With the Census Bureau having recently released its 2008 population estimates, organizations like Election Data Services have revised their estimates (.pdf) of which states are likely to gain or lose seats in the Congress following the reapportionment triggered by the 2010 Census. Seats gained in the Congress, of course, also mean seats gained in the Electoral College.
In general, migration into the South has slowed down slightly. As recently as a year ago, it appeared almost certain that Florida would gain two seats in the reapportionment and North Carolina would gain one. But now, it looks that Florida may only gain one, and North Carolina might not gain any. The seats being "saved" are those in the Northeast and the Midwest. Whereas it appeared at one point, for instance, as though New York and Pennsylvania would each lose two seats, they may now lose just one each.
Migration into the West, unlike the South, has not really slowed down any.
Keep in mind that the interim population estimates released by the Census Bureau are not nearly as comprehensive as the actual, decennial Census; as such, these estimates should be treated as having fairly high margins of error. In addition, the Census itself has a fairly high margin of error depending on things like what sampling procedures are used how effective the
Census is at accounting for illegal immigrants.
It is nevertheless clear that, on balance, blue states are losing population and red states are gaining it; a net transfer of somewhere between 5-10 electoral votes should occur between blue states and red states as based on the 2000/04 electoral map. It should be kept in mind, however, that the same factors that are causing red states to gain population from blue states are also making red states more purple. It's the new residents in North Carolina, for instance, most of whom game from the East Coast, who allowed Barack Obama to win the state in November. Furthermore, Congressional appointments must not only be balanced for population between the different states but also within a given state. While Texas will probably gain four seats, for instance, if those gains come in relatively blue parts of the state like South Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, it might not hurt the Democrats very much.
A rundown of the states likely to gain or lose seats follows.
States gaining seats:
Arizona appears to be locked into gaining two seats, although there is an outside chance it could be held to just one.
Florida originally appeared on track to gain two seats, but more recent estimates have it gaining one instead.
Georgia will almost certainly gain exactly one seat.
...likewise, Nevada will gain a seat.
North Carolina may gain one seat, or it might not.
Oregon is about even money to gain a seat.
South Carolina is better than even money to gain a seat.
Texas will gain at least three seats, and will probably gain four, although a slowdown in migration could prevent that.
Utah will definitely gain a seat.
Washington might gain a seat.
States losing seats:
California may lose a seat, although the most recent estimates show that as being less likely. Another significant factor with California (and Texas, Florida, etc.) is how efficient the Census is in accounting for illegal immigrants, who like it or not do count toward Congressional appointments.
Illinois will probably, although not certainly, lose one seat.
Iowa will definitely lose a seat.
Likewise, Louisiana will lose one (thanks, Hurricane Katrina!)
Massachusetts will also lose a seat.
...as will Michigan (thanks, failing domestic auto industry!)
Minnesota will probably lose a seat, although it might be able to prevent that.
Missouri, likewise, will probably, although not certainly, lose a seat.
New Jersey will lose a seat.
New York, which previously appeared in peril of losing two seats, now may lose just one, although it may be pretty close if people migrate out of the state following the financial sector collapse.
Ohio is locked in to losing two seats.
Pennsylvania will lose one seat, and is not completely out of the woods for losing a second.
So to summarize:
Arizona +1 or +2
California 0 or -1
Florida +1 or +2
Georgia +1
Illinois 0 or -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
Minnesota 0 or -1
Missouri 0 or -1
Nevada +1
New Jersey -1
New York -1 or -2
North Carolina 0 or +1
Ohio -2
Oregon 0 or +1
Pennsylvania -1 or -2
South Carolina 0 or +1
Texas +3 or +4
Utah +1
Washington 0 or +1
See also: Swing State Project.
12.26.2008
Red States Gaining Ground, but Migration Slowing Down
by Nate Silver @ 1:26 PM...see also 2012, census, demographics, redistricting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

65 comments
first!
Go Franken!
2nd !
How can hyper immigration and migration magnets like New York and California, were congestion only grows, each lose one seat, yet Texas gains four seats?
typos: There are one or two more, but this one should perhaps be fixed: "blue states and red states as based on the 2000/04 electoral map"
"as based on" should perhaps be "compared to" or "relative to."
Considering the impact that was seen in North Carolina the population shift seems to be good for expanding the geographical reach of the Democratic party.
Some U.S migration measurement tools and analyses, by one of the country's foremost specialists (Brookings Institution), William Frey.
