, he was the featured speaker at an NAACP dinner in Detroit where Mayor Kilpatrick gave him a rousing introduction, an introduction shown on local TV news shows. Undoubtedly, some 527 committee or the Michigan Republican Party has that introduction on DVD."
"It is very likely that similar ads will be run in key battleground states starting in mid-October. In Michigan, you can bet that the much hated Kilpatrick will be included in the Obama/Wright ads, making them look like the Three Musketeers, "one for all and all for one."
How is the state of the race steady when Obama continues to bleed EC and win percentage numbers on the left side of the site?
I suppose you could mean Obama's lead has been slowly evaporating and is continuing to do so but I do not think that is what you mean.
I wouldn't really be surprised if Obama polls worse than Kerry among AA. Obama didn't exactly speak up for blacks in his campaign, a wise choice, but it would cost him a few black votes. The Republican had always got few AA votes so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually get more votes when race becomes a factor. Black turnout will surely increase, however, and this will benefit Obama.
Obama will outperform Kerry among blacks. Why? Because Obama is black. Simple.
Even if Romney helped McCain carry Michigan, and that is a big if, he ad his religion are a huge liability for McCain in a lot of other swing states. I, for one, hope that McCain picks Romney so they can piss away all of their money on Michigan.
Mark,
1. Ron Paul supporters are not Republicans anyway. Most were new to the party, angry at Bush, moderate or liberal, young and so on. They would be non-voters or Democrats otherwise. Ron Paul raising his own profile, and possibly mounting a write-in campaign is worse news for Obama than it is for McCain, because Ron Paul would provide a visible home both for angry conservatives that wouldn't vote McCain anyhow, and angry liberals that hate Obama and Nader.
2. The libertarian party itself is sucking this one hard. Yes they register 2% in a number of polls - Nader ran as high as 8% in 2000, his best run (he ended up with 2.5%). Moreover, Bob Barr's fundraising is tepid, and the Libertarian party's third place in the West Virginia third party petition drive suggests organizational problems (WV is a hard state to get on the ballot - Nader and the Constitution party succeeded nonetheless, Barr didn't). The Libertarian party is pissing away its best chance to break 1% with petty internal squabbles between its two main camps (libertine nutjobs and opportunistic losers).
3. The moment Libertarians or Ron Paul gain any traction, they will have to be very careful anyhow, lest people remember that roads are a good thing.
Mark:
You make some good points, but I do not agree with your assertion that Obama should pull out of Florida. He actually should pour MORE money into the state and open more field offices in Central Florida (esp. Orange County). Obama is still very competitive in Florida. How is it that McCain can trail in places like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan by the high single digits, yet these states are winnable for McCain--but when Obama is behind by 1 point in Virginia or runs close in Colorado, some people freak out and say the state in unwinnable?
Obama would also be dumb to pull out of Missouri right now. However, if McCain is polling above 52 percent in Missouri by October 1, Obama should begin shifting resources to lock down Colorado, Michigan, and Ohio. Nevada, Virginia, Montana, and Indiana will be states to closely watch over the next few weeks.
I think North Carolina is still in play, but you are right--it is a stretch, unless Obama can maximize new voter turnout and increase his share in places like Wake, Durham, and Mecklenburg Counties.
I still don't know about Georgia right now, but I would have to say that McCain is favored to win there. I simply cannot measure turnout in my head because there have been so many new and non-traditional voters this year. McCain may have an artificial lead based on older voters, who are really keeping him competitive in many of the swing states this year.
I don't know about you all, but I've been waiting patiently for an Indiana poll, and I hope it comes soon!
Yesterday's polls underline what we knew already; that Obama has fallen back slightly from his peak in early June but that he is still well placed and ahead of McCain where he needs to be. The Colorado poll is particularly encouraging as it shows that McCain has not built on the progress he seemed to make in the Quinnipiac CO poll. I don't discount Q poll, it's just that it was taken at the height of the McCain negative attack and since that attack appears to have backfired, it doesn't surprise me that Obama has recovered. With Obama now leading again by almost 5 points in the RCP national polling average, it should be evident to even the most blind McCain follower (ok, maybe not Pete Kent) that the "angry strategy" is not working.
