8.15.2008

What a Convention Bounce Looks Like

The convention bounce is one of the more vexing problems in presidential forecasting. That is particularly so this year. Both conventions are being held late -- the Democratic convention dates are the latest since at least 1952 for the challenging party, and the Republicans' are the latest since at least 1952 for the incumbent party. Moreover, the conventions are being held right on top of one another, with just one week of separation between them. Most years, there is at least a three- or four-week gap between the opening dates of the conventions. That gap was as small as 14 days in 1996 and 15 days in 2000, but it has never been so small as the seven days that we have this year.

But the convention bounce is also not something that can simply be ignored. If we looked at the polls from the weekend immediately following the Democratic convention, for instance, and did not adjust them in any way, that might give us an inflated idea about Barack Obama's chances of occupying the White House.

What I have done, then, is to boot up my database of national polls, which covers all elections since 1952. I looked at the average margin for all polls conducted within 150 days of the election; for instance, the average of all polls taken within 150 days of the election in 2000 had George W. Bush ahead by 2.0 points. Then, I looked at to what (if any) extent the candidate was overperforming that average in the 21 days commencing from the first date of his party's convention. For instance, if GWB polled 9 points ahead of Al Gore in a survey conducted one week from the start of the Republican convention, that would be considered evidence of a 7-point bounce -- his 9-point lead in that poll less his long-term, 2-point advantage.

Plotting all such polls produces a graph like this:



That chart, frankly, is a little hard to interpret -- but fortunately, we have statistical software that can help us to discern the patterns. After playing around with a number of functional forms, I eventually found one based on the combination of two logarithms that that had a decent amount of explanatory power. That function looks like this:



(Mathematically, this is the function:

Ln(d)*20.1 - 31.8*Ln(d+4) + 43.4
...where 'd' is the number of days elapsed from the start of the convention (the first day of the convention is counted as '1' rather than '0'). Note that I weighted recent years somewhat more heavily in coming up with this equation. The function is defined as zero where it takes on a negative value).

What the chart shows is that the bounce begins to manifest itself in earnest as of about the third day of the convention. This makes a fair amount of sense intuitively. The first day of the convention, usually nothing much happens; there may not even be network coverage of the events. The second day, something does happen -- the keynote speech, frequently -- but it happens in prime time, after the pollsters have already closed shop for the day. So it's on the third day when you can generally expect to see some tangible effects.

From there, the bounce accelerates quickly, peaking approximately 6-7 days from the start of the convention -- that is, the weekend afterward, if the convention runs from Monday through Thursday. It then dissipates in a roughly linear fashion over the next 3-4 weeks.

Note that we find the average peak bounce to be about 6 points. This is highly consistent with Tom Holbrook's research, where he found the average bounce to be 5.9 points in conventions conducted since 1964. A 6-point convention bounce represents par. If a candidate gets a bounce larger than 6 points, that can be considered to be a good sign. If the bounce is smaller than 6 points, that can be considered to be a bad sign.

Of course, this gets more complicated if you have two conventions occurring back-to-back, as we have this year. If we take the superposition of a convention bounce curve and an inverse convention bounce curve that begins one week later, we get the following rather strange-looking result:



Our default expectation is that Barack Obama will get a decent-sized but short-lived bounce, which will quickly be compromised by the start of the Republican convention. However, the Republicans' bounce might not be as big as it otherwise would be, because there may still be some lingering afterglow from the Democratic convention.

It might take until roughly the time of the first debate on September 26 for the convention effects to dissipate completely. The polls are going to be extremely difficult to read in the interim: we don't quite know how these two curves are going to interact. I would say that, if Barack Obama still holds the lead in the race in the weekend following the Republican convention, that is probably a pretty good sign for him.

The curve you see above is also relevant to our methodology, since polls conducted in the convention bounce window will be adjusted according to it. In other words, if Barack Obama is polling at a +9 in the weekend following the Democratic convention -- at which time we'd typically expect him to be experiencing about a 6-point bounce -- we will treat that poll as a +3 for purposes of our forecasting. By extension, if Obama only experiences a 2-point bounce in the weekend following his convention, it will actually harm his forecast.

133 comments

Bob Fertik said...

John Kerry's convention bounce was lower than usual because Karl Rove and Tom Ridge manufactured a terror scare *outside* the Boston convention center. This produced a lot of network coverage about terrorism instead of John Kerry.

Republicans understand that politics is all about the TV coverage; Democrats haven't figured this out yet.

tkk13above said...

Brilliant analysis. I was wondering how we'd interpret the polls following the conventions, and now I see how.

Adam in NY said...

I'm not sure that either side should expect much of a bounce. It seems to me that in the last twenty years the parties have consolidated their bases of support pretty efficiently. I don't forsee any 1964-style or 1984-style landslides anymore because I don't think that there are all that many persuadables anymore.

Karl Rove was right in his reading of the electorate and his base strategy (We can debate whether it was worthwhile in the long run and we'll have more data to interpret this year - but that's another matter).

I wouldn't be surprised if neither candidate saw their numbers fluctuate any more than just a handful of points.

Juris said...

TYPO: "Obama will get a decent-sized but short-lived bounce, which will quickly by compromised by the start . . ."

Should be "which will quickly BE compromised by the start . . ."

Very interesting analysis. Of course the GOP may also try to shorten the Obama bounce by announcing their own VP nominee before their convention. Or otherwise tty to step on the news with some event staged by the WH.

counsellorben said...

Nate,

Did you account for the negative bouce which would affect the first mover?

I would be interested to know if you get similar curves if you broke the data into first mover/second mover subgroups.  Intuitively, I would expect the results to be different, because the negative bounce will always affect the first mover, and does not appear to be accounted for in your graph.  In addition, the second mover is likely to be affected by the first mover's bounce, which is likely to damp the second mover's initial bounce.

Since you are going with a 30 day window, instead of using the long-term polling average to normalize, might it be better to use a 30 day rolling average to normalize, to remove longer term exogenous effects, and limit the residual to a more immediate average term?

I also think it might be instructive to introduce a term to represent the number of days from the opposing convention into you equation (which would be zero for the first mover's data until the start of the second mover's convention), to try to predict the dampening effect of the opposing convention.

edmundintokyo said...

Related to Adam in NY's post, what would happen if you factored in the % of undecided voters in pre-conference polls when looking at the bounce? My guess would be that years with few undecideds have a smaller bounce, and years with more undecideds have a bigger bounce. Meaning smaller bounces this time around, presumably.

Robyn said...

It does like you may be taking your post hoc analysis of previous bounces a bit too seriously as the potential bounce does depend much on how much potential volatility there is among those being polled.

This cycle has been notable for a lack of volatility. Both have polled within very narrow windows. Obama's lead has been narrow but remarkably stable. In this environment a 6 point bounce for either of them would be more significant than a six point bounce in say Bush-Kerry during which the polls had already had wild fluctuations.

That said, Obama is fortunate: his convention is likely to be a highly scripted affair with only some choreographed drama from the Clintons. McCain will be dealing with a poorly attended convention and with the media distractions of competing Paul and Barr shows. Of course McCain will spin that evidence of Obama celebritiness and all Obama all the time, but the fact is that such will likely blunt his bounce, such as it would otherwise be.

Nick said...

Great post. I wonder if the bounce is affected by the order of conventions? Is it an advantage to go first or last?

Adam in NY said...

Rasmussen just released a North Carolina poll that shows McCain leading by 6 # 50-44 with leaners.

It's starting to look like the 2004 election again. Republicans have essentially conceded IA and NM and the battle lines are drawn in CO, NV, FL, MO, VA and OH.

Virginia has been essentially tied for a while perhaps now with the slightest lean to McCain. FL and MO have moved into the McCain column and in NV Obama's unfavorables are at 51 in the latest Rasmussen poll.

CO is a pure toss-up. Ohio is too. Both candidates need a win in both CO and OH.

harold said...

I agree with Adam in NY.

Basically, I think that both candidates have low ceilings this year. That means that the bounce can only go so high.

A contrast would be an election like 1988. Polling done in 1988 seems to indicated that both candidates had the potential to swing large majorities to their side. Ultimately Bush I succeeded in doing so, and Dukakis failed.

This year, the candidate identities are too strong and polarizing.

An easy way to test this would be too look at the standard deviation of each candidate's support in either some specific tracking poll, or across all polls. My guess would be that it is low this year (2004 may also have been a low year for this metric).

A modest bounce may thus not be as bad of a sign, for either candidate, relative to what it might have meant in other years.