Annual Migration 1990-2006, by state and by region
Demographic breakthrough for Democrats
List of publications, on UMichigan Population Studies Center website
Nate, if the total number of representatives change as a result of reapportionment in 2010, will you then change the name of this blog? fivethirtynine.com or fivefortyone??? tks rich
Arizona turns Blue in 2012.
McCain received a paltry 53% of the vote in his home state, compared with Obama's 62% in Illinois.
Considering how well Barack did in NV, NM, CO, and CA, AZ flips in 4 years.
Nice overview.
I like how you correctly call Minnesota a blue state. We've voted straight Democrat for president longer than any other state.
You might want to re-think "Thanks, Hurricane Katrina!" In the context of a red state losing congressional representation, it comes off as kind of tacky.
Nate: it's also worth bearing in mind that redistricting by the state legislatures will be critical to the partisan balance in the U.S. House.
So it would be useful to take a look at trends in partisan control of state houses and legislatures.
The state legislatures in place in 2010 will do the redistricting. Usually control figures are sent to them by the Census Bureau by the end of the census year (the census itself is officially conducted on April 1). Final numbers for purposes of redistriing will be available by mid- or late 2011, with redistricting being completed prior to the 2012 elections.
Nate:
Your analysis - as many on this topic do - ignores one fundamental fact.
While RED 'states' are gaining populations, the population BEING GAINED is not 'RED'. In other words:
While Traditional BLUE states remain solidly BLUE despite losing pipulation, RED STATES are gradually turning PURPLE with the arrival of more DEMOCRATS than RPEPUBLICANS.
In short, while 'RED STATES' may slowly gain some seats, they become less and less reliably RED - while BLUE states remain solidly BLUE throughout the process.
A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting.
Also see Michael McDonald's elections website at GMU.
wv: conatent (my dog used to be inconatent but has been fixed)
It's also worth noting that the "traditional" swing states are, on balance, losing clout. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Missouri will probably lose 2 or 3 net. Throw in Iowa--not usually said in the same breath as the other four because it's smaller, but a definite swing--and another is lost.
Expect campaigns to get increasingly spread out; mid-population states like Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina (among the gainers) are going to get more attention.
Umm--Gaylthacan? Did you read Nat'es paragraph that begins "It is nevertheless clear that..."? Seems to me he didn't ignore what you claim he ignored...
I recall that after the 2000 Census that North Carolina barely edged out Utah for the 435th Congressional seat, in part because NC gets to count the military base population, including if the soldiers are overseas. Meanwhile UT wanted to include in their count the Mormon missionaries spread around the globe as part of their population. The courts didn't buy it. So it's not a surprise that UT is at the front of the line for a seat in the post-2010 Census and NC may or may not get one. Both states have been in the upper ranks of population growth but NC would have much more ground to make up than UT.
It's well known that we Democrats can fret about ANY issue, whether real or imagined. And blue states losing representation for 2012 is mostly an imagined issue. Our congressional advantage is practically insurmountable in a single cycle and our President will have to f*ck things up royally to not win re-election.
Now we know we can be incompetent enough to give both those advantages away over time. But population shifts, while interesting in and of themselves, will not cause D's to fall out of favor with the electorate, not after the R's recent self-immolation.
Nate, I believe when you said "a net transfer...should occur...based on the 2000/04 electoral map," you meant 2004/08. Unless I'm mistaken, the 2000 electoral map was based on the 1990 census, the 2004 and 2008 based on the 2000 census, and we are now preparing for the 2010 census. So there is no such thing as the 2000/04 electoral map because they were two different maps. The redistricting from the 2000 census took place after the 2000 Presidential election.
@Mark: Right. New districting was in place by 2002 based on the 2000 census.
Then keep in mind Tom Delay's play in TX to do even more redistricting there after the redistricting from 2000 had already been done -- thereby adding a few more GOP membes to the TX delegation to Congress. This established the precedent of doing redistricting a few years after the census if it's permitted by state law and there's a change in partisan control of the state legislature.
wv: pairpu (would you live in a pairpu state?)
I wanted to check out which states are trending blue and trending red, but I can't see the charts on the Electoral History page...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/04/electoral-history-charts.html
Just John, you're burying your head in the sand. The redistricting won't matter in 2012, but if these population trends continue, what happens in 20 years? 50 years?
