8.20.2008

Today's Polls, 8/20

By any and all polling-based metrics, the race for the White House is extremely tight. However, we present three slightly different projections of the November outcome, and they each tell a slightly different story:



Our popular vote projection shows a literal tie, with each of Barack Obama and John McCain projected to earn 48.5 percent of the vote, and third-party candidates receiving a collective 3 percent.

Things get confusing, however, when looking at the electoral college. We project Obama to earn slightly more electoral votes on average. However, we also project John McCain to win the election slightly more often. What accounts for the discrepancy? Obama's wins tend to be larger, and McCain's tend to be smaller. If Obama wins this election by between 7 or 10 points, there are very few high-EV states that he won't be able to put into play; even something like Texas is probably winnable. If McCain were to win by that margin, on the other hand, he would still almost certainly lose New York, he would almost certainly lose Illinois, and he would almost certainly lose California. Those states represent 107 electoral votes that are essentially off-limits to McCain, even on his very best days.

But when the election is close -- and this is the case that we really care about -- McCain has appeared to develop a slight advantage in the electoral math. There are several states on our map that are colored light pink, meaning that they tip very slightly to the Republicans; these include Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Montana and Nevada, in each of which Obama has better than a 25 percent chance of winning, but less than a 50 percent chance. There are a fairly large number of scenarios, then, where Obama comes tantalizingly close to a victory, but loses several different battleground states by mere points or fractions thereof. This dynamic is fairly fluid, however, and if Obama were able to get a toehold somewhere like Colorado or Virginia, it could quickly reverse itself.

Does all of this mean that you should short Obama in the futures markets, which still show him as roughly a 60:40 favorite?

Not necessarily. Our model accounts for the topline results of the polls in as comprehensive a way as is possible, but it does not account for nonpolling factors such as turnout and ground game, macroeconomic conditions, or the probability of certain future events (like the conventions) tending to favor one or another candidate. The Obama campaign, I think, has good reasons not to panic; the facts and figures that we hear about their ground game in off-record conversations never fail to impress, and the campaign has a keen sense of how to play out the rest of the political calendar, in contrast to recent weeks where they had let McCain dictate the narrative. But the McCain campaign, just as surely, has reason to be pleased. Their candidate was never going to win a blowout election, but they are setting themselves up well to win a close one.

Finally, here are the state polling results, which we'll simply present today as a data dump.




147 comments

editor said...

This is not over. It's just beginning.

Koziol said...

Nate, I'd love to see a senate update. It's been over a week and there are lots of new polls

James said...

Good day of state polling for McCain. NH is a state I would definitely watch. The NC result looks good for Obama but it seems to me that state is sort of becoming what New Jersey is for the GOP. The MO result, in combination with others we've seen over the last few weeks, seems to put that state out of play for Obama. I expected nothing different in MD and AZ

Irene said...

Remember the polls before Iowa? Remember how all over the map they were, and how the ground game made for a blowout? I think Nov. 4 will be pretty interesting. Especially now that McCain supports the draft.

LL (tommi) T said...

In the interest of transparency I would appreciate and I doubt that I am alone in 538 disclosing it's financial obligation/rewards with RR. This is not to denigrate Nate's work which I personally admire but rather to more fully understand any implied conflicts of interests regarding such a heavy dependence by 538 on RR which is clearly a right-wing polling agency.

Harper said...

The draft? Wow!

James: I think NC is actually moving towards Obama. 3/4 of the polls show him within 4 points. A strong ground game can make that up.

Also, lets not freak out. Obama took a week off and has been playing catch up. Dems are going to get a big bounce at the convention and the PUMAs will die off for good. The GOP convention isnt going to be very effective since it is pro-GOP. The only thing bringing McCain success is the anti-Obama vote.

De Montfort said...

McCain's lead in NC is now 1.7 and this is a good day for him? huh?

Andy said...

The one good piece of news for Obama is the North Carolina poll, where he's just 1.7% behind McCain. He still has a lead in the national polls, however.

Darío said...

Hey, let´s see that.

http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/20/barack-obama-chooses-kathleen-sebelius-for-vice-president/

John Nail said...

Nate, per my posts on the "base" bounce that to me is the key to all this. If we solidify next week and HRC and Bubba come thru then this is game over. If we do not pick up the 5-7% we are missing in the base plus a 'bounce" then God knows where we end up...I still feel pretty confident based on the numbers and other factors.
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/&blogId=3176

eponymous said...

Only real surprising result here is NC imo. I expect NH to be very, very close come November and NC to end up going to McCain by a somewhat small margin. I won't believe it has a real chance to flip until there's a poll with Obama ahead. Other than that these results seem pretty much expected.

I think we're going to be seeing the result of this election in the next couple of weeks. If Obama doesn't change his strategy, I'd put good money on McCain. If he does change it, who knows what will happen...

Virginia Conservative said...

Obama will get a small convention bump, but after the Republican convention and 9/11 it will only get worse for him from there.

Citizen Grim said...

This, too, shall pass.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama Plan

Lets admit it when McCain does a good job and Obama does not. McCain has been the better candidate for a while now and the polls are reflecting that. This is where a good leader must find the problem and fix it the problems are:

1. McCain is killing you in media narrative. he has a media machine intent on focusing media attention through spin and TV ads and daily talking points while Obama has none of these. Does he think you can let the McCain camp control media coverage and it not have an effect? The MSM is a beast that must be fed, McCain is feeding it, Obama is not.

2. Play Offense
Obama has been on defense for 2 months, stop explaining and start attacking.

3. Play politics
We know Obama hates the "Political game" but thats what it is and your running for president. Stop this high-minded nonsense and get in the game. We all know the GOP is full of shit, but it works, stop the holier than though stuff and get in the game

4. Pick Biden or Hillary
You need an experienced attack dog. that democrats like. Stop with the change you can believe in and go with Change worth fighting for.

Implementing these changes will right the ship and lead to victory, not doing it will lead to a rather humiliating defeat.

emperorwillis said...

it's been a HUGE week for McCain? at best he's tied. The hot streak will probably come to an end as soon as Obama's VP is announced. The its Obama's turn to go on a little run .. then back and forth until the debates. gotta love it.

llywrch said...

Zogby was on Ed Schultz earlier today, & was a lot less excited about his poll findings than one might think. He thought it was all part of the natural ebb-&-flow typical at this point of the election: the conservatives were alarmed at Obama's performance in Berlin, & were beginning to rally around McCain, while the progressives were disappointed with Obama's latest stands (e.g. FISA), & were drifting away from him.

Nothing that Obama couldn't correct; nothing McCain couldn't blow with another gaffe (like claiming that the "cross in the sand" happened to him -- although Colson & others said it had happened to Solzhenitsyn).

Geoff

Virginia Conservative said...

I predict maybe a 2 or 3 point convention bounce for Obama. Really anemic, nothing more. Just like Kerry.

Mark said...

I actually agree, VC. And with Bush and Cheney, among other administration officials, putting in their speeches at the Republican National Convention, I expect little better for Johnny Mac.

The timing is unfortunate for Obama, and the incumbency is unfortunate for McCain.

Virginia Conservative said...

Mark-

But the Republican convention is around 9/11. Bush's approval jumps everytime the week of 9/11 comes, and Republican's prospects improve (even in 2006!)

It will be like a double-bounce. The 2006 one could've kept the Senate Republican and narrowed the loss of the House, were it not for Mark Foley.

Darren said...

Nate, a month or two ago you noted that Intrade and your win percentages were very close, validating the predictive nature of the model. Now that they've diverged, do you plan on trying to incorporate some of the factors you mentioned like ground game, etc. that Intrade speculators do when predicting the result? Or do you feel this model is a better predictor of the result than Intrade right now (which is reasonable considering they have imperfect information).

bjb1968 said...

BO's campaign is in a death spiral and if they don't pull up hard next week they are toast. He needs at least a 10 point bump next week to overcome the GOP full court press that will start soon after. I do not expect the GOP to continue to run such a tame campaign moving forward. I'd expect all the skeletons in BO's closet to be put on major national display.

Bob said...

McCain has been vastly outspending Obama on Advertising. He is relying on the Rep. Party to provide ground offices almost exclusively. He has to spend all of his money by early Sept. When he begins to be limited by the spending caps and starts getting outspent on advertising it will be interesting to see if all of this spending in July and August has any tangible lasting value. Its not a sprint. Obama has to kick it in after the convention.

De Montfort said...

@Virginia Conservative,

The RNC is over a week before 9-11. Thats a lifetime in politics. And Woodward's latest book(which I understand will be devastating) comes out between the RNC and 9-11.

L Lawson said...

It's going to get much worse before it gets better...if it ever does.

I'm a Democrat, pro-Obama, and believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that John McCain will, very unfortunately, win this election.

America, as a whole, isn't bright enough to understand truth. It feeds on lies and drama; that fact, more than any other, will give McCain a win.

Virginia Conservative said...

Woodward goes whichever way the wind blows. If McCain is ahead he will spin it as a pro-Republican book. The guy is possibly the most boring man in journalism.

Franco said...

Hey Virginia Conservative; keep dreaming pomm wheei..the only thing that will be worse after the reTHUG convention is your roids, that you got from being farged by Karl Rove and his surrogates...loser

Virginia Conservative said...

