Mine...
The only reason that Mr. Ziegler's original survey got stupid answers from Obama's supporters is because he asked stupid questions.And Carl Bialik's at the Wall Street Journal....
...actually I'm not going to pull a quote from Carl's piece because you should read the whole thing, as it represents by far the fairest and most comprehensive summary of the issue to date.
113 comments
first...
no really, this is my first time commenting. great job nate, sean, and all others. i've been hooked since september. thanks for the best (imo) political analysis out there.
great exchange this week. zogby looks terrible. I wonder if he'll get business for 12.
I'm just glad that Nate didn't ask the man a question pertaining to O.J. Simpson; the talk-show host is obsessed with The Juice's criminal trial. Anyone read David Foster Wallace's article on Ziegler in the Atlantic from 3 years ago? It's called "Host," and it's well worth a read.
I find it hysterical Zogby has declined to perform a similar pole.
Anyways, off topic but wanted to ensure people realized this is still going on down in GA.
Election Day is December 2 in GA. That's the Tuesday after Thanksgiving.
GOTV will be Nov 29 - Dec 2.
-- yes, it's Thanksgiving weekend so it's a tough sell, and most of us have other plans. But if anyone is looking for an excuse to get away from the relatives.......
1.Travel to Georgia!
Are you longing for those primary roadtrips? Re-live the memories with a trip to Atlanta, any time Nov 29 - Dec 2.
Supporter housing will be provided.
Knock on door and make calls to remind people to vote.
Donate!
Make an in-kind donation to the campaign. Limit is $10,000.
Make checks payable to "Georgia's Campaign for Change"
Contact info:
Out of state team
404-914-5079
volunteer@martinvictory.org
Use this contact info to get set up with your own personal phone bank, make travel arrangements, or arrange that in-kind donation.
Invite a few friends over. Make it a party.
If you log into your myBO account, there is a link to phone bank directly from it...cheers.
A truly bizarre thing happens when survey makers try to enter the field of experimental research. They fail, miserably.
First of all, the results actually make sense from two different perspectives. The vast majority of American voters are uninformed. I ran a set of voter knowledge studies for my lab for the 2004 elections and found that 90% of people did not know the NAMES of the two legislative branches, much less who was leading them. Thus, the results actually show a slightly higher amount of knowledge then would be expected from voters (with something like 88% of people not recollecting Harry Reid).
Moreover, neuroscience has repeatedly shown that voter's are much more likely to remember certain things based on their innate set of beliefs and biases. I.e. an Obama supporter is, of course, more likely to remember bad things about McCain, and vice versa. This occurs because of psychological constructs like the fundamental attribution error, personality biases, and even things as basic as race, socioeconomic status, etc.
Because of these two factors, the results obtained in the study would be expected...
However, what I find most frustrating about all the coverage of this survey and Nate's subsequent interview is the lack of comments about the true, fundamental issue that is in this study: the inference of causation from what tries, and fails, to be correlation.
As a psychological researcher, it is impossible for a study which simply asks people questions about what they know to infer that media coverage was the cause (which is the principle purpose of this study as I understand it.) You must have such amazing things as "control groups" and "causation questions." Moreover, even with those things it is difficult to ascertain cause. It remains, just as likely that, even assuming the data is correct - which may be a stretch, the discrepancy in knowledge arises out of the inherent biases or low voter knowledge that I just spoke of. Or, possibly, people are just more likely to attribute negative things to the opposition (notice most negative things were attributed to Palin, rather then McCain, following data plots that indicate more people have an unfavorable impression of Palin then McCain). It is possible that people just think badly of Palin, and not knowing what is true, are more likely to attribute bad things to her. Whereas with positive things about people, they just don't remember (this follows with psychological research that shows people are more likely to respond to negative then positive stimuli under certain conditions).
Any of these explanations are in line with the data collected. It is...incredible to me that Zogby would stand by these fundamentally flawed data and the inferences that Ziegler tried to draw from them. It is also incredible that people are assuming that "media coverage" is the cause.
Anyone want to take a shot at asking Palin supporters about her "positions"? Particularly on the bail-out from the Couri interviews!!!
From Chuck Todd's FIrst Read at MCNBC, an update on some remaning races:
*** The remaining races: In Georgia’s Senate run-off, Obama has cut a 60-second radio ad for Jim Martin (D), while Al Gore campaigns for Martin on Sunday… In Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports that on Day Two of the recount, Norm Coleman’s (R) lead over Al Franken (D) dropped to just 136 votes with about 46% of the vote counted… And in Ohio, a judge ruled that the provisional ballots must be counted in the extremely close House race between Mary Jo Kilroy (D) and Steve Stivers (R), which Stivers leads by 149 votes. Counting the provisional ballots would seem to benefit Kilroy.
You know what the thing that astounds me through all of this is?
Ziegler just doesn't know when to quit. I mean, yeah, he's a talking head and all, and he prides himself on being an asshole, but he just keeps digging further and further. He can't be as deluded as to think his showing up everywhere the letter Z is used and protesting about how you're a meany-doodoo-poopyhead is making him look any better, right?
Not only that, it's kind of funny that he gets in within an hour of Bialik making his post on WSJ. Does he spend all his time Googling himself?
Thanks for the links, Nate. Good reading.
Speaking of the Bible Belt, let's not forget that half of McCain's evangelical voters think Obama is or was a Muslim. The sun bakes their brains.
Holy crap! Only in the world of Nate Silver can "what political party controls congress?" be considered a "stupid" question.
bias anyone?
The exception proves the rule.
stop_the_stutter: Nate's obviously not talking about questions like who controls Congress, but the ones which "were misleading, taken out of context, or arguably untrue" in his words.
Please bear in mind that Ziegler was fired from his show here in Louisville for discussing the pubic grooming of his ex-girlfriend, a local television personality. This is not a man to whom good choices or class come naturally.