Sure, red states in the southwest might turn purple (although I doubt Texas will) but the northeast is the most reliable Democratic voting bloc in the country, and it's hemmoraging people. Why can't NY and MA attract people to live there? Why are its residents leaving? Why aren't people from the rest of the country moving there? Why isn't it creating jobs? I'd rather live in New York than in Salt Lake city, but why doesn't the rest of the country agree?
And Utah keeps gaining people at the current rate, and Massachusetts keeps losing them, what does that mean for gay marriage?
"How can hyper immigration and migration magnets like New York and California, were congestion only grows, each lose one seat, yet Texas gains four seats?"
NY and CA receive massive numbers of immigrants while simultaneously losing large numbers of native born Americans. Texas, and states like Florida and Arizona, not only receive large numbers of immigrants but they are also the destination of the large number of New Yorkers, Californians, Ohioans, etc, who are migrating to the sunbelt. Immigrants in places like NY or CA are simply replacing those who are leaving, while Texas receives new comers from other states and international locations.
What is interesting is that while these sunbelt states add congressional seats they are, at the same time, becoming less and less conservative. Look at the most dramatic example in Florida. In 1984 Florida is perhaps one of the reddest, most conservative states in the nation. Yet, as immigrants from Latin America, the West Indies, and other locations arrive along with hordes of sun-seeking liberal leaning Yankees, Florida has morphed from red state to swing state to, perhaps, being on the brink of becoming a full fledged blue state (Most states with similar population per square mile ratios are blue or, at the very least, swing states like Ohio)
Repeat this trend of massive levels of newcomers from international and domestic locations migrating to the fast-growing sunbelt states, and we see the most conservative parts of the country quickly becoming swing regions. I call this process the "cultural colonization" of the red states, particularly the southern states along the coast. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, eventually Georgia, as each of them grows, each of them becomes a little less conservative as natives from New York, India, Chicago, Mexico, Boston and China join forces with the large African American population to change what the definition of "southern" is.
Demography is destiny, and when your party's fortunes are tied to old, white, rural, southern and conservative men, your political future is pretty bleak. The once Grand Old Party will either evolve or it will die, either of which will greatly benefit the republic.
"The redistricting won't matter in 2012, but if these population trends continue, what happens in 20 years? 50 years?"
There's pretty much no way to tell. 50 years ago the Northeast was Republican and the South was solidly Democratic. Parties change, politics change. My guess would be that in 20 years NC and VA are solidly blue while GA and TX are swing states. It depends far more on Obama's performance than demographic trends.
"Sure, red states in the southwest might turn purple (although I doubt Texas will)"
Why would you doubt this? Republicans have lost Latinos over immigration and they're not likely to get them back. They're not going to win NM or AZ for the foreseeable future and TX will be very close.
"Why can't NY and MA attract people to live there? Why are its residents leaving? Why aren't people from the rest of the country moving there? Why isn't it creating jobs? I'd rather live in New York than in Salt Lake city, but why doesn't the rest of the country agree?"
First, the weather really sucks there. Second, jobs in the midwest and northeast included a lot of manufacturing that is largely dying. Third, it's not so much people moving as the fact that people in the rural south and southwest have 3-6 kids while people in NYC have 1. Utah isn't gaining because of people moving to Salt Lake City, it's gaining because of the number of kids Mormons have.
"And Utah keeps gaining people at the current rate, and Massachusetts keeps losing them, what does that mean for gay marriage?"
Essentially nothing whatsoever. Social change always gradually gains acceptance. Look at the 18-29 view on gay marriage vs older groups. It will gradually gain hold in more and more states regardless of any population shifts. Utah will have to deal with the federally mandated civil unions and be one of the 10 dark red states that haven't approved gay marriage in 30 years.
ThirtyThousand.org
In 1911, Congress unconstitutionally halted its own expansion at 435 seats. Now, this creates a zero-sum game where some states lose and other states win because they grow faster.
This isn't fair. States should gain seats as long as they gain population. Also, Wyoming and Montana have a seat each despite having almost a 1:2 ration in population.
Even further, with such enormous districts, representatives are barely representative and are mostly focus on getting elected. But, read that site above. It suggests expansion to as many as 6000 (and explains how this would work) to be truly representative.
Another "proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard Representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming." This is called the Wyoming Rule. (Wikipedia)
Also, what does "wv" mean?
I don't think "Thanks Hurricane Katrina" was in the true sense of thank you, but instead, the bitter, andgry negative kind of tone - THANKS!
