9.07.2008

Patience, Poll-Watchers

If you peruse the comments in today's polling thread, you will see various sorts of proclamations about when John McCain's convention bounce will become meaningful (that is, when it can be described an actual shift in electoral preferences, rather than a temporary bounce). Some of these are exceptionally specific: "If Barack Obama isn't at 47 points in the Gallup Daily tracker by 2:51 PM on Wednesday, September 10th, then we're all d00mEd!!!".

Among the many difficulties that we face in this unique election cycle is figuring out exactly how long one should expect a convention bounce to last. Under ordinary circumstances, bounces are actually fairly persistent, lasting for perhaps several weeks:



Of course, we don't know what two bounces will look like when laid down on top of one another (with a one-week gap intervening). Our best guess was something like this:



That is, the Republicans would still be getting some residual benefit from having had the last convention for perhaps as many as two or three weeks from today.

Intuitively, that feels somewhat wrong to me. Most conventions are held over the summer, when the news cycle is much slower, and the convention gets to linger for longer as the last thing on voters' minds. This does, however, raise an important point: political time is relative rather than absolute. If it feels like the Democratic Convention was a month ago -- well, in political time, it might as well have been a month ago, since Sarah Palin and the Republican Convention displaced it as the first thing that voters will recall when they think about the election.

What I am saying, then, is that we should evaluate the robustness of the Republican bounce by how well it holds up to the currents of political time, rather than any specific date on the calendar. Specifically, I would want to see how the bounce holds up to the next major development of the campaign, particularly if it is a pro-Obama development. For example, let's say that Colin Powell endorses Obama tomorrow morning. I might expect a fairly strong reaction to this in the polls, not because the endorsement is all that important unto itself (most endorsements aren't), but because it displaces the GOP Convention as the most recent event of the campaign -- it pushes political time forward. And if the polls didn't move in reaction to such an endorsement, I'd think Democrats would have reason to worry.

On the other hand, if the next couple of weeks are relatively newsless, I would not necessarily expect the bounce to fade all that quickly, and I would not necessarily be worried (as a Democrat) if it didn't.

359 comments

jakam said...

Hagel is already retiring anyway isn't he?

Yes. His only future position would likely be in an Obama cabinet. I doubt endorsing Obama would hurt those chances.

Wa7th said...

Even after discounting for the fact that I moved from one of the more conservative districts in the nation (TX24th) to one of the most liberal (Wa7th), therefore everything I know is wrong, I'm still in the moondancer camp as being unable to believe that the EV could be close. I think Nate has it pegged. We're mostly seeing only what we have expected to see all along.

Darío said...

People talk about the new voters and young votes since Ronald Reagan.
That´s a total myth.

MidPointMan said...

Aussie -

Those numbers can be completely engineered.

For example, Should a President get credit for the first year of their term? Their economic policies never actually have any impact until the second year. Likewise, should then not get credit for the year after they leave, when their policies are still in place because they were set in the previous year's budget?

That correction alone makes all of that go away.

Also, if you remove 1982, which is the year that Reagan and the Democrats agreed that they had to put the economy into a recession to bring down inflation, then the ENTIRE effect goes away.

Also, you have to measure GDP per capita, not total GDP growth.

Population growth has historically been higher under Democrats due to higher immigration rates. Greater population growth will lead to greater GDP.

Take all those factors into account and there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of GDP per capita growth.

None.

However Democrats do generally have higher inflation and higher interest rates and more stagnant standards-of-living.

Serious economists do not read any of those "studies" you linked to.

Darío said...

I think this is the most big government republican in the GOP history.
But the FED is responsable for the inflation, more than the Bush Administration.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"People talk about the new voters and young votes since Ronald Reagan.
That´s a total myth."

The biggest myth about this election is assuming that things will be the same as in other elections.

Virginia Conservative said...

It's the FED!

DOCTORONPAUL!!!

Charles M. Kozierok said...

VC -- If you mock Ron Paul then you don't know the first damned thing about conservatism.

PeteKent said...

Quantman:

I thought Obama himself took pains today to tell ABC News that MCcain and his campagin had nothing to do with talking about "my Muslim faith" as he put it.

Thus I diosagree with your statmeent: "Colin Powell has to be seething with anger with all this Obama is a Muslim talk spread by the McCain folks."

Joseph said...

charles m. kozierok said:
Wow, otf. Those are major numbers. Can you show us where you got them? Thanks.

Usually that stuff is published via the website of the Secretary of State of whatever state you're interested in. I've been following some of those numbers too, mainly Nevada and Colorado and following California's numbers to try and see what effect they might have on local and congressional races, if any.

Continue to Spread the Word!!! said...

A big rain storm destroys that myth. Kids my age will not go vote.

Virginia Conservative said...

Paul is a kook. I'm sorry, but the debate on whether or not to have federal control over currency was decided a looooooooooong ass time ago, and for a damned good reason.

Darío said...

Ron Paul was right,

abolished the FED.

hosertohoosier said...

Aussie,

That is an incredibly superficial argument, especially when the data is there (go to bls.gov) for you to verify your claim.

The general understanding is that pre-1980, economic growth was higher and unemployment was lower under Democrats, because as the party of the working class, they tended to preference those things over price stability. Republicans, as the party of the rich (who suffer from inflation) tended to have better price stability.

After 1980 that distinction went away, because of increased central bank independence. That, not the stupid tax cut (you are right that the Laffer curve is crap - although it did hold true for the Kennedy tax cut - which should make you caution assignment of tax policy to a consistent partisan ideology).

Another factor you might consider is that recessions have often occured at the tail end of one government. An administration may enjoy high growth because of a bubble, and then have that bubble pop late in their term in office - costing them the election, but mostly mucking up the stats of those that inherit the recession.

Reagan inherited a recession from Carter. Clinton inherited a recession from Bush Sr. Duby inherited a recession from Clinton (in all of those cases the recession was more the "fault" of the fed and forces outside the control of the president anyway).

If you want to really get at which party is better for the economy, look for major institutional changes that alter long-term patterns of economic growth.