On that note, it was telling yesterday that McCain for the first time in weeks did not specifically attack Obama during his visit to Pennsylvania. Given that nothing happens by accident, I just wonder whether he has decided that all the negativity has undercut his core appeal and whether his camp have decided to change approach yet again. Let's see what happens today.
As for the discussion above re Michigan, let's be clear. It is without doubt the best chance McCain has of winning a Kerry state and McCain has to throw everything toward winning it because he simply cannot rely on holding enough of NM, IA, CO, OH, NV and VA to be safe. Likewise, Obama must do everything to hold it. Of Obama loses MI, the scenarios that enable him to still win simply aren't going to happen. If Obama loses MI he loses OH as well (just look at the current polling in those two states to see that that is obvious).
My view is that at present even this strategy represents a disaster for McCain. The fact that he cannot even get close in states like WI, WA, PA and OR means he has a very limited number of ways of winning the election. Indeed it reminds me of where Kerry was 4 years ago.
Nice try, Nate. No reason at all McCain should concede PA for CO. PA remains a jump ball, a state where Obama got pasted by Mrs. Clinton and whose demographics are reasonably favorable to McCain.
McCain will pursue a General Eelction strategy calculated to win OH, MI and PA. All three can be made to tip along the same fault lines. If he wins those three no combination of other Kerry states plus the west will do Obama any good.
I also think that CO and NM along with NV remain suficiently competitive for McCain that he should continue to contest there as well. I am surprised by Obama's support in the Hispanic community, he consistently underperformed in that demographic in the primary and must have vulnerablities there that McCain can exploit. I think Hispanic support for Obama does not run deep.
"I am surprised by Obama's support in the Hispanic community, he consistently underperformed in that demographic in the primary and must have vulnerablities there that McCain can exploit. I think Hispanic support for Obama does not run deep."
Pete, simply because something is surprising does not make it untrue. Obama has taken over many key Clinton constituencies (e.g. women voters), and is doing as well with white, working-class men as any generic Democrat. Why should Hispanic support be any lower than the polling is showing?
That said, I agree with you on McCain and Pennsylvania. He has to challenge in PA, if only to sustain the credibility of his campaign in Ohio. It might be asked if PA and OH are really drastically different demographically (Nate certainly thinks so -
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/state-similarity-scores.html)
PA is still a possibility, and with 21 EVs, it's too large to ignore.
I think Obama is pretty much guaranteed 243 EVS. That includes all the Kerry states except NH and MI, as well as picking up NM and IA. So he needs to find 26/27 EVs to win. (I don't think Oregon should be included in the states Obama might lose.)
Strangely enough, winning Florida would be enough for Obama with my figures, although I don't think that'll happen except in a landslide.
I tend to believe the VA poll is a little off due to the percentage of turnout NOT the percentage each candidate gets. Obama polls nationally at about 90-4. That means in some states he will overperform and others.......well you get it. I would think, like posted somewhere above, the more military AA's and well, the republican AA's are showing their support. Either that or that reverse bradley effect. However turnout HAS to be increased, that is something I found odd in the poll.
I don´t see good chances for McCain in Michigan. He doesn´t win a poll from MI since May. And remember, in this state the unemployment is high and this benefits Obama.
PA is not close but I think MN yes.
Foregone Conclusion said: "Obama has taken over many key Clinton constituencies (e.g. women voters), and is doing as well with white, working-class men as any generic Democrat. Why should Hispanic support be any lower than the polling is showing?"
In fact, poll after poll shows Obama struggling with white women, particularly those over 50, once a core Democrat constituency. Also, doing as well with "working class men" as "any generic Democrat", it sounds like you are damning Obama with faint praise.
I am assuming you are comparing Obama to Kerry and Gore, both of whom lost. In this biggest Democrat year since 1976, Obama's performance remains underwhelming.