As for the rest, we need states to move to purple - but AZ certainly will get more purple over time. Can we make in the next NC?
The main significance of all this is that the most important races in 2010 will be the governor's and competitive state legislature races in Texas. If my numbers are correct, the in-coming Texas House will have 76 Republicans and 74 Democrats (all up in 2010) and the Senate will have 19 Republicans (11 up in 2010) and 12 Democrats (5 up in 2010).
Sarah—
The population of Massachusetts is still growing last I looked.
Poor Ohio looks to be the only state certain to lose 2 seats. However, as others have said, this is largely based on current population. Ohio will probably lose fewer people than Michigan, but Ohio also currently has more electoral votes. Therefore, it has more to lose. California has reached its zenith. Texas will eventually get to this point in 20 years, when it has about the same number of electoral votes as California. By then, though, it will be a very different place than it is today.
Demockracy's Annual Essay Contest
wv = word verification, you create a meaning for the made up word you have to type in to leave a message.
Oh thanks. That was the most annoying thing to read on this besides the forced login and the immature "FIRST!" crap
First!
Quoting Sarah:
Sure, red states in the southwest might turn purple (although I doubt Texas will) but the northeast is the most reliable Democratic voting bloc in the country, and it's hemmoraging people. Why can't NY and MA attract people to live there? Why are its residents leaving? Why aren't people from the rest of the country moving there? Why isn't it creating jobs? I'd rather live in New York than in Salt Lake city, but why doesn't the rest of the country agree?
In some world views, not necessarily those best represented on this site, this correlation is not a puzzling contradiction but rather the stagnation is a consequence of choices in state governance. And these are net losses despite immigration! In California's case, despite the weather too. I hope federalism fares better under this administration better than it did under the last few. And capitalism and the deficit and...
wv: undsher. When you just can't decide if it's boxers or briefs today.
Looking at the States that are gaining population- Arizona,Florida,Georgia,Nevada,North Carolina,South Carolina,and Texas. We can create a new Hispanic majority Districts in AZ,NV,and TX.
Arizona(+2 Seats).
1)the new AZ-9(Hispanic Majority Congressional District.
Create a new District containing La Paz,Yuma,and Part of Maricopa County and Pima County. This will be a Democratic District.
2)the new AZ-10(Republican District) parts of AZ-1,AZ-3,and AZ-5 including 2008 3rd District US Rep John Shaddegg's home and ex 5th District Rep JD Hayworth's home in Scottsdale.
3)the new AZ-3 will be Bob Lord(D)-
Florida-(+2 Seats)
1)FL-26(include Collier county portion FL-25,Broward county portion of FL-23, Broward county portion fo FL-19). This will be a Black -Jewish-Hispanic Majority District. Democratic District.
2)FL-27(include portions of FL-12,FL-13,and FL-16. ). This will be a Republican Leaning District in the I-9 area.
Adam, you said
"First, the weather really sucks there. Second, jobs in the midwest and northeast included a lot of manufacturing that is largely dying. Third, it's not so much people moving as the fact that people in the rural south and southwest have 3-6 kids while people in NYC have 1. Utah isn't gaining because of people moving to Salt Lake City, it's gaining because of the number of kids Mormons have."
The midwest has manufacturing jobs, but the northeast doesn't. The jobs in the southwest are largely pharmaceutical, aerospace, new technology, etc. Why, with the best education in the country, is the northeast not creating similar jobs? Utah is gaining both because of the number of kids and the booming economy in Salt Lake city.
And I agree with you, the number of kids people have is a factor. Doesn't that indicate that in a few decades, the northeast will be as politically irrelevant as the Dakotas are now?
Also, you say, "Republicans have lost Latinos over immigration and they're not likely to get them back." Karl Rove's big plan to create his permanent GOP majority involved aggressively courting Hispanics, who are more socially conservative than Democrats in general. He failed this time, because the old southern racists that make up the GOP base is still too strong. But in a few years those people will die, and Republicans will keep trying to land the Hispanic vote. And Democrats will no longer be able to say to the Hispanic voters, "Vote for us, the other party hates you." And once the Democrats can no longer rely on the Hispanic vote, they lose Texas and the entire southwest.