Al Gore's "taking the initiative" on the Internet is such an example. Increased central bank independence (mostly pushed by congress especially in the late 70's) is such an example. FDR going off the gold standard, and establishing the Bretton-Woods system is an example. Nixon moving to a floating currency is one. NAFTA/CUSFTA is another. Andrew Jackson's retarded policies are a negative example (they led to the crash of 1837 and Martin van Buren not getting re-elected).

Virginia Conservative said...

Yeah, then we can go pack to financial panics! YEAH!

Seriously in the 19th Century people could wait out financial panics and bank failures because most of us lived of the land and could eat in any event. It doesn't work that way anymore, that's why we have the fed.

Darío said...

The media hates Ron Paul, he´s a good person and a libertarian leader. This country needs a preson like Paul.
Big government returns and we must stop it.

PeteKent said...

Moondancer,

On what is this supposition derived?

"When Caribou Barbie is properly defined, she'll be a liability"

Wishful thinking?

Have you alwsys been a sexist pig or do you just hate the aspirations of Republican women.
?

You might as well haev acalled her a "House Negro".

Its okay to objectify women and treat them as figures of derision.

Just leave the blacks alone.

Too much progress for one millenia, eh?

Moondancer -- you ar a joke!

filistro said...

Oh Pete, for God's sake.

Watch the video before you spout such ignorance.

Darío said...

And the FED was responsable for the Wall Street crack too.

MN said...

Once again I wonder: Why on God's Green (and Browning) Earth did we let them hold their convention FIRST?! It's not fucking fair and its not fucking sensible.

They cancelled out our Bounce and get an un-opposed bounce of their own. They obviously wait for us to announce our convention, why can't we do the same and force them to go first?

I'd definitely rather have the last word, and its what sticks in voters minds.

Joseph said...

We're in a precint right now.

PeteKent said...

TDC 2000:

Palin's entry into the race has changed its structure in a fundamental way: in less than a week obama's lead among women has been cut in half. that is no bounce--that is an upheaval.

Smitty said...

Hey, aussie, it's good to see someone pointing out the real economic viewpoints.

It is indeed true that the current worldwide situation has changed. It also is true that the current economic platform must be replaced.

The Dem candidate during this election has pulled in the "best of the best" bipartisan group for counseling. It is acknowledged that among some of the billionaires that the nation may be at stake, economically.

Virginia Conservative said...

Actually I don't dislike Ron Paul. He's a kook, but a loveable kook. It's some of his followers that I have a real issue with.

MidPointMan said...

Dems also love to point to studies that use census-based Household income as a measure of income changes...

...but they fail to account for the fact that household structure has changed dramatically.

The average household has shrunk in size, with few earners per household.

A lot more young people live on their own now than in the past. There are a lot of students that get apartments while in college. They have ZERO income.

You did not see that in the past. Census data also includes illegal aliens. Tax data does not.

The growth in illegal alien households will of course grow the lower classes in that data.

Census data does not count the value of health coverage either, and those benefits have gotten more expensive and are part of total compensation.

The Dems conveniently ignore that as well.

Income inequality has increased a very small amount, but only because some people save more than others.

Should that be the Republican's fault? We need more savings, not less. Higher tax rates on savings, as Obama proposes, will only depress savings rates further.

That is not a good thing.

Darío said...

Aussie, it depends.
The Carter administration was horrible with the highest inflation in the US history.
But other administrations are good, likes FD Roosevelt and Clinton.
For the republicans, i think the best in the 20th Century was Einsenhower and Reagan.

hosertohoosier said...

Darío,

Ron Paul is a nutcase. The Gold standard led to the Great Depression...

Under a gold standard you hold the value of a currency fixed to some standard, say, the value of gold, so the USD is worth X amount of gold. That takes away your ability to combat recessions with interest rates, since interest rates affect currency values.

Now Austrian school folks like Paul (PS: few take the Austrian school seriously) think recessions are good, but they ignore a key feature of major ones: bank failures. When you have a massive shortage of currency, you get runs on the bank and bank failures. Since you can't print reams of money under a gold standard, you can't maintain FDIC, so fears of a run on the bank are credible. Bank failures immediately cause people's savings to go up in a puff of smoke, not just reducing consumer spending, which is a short-term thing, but savings and investments too. Often, because banks invest in the same enterprises, and indeed, in each other, other banks fail as a result.

Does the gold standard prevent inflation? No. Look at how much the price of gold fluctuates - in the late 1890's there was a major drop in the price of Gold, for instance, because of the Klondike gold rush. Instead of tying inflation to something rational and controll-able, ending the gold standard ties it to something completely arbitrary. Not even Milton Friedman advocates a gold standard, and he is as hard core as a monetarist gets (and the key theorist) - he prefers a system of fixed rates of inflation.

The one advantage of moving to the gold standard is fixed exchange rates, which arguably increase the stability of trade. However, as it stands, you can hedge on future exchange rate fluctuations by making the terms of a contract however you want. Moreover, floating currencies have a built in cushion against recessions. When growth is low, governments lower interest rates, reducing the value of the domestic currency. That makes exports less expensive to foreigners and helps create jobs in tough times.

Ron Paul is indeed nuts.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"Paul is a kook."

The fact that Paul is considered a kook and laughed at by the phony conservatives in the GOP is a good indicator of just how fucked up your party really is.

I don't agree with him on everything but he was the ONLY candidate this year that understands ANYTHING about proper conservative governance.

Virginia Conservative said...

Going back to the gold standard would cause the greatest global depression of all time.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

hosertohoosier: there's a lot more to Ron Paul's policies than the gold standard. You can't cherry-pick one position, decide you don't like it, and declare its owner a 'nut'. EVERY candidate has some policies that we like and some we do not like.

Go down the full list and Ron Paul is the only candidate that has shown he understands what the Constitution is about and why this country has gone so far off track.

Darío said...

But actually the republicans don´t dislake the big government.
Low taxes is different than a small government.
The Bush administration have low taxes but it´s a big government, the most for the republicans.

Virginia Conservative said...

