9.30.2008

What's Wrong With the Battleground Poll?

I have gotten an increasing number of questions about the GWU/Battleground Poll, which presently gives John McCain a 2-point national lead, even as essentially every other current national poll shows Barack Obama with a lead of at least 5 points.

Just because a poll is an outlier doesn't necessarily mean that it's doing something wrong. Pollsters may have legitimate reasons for having a different perspective on the election, and they may also occasionally produce odd results due to chance alone.

In this case, however, the poll seems to be making a relatively fundamental mistake: it is not weighting by age.

Take a look for yourself at the "weighted tables" that Battleground released a couple of days ago (PDF). These crosstabs provide a ton of detail -- kudos to Battleground for doing so -- but unfortunately there is one red flag. This is the age makeup of their weighted sample:

18-34    17%
35-44 12%
45-64 40%
65+ 31%
Intuitively, this probably looks fairly wrong to you -- almost twice as many age 65+ voters as age18-34 voters? And in fact, it almost certainly is wrong. By comparison, here is the approximate age composition of the electorate in 2004, as according to the US Census Bureau**:
18-34    26%
35-44 17%
45-64 38%
65+ 19%
Battleground's numbers are not even close. About 19 percent of voters were aged 65 and older in 2004, as compared to the 31 percent in the Battleground sample. On the other hand, 43 percent of voters were aged 18-44, as opposed to Battleground's 29 percent. These differences are much, much too large to be attributable to chance alone. (And all of this is assuming that turnout in 2008 will match that in 2004, even though youth turnout increased markedly in the primaries and is at least somewhat probable to do so in the general election.0

It is highly unlikely that Battleground has deliberately decided to set their weightings this way. Instead, very probably they simply aren't weighting by age groups at all. Since getting young voters to respond to polls is difficult because of the cellphone problem and other reasons, unweighted data will skew substantially older.

Battleground actually has a fairly good track record; they had a slight GOP-leaning house effect in 2004, but not a dramatic one, and before that had a couple of strong elections in a row.

Until fairly recently, however, it was probably not absolutely necessary to weight by age groupings. This year it is, because two factors have coalesced at once:

(1) Voter preferences are much more strongly correlated with age than they have been in recent elections. In 2000, Al Gore won young (age 18-29) voters by just 2 points, barely different than his overall margin against George Bush. In 2004, John Kerry won young voters by 9 points. But this year, young voters are going for Barack Obama by anywhere from 15 to perhaps as many as 35 points, depending on which poll you look at.

(2) In addition, principally because of cellphones, young voters are becoming much harder to reach than they used to be, and so the age skew of unweighted samples will be significantly greater.

Indeed, it is fairly predictable that a poll that had otherwise been fairly accurate but which did not weight by age groupings would encounter slight a Republican skew in 2004, and then a much more dramatic Republican skew in 2008.

Battleground has a rich history and should be given the benefit of the doubt -- if and when they correct this problem, or provide a cogent explanation of why they believe it doesn't need fixing (which I would be happy to publish here). Until then, this should be presumed to be a bug rather than a feature, and their tracking poll should not be taken especially seriously.
_______
** Note: the Census Bureau uses slightly different age groupings from Battleground -- in particular, they group 18-24 year-old voters together, and 25-44 year-old voters together. To match the results to Battleground's numbers, I have assumed that half the Census Bureau's age 25-44 voters are between ages 35-44, and the other half are between ages 25-34, which are then lumped together with the 18-24 voters.

126 comments

Mike said...

Intrade is nuts right now. My eyes are popping out of my head, McCain actually fell below 36% right now!

The Battleground Poll quite obviously isn't what people are looking at to formulate their opinions.

Kento said...

Thank you for looking into this for us. I've been trying to learn bout Battleground for weeks, this post was exactly what I've been looking for!

Liam Hedge said...

Brilliant! Thanks for making us all feel that little bit better Nate. Funny though, that incredibly paranoid part of me is scared this election is going to break every rule (Sanity, intelligence and polling) and break for McCain. It would blow everybodies mind, but still scares me.

Having said that, I'm still placing bets on Obama, no harm in playing good odds :-)

Frank said...

Nate,

Thanks much for so much insight into polls and their meaning.

On other posts I raised the question whether the trend adjustment considers the quantity of swing votes remaining in a state. Intuitively, when there are more swing votes that can be swung, momentum can play a larger role than when you are up against the barely swingable.

David said...

What's been strange about the Battleground poll is that it's refused to budge fromt that McCain +2.

It's often said the trends are just as important if not more important than the topline numbers. The Battleground poll didn't seem so wrong a couple of weeks ago when the Obama surge was just starting, but it stubbornly insists upon defying trends every other pollster is picking up.

Kevin said...

One more question about that trend adjustment.

If over the next few days the polls remain flat, would this combine with the increased release rate of new polls (so that a higher proportion of the weight in the poll average comes from recent polls) to reduce the effects of the trend average, or am I completely misunderstanding the purpose of that adjustment factor?

Matthew said...

There is nothing that weird about a +2 McCain poll in a close election. Even if there was no age-weighing or what not, that doesn't seem like that dramatic of an outlier.

This race is still close.

Or at least it was until today! Today might be the day that blew open this election, and the 2010 elections as well.

Vote said...

Will McCain Re-suspend his Campaign?

Obama 292, McCain 246

clarkejeffrey said...

Thanks.

I was kind of nervous about this poll and was really curious what was going on. This makes a lot of sense.

koszul said...

And someone is paying for this???

Brian said...

Great investigation of the underlying data Nate. Thank you.

Mission said...

Nate,

I was wondering whether it might be more pertinent to your argument if you compared Battelground's age composition against the 2004 exit polls. I'm sure that you could find reasons to weigh the older population much more heavily, as they have traditionally been the group most likely to get out to the vote.

Comparing the poll's age numbers against the registered voter numbers of the Census is comparing apples to oranges, since we all know that the voter turnout rate isn't 100%.

Scott

Matt W said...

Nate,
So you are still using it for the model I assume. Does the model adjust for its strong house effect?

loner said...

What's wrong?