Whats more, people aren't identifying McCain with Bush.

The "Bush Third Term" strategy isn't working. I don't know why you guys aren't smart enough to cut it out.

PeteKent said...

Nate says: "[Obama] the campaign has a keen sense of how to play out the rest of the political calendar"

I'd be interested in seeing it, b/c it seems like the campaign is getting away from him.

Obama is increasingly being defined as a tax loving radical who is not ready to be President. There are multiple buttons to push against him -- including the celebrity meme -- that that the McCain campaign can just keep hammering him in different ways and keep him off balance.

Nate is surely right that McC cannot win NY, IL and CA, but he certainly can win MI and PA and that, my friends, will be seen as a landslide and repudiation.

It will be interesting to see who agrees to be his VP. Biden, Rendell, Strickland have all basically taken their names out of contention. I don't think HRC would take it, if offered.

Sibelius would be a Clinton trap.

Bayh is a net zero.

Kaine would be a disaster. What a pair: the State Senator and the City Councilman running for President.

McCain - Portman '08

Franco said...

Virginia conservative worrying about "smart" bwwahahahahahahahhaha
those Rush Limpballs ditto heads reTHUGS wouldn't know smart if ir hit them over their lizard brains...bwahahahah

Citizen Grim said...

Srsly, imagine if New Hampshire gives McCain the bump he needs to win the election. (It's at 9% on the tipping state list.)

Heads would roll.

Heck, heads would explode.

Darío said...

Barack is a toast.

Franco said...

and McCone is an OLD racist roll

De Montfort said...

@Virginia Conservative

You can believe that if you want, but Woodward's book is about the mess inside the white house re: Iraq. Thats probably impossible to spin as a positive for McCain unless Woodward specifically points out McCain doing something positive.

Virginia Conservative said...

Aw I never had an internet fan before Franco!

*kiss kiss* < 3

Love you, too!

bjb1968 said...

L Lawson "America, as a whole, isn't bright enough to understand truth. It feeds on lies and drama; that fact, more than any other, will give McCain a win."


That is the issue with the libs. They think anyone with real world smarts and common sense isn't "bright". That dim idea is the true weakness of the libs. Yes Americans are much smarter than you think and yes they do see through Obamas lies. He lied about Ayers, lied about his support of murder of live human babies who survive abortion, lied about Rev Wright and on and on.

Robby said...

Where's jack black to tell us that whoever's winning in the third week of August is guaranteed to lose the election in November?

McCain's hammering away with all that money he has to burn, while Obama's saving it for the post-Labor Day dash. I'm not at all surprised by the race tightening; if anything, I'm surprised that it took this long to happen.

Does these numbers dampen the possibility of an Obama blowout win? It would certainly seem to. If the election were held today, would McCain have the advantage? My goodness yes. Is the election actually going to be held today? Thank goodness no.

Obama's team has already taken on and defeated his toughest political opponent: Hillary Clinton. If they're good enough to beat her, they're good enough to win this thing in November.

Darren said...

VA Con - do you have a source for the 9/11 bounce in 2006? I do not recall seeing it.

Virginia Conservative said...

de montfort--

The War in Iraq is over. We've won. The militias are disarmed. There are no more casualties. Al Qaeda is eliminated there, the Shia militias have demobilized and disbanded.

So, whats supposed to be so negative about that again?

If we had listened to Obama Al Qaeda and Shia Death Squads would be running Iraq as we speak. I really look forward to that final foreign policy debate in October!

mbw said...

A technical point on Ohio:
Rasmussen is consistently shifted far toward JM compared to the other pollsters. I believe this is a consequence of R's party weighting procedure, which I think is to start with the 2004 exit stats for each state and then apply a uniform national poll-based shift. That's a reasonable procedure in most cases, but not when there's reason to expect a state to show unusual shifts in party voter percents. In 2004 OH had a completely Rep. govt. which did everything it could to suppress Dem votes. Now it has a completely Dem govt. (itself indicating an above-average party shift) which is making efforts to facilitate voting. So R's OH #'s are likely to be wrong. That still leaves OH very much in the air, but probably not as pink as you have it.

LL (tommi) T said...

Come on guys don't feed the troll. Virginia Conservative's normal site (limbaugh arse kissers.com) is prob down for maintenance.

Darío said...

L Lawson, i´m not american and understand your comment very anti-american.

Franco said...

good one LL tommi...you are right a limpballs troll is Virginia CON........thanks to the Rassmussen connection this has become a freeper MalKKKinite site..it is a real shame

Darío said...

Most internet sites said that Obama chooses Sebelius.

Darren said...

The "Bush Third Term" strategy isn't working. I don't know why you guys aren't smart enough to cut it out.

The "Reagan Third Term" strategy didn't work well either, nor did the "Roosevelt Fifth Term" in 1948. And the other modern would-be successors - Nixon '60, Humphrey '68, Ford '76, and Gore '00 - all lost very narrowly. I don't think the public pays any attention to this particular argument.

Darío said...

Rasmussen conection?.
What are you smoking?.

De Montfort said...

@VC,

It doesn't matter what Iraq is doing now, if Woodward writes a book about how fucked up the White House was during the war and even during the surge, it hurts the GOP that much more. McCain doesn't want to discuss the past with Iraq, he wants to discuss the future-and any day that's spend rehashing Iraq from 2003-2007, its a bad day for McCain.

bjb1968 said...

Robby, Hill beat herself Obama just won by default. Anyone would have beat that mess of an organization she put together and way over paid.

Obama's vaunted teen age driven street machine will prove to be nothing but a coffee club.

PAGOP said...

I said a while ago Obama was going to have a big problem with Catholics (Kerry won 47%). Zogby now has Obama at 36% and it's not going to get much better. If he doesn't get that up to at least 44-45%, it's over.

anon said...

This is where I came when I was feeling anxiety about the race. Now, I don't think I can come back until a couple weeks after the conventions.
It is disheartening, despite the early date, though that the candidate who has tried to keep the campaign focused on the issues is now losing ground.
He's proved it before but I had hoped the electorate had learned that... Rove works.

Bernard von Schulmann said...

Objectively, McCain is the better man to have elected in 2008. Obama is not nearly ready to be president and is too defendant on questionable advisors.

Obama will be to the left what Bush jr was for the right. The Dems had a chance at a brilliant candidate in Richardson, but did the same moronic thing the GOP did 2000 - go for the blank slate person with an image.

I still think Obama will win because of his cash advantage and ground game. This will be bad for the rest of the world as Obama is not the man who can lead the US in world affairs.

Darío said...

Majority of Catholics went with Bush in 2004.

Robby said...

Vcon, when did you become just another rightwing troll?

Multiple taunting posts, one after the other, with no substance?

C'mon; I thought you were better than that.

===

Point being, both sides are wrong: there's no strong evidence of an Obama blowout victory, but there's not strong evidence of a McCain blowout victory either. This one will be fought in the trenches, as will every Presidential election from here on out. We're just too politically polarized for another '84 style landslide.

eponymous said...

L Lawson,

You're absolutely right. I have no faith in an American public that looked at Bush in 2004 and said "yeah, you seem like the right guy for the job." I have no idea why all the partisans on this site act like it's some huge triumph for their side when the people move in their direction. It didn't make Obama a good candidate last week and it doesn't make McCain a non-abysmal candidate now.

Virginia Conservative said...

Robby, I don't think it will be a blowout for either side as well.

If McCain wins, it will be by 1%. Ditto Obama, by 1%. Barr will hold the balance, neither may even get a majority.

Darren said...

Most internet sites said that Obama chooses Sebelius.

The Sebelius rumor is based on one of Obama's ad agencies supposedly working on Obama-Sebelius campaign material. There are probably 6 ad firms working on material for 6 different VPs. Just like they had T-shirts for both Giants and Patriots as Super Bowl XLII Champions ready to sell on February 3rd.

Robby said...

bjb1968

Go find the Obama strategy memo on the primaries. They were able to demographically predict basically the entire primary. There were very few surprises, and they did it all running against an incredibly skilled politician.

Did Clinton help with a few unforced errors? Certainly. But looking at the delegate count, Obama was gonna win the thing whether she messed up or not. All Clinton did was keep it from being close.

But if you want to go tell the McCain people to underestimate Obama's ground game, be my guest; I've got no problem watching the Dems run up the score.

Allen said...

Some of the # coming from the current projections just don't look right:

IA poll ave +5.7 -> proj +3.8
MI poll ave +3.9 -> proj +1.5
MT poll ave +0.2 -> proj -4.3
ND poll ave -2.1 -> proj -7.7
NM poll ave +5.9 -> proj +2.0
PA poll ave +7.2 -> proj +4.9
VA poll ave 0.0 -> proj -2.2
WI poll ave +7.7 -> proj +5.6

In each of these cases the Obama projection is significantly less optimistic than the poll average. It seems that the model may be "over-tracking" the recent swing toward McCain, but we'll know better in a few weeks.

PAGOP said...

Obama only won the nomination because of the caucuses and the proportional delegate rule. If they had the same rules as the GOP, then Clinton would have won. Please put Sebelius (sp?) on the ticket...more Clinton voters for McCain.