[i]Holy crap! Only in the world of Nate Silver can "what political party controls congress?" be considered a "stupid" question.
bias anyone?[/i]
Straw man anyone?
This is all just serving to give this Ziegler jackass way more attention than he deserves.
With reference to Nate's article yesterday about the right's talk radio mentality, just consider what's gone on nationally on the right in the last month or two.
Purges at National Review, several conservative columnists endorsing Obama's candidacy, the "economic right" castigating the "religious right," massive loss of confidence in the GOP (see recent Gallup polls) and the "southern strategy" looking increasingly like an encampment of a party in retreat.
And so the right is in search of explanations -- almost anything other than true introspection. Obama Manchurisn Candidate conspiracy. Stupid voters. Money bought the presidency. etc. All kinds of scapegoating.
Lack of introspection (anti-introspection) is one of the elements of dogmatic thinking. Nate's article yesterday hinted at that idea. Democracy requires an ability to compromise, not to see everything in terms of absolutes -- right and wrong. This is something that dogmatists have a very difficult time doing.
wv: reoli (I prefer cannoli).
The death of talk radio and reactionary conservatism...right before our very eyes. Check out The Democratic Tribune's beatdown of Ziegler at:
http://democratictribune.com
The Wall Street Journal article makes what seems to me the main point about this thing - it's not so much the dubiousness of the poll itself, as Ziegler's belief that his survey proves that the media got Obama elected. Even if his survey had no problems (in itself) at all, it wouldn't prove anything like that. To prove something like that, he'd need to show that the anti-McCain stories were more deeply ingrained into all voters, not simply the ones who voted for Obama. And, even more fundamentally, he'd have to show that the *reason* for this was that the media had exaggerated the anti-McCain stories. After all, it could be that the reason these stories made more of an impact was simply that there really were more of them and they reflected genuine weaknesses in McCain as a candidate, to a greater extent than the corresponding Obama stories. The media, terrible though they may be in many ways, don't generally just make stuff up. There are reasons why they emphasise some stories and not others. And not all of those reasons are of their own making. To put it more simply, the whole endeavour seems to me to show a basic inability to make logical inferences. This is quite apart from the reliability of the evidence in the first place.
Also, will there ever come a time when vaguely scandalous incidents no longer get the word "gate" appended to them? I've just been wading through a story about "Sachsgate", which is even sillier (look it up, Americans). Or will this persist until after most people have forgotten about Watergate in the first place and no longer know what it even means?
Nate may not have wanted to post any quotes from the article, but I'm assuming if you are in the comments section, you've read it, so I'm going to post this one and let it speak for itself, particularly the last 6 words:
When asked why he didn’t include questions referring to unfavorable aspects of McCain’s and Palin’s distant past, he said, “I felt that these were the best 12 for what I was trying to accomplish.”
On a different subject--is there any site out there that has the current presidential election returns which also shows all the minor candidates like the cbs site does? http://election.cbsnews.com/election2008/president.shtml
They haven't updated since Monday--I just like to see what is going on with the entire candidate list. Thanks! :)
Well, no big surprise here, at least not to anyone who can think.
The problem is the millions of people who actually believe the garbage that people like Ziegler spew. They really, honestly believe the class warfare crap, that the "MSM is in the tank", etc.
It doesn't matter that McCain declared war on the media, or that his minions deliberately told them to get stuffed, or that he ran a negative campaign, or that he picked a complete idiot for VP. Nope, they are all just poor, persecuted victims of the evil MSM.
It would be funny were it not so scary.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
syr93- I haven't seen one yet, but the george mason university guy at elections.gmu.edu has a link to various of the secretary of states websites that do (some like new york and texas haven't updated in a while). without looking at things this morning it appears that we are at 128.5 million votes
I get so confused.
I thought the GOP accused the left of playing up victimization.
And yet they are so very good at claiming to be victims themselves.
--
My favorite spectator sport right now is watching the rational wing of the GOP bail out, and get attacked by the ideological wing as a result.
I look forward to the grief David Brooks will catch for saying things like "[Obama's] personnel decisions have been superb."
specifically the page http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html though i think ohio's page has moved from the link placed so you'll have to look around
manturb- i'm not touching that word :P
"The only reason that Mr. Ziegler's original survey got stupid answers from Obama's supporters is because he asked stupid questions." - Nate
How do you really feel?
"My favorite spectator sport right now is watching the rational wing of the GOP bail out, and get attacked by the ideological wing as a result.
I look forward to the grief David Brooks will catch for saying things like "[Obama's] personnel decisions have been superb.""
It's already happening. I listen to Rush Limbaugh and nary a day goes by where moderate conservatives -- and Brooks specifically, by name -- do not get attacked by him.
The GOP is becoming extremely polarized, and it's going to get worse.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
Hahaha - "stupid answers"/"stupid questions" - awesome quote, Nate. Way to tell it like it is.
For me this entire dust-up comes down to one thing. The right wing talkers are trying to call 52% of the voters in the presidential election "STOOPID". Yeah that sounds like a really bright way to advance your poilitcal agenda and gain voters, call the majority of voters Stupid, they will flock to your side. They can keep this up for four years and guess what that 52% will grow to 55%. I say more power to them.
@Sir Nate Silver,
don't worry about fake survey.
take a glance at this:
A new Gallup poll shows that 34% of Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party vs. 61% who have an unfavorable view. The 61% unfavorable is the highest for any party in history.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/poll-gop-image-goes-from-bad-to-worse/#more-30933
...THE HIGHEST FOR ANY PARTY IN HISTORY!
Balls explode!!!
;)
who are the 34% that still approve of the GOP Rethuglicans???!?!?!
Obama now moving on to 67,066,915 votes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7697829.stm
The 34% represents the true core dogmatic republican "the earth is flat" voters. They do not have two sided discussions. They speak in an echo chamber and believe everything coming out of Limbaugh's backside. They are unconsolable and do not want to hear anything negative about their party.