My guess is that this document is responsible in large part for a sample that's 42% Democrats, 39% Republicans and 19% Independents and 59% Conservatives, 36% Liberals and 5% Moderates. There might have been some basis for the conclusions reached in the document back in March. There is none now.

Kevin said...

The one exit poll I checked (CNN) from 2004 gave 46% of the people polled as being in the 18-44 range, 38% in the 45-64 range, and 16% in the 65+ range.

aajock415 said...

Mystery solved! Thanks Nate.

@mission:

Those Census figures are of (self-reported) voters in the 2004 election.

As kevin points out above, the Census figures are very close to the exit poll numbers for the 18-44 group -- actually, the exit poll percentage is a little higher (45%) than the Census percentage (43%).

Archaeopteryx said...

After today, even Battleground will have to move because this effects every age group.

aajock415 said...

Oh, and I guess we now know who Ann Selzer was referring to a couple days ago. :)

StonedLiberal said...

Nate,

Great post! I have been searching for the answers to Battleground for weeks. My only hope was that the cross tabs would allow you to do a correction for them and possibly reveal what their numbers really say. Or should say, based on the ages weighted properly.

Dick.Bill said...

I still, strangely, have seen nothing regarding the FL projection for Obama. The numbers don't seem to demonstrate that.

Is the trend projection having a strong enough effect to ignore or override virtually all of the recent poll numbers for that state? Or am I missing something completely?

Emily G said...

@dick.bill I think the trend projection is so strong that it's overriding the recent polling data, but I think it's about to born out by new polls. PPP is hinting pretty strongly in their blog that their FL numbers tomorrow are going to show an Obama lead: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

Blame said...

Battleground does seem oddly stable.

Are they using a fresh sample each time?

If you ask people the same question every day then they are likely to settle on an answer.

Then again the name might say it all. Efectively people in battleground states HAVE been asked the same question for months now. Hence the stability of Ohio & Florida.

Rob said...

If you do a very simple adjustment for age based on Nate's numbers, the Battleground poll gives Obama a 2.7 point edge over McCain. (45.0-42.3)

cher said...

Thanks so much for shedding light on this Nate. Spending way too much time here trying to read more than I can into any number you post. We are grateful to you for all you efforts.

RedHawksO4 said...

Nate, thanks for posting this. I've been trying to figure out for a while what's wrong with this Battleground tracker.


Video: McCain Chaperones Palin to Latest Interview

JK said...

I'm 30 years old. Use a cell phone only. Screen my calls. Didn't give my cell number when I registered, and I don't list my number anywhere. Everyone else I know that is in my age group or younger does the same.

Battleground needs to adjust for this. Or is it that somebody is lining their pockets?

Mac Zilber said...
This post has been removed by the author.
KQuark said...

Great work Nate as usual the Battleground poll just seemed out of step to me. While RCP uses the Battleground poll in their average they refuse to use the Research 2000 poll sponsored by DailyKOS which is much more in line with the other daily tracking polls.

Nate at some point in the future I would love to see your analysis of the Gallup from past elections. Here is the link.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/Gallup-Presidential-Election-TrialHeat-Trends-19362004.aspx

Mac Zilber said...

"There is nothing that weird about a +2 McCain poll in a close election. Even if there was no age-weighing or what not, that doesn't seem like that dramatic of an outlier.

This race is still close.

Or at least it was until today! Today might be the day that blew open this election, and the 2010 elections as well."

The race has been about a 5-8 point race in every poll from Friday to monday (which probably means it has been that way from wednesday to sunday, given the nature of trackers). An Obama +2 poll would be an outlier in this environment, a McCain +2 poll is pretty infeasible.

And for people asking why the poll is so consistently the same, from what I can tell it's a 7-day tracker, which would tend to produce slow results. A 3-day tracker is essentially all post-debate results, while a 7-day tracker has results from last monday, when Obama was only up 1-2 points.

Matthew Fedder said...

I was polled by the Tarrance group, on behalf of local republican-lobbyist-turned-congresscritter Brian Bilbray. The poll asked a bunch of "Statement X: Does that make you more likely, less likely, just as likely to vote for Candidate Y" questions, but the questions were skewed so strongly against Nick Leibham, it was almost a push poll.

Blame said...

I think I have finaly got the hang of this game now.

That "win percentage" Icon is a Pacman, Right? It rushes around eating all the red states & turns them blue.

Anybody know how you reset for a new game? Suspending your campaign doesn't seem to work for some reason...

Blame said...

Wait, I have just found the istructions.

"To reset, wait about 3 years & insert at least $200,000,000 campaign contributions"

That can't be right.

EuropeNL said...

Over the years, our total commitment to quality has helped elect more than 80 Republican governors, U.S. Senators and Members of Congress,as well as scores of state legislative candidates. All of these clients would say one thing about The Tarrance Group: We hate to lose

http://www.tarrance.com/whowedoitfor/

DaWolf said...

Nate, you need to reduce the effect of your trend adjustment. It is overpowering the state-specific data in the close states, and you can't have any basis that all the states move together.

I would reduce it to half, so it still has an effect but much less.

JC said...

DaWolf,
You don't think a national crisis like this, where public opinion is quite agreed, would move every state at once?

DaWolf said...

@JC

possibly, but not evenly, otherwise we wouldn't have seen Indiana becoming more and more competitive relative to Ohio. Nate is treating it as though it is even across all States (he's modifying individual polls, but each individual poll regardless of State I believe).

The problem is that state level polling in Ohio & Florida is being overshadowed by the trend adjustment. Ohio is a great example. Of the 30 listed polls - which cover periods such as the Dem Convention bounce, the Rep Convention bounce and the current Economic bounce*, Obama is ahead in 8 polls, ties in 4 and McCain ahead in 18. A polling average of M+1.8 becomes O+3.2 after the bounce adjustment, and there is absolutely no justification for it to be that far different when even the previous Obama bounce didn't give him polls at that level.



*actually, we don't know if it's a bounce until it ends...

Ben K said...

Just to play the devil's advocate here: What is the possibility that Batlegrounds approach more actually reflects likely voter turnout?

Blame said...

Ben

About the same as McCain being struck by lightening.

Guess he looses ether way. LOL.

DaWolf said...

@Ben

zero. There is no chance that the youth vote will be that much lower than '04 and the old people vote that much higher.

yad D said...

Thanks Nate! I was one of those asking you to look into this. There is still a sticky issue here, in spite of your wonderful explanation.

As Rob said in one of the comments, if you apply the US census data to the Battleground poll, you get an Obama margin of 2.7 points. However, if you apply the age breakdown of the DKos/R2K poll you get a tie! In the Dkos/R2K poll, Obama gets a 9 point advantage, but when simply apply their age-based presidential preferences to their age demographics, the margin shrinks to 5 points (so they must be doing some sort of weighting). This 5 point advantage in the DKos/R2K poll, compared to a tie in the Battlerground poll is really curious, and I wonder if it can be explained by the 13% undecided in the latter, compared with only 2% in the former. Any thoughts about this?

footstep said...

This from US News today:

By Amanda Ruggeri Mon Sep 29, 11:35 AM ET

Do Polls Miss Obama Voters With No Land Line?

Amid questions over how much public opinion polls on the race between John McCain and Barack Obama are being affected by racial prejudice and the unpredictability of new-voter turnout, a new study on the youth vote and cellphones suggests there could be another gap in traditional opinion polls--one that could mean Obama has more support than other surveys estimate.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, in three separate surveys this summer, contacted users not only of traditional land lines but also of cellphones. Each time, Obama came out 2 to 3 percentage points higher than when Pew called land lines alone.

Opinion surveys are usually adjusted to account for age differences, so the discrepancy cannot be explained simply by the fact that people who use only mobile phones are younger. It's also, Pew found, that youths who are strictly wireless--nearly half of the 18-to-29 bloc--are 10 percentage points more supportive of Obama than their counterparts who retain land-line phones.

Why would this be? "Demographics," says Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director for research. Although Obama's plugged-in political campaigning could be a factor, it appears to come down to the kinds of voters he's attracted. Cell-only youths tend to be at the younger end of the group, more likely to be unmarried, and more mobile than those on land lines.

Not all polls call only land-line users. Gallup calls cellphones, as do New York Times/CBS pollsters. Meanwhile, another study on the issue last week by ABC News/Washington Post found that calling cellphones affects poll results only negligibly.

Dimock also cautions against overdramatizing Pew's findings. Two points, after all, isn't that much. "Any pollster would say, 'Well, you're really working in the margins here,'" Dimock says.

Still, even the margins could matter, given how close the election appears to be, particularly in several key swing states.

DaWolf said...

Dimock also cautions against overdramatizing Pew's findings. Two points, after all, isn't that much.

actually, 2 points is the most McCain could win by I reckon.

Herunar said...

They do have a good record, but I don't think anything can excuse them of their awful polling this year. Their poll actually appeared to get a point better for Obama while every other poll showed Obama's numbers falling. And then after every other poll showed an Obama bounce of about 7-8 points, the Battleground poll showed McCain gaining one point. That's ridiculous. It may have a house effect, but that has little to do with whether you can accurately predict a trend.

Herunar said...

By the way, they should be polling South Carolina more intensely. I actually think there's a chance it might be close, maybe 5 or 6 points below national polling. Rasmussen's polling a few weeks ago gave only a +6 to McCain. SurveyUSA has McCain by double digits, but it also had NC by double digits, and plenty of other pollsters seem to disagree with that - so I'm guessing SurveyUSA has a problem with polling the South. If there is indeed an increased number of registered black voters, then Obama has a real chance of taking both NC and SC - giving him a landslide.

Cugel said...

I always assumed Battleground was an outlier, but now I've spotted a WORSE problem than their age demographics!

Take a look at their white-non-white breakdown!

777/1009 polled were white voters!

Well, that's taken directly from the 2004 exit polling where that matched the electorate.

But, the white vote has been DECLINING every single election! And Obama wins the non-white vote in every poll by about 70%-30% or higher. So, if that poll is off by 4% in terms of non-white voters, Obama's actually leading in the poll by 0.8% -- even WITHOUT compensating for their screwed up age demographics!

So, empirically the poll is just crap!

In 1996 the White vote was 83%
In 2000 the White vote was 81%
In 2004 the White vote was 77%
This year it's VERY likely the White vote will decline another 4% or so and be around 73%.

Non-whites are being registered and are motivated to turn out like never before.

But, simply assuming that the NORMAL decline in white voting populations occurred, disregarding Obama's historic candidacy completely, your basic assumption would have to be that non-white voters would increase by the same 1% per year that they did between 2000-2004.

That would make the Black/Hispanic/Asian/Other category around 27% this year.

If Obama succeeds in registering and getting out his voters in record numbers that percentage might be higher by a percent or two -- who knows?

But, the conservative assumption is that the White vote will decline by at least the same 4% it did historically between 2000-2004.

Conclusion: Battleground is hopelessly screwed up! They have not only screwed the pooch by failing to weight by age, but they've assumed the electorate hasn't changed at all since 2004, which is empirically WRONG and historically has been proven WRONG for a long time now.

Demographically the U.S. is moving towards a majority minority country sometime around 2040 or so -- by around 1% per year.

Since whites and non-whites vote VERY differently, with Republicans carrying the white vote by 17% in 2004 and losing the non-white vote in every poll by 40% this year, you couldn't make a bigger polling error than this!

Joey said...

Oh god... just saw the new Palin interview.

She's toast on Thursday!

eire1130 said...

One plausible explanation(re: BG poll) would be that they weight in accordance with likely voter population and not general population.

dpldust said...

Nate - I have to say I always wondered like so many here do about your regression model. Why is this state this color when the polls look like X? The answer being because the trend is in Y direction and the regression model takes that into account. I know some have even been yelling the model is too strong this state is not really X. I'm sorry I was kind of silently believing they were right, until someone showed me this:

Florida
We went in the field in Florida this morning, and so far 68% of respondents have listed the economy as their top issue.

I'll leave it to your imagination who's winning by more than a few points.

Standard caveat: it's the first round of calls and it could change over the field period. Look for the results Tuesday.
POSTED BY TOM JENSEN AT 12:10 PM 3 COMMENTS

Monday, September 29, 2008
Your Florida Clue
This post could also be titled 'Palin is tanking everywhere.'
Date Palin Favorability Horse Race
9/7 45/34 McCain +5
9/28 40/41 ?

What's your guess? This will be out tomorrow afternoon.
POSTED BY TOM JENSEN AT 8:22 PM 10 COMMENTS

As we have seen PA go to 7+, and VA to 5+ and BO take a lead in NC and now moving what may be a good distance ahead in FL. I have to say - I'm sorry I doubted your model.

You clearly know your statistical modeling. Thanks for all your hard work.

PS -If when your team passes on their way up to or down from NH - PA, and they need anything including a place to stay, I have a modest place in Ridgefield, CT and a warm meal waiting for them. I'll shoot an e-mail later today for details.

Cugel said...

This 5 point advantage in the DKos/R2K poll, compared to a tie in the Battlerground poll is really curious, and I wonder if it can be explained by the 13% undecided in the latter, compared with only 2% in the former. Any thoughts about this?

That's easily explained. Research 2000/DailyKOS uses a census driven 73% white polling weighting, just like one would expect from the 2000-2004 drop in the white vote and Battleground uses a 77% white sample!

So, that 4% difference translates to 2.8% swing to McCain, just by itself, and without addressing ANY age demographic screwups they may have made.

If you expect Blacks and Hispanics won't turn out in 2008, so that the exit polling will exactly match 2004 although the electorate is 4% LESS white, then you've got to be totally high!

It's just the kind of LAZY error that somebody would make if they couldn't be bothered to make an estimate of what the race demographics would be likely to be in 2008.

You can certainly make a case for supposing that Obama's historic candidacy will draw a HIGHER percentage of Hispanics, Asians and AA's than was true in 2004. Minorities are UNDER-represented in terms of voting compared with their percentage of the population as shown by their census data -- and always have been.

Perhaps the vote suppression tactics of the Republicans (especially voter ID laws) will manage to suppress minority voting, but to imagine it will suppress it by 4% is assuming a blood-bath at the polls.

If that happens racism will be a HUGE issue, with millions of blacks/Asians enraged beyond belief at being turned away.

Not even the Republican poll watching fraudsters can possibly manage that much of a felony fraud.

DaWolf said...

@dpldust

Nate may well be right that the states will end up trending with the national vote percentage. But why not wait for the polling to come out? It's high risk and I think not accurate to have the national polls have such an effect. What is great about this site is the state by state polling analysis - he shouldn't ruin that by overpowering it with the nationals.

Cugel said...

eire1130 said...

One plausible explanation(re: BG poll) would be that they weight in accordance with likely voter population and not general population.


Wrong! They obviously weighted their white demographic by the 2004 elections, without taking into account the decline in the white population since 2004.

In short simple lazy polling!

EmonOkari said...

he shouldn't ruin that by overpowering it with the nationals.

Are you stating that the National Polls are 'overpowered' in his Projection Model (therefore making said model flawed)? If so, please explain. Thanks.

DaWolf said...

interesting that they weigh race by 2004 but don't bother with age...

niedda said...

R2K tracking O 51 M 41

one point improvement for Obama from yesterday

niedda said...

That was exciting.... Are you all still asleep?

Brad said...

It seems everybody is assuming an AA turnout similar to '04 or '06. That is also untrue this cycle. If black turnout doubles that is 1-3% points in alot of states. It is zero in some to.

I would love to see a breakdown of AA population percentage by state, laid against turnout numbers from '04, and some assumptions about turnout this time.

Cugel said...

"Nate may well be right that the states will end up trending with the national vote percentage. But why not wait for the polling to come out? It's high risk and I think not accurate to have the national polls have such an effect. What is great about this site is the state by state polling analysis - he shouldn't ruin that by overpowering it with the nationals."

Also wrong!

National polling is a LOT more accurate than state polling:

1. National polling has a LOT more polls than any state.
2. National polling is conducted much more frequently than any state polling.
3. National poll sizes tend to be much larger. For instance the Rasmussen Colorado poll that showed Obama with a 1% lead, had a 500 sample size and a 4.5% margin of error. Their national daily tracker polling samples 3000 voters over a three day period with a 2% margin or error!

It's simply a much more accurate poll (assuming their weighting is right, although Nate has demonstrated their "house effect" is skewed Republican by 2%).

That's why you need to weight all state polls with the national average.

A state poll with a 4.5% margin of error is a HUGE error when the state is close. From that poll we don't even know who's leading in Colorado at all! All that they can say with a 95% degree of confidence is that either Obama is leading by 5.5% or less or McCain is leading by 3.5% or less or they're tied.

Obviously state polls are very useful since not every state follows the national average exactly, but just as obviously we have MUCH better data about the national race for the popular vote than we do how any single state will turn out.

And since a 4 or 5% lead (Obama's current lead) translates into around 330 electoral votes that gives Obama around an 80% chance of winning.

There are only so many ways to "waste" surplus votes. Bush won by roughly 2.4 million votes, but if he'd won by only 2.1 million and all 300,000 of those lost votes had been in Ohio, he could have lost the election.

But, the chances of that happening were pretty low. Since his vote in Ohio (barring consideration of the vote suppression issues they had there in 2004) reflects his national average, in truth when Kerry moved up in the polls he moved up in Ohio (not necessarily by the same amount of course, but some).

National trends affect every state to some degree.

So, the only proper way to look at every state is the way Nate does, by averaging the state polling with the national tracker, but weighting the national polling less.

To ignore the national polling would be to introduce MORE error into each state than necessary, since state polling is MORE INACCURATE for the reasons cited above.

The states are just not polled as often and have higher margins of error.

Thus, we can say with VERY HIGH confidence (around 80% or more) that if the election were held today, Obama would win by 4 or 5%, but we can't tell exactly which states he'd win, since many of them are within 4% between the candidates!

joel said...

I would just add a minimum of 5% to any battleground results. They must realize they need to change how they poll since they look like such an outlier.
It appears they are missing at least 25% of potential Obama voters. Anyway they will just embarrass themselves this year.
After thursday this race may blow wide open. palin is being trained so she will just be spouting off talking points like a robot or attacking all night and looking shrill.
I think McCain is just trying to minimize any damage. Hard to say how she will react when she gets on stage and realizes 50 million people are watching her.

PorridgeGun said...

Nicely done, Silver!

DaWolf said...

good article this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em

Real Joe said...

Good Morning !

assmole said...

Good to know. I disagree that every pollster needs to do things the same way. If you see Battleground's tracker going for Obama it obviously means he absolutely 100% definitely will win the election -no buts.

justin32099 said...

"What is great about this site is the state by state polling analysis - he shouldn't ruin that by overpowering it with the nationals."

The problem is that, even now, most states don't get polled often enough by respectable pollsters. I mean, Ohio, for example, has gotten three polls, total of 1700 voters, in the last eight days.

There is a correlation between national polling and state polling (obviously). No, not every state jumps by a point for Obama when he gains it in the national polls, but it does increase the chance that this has happened. Also, I disagree that it's "overpowering" the state polls, the national numbers just aid in interpreting the state results.

You're perfectly welcome to distrust the national regression, Nate lists the straight "polling average" in the right-hand column (which has no influence from national polling). If you use that, McCain is ahead 2 instead of down 2. I don't know which is right, but they're both valid methodologies in my eyes.

Cugel said...

"joel said...

I would just add a minimum of 5% to any battleground results. They must realize they need to change how they poll since they look like such an outlier.
It appears they are missing at least 25% of potential Obama voters. Anyway they will just embarrass themselves this year."


I do this all the time to see if various polls can be made to be consistent with each other if you simply change the underlying assumptions.

But it certainly isn't scientific to do that.

You can't "correct" a flawed poll by adding a 5% "Obama undermeasure" to it. They just didn't poll the right people in the right percentages. They polled too many white older voters and nothing can help them.

At best we can get an idea that if they'd done their poll right, they'd probably show a 3%-or 4% Obama lead.

But, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You can't take a worthless poll and make it into a good one by "fixing" it in that fashion. It's just a lousy poll that is an outlier.

DaWolf said...

@Cugel

To ignore the national polling would be to introduce MORE error into each state than necessary, since state polling is MORE INACCURATE for the reasons cited above.


I wouldn't ignore it. I would reduce the impact by around half, so that the state by state polls have more impact.

Ref the Nationals: 1000 a day, 50 states. On average 40 per State. Say Ohio - that's a state with about double the national average of ev's, so they might have 80 people surveyed per day, 2400 a month. Multiple nationals but most are smaller than 1000. In total you might be talking about 10k a month in Ohio, but mixed up with other numbers so you can't pick them out.

On the other hand...there have been over 1500 THOUSAND Ohioans surveyed in the last month in State Polling. That dramatically reduces the error.

Jerome said...

A couple of points, they might be going more off the trend than the census, like '06 exit polling for their indication:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

Maybe they use off-year to explain why they do so well?


Also, maybe you missed it:
http://www.tarrance.com/files/TTG-Vote-Projections-and-Results.pdf

Their '04 prediction, by Tarrance, actually was exact to .1, so no "house effect".

Regardless, there are definitely different worlds going on with turnout projections.

One other thing, they poll a bit differently, "unaided" and that seems to be factored in.

DaWolf said...

@Justin

You're perfectly welcome to distrust the national regression, Nate lists the straight "polling average" in the right-hand column (which has no influence from national polling). If you use that, McCain is ahead 2 instead of down 2. I don't know which is right, but they're both valid methodologies in my eyes.

State by State, fine. But it's not that easy to work out how that affects the overall win percentage.

Simply, there is no way that Florida & Ohio should be tinted light blue right now. I'm fine with white even thought the polling says light red - but it shouldn't switch that much that the predicted winner is completely flipped.

Neil said...

(apologies to REM)

Palin-arkana

20,000 miles I'd walk to hear you.
20,000 reasons to laugh.
20,000 chances you've wasted.
Waiting for McCain to stop the pain.

I would give my life to listen
I would give it all.
But I won't catch you when you fall.

Engaged said...

Nate is right.

GW/Battleground has increased it's 65+ voter% from 26% in 2004 to 31% now.

http://www.tarrance.com/files/9936QWeek3.pdf

DaWolf said...

@Sedi

the problem is that it makes the model extremely volatile and also guarantees that it will overshoot as trends change.

Does anyone REALLY think that Obama is favourite to win both Ohio and Florida?

DaWolf said...

put it this way: Nate reckons that 38% of the time Obama will win both Florida and Ohio.

McCain will only win Ohio 33% of the time according to the model. 42%, Florida.

Is Obamas REALLY more likely to carry both than McCain is to win Ohio?

The Research Marketer said...

New Youth Poll Results:
http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2008/09/30/women-and-elite-%e2%80%93-vote-democrat/

TheNoseKnows said...

Nate, why would you throw something in as irrelevant as CENSUS Bureau statistics when trying to make an argument? I don't care that only 19% of eligible voters are aged 65 and over, the fact of the matter is that according to 2004 exit polls their percentage of the people who ACTUALLY VOTED is much higher than that. In fact 69% of those aged 65+ turned out to vote in 2004 giving them the highest turnout rate of any voting age block. You seem to be suggesting that every voting group votes at the same rates. Whether Battleground's model is right or wrong, you missed the target completely.

Cugel said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Cugel said...

"DaWolf said...

@Cugel

To ignore the national polling would be to introduce MORE error into each state than necessary, since state polling is MORE INACCURATE for the reasons cited above.

I wouldn't ignore it. I would reduce the impact by around half, so that the state by state polls have more impact.

Ref the Nationals: 1000 a day, 50 states. On average 40 per State. Say Ohio - that's a state with about double the national average of ev's, so they might have 80 people surveyed per day, 2400 a month. Multiple nationals but most are smaller than 1000. In total you might be talking about 10k a month in Ohio, but mixed up with other numbers so you can't pick them out.

On the other hand...there have been over 1500 THOUSAND Ohioans surveyed in the last month in State Polling. That dramatically reduces the error."


Your point would be valid if Ohio voters were an "independent variable" i.e. if what happens in Ohio has nothing to do with what happens nationally.

But we know that as goes the nation, so goes Ohio to some degree. When Obama moves up by around 10% or more in the last 2 weeks in the national polling (from a McCain advantage of around 2% during his convention bounce, to around an Obama +8% lead now), Ohio moves too.

We aren't exactly sure how MUCH Ohio moves since all the state polls have a larger margin of error than the national ones, because Ohio is polled MUCH less often by many fewer pollsters than the nation as a whole.

The 1500 Ohio voters you mention being sampled over the last month, pales into insignificance before the 30,000 voters polled by Rasmussen alone nationwide on a monthly basis. Then add all the other major pollsters and you have about 120,000-160,000 voters or more polled a month nationwide.

Nate does the right thing in trying to figure out how Ohio polling relates to the national super-tracker, then applying a modification to the state polls.

For instance, Obama has done about 2% better in Colorado, and a couple of percent WORSE in Ohio than his current lead/deficit nationwide. So, make an appropriate adjustment.

That adjustment might have to change over time, but there has to be a certain correlation between the national super-tracker and any single state (+ or - as the case may be). I.e. Obama might poll 15% worse in Tennessee than nationwide (didn't check the numbers), so make a weighted adjustment for any Tennessee poll.

That only makes sense. It should NOT be diminished! Nate has it right. (BTW: he's also correlating certain states with other neighboring states to a certain degree, thus what happens in Indiana influences Ohio to some degree -- depending on how demographically similar they are -- for instance Virginia and North Carolina, and South and North Carolina have similarities as well as differences due to the number of bible-thumping rednecks, urban professionals, white versus black voters, etc.

Congratulations to President-Elect McCain!!! said...

Claiming credit for a failed vote is WONDERFUL NEWS!!! For John McCain!!!

Jeremy said...

Battleground are so weird.

Surely by now they can see how much of an outlier their poll is, so instead of adjusting their age group calculation and salvage a little of credibility they have left, they keep churning out these ridiculous numbers and making themselves the laughing stock of the polling world.

What a pathetic outfit and I'm surprised RCP and Nate still use them.

Darío said...

The poll is good.
It´s only an outlier.

Cass said...

Thanks for clarifying that mystery for us, Nate. Especially since it explains why the poll might have a good track record in the past, but due to its methodology (or lack thereof) it might not be very reliable this election cycle.

New Palin interview? Can't wait for that!

niedda said...

Diego Hotline tracking O 47 M 41

While the number for O remained the same, M dropped one point from yesterday's polling

Blame said...

Dawolf

"Does anyone REALLY think that Obama is favourite to win both Ohio and Florida?"

Yes I do. I think the combination of celphone effect, reverse bradley effect, slightly better GOTV & more enthusiastic supporters has got to be worth a point or two.

However I do agree that it is very difficult to budge the polling in Ohio & Florida. I think the voters minds have been numbed by months of over politicing to the point of total blur.

It is so much easier to get a polling shift in, say, Indiana where competitive politics is still a novelty.

Al that said I suspect the candidate debate had effect.He is now less of a "scary black man". Some of those whose racism is based on fear rather than hatred might be converted.

quantman said...

Nate:

I DISAGREE with you give the Battleground guys the benefit of the doubt. Here's why:

1. All pollsters are stat guys, otherwise it is impossible to poll, meaning a poll is first and last a statistical measure.

2. How can a stat expert not understand weightings as simple as age demographics? Not understand vs. Ignore?

3. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get their actual sample weightings that they are showing post-facto, REPEATEDLY, unless they were doing something wrong in their methodology 'a priori'.

Based on the above, Nate, I respectfully disagree with you in giving the Battleground people the benefit of the doubt.

From my point of view, these guys are laughable and somebody should say exactly what the problem is: Professional Incompetence. I am amazed that someone like you is unable to see that simple fact. Why, Nate? How come you are unable to see that? Or, are you just B-S. ing us?

EmonOkari said...

Does anyone REALLY think that Obama is favourite to win both Ohio and Florida?

If Obama were to win the national election by 8% or more...yes. In that case, both might tilt his way.

IMHO said...

Hedge Liam -

I agree with your sentiment. This doesn't seem like a typical election.

For others, the Battleground poll doesn't match your hoped for results. That doesn't mean it is wrong, though.

As for the unreachable cell phone users, I was under the impression that pollsters used random numbers. Unless cells I have specific exchanges that are unknow, then they are included in the efforts to reach participants.

Antmatic said...

Rasmussen
O: 51
M: 45

Rasmussen is trying to make a big deal out of his one night sample that says 46% of people think Obama is too inexperienced to be president.

Where are the Diageo numbers linked?

turgidson said...

What a shame that GWU has associated itself with this particular poll. Yes, they have had cycles where they were good.

However, they always seem to have a slight (R) house effect, and now they appear to be either willfully ignorant or worse.

Why don't they adjust what they are doing? Can they really believe that Gallup, Rasmussen, and all the state polls are wrong?

It does not compute.

Darío said...

It will be a big trouble for McCain if Obama is more than 50% in a likely voters poll.

niedda said...

Diageo/Hotline Daily Tracking Poll

nationaljournal.com

Antmatic said...

Dario - It seems to me McCain may have done a bit better in Monday's Rasmussen polling (he gained a point, and Obama seems to have been rated as inexperienced by the sample that night). I think Obama put up a few +51 or +52 nights in Rasmussen over the weekend.

However it looks like he did not do betteer in DailyKos or Hotline. We'll see what gallup says.

Poker Samurai said...

---For others, the Battleground poll doesn't match your hoped for results. That doesn't mean it is wrong, though.---

Gee, thanks. Nothing can be determined to be wrong until after the election. I polled 11 9 year olds, and it's Obama 93 McCain 4, Bob The Builder 3. This might not agree with your methodology, but that doesn't mean it's wrong!!!!

Darío said...

Antimatic, Gallup is a register voters polls, so it´s more volatile than Rasmussen.
Likely voters models is more credible for me, so if Obama is taken more of 50%, he´ll be in good position.

PA John said...

Dario - It seems to me McCain may have done a bit better in Monday's Rasmussen polling (he gained a point, and Obama seems to have been rated as inexperienced by the sample that night). I think Obama put up a few +51 or +52 nights in Rasmussen over the weekend.

If it's 51-O and 45 - M, OBAMA gained a point, not McCain.

InkStain said...

"---For others, the Battleground poll doesn't match your hoped for results. That doesn't mean it is wrong, though.---"


Please. Give us a little more credit.

There are six polls listed on RCP right now, plus the R2000 poll. All are between Obama +5 and Obama +10. If there were a supposedly legit poll that was consistently off seven points in the other direction (O+17), we'd be questioning it too.

icebergslim said...

Love it Nate. I questioned GWU and it samples, which don't reflect the electorate. I hope you are planning to do an early voting series, since Ohio (a battleground state) starts voting today.

IMHO said...

inkstain -

With the subjective weightings that pollsters do, trying to disregard one pollster's subjectivity in favor of another's subjectivity is not necessarily correct although I tend to see the Battleground poll as an outlier.

If the poll results weren't weighted by expected Dem/Rep/Ind turnout and by expected age turnout and by adjustments for racial make-up and for cellphone/non-cell phone and..., then I'd be less questioning of the desires to throw out results that are unliked.

As is, M +2 is within the MOE of a BHO +5 given each candidates score can be +/- the MOE. Never, never, never midn that sub-samples have much larger MOEs than the sample as a whole.

Michael said...

Nate- As I've posted several times in the last few days, Battleground has some other really crazy internals. On the batch for which I got internals, they had 7.2% 18-29 yr old, an enormous error. I believe they had 6% Hispanic. They had 1.5% more people in RR Senatorial states than in DD senatorial states, rather than the actual 12% the other way.
I don't think this comes down to just one mistake, since some of these demographic variables (e.g. age, state) are nearly independent.They've gotten a really red response bias, and it's screwing up all the categories, and they aren't attempting to correct for it. It's garbage. /mbw

OTF said...

Does anybody know what polls are coming out today from RAS, SUSA,... etc?

DaWolf said...

As is, M +2 is within the MOE of a BHO +5 given each candidates score can be +/- the MOE. Never, never, never midn that sub-samples have much larger MOEs than the sample as a whole.

What's their MOE? About 3.5?

MOE is a 95% confidence interval isn't it - 2 standard devs?

In that case the chance of M+2 and O+7 both basically matching (or more) is 1/20*1/20 or 1/400.

Its blatantly wrong.

mac_1103 said...

I don't care that only 19% of eligible voters are aged 65 and over, the fact of the matter is that according to 2004 exit polls their percentage of the people who ACTUALLY VOTED is much higher than that. In fact 69% of those aged 65+ turned out to vote in 2004 giving them the highest turnout rate of any voting age block.

I think you're misunderstanding the comparison that is being made here. You're comparing the percentage of an age group that votes to the percentage of the electorate from that age group. Yes, older voters turn out in higher percentages, but there are still fewer of them. Also, the census data used above is not for the breakdown of the total eligible voter population, it's for people who reported voting in the 2004 election. CNN exit polling had 16% of the 2004 electorate aged 65 and up. Very hard to justify 31% weighting of this age group in a year with huge numbers of new registrations in younger groups.

tomthress said...

"The problem is that state level polling in Ohio & Florida is being overshadowed by the trend adjustment. Ohio is a great example. Of the 30 listed polls - which cover periods such as the Dem Convention bounce, the Rep Convention bounce and the current Economic bounce*, Obama is ahead in 8 polls, ties in 4 and McCain ahead in 18."

I think you're overstating how many recent polls there really are of Ohio. There have only been two firms that released polls of Ohio over the past two weeks - Rasmussen (which has released 3 polls in 2 weeks) and Insider Advantage. Ras shows the race as McCain +1, but this is a HUGE improvement for Obama from M+10 in July and M+7 and M+4 in August/September. For whatever reason, Rasmussen has shown Ohio to be FAR more McCain-friendly than anyone else. In fact, as others pointed out at the time, Ras was actually the ONLY firm to show a McCain lead in Ohio during the summer prior to the conventions. So, based on Rasmussen, the race HAS swung toward Obama here in the past two weeks by 3-4 points or so. I suspect that SurveyUSA or Quinnipiac or PPP would show an Obama lead in Ohio of 3-5 points if they polled right now.

Rich (vtslayer) said...

DaWolf said: "Nate may well be right that the states will end up trending with the national vote percentage. But why not wait for the polling to come out?"

Because this isn't a site about polling averages, it's a site about predicting elections. Nate has said over and over that his goal is not to give an accurate reflection of current polling (there are plenty of sites out there doing polling averages), but to predict as accurately as possible what the outcome of the election will be. The trend adjustment as frequently (and fairly accurately) allowed the model to predict movements in state polling days in advance.

If you don't like Nate's regression, he gives you all of his data in the charts on the right. Make your own averages, or check out RCP or Pollster.com or...

Rich (vtslayer) said...

IMHO said "As for the unreachable cell phone users, I was under the impression that pollsters used random numbers. Unless cells I have specific exchanges that are unknow, then they are included in the efforts to reach participants."

This is exactly the case: cell phone companies control unique exchanges which are excluded from most pollsters' random-digit dialing. This is because the TCPA makes it illegal to make any unsolicited call to a mobile phone using an "automated dialer."

Michael said...

BTW, on Battleground vs. R2K: R2K makes some demographic assumptions (re Hispanics and 18-29's)which may marginally favor BO. It's not hard to make a correction since the margins in those groups are known. If the real margin was -2 from R2K's estimate, we shouldn't be shocked.
Battleground is another matter. Their main internals are wildly different from reality, and we don't know how to fix them up. Here's another one:
The polls with fixed D, R ID (R2K, Hotline, Ras in a dynamic way) all have the current margin almost identical to their D-R ID margin. Battleground uses fixed D-R=3 (at the extreme low end, but not quite insane). They currently have a vote margin -5 below their ID margin. Again, a very dramatic difference from all the others. If they have some reason to believe that they're right and everyone else is wrong about that, they should say why. Crickets./mbw

Kevin said...

You are a God.

Marie said...

Maybe Battleground is the one poll that's not oversampling Dems?

You may have addressed this in some of the long comment threads on other posts, but I would love to hear why all the major pollsters seem to be assuming a much higher Democrat turnout than ever seen in modern times.

I'd like to see polls that assume turnouts based on the 2004 or 2006 turnouts.

I have heard that Democrat registrations are up in some areas, but, remember Operation Chaos.

Any light you could shed on this issue would be appreciated.

tomthress said...

"Maybe Battleground is the one poll that's not oversampling Dems?

You may have addressed this in some of the long comment threads on other posts, but I would love to hear why all the major pollsters seem to be assuming a much higher Democrat turnout than ever seen in modern times.

I'd like to see polls that assume turnouts based on the 2004 or 2006 turnouts."

Rasmussen said, in their latest Party ID weight updates (which show D+5.6),

"It should be noted that the current targets are fairly similar to the ratio that existed when Democrats won control of Congress in 2006. They are also fairly close to the make-up of the electorate in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 1996."

Rasmussen also basically shows Obama matching or perhaps even slightly out-performing the Dems Party ID advantage - he's at +6 (51-45) in today's tracker.

Judd said...

Nate,

Have you ever looked into whether questions phrasing can influence the results of the poll? I haven't looked to see whether Battleground is asking the question any differently than most other polls do...

Mark said...

Battleground at +2 obama now?

Day Off Diet said...

Looks like even Battleground is on Obama's side now. It's nice to RCP all blue.

michael said...

Thanks for shedding light on this. I think interested parties should email the folks at RCP and demand they include the research 2000 tracker in the average, esp. in light of Nate's latest. Certainly 51-41 is no more outlandish than 48-46, r2000 is completely transparent in its internals, and its numbers (say 51 like Rasmussen) are reasonable. Also, daily kos/research 2000 doesn't sound anymore ideological to me than fox/rasmussen.

their emails are:

letters@realclearpolitics.com
john@realclear politics.com
tom@realclearpolitics.com

No one is asking them to not carry battleground, but they no cred in not carrying the r 2000 in light of Nate's analysis.

btw, interesting that the worse the polling gets for McCain and as his campaign seems to be imploding, the troll factor seems to be diminishing in direct correlation.

Steve said...

Nate,

I’ve always considered Dick Morris a low-life and a bottom feeder, but I was shocked to see his current Electoral Map on Newsmax. Have you seen this? It’s enough to make Obama supporters dance in the streets:

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/morrismap/?promo_code=2A89-1

However, I’m incredulous. I can’t believe it’s quite that good for Obama and I also don’t understand why Morris would essentially demoralize his troops, virtually all of whom are backing McCain. (Maybe he thinks this will actually scare the hell out of them and get them to send more money and volunteer more time?)

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.

clubok said...

Nate,

This was a great piece of analysis, but Battleground just shot it down. At the bottom of today's graph, it says this:

"On 9/29 - Weighting changed from Party ID, Race, and Age to Race and Age only"

Of course, this is also when that poll swung from M+2 to O+2. So they seem to be saying that they were weighting by age all along, but the party ID weighting was screwing them up.

Sam said...

"Rasmussen is trying to make a big deal out of his one night sample that says 46% of people think Obama is too inexperienced to be president."
============

The most important thing is that pretty much all who don't think Obama is inexperienced are voting for Obama. 51% of 54%. That leads me to believe that those saying he is inexperienced are almost using it as their only excuse. McCain has a lot higher percentage of people that think he is experienced enough but they aren't all voting for him. As long as Obama can keep the number of voters that think he is inexperienced below 50% he has a good chance to become president.

Sam said...

"You may have addressed this in some of the long comment threads on other posts, but I would love to hear why all the major pollsters seem to be assuming a much higher Democrat turnout than ever seen in modern times."
==============

It's not necessarily turnout, it's voter registration and party switching. It's skewed heavily towards the Democrats. The Pubs are registering too but are losing people to the Dems as well so they are pretty much stable so I don't see them improving that much if at all on Bush's numbers. Even if you don't go by a higher turnout it's simply a higher party affiliation for the Democrats.

Sam said...

@michael:

I'd rather see them underestimating Obama's numbers so I don't care. Just let them do their thing and let's just wait and see on election day.

michael said...

Sam said...
@michael:

I'd rather see them underestimating Obama's numbers so I don't care. Just let them do their thing and let's just wait and see on election day.

September 30, 2008 3:15 PM

I agree, Sam, except the MSM narrative is so driven by the numbers...maybe a little healthy fear is good for Obama supporters, so we all show up!

Bruce said...

not sure if others have posted this, but as of Sep29, GW/Battleground has Obama +2 (48/46), not McCain up. (See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/BG_093008_2-way-ballot-trender.pdf). Note also bottom of graphic, per Nate's comments on weighting: they claim to have eliminated Party ID, and rely on "Race and Age only". The change coincides with a 4-pt jump, from Obama -2 to +2.

ClarityHonesty said...

I read recently that only 50% of 18-34 year old voters actually vote. On the other hand, over 70% of 34+ year old voters vote. Would this not account for the discrepancy in the Battleground poll?

Michael said...

There's a lot of griping about various polls because somebody doesn't like the results, but this case was different. The internals were really nuts, off by 5 sigma on at least two different nearly independent parameters. It's very instructive that when enough people pointed this out, the pollster radically revised the bottom line. The reason they gave (lifting the party ID constraint) is very suspicious, however, since less than half of the discrepancy from other polls came from their unusual party ID. I suspect much bigger problems. Although their numbers are now near the middle of the pack, they should probably be ignored until some reasonable description of methods and internals is supplied./mbw

p.s. non-mbw Michael is someone else.

Bert said...

NATE, ERROR IN YOUR ANALYSIS!

You incorrectly assessed the age weighting. You merely pulled the percentage from each age group that is "very likely" to vote, not the weighting percentage. In fact, the "Extremely likely" percentages are LOWER in the 65+ group. The actual numbers polled are:

18-34: 220

35-44: 200

45-64: 361

65+: 219

Unknown: 10

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,

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,

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,

,

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,或者想要打工兼差打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店日領上班小姐,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、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???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、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?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賺錢,酒店和,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,

,