Kennyb said...

Citizen Grim,

Why would heads roll if the election tipped based on New Hampshire? New Hampshire was the #2 tipping state in 2000. After Florida, it was the closest Bush win (and the only state that Bush won in 2000 and lost in 2004). In fact, Gore lost by a smaller margin than the Nader vote in NH. Add to this toss-up history that McCain has probably held town halls in over 250 New Hampshire towns during his primary campaigns and personally met thousands of voters, and you have a tailor-made close election here. Furthermore, Obama's ground game in NH is unlikely to be as successful in NH as in other states, as we already have high voter participation. That said, we will not let Obama lose New Hampshire!

tomthress said...

"Obama only won the nomination because of the caucuses and the proportional delegate rule. If they had the same rules as the GOP, then Clinton would have won."

Obama won because he employed a strategy based on the rules the Democrats used to select their nominee. If they had the same rules as the GOP, then Obama would have employed a different strategy - which may have lost, but the mere fact that Clinton "won" the actual primary race under a set of hypothetical rules that weren't in effect doesn't prove that.

bjb1968 said...

Robby

I am 100% for BO blowing all his stash on teenage, pimple faced college girls instead of putting it up his nose. I hope he throws lots of cash towards the inner city, they can use a real economic boost and I'd rather they do it on his millions than my taxes.

The simple fact is Hill imploded. She got piss poor advice from a group of competing over paid advisors. Obama was in the right place at the right time. His consistant lies will continue to drag him down.

De Montfort said...

@BJB

How exactly would you characterize the GOP primaries exactly? McCain was left for dead, but after Thompson, Rudy and Mittens imploded he was the last one left standing...

humanist said...

What I think is a valid observation is that Obama now definitely needs a more-than-average convention bump; not because the electoral math now is so important but because we need some piece of evidence showing that the current slump hides some Obama numbers, that "the spring is tightened" somehow. Otherwise, we will have to conclude that there are voters Obama lost through July-august FOR GOOD, meaning the race can no longer be pulled in his direction.

I do think, though, his convention bump WILL be big. We'll see.

PAGOP said...

The days of big convention bumps are over:
1. The campaigns are like 2 years now.
2. The conventions aren't even worth watching unless you want to see another speech.

Overrated said...

Sedi -

Do you follow Intrade much? The trend is clearly against Obama. Intrade will not adjust 10-15 pts overnight unless massive amounts of data suggest that the current bid is wrong. I would equate the national election Intrade bid to a index fund that reflects the total market. It ebbs and flows daily, but the trend is established over time - thus bull or bear. One day or one week a market does not make. It is fair to say that Obama's stock is coming under increasing pressure. He was pushing 70 in June. He is now fluxuating between 58-60. McCain is ranging between 38-40 over the past few days. His peak has been 40 over the past 2 months. If you are serious about making $$, buy McCain now and ride him up to near 50. You could sell and go long Obama if you think he is the Nov winner. McCain at 38 is a deal. I can promise you that McCain will approach 50 over the next 60 days. Will he win? Not sure, but you will see him alot higher soon enough.

dbnwsnc said...

I can tell you that Obama is doing well in NC! If he keeps coming here, and running T.V. ads, he will win.

bjb1968 said...

De Montfort,

I would agree Thompson should have gotten in much earlier or not at all, Rudy was toast from the start due to being way to liberal on social issues but still a strong leader of NYC and after 9/11, Mitt beat himself the same as Clinton. I was not a big McCain fan having lived in the SW for 28 years but he is growing on me and as long as he doesn't put a socialy liberal loon in the VP spot I will work harder for him than 20 paid Obama teens.

This news from the AP is one more nail in the Dems coffin: "BAGHDAD — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have completed a draft security agreement that would see American troops leave Iraqi cities as early as June 30, Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday."

user008008 said...

What the hell is going on?

This is really strange, guys. It's still summer. This is when people are not supposed to care. I did not expect things to change much for either McCain or Obama until no earlier than the end of the DNC. This is not good for Obama at all, and I think it would be foolish to write this off as pre-convention boredom or whatever. This should not be happening right now. Period. Should this continue there's no way in hell Obama will have a shot at the White House.

What's amazing is that with the economy and war alone, you'd think Dems could win in a landslide this year. In fact, earlier on with things as bad as they were, Obama usually not getting more than a few points ahead of McCain in most cases should have been enough of a warning sign. He should have a constant 10+ point lead. He doesn't.

I think a lot of the negative ads are finally leaving some kind of impression on voters, and that is unfortunate. Is this the only way you can make people interested in politics? And what is the media's obsession with letting McCain hammer his offshore drilling point and not calling him out on the fact that it provides no short-term relief for anyone? We're talking at least ten years of waiting. Are Americans really this dumb?

Also, if Barack Obama can't win this election, no Democrat ever will. I truly believe Hillary would have been the worst choice, as people seemed to forget about how very polarizing she was, even within her own party. Not saying I have anything against her personally, but she wasn't going to win all those "big" states as easily as they told you on the news. Obama is a gift to the party and if he can't get enough EV's, I expect to see Republicans in the White House until I am old and gray.

hosertohoosier said...

Well Bernard, that begs a question - how much does presidential candidate experience/the resume matter?

2004
Bush: 6 as gov + 4 as president
Kerry: 19 senate

2000
Bush: 6 as gov
Gore: 8 as VP + 8 house + 8 senate

1996
Clinton: 10 as gov + 4 as pres
Dole: 28 in senate (3 as maj. leader, 8 as min. leader) + 8 in house

1992
Clinton: 10 as gov
Bush Sr.: 4 as pres. + 8 as VP + 5 in cabinet + 4 in house

1988
Bush Sr.: 8 as VP + 5 in cabinet + 4 in house
Dukakis: 12 as gov

1984
Mondale: 4 as VP + 12 in senate
Reagan: 4 as pres + 8 as gov

1980
Carter: 4 as pres + 4 as gov
Reagan: 8 as gov

1976
Carter: 4 as gov
Ford: 2.5 as pres + .5 as VP + 24 in house (8 as min. leader)

1972
Nixon: 4 as pres + 8 as VP + 2 senate + 3 house
McGovern: 10 senate + 4 house

1968
Nixon: 8 as VP + 2 senate + 3 house
Humphrey: 4 as VP + 14 senate (3 as whip)

1964
Goldwater: 12 in senate
LBJ: 1 as president + 4 as VP + 12 in senate (6 as maj. leader, 2 as min leader, 2 as whip) + 12 in house

1960
Kennedy: 8 in senate + 6 house
Nixon: 8 as VP + 2 senate + 3 house

So, counting years served as president double, VP/senate min or maj. leader 1.5, cabinet/senate/gov 1, house .75

The more experienced candidate won in... 1964, 1972, 1988, losing in the other 9 elections.

Of course in the 1932-1956 period, the more experienced candidate won (counting Ike's military experience as trumping being governor of Illinois) every time but 1932.

This may be because the GOP threw candidates with very thin resumes at FDR. Alf Landon was a one-term governor of Kansas, Wilkie had never been elected to anything, Dewey was a one-term governor of New York. Similarly, Adlai Stevenson had a pretty thin resume.
By contrast, post-1960, only Jimmy Carter had served for less than a term before running for president (and he almost messed that up, despite Watergate).

I would suggest that there is a non-linear relationship between experience, and how electable a candidate is - so a curve looking like this: /\
(where experience is the x-axis and electability is the y-axis)

Very thin resumes like Obama's will cause problems. Overly thick resumes are a problem too, however, as it is easy to find hypocrisies, flip-flops, and harder for a candidate to define themselves in a campaign. As you govern longer, you tend to piss more people off.

Darren said...

Sedi -

RCP and electoral-vote.com give Ohio to McCain based solely on recent polls and are not overly weighted to Rasmussen or trend-projected as 538 is. The simple average of the 3 most recent polls in Ohio gives it to McCain.

Tate said...

I tend to agree that convention bumps are primarily noise, but even if they aren't, Nate's chart illustrates that Obama can't rely on the convention to provide him with permanent cover here. He's got to find an issue to really groove on McCain, in a way that resonates with average Americans. That issue almost has to be commodities prices (not just at the pump, but foodstocks and oil derivatives like natural gas and No. 2 heating oil). Security COULD work if he presses hard enough, since McCain has been prone to serious lapses in knowledge and competence in this area. The trouble is branding; the GOP owns both of those brands (energy and security). My thought on creating a new brand:

Obama should name his entire cabinet at the convention.

The traditional thought on this is that it's presumptuous, and it may be. But it's also practical (see the 9/11 commissioners recommendation that both candidates form their national security team well before the election so they can hit the ground running, an obvious failure in 2000 to be blamed on both Clinton and Bush). And, just as important, it could help in showcasing what an Obama presidency would actually look like, and offer a contrast to the picture McCain has been painting without taking the shine off Obama's "new politics" image.

I mean, maybe this is silly. But I'm not the only one saying he probably needs to do something to counter.

Robby said...

bjb1968

You're correct, Senator Kerry; no amount of GOTV will allow President Bush to beat your within-the-MoE polling advantage.

Overrated said...