My response.... fuckem' they cant win an election alone, and that is exactly where they are right now, A.L.O.N.E.
All of the conservatives who are not "unadulterated neo-con ideologues" (Brooks, Powell, etc.) have either endorsed Obama or are at least willing to see what he does before going for the throat.
when they look at the state of America, can this 34% honestly, hand on heart, still support the GOP Rethuglicans???
from the post below:
"...I haven't done one of those "what's next for FiveThirtyEight" posts yet, but I will do so soon; rest assured that we are in this for the long haul..."
**************
fine.
will foreigners be welcome again in this site ?
barely bear ?
not welcome at all ?
well,I think I'll notice soon.
way to go 538'staff.
bye.
:)
I wouldn't call it stupid questions per se. Some of these people live in an alternate reality. I'll prove my point.
Go to THIS blog on HumanEvents.com and ask these Coulterites about Obama's birth certificate.
This site seems to be a distribution point for extreme right wing talking points and conspiracies. Only the best of the best of the best (in their eyes) frequent there.
So when did the wardrobe story break? Oh that's right, election day, after everyone had voted, and while everyone was paying attention. I wonder why people remember this more, I wonder how much it affected how people voted. God, I wish I had a brain to come up with answers to these burning questions.
What I find really interesting is that Ziegler would, of all pollsters, choose to use Zogby, a pollster whose numbers were always screwy because of the way John was allotting the poll results (based on 2004 party affiliation).
To me, this almost reeks of picking a pollster based not on the desire to get an accurate poll, but rather, picking a pollster based on one's desire of getting the poll to say exactly what one wants - in this case that all (or many) of Obama supporters are stupid and uninformed.
Personally, the idea that someone makes themselves feel better by not focusing on why the Republicans lost but rather by, yet again, trying to drag down the other side just feeds into the notion of what's wrong with the political system in this country and why Obama was such a popular candidate and kicked McCain's ass.
I HATE that everything even remotely scandalous gets called a blank-gate. Seriously. That was 40 years ago and the only thing it has in common with any of this crap is that it was a scandal. Big freaking deal. "-gate" should be banned from all public use as a suffix. Seriously.
I am partly to blame for Zogby's crappy poll results. I have taken part in his Internet polls for a while and noticed long ago how badly the questions are worded. ("How many children do you have living at home? 1, 2, 3, or 3+?") They often include no applicable answer. Then there are the leading polls, the ones that start with a statement like, "Most people think Democrats raise taxes more than Republicans...." Once those started I changed my style. I give my true answers to the questions but lie about my demographics. Although I am pro-choice and against the Iraq war, they think I am a 32-year-old Evangelical soccer mom who shops at Wal-Mart.
@syr93, I like this site for election results, including minor third parties.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Could we please stop appending the suffix -gate on everything any partisan disagrees with or finds controversial about those with whom one disagrees?
WV: unabbil - I am unabbil to come up wid a orijnal way to describe what I'm talkin' bout.
thanks Another Mike.
Perfect.
As a lawyer we're trained to spot leading questions and those questions were TOTALLY leading.
To every single one I would respond:
Objection, leading.
Objection, argumentative.
Objective, assumes facts not in evidence.
If you start with false assumptions, such as "did you know" that Obama began his career in the house of two members of the Weather Underground, then there is no right answer except "un-ask the question"?
That's a flat lie! Obama did no such thing! This is nothing but a typical right-wing smear job. McCain and right-wingers in general attempted to make a huge deal out of Obama's alleged associations with Bill Ayers and failed miserably, not because voters didn't hear about the lies, but because:
a. They correctly didn't believe the lies.
b. They correctly thought that such attacks were totally irrelevant to any conceivable issue that might have an effect on their lives and refused to be distracted by the right-wing B.S.
The hard-right is now completely in a frenzy that their Swift-boat tactics didn't work and are blaming the media for "not reporting" more about Obama's "dangerous associations." They refuse to accept that voters flat rejected their message, not because the media didn't report it, but because their attacks were false and irrelevant.
Why SHOULD voters care more about what Biden did back in law school than his career in the U.S. Senate for the last 25 years? McCain didn't bring up those charges because he knew that voters would correctly think he was simply trying to distract people with irrelevant crap that Biden explained and apologized for back in 1987. Talk about OLD NEWS!
The stupidity factor involved with all this is so huge that it's hard to even believe.
It's a brave new world in which voters care more about actual issues than the crap Republicans have thrived on for decades: fear ads and flag-pins, and smear tactics about the alleged "dangerous associations," and lying internet whisper campaigns about "did you know Obama is a secret Muslim" and "Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and his birth-certificate was forged" and "crime" "welfare queens" and flag-burning amendments and Willie Horton and all the rest of endless distractions and divisions they've been relying on to win elections since 1968.
We're in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the great depression and have two major wars spinning out of control and they want to focus on Bill Ayers and they're surprised they lost and want to blame the media?
Are you kidding me?
I think that the poll actually shows that "on average" Dems are less informed than Reps.
Its as simple as that. Obama voters voted out of an ignorant emotional bliss, some stoned, some drunk and some just oblivious.
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...
Go to THIS blog on HumanEvents.com and ask these Coulterites about Obama's birth certificate.
November 21, 2008 10:48 AM
#########
this is funny.
just yesterday i got an argument with a fascist-rightwing-asshole on a blog here in Italy about the same issue.
He said Obama was born in Kenia and that His grand-mother testified it because she was in the delivering room.
I just answered that it would be something really silly for a couple to pack up and leave from Hawaii to Kenia just to deny this baby all the advantage to be an US citizen.
Then I posted a link to the Nairobi Hospital.
http://www.nairobihospital.org/section.asp?ID=13
It came out that until October 1961 the Hospital (the only in Kenya in those years) not only didn’t allow black people as patients but also as medical and nursing staff, and Obama was born in August 1961!