There is no real explanation for why Obama is doing so well among Hispanics. Bush showed that Republicans can penetrate that group and McCain has historically shown sympathy to their issues.
Obama's appeal to Hispanics is not racial. It is grounded in ideology and perhaps a suspicion of the Republican Party as the anti-immigrant party.
Again, my suspicion is that McCain can make up ground in this group. He will make his move later in the race, once Obama has been shown once and for all to be anathema to the nativist elements in the population.
I'm surprised that some people think MN could be close. 3 of the last 4 polls there have given Obama leads of 17, 17, and 13 points.
Pete, Obama is doing considerably better with white women - and women in general - than Kerry did. Although that's true for nearly every demographic under the sun except Democrats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/obama-outperforming-kerry-among-nearly.html
You might say, 'oh, but Kerry lost.' Yes, but Kerry lost by a relatively small margin. Obama actually needs very few votes to win the popular vote.
As for why Hispanics are so strong for Obama... we tend to forget that Bush is almost the most Hispanic-friendly Republican out there. He speaks Spanish, was dedicated to moderate and sensible immigration reform, and values his ties to them. But his failure to overcome the resistance of Republicans in Congress marked a sharp deterioration of relations between Hispanics and the GOP (never mind that McCain was a pragmatic moderate on immigration reform).
Sorry, MN isn´t close.
Kerry won white women in 2004 by 51% to 49%. Obviously non-white men and women went for Kerry too. So Bush won only because of overwhelming support amongst white men. Obama is still going to lose with white men but if he can just improve Kerry's figures by a few percentage points he wins the election. And it looks like younger white men are going to vote for him in greater numbers than for Kerry, so that could be enough.
Mmmmm . . .it must be one of those false memes that Obama is having trouble with white voters. A creation of the MSM to stir the pot and make a horserace out of nothing.
What FConclusion said about Bush could really be said about McCain. The man stuck his head in a noose to try and get comprehensive immigration reform, partnering with no less a champion of immigrants' rights than Ted Kennedy. I wonder if all that is forgotten.
Let's wait for the exit polls in 2008, perhaps?
One thing that pisses me off about the Virginia polls (especially Survey USA) is their regional crosstabs. They put "shenandoah/Southwest" as one category when they are culturally and demographically very distinct regions.
It makes about as much sense as putting Albany and Manhattan in the same region in a NY state poll.
The basic analysis of states that will define this election is straightforward: hold the Kerry states, get Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, score 273 EV's and pack the moving van. But, I would add that Obama also needs to focus on defending Michigan and New Hampshire.
Michigan is a lot tighter than I would like to see it and the Detroit mess adds unneeded volatility to the mix, especially if they let him speak at the convention.
The polling is tight in NH and there's a large reservoir of Hillary support. I wouldn't lock this one down yet. Kerry carried it, but was a neighbor.
Iowa is a lock for Obama, New Mexico looks good but Colorado will be a battle. I agree.
Pennsylvania is out of reach for McCain (or, put another way, if Pennsylvania is seriously in play in October then Obama is in trouble). Agree.
I have said all along that I think Ohio and Florida will be stretches for Obama but that he should invest Media $$$ there to force McCain to spend his resources--he shouldn't spend a lot of time there.
Without Kaine on the ticket, I think Virginia is a pipe dream. They should waste little or no resources in Georgia, North Carolina and most of the South and Mountain and Plains states.
I don't have access to the McCain internal polling, but if it shows that Romney won't hurt enough with the base to cause trouble among conservatives in places like Colorado, Florida or suburban Ohio, then picking Romney and telling him to spend 110% of his time in Michigan, Nevada and neighboring New Hampshire wouldn't be a bad idea. It doesn't matter if Romney costs McCain a few points in states that he's already going to win by 15, if he adds a couple of points in MI and NH. Ridge would probably send the base into a frenzy. Also, I think that Obama would still carry the State with Casey working the north and middle.