I believe that the latest estimates are that the only state that has actually had a decline in population since the 2000 census is Louisiana. It's the rate of growth that's determinative here.
juvanya—
It was in 1929 and that Act of Congress is not unconstitutional. The only constitutional requirement is that the "number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative". It's also only an Act of Congress so a member of either house can always introduce legislation to amend it should he or she wish to do so.
Who the f*ck wants to live in Utah?
rgvinet said...
Nate, if the total number of representatives change as a result of reapportionment in 2010, will you then change the name of this blog? fivethirtynine.com or fivefortyone??? tks rich
Since the number of representatives is set by amendment I don't think it can change because of census.
juvanya said...
Oh thanks. That was the most annoying thing to read on this besides the forced login and the immature "FIRST!" crap
So you're not annoyed by the wv?
THAT'S GREAT NEWS!!! FOR JUVANYA!!!
Sarah: Why can't NY and MA attract people to live there? Why are its residents leaving?
People aren't leaving, at least not enough to create a net loss. New York had a 1.7% population gain between 2000 and 2006. Massachusetts also had a 1.4% gain over the same period.
So it's not about losing population; it's about relative gains versus other states.
And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a stable population. More people means a need to build more roads, schools, sewers and treatment plants, and mass transit (if appropriate). It often results in more congestion and less open space. As long as people are doing OK, I don't see population as indicative of a state's overall health.
Population growth may be greater where the cost of living is cheaper (it's relatively expensive to live in the Northeast), but that doesn't say much about the quality of life in one region as opposed to another.
By the way, the weather does not "suck" here in New York. I love having four real seasons. Reliable sun and warmth is for wimps.
@juvanya
Consider the mechanics of having House with 6.000 members, and that idea will be seen as Don Quixote chasing the impossible dream
The members of congress are there not just to "represent" their districts in the sense of reflecting the opinions of the inhabitants, but to use their own judgment and to reach decisions.
Having a body of that size makes it virtually impossible for those to happen. Most of the work done in the house is done in the committees and sub-committees which have far fewer members. The House itself is incapable or hammering out fine details of legislation (which is why they have committees in the first place) and the body you envision would preclude anything from getting done all all.
If you think we have achieved perfection you might consider that a good thing, but somehow I don't think that's your point.
judas_priest: The members of congress are there not just to "represent" their districts in the sense of reflecting the opinions of the inhabitants, but to use their own judgment and to reach decisions.
Ah, that's one of the great conundrums, no? On the one hand, you have the British MP Edmund Burke who said "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
On the other hand, if the representative goes against his constituents' opinion too often, they'll vote in someone else who more closely adheres to those opinions. After all, "represent" is a part of the job title.
I political leadership consists not in defying the public will but in using the position to lay out the reasonable alternatives to help create the majority that will support wise decisions. I don't see how we can expect our representatives to make tough but necessary choices unless their constituents are willing to make those same choices; where else will the political support for those choices come from?
In our system, the people are the ones who are ultimately accountable. The sooner we recognize that basic truth, the sooner we can return to serious discussions about what we are willing or not willing to do as a nation instead of just blaming everything on "Washington."
You probably aren't aware of this Nate, but AZ, CA, NM, and TX are not the only states gaining big in Mexican immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
PA, WA, NC, MI,MO, and GA all have not insignificant numbers of first and second generation Chicanos and are growing. While this does little to change the political landscape in solid blue states, it will in purple and red states.
@ Juris - "typos: There are one or two more, but this one should perhaps be fixed: "blue states and red states as based on the 2000/04 electoral map"
"as based on" should perhaps be "compared to" or "relative to."
While a copy editor might agree that your changes in this case help clarify the author's meaning, you are in no way, shape or form correcting "typos."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo
Looks like in an ultra-close 2000/2004 type election, the republicans would benefit slightly in the electoral college
On Texas ever turning blue.
I think it all comes down to urban versus rural. My obnoxiously abrasive take it that people with less information and less cultural awareness tend to vote Republican and living in the city floods you with information and culture.
An urbanite who has moved to the country is unlikely to switch to voting red - but the more time a rural dweller spends in the city the more likely he or she is to abandon provincial thinking and vote blue.
For example, once you learn that gay people aren't perverts, you don't unlearn it. Once you figure out that Republicans are stacking the deck so that corporations can screw the middle class, you don't forget. etc.
Read the site. It explains it all. There would be several regional meeting houses. I personally don't think we need 6000, but it certainly needs to be at least doubled in size. Or at least expanded to 569 according to the Wyoming Rule. It can't be restricted. If it were allowed to expand from now on, even that would be a vast improvement.