Go figure if they would have accepted Obama’s grand-mother in the delivering room!
Holy Mackerel, some people are really nuts.
Bye.
-Gate is one of those things that gets attached irrespective of original meaning.
Another is MEGA.
Mega is a prefix meaning thousand. When atomic bombs got produced, a megaton bomb was a 1000 ton bomb in terms of impact. So all of a sudden, mega- gets attached to all sorts of things to mean "big" rather than "thousand."
It sort of bothers me, but nothing can change how it has transformed.
Same with moot - which means unproveable, with no discernable answer. Instead, people now use it to mean irrelevent, which is actually incorrect. But it exists, so not much that can be done.
Ziegler's survey is simply stupid.
Not all negative information is equally important.
And the campaigns vary in effectiveness at working through the media.
I do think Steven Cull of the U of MD Program on Int'l Policy attitudes inspired Ziegler.
Cull did research on what Americans thought they knew about Iraq and cross-referenced it with the media outlet they used.
Cull tested three ideas.
1. Did the United States have support of int'l community?
2. Did Iraq have WMD?
3. Was Iraq connected with 9/11 attacks?
Large numbers of people got these questions wrong and Fox viewers were the wrongest.
Ziegler is trying to use pseudo-research to bolster the Right Wing idea that the media is biased.
But once again, if the GOP is running a campaign that relies heavily on people believing stuff that's not true (e.g., Obama is a Muslim) it's not surprising that the media is unhelpful.
@Jack-be-nimble-
How does this survey show any relationship between the knowledge of Obama supporters and McCain supporters?
I'll tell you WHEN the Republicans can complain about Democratic presidents:
WHEN-
As under Nixon, the machinery of government becomes a corrupt, criminal enterprise with secret wars in SE Asia, spying on citizens, campaign contributions of thousands coming in brown paper bags, criminal break-ins and coverups LEADING TO both the Vice President AND the President resigning within 10 months of each other!
(can you imagine Biden and Obama being forced from office in shame within one year of each other!!)
WHEN-
As under Reagan, a $900 Billion national debt (accrued over 204 years of the Republic) is TRIPLED IN ONLY 8 YEARS because of the stupidest economic program ever tried (supply side economics). AND WHEN one of the greatest breaches of the US Constitution is perpetrated - Iran/Contra which involved covert selling of missiles to Iran (which a few years earlier had held our hostages for 444 days) in order to raise money for an illegal army seeking to overthrow a fairly elected gov in Nicaragua. (an election observed by numerous nations and deemed very fair)
An illegal army that the US Congress forbade Reagan from funding!
WHEN-
As with George HW Bush, a president comes to office with the dirtiest campaign to date in which the candidate states READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TAXES. And then raises taxes!
WHEN-
After running a dirt campaign similar to his father's, a man with the verbal skills of comedian Dr. Irwin Corey and the intellect of Pee Wee Herman; a man, a president who boasted that he doesn't read papers, who took a budget surplus left to him by the previous president and proceeded to DOUBLE the national debt in 8 years (sorry George, Reagan did a triple so you lose), who TOOK A NATION TO WAR under false pretenses, who's inaction and inattention and blind trust of market forces has left us with an economy the crumbles all around us, who's justice dept. spies on Americans, and fires federal prosecutors who won't do their political bidding.
WHEN-
We have a Democratic President who can measure up to the slime standards of the last four Republican administrations...
THEN, the Republicans can open their mouths.
TILL THEN, SHUT THE HELL UP!
Something random that I was thinking about with this. Somewhere, Ziegler said that this survey cost $13,000 (Fox News, I think). Does anyone else find that suspiciously high? Since obviously the questions weren't written by an expert, nor really vetted before being asked, that makes that average respondent cost $25.39 to the poll.
Is it just me, or does that seem wacky high? My wife once worked in market research and she was generally able to complete 6-10 surveys an hour, depending on the demographic she was looking for. Even if we took it at five respondents to this an hour, that's like a $125 / hour survey.
Damn. Am I in the wrong business or what?
"Homespun1 said...
For me this entire dust-up comes down to one thing. The right wing talkers are trying to call 52% of the voters in the presidential election "STOOPID."
I wish it were that simple. They are trying to attack the MEDIA for being "biased." This plays into the endless lying right-wing narrative that the voters "didn't reject conservatism." Instead Obama only won because a biased "liberal media" refused to report all the terrible things about Obama.
It's dangerous because the media in America ALWAYS responds to such attacks by trying to "prove their independence" and that they're "free of liberal bias" by attacking Democrats.
Since the media is NOT "liberal" to begin with the whole campaign is a cynical lie and blatant attempt to manipulate the media into being an attack dog to destroy the Obama administration.
That may very well happen, exactly as it happened with Clinton! The media started attacking the Clinton Administration on day 1 of the transition and never stopped for 8 years.
It was all the Vince Foster "scandal" and "Whitewater" and the "Rose law firm billing records" and every single bit of dirt they could dredge up, much of it imaginary.
Then when Bush ran against Gore they went into a feeding frenzy of Gore-hatred. He was too "stiff" and "stuffy" and an "elitist" because he had thoughtful positions on issues. They mocked and attacked him and rolled their eyes when he wanted to talk seriously about issues. How BORING! How unlike the wonderful "manly" Bush that every sensible person would want to "have a beer with."
They covered up for every obvious intellectual and moral failing of Bush -- and we got stuck with the result for 8 horrible years that have devastated America's economy, our foreign policy, our environment, our standing in the world and virtually every other aspect of this country.
And they not only stuck by Bush when he lied and committed felonies too numerous to name they now want to forget everything and refuse to acknowledge their own complicity in his crimes and failures.
And this is just part of the insidious right-wing attack on the media and attempt to use the mainstream media to destroy Obama and the Democrats.