I agree with those who argue that Richardson is a tabloid headline waiting to happen and, more substantively, that the country might not be ready for a Black/Latino ticket. However, he would lock down NM and probably would secure Colorado, would make Nevada tight and would also cause trouble in Florida for McCain.
humanist:
interesting analysis. thanks.
i'll take your word on the numbers and comment as follows:
i'm not worried about the vast majority of your "setback" and "major setback" states as we're not going to carry them, but am concerned that Michigan, Nevada and Colorado are all on the "setback" list (I assume that the leads in HI and VT are so great that the 2.0 and 1.5 point setbacks are nothing to worry about.)
Thanks again.
Chris schreiner:
No. If he holds the Kerry states but just carries one of Colorado or Virginia he ends up with 261 or 265 EV's respectively. Even with Iowa and Colorado he still falls two EV's short. Iowa and Virginia would do it, but I think that Virginia is a pipe dream without Kaine (or Webb) on the ticket--it's the state we love to think we can "finally carry this year," but haven't in ages and won't this year unless the dynamic of the election fundamentally shifts in the last two weeks towards an Obama landslide, which is possible but not likely.
As a resident of Colorado, I find it a bit hard to have to endure CO being a key battleground state (let alone hosting the DNC) and I find the naivete of outsiders of the state amusing. Colorado is not in any way, shape or form homogeneous and it is a state in constant flux. It's like a microcosm of the US. In the west, we have ranchers in the south farmers who hire migrant workers to pick their fruit and vegetable crops. In the mountains we've got ski resorts and gambling and all along the front range(that heavily populated strip of land between the mountains and the plains) we have biotechnology and other industry and then in the east we have wheat fields of the plains that we affectionately refer to as Kansas (looks just like our neighboring state) .
The city of Boulder home of the University of Colorado is so left wing that Colorado natives call it the Republic of Boulder., there are more PhDs pumping gas there than you can shake a stick at (and more New Age Cults). Denver is like any big city with minority populations and all the latest businesses. We've had a huge influx of people from California into the Souther metro area. Colorado Springs is the home to Focus on the Family, a very conservative Christian group.
So yes It could be close which every way you go, and yet driving through a particular part of the state might give one the wrong impression.
For example I live in a western suburb of Denver and work across the street from the Pepsi Center. I've yet to see one McCain bumper sticker or yard sign, but I'm sure if I drove to the Springs or Gunnison things would be different. Colorado's polls will need to be dissected very carefully to make sense of them.
Oh and that Romney bounce in MI could back fire in Colorado (and other states) as some fundamental Christians would be uncomfortable with a Mormon a heart beat away from the presidency
Things are definitely murky.
What about the 500,000 Arabs in Michigan? I have read almost nothing about this cohort.
They are anti-McCain due to his enthusiasm for killing Arabs, but how politically active are they? How organized? Is Obama tapping this group?
JohnNYC: what we see is a early June-to-August comparison, which represents a mild uptick for Obama, so there must be some setbacks as well. The rough grained story is of the Kerry states becoming a bit bluer and *some* Bush states becoming a bit redder - that's a normal tightening process. The net result was that Obama put out of contention a number of Kerry states (PA, WI, perhaps even NH), while McCain did not manage to put out of contention any Bush state that was seriously contested before. This provides for the sense that McCain's options are closing while Obama's remain open.
dan
They voted almost as a block for the chimp in 00, on promises never delivered. Unlike many in the US, they vote for their self-interest, not who is perceived a shallower celebrity.
I'd guess that would be bad news for Krusty.
SLScott: I think the regression is too corase grained, and dependent in many cases on a few isolated polls, to be used for State-by-State comparison. Remember that Vermont figures in the 538 regression that is fed into Vermont itself; and it is sufficiently idiosyncratic so that a very skewed poll there might create a false impression about Vermont demographics.
The way to use the 538 regression that we have is as a tool for broad generalizations, which is why I look at the Kerry and Clinton/Obama variables.
I am surprised that no one takes up the discussion of my (impressionistic) claim that the Obama uptick does not coincide with Clinton support. It's a very counterintuitive result if true and may tell us something deep about the race.