I'd rather proportional representation altogether though.
And Bob X, I still find it annoying. :P
-------
No states are really losing population. They only lose seats because they don't grow as fast as other states.
The partisan effect of population shifts are less straightforward than they might appear.
When Democrats move to a solidy Democratic state, it obviously helps the Democratic presidential candidate (ignoring the effect on other states). The state is even less likely to vote Republican and has more electoral votes.
However, when Democrats move to a solidly Republican state, it helps the Republican presidential candidate because the tiny shift in the state's tipping point rating does not come close to compensating for the extra electoral votes it receives.
The most significant effect is when Democrats move into a swing state. The state not only gains electoral votes but swings the tipping point considerably. The result is a large swing in the net number of expected electoral votes for the Democratic nominee.
However, turning a red state like Texas into a swing state takes time, even if it does eventually happen. In the short term, Texas getting bluer may provide a temporary bump to Republican presidential candidates.
Even still, it is not so much important whether Texas is getting bluer, but rather whether it is getting bluer relative to the country as a whole. In a situation where each groups votes roughly as it does now, but minorities grow in number, Texas could be blue on paper. But in that scenario, that would imply the country as a whole has a decided structural advantage towards the Democrats. In what scenario is Texas a tipping point state? If the election is close but the minority population has increased, simple arithmetic shows that the GOP is either doing even better among whites or has managed to recover with minority groups. If it's the latter, and I think this is more likely, all the calculations used to imply Texas as a swing state no longer suggest that any more. If Texas is growing more Hispanic but Hispanics are growing more Republican, the state is unlikely to shift blue (at a particularly fast rate at least).
As far as the electoral college goes as long as the deep blue states only lose 8 votes then obama is almost certain to win reelection as long as he goes a mediocre job or better.
Where did i come up with the number 8? All of the states that Obama won by 9 points or better total to 278.
So lets say by 2012 Obama has ho-hum approval rating...something like 49 percent approve 47 disapprove and 4 percent unsure, and he faces a strong challenge. He'll lose North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia which gives him 278. If obama states (minus said states) lose 8 or less Obama wins.
Then again Obama could have an approval rating of 37 and lose PA, Iowa, New Hampshire, colorado etc.
Alternativly He could have an approval rating of 60+ and win every state he won in 2008 and add Arizona, Missouri, and Montana.
Or if obama does a REALLY good job and has an approval rating of 70 (its 82 right now but it always goes down) then you can even add states like north dakota, south dakota, and Gerogia. He could even win Alaska considering a certain woman with an IQ of 75 isnt on the republican ticket.
So to recap all obama has to do is a better job than Johnson, Carter, Bush (H.W) and of course George W. Bush. If his approval ratings are as high as Clinton's Reagan's, or Kennedy's hes assured re-election. And if his approval ratings are equal to Ford's it will be a close election win Obama getting a narrow victory assumeing the states obama won by 9+ points only lose a total of 8 or less points.
Other factors for and against an obama victory is:
AGAINST:
- you can only be the first black president once
- he'll no longer be "new and exciting"
FOR:
+ Wright, Ayers, etc. will not be an issue as they are old news.
+ Some people who were not hardcore racists but just " somewhat uncomfortable" with an african american being president might become more confortable with time
+ There are more old white racists than young white racists by far. Many older whites will die and many young whites will become elegible to vote (turn 18) in the next 4 years.
+ The growing hispanic population
+ 4 years of healing plus Hillary Clinton as Sec. of state will but the PUMA effect to rest
Sarah:
I saw that part. Still, the overall theme of the post is that we should worry about the migration of population from BLUE states to RED.
And MY contention is that, rather than worry, we should be HAPPY - since this will DILUTE the reD state's power as a result).
In short - the preference of older Democrats for warmer climates and of younger Democrats for better job markets is probably the BEST way to slowly overcome the religious ignorance and political backwardness of the deep RED states - while keeping the power base of the BLUE states left behind intact. (I can't think of a single solidly BLUE state that is in danger of flipping RED - while I can name name several RED states that seem to be on the verge of turning BLUE or remaining PURPLE.
That was my point.
Also no matter how you slice it this is very bad news for democrats. Texas is gaining FOUR electoral votes...and Texas is NOT going to be a swing state for another few decades at least. With migration, immigration from mexico, and the growing hispanic population thats already there, Texas could be a swing state...in 2052 maybe.
e3323:
But TEXAS is NOT a 'swing state' - and isn;t likely to become on in the near future. At least not until more Hispanics and Yankees migrate there.