You think abolishing the fed, building a Berlin Wall on the border, withdrawing from NATO, scrapping all our free trade agreements unilaterally and going back to the gold standard is "proper conservative governance"? Wow.

Darío said...

hosert, i think the Austrian school is the best in economics.
The monetarist school isn´t good for me, they need a Central Bank or National Bank like FED.

Darío said...

I don´t said nothing about the gold standard but thew FED is the most responsable of the inflation. Not only but the more responsable.

Darío said...

NATO is important now?.
It was a archaic organization like the UN. More burocracy.

PeteKent said...

Filstro,

Just for the record I am shunning you for your outrageous behavior of last weekend. You were exulting in posting those horrible rumors about Governor Palin's fifth child being reportedly her daughter's. Those rumors have proven to be demonstrably false.

You lack the grace to appologize or own up to it.

Since her selection you have continued to heap irrelvant scorn upon her and proven youself to be nothing but a gossip monger.

You are a nasty harpie with nothing of substance to say, except to make what you think are "smart" comments about other people'a posts. Your role model is probabaly Maureen Dowd and I am sure like her you have all the appeal of a black widow spider.

You are to be ignored.

Shunned.

jm251065 said...

USAToday/Gallup 9/5 - 9/7

McCain 54 Obama 44 LV
McCain 50 Obama 46 RV

Virginia Conservative said...

PeteKent reads the New York Times?

Darío said...

Link jm25.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"You think abolishing the fed"

The Constitution specifies who is supposed to be responsible for money. It's not a pseudo-private organization.

"building a Berlin Wall on the border"

He doesn't want to do that. He wants to ensure proper border security. You know, what the Reps have been saying we need because of the war on terror?

National defence and security is a conservative pillar. But it should be DEFENCE, not "offence" like we have now.

"withdrawing from NATO"

Never heard him say that. Are you sure you even know what he stands for?

And really -- what the hell has NATO ever done for the US? You think if *we* get attacked that Poland or Belgium is going to come running to our rescue?

Where in the Constitution does it say it's okay to tax Americans to pay to defend Europe? Where?

"scrapping all our free trade agreements unilaterally"

I believe he wants to scrap the ones that *don't work*. What a novel idea.

"and going back to the gold standard"

The gold standard may not be the right idea, but the Fed printing and spending money like a drunken sailor isn't either.

Every fiat money system in history has eventually collapsed. Without exception. Look at our inflation rate, look at what prices are doing. Look at our debt.

Act surprised when the house of cards comes tumbling down.

MidPointMan said...

...actually Clinton got the best of both worlds.

He inherited a recovery. The economy was actually expanding quite nicely all throughout the 1992 election.

He also left office just in time because the economy went into a recession just as Bush came in.

It is hardly Bush's fault that the tech bubble burst in 2000 and caused a massive decrease in the economy in 2001, and you then got the double whammy of 9/11.

Those studies are far too simplistic to account for the underlying policies in place.

Plus, a Republican with a Democrat Congress hardly gets everything they want. There is simply too much noise.

If we evaluate the impact of tax rates and Federal Spending, you will see that lower taxes with very modest deficits are the best recipe for economic growth.

The Clinton years proved this. His tax rates were nothing like when Carter was in office, not even close. He also closed the deficit and limited the growth of government.

Policies matter, parties not so much.

FrankN said...

Dario; You want to go back to a gold standard, in a globalised economy? As far as I remember, the world's largest gold producers are South Africa, Botswana, and Ghana. Talking about energy independence (which I think is fine, albeit primarily from a perspective of mitigating climate change), and then subject the world's largest economy and reserve currency to how well some African countries are managing their gold mines ? That's really nuts - and dangerous.

Frank from Germany

filistro said...

Hey Pete!

Got Drudge? LOL...

NYT PREPARES TO FRONT DETAILED STORY ON PALIN'S BABY, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia Conservative said...

"The gold standard may not be the right idea, but the Fed printing and spending money like a drunken sailor isn't either."

That's why you get a good Fed Chairman like Greenspan in charge.

For the NATO thing, he doesn't believe in peacetime alliances.

As for the Fed, we had something similar before--the Bank of the United States--established in the 1790s. The people who wrote the actual constitution established it, so I'm gonna go with "Constitutional".

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"NYT PREPARES TO FRONT DETAILED STORY ON PALIN'S BABY"

I doubt it's going to have any major revelations.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Detailed story on Palin's baby"?

What does that even mean?

MidPointMan said...

JM251065 -

all I have to say is WOW!

Nothing fundamental has changed?

I seriously doubt it.

WOW!

Virginia Conservative said...

It's probably just a standard story about her family. Yawn.

OTF said...

CMK,

Go to http://www.swingstateproject.com/

They even break down other states and sometimes do it by congressional district if you are interested in what going on in that much detail.

MidPointMan said...

Nobody believes the NYT anymore anyway.

This will only look like another smear, it probably is.

PeteKent said...

Paul? Yup, a kook!

A few good ideas, but a total lack of coherence. He has a way of putting his thoughts together and appealing to a certain stripe of voters. Most of them will vote for Obama or sit this one out. Moight salt their votes among Barr and Nader. They will essentailly scatter to the winds.

Virginia Conservative said...

Yeah, how many times has the NYT been wrong this year? Too many to count.

filistro said...

VCon... I think they're probably doing some crack investigative journalism on how Sarah juggles breastfeeding and executive duties... but it's fun to yank Pete's chain. ;-)

MidPointMan said...

Quantman -

I agree with you up to the point of the deficit.

McCain is going to freeze spending.

That will put the brakes on the deficit.

Darío said...

I don´t want go to back to a gold standard!.
But what good years!!!!

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"That's why you get a good Fed Chairman like Greenspan in charge."

He's done some of the worst drunken sailor spending around.

The Fed doesn't even report M3 anymore.

"For the NATO thing, he doesn't believe in peacetime alliances."

His actual position: "Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

"As for the Fed, we had something similar before--the Bank of the United States--established in the 1790s. The people who wrote the actual constitution established it, so I'm gonna go with "Constitutional".

Yes, that First Bank became the Second Bank which went bankrupt.