More to SLScott:
My fantasy methodological tool is a poll designed purely for the sake of a dynamic demographic analysis. What I would do is to pick 50 US counties on a random basis (not necessarily one per State) and have a very big tracking poll of the counties. Counties are definite demographic points, so the demographic analysis would be very precise, allowing perhaps more variables than Nate uses. And you could definitely produce a week-by-week analysis of the dynamics.
The point is that it is silly to poll geographic units. What we should really aim to poll are demographic units.
I hope the Obama Campaign is running such a poll!
Animal Talker has a good synopsis of Colorado.
Only certain types of Democrats can do well here. Obama is popular because he's emphasizing his "post partisan" "lets get things done" approach to politics. That appeals very strongly to Westerners who tend to be more libertarian than traditional liberal. Hillary would be dead here, McCain would win by about 8%.
There are more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans and they have swung Democratic in recent elections. But they don't want to see divisive politics as usual. McCain is trying to sour them on Obama by a Swift-boating ad campaign. But, so far it isn't working and it's unlikely to work.
Like everywhere, McCain has to hope that he can rally Republicans and depress Independent turnout, while closely splitting them with Obama, in short Bush's strategy from 2004.
Republicans have screwed things up so much over the last 8 years that like everywhere people are inclined to embrace change. Thus, we've elected Ken Salazar Senator, and will elect Mark Udall this year, put Democratic majorities in both houses of the Legislature, picked up 2 seats to gain a Democratic majority in the Congressional delegation, and put Bill Ritter in the Governor's mansion.
Obama has the advantage since his campaign appeals more to Independents who are the key constituency here. We're not all keen on drilling for oil either, because drilling is taking place in our back-yard. Many rural land-owners don't own the mineral rights on their land. Plus, oil development threatens to suck down the water-table and dry up our supply. We're very water conscious here.
Dan--
On Muslim Americans. Obama has been very remote to this constituency, treating them as people from whom he must keep his distance. This has been widely reported in the press and has no doubt caused consternation in their community.
Obama's extremist views on abortion and his adoption of the left wing pro-Gay rights agenda on social issues will not stand him in good stead.
Finally his much ballyhooed Christianity will play poorly as well. Under Sharia law Obama was born a Muslim (the father's lineage). Anyone who converts from the Faith is considered an Apostate and should be put to death.
I suspect his support in Muslim communities will be lukewarm at best. At bottom they will see him as an opportunist who will use them as scapegoats the first chance he gets, if only to prove his "Americaness".
3 Things that help the GOP in Michigan.
1. Democratic Governor is not liked at all. She has raised taxes and their economy is getting drilled.
----This economy has been getting driled for year, and it's a state that has always been run by the Democrats.
2. Detroit Mayor, a huge Obama supporter, went to jail last week. This could help out McCain in surburban Detroit where people may be hesistant now to elect an AA as President.
3. Romney. I know you Dems continue to drill the fact he won't help here, but when internal polls say otherwise, then you may very well be wrong. This state is most certainly a toss-up state.
BTW. I am a Catholic and at first the reason I was against Romney was the religion. Then my man Rudy lost so I backed Romney because I didn't mind the Mormonism as much as I once did.
The conservatives have an internal war going on right now. The fiscal conservatives want Romney, the social conservatives want Pawlenty.
In the end, you got to go with the fiscal minded one, because Pawlenty will help you no where! The south is safe for McCain.
WWW.MVRED.COM
PeteKent, you're right that Obama has slighted Muslim-American supporters time and time again. But the likelihood that they'll break for McCain is extremely remote.
Furthermore, most Muslims living in the U.S. have no interest in strict sharia law as practiced by hard-liners in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.
Mark--
I doubt US Muslims will vote for McCain, but I think they won't be difference for Obama either.
****
As far as VP picks go: I like Rob Portman. he is both a fiscal and social conservative with executive experience and real smarts, plus he can help nail down Ohio.
clarkejeffrey points to a lower turnout ratio for AA as compared to Kerry...but i read somewhere, i think TPM, that they also mentioned this as well, however, when they went to the pollster (may have been a different pollster and a different southern state) but he said that he believed that the Kerry exit polls were wrong and that he felt that they overestimated AA turnout...in this state it was 25 percent but he thought it was really about 20 percent. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
humanist:
thanks for answering. i agree 100% re PA and WI, but disagree that NH is anywhere near out of reach for McCain. He's well-liked there, as is Hillary.