Tybalt said...

CO is a pure toss-up. Ohio is too. Both candidates need a win in both CO and OH.

Careful with those talking points, son, you might hurt yourself. I know you've got your eye on that McCain golf umbrella, but you gotta slow down and think about what you say when you repeat this stuff.

If the battleground states are CO, NV, FL, MO, VA and OH, those were all Bush states and having conceded NM and IA, McCain would need all six to squeeze out a win.

Obama would need any one of them, certainly not both OH and CO.

(In fact, it's not that desperate, as McCain is competitive in a few Kerry states.)

George said...

I would guess that the MSM will look at these bounces and the meme will be that McCain "neutralized" Obama's bounce. What went wrong?? Etc. When, if they would read Nate and explain things fairly, they would see that the bounce dissipates over time anyhow. Nevertheless, after the Republican convention there won't be any reason for changing the McCain neutralized him ("we are still in a horse race") until the first debate several weeks later. I wonder what the effect of all that talk will be?

Alex S. said...

Interesting take on the Convention Bounce, though the conclusion for me is that these bounces are effectively worthless, because their effects will fade away before the election. This has made me wonder if all those potential bounces (winning a primary, the "unity-bounce", the bounce from the foreign-policy-tour) are just cosmetics. It seems that they don´t really describe what makes voters vote, it just describes how voters "feel".

And btw, if Nate´s model is correct I expect a terrible month of "Obama-is-doomed"-comments because Republicans will enjoy the later bounce for about 4 weeks.

So what decides elections, if they are not decided at the start, already. What could be the game changer? - I just have an assumption, I could see it as potentially devastating if a candidate gets bad press for a month, because he is behind in the polls. Members of that candidate will become disappointed, unexcited and apathic - i.e. bad polls can be a self-fulfilling prohecy. This is where I see a potential danger of the 3rd graph of Nate´s model to Obama.

Alex S. said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

I wouldn't draw conclusions about NC or any other state (or the country, for that matter) from only a Rasmussen poll. Take a look at the interesting analysis by Charles Franklin over on Pollster that shows how much of a consistent pull toward McCain is produced by the Rasmussen tracking poll.

I'm not saying the Rasmussen poll is "wrong" in NC but it probably imparts a certain apparent "direction" to the race and has to be put into the context of other evidence.

Adam in NY said...

Tybalt,

Right you are. It must be early. McCain needs OH and CO. If current trends continue, with McCain leading in FL, MO, NV and perhaps a slight lean in VA - then Obama really needs to focus on CO and OH and hope to pick off one of them.

Obama's still got the advantage - but it isn't what it was a month ago.

Darío said...

The new Rasmussen tracking poll is Obama 47- McCain 45 with leaners.
Without leaners is Obama 44- McCain 41.
McCain wins leaners 4-3. But Obama remains winning.

John Nail said...

The analysis over at pollster is very interesting on Rasmussen.

The LV screen appears to be the element that is impacting it and making the trend toward McCain greater, thus the leaner impact as well.

Their LV model is problematic as I do not believe that this election the LV numbers from 2004 are going to relevant.

The primaries showed the youth vote and minorities cam out and will come out again in the general esp. w/ the Obama ground game.

On this "bounce" issue - per a prior post by Nate or Sean McCain has sewed up his base - finally and Obama has not. Assuming the Clinton catharsis in Denver provides the kumbaya moment everyone needs to come together I see a "base bounce" of 4/5% that 80% of will be permanent then the convention bounce which will ebb as Nate models.

I think the Repubs will suffer greatly having the second convention as their lineup is nowhere near as dynamic - or as dramatic as the Clintons will make it - nor will McCain's drab acceptance speech get the base fired up or the Independents as Obama's will.

This will be an interesting one to track.

Matt said...

I wouldn't take that combined curve too seriously--there's a tremendous amount of noise in these numbers, and things have changed a lot between 1952 and today. I'd guess the actual shape of the bounce varies tremendously based on the year's conditions.

In 2004, as far as I can tell, only Bush got any significant convention bounce, and the Republican convention was both much later than the Dem convention, and located in New York so that it could culminate in a September 11th commemoration. It was basically a device for squeezing out the last drop of September 11th hero juice available to Bush, and it worked brilliantly; going by the RCP poll chart it looks to me as if it actually did last until the election. Kerry cut it about in half by performing really well in the debates, but the lingering effects were still there.

I doubt that McCain can manage the same kind of optics, but they'll probably try the same thing, basically amping up the fear and jingoism to extreme levels. It might be hard to do if this follows hard on a triumphal display by the Democrats, but Democrats definitely need to watch out for it.

Juris said...

TO John Nail:

John, couldn't the Rasmussen "bias" just as easily come from their party ID weighting as from their LV model, in that the former wouldn't as readily recognize any net shift in party ID toward the Dem's, as has occurred in the last year or two?

PeteKent said...

George seems to already be starting the spin to explain why Obama won’t be getting a bounce from his convention and I suspect that Nate is also up to the game of managing expectations.

Obama is going to have a very bumpy week in late August in Denver. Essentially with the media spoiling for a fight and a story, the entire convention will be dominated by Clintonian drama. Then he will give his huge speech, the setting and stagecraft inspired no doubt by Leni Riefenstahl, and a lot of folks will be left with an empty feeling, thinking back to those McCain celebrity ads and concluding, Nice show, but where's the beef?

As the Hillary roll call story gets out there (it barely made a ripple last night), Obama can expect to see destabilization in his polls as the once resigned former HRC supporters move to undecided and adopt a wait and see attitude.

Resistance to Obama is real. Not so much among the Femi-Nazis who could never vote for a Republican but among the rank and file women voters who liked the idea that for once their gender was getting its due in politics. Obama and the media conspired in a crude and heavy handed way to destroy her candidacy and her husband's legacy.

The wounds and the divisions are real.

Think about how few former HRC supporters are here, sitting in Nate's cheering section.

edmundintokyo said...

Juris, if I've got this right Rasmussen's party ID data comes from the last few months of polling, so it's not going to be years old or anything.

PeteKent said...

On Ras NC: Leaners break 2 to 1 for McCain. Further evidence of latent support for McCain. This seems to be a pattern, particulay in states where the race is close. It first became apparent to me in the ras MI poll, where the effect was even more pronounced.

Ras tracker showed slight Obama uptick. Statistical noise? Effect of Georgia (fear of WW3?). people enjoying not seeing Obama's face for a week? Dunno.

I look forward to Gallup to see if movement yesterday was the start of a tredn or just a blip.

Adam in NY said...

John,

>>The primaries showed the youth vote and minorities cam out and will come out again in the general esp. w/ the Obama ground game.

That doesn't prove that they will come out in much higher percentages this fall. Democrats have ALWAYS had more voters show up for primaries than Republicans. That in itself is not proof that they will come out in November. In fact, the track record of these groups suggests otherwise.

Karthik said...

As usual, the analysis is brilliant, but are you sure that this is a real phenomenon, or is it a case of trying to find some sort of funtion to fit what might be completely and totally uninterpretable data with no pattern behind it? I guess we'll find out, and I'm not saying it's wrong, it just seems like the difference of two log functions is pretty arbitrary...

Brian said...

Pete Kent said:

"the setting and stagecraft inspired no doubt by Leni Riefenstahl"

Thread Godwinned, over.

Adam in NY said...

PeteKent,

What I find interesting is that Obama's negatives have shot through the roof. His unfavorables are at 51 in the Rasmussen poll of Nevada, and this NC poll shows his unfavorables at 48 percent. Even in yesterday's Minnesota poll his unfavorable is at 42. In Minnesota!

That suggests to me that Obama is close to his ceiling and I suspect that's why his numbers haven't been able to move above the upper 40's nationally.

McCain and Schmidt have done a very good jov of driving up Obama's unfavorables with their advertising campaign and they've accomplished it very quickly. I think the reason for this is because Obama was such a blank slate - due to his very brief time on the political scene. People don't know about Obama - the media fluff isn't persuasive enough - and McCain has started to fill in the gaps. It's much harder for Dems to do that with McCain because he already has a cultivated image and the Dem attacks so far have not stuck. Most people who aren't partisan Dems don't see McCain as a Bush Third Term.

I suspect when the dust settles, if Obama loses this year, that the Democrats went with someone so inexperienced and it was so easy to tar him as foreign and unready is going to be looked at as a major strategic blunder.

Juris said...

Thanks, Edmund.

Clark Miller said...