Now compare the rest of Paul's platform planks to the current GOP's. He's the only conservative candidate in the field by any reasonable measure.

Darío said...

Please, stop to talk about Palin.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Yes, that First Bank became the Second Bank which went bankrupt."

Only because Jackson refused to prop it up because he had this weird irrational fear of paper money. Which led to the Panic of 1837.

GregM said...

USA Today poll link

MidPointMan said...

USA Today Poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

Virginia Conservative said...

McCain at 50%, hows that feel filistro?

OTF said...

MPM,

You truly have no clue. McCain's big thing is earlmarks which are a rounding error in a budget of 3 trillion. That's what it is calles by a conservative..George Will. McCain is a fraud b/c when he is questioned on particular earmarks earlier this year he said many were okay, as most earmarks are. He finds the 1% of earmarks that are bad and makes a big deal about it...it's funny that some of the earmarks he has maligned were lobbied for by Palin. But, I'm sure you missed those articles.

MidPointMan said...

"In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples."

So which will RCP favor? LV or RV?

I think they have to go LV.

I wonder which Nate will use?

...actually, no I don't.

LV polls are historically more accurate. We shall see.

dsimon said...

PeteKent:

It looks like you're conveniently ignoring my posts from the prior thread.

First, you said that the Democrats had a Potemkin Village of "change." I asked what change McCain offered. On the economy, on health care, on foreign policy, all look the same or close to present policies. Biden pointed that out on Meet The Press today. Do you have a response?

I also asked if you were willing to put up with any deceit, misrepresentation, or lie if it helped your candidate. Are you? Or are there limits? Do you value the process over the outcome? Or can we throw away the principles of informed consent of the people as long as it gets the person you want into office?

Darío said...

The USAToday/Gallup polls and Zogby polls are bad.

Read this article.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/a_note_about_the_latest_usa_to.html

The only natinal polls we must see were the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking.

Darío said...

MidPoint, the RCP no includes the USAToday/Gallup and Zogby interactive national polls.

MidPointMan said...

Otf -

He is not only going after earmarks. That would not be enough.

He is going to kill a bunch of federal programs by Executive Order.

He can simply order the Agencies to not spend the money and buy back US treasuries with the money.

He can do that, and has suggested he will in not such direct language.

Besides, we all know that a Democrat Congress is never going to renew the Bush tax cuts.

We all know that.

McCain will simply negotiate a more moderate increase for he rich in exchange for keeping capgains tax down, along with a cut in the corporate rates, which we need if we want to stop losing jobs to other countries.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

The only good thing about McCain possibly winning -- especially if he wins by being a slimy asshole, which is the only way he can -- is knowing he then has to face a Democratic congress that will make his life a misery.

OTF said...

Only the dumb and desperate pay attention to national polls. We have an electoral college sysytem.

Btw, what are the internals or crosstabs on those polls? Yes ofcourse they don't publish. CBS atleast made it possible to prove them a fraud.

MidPointMan said...

Dario -

RCP includes USA Today Gallup. Not Zogby. I have seen it there before.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Scroll down and you will see them in the list.

Virginia Conservative said...

Yeah, the Democrat Congress sure stood up to Bush! Not.

filistro said...

RCP published this statement after the last USAY Today Gallup poll on Sept 1:

RealClearPolitics has confirmed from Susan Page at USA Today and Frank Newport at Gallup that the poll released yesterday (Monday, September 1) showing Barack Obama with a 50-43 lead over John McCain is not the stand alone USA Today/Gallup poll, but rather two days worth of data (Saturday, August 30 & Sunday, August 31 ) from Gallup's Daily Tracking poll.

This USA Today/Gallup poll was not included in the RCP National Average because the Gallup Daily Tracking poll is already in the RCP Average and using it would be a duplication of survey respondents.



I expect this one is the same thing and incoroporates 2 days of the tracker's biggest bounce.

MidPointMan said...

...I should say Zogby Interactive, they ignore those.

They include the Reuters Zogby poll.

Darío said...

Mid, but the last USA Today wasn´t include in the RCP.

MidPointMan said...

Filistro -

I will defer to your data.

I see they have it in their list.

If it includes 2 days of the tracker, then they should leave it out.

Good call.

dsimon said...

midpointman: McCain is going to freeze spending.

That will put the brakes on the deficit.


Where is your support for that? Answer: there is none.

Two-thirds of the budget is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military, and debt financing. Tell me which of those McCain will freeze. More people are retiring. Medical costs are rising. Our military is stretched thin as it is, and we haven't started paying for the costs of caring for the injured for the rest of their lives. We can't default on the debt.

That means massive cuts in the other third of the budget. Won't happen because those reductions would have to be huge and people don't want it.

The fact is that we're not paying our bills. Republicans keep selling the idea that wars are free, tax cuts are free, and prescription drug benefits are free. The idea of government is that we tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. That link was broken in the Reagan administration, and we're paying the price for this unsustainable track.

McCain has said he'd cut wasteful programs, but aside from earmarks, he hasn't named a single one. And he's proposing still more tax cuts which will make the problem even worse. So much for Republican fiscal responsibility. At least the Democratic Congress tried to reinstitute pay-go.

I have seen no independent organization who thinks the budget numbers come close to adding up. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

johnsonct5 said...

The Japanese like Sarah Palin....the Nikkei is already up 2.82%

Minnesota Mike said...

The last USATODAY/Gallop poll was just 2 days worth of Gallops tracking poll. I wouldn't be suprised if this poll also uses the same sample as the Gallop tracker.

MidPointMan said...

Dario -

I agree, if they use the same data as the tracker, they should leave it out.

Do we know if that is the case here?

Charles M. Kozierok said...

The only numbers I've seen, from the Tax Policy Center, show McCain expanding the debt by $1 trillion more than Obama. Both are pretty awful, though.

MidPointMan said...

Dsimon -

He has proposed a one-year freeze on discretionary spending to evaluate every Federal Program.

I am not saying he will do it, but he says he will do it.

It is on his web site.

OTF said...

MPM,

Rightypu keep believing that, you are easily fooled thus you vote RepubliCon.

He tells the same tired line that "I will make those bills famous" and then when he is questioned on them he has nothing to say. Is he going to cut Medicare or Medicaid? no b/c he would lose every sr vote almost. Cut defense? NO! Cut education? no! Those are some of the largest expenditures in the governemnt.

McCain has no plan and when asked what he would actually cut earlier this year he had nothing and started his earmarks rant which is a rounding error.

MidPointMan said...

Tax Policy Center is a combination of Brookings and Urban Institute.

It is a pro-Obama outfit, both of those are left wing think tanks.

PeteKent said...

Gotta read that new poll the 50% with RVs is used. If there are couple more polls like this, which I expect we will see, then Nate's win % will lurch towards Mccain and we will see lots of red at the right side of the EV dispersion graph.

PeteKent said...

What could that harpy be exuting over at Drudge and the NYTs.

Fillastro you are indecent.

I say this only to point out your shame and complete your shunning.

Darío said...

The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking are the most national credible polls because the have the most cases (3000 for Rasmussen and more of 2500 for Gallup).
And the other national polls (CBS, CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc) are for 2 or 3 days only.

MidPointMan said...

otf -

If you believe that Obama will do everything he says, then you have to believe that McCain will too.

He advocates a one-year freeze. That is all I am saying.

My guess is he will try to cut a bunch of stuff he does not like.

...and we all know the Bush tax cut is DOA. No way Congress will extend it. Not a chance.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"Tax Policy Center is a combination of Brookings and Urban Institute.

It is a pro-Obama outfit, both of those are left wing think tanks."

Right.. you say that whenever anything is put in front of you that you don't like. Whatever.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"If you believe that Obama will do everything he says, then you have to believe that McCain will too."

No, he doesn't, because Obama has had a consistent message and has not made a continued pattern of lying and changing his stance every 2 days to manipulate voters.

You are the second worst Republican hack here.

OTF said...

MPM,

You guess..hilarious.

McCain was questioned on what he would cut and he had nothing. He's a fraud and went on his earmarks rant.

GregM said...

Besides the topline numbers, this is the biggest surprise for me in the USA today poll: "McCain has narrowed Obama's wide advantage on handling the economy, by far the electorate's top issue. Before the GOP convention, Obama was favored by 19 points; now he's favored by 3."

This is particularly surprising considering that McCain and Republicans said essentially nothing about the economy at their convention.

MidPointMan said...

OTF -

You can cut a lot in Medicare and Medicaid and not hurt anyone. Some procedures have pricing that is way out of whack.

There is a lot of waste there. Somebody will have to do something unless we all want to be poor.

...with $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities, I would hope he cuts something. Somebody has to, for the good of all of us.

Virginia Conservative said...

"This is particularly surprising considering that McCain and Republicans said essentially nothing about the economy at their convention."

LOL! We just can't lose.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"This is particularly surprising considering that McCain and Republicans said essentially nothing about the economy at their convention."

Just makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Welcome to the land of the feebleminded and the home of the braying.

MidPointMan said...

Charles -

I am simply telling you what he says he will do.

He has the Executive Authority to freeze spending if he wants to.

Congress can fund programs, but the President has the power to actually spend the money or not.

It is in the Constitution.

Darío said...

Medicare and Madicaid are horrible.

PeteKent said...

McCain does not need to cut; he simply needs to arrest the growth. An improving economy coupled with wise tax , monetary and fiscal policy will lead to deficit reduction.

That is the McCain plan.

Obama stated in debate that he would raise taxes on capital gains out of fairness even if it would result in a decrease in money brought into the treasury.

Capital gains taxation has a direct link to investment formation and the efficient functioning of the economy. Stocks Bonds, Money Market Funds, Real Estate, in short all assets attract capital gains taxes.

They have a far-reaching impact on our economy.

Obama is a risky choice because he would raise taxes out of "fairness".

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"I am simply telling you what he says he will do."

John McCain has become such a shameless liar that he'd make Bill Clinton blush.

If you actually press him on details he has NADA. All he wants to do is start more wars and borrow money to pay for them.

OTF said...

CMK,

The poll is a fraud and they are selling it as a headline. National polls mean garbage.

MidPointMan said...

GOP strategy:

Economy = Energy.

It is a better battleground for them. That is why you will see that.

Plus, nobody thinks that the problem with the economy is that taxes are too low or that government is too small.

...they did say that plenty of times.

Tim R said...

Aussie is correct, the GOP is the party of hate ,lies and false rumors. They will do anything to win, especially cheat during elections because they believe that the end always justifies the means.
All you have to do is go back and take another look at all their speakers at the convention and you will see it is true..........

MidPointMan said...

I think the USA today poll gives a pretty good hint at what will happen when the Gallup trackers switches to the LV model and away from the RV model.

I am not sure when they do that, but they do. Do any of you know?

Will Walker said...

McCain, lost old man
senile puppet for the right
more of the same crap

Charles M. Kozierok said...

otf -- I'm not worried.

When the polls go up for no good reason, they come back down for no good reason. If there's anything I've learned so far, it's that the Obama campaign runs a tight ship and knows its stuff. I doubt they are biting their fingernails over some neanderthals getting excited over Caribou Barbie.

Darío said...

MidPoint, i think that LV model polls are better than RV polls.
But it´s only my opinion.

PeteKent said...

GregM:

Call it the "Palin Effect".

Just having her on the ticket is convincing voters that McCain will pay attention to their economic woes. We now will have a regular middle class, American in the West Wing. Obama is, face it, too elitist to qualify as middle class. And Biden has been a Senator for 35 years and has ran for president twice. Biden lives in a remote compound in Delaware and has little contact with ordinary Americans

In Palin we know we have an advocate and that is narrowing the difference on the Economy.

RA said...

floridagop:

please tell me the difference between Clinton's escapades with Lewinsky and your current candidate's cheating on his first wife to marry Ms. Cindy?

I expect to hear all sorts of reasoning from you as to why these two situations are "different" - but they're not really. Why do you not hold your candidate accountable for his past indiscretions?

MidPointMan said...

Tim -

Because the Democrats were so polite with McCain and his 7 houses?

They went after him plenty...

They do exactly the same thing. They call him a hero right before sticking the knife in.

...and who cares? If the attacks are so baseless, nobody would believe them.

The Dems attack just as much, perhaps less convincingly.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"Just having her on the ticket is convincing voters that McCain will pay attention to their economic woes."

I can identify the cause of the economic woes of anyone who believes that: they are dumber than a bag full of Pete Kents.

Virginia Conservative said...

"please tell me the difference between Clinton's escapades with Lewinsky and your current candidate's cheating on his first wife to marry Ms. Cindy?"

Well, for one, he didn't lie under oath about it.

Will Walker said...

McCain's biggest lie-
renewable energy,
but what does he vote?

eve said...

Johnsonct5 said...

"The Japanese like Sarah Palin....the Nikkei is already up 2.82%"

Wow, that means the grass in my yard loves Sarah Palin. It's up over 50% since her entrance to the election.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

ra: Because he was a POW. He can do anything, because he was a POW.

And yes, people really DO use that as an excuse for him abandoning his crippled wife. I wonder how many voters know about that?

filistro said...

ignorance and greed
a heartbeat from great power
we are stunned with fear

Charles M. Kozierok said...
This post has been removed by the author.
jdk said...

Isn't time to reexamine the tipping states and the ROI?

1. It's not asymmetric. So you need different maps for each.

2. There is so little separation of noise from information. Almost every (hyperbole)state is colored. So I'm not sure what is really being measured: The more states with color the more unpredictable the race?

3. The ROI is perplexing because I don't think it takes into account the state similarity part of the equation. If O wins IN then he most certainly wins MI and OH. But as important if he comes very close to winning in IN, that probable also means that he wins in OH and MI. The ROI doesn't really account for this.

MidPointMan said...

Here is the problem...

The Dems tried to convince America that McCain does not understand the problems average Americans have.

...basically, that he does not understand what it means to suffer.

Then the Republicans show that Americans really do not understand what true suffering is, but former POW John McCain does.

Do you see why that might negate the whole line of attack you spent 4 days making?

It is pretty hard to say that McCain does not understand suffering.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

eve: The grass in your yard is better informed about Sarah Palin than 21.9% of her GOP supporters.

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"The Dems tried to convince America that McCain does not understand the problems average Americans have.

...basically, that he does not understand what it means to suffer."

No, Republihack. They convince him that he doesn't have any PLANS to FIX ANYTHING.

Because he DOESN'T.

Darío said...

Well, let´s see the debates and what think the candidates.

MidPointMan said...

Charles -

Call me names, I could care less.

Apparently Americans disagree with you at this point.

Perhaps they think Obama really does not care about gas prices...who knows.

You keep calling me a Republican, that is fine. I remember voting for Clinton twice, but whatever.

What more do you want me to say?

rckz3 said...

While I agree with the general proposition that the sustainability of any bounce is subject to the vagaries of intervening events, the speculation about potential impact of a Colin Powell endorsement appears misguided. The unlikelihood of an endorsement of MCain aside, the endorsement of one Republican military type by another would be a huge yawn. And, were Powell to endorse Obama, his embrace would have the opposite of the apparent intended effect...it would simply feed the stereotype of one black man predictably throwing in with another. That image feeds a poisonous undercurrent of reverse racism akin to the backlash that Oprah is beginning to see.

adam said...

So you come to this site and you are looking for what? If your answer is anything else than a sophisticated polling model you are in the wrong place. Yet I get the feeling that some of the posters here come for the sake of grinding an axe. Some of the people who post here on the right almost seem like they are paid to say what they say. PeteKent, really? Either you are an idiot political junkie or you are a 527 asshole trying to stir shit up. I honestly lean towards the latter. Nobody who spends enough time on the internet to find and follow this site is dumb enough to spew the shit you do.

Will Walker said...

Sallow autumn skin,
philandering warrior
grinning face of death

eve said...

"And yes, people really DO use that as an excuse for him abandoning his crippled wife. I wonder how many voters know about that?"

Or know that it wasn't one infidelity. He cheated on his first wife numerous times. By his own admission.

But Repubs don't care. They don't care about all the morality crap they talk about. They just pretend to when it is a Democrat. Did you hear any repubs moralizing about Vitter? No, of course not.

Darío said...

You´re right MidPoint, they don´t understand you. Haha.

eve said...

Charles M. Kozierok said...

"eve: The grass in your yard is better informed about Sarah Palin than 21.9% of her GOP supporters."

HA!

I only 21.9% is being very generous.

MidPointMan said...

Suddenly you guys are ready to dig up the past about McCain?

...heck who wants to talk Billy Ayers?

Anyone? Anyone?

McCain admits he was not perfect. He said it in his speech.

Obama still cannot admit he was wrong about the surge to O'Reilly.

People tend to forgive people who admit they were wrong.

Obama should learn from that fact.

MidPointMan said...

Dario -

I only understand myself half the time anyway. LOL

...it is hard to blame them. This is a tough night for them.

I gotta give some slack. I would not be happy with that poll if I was a big Obama supporter.

PeteKent said...

Caribou Barbie

Koz is a sexist pig. He has taken to calling the Governor of Alaska, "Caribou Barbie.”

I suppose that is no different than Maureen Dowd coining the moniker "OBambi", except Koz makes Sarah sound hot and Dowd ,Obama like a fag.

Still, while Ms. Dowd may have had a point concerning the feminine sensibilities that Obama displays, even though he seems to spurn the company and counsel of women, (unlike McCain), Koz and the other poster who derided Palin thus, were making no discernable point other than Ms. Palin is hot.

Okay???

Were we just all joking about the equality of women and Title 7 and equal pay for the past 30 plus years?

I mean, it would be nice to move away from a world where we need an EEOC and Title 7 laws and all just learn to get along, to have a character that moves us to act in a basically egalitarian way.