So do the Dems hope NC will go for Obama? When was the last time NC went Blue? Answer: 1976 with Jimmy Carter. Folks, NC is not going to go Blue for a Midwest liberal AA candidate with the name Barack Obama.

LL (tommi) T said...

I wanted to flesh out my concerns about any changes in RR's reliability in Nate's opinion esp. regarding the rather public criticism of RR from such reliably Republican stalwarts as Stuart Rothenberg. The following is a quote from www.polickerME.com:
Attributed to PolitickerME.com:

[[[[ Here's the problem with the Rasmussen poll - no one knows for sure if the system used by Rasmussen is reliable. Some folks swear by the polls, while others, notably Chuck Todd and Stu Rothenberg, two very well regarded DC pundits discount the polls completely. Mr. Rothenberg in his column for Roll Call in which he evaluated the top ten US Senate races noted, "I must begin with one caveat: In evaluating races, I do not factor in certain widely circulated polls, including those conducted by Rasmussen Reports, that I regard as less reliable. (In other words, I treat some polls as if they don't even exist.)" ]]]]

My concern is than Scott Rasmussen may have reacted to such biting criticism from right wing big players and his mainly right wing client base by increasingly including possible republican/McCain talking points BEFORE they even become talking points. I would want to see the order of his automated scripts to know if this could be a methodological problem.

Again I wouldn't be here so much as my personal #1 analysis/predictive site this election cycle if I didn't trust Nate Silver. I am bringing this matter up only as concern and wondering if Nate has any similar concern.

Darren said...

I do think, though, his convention bump WILL be big. We'll see.

Obama's foreign tour provided similar wall-to-wall media coverage for a week culminating in a huge speech. He got a 9-point bump according to Gallup, which disappeared as quickly as it arrived.

Unless the VP pick changes the narrative there's no reason to think the convention will produce a lasting change. The bump may even be smaller thanks to growing inoculation to his speeches.

De Montfort said...

@bjb1968,

So your answer is that nothing was different than the Dem primaries then?

And unless McCain flips and supports Obama's Iraq position, thats not a nail in anyone's coffin. He(McCain)'s been against any timetable.

hosertohoosier said...

Tate,

It is too late to name the cabinet in advance - they haven't been vetted (and if you are relying on people that have already been vetted, you have a very short list to choose from).

Secondly, most cabinet members are not well-known individuals - they are party hacks being rewarded for party hackery (cabinet members have no power anyhow, and mostly watch over their departments). Unfortunately the only time we see the cabinet in film is in movies like 13 days.

Imagine if Bush had announced his cabinet at the convention. Colin Powell would be an impressive catch, but other than that? Rumsfeld and Ashcroft were minor figures at best. Nobody had heard of Rice - and I'm not even getting to the real no-name cabinet picks.

What about the downsides?

Well first-off you multiple by like 20 the number of people who can harm your chances by saying something stupid (or have their scandals bounce onto you).

Secondly, you actually reduce the number of surrogates that will really go to bat for you. High-level people work for a campaign in part because they hope to be rewarded with a cabinet post.

Thirdly, appointing after elections allows you to scoop up defeated politicians. if you do it before, you may have people going up for election, with the voters knowing fully that they will resign after the election (you could have a really quick primary, I suppose, but it is hardly ideal).

Fourthly, it requires cabinet members risking the prospect that you might LOSE the election, such that they are out of jobs, assuming they have resigned other positions. A 50% shot at being secretary of energy is a lot crappier than a 100% shot. So ultimately, you will have lower quality candidates commit to you, such that you are stuck in a room with wine coolers, chips and hamburgers for like 20 people, but its just you and Chris Dodd in the corner. AWKWARD!

Darren said...

Although tate's idea to name the cabinet at the convention would definitely change the narrative. 15 shadow secretaries would allow Obama to surround himself with experienced governors + senators and to placate every constituency like Hillary supporters, liberals, and Obamacans.

Of course, McCain could counter with his own cabinet.

millco88 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
bjb1968 said...

De Montfort

My point is the Reps had a better pool. The best/most organized campaigner won. In the Dems match it was a 1 woman show and she lost it on her own.

On Iraq the American people will see that McCain was right on the surge. The reason Iraq numbers have been so bad is due to the length we have been there due to stupidity on the ground early on. Now that we have it under control and a exit strategy the advantage shifts Republican which helps McCain. I expect polls to show Americans think Iraq is going well and was the right thing to do within 3 - 4 weeks. Already a lot of poll shift that direction over the last 2 weeks.

Kiernan Ambrose said...

i know this is random but i would really like a cd polling breakdown in the states that apportion electoral votes through those, because obama could get one ev in kansas in a good swing, and a good swing for mccain could get one in maine, thank you.

Matthew H said...

I'm not worried about Afghanistan. The better we do there, the better Obama looks.

McCain....

-Can only do one campaign event per day.
-Sleeps 8-10 hours a night plus a nap during the day, with strict orders not to disturb him.
-Hasn't made it to his actual job since April.

If you can't build an attack ad out of that information, you don't deserve the Presidency.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out what's up with Nate's numbers. The daily tracking polls, as always, show Obama with a lead. The other national polls are split. And yet, McCain's shown as tied in the popular vote. This isn't possible, mathematically.

More likely, Nate put in 'regression' numbers for Obama's lead going down, and now that the lead is so close they're overcorrecting.

Not that it matters. Whether Obama is tied now or has a 2 point lead won't make a difference on September 2nd, let alone Novevember 4th.

Jason said...

Has anyone read the New York Times magazine preview article on Barrak Obama's economics ideology, and some of his actual policy proposals? It seems to me there is a LOT to be mined from there if he can actually get some of his points (e.g., bigger tax breaks for ~80% of the American populace than anything McCain is proposing) that would resonate with voters.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics)

DCM in FL said...

SEDI,

In your post previously you commented on the possibility of the thumb on the scale for Rasmussen impacting the projection.

Even in Nate's baseball stats the data can be 'influenced' by many factors under human control. Umpires strike zone, close calls at the plate, homer scorers that decide a favored player gets a hit rather than an error, etc.

Results can be influenced, and in fact they are on a regular basis.

But in that sport Nate must also work with the data supplied & trust it is accurate. At least it is all public.

the world of polling & methodology/modeling of how the polls are constucted is done in much more secrecy & assumes that no bias is introduced.

In fact, we know bias & pushing is introduced on a regular basis for partisan & marketing purposes.

The only time the pollsters have an incentive to try to make sure their #'s are as accurate reflection of reality as possible is on election eve - so they will not look bad the next day.

Before then, it is all gamesmanship & positioning. Unfortunately, Rasmussen with a deep partisan bent has been given almost an open field to drive the polling narrative. The real question is why ? IMO & based on analysis of primary & previous electoral polling data.

makes me go hhhmmmm.....

for instance, Rasmussen is going out of his way to intentionally supress any significant voter choice for Barr on a real push basis. There is an insidious reason for that since it serves his marketing & partisan purposes.

Why does the MSM allow RR to drive the narrative ?

hosertohoosier said...

Still think it is a good idea to pick all cabinet members? I've got more reasons it is bad.

-Ideology
Often you pick cabinet members that don't necessarily agree with you on everything, but agree with you on their main area of competence. Picking ahead of time gives the other side mountains of quotes to suggest disagreements, etc.

-Cabinets are rarely representative, and ordinarily nobody cares, because they don't do anything. However, if you are making your cabinet an election centrepiece you need to represent all regions of the country, all demographics, etc., which is difficult given limited time and a limited pool of people.

-Doing the cabinet thing would essentially be tantamount to admitting that Obama is not ready to lead.

-Cabinet members for the most part will have zero name recognition initially (meaning they get you nothing). Parading them around the country increases the number of people that might say stupid things by 15-20. Moreover, none of them have been briefed on their jobs yet, and so will probably sound uninformed.

-Being non-committal is a plus for Obama because he can get two groups of people that disagree to simultaneously believe he is one of them. Picking somebody that is an expert in a particular issue area usually signals too clearly what your position on the issue will be.

bjb1968 said...

Matthew H
you state:
"-Can only do one campaign event per day.
-Sleeps 8-10 hours a night plus a nap during the day, with strict orders not to disturb him.
-Hasn't made it to his actual job since April."

-McCain was just in OH where he did 3 major events spread accross the state in 1 day
-I prefer a well rested man with his finger on the red button. Nothing wrong with a good nap and our Euro friends would agree. I am fine with him on a 13 - 14 hour work day.
-Has made is "actual job" far more often than BO who has the WORST failure to vote record in the Senete. BO has worked less than 1 year of his entire life when you add up all the days he has actualy shown up to work. No hanging posters in rich Chicago neighborhoods like Hyde is not a JOB/

Jason said...

Sorry, that last sentence should read as follows:

It seems to me there is a LOT to be mined from there if he can actually get some of his points publicized (e.g., bigger tax breaks for ~80% of the American populace than anything McCain is proposing), since those would most certainly resonate with voters.

And it's not just the tax breaks, either: something that made a big impression on me from reading that article was the fact that Obama and his advisers are so focused on empirical research; there are very realist strains grounding their economic policies for that reason, as opposed to the "pie in the sky" underpinnings I sense in McCain's policy proposals, and not just his economic ones.

bjb1968 said...

DCM in FL said

"Before then, it is all gamesmanship & positioning. Unfortunately, Rasmussen with a deep partisan bent has been given almost an open field to drive the polling narrative. The real question is why ? IMO & based on analysis of primary & previous electoral polling data."

And Zogby who is insanely liberal leaning shows JM up by 5 in head to head with BO and up by 5 including Barr and RN. I think Rass is going out of it's way to overly comp for Dems, AA and youth turn out. I think JM is 3 points better than most polls show.

DCM in FL said...

bjb1968

thats funny, right ?

you think therefore you know.

Zogby is not a real highly rated pollster & not prolific as Rasmussen. So Zogby alone cannot move the polls or push a narrative.

Do you understand statistical analysis ? Bet you only know how to read a topline, because your response is lame...

hosertohoosier said...

bjb,

You are incorrect about Obama missing more senate votes than McCain. If you recall, that study that labeled Obama the "most liberal senator" could not do the same for McCain, because McCain had so many absences from the senate in 2007.

Others have criticized Zogby's methodology pretty fairly, but I will say that if Zogby had an agenda, why would he want to put Obama up or down in the polls? Indeed, if he did have a liberal agenda it might make more sense to inflate McCain's numbers, so that McCain might spend on states that were reaches like Pennsylvania or New Jersey.

bjb1968 said...

DCM in FL

Your inability to analyze ALL the data leaning against Obama shows you have no clue. If Rass was not swinging the same direction as most other recent polls you might have a point. Fortunately most people can get beyond their shallow ideals and look at the total picture.

OTF said...

DCM in Fla,

There seems to be little point. BJB doesn't get it and 95% of the american public don't and that's why Rasmussen does it. Pollsters know 95% of people don't look at crosstabs. They can completely alter the voter ID and demographics to create a narrative which has occurred.

Ofcourse they can change the ID and demographics closer to what they are as the election approaches. If the scheme works the polls have moved towards your bias as people are influeneced by polls. The change in party ID and demograpaphics the last month are amazing. Ofcourse they know nobody will question why b/c hardly anybody looks at crosstabs.

Tarik said...

I'll tell you what's really bad news for Obama in the updated model here. It's that, before, "Lose OH, win election" was running identical numbers as "Lose OH, win CO." Now, there are starting to turn up scenarios where Obama wins Colorado and still loses the election. If that firewall doesn't work as a firewall, he's in big trouble.

bjb1968 said...

hosertohoosier

I stand corrected McCain and Obama are number 1 and 3 worst voters. #4 worst is Hillary, #5 Biden.

So not much of a strong point for either

humanist said...

"I do think, though, his convention bump WILL be big. We'll see."

Darren said:

"Obama's foreign tour provided similar wall-to-wall media coverage for a week culminating in a huge speech. He got a 9-point bump according to Gallup, which disappeared as quickly as it arrived."

Let me explain again. It is not the qestion whether Obama's convention bounce will be lasting or not. The question is whether it will show that there is a hidden electorate DISPOSED to vote for him. This disposition may then go on hiding again, but there would remain the good likelihood that some of it will reveal itself in the Elections themselves.

The question is how much potential Obama energy there is around. If there is much of it, it must be revealed next week. If not, Obama is in serious trouble - not yet destined to lose, but possibly best described as the underdog.

DCM in FL said...

OTF,

I agree completely. Look at what Rasmussen has done in previously election cycle - including 2004. RR was the major pollster pushing that narrative also, showing Kerry ahead in the summer [when it does not matter] then shifting the weighting to make the narrative that Bush had the big MO...

Headlines & ssound bites are what the vast majority hear, as well as the 'reasons' for the change which Rasmussen is more than happy to explain with his unique partisan twist.

ie - do you believe that Landrieu is really ahead by 17% in LA while McCain is also ahead by 17% this week ? hhhmmmm

but it is so clever & Rasmussen is more valuable to the GOPers in the summer than $$$. Note how his july OH McCain +10 outlier changed a narrative completely despite numerous conflicting polls. Amazing...

jack black said...

Well, well, well, i leave the board for a few hours and I come back and read nothing but whining posts about Rasmussen Reports.

Mommy Rasmussen is not playing fair; Nate, how can you use Rasmussen in your projections it is cheating. In fact, I'm beginning to get a trend here; polls show OdUMBO doing bad, then poll bad; ODUMBO do bad in forum then McCain cheated.

Never, because ODUMBO is a left wing radical who is totally inexperienced, and the thought of him in the oval office making life and death decisions send shivers up the spine of millions of Americans.

So, quit whining about the Rasmussen Poll. Every Poll that has come out in the month of August has shown a clear trend toward McCain. The PPP Poll in Ohio had Obama up 8 in July, and now they have it even. ODUMBO is collapsing across the country right now and it is nothing that McCain has done. ODUMBO is just plain incompetent.

By the way, in July RAsmussen had Odumbo up by two points. He was the most accurate pollster in the 2004 election and his polls should be taken seriously.

By the way ROBBY the WORM, how does Obama win at all after what has just happened. The American people have seen ODUMBO and they do not like what they see; they have listened to him lecture them on faith (Saddleback) and they did not like what they heard.

Americans do not elect Professors in Chiefs, or people who punt on important questions they elect the defender of the free world. Remember the question, Is there a bear in the woods? some say there isn't and some say there is, but shouldn't we prepare as if there is a bear in the woods?

OTF said...

bjb1968,

Have you ever looked at a crosstab? You might try it and explains alot of the supposed movement towards McCain.

Obama was +1 in IN last poll
McCain +6 in latest poll.

If you look at the crosstabs there was a 4 pt shift in party ID towards Republicans that all cam out of the Indpendents somehow that Obama is winning by 7. Obama's support amond Dems is the same. McCain's support among Repub is the same. The big switch is there are now suddenly more Republicans by +4. Pretty big switch without any explanation considering McCain isn't campaigning in IN and there is np push by the state Rep party as they condier it safe. Obama has 15-20 offices and voter registration drives in the heavy Dem areas.

It's called creating a narrative of shift by skewing Voter ID and people are two blind to otice it and they are well aware of it.

James said...

DCM,
It's very possible that Landrieu and McCain both have large leads in LA as much as I would not like to believe the Landrieu part. LA is one of those Southern states that has voted GOP in presidential elections for quite a while, but with other elections maintains a Democratic identity. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Vitter and Jindal were their first Republican Senator and Governor respectively since Reconstruction. Rasmussen's methodology has proved to be right in past elections and he is no where near the partisan polling of institutes such as PPP.

jack black said...

DCM,

Your right about Landrieu in La. If McCain wins with 58% of the vote, which he will, then Landrieu will lose the election. She lost nearly 90 thousand votes during Katrina, now all living in Houston or Atlanta.

She will have to make it up from white voters, and she won't! She has never run for re-election during a Presidential Election where the Republican was going to win in a landslide. She is doomed.

Cugel said...

"Virginia Conservative said...

de montfort--

The War in Iraq is over. We've won. The militias are disarmed. There are no more casualties. Al Qaeda is eliminated there, the Shia militias have demobilized and disbanded."


You really ought to get your head out of your ass more often. The depth of this ignorance is just staggering.

Here's just ONE of at least 50 news sources I could cite from the last week that shows things are going to hell in Iraq.

"Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse
Wednesday, August 20, 2008

By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who'd joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country's security forces.

American officials have credited the militias, known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening councils, with undercutting support for the group al Qaida in Iraq and bringing peace to large swaths of the country, including Anbar province and parts of Baghdad. . . .

But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest. . . .

Some militia members say that such a move would force them into open warfare with the government again.

"If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero," said Mullah Shahab al Aafi, a former emir, or leader, of insurgents in Diyala province who's the acting commander of 24,000 Sons of Iraq there, 11,000 of whom are on the U.S. payroll. "I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. . . .

The conflict over the militias underscores how little has changed in Iraq in the past year despite the drop in violence, which American politicians often attribute to the temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq that ended in July.

American military officials here have always said that the creation of the Sunni militias was at least as important to the precipitous drop in violence as the presence of 30,000 more U.S. troops, . . .

After initially embracing the idea of bringing the militia members into the security forces, however, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki hasn't followed through. A committee that Maliki formed to organize the militias' transition to full-fledged government security troops fell apart . . . .

U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that the Maliki government never agreed to hire more than 20 percent of the militia members. A Maliki ally said it was unreasonable to expect otherwise.

"All the Americans are doing is paying them just to be quiet," said Haider al Abadi, a leading member of Maliki's Dawa political party and the head of the economic and investment committee in the parliament. . . .

one senior intelligence analyst . . . called the issue the "long-term threat."

Colin Kahl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security said . . ."The last time we humiliated thousands of these guys is back in 2003, and we got the insurgency," Kahl said.

Farouk Abd al Sattar Hassan Mohammed al Obeidi, a deputy Sunni militia commander in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiyah. . .voiced frustration that his men had applied repeatedly to join the Iraqi Security Forces, to no avail.. . .
"The Sons of Iraq achieved security. Don't they deserve to enter the army?"