I can see it turning PURPLE by 2020 - but not BLUE.
But ANY influx there of Democrats is good news - and a drain on its RED base - and any attempts to jerrymander it further.
the Census itself has a fairly high margin of error depending on things like what sampling procedures are used how effective the Census is at accounting for illegal immigrants.
OUCH!!!! Nate, what a thing for a stats junkie to say!
There are two kinds of error in a statistical survey: sampling error and nonsampling error.
Sampling error is the kind where we can be certain about our uncertainty, where we can say that there's a 95% likelihood that the sample mean is within 3.2% of the population mean. Which is to say, where we have a margin of error.
In the Census, there's no sampling error because it doesn't sample. Our 'sample,' in theory, is everybody.
The Census is vulnerable to nonsampling error, but while we can somewhat measure some kinds of nonsampling error, nonsampling error doesn't have a MOE.
Types of nonsampling error include things like coverage error (drastically oversimplifying, that's the difference between the Census' address list and reality), nonresponse bias (when the households you send questionnaires to, but don't respond, are different from the population as a whole), and the like.
These kinds of error are important, but we don't have the sort of handle on measuring them that the term "margin of error" implies.
@rgvinet
Nate won't have to change the name of the site because the total number of EVs will remain at 538 barring any new laws. It's 100 Senators (per Constitution) plus 435 Representatives (per statute) plus 3 for DC (per Constitutional amendment).
Sarah, in your optimism about the GOP's potential to win over Hispanics, I don't think you're factoring in their cultural memory of what the GOP's activities in Latin America have meant to their people over the past half century.
I recommend you read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. These people are smart enough to connect the dots, and I think they're highly unlikely to forgive and forget that stuff anytime soon.
WV: flascin: the thin film that forms on the surface of your chicken soup when you let it cool off too much.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Re; On why red states tend ot grow faster than blue states:
Some of this I'd guess has to do with when different regions of the country started growing quickly. The Northeast/Great lakes grew faster economically and population wise through a lot of the 1800's, while the southeast apparently didn't catch up reliably until in the 1900's or so (I am a bit fuzzy on this, but it does fit with most of what I've read.) It's likely that people who would otherwise have moved south for the weather, culture, etc.
(By most descriptions, I haven't heard that southern and western economies/quality of life are significantly higher than Northeast/Midwest, but they do seem to be improving faster, which attracts people who may have preferred those regions to have the opportunity to move there.)
Air conditioning, cars, radios, highway systems, etc. are also more recent, and for western states it may be that the technology to allow people to live there more effectively did not exist until more recently, so now people move much more easily out there and cause very fast population growth.
As a side question, what makes Florida grow so dang quickly? (I've never heard anything good about Florida from individual people, though have heard that some parts of the economy and immigration/retirees add a lot of people to it.)
I'm also one of those people whoprefers Northern weather. In cold I can just put on more clothes, in hot weather, it's either lots of air conditioning or sit there and sweat.
Salt Lake City is actually quite liberal, both politically and socially. Has been since the 70s. It's most of the rest of the state that's a problem.
There's actually a very Democratic region stretching from Tooele (just west of Salt Lake), across northern Salt Lake County, and into the area around Park City (just east of Salt Lake). This is mainly thanks to immigration by Hispanics, coastal Californians, and gays from rural Utah.
On top of this, Carbon (unionized miners), Grand (hippies, you heard me right: hippies), and San Juan (Navajo reservation) Counties all lean Democrat. Salt Lake County put Jim Matheson into Congress in 2000, but Carbon, Grand, and San Juan were key in keeping him in office after the Republican gerrymandering in 2001.
They'll try gerrymandering again in 2011, especially with a fourth district to play with, but the sheer size of the Salt Lake metropolitan area plus those pesky counties in eastern Utah make me think they won't be able to get Utah back to an all-red Congressional delegation, and they'll likely set up a second district to turn blue (or at least purple) next decade.
The Republicans have been forced to run increasingly centrist gubernatorial candidates because the state as a whole is blue-shifting. It's not going to switch to blue by 2012 or even 2016, but you're overestimating how deeply red the state is.