I guess I would be a LOT skeptical of actually using this data Nate. While the average bounce may be that big, recent bounces have tended to be smaller. There's also the VP bounces, which alter the shape somewhat, and which are unaccounted for, and there's the 24 hour news cycle, which seems to have changed the dynamics of bounces from the 1952-1992 period. All of which says that your model may be as much a cause of misinterpretations as polling errors, or perhaps more, throughout the month of September.

What I'd do instead is actually try to measure the bounce dynamics, and then incorporate them into the model.

PeteKent said...

Adam in NY;

I agree with you.

First off, I heard commentators observe that it is very hard to sustain the level of enthusiasm that Obama has had with youth over a long period of time. Fads fade.

Your observations on Obama's negatives are on the mark and do supprt the notion of a cieling.

Most importantly, Obama has let McCain begin to define him negatively and he is hamstrung in responding b/c his true character and identity as a ruthless, ambitious politician with Marxist freinds and leanings, a man who would join a Black Separatist Church that preached hatred of whites and America just so he could gain some street cred, and his being an absoultist on abortion and a worshiper at the liberal trough (inter alia) will not wash with the great American middle.

Obama cannot define himself except fraudulently.

Fredoso's and Corsi's books will keep the heat on him in terms of his attempt to make himself over.

It may indeed begin to be over. He is John Kerry redux.

Will we have to deal with a Clinton candidacy, I wonder?

Redshift said...

Good stuff, Nate. This will be very useful over the coming weeks when the cheerleaders and chicken littles are jumping at every twitch of the polls.

jack black said...

On this date in history, August 15, 2004, inthe Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 49% to 47%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.

adzam said...

Adam,
FYI: The democrats voted, the didn't make a "strategic blunder."

How does your blunder logic hold up when you consider that the negative swift-boat attacks worked vs. Kerry? Was he foreign or unready?

The Repubs are using typical scare tactics to paint their opponent as an "other." It worked against Kerry, it is likely to work against Obama - this has always been likely to be the case. This limits Obama's upside in the national polls. Fortunately for the Senator from IL, this is not a "national" election but an accumulation of state elections.

What is going to happen to the Repubs as their base shrinks based on demographic changes in the US over the next 20 years...?

filistro said...

Pete... do stop embarrassing yourself. If you ever paid attention to anything other than what's programmed into your own preconceptions, you would know that Hillary's name beign placed in nomination is NO BIG DEAL. In fact it happens often at conventions where there has been a close-fought primary. It's simply a nod of respect to a worthy opponent, and it does promote unity.

When Hillary accepts her nomination and then warmly and graciously moves her supporters to Obamas' camp, his numbers will tick upward and stay up from then onward.

Why? Because at that moment he will permanently acquire a whole lot of those leaners and undecideds that you are always so excited about.

The handling of this Clinton situation, as with most of the Obama campaign decisions, is absolutely brilliant.

Adam in NY said...

I'm starting to sense a shift here. Obama's strategy has been to bleed McCain dry and force him to defend an extra dozen red states. It's pretty clear now that that is simply not going to happen. It's hard for the Republicans to take Obama seriosuly when he makes a play for NC and has unfavorables of almost 50. It's tough to see why McCain would want to justify spending money in Indiana, even though the Dems are trying to goad him into it, when you look at Missouri and see McCain a reasonable distance ahead. If McCain is up by mid-single-digits in MO he doesn't need to worry about IN.

In the past month we've seen CO, and OH move right back to an exact tie. VA is probably not going to go to Obama unless McCain is already losing anyway (2012 will be different there with demographic shifts).

I'm really starting to believe McCain can pull this off. Demographics don't favor Obama in Ohio. So if McCain focuses like a laser beam on Ohio and Colorado - that's not going to take a hail mary pass to pull this off, especially considering both states have a history of rejecting liberal candidates and Obama's narrative has been co-opted by the Republicans.

It's starting to get good.

jsh1120 said...

RE: Rasmussen Party ID weighting.

The issue was explored on pollster.com about a month ago. It's true that Rasmussen uses the national party ID split from the previous three months to weight their daily NATIONAL tracking poll. However, the fact remains that Rasmussen finds more Republicans out there than any other national pollster. Why that is true is unclear.

On the other hand, their STATE polls do NOT use the national party split. (That would obviously be ludicrous.) Instead, they use the raw change in national party ID since the last election and add/subtract that difference to the party ID in a state from the last election.

Thus, if a state was 60/40 Democratic in the last election and the national change is +5% in Democratic ID since that election, Rasmussen assumes the state is now 65% Democrat.

Obviously, since there is no guarantee that partisan ID changes are uniform across states, this approach can have unanticipated consequences in STATE level polls.

P.S. All of the above is my intepretation of information provided by Mark Blumenthal in his correspondence with Rasmussen. If it is incorrect, it's my fault, not Blumenthal's.

adzam said...

Jack Black,

Please explain the parallels to the 2004 election? Why does this matter?

The political and national environment in which this election is taking place is so different than 4 years ago.

The past provides some information about the present and less about the future.

Think harder. Write less.

Adam in NY said...

>>What is going to happen to the Repubs as their base shrinks based on demographic changes in the US over the next 20 years...?

Good question. That is a real and genuine concern of mine.

filistro said...

Regarding the Jerome Corsi book that Pete Kent and Virginia Conservative and the rest of you wingers are so excited about... did you know Corsi is a 9/11 Truther nut?

So... do you all agree with your guy that 9/11 was an inside job?

Adam in NY said...

>>So... do you all agree with your guy that 9/11 was an inside job?

What does that have to do with tarring a candidate, exposing his weaknesses and changing the public perception of him? Republicans don't need to defend Corsi. The risk is greater for Democrats because the only thing Obama has to sell is an image that has not been firmly established in the minds of the electorate.

Scarce said...

If McCain misses giving his speech in prime time at the convention on Sept 4th does this help or hurt him if less people see him speak because of the late hour? He may not take to the stage until after 11PM. The average NFL televised game is 3hr 26min and the Giants-Redskins game starts at 7PM. McCain has said he'll wait until the game is over to give his speech.

Harper said...

Pete,
Obama has nothing in common with John Kerry besides party identification. How can all of these claims be true? They contradict each other. The argument is circular.

I remember Obama answered a reporter this January about why he spoke in vague metaphors rather than discussed the issues. His comment was, "Initially I put on my law school professor hat and explained my policy at length. People didn't seem to like that and got bored with lengthy discussion, so I stopped explaining the details."

Herunar said...

This year, the conventions will be hold within a week of each other, so voters will still have a fresh memory of the Democratic convention when they're watching the Republicans'. The quality of the conventions will therefore be much more important than in the past, and thus the MOS of your prediction would be larger. On the other hand, the electorate, I believe, is much more polarized than the one eight years ago or decades ago, which might make a smaller bounce.

Christopher said...

Man, I wish the Dems would just come out with an ad and say it:

John McCain does not have the temperment to be President.

He is a loose cannon and he could cause serious harm on the international stage. His first instinct is always aggressive rhetoric and the use of force. Historically, this is almost always wrong.

Let's face it, we CANNOT engage in a war with Russia - at least in the traditional sense. We will NOT be placing troops in former Soviet states. That's absurd.

There are hundreds of other ways of dealing with this -- economically being the most powerful. But man, the press refuses to call out this dangerous rhetoric from McCain. It's scary. It's like 2003 all over again.

America, if you elect McCain, expect four years of war posturing for EVERY conflict in any part of the world.

Enough. The man who "knows how to win wars", doesn't know how to keep peace.

PeteKent said...

Fillstro:

You reply to me is a joke.

Having roll calls for losing candidates has historically prefigured defeat, not unity, in closely and hotly fought elections. Recall Jimmy Carter v. Ted Kennedy and then Ford v. Reagan.

Nice try at spinning calling the Obama camp "absolutely brilliant" at engineering this roll call. You are alone in this view. The pundits are savaging Obama for letting Mrs. Clinton lead him by the nose and exposing once again what a weak-kneed, weenie he is. Not exactly Commander in Chief material, now is he? Putin is chuckling.

Next thing you know Chelsea is gonna run up to him while he is speaking at Invesco field and give him a wedgie!

Why not? Maureen Dowd has already de-pantsed him!

Stephen said...

Do we really expect McCain to have a +2 immediately after his convention? I guess if the race were tied, that might be what it looks like. I'd guess the most likely result is both conventions cancel each other out, and the race doesn't move, so it goes back to Obama +2 or +3.

Still, it has the potential to be a game changer one way or another, (which I think a McCain lead of +2 for a month would count as one).

filistro said...