But men like Koz or even women like Fillastro cannot be trusted not to demean the fairer sex and denigrate its abilities and to use as ammunition against it, its feminine attributes, as if to say, just being what it is is a bad thing.

Sarah Palin is the post feminist movement icon that is going to take half the women's vote this year. She and McCain.

She did what others have only talked about. Even Hillary rode to prominence on the coattails of her husband.

It may not be pretty from a policy standpoint (the whole abortion and Christian thing) but Sarah Palin is the leader of the women’s movement today.

Wait and see; this is the wave of which I have been speaking.

In a single week, during which she was vilified and demeaned by the media and the blogoshpere vociferously, she managed to halve Obama’s lead among women. She has sixty days give or take to reach equality.

dsimon said...

PeteKent:

Are you still refusing to respond to my posts? Just wondering if I can ever expect an answer.

I assume you can do a search to find my questions for you.

PeteKent said...

MPM:

It is becoming more and more obvious that with Governor Palin on the ticket, McCain no longer needs Bill Ayers or even the Obama is a Muslim meme to win.

If Palin can truly ignite a movement to the ticket, then McCain will have the opportunity to really sell the vision thing for a post partisan America.

"Stand up, Stand up and Fight! . . . . We are Americans . . . we make History!"

PeteKent said...

dsimon:

You will forgive me, but as you will see I make my way through these threads slowly.

I have not seen any of your posts that i thouhgt needed a riposte, but as i make my way up from the bottom, I'll look for your name.

dsimon said...

midpointman:

Congress can fund programs, but the President has the power to actually spend the money or not.

It is in the Constitution.


Find the clause, and let me know. Because I just read Article II, and I don't see it anywhere.

Do an Internet search to support your claim. I did and didn't come up with anything obvious.

Congress tried to give the president a line item veto. It was declared unconstitutional. If Congress can't give the president the authority to veto programs it has appropriated funds for, I can't see how the president would have the inherent authority to withhold funding that Congress has explicitly appropriated.

It seems to me at first glance that if the president refused to allocate congressionally appropriated funds, and if Congress objected to the withholding, they could go to federal court for injunctive relief. I don't see any reason why Congress would lose that case.

Maybe you'd better check your facts first. Again.

PeteKent said...

Chilling Will walker, chilling!

Joseph said...

Concern over all this "nasty sexism" around here coming from the guy that called Colin Powell a "house negro" what...an hour or two ago? Spare us the faux concern asshole.

filistro said...

Petey, sweetie...

the First Rule of Shunning

cf "Official Shunning Handbook" ch 11, pg 156, parag 6

When a person, having given great offense, is being shunned, you must neither speak TO that person nor ABOUT that person until such time as the shunning shall be determined to have concluded."

You really must try to follow the rules, Pete. They're important to shunners like you.

Your friend,
Filistro

FrankN said...

Oh, no! It just started to get interesting here, with a REAL debate on issues (budget and taxes - kudos to both of you, MPM and Charles), but immediately it is all back again to gossip. If that is what an election campaign is about with youm I can only say: Poor America!

Frank from Germany

filistro said...

Frank! I've been waiting for you... I wanted you to see this.

(Apropos what we were discussing the other night.)

PeteKent said...

I am sorry Dsimon, I did not find any thing you posted i felt i had to respond to.

PeteKent said...

Joespeh:

I am pointing out mutliple layers of hypocrasy.

But you are refusing to condem sexism, insteAD YOU ATTACK THE MESSENGER.

dsimon said...

petekent: I am sorry Dsimon, I did not find any thing you posted i felt i had to respond to.

Way to avoid answering anything resembling a tough question, petekent.

Real people engage their critics and think about their positions. If you don't have an answer, I'll assume it's because you don't have one, and so you concede.

Therefore, I will assume that you accept that McCain, not Obama, is really living in the Potemkin Village of "change" since he has failed to offer policies regarding the economy, the budget, health care, or foreign policy that differ significantly from the Bush administration, and that your assertion to the contrary in the prior thread was false.

And I also assume that you're willing to sacrifice basic principles of democracy (truth, honesty) in order to get your candidate elected. (I asked in the previous thread about your comment that made it seem like you didn't much care about the truth of a claim against Obama as long as it worked against him.) And you're the one who had doubts about Obama's commitment to the nation. Way to put person over principle.

It's your choice to destroy your own credibility by not backing up your own arguments in the face of criticism.

FrankN said...

Filistro - thanks for the link to the LA Times article! Is this typical for middle-aged blue collar women? Latest polls suggest otherwise. What is your take?
(btw: Love your posts as well!)

Frank from Germany

Joseph said...

I'm saying YOU don't really condemn sexism unless it conforms to your needs for political hackery.

realistxxx said...

Five days ago the same poll had Obama up 7.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-poll-monday_N.htm?csp=34

I know it's nuts but bounces are just that. They go up and they go down.

Now tell us more about inflection points and structural changes in the race LOL!

malanb5 said...

The Democrats got to get their shit together and go after the jugular. We're playing for keeps and nobody cares if you run a respectful, truthful campaign anymore.

Paint John McCain as the flip-flopping, out-of-touch carpetbagger that he is, while still keeping up on the message of how Republican policies have wrecked our economy.

filistro said...

Frank... yes, I think it's broadly reperesentative of WMAWC women, which is why I found it so interesting.

Palin has been very polarizing among women. White evangelical women are excited about her... also other women with a vested interest in keeping Republicans in power are (cynically) positive as well.

But those women who have reason to be concerned with health care, job security, child care and other real-life concerns seem quite turned off by her manner and what they know of her views.

As those views become more widely known I think this feeling will increase. Right now my impression from talking with women is that the negativity is more of a strongly female "gut reaction" but in days to come it will become a reasoned opinion, and thus very difficult to change.

PeteKent said...

Malan:

that will only make Obama bin Biden look mean and partisan. The Reps have found a winning, spot partisan formula that will isulate them from your suggested line of attack.

PeteKent said...

realistix is pointing out a 15 point swing to McBrilliant in five days.

To what do we attribute it?

McC's new post-partisan populism and the Palin effect?