It's quite likely to succeed unless we fight back vigorously, because with the endless media consolidation there are only a very few titanic corporations controlling all U.S. media outlets. And they are NOT "liberals" on the boards of Clear-Channel, "Westinghouse Electric Corporation" -- which bought up CBS News, etc.
These are multi-billion $ international corporations and to accuse them of "liberal bias" is to engage in lies and propaganda utterly unhinged from evidence.
@Personal:
This whole thing seems like a manifestation of what might be called the "fundamental media attribution error." That is, if our side wins, it's because we did a good job of getting our message to the media, and they followed through in getting it to the people. If our side loses, it's because the media screwed up our message.
@sfergus43:
The prefix "mega-" (also "megalo-") comes from a Greek word meaning "great" or "large," so it is appropriate to use it in that context (e.g., megacephaly). It is only relatively recently that it has been used to represent one million (not one thousand).
["atrill" - The turkey that Sarah Palin pardoned was atrilling as he made his way back to the pen.]
I think it is about time to start a boycott of Zogby and any company that uses his services. We should not tolerate this festering cesspool of a company distorting polls and misleading voters.
It is time to drive them into the ground. Let Ziegler be his one and only customer.
Nate,
I think it was wise to let the WSJ have the final word, (although, I think it would be more accurately characterized as a b- slap.) One lesson that seems to have come from all this is how effective the blogs are at exposing propaganda, and how ineffective the traditional media are at driving narratives. Perhaps we have become resistant to negative messaging in general. (now that would be a CHANGE)
RE: Minnesota Senate Race
Let's keep it real. The most just and fair thing to do is have a runoff.
Mind you, a runoff is an absurd choice. It's a big waste of money, probably more than $20 million dollars. It's also not what the law dictates. The elction would undoubtedly be effected by what transpired on November 4th, though it's not certain who would benefit. In the end, having a runoff between the candidates is a terrible, stupid option. However, it's the best we got in my opinion.
We have an election where one candidate received about 40% of 2,900,000 votes, another 40%, and a 3rd 20%. After a full recount we'll have a race that's probably within 100 votes either way. There will also be about 2000 ballots that are hard to interpret, where we don't know the intent of the voter. This is an actual tie in my opinion. Manyo f the 2000 or so ballots that will be disputed are truly difficult to render an opinion as to the intent of the voter. It's surely impossible to get a true reading on those disputed ballots down to less than 100 either way. This will play out over the next few days, but when it comes down to it, it will be a virtual tie. The courts will then render a decision. The best alternative, which works out 99.99% of the time is to let the voters decide election day. If we can't determine a winner, the other option needs to be to let them vote again. The courts can reasonably make a determination as to the will of the people in most circumstances. In this case, I don't think there's any way they can do that. Set a runoff for Tuesday, December 9th. End of story.
All you need to know is that 57% of Obama voters thought that the Republicans control congress. It is truly truly scary that people like that are even allowed to vote though the media should be faulted as well. A fact such as who controls congress is too fundamental to be excused.
Heh, didn't the Republicans control Congress? I mean, there was no actual oversight, little legislation passed, and Bush seemed to get what he wanted. Sounds like Republican control to me!
More importantly, Jerome called Kos's R2K poll shitty, Kos defended himself and named you as a neutral third party.
So how about it Nate? How was the Kos R2K poll this year? Did it cook it's books the way Jerome says?
To Jack-be-nimble...you're absolutely wrong...how can it confirm that dem voters are less informed than repubs when there were no repubs polled??? How can you make a comparison based on just one party being polled?
You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
Beyond that, there's nothing inherently better about a runoff election, since turnout is always much lower than on Nov. 4th. It becomes much more heavily influenced by GOTV operations where outside money plays a heavy role.
Some countries (and possibly some state/local elections?) use an instant run-off system.. where the voter ranks their selections in order on the first ballot. If no candidate reaches 50%, the one with the lowest result gets removed, and all ballots are recalculated. This continues until someone gets to 50%.
But that's not how the rules were designed in Minnesota, so for 2008 we go with what is in the books, may the least-slimy candidate win.
TheNoseKnows: All you need to know is that 57% of Obama voters thought that the Republicans control congress. It is truly truly scary that people like that are even allowed to vote though the media should be faulted as well. A fact such as who controls congress is too fundamental to be excused.
OK, the number you cited isn't even correct, so good job on that, your credibility is soaring. How do you know McCain voters are more aware of this fact (which has no effect on the candidates or what they stand for)? Furthermore, how can you claim something that CHANGES can be a "fundamental fact?" It is truly scary you are allowed to vote.
.
Sticking to the subject of this thread.
This says it all for me…
From Carl Bialik’s wsj.com blog:
1.) When asked why he didn’t include questions referring to unfavorable aspects of McCain’s and Palin’s distant past, he [John Ziegler] said, “I felt that these were the best 12 for what I was trying to accomplish.”
2.) Zogby said he wouldn’t have approved the poll without including McCain supporters. “A more honest poll would have been conducted had we also focused on McCain people,” he said. He added that some of the questions weren’t worded fairly.
So it’s all for accomplishing a slanted result to bolster a perceived bias for a money-making “documentary”…
Generally speaking. A vast majority of the approximate 128 million voters are not so much misinformed by the media as they are totally un-informed by their own lack of interest in the real nuts and bolts of the candidates involved.
~D_K~
.
"Since the media is NOT "liberal" to begin with the whole campaign is a cynical lie and blatant attempt to manipulate the media into being an attack dog to destroy the Obama administration."
It's all a big game. They knew it from the start, which is why they openly declared war on the media even before the general got going. It's standard GOP/Rove strategy -- it just didn't work that well this time.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
This is really pretty funny. Republicans fail to Swift Boat Barack Obama; whiny conservative talk show host commissions disreputable pollster to demonstrate that people failed to retain Republican talking points, as if we're all supposed to be indignant about it! All Mr. Ziegler has proven to me is that the Republicans need a better class of smear if they really want to effectively distract people from thinking about the actual future of the country. But dude, when your propaganda sucks, don't come whining to the rest of us!