I am still very nervous about state polls and predicting an overall EV or Popular Vote outcome this early. My view, honed over years of being engaged in this, is that the contours of the election take shape in the national polls in late August (maybe two weeks later this year due to the late conventions) and begin to become usefully predictive of how soft voters and undecideds will break in September. What is being done here by trying to nail this in the summer is very interesting and, if proven correct, will be quite revolutionary (and we will have hundreds of data points by which to judge the methodology by the time this is over).
I'm not a pollster nor am I a professional statistician, but I know enough to know what I don't know and to know what does and doesn't make sense. I like what I see here for the most part, but I am wary of trying to project this thing so early. There are too many unknowns and unknowables that are injecting and will inject uncertainty into an outcome that will be derived within a universe of 125,000,000+ voters and influenced by candidates' errors, unarticulated (unarticulateable?)voter motivations/bias and a volatile global arena. That RCP's methodology called the 2004 election within two or three tenths of a point--a few days before the vote was held--remains my gold standard. It's a simple, understandable and readily explained methodology; I'm eager to see if it can be improved upon.
Even the oft-praised prediction markets are only distilling the CW at this point and don't differ much from the daily average of 17 bookies that I track. The prediction markets are not a bunch of traders sitting around and making markets in currencies or commodities about which they have deep knowledge and which they have studied all their lives, but a bunch of folks (including many in Europe and Asia) reflecting what they read and hear. Do I think that the odds are about 60/40 that Obama will win? Yes and that is reflected in Intrade and by the bookies, whose numbers are almost identical (though you can argue whether the Intraders are proactive and the bookies are reactive, but that's another discussion).
How do I know that it's 60/40? I don't. It's what my gut, years of getting my hands dirty in the political arena and a lot of sources suggest to me is going to happen. But, I wouldn't wager beyond the parameters of my own risk profile that it will happen.
I also know that it's statistically tautological to say that it's 60/40 for Obama at the mean, but that he also could lose or win in a landslide.
PeteKent,
"Finally his much ballyhooed Christianity will play poorly as well. Under Sharia law Obama was born a Muslim (the father's lineage). Anyone who converts from the Faith is considered an Apostate and should be put to death."
1)The vast majority of Muslims in this country do not care what sharia law says;
2)It's quite possible those few that do care what it says would vote for Obama, for the simple reason that they hate Bush/McCain foreign polict far more than Obama's;
3)as you well know, no Muslim cleric, even in places like Saudi Arabia, has endorsed this particular horrifically stupid GOP talking point.
The most important one of these three, however, is point 1. The reason Michigan Arabs will likely turn out for Obama is because a large swath of the GOP takes horrifically stupid talking points such as this one seriously, completely uncaring of how ridiculously insulting it sounds to mainstream Muslims.
Up next: Obama won't get the Jewish vote because Jews hate Muslims and resent Obama's hijacking of the Jew-controlled media?
Humanist:
Humanist wrote: The point is that it is silly to poll geographic units. What we should really aim to poll are demographic units.
That is exactly what I am trying to say in my longer post (just saw your comment). Geographic polls, even organized around arbitray state boundaries, can not capture, this early, what is happening.
To use my language, the national polls begin to provide the contours of how the nation is feeling by the end of August (or two weeks later this year because of the late conventions), which contours are then reflected in the movement of undecided and swing voters across the country in September (late September this year).
To use your language, random demographic polls will reveal the underlying dynamics that will determine how undecided and swing voters will break in September.
This happens in election after election when an election is competitively contested, as this year's indeed will be. It did not hold in 1964, 1972, 1984 and 1996 when the results were foregone conclusions by the conventions.
Pete -
Calling Obama's abortion stance "extremist" is going to cement your reputation as a troll.
Prof424:
I couldn't disagree more with your proposed state by state strategy.
Pouring resources into Florida is a waste of Obama's people. Barring an exogenous event, he's not going to carry the state. I'd put some money into advertising there, but just to make McCain spend. I wouldn't flood the state with people but would send them to Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Michigan.
I would never say that PA, IA or MN are "winnable" for McCain . I do think, though, that he has a chance in MI because of recent events in Detroit, because the Arab American vote cannot be taken for granted and because, I know folks don't like to hear this, Mitt Romney will help him there, whether or not he is on the ticket.
I also think that Missouri is a waste of resources, other than to spend to keep McCain spending there. Virginia is our favorite pipe dream every year, but we never win it and we won't again this year without Kaine (or Webb) on the ticket. Again, invest to keep McCain honest. Ditto for Montana and Indiana. We ain't gonna win there, even with Birch Bayh's son on the ticket.
You're right that NC is a stretch; Johnny Edwards' shennanigans just made it even more so. We're not going to win Georgia unless he puts Sam Nunn on the ticket and even then it would be a problem.
Obama has to focus, focus, focus. He has to hold the Kerry states (especially NH, MI and PA, the latter being fairly safe in my opinion) and pick up Iowa. Then he has to secure New Mexico, go all out to win Colorado and keep Nevada in play as long as possible, maybe picking it up. If that scenario isn't viable then the other states that you mention will be even further out of reach and even greater wastes of money and people. Anything over those 273 EV's is gravy and putting getting them at the center of his efforts and spending is a waste of Obama's money, people and energy unless something occurs to change the underlying dynamic of this race.
I firmly believe that we're going to win this thing, but Obama's inability to break out in the polls has convinced me that it's going to be a battle. We're not getting anymore than Ronnie Reagan's 1980, 50.7% of the Popular Vote and we're not carrying states we haven't carried in decades (or without a Southern Candidate at the top of the ticket) unless "something happens," and we shouldn't bet on that.
I agree with JohnNYC. I think Virginia and Indiana are both potentially winnable (partly due to changing demographics), but Obama needs to focus on holding down or expanding his leads in Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, and New Hampshire. If he takes those states, he wins the election even if he doesn't flip Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, or Nevada.
Obama could do with some pre- or post-RNC rallies alongside Rep. Keith Ellison in Minnesota, if he wants a good chance at strong Democratic Arab-American turnout in Michigan's urban areas and wants to make sure his lead in Minnesota doesn't erode (I don't think it will, but completely blowing off a state that your opponent is pursuing aggressively is a bad idea...which is why I think Indiana is still in play).
Kindly explain to me, Dan, your remark: "Calling Obama's abortion stance 'extremist' is going to cement your reputation as a troll."
Is there a less extreme position than Senator Obama's? Perhaps someone has called for permissible infanticide six months post utero.
He is for the murder of babies in the womb -- partial birth abortion where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
He was the only legislator in the IL State senate to speak out against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama says he opposed the Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. How that makes me a troll is beyond me.
What it makes the two of you is complicit in murder.
Oh dear, PeteKent demonstrates to all and sundry just why America is sick and tired of the Republican lie machine.
Do you seriously think that anyone actually believes a word of what you say?
We all know that the GOP is the party of infanticide. Iraqi children are children too (although probably not in your Fox News fantasy world).
You forget, P Smith, that Barack Hussein, I mean Saddam Obama, dipped children in acid and gassed them with biological weapons.
Yoru suggestion that the US is complicit in the murder of Iraqi children exposes you for the anti-American, left wing zealot that you are.
You are the reason that people do not vote for Obama. You dare to speak what he cannot.
That said, please tell me which lies I wrote in my prior post responding to Dan.
The U.S. is complicit in the murder of Iraqi children.
I have an American flag hanging on my bedroom wall and I'm center-right. But I'm smart enough to know what a bomb dropped on a house does to the children playing on the floor inside.