Adam in Ny

What does that have to do with tarring a candidate, exposing his weaknesses and changing the public perception of him? Republicans don't need to defend Corsi.

I can't believe you just said that. It's tantamount to saying it doesn't matter who does the smearing... how insane, deceitful and discredited they might be... as long as the smears get out there.

God help us all.

lilnev said...

Nate,
I like the analysis, but I don't like factoring it into the projection, at least if the plan is to use straight subtraction. A smaller upswing is likely to be followed by a smaller downswing, to a stable baseline. So if Obama gets a 2 point bounce, we can interpret that as:

1) Obama's baseline has deteriorated by 4 pts, and at the end of the bounce decay he'll be 4 pts behind his pre-convention numbers (this is the projection if you simply subtract the "expected bounce" from the current numbers). Or,

2) Obama's bounce was smaller than average.

The variance of bounce size is much greater than the variance of the baseline week to week. Therefore (2) is the more likely explanation.

PeteKent said...

Christopher,

You mnay not have heard it, but Mccain has spoken intelligently and with forceful but measured tones about the crisis in Georgia. he has sounded calm and thoughtful. I do not think your caricature of him is hitting tis mark.

Obama has been hiding in HI and did not have the good sense to cut his vacation short if only to appear as if he were on top of things.

He must be very busy having tea with his granny. I think he spent five minutes with her, btw. She is jsut a prop. I'd love to see her get interviewed. Typical while woman, indeed!

dwbh said...

News Flash:

Obama lead in Rasmussen tracker triples! He is up to 3 pts.

Statistical noise? Regression to the mean?

Georgia?

Energy?

Geritol?

Discuss!

filistro said...

Pete... you really need to start reading a bit more widely.

Seriously.

(And I'm speaking here as one of your fans :-)

Christopher said...

Pete,

There is no reason for a post like that. If you want to dispute my post, do so on it's merits. Tell me exactly how McCain is showing restraint.

From everything I've seen, he is focusing more on seeming tough than being right.

Let's be honest with ourselves. One of the only reasons Georgia interests us is the presence of the oil pipeline. Stoking the flames there with tough rhetoric is not going to cool heads.

Russia overreacted and was way out of line. There should be sanctions. But let's not pretend that Georgia was innocent either. They did act first, in hopes that the west would come running to their side and start a war with Russia. That's not a trap smart leaders would get caught into.

And really, I find it absurdly presumptuous and dangerous that McCain would send his campaign to a war zone. Yes, they are senators -- but they can go there at the direction of the State Department, NOT by the direction of a political campaign.

If Obama had done the same thing, he would be getting killed by the press.

Booze said...

Yesterday's Pete was a bit lazy. I'm glad he's back on form today. He does make me chuckle so.

"McCain has spoken intelligently and with forceful but measured tones" = comic gold.

Booze said...

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first, probably, serious crisis, internationally, since the end of the cold war."

You call that intelligent?

Juris said...

Nate, I would like to second lilnev's suggestion that you be cautious about directly adjusting for a "bounce effect" in your projections.

It seems to me that you should not determine this a priori but rather consider it as just as a way to interpret the numbers that you do get from your regular model. You're going to have a lot of polling going on around the time of the convention (including some overnight polls that try to catch an immediate bounce), and I'd let those dense data tell their own story using your current model rather than impose any special adjustments based on timing of the conventions.

You're already planning, IIRC, to shift to preferring LV models after the second convention, and that's going to impart another source of variance to the fit of your long-run model.

Another way of thinking about this might be to regard the pre-convention period as establishing a 'trend', and the 'post-convention period' as a new period, with the intervention of the convention providing a shock to the system, which can affect both the intercepts and the slopes (trends). A general way of describing such models is as an "interrrupted time series," and you can find some literature on this.

Adam in NY said...

filistro,

As a practical matter, what I said is correct. Corsi may or may not have a checkered past. Obama may or may not have had a checkered past *in the eyes of voters.* But Corsi isn't running for president. Obama is. And Obama has very little in the way of an actual record to refute Corsi's charges. THAT is the relevent point in terms of how this will play out electorally.

And Democrats aren't as pure as the wind-driven snow either. Remember the forged documents? Remember the twisting and artful editing of McCain "100 years" comments? We don't hear that anymore because the war is not a net plus for Democrats anymore given McCain's correct stance on the surge.

I don't feel sorry for Barry because of Corsi's book.

Mark said...

Great post, Nate. Should be a good show.

Re: Obama in Hawaii: If he'd gone off vacation, he would have been tarred as "acting like he were already president". He didn't do much less than McCain did and he was on VACATION.

If the state of Georgia was the one that had been invaded, he should've gone off vacation, but I don't think an attack on some random country around the world warrants his immediate and undivided attention, at the expense of his much-needed off time. The guy's been campaigning nonstop for how long, exactly?

I thought the guy who is actually our president should be handling this...

Christopher said...

It is strange how Bush is off tapping the American flag on his knee and basically allowing McCain to be his presidency by proxy.

That's some dangerous stuff.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama has bounced back in the Rassmussen poll, McCain is in deep trouble, if the smears against Obama don't stick like they did against Kerry they can't win.

Most of the undecideds are undecideds who will vote democratic in the end giving Obama a +2 from where he is now. Add +2 for the cellphone crowd and +1 for increases African american support and we have a landslide that nobody knew about.

Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan. Those states are not really close, they only appear so. Pollsters cannot measure the excitement on the ground, and its all for obama. All this polling is vastly underestimating Obama's support. McCain has to be +4 to have any shot at winning. Thats impossible given the metrics this year.

As we approach election day. Obama's win probability will soar on intrade and other gambling sites as the public realizes this reality and Obama cruises to victory. Theres no need to sweat the trolling talking points, talking points can't stop the avalanche comming.

PeteKent said...

Christopher et al.:

You mock McCain, but I dobut if you heard him speak at length on this topic. One of the virtues of POTUS on XM radio is that you can.

McCain should be given credit for recognizing that Russia is becoming a resurgent actor on the world stage and has shown a kind of bellicosity not seen from it since the end of the Cold War.

It would be foolish to turn inward and ignore the threat. It is not going away and must be dealt with.

I'll say no more on the topic, as this is not a site for polemics, but for the impact of event on the Prez race. What we may think about the bona fides of McCain's or Obama's positions, amtters less than the public's perception of them.

I am not sure how that is playing out. The immediate impact has been seemingly neutral.

I note that the media has tried to spin this as "impotent" America, incapable of acting b/c we are overextended. I think that is false on two counts. One, we would never, except under the most extreme circumstances, want to confront Russia directly with military force. And Two, if we had to, we could martial a response and a meaningful one at that. I hardly think Anderson Cooper is qualified to comment on this and he and his co-horts (no dobut the odious Olbermann whom I cannot stomach to watch except in tiny snippets) are simply trying to politicize this incident and tie it back to Iraq.

PeteKent said...

MattJH:

You must have taken a doubkle dose of Adderal today. Calm down, young man! You are beginning to sound like me.

You are much more entertaining as a concern troll.

Adam in NY said...

>>Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan. Those states are not really close, they only appear so. Pollsters cannot measure the excitement on the ground, and its all for obama. All this polling is vastly underestimating Obama's support. McCain has to be +4 to have any shot at winning. Thats impossible given the metrics this year.

Did a little rabbit tell you that or something? Michael Moore thought that cellphone support would propel John Kerry to victory too. Except we all know how that turned out. And AA support probably will be up - but it doesn't matter. Increased AA support only leads to increased white support. Ask Jessie Jackson. He found that out when he was campaigning all through the south for Dukakis in 1988.

The reality is that no one knows whether or not Obama's race and AA support is going to be an electoral plus or minus. And if most of the undecideds are Democrats there is a reason that after all this time they are still undecided and Barry is still only at 46 percent in the national polling average.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama's turnout machine is the most complex organized Machine in history. Its efficiency is unparalleled. Ad a 1.05 or more to November results. While McCain and his Karl Rove disciples wage an old style campaign, Obama wages a new 21st century campaign, a stealth operation designed to win on election day. His strategy cannot be counted for in polls they cannot measure the strength of this operation.

The core of this stealth operation is in the key states of VA, OH, MI, and NV. On election day expect a huge surprise , the polls were wrong!!! The landslide knowbody knew about. It will be a moment in History.

Cugel said...

"Matt said...

I wouldn't take that combined curve too seriously--there's a tremendous amount of noise in these numbers, and things have changed a lot between 1952 and today. I'd guess the actual shape of the bounce varies tremendously based on the year's conditions."