520聊天室
一夜情聊天室
一夜情貼圖區
一夜聊天室
一葉晴貼圖區
一葉晴貼影片區
丁字褲女優
丁字褲美女寫真
丁字褲美女影片
人之初貼圖區
八國聯軍情色網
八國聯軍論壇
十七歲女孩貼影區
又又處女貼影區
下載a片
上班族聊天室
大老婆俱樂部
大波霸美女影片
大眾論壇
女同志聊天室
女郎俱樂部
女郎貼影區
女狼俱樂部
女學生內衣照
女優天堂貼圖
女優王國
女優盒子
女優貼片
女優貼圖
女優電影
女優寫真
女優影片
小老婆俱樂部
小老鼠論壇
小弟弟情色網
小弟弟貼圖區
小弟弟貼影片
小弟弟貼影片區
小弟弟貼影片網
小弟弟貼影區
小弟弟影片
小杜情色網
小妹妹貼影區
小高聊天室
小說論壇
小賤人貼影區
小瓢蟲情色論壇
小瓢蟲論壇
小護士偷拍網
小魔女自拍天堂貼圖區
小魔女自拍貼圖區
小魔女免費影片
小魔女貼圖區
小魔女貼影片
不色不進貼影區
不穿內衣
中部人聊天室
內衣秀
內衣模特兒
內衣模特兒寫真
內衣褲
天天情色
天天幹貼圖區
天天網遊論壇
天天論壇
天生名模貼圖區
天堂私服論壇
天堂情色
天堂情色網
夫妻聯誼俱樂部
少女內衣
手工內衣
日本av女優
日本av女優免費影片區
日本a片
日本女優
日本內衣
日本正妹
日本正妹照片
日本正妹影片
日本美女
日本美女圖庫
日本美女寫真集
日本偷拍
日本情色女優
日本辣美女優
日本模特兒寫真
日本學生妹
月光論壇
月宮俱樂部
月宮貼圖區
比基尼
比基尼女郎
比基尼內衣
比基尼泳裝
比基尼泳裝外拍
比基尼泳裝美女
比基尼泳裝美女的影片
比基尼泳裝美少女圖片
比基尼美女
比基尼美女的奶
比基尼辣妹
比基尼辣妹照片區
比基尼辣妹圖片
比基尼辣妹影片
比基尼線
水美眉
北部人聊天室
卡通aa片
卡通aa片免費看
卡通a片
卡通a片免費看
卡通美女遊戲
卡通貼圖區
可愛美眉
只有貼圖區
台中人聊天室
台中聊天室
台論論壇
台灣 kiss 倩色網貼圖區
台灣 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣av女優
台灣a片
台灣a片王
台灣kiss情色文學
台灣kiss情色文學區
台灣kiss情色網
台灣女優
台灣自拍偷拍
台灣客棧電影貼圖區
台灣美女
台灣美女 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣美女貼圖
台灣美女貼圖區
台灣美女電影
台灣美女圖
台灣美女寫真貼圖區
台灣香腸俱樂部
台灣偷拍
台灣情色
台灣情色貼圖
台灣情色網
台灣情色網綜合論壇
台灣情色論壇
台灣無限貼圖區
台灣貼圖區
台灣賓館偷拍
台灣論壇
台灣論壇女生遊戲
台灣論壇好玩遊戲區
台灣論壇遊戲區
巨乳女優
巨乳美女
布蘭妮貼圖區
平面模特兒
打工正妹
本土a片
本土女優
本土偷拍
正妹大學
正妹大學宅男社
正妹日報
正妹地圖
正妹百人斬
正妹自拍
正妹空姐寫真
正妹星球
正妹相簿
正妹美食地圖
正妹無名
正妹無名相簿
正妹無名相簿分享
正妹照片
正妹圖
正妹圖片
正妹圖片或照片
正妹網
正妹裸照
正妹影片
正妹餐廳
正妹牆
交友啦咧聊天室
交友聊天室
交友貼影區
伊莉論壇
同志聊天
同志聊天室
同志貼圖區
名模露點
成人a片
成人偷拍
成人情色
成人情色小說
成人情色文學
成人情色貼圖
成人情色貼圖區
成人聊天室
成人貼圖區
成人影片
成人影城
成人影音
成人影音城
成人論壇
有閒俱樂部
百分百貼圖區
米克情色網
米克綜合論壇
自拍a片
自拍偷拍
自拍偷拍成人影片
自拍偷拍貼圖
自拍偷拍貼圖區
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 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
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