It's a logical fallacy to translate the statement that the U.S. caused the deaths of Iraqi children into a defense of a vile dictator. No one is arguing that Saddam was a nice old man - quit acting like the anti-war crowd are apologists for the Ba'athist regime.
Hilarious. Trust a GOP fanboy to completely miss the point. My point is that it is easy to take a few talking points and twist them to come up with extreme statements such as your ludicrous misportrayal of Obama's position on abortion. I'm not going to engage you on it because I know you're not interested in the truth, but only in regurgitating conservative blog hate speech. If you're truly interested go do some proper research.
As for Saddam, yes, he was evil. I am so glad that he was armed and trained by Reagan, as was Bin Laden. Great long term judgment.
And no, I don't actually accuse Bush of infanticide. I don't need to. I accuse him of intentionally fighting the wrong war and giving a free pass to the murderers who actually attacked our country on 9/11. History will be the judge.
Mark, In war there are necessary evils, but we fight them to suppress greater ones.
PSmith cannot marshall a single argument to counter that Obama is an extremist on abortion, an absoulutist who would refuse medical atention to babies born alive after a botched abortion because it might in some way undermine Roe v. Wade. Tell me where that is not extreme? Or barbaric? Or murderous?
Isn't it all made worse by the fact that millions of African American lives have been stilled in the womb in the greatest genocide in human history?
Stop treating abortion as a sacrament and recognize it for the evil that it is. And recognize that the culture of death that underpins it (and the death penalty -- which found a new fan in Obama this year) is what is degrading our society.
PSmith, show me how Obama is not an extremist on abortion. I call you out!
The invasion of Iraq was no more "necessary" than the invasions of Zimbabwe, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Russia, the People's Republic of China, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Belarus. Still waiting for those.
There are lots of bad people in this world. Some people think that means that America should go beat them all up to save all the good people. Those people are naive.
Don't be naive.
What did Belarus do? Tell me! I will go over there and kick their ass!!!
Belarus's president is widely acknowledged as having been reelected illegitimately. Some have accused him of being a Russian puppet. My working theory is that Belarus hasn't yet realized that the Soviet Union collapsed almost twenty years ago.
That's it Mark! Let's go kick their ass!
On a more serious note, Read the Steve Huntley in today’s Chicago Sun Times Very good statement of the state of play re Georgia. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article Pick it up off Real Clear Politics.
On the Georgian War, Obama showed no leadership. He basically followed the lead of the President Bush and John McCain.
McCain in particular showed leadership on this. While Bush seemed to squander the opportunity to confront Putin in Beijing, McCain got out in front and condemned the Russians for their naked act of aggression against our democratic ally and vowed to make them pay, a sentiment echoed at the Bush administration. And a couple of days later by the Obama campaign.
Obama was lead by McCain on this.
He got himself schooled.
Ready to lead?
Does anyone know if the Hays Research poll in Alaska is reliable?
The reactionary in me sides with McCain on the Georgia/Russia conflict. The reactionary in me is suspicious of the Russians and quick to rise in condemnation when they appear to do bad things.
The realist in me likes what Obama did better. He appealed for peace and asked all sides to exercise clear judgment, and when the situation continued to escalate and new information indicated that Russia was pushing the offensive too far (into Georgia proper), Obama joined in the international chorus telling Russia to stand down.
Jumping on every action Russia undertakes and slamming them will not contribute to healthy U.S.-Russia relations. They've already suffered under the so-called leadership of still-President Bush, and they don't need to be strained any further. I don't trust Russia, I don't like the Russian government, but I'd rather have them on our side than staunchly against us...which is where McCain would push them.
The Russians have already broken the cease fire. They need to be shown that naked agression will be resisted. They need to pay a price in the interantional community. Under no circumstances would we want to go to war over this, but they need to be made unwelcome in the family of nations. The globalization that has occuured since the fall of the Soviet Union will make them much more likely to pay heed to appropriate and stern reaction.
Obama of course only fumbled and eventually adopted the Bush-McCain position on this b/c he did not want to expose his flank to attack. He showed no leadersip at all.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ very nice
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,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,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,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!! ^@^
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,
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