@Nate or other knowledgeable source:
[Asked by others and still unanswered here AFAIK]
When the questions were posed to the interviewees was "none" stated as an option? It is listed in the poll.
The picture remains incomplete without this.
sorry i know off topic-
but franken just challenged over 400 ballots in ONE county...
must be getting weird in the land oflakes!!
Franken ballot challenges far outstripping Coleman's now, largely due to 476 contested ballots in tiny Renville County alone. Anyone know what that's all about?
I can make a case for each answer to the question 'Which party controls Congress?'
Those who said Democrats, the answer deemed correct, are simply looking at the numerical advantage of Democrats in both houses.
Those who said Republican are possibly taking into account that nothing can pass without Senate approval, and nothing can pass the Senate without a filibuster-proof majority, which the Dems (pre-Nov) weren't even close to having. The Republicans were certainly more adept at stopping legislation between 06 and 08 than minority Dems were in previous years.
The folks who said 'neither' party controls Congress are possibly the most intelligent of all.. as the best answer would be 'lobbyists'.
Of course we know what it's about, Matt:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-perverse-incentives-to.html
Paul Brownstein at the National Journal comes up with these interesting numbers:
"Democrats now hold at least 38 percent of the Senate seats in the past decade's red states, while Republicans hold just 11 percent of blue-state seats."
and
"In 2004, Bush outpolled Kerry in 255 congressional districts. After the 2004 election, Republicans controlled a commanding 213 of those 255 seats, leaving Democrats just 42. But after gains in 2006 and 2008, the Democratic total in those red districts has almost doubled -- to 83. That means while Republicans control less than 3 percent of the congressional districts that voted for Kerry last time, Democrats hold nearly one-third of the districts that backed Bush."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27842524/
Forgot this paragraph:
"Republicans likewise end the Bush years retreating in blue congressional districts. In 2004, Kerry outpolled Bush in 180 districts. After the 2004 election, Republicans held 18 of those 180 Democratic-leaning seats. But after back-to-back losses, Republicans now hold just five."
Minn. numbers have changed again now. Franken's challenges back in line with Coleman's. Must have been an error.
Wayward,
Congress has had no power. They were dictated to by the Executive Branch for this whole administration. The only reasonable answers are Republicans controlled the puppet Congress. Not the republicans within the body, but the Executive branch. This was true from 2000-2006 when there were more Pubs in it and from 2006-2008 when there were more Dems, but not enough to exert their will. The 3 branches are suppose to be equal, but the Supreme Court for example vote 5-4 on most issues, the Congress needs an obvious majority to get anything done, the Execuitve Branch is first to speak from the bully pulpit, and drives hard in one direction, giving the rest of the govt and us no options. They will be out January 20th, and we can start anew. The fact that you can only change out 1/3 of the Senate at a time and it took America until after the 2004 election to wake up, destroyed any chance the legislative branch had of having any use. I actually don't blame Bush or Cheney or Rove. I blame the American people. Fortunately I think we hit rock bottom and today is a new day. We're wide awake and ready to fix what ails us. I'm optimistic about America, Americans, and the future governement.
As for the MN Senate race. The law being what it is will have the courts make an arbitrary decision as to who the Senator will be. I don't recall a situationo like we have with this race. It is an actual tie. Almost 3,000,000 votes. About 100 will separate the two candidates and then about 2000 ballots re impossible to interpret fairly. How can a fair decision be rendered? For example, if Coleman has a 100 vote lead with 2000 ballots in dispute, he could argue I won. What if you then said, we have to designate each of the 2000 disputed ballots for oneo r the other and that leaves you with Franken ahead by 200. You look at the actual ballots and realy can't tell. It's not fair to pick one or the other. A runoff is almost necessary, however unfair because there's no real alternative.
There will not and should not be a run off. You shouldn't make up election rules as you go.
There has been a similar race.
Google New Hampshire Senate 1974.
Several recounts, as I recall the final margin was 7 votes, lots of dispute, ultimately the Senate suggested a new election which took place in Sept 75.
It doesn't really matter whether the questions were good or not. You or I could get the same sort of results by asking simple factual questions like "Who is Obama running against?" or "Which continent is France on?"
The trick is in the sampling.
The strongest support for Democratic candidates almost always comes from the group of voters without high school degrees. I think they split about 2-1 for Obama. All you have to do is find where those people are likely to be casting their ballots and start asking some questions.
On the other hand, the MOST educated people also lean heavily Democratic, so you must avoid the places where they are likely to vote.
One could also achieve the mirror of those results by asking questions like, "Who is McCain running against?" in the strongholds of uneducated GOP voters. There are plenty of hillbillies out there to choose from.
If you let me choose who is to be polled, I will deliver any results you like.
Where was the question, "Which candidate was involved in the Keating Five scandal?" I'd like to see how much the media covered that.
One notable result from Ziegler's poll is that even the questions that Obama supporters "failed" were still the most common answer when an answer was given. So one thing to take away from this is that Obama supports will admit they don't know something. I would love to see the comparison with McCain voters on that.
wv:hurfook: In every interveiw Sarah Palin managed to shoot herself in hurfook
I found it misleading that the video introduces the voters as "the best-informed Obama voters we could find." Coincidentally, they seem to have been the ONLY Obama voters he could find.
Questions to ask about McCain or Palin that didn't get lots of media coverage:
1. Which candidate's spouse was a member of a secessionist party?
2. Which candidate was found by a legislative ethics committee to have exercised poor judgment in connection with an influence-for-money scandal?
3. Which candidate was found by a state investigation to have violated the public trust by abusing the power of their office?