This to me feels structural. It is too large a movement, too suddenly to be accounted for by the attention the RNC got and for this to be dismissed as a "bounce".

Palin has, I think, provided an excuse for many fence sitting voters, posing as Obama supporters, to jump ship and go a different way.

Does it come back to Obama needing to close the deal?

Does this means he loses PA again?

FrankN said...

Filistro: Among the key things that I have learnt in my adult life is that it is extremely unwise to disregard female "gut reactions" (except when it comes to getting direction to a specific location). [I showed the CNN summary of the Palin speech to my 13 year old daughter, and her first reaction was "Is it a good idea to get so aggressive on your first major speech?" - that told me something as well..]

So, as it seems, Palin may not have the desired effect on undecided WMAWC women. The question, of course, is: Will they actually vote, or stay at home in disgust of both tickets?

dsimon said...

petekent:

No response to my last post either, huh?

I don't usually get personal, but that looks like cowardice to me, unless you just missed it. Or do you just answer questions when you feel like it?

If you can't or refuse to answer some very sensible questions, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

Ira Rosofsky said...

Powell endorsement would be big. He is arguably more popular than Obama, and would have been a presidential favorite if he could have gotten over the impossible task of being nominated by either party. For him, endorsing Obama would help him exorcise any personal demons he might have about his UN speech and the bogus tubes.

I would bet the million dollars I don't have that Rice will vote for Obama,although we will never know until years form now when she writes a memoir or even later when a historian gets to sniff around in her personal papers.

I am nervous about this election because it's so important to kick the bums out, and I've seen the ineptness of previous Democrat elections. Schrum was almost as lame as McCain with technology. He didn't use a computer either. I do think that Obama, Ploufe, and Axelrod are all extremely bright and seem to know what they're doing. They have come back from rough patches before.

I am concerned about the factoid--maybe I read it here--that 15 out of the last eighteen nominees who led after both conventions have gone on to win. One exception is Reagan which this election most closely parallels--I hope. People need to reach a comfort level and then Reagan/Obama wins because they do want to kick the bums out.

Actually, that 15 out of 18 thing is one of many that goes down each election cycle. Some of them are silly like if the NFC wins the superbowl, either (I forget which one) the Democrat or Republican will win. Others have a semblance of reasonableness like who leads after the convention. But this is a unique year in many ways, not the least of which is that the conventions were right on top of each other. (Incidentally, I haven't seen anyone point out that the Deomocrats met before Labor Day--people on vacation, and the Republicans after Labor Day--back to work and school. Viewership is higher then, so if you weight the ratings by this and Obama's ratings are even more impressive.)

Many of these prediction rubrics remind me of similar stuff in baseball such as the Mets can't win this game because they're 0 for 11 when down by 3 runs in the fifth inning.

sg said...

There has been a lot of discussion about what I would claim are "small ball" issues (to use a baseball metaphor): items that last a news cycle or two, but really can't change the narrative (or popular vote) much.

For example:

- housegate
- will Gen. Colin Powell endorse Sen. Obama?
- vetting of Gov. Palin
- was Gov. Palin Sen. McCain's first choice?
- Gov. Palin used a GWB speech writer
- Sen. McCain has a temper.
- did Gov. Palin REALLY sell her plane on ebay?

You get the idea. Regardless of whether there's a one-day advantage in pushing them, there's not much to gain from repeatedly pushing them.

Instead, Obama should deal with the elephant in the room: Palin.

I'm not saying attack her directly, which would be counter-productive. Rather, he needs to confront the impact of her entry into the race. If Palin takes 5-10% of Hillary's supporters, Obama probably loses one or two key battleground states, and thus the election.

Switching to a chess metaphor:

Obama worrying about those above "small ball" issues is like fiddling with pawns and knights in the center of the chessboard, while McCain has pushed a pawn to the last row and promoted it to a queen (Palin). He's now moved the queen to Obama's first row and is picking off pieces one by one (Democratic women voters).

How should Obama respond?

Not by talking about the following issues:

- the decision to start the Iraq War
- the surge
- abortion
- whether McCain is Bush III or not
- and probably a few others

Why? There's nothing more to say. All voters have formed an opinion on these issues on how important they are, and know where the candidates stand.

Obama needs to stop the queen from picking off his pieces: he needs to focus on the economic issues which many voters (especially women) are still unsure about, since they're complicated to explain and compare between the candidates:

- energy
- middle-class taxes
- stability of financial institutions
- the overall health of the economy
- health care

Switching back to a baseball metaphor, Obama needs to play "Earl Weaver baseball:" good pitching, good defense, and the three-run home run.

The economic and policy issues are where the three-run homers lie. Not the small ball, process stuff.

maantoninus said...

Simple potentially dumb question. If a post convention "bounce" is real, why not plan and execute a second convention one week before the election? Showcase your best and brightest, hit the opponent arguments and (yes) personality hard, and leave no time for the electorate to have later lasting impressions? It does seem as though the American electorate (sigh) likes the last shiny toy it sees, so let's make sure it's ours. HAVE ANOTHER CONVENTION STARTING ON NOVEMBER 1!!

djhwood said...

There's one thing that I still keep in mind...the cell phone crowd that only has a cell phone and no land line. That would be the Obama crowd. There has got to be SOMEONE who has some type of polling model that could figure that demographic and give an analysis.

sex said...

免費視訊聊天
辣妹視訊
視訊交友網
美女視訊
視訊交友
視訊交友90739
成人聊天室
視訊聊天室
視訊聊天
視訊聊天室
情色視訊
情人視訊網
視訊美女

一葉情貼圖片區
免費視訊聊天室
免費視訊

色情遊戲
寄情築園小遊戲
情色文學
一葉情貼圖片區
情境坊歡愉用品
情惑用品性易購
情人視訊網
辣妹視訊
情色交友

成人論壇
情色論壇
愛情公寓
情色
舊情人
情色貼圖
色情聊天室
色情小說
做愛
做愛影片
性愛

情境坊歡愉用品
情惑用品性易購
aio交友愛情館
一葉情貼圖片區

egapre 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,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,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,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 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,