This is why I don't think much of Nate's efforts here. It's like trying to compare data from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq to decide something about what the next war will be like.

Years ago, campaigns didn't even start until much later. There was LOTS more volatility in the electorate as a result. For example, Roosevelt was DRAFTED by acclimation at the 1940 and 1944 Conventions. He wasn't an official candidate until he came out on stage at the convention.

In the 50's and 60's the primaries started several months later than they do now. In 1968 the New Hampshire primary was first in the Nation -- on March 12 and the Wisconsin primary (second at that time) was several weeks later. Lyndon Johnson didn't withdraw until March 31, when his internal polls showed him likely losing the Wisconsin primary.

Everything is different now. The electorate is much more polarized for one thing. And you can't compare INCUMBENT elections with NON-INCUMBENT elections.

Elections are really much simpler than all this polling is making out. All incumbent elections are a referendum on the Incumbent. If things are going well, why change? If not, is the challenger acceptable? That's it.

Non-Incumbent elections are simple too. Are things going o.k.? Is so, why change parties? If not, is the challenger an acceptable alternative?

For the rest of this election swing voters will be looking at Obama and trying to decide whether they trust him enough to vote for the change they want.

McCain is trying to amp up the fear to block Obama. But, it's having a predictable effect.

1. McCain is rallying Republicans with his negative attacks. He's got 88% to Obama's 7% with maybe 5% undecided.

That means his ceiling is around 93%, close to Bush's 2004 total.

Kerry got 89% of Democrats, but Obama is only getting 83% in the latest Pew poll.

Of Hillary supporters, he only gets 72% (up from 69% in June). So his task at the convention is to rally them.

mike said...

What's the stat. significance of that function?

DCM in FL said...

JURIS,

You make good points about Rasmussen in your posts above. Thanks for the Pollster reference as I had not seen that one before.

That confirms what I have been saying for awhile. Not that Scott R. is making up data, but that he is cleverly pushing his released results with an underlying purpose.

Number 1 would be to drive his marketing - NOTE: RR announced a premium price increase today effective 9/1 ! What a surprise but how telling as well.

A very close race on paper that suggests swings & movements generates buzz for his polls & $$$.

In late Oct & Nov, his polls will settle in. Until then I anticipate RR will continue to supply the noise generating results that feed the beast [MSM].

By massaging the push questions & his commentaries along with weighting his demos & party IDs any pollster can produce cooked stats as all analysts are well aware.

Marketing & gamesmanship - democratic capitalism in action...

Adam in NY said...

>>Obama's turnout machine is the most complex organized Machine in history. Its efficiency is unparalleled

>>The core of this stealth operation is in the key states of VA, OH, MI, and NV

Yet in VA Obama's win was totally on the backs of his core supporters. A Democrat primary election in VA looks nothing like a general election contest in the state. Obama cannot count on traditional Democrat votes in Appalachia that helped propel Jim Webb to his vary narrow victory over the flawed George Allen.

This turnout machine completely failed in Ohio by any reasonable measurement. Obama should have crushed Hillary in Cleveland. Yet he won Cuyahoga county by only six points and got crushed by over 50 points in Dem-leaning southeast Ohio. There are no guarantees at all that these Appalcahian Democrats will return to the fold and they have a history of defecting to the Republicans in 1980, 84, 88, 2000 and 2004.

Obama has a net negative favorability in NV. He's expected to win MI anyway but even that is up in the air because of the shananigans of the Detroit mayor.

Obama still has a slight upper hand but you simply have no justification for being as confident as you portray yourself.

Alex S. said...

I´d rather be at 46% than at 44% in the national polls....

Some of those voters that voted "don´t know"/"undecided" or something like that, are in fact not going to vote! Someone will probably get more than 50% of the votes (at the current strength of 3rd party candidates), it´s the one with the simple majority of voters.
That´s also why I would be very careful with "ceilings" when speaking of national numbers. There is a certain ceiling for some demographics, because you can´t get more than 100% of those voters. And since McCain is closer to 100% for his party than Obama is to his 100%, McCain is closer to the ceiling there.
But to speak of a nationla ceiling is senseless. For example, just in theory, Obama currently "only" gets around 45-48% of the voters in the polls. But that could increase although Obama might not gain a single new voter until election day...simply because some potential McCain voters might stay at home. It could happen the other way, too, but the PROBABILITY is higher for a smaller turnout for McCain, because his voters aren´t as enthusiastic.

PorridgeGun said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Clark Miller said...

After decades of the Republican party claiming the realist mantle in world affairs, it is shocking to see them, under the Bush Administration, lose their realism.

Pete, do you really seriously believe that Russia is as serious a threat today as it was during the Cold War? Let's be serious for a moment.

The Soviet Union controlled a total population of nearly 400 million. Russia, at 180 million, is less than half that.

In 1960, the Soviet Union tried to put missiles in Cuba, 70 miles from the US border. Today, the Russian army in Georgia has moved less than 30 miles from the Russian border.

If you follow Thomas Barnett's argument in The Pentagon's New Map, which is arguably the most serious, influential, and intelligent analysis of global threat conditions for today's world, you will see that the Caucuses lie within a zone of global instability where Barnett argues that brushfire wars are highly likely to erupt on a frequent basis.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not at all minimizing the need to be serious about challenging Russian aggression and encouraging Russia to be serious in living up to international standards of good neighborliness. But in no way is Russia today the equivalent of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The old Soviet Union managed to fight proxy wars with the United States simultaneously in SE Asia, throughout Africa, and in Latin America. The new Russia is managing to fight proxy wars with Chechnya and Georgia: two countries with less than 10 million total inhabitants that lie either directly on its border or entirely within its borders.

If you're going to be serious about national security, be serious about national security.

PorridgeGun said...

Rasmussen: Obama up to 44% and John McCain drops to 41%. With "leaners" it's Obama 47% and McCain 45%

That's the biggest lead Obama has had in Rasmuseen since the world tour. Obama hasn't been in the news all week. I'm beginning to trust these pollsters less and less... especially Rasmuseen. I mean, he's got Obama only +4 in Minnesota for crissakes.

Chris said...

Nate, I love your site but until you hire someone to moderate the comments section, or remove it entirely, I'll find my poll news somewhere else. It seems trolls these days outnumber the on-topic posters.

MATT J. H. said...

McCain has peaked in terms of support. He has nearly 100% of republicans and he can't break 45%. Obama has a much devided party and he's near 58-49%. There is only upside for Obama. Combine this data with the Obama stealth turnout machine and McCain is over. The university registration hasn't started yet. That won't come until the fall. They are Obama's base. right now Obama is holding McCain at bay and Obama's base is unacounted for. They will arrive. When they do, bye, bye McCain.

JohnNYC said...

Nate's chart is gutsy and extremely valuable as a benchmark. There are so many ghosts in the machine of this year's election; conventions right on top of one another around Labor Day is among the biggest. Saying that there is "a week" between them is more than generous. Make it a few days. I don't think anyone has any idea what this will mean, but Nate's second chart showing an expected pattern is extremely helpful.

The most interesting thing about the chart is that it shows the polls returning to the status quo ante just in time for the first debate on 9/26.

The more I think about it, the more I like the comparison to 1980. Ronald Reagan was the candidate with "suspect" credentials who used the first debate to show that he belonged on the same stage with a supposedly more experienced opponent. The dynamic of that election shifted after that debate to such an extent that Reagan was able to survive a mediocre performance in the second meeting. I see this shaping up in the same way. Obama shows the undecideds and doubters that he "belongs" on the stage. Reagan got 50.7% of the vote. I can live with that as long as it includes CO, IA and NM and the Kerry States.

I'm not smart enough to identify "hidden landslides," but if we just stick to our knitting, focus on the states we must defend and the states we must win, then I think it's Obama's year.

MATT J. H. said...

I am attempting to turn the direction on this blog. I have had enough of Republican spin, and am instituting my own....

Counter Attack.

JRS said...

Jack Black,

Your 15 minutes are almost up! George Bush took the lead from Kerry (according to Rasmussen) by the end of the week of August 26 and never lost it. In fact, GWB lead 24 of the 39 weeks leading up to election 2004 including the last 9. For the record, the RR tracking averages for for the last four months were July K +1.6, August B +0.6, September B +2.6 and October B +1.8.

If you take Rasmussen 2004 tracks as your historical bible, you should be very concerned if Obama is leading in September.

Maxwell said...

I don't really understand the angle of the republicans trying to spread doom and gloom here. Who would have thought 4 years ago that a black candidate would be polling even, much less be the (yes, he still is)favored winner? An all but guaranteed loss of 5 senate seats and god knows how many in the house doesn't bode well either.

Conservatives need to find a way to strike a chord with growing minorities, especially hispanics. If the report I saw from Brian Williams the other night projecting whites as the minority in the US by ~2040 is correct, I foresee a creek and a distinct lack of paddles for a certain party in the future.

PorridgeGun said...

I think you're right, matt. If McCain can't break 45% conducted by a Republican pollster, when will he? Every wingnut says conservatives have come home. Fair enough. Obama has a sh*tload of support to shore up, also. I don't think there's any question about that. The right VP pick and a positive convention will help greatly. Corsi's sloppy attempts at smearing Obama isn't working it seems. The Obama camp are circulating a 40-page debunking of his lies. Jerome Corsi has also been outed as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Will the so-called "liberal media" pick up on this? The situation in Georgia has cooled somewhat, so McMagoo can give it a rest with his campaign to start World War III.


"Despite the Russian invasion of Georgia, daily tracking data shows no shift in voter priorities for Election 2008. Forty-one percent (41%) say economic issues are most important while just 22% name national security issues as the top priority (See Daily Snapshot).


New state polling data shows McCain with a modest edge in North Carolina, Obama slightly ahead in Minnesota, and a toss-up in Colorado. Virginia and Nevada also remain too close to call. Rasmussen Markets data currently gives Obama a 61.3 % chance of winning the White House.

Obama is now viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, McCain by 54% (see trends). Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers."



BTW, did I mention Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. What. Say. You, wingnuts?

Virginia Conservative said...

Hmmm, is it too late for Hillary, Democrats?

Maybe the delegates will reconsider at the convention. Maybe she will keep the VP spot open for him.

Juris said...

Matt, if everyone moderated their feeding of the trolls when a thread goes completely off topic, that would help. That's probably the only type of "moderation" that would work.

I just skim past the well known trolls, and don't even check whether they're attempting to stay one topic any more.

Some topics here are, of course, inviting of partisan comments because the columns themselves address strategic or other issues, including electoral history. I skip those threads entirely.

When a topic is like this one, however -- focusing on a methodological issue -- then trying to turn the discussion to the same-old same-old instead of offering technical advice or commentary is rude and annoying because it puts so much irrelevant chaff into the comments section. Too bad, but trolls can't help themselves. So I just skip over all of their comments.

Alexander said...

I haven't read through all the comments so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but I expect that McCain's convention bounce should be dampened by one underlying factor; the NFL.

The night of his convention speech coincides with the night that the World Champion NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS and the Washington Redskins kick off the NFL season. As a campaign worker out in Ohio, I can tell you with confidence that the NFL trumps either the DNC or the RNC in this country.

clarkejeffrey said...

Nate,

You mentioned a database of polls going back to 1952. Where did you get the database? How much did it cost? Are you allowed to share the raw data with readers?

I'd like to do a couple of studies on raw historical data and I haven't found a suitable database yet.

PeteKent said...

Matt JH:

I found this unpersuasive and not backed up by facts; it merely sounds like hype.

You wrote: "Obama's turnout machine is the most complex organized Machine in history. Its efficiency is unparalleled. Ad a 1.05 or more to November results. While McCain and his Karl Rove disciples wage an old style campaign, Obama wages a new 21st century campaign, a stealth operation designed to win on election day. His strategy cannot be counted for in polls they cannot measure the strength of this operation."

How can you make these assertions Obama's turnout machine is untested and your assesment is nearly 3 months premature.

Adding 5% to BO's numbers based on hype is unworthy of you.

Again, please leave such sophistry to professionals like me!

bobdee said...

Juris -

Thank you for your link to the very interesting and enlightening discussion of the impact of individual polls on their overall results. From now on, I think I will adjust the results posted here slightly in Obama's favor to take into account the heavy weight of Rasmussen's polls.

Josh said...

I think it's funny that the Republicans here think the Dem. convention is going to be trouble because of Clinton while not realizing the *real* trouble the Republican convention has because of a couple of guys named Bush & Cheney. I think there may be no Republican convention bump this year because the convention is only going to remind people that John McCain does indeed represent 4 more years of the same.

moondancer said...

OK all you Mccaniacs and concern trolls, what if the Clinton deal is exactly what Obama proposed in June to a "T" and the hype was simply to drown out the gooper noise machine until Obama finished his vacation?
Check out the June quotes and allow your faces to turn red for being played.

filistro said...

moondancer...

SHHHH... don't tell 'em!

So far they've stumbled reliably into every single trap that's been set for them. And now they're all falling for the Big Convention Trap as well.

It's going to be so entertaining. But you never know, they could eventually figure out they're being played, and that would spoil the fun.

No, I'm wrong... it's still going to be fun.

Foregone Conclusion said...

"John Kerry's convention bounce was lower than usual because Karl Rove and Tom Ridge manufactured a terror scare *outside* the Boston convention center. This produced a lot of network coverage about terrorism instead of John Kerry."

No, the reason why the Republican convention got a huge bounce, and the Kerry convention didn't is because the Democratic convention was crap (apart from the keynote, and VP and presidential acceptance speeches). The Democrats refused to go on the attack, and so their post conference bounce was (from memory) about three points.

This time, I predict it will be the other way round. McCain's great strength is his supposed independence from the Republican party (he is a 'maverick'). Call me partisan, but I don't believe that there are enough Republicans out there who don't frequently have 'disgraced', 'indicted', 'controversial', or 'nutjob' put in front of their names to fill the time available (that's why McCain is such a fantastic candidate).

In comparison, Obama's greatest strength (along with his charisma) is his party identification. I believe that his convention will be a triumph, showing the best and brightest of the party across the country. Hence, his bounce will be bigger than McCains.

But it seems that the bounce disappates anyway, so it's less important than you might think.

clarkejeffrey said...

The night of his convention speech coincides with the night that the World Champion NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS and the Washington Redskins kick off the NFL season.

At first I thought the same thing. Now I'm a little afraid of the opposite. The game starts at 7:00 eastern time, which means it will end just in time for McCain's acceptance speech. It might actually increase the lead in audience and benefit McCain.

Personally, I'm hoping for a really long overtime game.

Subterranean said...

Hah, what a vapid, self-righteous country this is. Hopefully McCain will be elected, start some more wars, and completely bankrupt American influence in every sense of the word. *Crosses fingers.*

I'd love to see China's global preeminence galvanized, and I think John McCain is the man to do it!

BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN.
BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN.
BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN.

Foregone Conclusion said...

Oh, and the difference between Kerry 2004 and Obama 2008 is that Obama is dominant in this campaign with McCain occasionally polling higher, whereas Bush was dominant in 2004 with Kerry occasionally polling higher. I still predict a narrow win for Obama nationally.

filistro said...

clarke, you're not thinking this all the way through.

Remember the green screen? The ghastly grin? The scary "my friends," and the well-known difficulties with teleprompters?

The more people who watch McCain's big speech, the better for Obama. Because, you know, I truly believe half the country is coasting along on memories of the McCain of former days, and doesn't yet fully realize that this dude is now really OLD, and also kind of... well, weird.

clarkejeffrey said...

OK all you Mccaniacs and concern trolls, what if the Clinton deal is exactly what Obama proposed in June to a "T" and the hype was simply to drown out the gooper noise machine until Obama finished his vacation?

I was wondering if all of the talk was simply a ploy to drive ratings. Hillary is very popular with undecided voters. I tend to think the Republicans saying: "Listen to Hillary...Isn't she great...you guys should have nominated her" are being really obvious.

There is not a person over 5 in the US that doesn't know they would have attacked her mercilessly if she was the nominee. To call it disingenous is being mild. Plus, by setting her up as this neutral person in the middle, you are just emphasizing the importance of her endorsement. Her speech will definitely get very high ratings.

counsellorben said...

This yesterday from the official Democratic convention website, located here"One of the greatest security challenges facing  the country today is reducing our dependence on oil, especially from foreign sources.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will discuss Barack Obama’s plans to make America more secure by investing in smart energy policies."

Anyone gonna give me some love on calling that Obama's energy plan would be featured prominently on Wednesday night?

Just to keep with my VP tea leave reading, why would Sen. Reid present Obama's plan on energy?  He hosted the National Clean Energy Summit, yes.  But is this a feint?

clarkejeffrey said...

Having roll calls for losing candidates has historically prefigured defeat, not unity, in closely and hotly fought elections. Recall Jimmy Carter v. Ted Kennedy and then Ford v. Reagan.

Pete, do you ever read academic studies. They have looked at this topic. It isn't the roll call. Its the close primary race. It only counts when its an incumbent. Basically, an incumbent having half of his party go against him means he has a serious problem in the fall. In reelection campaigns, people typically vote for or against the incumbent. A challenger having half of his party go against him normally just means there was another serious challenge.

Is it really that difficult to see that 1976 or 1980 votes for Reagan and Kennedy were really votes against Ford and Carter in ways that Hillary votes weren't?

Robby said...

Wow, Pete Kent; you've reached the rhetorical nadir of calling your political opponents NAZIS.

It's Friday, man. Call it an early day and come back with some slightly better trolling next week.

OregonPride said...

To those criticizing BO for not cutting his vacation short: what about GWB?? Did he head home when this happened? No - he's slapping backsides in Beijing.

I can't believe the media plays up this "3 a.m. moment" without pointing out that our current president ISN'T HERE FOR IT!

clarkejeffrey said...

On this date in history, August 15, 2004, inthe Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 49% to 47%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.


What is the topic of this thread?

That convention bounces typically occur and are temporary.

Yet, you post stats from a race where the convention bounce of one party had already occured and the other one hadn't and you compare it to the current pre-both conventions environment.

Are you trying to be ironic?

DCM in FL said...

clarkejeffrey,

I dunno. After a 3 1/2 - 4 hour highly anticipated NFL season opener, I doubt that those of us watching football will switch over to watch McCain. I will watch football.

The timing might actually be good for McCain anyway. The fewer people who actually watch me try to read a teleprompter the better for his #'s. I think even the GOP agrees after the green screen fiasco...

Besides NY Giants & DC Skins fans are primarily based in solid BLUE states [well maybe toss-up VA]. McCain needs the Denver Bronco & both MO, both OH & all 3 FL team fans much more...

REP convention opening on Labor Day is another odd start. Good or bad idea ? Seems like poor timing if you want an audience of swing voters & not just your hard core base. Swings will be out enjoying their holiday BBQ & would seem to be in little mood for political theater I would think.

Still as a means to step on any DEM bounce the timing of GOP convention might work, but I think they lose the bigger opportunity to reach a larger prime target audience.

A week later for the GOP would have still stepped on DEM bounce & allowed a better GOP viewing I believe. Plus as Nate's stats suggest, the GOP bounce would tend to carry out later into the tail end of the cycle, no ?

AND a week added to raise funds & spend them before the cutoff date, leaving one less week to finance with public funds. Strategically, it seems to me that the GOP would have been better to postpone McCain's coronation as long as possible...

PeteKent said...

Here is what Dick Morris is saying about The Clinton Rolling of Obama and what it says about the presumptive nominee . . .

This Clintonian tour de force raises a key question about Barack Obama: Is he strong enough to be president or can he be pushed around? His failure to stand up to the Clintons makes one wonder how effective he will be against bin Laden, Iran, Chavez, or Putin.

Is an unscripted Obama a pushover? Will foreign leaders conclude that he is not up to the job, just as Khrushchev did with JFK at his 1961 Vienna summit that presaged the Cuban Missile crisis? If he does so poorly in negotiating with the Clintons, how will he do with the Russians?

DCM in FL said...

PETE the PARROT references Dick Morris on the CLINTONS !!!

ROFLOL

good concern troll argument... [not]

adzam said...

Seriously, does McCain have the mental capacity to be President of this country?

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War."

Wow...how could a President not remember the first Iraq war, the aftermath of the Yugoslav break-up, 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq II, Darfur, East Timor...

adzam said...

Does he believe himself or has he lost his mental faculties?

"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."
McCain on Russia's military action against Georgia, made in Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008

Wow. Just Wow.

clarkejeffrey said...

Clintonian Tour de Force????


She wanted an empty piece of symbolism he gave it to her. It cost him nothing and was far better than the alternative.

The Republicans seem to think that a great leader should never back down on anything. That is absurd. What happens if the "great leader" on the other side is just as stubborn? Something really stupid escalates totally out of control.

Are you saying that if the roles are reversed, McCain wouldn't have given Hillary a roll call?

Why?

What would he have gained from that?

moondancer said...

Pete Kent

As per Marc Ambinder today, the press meme of strife and bitter negotiations is fiction. They might carry some soreness from the primaries, but they are both getting exactly what they want and need. Whoremaster Dick Morris has no inside information. And as I commented upstream Clinton got what Obama offered 3 months ago. So back off the GOP talking points.
Oh and as to Obama standing up to Iran, Chavez, etc..? At least he knows who they are, not clear at all McKane does(Iraq/Paki border, alQaeda training in Iran, Czechoslovakia, Pres Putin of Germany).

Mark said...

Ben, if Obama picks Harry Reid as his running mate, I'll be watching out for the McCain landslide victory. Harry Reid is the most dull, dry, boring, ineffectual Senate Majority Leader in DECADES. I cringe at the thought that he's even giving a speech at the convention at all.

Although the fact that Wednesday appears to be focusing on energy issues could be tea leaves for our horse, Gov. Schweitzer. Then again, "Securing America's Future" is a pretty broad topic; you can talk about securing America's economic future, political future, foreign policy future, etc.

The conspicuous absences I notice from the list of scheduled speakers are Al Gore (I'd be shocked if he were VP, but that MIGHT be the idea), Tim Kaine, Sam Nunn, and Wesley Clark. I know the schedulers and the VP search team don't have any communication, but I've heard rumors that the VP pick won't be any of the currently scheduled speakers. Taking those with a grain of salt.

Next week can't come fast enough.

DCM in FL said...

"adzam said...

Does he believe himself or has he lost his mental faculties [McCain]?"

Lost long ago [IMO]

The real question is whether the MSM will follow through on this - no way even though they would with a Bush gaffe of this type.

Now if Scott Rasmussen would push his next national poll by asking the respondents about this quote or the context [as he has done repeatedly with Obama memes], then I would change my opinion of RR results. not holding my breath...

clarkejeffrey said...

but I've heard rumors that the VP pick won't be any of the currently scheduled speakers. Taking those with a grain of salt.

Take those with a pound of salt. I'm convinced that at most 10 people know who the VP is and that none of them have said anything to anybody other than the other 9.

A complete and total surprise --- someone we have never heard mentioned --- would not shock me at all.

As for convention speakers, it takes about 5 minutes to change the schedule.

PeteKent said...

Again, with blinders on, DCM and Moondancer and their ilk dismiss anything that does not support their cause.

They cannot see the train wreck of a Clinton convention that is coming at them.

They would rather dismiss Dick Morris as a "whoremaster" than consider that the perception that he is talking about, the "press meme" that Moondancer refers to, is the reality of the moment.

The Clintons have destablized Obama and made him to look foolish. That it was in fact a brilliantly calculated move by his apotheosis of a campaign is meaningless if the press drums in to the peopless heads that he was pussy whipped into doing it.

And that, my friends, is what they are doing. They are doing it, my friends and it is working. And we will see in the polls that it is working.

DCM in FL said...

PETE the PARROT - ...

did you actually say something in all that screeching noise you made ???

clarkejeffrey said...

Al Gore would be a really interesting choice. I don't think he wants it, but what do I know.

He would remind people of the Clinton administration, without making it look like he is pandering to Bill and Hillary personally.

He'd also remind people of the 2000election and George W Bush. I'm convinced that quite a few people that voted for Bush feel they made a mistake, while the Gore voters are still Gore voters.

Gore also has the experience without the looming shadow.

For all the talk of the future, people often look to the past when voting and reminding people of the differences between the Clinton and Bush administrations is a good thing.

The problem with Gore:

Drilling.

Obama needs to compromise and give in. Its a flipflop but its not that big a deal. For one thing, McCain changed recently. For another, the American people changed recently. I think the typical swing voter realizes the tradeoffs and says "I wouldn't want drilling when gas is $1.50 a gallon but I need it at $4". They can understand the flexibility both candidates have on the issue.

However, Gore is now known primarily for the environment. He would look really strange agreeing to drilling and we'd open ourselves up to a lot of unnecessary criticism if he signed on to an Obama drilling plan.

DCM in FL said...

PETE actually said:

"And that, my friends, is what they are doing. They are doing it, my friends and it is working."

'my friends' we have John McCain himself apparently... I can see his grin now.

that explains his nonsense posts !

PeteKent said...

I was once told you need an 11th grade education to understand my writing. You, DCM, have apaprently never graduated HS and are a very dense person.

Now get the hell offa my lawn!

DCM in FL said...

clarkejeffrey


I agree completely with your post on Gore. He is not going to be Veep but would be the safest choice. Obama will probably go long instead.

Still IF Obama on energy & economy needs to do a compromise or flip, then who better than Gore to assist him ? It would provide the best cover IF the enviro-guy is the front man on it [IMO].

I think the safe pro's would greatly outweigh the cons in the dash to the election at least.

As for governing, well Obama could delegate much to Gore - who but the wingnuts would object ?

clarkejeffrey said...

The Clintons have destablized Obama and made him to look foolish. That it was in fact a brilliantly calculated move by his apotheosis of a campaign is meaningless if the press drums in to the peopless heads that he was pussy whipped into doing it.

As usual, I couldn't disagree with you more. If anything, the Clinton's large presence at the convention will underline the central fact of the primary. He beat her. Its like the Olympics where the silver and bronze medalists are standing on the podium. Yes, they ran a good race. Yes, they deserve credit and a consolation prize. But there is no doubt who the star of the show is. Standing in the middle on a higher level podium just reminds everybody who won the race.

I read some columnist say that what Obama gave them is "unprecedented".

WTF?

Former presidents always speak at their party convention. The runner up always speaks at the convention.

The fact is that all of this is being done to increase the drama and get people to tune in.

I'm all in favor of that because once they do tune in, they'll get a week full of two messages.

Obama won the primary.

Obama is a better candidate than McCain in November.

clarkejeffrey said...

DCM,

I didn't look at it that way. Gore supporting drilling could be a "Nixon goes to China" kind of a moment.

That is true. I do think that Gore holds a unique ability in being very acceptable to both the left and the center.

I don't think it will happen though. He seems happy in retirement. If he wanted back in the game, I think he would have run for president.

DCM in FL said...

clarke,

I believe that Gore thought the nomination would end up in a floor fight at the convention - and that they would turn to him.

look how close that scenario came to playing out ! Clinton & Obama basically tied & required the Supers to break it.

Man, in his dreams Gore got the deadlock. But Obamas
's team long strategy paid off - just barely enough [we assume at least since Hillary will now be placed in nomination].

Pete & friends think Hill will still steal the nomination. Never gonna happen, but Gore would have loved a floor fight looming to rally around him [IMO].

clarkejeffrey said...

I also find some of this Clinton talk by Republicans funny.

Just for argument sake:

Obama doesn't give her a roll call vote.

Is there any doubt what the Rep reaction would be?

Omigod!! She won 18 million votes. It was a really close race. You can't spare 5 minutes of time for some empty symbolism to acknowledge the great race she ran. Are you that insecure in your victory? What would it cost you? Its obvious that you don't respect Hillary Clinton or women in general.

It would be just like the military hospital thing where McCain prepared two ads and was prepared to criticize him for going if he went and not going if he didn't.

I think this is typical of the politics as usual attitude of the GOP and I think the voters can see through it.

PeteKent said...

ClarkJeffry,

Given your lucid writing style i must admit you seem to have a brain. I conlcude you are very young or very naive or both.

How you can rhapsodize about the Clinton Convention is beyond me. it is going to be a disaster. EVERYONE is saying so. Get with the meme, please!

As far Barry Soetero's (I hear that is his real name, btw -- has anyone seen his birth cert?), VEEP pick, I would love it if he picked Gore.

What a set up that would be. Green is the new drab this year, my friends, it is the new drab. No one wants to be assoicated with enviro-wackoism with gas at $4.00/gal still fresh in people's minds.

That ticket would sink like a lead ballon.

clarkejeffrey said...

I believe that Gore thought the nomination would end up in a floor fight at the convention - and that they would turn to him.

I never really bought into this theory. Somebody was going to win and the superdelegates were going to break one way or the other. Maybe if there was an exact tie on popular vote and an exact tie on pledged delegates... The odds of that were astronomical. A close win is still a win and somebody was going to win.

Also, remember when Gore decided not to run. It was early in the season. Campaigns get started almost a year before the first primary. Gore had no way of knowing that the primary would come down to a virtual tie. He had to think to himself in January 2007: Either I want to be president or I don't. Either I think the pain in the ass of politics is worth it or I don't. I think he made his decision and feels happy with it.

I really don't see him making that decision when he had a reasonably good chance of getting elected president and then deciding to be VP.

counsellorben said...

Mark said "Ben, if Obama picks Harry Reid as his running mate, I'll be watching out for the McCain landslide victory."

Mark,

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I would never suggest Obama is picking Reid, as I agree that it would be a suicide pick.  When I said a "feint," I meant it as in Reid would not be addressing the convention on Obama's energy plan.

I agree with your sentiment that next week needs to get in gear and arrive.

moondancer said...

Clarkejeffrey

I agree with your conclusions on Gore. There are things that have to be done even for one that hopes for a brokered convention. There is no indication of Gore doing anything in that line.

clarkejeffrey said...

I love how people mention "Barry Soetoro" as if its some sort of revelation and proves something.

Did you that Bill Clinton's actual name is William?

Barry is a common nickname for Barack.

Occasionally when a child's mother remarries, people incorrectly refer to the child by the stepfather's last name. Hence, during his childhood, some people incorrectly called him "Soetoro". When I was a kid, I knew several people this happened to. Sometimes they corrected them. Sometimes they didn't.

What exactly is your point?

Occasionally he used a nickname as a kid and that some people thought he had the same last name as his mother...

And this is relevant, how...

Do you really think that swing voters are looking at this and saying "I agree with him on Iraq and the economy, but he used a nickname as a kid so..."?

This is the problem with Republicans.

They are in such a hurry to attack, attack attack on anything that they occasionally don't stop and think about how stupid they sound.

Oh and his birth certificate is online at http:\\www.fightthesmears.com

clarkejeffrey said...

Let me sum up the 2 campaigns arguments:

Obama:

The last 8 years have been a disaster. Our foreign policy has really weakened us by alienating our traditional allies and getting us caught up in a quagmire in Iraq. Our domestic policy has led to a really bad economy, considerable deficits, a housing crash and all sorts of other problems. My opponent would continue those policies. I wouldn't.

McCain:

Yes, I'd continue those policies, but you are missing the point. He is really popular. Popular like Brittany Spears. Brittany Spears is bad...he must be too. Plus, Taco Bell sells out during his rallies. Do you really think his rallies should be encouraging the sale of tacos? Oh and I heard he used a nickname as a kid. Can you really trust a guy that goes by Barry one day and Barack the next? You might not like me or my policies, but can you really trust this country to somebody that is so associated with tacos, Brittany and nicknames?

Obama is making this campaign about real issues and McCain is making it about one triviality after the next.

mbw said...

Nate- This picture of the post-convention bounce is extremely uncertain. Look at the crappy data! If you're going to make the correction you described, you'll also have to temporarily increase the predictive error bars by a few percent. Barring something weird, you should then get about 50% win percent until the second bounce (and its very rough correction) settles.

clarkejeffrey said...

I'm curious about how the conventions will play out.

The Dem convention will clearly be a much bigger deal but I do acknowledge the possibility that some swing voters won't love the visuals of the football stadium. McCain's will be a much more subdued affair. Will people see that as humble or inferior? Its hard to tell.

I'm also really curious about the effect of putting them right next to each other. I think people might be really sick of politics by the end.

There are a lot of variables that aren't normally there.

I guess we're in uncharted waters.

My own guess is that the two bounces will completely even themselves out and we'll be roughly where we are right now in a couple weeks. Obama will benefit from higher ratings. McCain will benefit from going last. The two benefits will cancel each other out.

MSS said...

"Along with Nebraska, Maine is one of two states to divide its electoral votes proportionally, with the winner of each congressional district getting one EV and the statewide winner getting two."

That is NOT proportional. It is still winner take all, but at the CD level (and two statewide).

Consider the 1992 result in Maine:

Popular vote
38.7% Clinton
30.4% Perot
30.3% Bush

Electoral vote
4 Clinton
0 Perot
0 Bush

100% of electors on 38.7% of votes is not proportional by any definition I would recognize.

With Perot narrowly missing the plurality in one district, the allocation was almost 3-1. Obviously, a proportional allocation would have been 2-1-1, and the winning candidate would never have swept all of them in either state under their current rules.

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...

^^ 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,

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,

lovebook001 said...

キャッシング
インプラント

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,

,