4. Which candidate had multiple marital affairs? (looking for McCain, but Palin might also be correct if you believe the National Enquirer)
5. Which candidate made anti-American propaganda statements for America's war time enemy?
Questions to ask about Obama that did get lots of media coverage:
1. Which candidate was a member of a church pastored by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
2. Which candidate said that small town Pennsylvanians cling to guns or religion when they get bitter?
3. Which candidate bowled a 37 while campaigning in Pennsylvania?
4. Which candidate was likened to Brittney Spears in an opponent's TV ad?
I'd guess most people, especially McCain supporters, would nail the Obama questions but not know the answers to most of the McCain-Palin questions.
Juris -- "And so the right is in search of explanations -- almost anything other than true introspection. Obama Manchurisn Candidate conspiracy. Stupid voters. Money bought the presidency. etc. All kinds of scapegoating."
This is cyclical. The left when through this for the previous 8 years after loosing to Bush. Blame games always happen and parties shift focus. To think this is the sole stomping ground of either the left or the right is myopic and foolish.
@cugel (Carl Nyberg, and many others)
My nominee for best most literate and interesting deconstruction and reconstruction. Apologies to *many* others who also made substantive contributions and rational points without descending into unnecessary insult.
@sherwick
bbc has just caught up, those Obama numbers have been the same for a couple of days now. DailyKos, CNN, etc. etc. all have the same numbers, but the link posted above appears to have some that are bigger, so apparently more recent:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
@matador
don't see why foreigners should become less welcome. I really enjoy you all, and where you come from, your perspectives often add value.
mouss (SP target?)
How quickly we all forget: Khalidi was another manufactured scandal with likely repercussions once McCain's involvement proved to be much greater than Obama's. Typically, the guy was a good man doing difficult and necessary work in a complex and dangerous world, so his associations were distorted for the ignorant in a fact-free websphere.
I keep trying to ignore these but they are so wonderful:
ragresse (regressive rage)
It's been said before, but it bears repeating; even assuming that the poll was totally legit, and that it proved that Obama supporters were utter mouth-breathing morons... well, then what? Attempting to tell 52% of the American public that they're, well, dumb, is just a terrible idea. It's not great politics. "Hey, moron! ...Yeah, you! You're a moron! Vote Republican."
And I didn't like it when us Democrats did to Bush supporters either. Why alienate half of the voting population?
But I read some conservative websites, and that's what they do. They're mad that they lost. They're really mad that they lost. They're really really really really mad that... you get the idea. And they think the only reason that they could of lost is that everyone else is a moron, or deluded, or evil.
I'm not that old, but I can kinda sort of remember the pre-Clinton years, and it seems to me that our political climate used to be not so vitriolic. As part of my non-scientific, non-poll-based theory, I blame Rush Limbaugh for all of this.
Limbaugh somehow managed to pull off the trick of convicing white, middle-class Americans (like me) that they are the most put-upon, unfairly treated people in the world, and it's just spiraled from there. Reading these conversative websites (and I won't give links), they just give off the sense that everyone is against them: the media, feminists, college students, minorities, foreigners, the entire educational system, the New York Times, people who live in big cities, and on and on and on...
And this illusion that they've created, that white middle-class people are somehow this put-upon, discriminated-against underclass, well, it makes them angry. Very very angry...
And then you end up with John Ziegler.
Let us all pause to shred a tear for poor, discriminated-against John Ziegler. And then let us shed a tear for what people like him have done to the quality of political debate in this country.
I just don't get how they can nitpick about "seeing Russia from my house" is incorrect because OMFG TINA FEY SAID IT NOT SARAH... and Palin only said you can see it from her STATE (...as a means to say that qualifies her on matters of foreign policy). Big difference!! Yet they "gave it" to the Obama supporters (how generous!) But then, they basically say it's correct Obama said "Yes, I admit my policies will bankrupt the coal industry! It will be great! That's what I want to do! Hooray!"
sfergus483 said...
-Gate is one of those things that gets attached irrespective of original meaning.
Another is MEGA.
Actually, mega (no caps needed) means 10**6 or 1 million. Kilo means thousand. Now the science lesson is over...
Let the wingnuts go on howling for the next 4 years. This Ziegler thing is good to expose (us) liberals to the kind of nutso logic they try to use summed up by "no Democrat can legitimately win an election in the USA".
They must have stolen it, their voters were misinformed and/or the media was in the tank for them. Let them go on howling for as long as they want.
What I'd like to see is Repubs going off to be a splinter party like the Dixiecrats and a real liberal party, say the Greens, take hold in the US. Maybe, just maybe in 50 years or so we could catch up to Europe in being at least semi-civilized.
Barack Obama represents a damn good first step.
"Furthermore, how can you claim something that CHANGES can be a "fundamental fact?"
It's a fundamental fact that the Democrats control congress NOW you idiot.
dorkenergy said...
@Nate or other knowledgeable source:
[Asked by others and still unanswered here AFAIK]
When the questions were posed to the interviewees was "none" stated as an option? It is listed in the poll.
The picture remains incomplete without this.
I'm not sure in this particular case, but "none" and "not sure" are almost never included on surveys, by Zogby or anyone else. If you give the respondent the "easy out" where they don't have to commit to an answer, you'll get a lot of non-responses.
If the respondent says not sure or none unprompted, most pollsters will still tend to include one last push (e.g. "If you had to guess based on what you've heard, would you say Obama, McCain, Biden, or Palin?"), only recording the not sure/none response if they say it a second time. This also varies a lot depending on the specific question; people tend to be a lot more hesitant about giving an answer to an objective question if they have any doubt at all. (No one wants to look stupid, even to a total stranger on the phone.)
That said, given the incredibly poor design on this survey, I would not be surprised if "none" or "not sure" were actually included -- if you want to reinforce your preexisting notion that the respondents are all uninformed and/or unintelligent, then you'd want to include the none/not sure "out" so that as many as possible would take the bait. As such, I wouldn't put it past Ziegler to have written questions like that, and Zogby's "screening" clearly wouldn't have caught it.