Obeidi will never see that happen. On Sunday, a suicide bomber on a bicycle killed him, along with five of his men and nine civilians."


That's ONE tiny part of the disaster that is Iraq.

Whoever wins in November is going to inherit a flaming disaster in January. Obama will have to go into immediate crisis mode to try and stem the deteriorating situation there.

Now you can go back to your comfortable cocoon of Fox News and McCain sound-bites. McCain would have a hell of a job explaining why "victory" looks a lot like 2004.

James said...

Cugel,
You so badly want us to lose in Iraq don't you? The fact that you think Iraq today is like 2004 just proves your ignorance. In 2004 you couldn't walk the markets. In 2004 you couldn't go to the Baghdad Zoo. In 2004 Sadr City was inaccesible. Wise up and stop trying so hard to make us lose

DCM in FL said...

James and Jack B.

well you cannot both be right about Landrieu.

I point was that the data is entirely suspect for this point in the election.

Myself ? I have serious doubt that Landrieu is over 50% and I doubt McCain's advantage is really that large either.

But Rasmussen's methododlogy must be correct !

Actually, his primary predictions are not all that great, and his final presidential #'s are decent - but his mid-summer polling results have a history of being way off [IMO]

seriously, just compare his OH June, July & August polls for not only the toplines but the internals... that is called putting your thunb on the scales...

also he is tweaking his results & making 'adjustments' that serve a purpose for....someone

but he wants to sell premium packages [pay quick before the cost goes up $10 this month !]. oh, and help his party in a sly way [like loading the bench & affecting the outcome].

hey, it works. too bad the dems are not in on the game enough to try for fair & balanced.

sour grapes ? nah, he is just clever but I do have to call him on his 'evolving' methodology'.

And so smart to pull in Nate this year for cred & cover on the statistical analysis side. BRILLIANT ! A great scam that works - almost as good as voter suppression, in fact in some ways it is a similar strategy...

GO BARR !!!

Cugel said...

Blogger James said...

Cugel,
You so badly want us to lose in Iraq don't you? The fact that you think Iraq today is like 2004 just proves your ignorance. In 2004 you couldn't walk the markets. In 2004 you couldn't go to the Baghdad Zoo. In 2004 Sadr City was inaccesible. Wise up and stop trying so hard to make us lose


I'm only going to respond to ONE right-wing idiot, and since you were first, I'll respond to you.

This is typical wing-nut reasoning. Because I read the international news including Arabic news sources and have a grasp of what's going on in Iraq outside the bubble of happy talk from McCain and the administration, I'm some "liberal loon" who "wants us to lose."

Of course. I invented all those news sources that are pointing towards disaster in Iraq.

Naturally, you remain utterly ignorant of what's going on in the Iraqi government and society, what experts are saying, etc. Just keep watching Fox News and everything will be fine.

I even highlighted the key points for you, but getting right-wingers to deal with facts is of course hopeless.

Here's the short-course in reality:

1. Baghdad is more peaceful because ethnic cleansing has purged mixed neighborhoods of Sunnis. Nobody of the opposing camp in your neighborhood? Fewer people to kill. Less casualties.

2. We bribed the Sunni militias that Bush was calling "terrorists" to attack Al Queada and stop targeting us.

The Maliki goverment was supposed to absorb 100,000 of them into the army, forming a truly national army as a key component of long-term stability.

The government is Shiite and they don't want them. Now they're only hiring at most 20,000 and leaving the other 80,000 armed (by the U.S.) but out of work.

This is exactly a repeat of 2003-04.

But, of course, all this is just because "you want us to lose."

If you clap your hands three times and wish real hard the pony will come! It really will!

Every other idiot that wants to pitch in, feel free. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to fools.

It was just that Virginia Conservative's statement was so completely ignorant that I felt irked to respond. I knew it was hopeless to try and penetrate the bubble of official lies that surrounds all conservatives like a blanket on the subject of Iraq, but sometimes the stupid gets to be too much.

Darren said...

hosertohoosier -

Just to play devil's advocate for an early cabinet pick: all your objections are valid, but this directly tackles the biggest hurdle Obama faces - inexperience. He can't get it by spending a week abroad. His only choice to alleviate concerns is to surround himself with experienced people. But it's not enough to have hundreds of distinguished advisors that no one except junkies know about. To get the message across, he needs to raise the profile of the best advisors. And what better way than naming them as potential cabinet members?

Yes, they could have a skeleton in the closet or say something stupid, and certain groups or governors might feel cut out. So manage the risk by naming only State, Treasury, Defense, and AG. That creates 4 high profile surrogates that can hit Bush and McCain on their policy area every day. And leaves 11 spots open for later favors.

Doing the cabinet thing would essentially be tantamount to admitting that Obama is not ready to lead.

That's the point - he has to acknowledge people's concern and show why it's not an issue. It will not go away if he ignores it.

Jan said...

What is the rationale for Obama NOT picking Hillary as VP? His... ego? Maybe a universally respected military leader like Colin Powell (or the pre-UN Powell) would bring more to the ticket than Hillary. But any of non-Hillary names we've heard? They all feel like exactly that -- not Hillary.

She's the one who has the goods to add something to the election coalition. She's earned it. She appeals to voters Obama is weak with. There is no rationale I can see for Obama not choosing Hillary. As JFK chose LBJ; as Reagan chose GHW Bush. It's politics, baby. The dream of Obama transcending "politics" is not materializing -- because it can't. We all live in the same real world. Obama: man up and choose Hillary and get on with winning, please!!!

DCM in FL said...

DARREN

well Obama intentionally mentioned Nunn on Sat in his 'conversation' with pastor rick...

so either he was floating his VP [I hope not] or maybe his WAR Sec. oops I mean Defense...

or else why would he mention only Nunn ? very strange I thought...

dmfix said...

I see four facors deciding this election.

1) Since 1976 the electorate has broken right 1-30 points every election but one (I think 1996). The left likes to paint this as the right wing attack machine or wedge issues...it's really that this is a center right country with a left leaning press and entertainment industry. Casual watchers vote left, focused (last 8 weeks till a vote) watchers vote right.

2) Bradley effect. Surprisingly in the primaries this only showed up in the north east and rust belt states that had significant minority populations and blue collar white populations. Unfortunately for Barack this includes Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Not Virginia and Colorado though).

3) Barack has set out to redefine the electorate. Just like Reagan. If he succeeds this is a 5-20 point break. Having said that, every democrat since 1976 has said that and been wrong...Barack is more exciting than the others though.

4) Ground Game. Baracks ground game in the primaries was the best in the history of the republic. It will be less effective in the general when the perenial warriors come out, but should still be worth 1-4 points.

James said...

You're right DCM, Jack and I can't both be right. I don't know if Landrieu is blowing out Kennedy or even winning. However, I am merely saying that Louisiana politics are quirky. Wow Cugel, well I don't think that your position on Iraq is going to be swayed, but I ask just one thing. Try not to view this through pessimistic eyes. Try to imagine that Bush hadn't started this war. Maybe that alone can pierce your predermined oppositon and negativity.

Smitty said...

Cugel - your analysis is very good. Also, there are reports that the tribal leaders want increases in payments and the U.S. is refusing. The more I learn about Iraq, the more I realize statements like "I can win; I know how to win! Our troops will come home as winners." are misleading and irresponsible.

A touch of realism for McCain supporters:

Should McCain win, his administration will be more limited than the Bush/Cheney administration has been with its six-year GOP dominance in the House and Senate. The Nov 2008 election will increase Dem seats in the House and the Senate. Those increases will affect all of those little things like judges, wars, taxes, budgets, etc.

Tito said...

I, for one, blame all this on Toby Keith. He came out recently with positive words for Obama and said that he (Keith) was a democrat himself. I can't prove a correlation, but I'm pinning the blame on him anyhow.

DCM in FL said...

JAMES,

agreed that LA politics is quirky. The problem is almost all state & local elections are quirky. They can't be handled with the same models I think we would both agree, no ?

Anyway, entirely too much emphasis is put on these polls which are merely snapshots anyway. But in a 'quirky' state like LA can you really read much into a poll of 500 random telephone robo-calls ??? during the Olympics ???

it the data smells funky, don't swallow it !

GIGO

Sam said...

"It's called creating a narrative of shift by skewing Voter ID and people are two blind to otice it and they are well aware of it."

SurveyUSA's methodology may weight somewhat by party id but within a range rather than attempting to nail a specific benchmark.

Its also possible that their initial poll was the one with the bad party id numbers. Indiana has historically had a very significant GOP party id advantage and that poll had Dems +2 in party id, which sounds pretty damn unlikely.

All sorts of shenanigans are possible with this kind of data, but that doesn't mean they're likely.

Everybody should try more Occam's Razor, less tin foil hat.

DCM in FL said...

Sam, I know of some swamp land here in FL that is a real good deal right now !

GIGO, especially with robo-calls & small samples & push Q's & ....

Robby said...

jack black

Robby the Worm? Really?

To the "substance" of your point, a large chunk of the electorate doesn't start paying attention until the debates. If either side had a dramatic lead (like McCain did after the Ohio primary, or Obama did after Clinton dropped out) at this stage of the game, that'd be telling, but as it stands, we're exactly where we expected to be: a close race.

As for ODUMBO's (man, I bet your mom tells you you're clever) performance at Saddleback, you weren't convinced. I hate to break it to you, but you don't speak for the electorate (although, as an avowed liberal, neither do I). To say that the current polling slide is evidence of the Saddleback interviews is specious at best, considering the more salient factors at play (Obama on vacation, McCain making major ad buys, the natural and anticipated tightening of the race in the late summer, etc).

As for that last paragraph, I'm not quite sure as to what you're referring, but as for your "bear", I live in a large urban area with an active police presence: if some people say there is a bear and some people say there isn't, I go ahead and assume that the first group of people are a bunch of idiots.

newyorker2874999 said...

Jan @ 12:11 AM - You couldn't be more right - and your reasoning couldn't be further from what the Obama campaign is about to do to itself with a soon to be announced, ill-advised, second-rate VP choice. To parphrase old Loyde Bentson: Barack, you're no JFK.

Smitty said...

In response to Jan:

1. Any individual who runs for President of the United States has ambition and ego.

2. Last week two separate groups of Clinton supporters were on TV and stated emphatically that they would NOT vote for Obama even if Clinton is his VP choice.

3. There are Obama supporters who will not vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket.

4. Obama is a pragmatic politician. If internal polls show that an Obama/Clinton ticket picks up enough voters to outweigh those lost is #2 and #3 above, then he will select Clinton as his VP.

Short answer: it's all in the math.

Darren said...

dmfix - you're correct, 1996 saw a late Republican shift as well. Clinton led by as much as 15-20 points in the summer and immediately after the conventions but ended up winning by 8.

Since 1972 the only election that didn't move towards the Republican after the conventions was 2000.

batman said...

Cugel,
"Baghdad is more peaceful because ethnic cleansing has purged mixed neighborhoods of Sunnis. Nobody of the opposing camp in your neighborhood? Fewer people to kill. Less casualties."

I am an Iraqi and I can tell you this is exactly what happened. There are still people who are ethnically cleansed, but not as much as few months back due the segregation that occurred. My mother's uncle was the most recent casualty 2 months ago. But those non-spectacular deaths are not reported in the media for obvious reasons...!!!

nkpolitics said...

2008 Elections is going to be similar to the 2000 Elections. The batttleground states in 2000 was
1)FL
2)IA
3)MN
4)MO
5)NV
6)NH
7)NM
8)OH
9)OR
10)PA
11TN
12)WI

2008
1)CO- Tossup state-
2)FL- McCain 52-48
3)IA- Obama 52-48
4)MI Obama 51-49
5)MN Obama 52-48
6)MT McCain 52-48
7)NH Obama 51-49
8)NM Obama 51-49
9)NV McCain 51-49
10)OH McCain 51-49
11)PA Obama 52-48
12)VA McCain 51-49

CO,NV,and OH will be either the three states Obama needs to win in order to become president. assuming he wins all of the Gore/Kerry states including
IA,MI,MN,NH,NM,OR,PA,and WI.

Michael said...

"Our model accounts for the topline results of the polls in as comprehensive a way as is possible, but it does not account for nonpolling factors such as turnout and ground game, macroeconomic conditions, or the probability of certain future events (like the conventions) tending to favor one or another candidate."

Nate, I hope you're working on a sound way to incorporate these things, and also vote fraud and voter suppression (e.g., in Florida - how many points should you take off Obama's eventual total there?) into your model. I'm sure you agree that any data that could improve your ability to predict the outcome should be incorporated to whatever degree is necessary to increase the accuracy of your model.

Why don't you at least give an alternate result based on your best estimate of the influence of the factors you list above upon the likely state-by-state results, in addition to the current self-acknowledged poll-driven regressions?

Sebastian said...

Good post. Keep in mind the amount of money McCain's going through in order to finally pull close.

Also don't discount the fact that he did this after Obama and the campaign laid very low for a couple of weeks. So McCainRoveniks had the opportunity to fill the vacuum and drive the conversation--to a certain extent.

I would imagine that things will change once the VP is announced. The money will start to flow, the ground game kicks in. Message-wise, if you listen to Obama's stumps, he calls the GOP at it's game; something no one has done so well--not even Clinton. If he begins to include this in his advertising and top level speeches, it's trouble for McCain.

gwill2k8 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
SalP7 said...

The "ground game" etc. well I've heard it all before in past elections with the "youth vote" and the "hip hop vote" and they don't vote on Election Day. Several times bitten twice shy. I'm still voting for Obama but it looks like another Dem choke job unless he brings someone with balls (Hillary) on to the ticket to fight McCain.

Obama is not going to win the debates he's going to be using words like "jurisprudence" "ubiquitous" and "omnipresent" and the grumpy old man is going to be talking to "his friends".

gwill2k8 said...

As a North Carolinian, I find the chance that Obama is pulling close here compelling. He has outspent here in ads and ground game. In fact the TV spots are so commonplace here that I've seen them aired with the local news every night for weeks now. The only McCain ads I've seen are from the "free media." In fact, Obama even had a surprise visit in Greensboro today and it generated a lot of press. He is also putting field offices in towns that have never had them before. His GOTV here is going to be excellent. Given this plus the demographic shifts in the state (similar to North Va but with a large addition of an ever growing hispanic voting block). The fact that Dems have dominated our state government makes me think a slight victory is possible. If he wins NC, I predict a win in Va, too.

As for the larger picture, the media made it a horse race, Republicans will vote for McCain out of fear, and the Conventions and debates will change everything. Getting all the Dems under the same tent is necessary, Hillary has to deliver like a true political professional and hopefully the Obama team is going to use these speeches to remind voters why the Republican brand is wrong and McCain is been there with them every step of the way. Obama must also use this time to educate the public about his tax policies vs. McCain. THIS IS HIS TRUMP CARD. How much money will average Americans leave on the table in order to vote for the 2nd coming of Herbert Hoover???? I also think the VP pick is of little consequence, except for the fact that that Obama gets a two-headed message machine one week earlier than McCain. I also believe McCain's message machine is more likely to trip up with the addition because their candidate can never stay on message and contradictions are likely to resurface with two pompous wind bags running around the country as character ASSASSins.

Besides the outcome being close helps GOTV big time.

gwill2k8 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
prowlerzee said...

John Nail said...
" If we solidify next week and HRC and Bubba come thru then this is game over."

Why does Barack need them to drag his sorry ass over the finish line?

Is the "it's all Hillary's fault" crowd already piping up now that it's dawning on them Obama's gonna lose

coubertin said...

Woooooo! McCain, I love you mwa mwa mwa! Sexy little bitch of a win percentage!

p smith said...

I think there is more to these polls than meets the eye. The polls that were taken before Obama hit the campaign trail again (18 August) show McCain improving markedly. But the polls taken more recently will I suspect show Obama regaining his lead. The latest CBS and NBC polls give Obama a 3 point lead and the trackers also continue to show Obama with a small lead.

Let's see how the state polls develop over the next few days. Rasmussen was smart to rush out his polls before Obama hit the trail again and it doesn't surprise me in the least that his polls show McCain with small leads in Ohio and Florida and closing in other states. Yes, the race is a toss up right now but that is going to change dramatically with each day's news cycle. Watch and learn

Freshly Squeezed Cynic said...

Try to imagine that Bush hadn't started this war. Maybe that alone can pierce your predermined oppositon and negativity.

James, are you actually for real? Your response to Cugel's cogent short analysis of the Iraq situation is "Well, what if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, huh? Well what do you say then, huh?"

It might be nice to play with counterfactuals, but when it comes to actual policy I prefer the real world.

Alex S. said...

The race is tied now. It is tied because the key battlegrounds are tied. Yes, one could say that Ohio leans McCain, but Obama has the advantage that he can choose "the one bullet that breaks the armor", Nevada, Florida, Virginia, Ohio or Colorado. They all are leaning McCain at the moment, mostly because of the national trend - the polls are in the majority within margin of error.

Sadly, Obama couldn´t hold on to his advantage he built up in the months of May and June, a time when he battled McCain more than he battled Clinton. Obama still has a long-term advantage in the number of registered Democrats and his organization efforts. But he must become more vocal, more to the point. The difference between going unfairly negative and legtimiate attacks are ... facts. Obama isn´t a muslim, that´s a fact - McCain confirmed the liberal supreme court justices he said he would not have confirmed, that´s a fact, too... and so it goes on.
Obama was too passive in the last months, maybe because he wanted to stay "above" it, but the Republicans will not allow it. He could have gone into the "real" election season with an advantage, now it´s gone.

bjb1968 said...

Obama is in bigger trouble than we thought:

The AP reports -

"The Illinois Democrat raised more than $50 million in July, a slight dip from the previous month, according to his monthly financial report, filed around midnight Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. He spent about $55 million, with three-fifths of that devoted to media costs.

McCain had his best fundraising month yet, collecting more than $26 million. He, too, spent heavily — a total of $32 million, of which two-thirds was on advertising."

Obama spent 72% more than McCain, $33 million on media alone. More spent on media tha McCain spent in total and he has slipped this much!?!?!

bjb1968 said...

OTF. Yes I look at cross tabs on every poll. The numbers in IN were a correction from the last poll being weighted way to heavy in independents and dems. Thanks for trying to help me be as smart as you but I prefer just being smarter than you.

Palympset said...

Instead of just looking at a snapshot (today the race is tied) I'd like to look at the long-term trend here and see what we find.

Humanist has the major point here: can Obama rekindle "Obama energy" with the convention? If not, that rebound possibility has been seriously subdued.

If you look at what happened to Kerry, the intense "Swift Boat" attacks and Corsi book happened after the conventions; this is when his numbers sank. He delayed in any kind of response but just before the convention his numbers started rising again - though not enough to win, they were enough to make it look like he was going to.

Obama is taking this same kind of hit right now (an August of pounding and Corsi) while being overseas and on vacation...that's caused a dip in the numbers but really, just a small dip compared with Kerry (enough to erase his small lead).

The trend question is what will happen next? We have two and a half months till the election so plenty of time for dramatic swings.

Obama doesn't even need to bring his A game: just be awake and not on vacation and he could probably recover his 3 point margin (if Kerry could do it, Obama certainly could). If he can't, that means, as Humanist says, the dip is permanent and those voters are lost: very serious indeed. But if Kerry could recover, I think Obama can.

Then again, McCain could come up with another wholly original angle of attack and Obama's numbers could sink again. But my theory is that once one of these attacks is spent, the numbers related to that attack get pretty much baked in. So the Rev. Wright, Ayers, Celebrity, scary-Islamic terrorist, Tax-And-Spend attacks are all pretty well baked into the numbers now. McCain needs something new that will stick if he wants to tip the election decisively in his favor.

And Obama hasn't really unleashed any McCain attacks yet: and the buzz is, he will. How about canvassing Evengelicals with all of McCain's "agents of interlerance" quotes and portraying him as a "say anything to get elected" dude in order to depress his base again? So it's possible this campaign could get ugly and we just keep seeing these kinds of three-point swings around the middle going into the convention as the candidates punch and counter-punch.

This kind of sparring could keep going on till the convention with whoever wins being the candidate who lands the best body blow about a week before election day sending the news cycle and poll numbers moving in their direction. It's certainly a sorry way to elect a President (and determine the make-up of the Supreme Court) but it seems this is what our democracy has devolved into.

PeteKent said...

Sorry, Palypset, but I have to disagree with you. Particularly these statements:

"Obama doesn't even need to bring his A game: just be awake and not on vacation and he could probably recover his 3 point margin (if Kerry could do it, Obama certainly could). If he can't, that means, as Humanist says, the dip is permanent and those voters are lost: very serious indeed. But if Kerry could recover, I think Obama can.

Then again, McCain could come up with another wholly original angle of attack and Obama's numbers could sink again. But my theory is that once one of these attacks is spent, the numbers related to that attack get pretty much baked in. So the Rev. Wright, Ayers, Celebrity, scary-Islamic terrorist, Tax-And-Spend attacks are all pretty well baked into the numbers now. McCain needs something new that will stick if he wants to tip the election decisively in his favor."

Obama very much needs to bring his A game. He was barely in the US Senate for a year when he announced his candidacy and his resume before that was hardly overwhelming. He needs to do a lot of convincing before people will conclude that he is in fact ready to lead.

Mrs. Clinton could not make that argument because she was at best Mamie Eisenhower on steroids. She too was not quite ready to lead as her Bosnia under fire fib showed.

McCain is a very different candidate than Obama's primary opponent.

Also, what has been going on in terms of defining Obama has thus far been subliminal and is far from having reached its saturation or penetration point.

It only gets worse from here for Obama in terms of how he will be portrayed.

McCain too will continue to make the positive case for his candidacy built upon his personal history of courage and leadership qualities. He is all about energy independence as a national security issue and fiscal discipline in a low tax environment. Plus he was right about the Surge and the revisionist thinking on Iraq has taken hold and taken away Obama's seminal issue.

That speech in 2004 ain't worth squat in the present environment.

Glenn-in-Colorado said...

Palympset's thoughtful post states,

"McCain could come up with another wholly original angle of attack and Obama's numbers could sink again. But my theory is that once one of these attacks is spent, the numbers related to that attack get pretty much baked in. So the Rev. Wright, Ayers, Celebrity, scary-Islamic terrorist, Tax-And-Spend attacks are all pretty well baked into the numbers now. McCain needs something new that will stick if he wants to tip the election decisively in his favor."

I think what's next are several attacks having their language refined and tested in the right-wing media sphere.

1) I expect an attack outing Obama's radical positions on abortion. His voting record in the Illinois senate and the stories about his defence of arbortion stances that even NARAL went neutral on is trouble for Obama.

2) I think this story of his half brother living on a $1 a month in a shack in Kenya will get hit. My 14 year old uses babysitting money to sponsor a child through Compassion International ... why couldn't Obama spare $30 bucks a month and maybe a gift and card at Christmas?

3) I expect the energy attacks to continue especially when Pelosi and crew return.

4) Anyone coming out of the Illinois legislature probably needs a shower. Illinois' government is full of corruption (for both parties). I expect more stories on Tony Resco and others which didn't make your list.

5) Lack of experience - This hit angle hasn't been played fully. What exactly was his work as a community organizer? What did he accomplish in the Illinois legislature ... is Obama nothing more than a handsome guy with great gift for oratory?

6) Taxes, Taxes, Taxes ... I don't care how Obama tries to spin it - raising taxes in this economy is trouble.

7) Leftist - I think GOPers will start using the term liberal (as reasonable to lable Hillary and the DLC and Leftists to label Obama. I won't be surprised to see his senate voting juxaposed to Senator Sanders, a socialist.

8) I think the Ayes, Wright connections get played hard through Nov 4. I'm not quite sure I agree that thet're baked into the numbers fully. A lot of voters don;t tune in much at all till the end.

Tony Rome said...

How did Zogby come up with a 5 point lead for McCain? Any suggetstions? He is going to be on Washington Times dot com at 12:00, today. There are at least 5 questions that I want to hear from him on this!!

PeteKent said...

Right on the money Glenn in Co!

L Lawson said...

@ Dario

Dario: L Lawson, i´m not american and understand your comment very anti-american.

You can criticize your country without being unpatriotic. That you can't is the basest right-wing attack that has shackled this country and prevented it from improving multiple times over our history.

Thanks for pushing that smear again, Dario!

Glenn-in-Colorado said...

Michael states,
"Nate, I hope you're working on a sound way to incorporate these things, and also vote fraud and voter suppression (e.g., in Florida - how many points should you take off Obama's eventual total there?) into your model. I'm sure you agree that any data that could improve your ability to predict the outcome should be incorporated to whatever degree is necessary to increase the accuracy of your model. "

I think this is the big source of error in Nate's awesome work. I think Nate himself clearly states this. The trouble is finding ways to objectively measure these things.

One good thing I would suggest to Nate is to look at early voting in states with established systems and track the party line splits and magnitude against 2004.

#1 Tipper Colorado has a long established system of early and mail in voting that is used heavily. It begins Oct 20 - so on October 20, John McCain will be one vote up on Obama in Colorado ;-)

But I hope Nate can look at these say in the 12ish states broadly in play.

Glenn-in-Colorado said...

Nate - Could you also shed some light on some of this year's curiousities?

Montana 2008 Projection 4.3% v 2004+20.5 as well as North Dakota

Minnesota 2008 Projection (-4.6%)inside of Wisconsin 2008 (-5.6) ... You've linked ... Minnesota, Washington and Colorado (I would add Oregon-Portland and Montana-Bozeman to that list) Their movements against 2004 and each other are interesting.

Virginia's 6 point projected blueing

Alaska's 19 point fade.

I tend to think that Obama's race is actually a net plus in the tolerant Western US, I haven't seen anything on that. Obama's Western strength could be anti-washington change, high education levels and youth. But I think, curiously, the very white West sees a cathartic good for America in electing a monority president.

Martin said...

Hi, PeteKent -

Just to reply:
"Obama very much needs to bring his A game. He was barely in the US Senate for a year when he announced his candidacy and his resume before that was hardly overwhelming. He needs to do a lot of convincing before people will conclude that he is in fact ready to lead."

I agree he needs his A game to tilt the election to a decisive victory. If we're going to see-saw around the 50% mark, though, by three or four percent up or down, at this point I think Obama could do that with his eyes closed (I admit, he's seems to have been doing that). That's not to say he won't win, just he could keep going on this back and forth w/ McCain. For instance, today's "I don't know how many houses I have" punch at McCain. McCain's punch back with Ayers won't be effective (that's baked it) though maybe Glen-in-Colorado has some new ideas, the "brother in a shack" attack, for instance, might counter "I don't know how many homes I have."

It sounds like McCain's your man and that's not going to change. There's an equal number of Obamaphiles or Democrats who won't vote for McCain. We're not talking about either of those groups: we're talking about the 12% moveable middle.

The point is that the election is just going to get nastier and nastier. The middle could keep swinging around this three point range. Obama needs an A-game to trump that dynamic. As Nate points out, given the Republican brand, McCain won't likely trump it. So it could come down to a nasty, divisive election with the winner going to whomever throws the best punch last.

信次 said...

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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

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~!!

freefun0616 said...

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,

,