So, I'll second dorkenergy's request: If any of you actually took this poll, do you remember if the "none of the above" and/or "don't know/not sure" answers were listed as actual answers?
Nate makes "Media Matters"
"Watch what happens when right-wing documentarian John Ziegler squares off with blogger, Nate Silver, (aka "the ememy")to discuss Ziegler's it's-the-media's fault project.(Such profanity!)"
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200811200002
I love that Ziegler, in his "editorial" (i.e., a blog post that doesn't allow comments), condemns the "profanity-laced emails" he received. We read the transcript, dude. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or, considering his radio background, maybe "Men in glass sound booths shouldn't throw rocks" is more apt.
Another possible explanation for this lies in the "my team vs. your team", sporting event nature of our politics. The focus always seems to be on looking for the other team to slip up. It's quite possible that each side's supporters are more knowledgeable about the opponent than they are about their own candidate.
I'd be interested to see how people did on questions that focused on issues that are seen as positive (at least by their own supporters) for the candidates.
E.g.
- "Which candidate is a decorated war veteran?"
- "Which candidate was editor of the Harvard Law Review?"
- "Which candidate defied popular sentiment and publicly opposed the invasion of Irag?"
- "Which candidate succeeded in getting major campaign-finance reform legislation passed?"
etc.
let's just go back to the original standard of voting rights. only white male landowners. fine people, like myself, who know a thing or three about politics:) that way we can avoid these shenanigans zeigler is so upset about. that will surely give us a very representative government of and by the people. provided these people are white land owning men:)
@ goatdan
Ziegler told Fox News that he spent about $13,000 on the poll and on a related short film, both of which will be used in his documentary.
You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html
@GaMes:
Thanks for the second and your observations on general practice.
I should have noted that Arthur P. said (see comments on the interview story) that:
"Zogby called me for this poll, and I can assure you that the only 'none' answers I gave we UNprompted."
in response to Mark Adams remarking to Nate:
"if you had looked at the full results of the survey you would have seen that there were four choices given to the 'see Russia' question and one of the answers was 'None.' The correct answer was provided."
I'm still wondering if our host (Mr. Silver) or one of the principals (Mssrs. Ziegler or Zogby) will enlighten us.
Huh... when even the Wall Street Journal won't back you up, that's a pretty good sign you may have veered too far right.
Or is the WSJ one of the traditionally Republican media organs breaking ranks with the party's nuttier branches in the aftermath of McCain's defeat? I haven't kept as up-to-date as I probably should be...
You people are horrible to criticize Ziegler behind his back. At the very least you could have the decency to go to his home:
401 N Pass Ave, Burbank, CA 91505
and say these things to his face!
Or, if you don't live in the L.A. area, the only somewhat respectable thing to do is call him at his home: (818) 841-8941
or his cell (502) 905-2656
This is obviously what Ziegler was hoping for when he made it so easy for an internet novice such as myself to track down his private info.
Oh, almost forgot: Go f*ck yourself Mr. Ziegler!
Ziegler exhibits all the bitterness one expects from a second tier loser.
I'm sure in his mind, he is better than say a Glenn Beck. He probably is. But that is about as low a bar as can be set. Face it, the train has left, Ziegler, and you are left in Palookaville.
"I think that the poll actually shows that "on average" Dems are less informed than Reps."
It does no such thing. It can't possibly show anything about how "informed" republican voters are as compared to democrats because none of them were even interviewed. And the only thing it says about democratic voters (who were interviewed) is that they were unable or unwilling to recite or agree with republican talking points (as read by the poll questioner).
"Limbaugh somehow managed to pull off the trick of convicing white, middle-class Americans (like me) that they are the most put-upon, unfairly treated people in the world"
As African-American comedian Chris Rock says to his audience: "There's not one white person here that would change places with me. Not one of you. And I'm RICH!"
instead of push poll - perhaps it could be called a propaganda poll as it is being done only to promote a forgone position. Zeigler had no interest in finding anything out, he just wanted to prop up his opinion.
While I agree 100% that this "poll" was deeply flawed, I actually think that right-wingers doing these types of things will help liberals immensely. Why?
Because as long as the crazies keep deluding themselves into thinking that it was something, anything, other than their own failed policies and techniques that run counter to every national demographic change and trend that doomed them in '08, they won't ever get it. Right-wing world has been in overdrive to insist that conservatism did not lose; if anything, it needs to move FURTHER right.
Let's send idiots like Ziegler some money and support. They'll only dig their graves that much deeper if they continue to ignore reality. Tp paraphrase a recent issue of The Economist: "If the Republicans continue to think the problem is the "rats" that abandon ship, as opposed to the seaworthiness of the ship itself, it is doomed."
Nice work, Nate. The whole thing's kind of a joke, but amusing nonetheless. At least it's good to see that most reasonable people have condemned the whole thing as a farce. Anyone who touts this as proof of anything regarding media bias or the knowledge of Obama voters will look pretty silly.
Nonetheless, I tried to take up Ziegler's challenge and create a questionnaire for McCain supporters. Wonder how they'd do?
http://feignedoutrage.blogspot.com/2008/11/howjohnmccainalmostwoncom.html
Nate;
How was it stupid to ask Obama supporters who was in control of congress (Democrats or Republicans) and how come less than half of Obama supporters got that right? (43%)
You can't convince me, fairly, that Obama voters got that question wrong because of the question.
For that matter, how is it stupid to ask the people who supported the man which candidate won his first election by getting the other two candidates knocked off of the ballot? (18% of Obama voters got that right)
Democrats keep telling me that they are better informed. If so, how is it that I knew the answers about their candidate, when they clearly didn't?
-John
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
^^ 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, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 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, 徵信,
^^ 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,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment