I tend to think that we should not be too dismissive of Saxby Chambliss's win in Georgia tonight. Although the outcome was expected, and although runoffs and special elections sometimes behave in idiosyncratic ways, moving from a 3-point margin of victory on November 4 to a 15-point margin of victory a month later is a significant accomplishment.
Unfortunately, nobody conducted an exit poll of this race, which makes the postmortem a little bit more difficult to conduct. From early voting statistics, it appears that African-American turnout was substantially lower, which no doubt was a significant factor in Martin's defeat, as roughly 55 percent of his vote on November 4 came from black voters. If black turnout was closer to the 25 percent of the electorate that it was in 2004 rather than the 28 percent of the electorate that it was on November 4, that would cost Martin a net of about 4 points, implying a loss of about 7 points. If it was closer to the 22 percent of the electorate that turned out to vote early, that would have cost Martin a net of 8-9 points, implying a loss of 11-12 points.
But while proportionately lower black turnout tells part of the story, Chambliss also appeared to gain with white voters. In certain ways, this is an awkward time for a Democrat to be running for office. On the one hand, with the imminent end of George W. Bush's term in office, and the fact that Barack Obama has effectively been serving as shadow president -- Obama is generating between two and three times as much news coverage as Bush according to Google traffic metrics -- it has already become harder for Democrats to pin our country's problems on the Republicans. Yes, Bush did damage to the Republican brand that will last for years to come, but it's the Obama brand that's strong more so than the generic Democratic one. On the other hand, because Obama hasn't actually been in office, the Democrats do not yet have any accomplishments to point to. The Democratic message in 2010 will essentially be one of two things...
1. Obama's accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let's give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,
2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn't accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests ... let's put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.
...neither of those messages really work at the present time -- they require the first couple of political hands to be played out, and right now the dealer is still shuffling the cards.
The other noteworthy thing about Chambliss' post-November 4th campaign is that he ran fairly hard toward the center. Chambliss cut three new ads for the runoff; one was a positive spot that stressed his experience and bipartisanship, the second was a warm and fuzzy and almost completely apolitical Thanksgiving's greetings message, and the third was a contrast spot that accused Martin and Obama of wanting to increase taxes. This was fairly harmless stuff, not the sort of thing that raises liberal ire nor that associates Chambliss with the Rovian wing of the Republican party. Yes, some of the 527 and RSCC spots were a lot uglier and harder-hitting, but Chambliss cannot wholly be blamed for those, and the spots emanating from the campaign itself were fairly toned down and nonpartisan -- a far cry, certainly, from the ugly ads that Chambliss ran against Max Cleland in 2002.
Yes, also, Chambliss may have gotten some mileage out of the argument that his election would block the Democrats from gaining 60 senate seats, but even this message was somewhat cautiously framed -- as delivered, for instance, by Sarah Palin:Senator Chambliss ... he's got that strong independent spirit that we need in DC. [...] He doesn't just run with the Washington herd. Folks, with just one party in control of the House and the Senate and the White House, we need now more than ever public servants who will think for themselves. And faced now with a steep Democratic majority in Congress, Saxby isn't going to be an easy 'yes' vote, and he's not going to be an automatic 'no' vote -- he's going to vote his conscience and do what is right for Georgia and what is right for America.
Palin then goes on to cite some of the usual Republican talking points about taxes, the Second Amendment, energy independence, victory in Iraq, and the sanctity of life, but her tone is very different than when she was campaigning on behalf of John McCain: less personal, less sanctimonious, less reactionary, less dumbed-down.
Famous last words, but I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan. Certainly, there will be more than a few exceptions, and just as certainly, it may all be done through gritted teeth -- like that Simpsons episode where Itchy and Scratchy sit on the porch and pour one another lemonade. But if the Republicans have realized that it doesn't help their cause to constantly be behaving like assholes, then bully for them.
12.03.2008
Saxby Shows Republicans The Way Forward?
by Nate Silver @ 2:37 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

117 comments
I don't know, maybe it could be quality of the candidates and the timing? Enthusiasm for Obama spilling over in the general, but how often do Democrats turn en-mass in a special election?
Republicans fall in line. Democrats have to fall in love.
I think it had more to do with this:
http://www.adgabber.com/video/georgia-senator-saxby
"it doesn't help for the Republicans to be acting like assholes"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Yeah, like the Democrats/left didn't do that at all....nope, not them. No "asshole" action at all during the last eight years.
Asshole=Pelosi.
She thinks she's God. Good thing we have one more person in her maniacal way.
I think that there is a simpler answer to the loss. On Nov 4, the Republicans were effectively in power, and there was a backlash against the republicans and a desire to sweep them out of power.
Now that the democrats have the presidency and solidified control of the senate and house, people don't feel that the republicans need to be punished any further, and in fact may be worried about the balance shifting too much towards the democrats.
This was an argument used by republicans before Nov 4, but it didn't seem as real before it really happened.
At the same time, there is probably a lot less urgency amongst the democrats. The republicans feel a desperate need to prevent the 60-seat filibuster proof democrats, while the democrats feel pretty good about where they are now.
In this light, these results don't surprise me at all.
Also, I'm sure that Martin benefited from Obama's coattails which didn't help tonight.
Nate: What are you talking about?
This was a pure white racist backlash vote!
How on earth did Chambliss really gain so much support among whites since November 4?
They responded to the message of "don't let Atlanta blacks win the election."
They turned out in droves to prevent Obama from having more power and authority.
Well, Obama hasn't even done anything yet! So, it's not as though anybody has a reason to criticize him at this point!
How then can one talk about the election as though it was anything but White voters unhappy at how the Black man won the White House and determined not to give Blacks any more power?
Chambliss certainly is capable of the lowest slimeball campaign possible, as he proved against Max Cleland. But, he didn't have to do that in the runoff!
All he did was tell voters he was going to be a counter-weight to Obama and that was enough for the Georgia crackers.
Even if the ONLY thing Obama manages to do during his tenure as president is make politicians (and, may we hope, the media?) behave like adults, I think we could consider that a successful presidency! Many of my friends are already anxious about his cabinet appointments, but I am taking a wait-and-see approach, since it appears as though Obama is simply hiring the maximum firepower for his agenda. I just hope he is as good at simultaneously herding cats and wrestling steers as he has appeared to be so far.
As far as the Georgia race, I think there was probably a little bit of backlash after the big
Dem show in November. My mom's family is from Georgia, so I know a little bit about the culture, and outside of Atlanta/Athens/maybe Savannah, it's pretty reactionary over there. It's going to be a while before the deep South moves into the 21st century, politically speaking.
Carc is right, there was no enthusiasm for Martin in the first place. But when you have a candidate for president that people are enthusiastic about who just so happens to have a D next to his name, those people are likely to check off the senate candidate with a D as well. Take away Obama from the top of the ticket and you take away a lot of the voters who voted for Martin. Plus the absence of any third party candidates, Republicans thinking they had everything to lose, and Democrats complacent because they already got their win, and what you’re left with is a 15-point butt-whooping. Had anyone foreseen the support for Obama way back when the Democrats were searching for someone to run for this seat, they probably would have looked a little harder. Martin was always a throw-away candidate.
This election is in no way a referendum on Obama. In fact, it shows how lousy a candidate Martin would have been without Obama’s help on election day. That actually makes Obama look good, if you think about it, although in a way that gives him one less supporter in the Senate.
Cugel, I’m not sure how this was a racist vote. If there was a date when racist voters would have turned out in droves, it would have been on November 4th to vote against the guy that was actually black. And it’s not as if Chambliss actually got more votes this time around, it’s that he got a wider margin because LESS Martin supporters showed up.
And do you really think right-wingers are going to not criticize Obama just because he hasn't had any power to do anything yet? Did you miss the entire election?
Can someone tell me what Jim Martin stands for (other than he is not evil like Saxby Chamliss)??
Martin lost because he didn't talk about issues and about what he stands for.
He ran the John Kerry campaign. "I'm not Bush/Chambliss" instead of telling voters what we would do and what he stands for.
Mr Silver, you have no equal in the political statistics game and the baseball statistics game. With that said, your non-numbers analysis seen here in the post and other recent posts detract from this site. Numbers are objective, they aren't partisan. Your breaking down of those objective, non-partisan numbers is why I came here, like, five times a day from June on. Because you sifted through the bullshit. But when you say things like 'constantly behaving like assholes'--and I voted for Obama--I shake my head and wonder if I'll find myself visiting this site five times by next June.
No not make the mistake of taking the capital in the political game you've gained here and spending it trying to be a one man Huffington Post.
Fastness, I liked the numbers game too, but how is Nate going to play the numbers on cabinet picks and other non-numbers subjects of that nature? The numbers left with the elction.
Holy GOD the trolls have infested this site again. I don't get why, their party is now a nothing.
Anyway, Saxby is bipartisan? lmfao. Yeah, and so is Palin, right?
It seems like you (Nate Silver) are giving the results an interpretation that you want to believe. As some one who lives in Georgia I felt that ads were quite ugly. They portrayed Martin as somebody dangerously outside the pale, a man who was very soft on crime, wanted to raise taxes on everyone and mishandled government money, and whose election would enable Democrats to push a radical agenda. The fact that these ads were not paid for by the Chambliss campaign does not mean that Republicans have become nicer or "more grown-up". It means they chose the smart way to run nasty ads as they did in the 2004 presidential election.
I am not sure why Martin did so much worse in the run-off, but I suspect that the main problem was motivation. Black turnout was expected to be low, and many Democrats (black and non-black) were not motivated to vote when they felt Martin had no chance of winning. When I arrived at the polls at 6pm - what I would expected to be peak time - there was no line. My polling station is in DeKalb county in a white liberal area. So from my experience turnout among white Democrats was much lower than on November 4th. If however it turns out that a fairly substantial number of voters switched from Martin to Chambliss, that would be a more significant accomplishment for the GOP.
He should do more stuff like the Franken-Coleman election analysis. Fivethirtyeight isn't an excellent political site because of liveblogging or the state to state stuff.
538 and BP are great for the same reason. It is because you predict outcomes of elections (or season win totals) better than other sites do.
And I think you were biased this election. That's perfectly fine, you guys were definitely rooting for Obama in Presidential Election. But this time, IMO, and if you take a honest look back, it creeped into your prediction, and for this site more than others, that's a big problem.
Oh yeah, I would also note (in a momentary fit of insomniac progressive bitterness) that the Chambliss Thanksgiving ad was, although apolitical, really creepy - even Jon Stewart was cracking on it on tonight's Daily Show. It's on YouTube for anyone who hasn't seen it.
lastchancexv, after the MN senate race, where does this site go? If they want to keep it up, they are going to have to talk about something other than election numbers. And while I agree that they showed bias in the GA runoff, I never put as much stock in their analysis on this one as in the presidential contest simply because runoffs are a different and highly unpredictable beast. That said, I felt Martin unfortunately never had a chance in this runoff and might have looked wiser conceding on November 4th.
Hmm, if you guys are looking for 100% objective nonpartisan political coverage/analysis, good luck with that. This site has never pretended to be that; in fact, it has stated its preference for Obama from the very beginning, while at the same time trying to develop and present the statistical analysis in as unbiased a manner as possible. However, once you get out of the polling and other metric-friendly phases of politics, how can you possibly think they can quantify everything else that happens? You can't assign numerical values willy-nilly to something like cabinet appointments (but if it can be done, rest assured these guys will figure it out). This site is necessarily going to have to evolve as the political cycle moves on - why not enjoy the ride?
On the argument seen above...
Keep doing exactly what you're doing, Nate and Sean.
Guys, I like Nate's analyses. He isn't just a number cruncher, he has a sharp mind, too. He's well read and can think on his feet. I want to hear his point of view on political stuff because most of the time, he sees the big picture that I might miss.
So, to put it in the words of British pop group Right Said Fred: "You're my Nate, and I will stand by you."
And looking on the bright side of yesterday's events: Suxme Shameless stays in the spotlight of the political arena, Palin also gets to stay in the spotlight. That's a good thing. It's people like them that show us what we reject, what we don't want to become. Because we can be evil, hateful, greedy, too. And we can choose not to. So these guys help us make a choice. Remember, evil is necessary. Yours truly, Walter.
Nate Silver said...
Chambliss cut three new ads for the runoff; one was a positive spot that stressed his experience and bipartisanship, the second was a warm and fuzzy and almost completely apolitical Thanksgiving's greetings message.
Including groping his grandaughter's tit. Good 'ole Republican family values.
Famous last words, but I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan.
If that's the case, then Obama has already moved the country sharply to the left. As Bill Clinton said: When Americans think, Democrats win.
I don't think you can read too much into this race. Chambliss was always leading in the polls and Jim Martin was a weak candidate who wasn't nearly in the same class as a Jim Webb or Tester, or for that matter, Kay Hagen. And he needed Obama's coattails to even get within 3 points of Chambliss. But even if he were in their class, Georgia's secretary of state is as scummy as Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell. Fuck knows how many voters were purged on election night.
Pre-election, I said I'd gladly sacrifice Martin and falling short of 60 seats for a Franken win. It's still 50/50, but it's looking like I'll get what I wanted. 4 weeks ago it was looking a bit iffy if the Dems would even have Begich, Markley or Franken in the senate. To take 3 of the 4 undecided senate races would be fantastic.
Just to underline my point. This was a George Allen type potential pickup. Martin needed Chambliss to have a Macaca moment to put him over the top.
jdizzle:
You can't lose battles you don't fight. While less and less new content obviously means less and less page views, more and more content like this most will mean less and less credibility. Mr Silver has a monopoly on the political numbers niche. He's like James Bond: Nobody does it better. But with posts like these he's an outfielder all of a sudden deciding to pitch.
Rufus²:
We all know Mr Silver and this site was for Obama. With that said, that bias did not find its way into the numbers or 'The Model' and liberals AND conservatives alike came here. Two plus two is always four, there is no slant to make it three or five. Those numbers and 'The Model' is why fivethirtyeight is fivethirtyeight. Yeah, sure, Mr Silver occasionally did some non-numbers based commentary on issues or strategy but those moments were brightly outshone by the commentary on the race based on numbers--like McCain's gameplan of being within x points with, what was it, Pennyslvania, Colorado and Florida?--and 'The Model' itself. You think this site would've gotten even a 1/100th of the traffic if it's just Mr Silver blogging about how he views the next two years shaping with regards to non-numbers-based themes like 'message' and calling Republicans assholes? Baseball Prospectus doesn't all of a sudden in December to start covering hockey. When they branch out, they do a Football Outsiders/Basketball Prospectus route. If Mr Silver wants to branch out and if he believes his commentary will be demanded, well, natesilver.com is available. More on this next:
Walter Mondale:
If Mr Silver wishes to throw his hat into the commentary wing, I'm sure Ms Huffington will be more than happy to give him bandwith and pay him for services rendered or he can do the aforementioned of making himself a brand and starting his own personal political blog. But under the brand of "FiveThirtyEight -- Electoral Projections Done Right." the second half of this post has no place.
Fastness
Are you suggesting Nate just shuts the site down until 2012?
Fastness: I would counter that the domain "fivethirtyeight.com" is Mr. Silver's domain and he can post what he damn well pleases on it.
I would venture most of the readers here enjoy Mr. Silver's commentary as well as his statistical analysis, and I would also venture that this site is by no means intented to be a political version of the Baseball Prospectus website.
It is your decision to return here or find other sites that suit your sensibilities. But just as I would not go to a website you produced and insist that you inform it in accordance with my ideas, I don't believe it appropriate that you insist that this site stick to statistical analysis only.
Another note: this site has existed only since February of this year, which means it has been fully involved in the presidential election since its inception. It has therefore been easy to maintain its primary brand in the analysis of that election. That race is now over, and if this site intends to maintain traffic until the next election, it needs to find something else with which to occupy itself and to expand its brand. Why not wait to see how Mr. Silver's commentary acquits itself in the political realm before condemning and complaining about it?
jdizzle:
I would suggest Mr Silver at waits until the Congressional and Senate and Gubernatorial races of 2010 if the new content is going to primarily be of the 'Republicans are assholes' and not the 'John McCain has a 5 percent chance of winning a week out, here's what we need to see in the national polling and in 'The Model' to see if the race is actually getting any tighter' for his posting at fivethirtyeight, whose banner reads "Electoral Projections Done Right.". In the event that Mr Silver cannot find anything to comment on in the numbers game from now until 2010, I'd suggest natesilver.com or looking for a paycheck from the 16 million Ms Huffington just received.
RufusRules: Yes, it is his doman and, yes, he can do what he wants to it. Just like I can choose to not water my garden or mow my lawn or vacuum my rugs.
If most of the readers do enjoy his commentary which I do believe to be true--and for the most part I do as well--then they'll have no problems migrating over to natesilver.com or [insert where Nate would blog at].
It isn't just my insistence that the site remain statistical analysis; I am following the lead of the site's insistence:
"What is the mission of this website? Most broadly, to accumulate and analyze polling and political data in way that is informed, accurate and attractive. Most narrowly, to give you the best possible objective assessment of the likely outcome of upcoming elections."
Calling Republicans assholes is not within the mission of this website.
If the Nate Silver brand is strong enough--which it most probably is-- then natesilver.com is the better way of going about this.
Rufus: That's a fair and accurate point on rushing to judgement. Perhaps the recent has just been a few poor at-bats over a long stretch of the season. A completely fair and correct point to make.
Perhaps Mr. Silver will adjust his brand to "Electoral Projections and Smack-Talking Done Right" :)
Fastness
Why should he startup natesilver.com when he already has this site? If there’s no number crunching to be done, what is he going to do ON THIS SITE? It seems like you’re suggesting he shut it down until the next election. Yes the site is about statistical analysis, but within the broader topic of politics. The site wouldn’t have gotten any support if it was just about statistics in general. It is and always has been a political site. Yes the emphasis was on the stats, but the stats are gone now. The politics are not. I’m not sure why you’re not getting this.
jdizzle:
See above post with regards to the mission of this website as to why natesilver.com would be a better place.
If Mr Silver cannot find anything to write about outside of posts like this for the next two years, I would suggest that. It's like ESPN all of a sudden becoming CSPAN, that is the gap between 'objective' and 'But if the Republicans have realized that it doesn't help their cause to constantly be behaving like assholes, then bully for them.'.
"Yes the site is about statistical analysis, but within the broader topic of politics."
Right. It's a niche.
"The site wouldn’t have gotten any support if it was just about statistics in general."
This is far from anything I've said. I'm not arguing he should start dedicating posts to Einstein's E=mc² just being proved or using algorithms to decipher The Voynich Manuscript. This site got the support it did because of the political statistics game, we know this. What it did not do was get the support it did for Republicans behaving like assholes.
You say the stats are gone. Those politcal stats ARE fivethirtyeight. It's in the banner, it's in the mission. The political stats are why Mr Silver was on television and without them it's not fivethirtyeight anymore, it's Mr Silver.
Do you come here because it's fivethirtyeight.com, or do you come here for Nate Silver? Because they're not the same. While I may think Mr Silver is more right on the asshole comment than he is wrong, statements like that have no place on fivethirtyeight per its mission.
Was this election sooo important?.
Please.
I don't agree. I think fivethirtyeight.com IS Nate Silver, because the way the projections/stats were done is *entirely* proprietary to him (was there ANYONE else doing the same thing? No, that's why he got all that airtime). But Silver is not necessarily a one-trick pony - yes, he's proved he's pretty much God on High on the statistical analysis, but it appears he has lot more to contribute to the discussion than just numbers. If you look closely at the way he developed his model, you can see that there was a huge amount of Silver's subjective judgment that went into it in terms of what variables were relevant to include in the model - and without that intuitive/subjective element, the model would have been far less accurate.
What we're seeing now - "Republicans are assholes" or not - is merely the verbalization of a lot of the thinking that went into that model. Give it a chance, he's a smart dude and one who probably hasn't slept in six months.
Fastness
So you are suggesting Nate discontinue this website until the next election. That’s all you had to say. And what has happened here is NOTHING like ESPN all of a sudden becoming CSPAN. It’s more like one site that focused on one aspect of politics changing focus to another aspect of politics because the original aspect is no longer relevant (at least not until the next election). Nate Silver IS fivethirtyeight.com so the distinction between the two is irrelevant. I come to this site for what he has to offer, whether it’s the stats or the commentary. Suppose there is a website that deals with the Olympics, which are held every four years. The actual year the Olympics are held the site would deal with the games themselves and qualifying and would certainly get the most traffic then, but would you suggest it shut down the other three years if people were still going to the site? They would have to report on something. Nate is making money off this site; he’s not going to shut it down because there are no more stats. There’s still politics.
Can't quite believe what I'm reading about Chambliss ads being toned down as something non-Rovian. Isn't it classic Rove to have the 527s throw the real mud, whilst the commercials associated with the actual candidate seem moderate and reasonable?
This was a typical GOP mudslinging race.
The win by Saxby Chamblis win is not something that should be celebrated by GOP but rather seen as what the GOP has become,
The real story remains that run off was required in Georgia where historically Chamblis would have had double digit margin of victory.
The country has matured and the politics intolerance and zealots is fading and this special election is not the victory that can be built upon. The culture that has dominated the politics of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and a few other states no longer exists and if the GOP looks at this for other than what it is, they will continue to devolve.
The GOP has yet to come to grips that it needs an extreme make over and is grasping at straws when it views Sarah Palin as a shinning star and hope for the future. The Party of old had a stable of conservative members who were intellectually respected for their competency and maturity.
The politics of ideas and not personalities is key to winning national elections and for times where serious problems dominate the head lines.
The Chambliss election should be dismissed for what it is and any serious student of politics recognizes that
"I believe that the 2010 election cycle may actually be a fairly substantive, grown-up affair, essentially a battle over who can frame themselves as being more reasonable and bipartisan."
Will America grow up? Are we past wedge issue-obsession and straw-man politics? I have my doubts, but if Obama COULD usher in this era, this would be his most lasting accomplishment.
It would be amazing to have two political parties -- one center left and one center right. Both staffed by articulate, competent, thoughtful, forward thinking, non-hateful people. Both have good ideas to share about America's future.
States like GA will always be more liberal than states like CA, and they will always opt for the more conservative party over the more progressive party. Obama wins by forcing the Republicans to grow up and embrace a more centrist, inclusive, and non-hateful ideology.
Can We dump Liberman NOW???
I suggest anyone who doesn't like Nate's analysis and commentary to get the fuck out instead of whining like bitches every time you don't like what he says.
Go start your own blog, or join donkey fucker when he starts his. No one will miss you.
W E D N E S D A Y DEC 03 POSTS
Remembering Odetta
Andrew Sullivan on the Gates-Obama Axis (CHAMBLISS RELATED)
Do We Hold Much of Our Own Debt Abroad?
http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/
Earlier posts in descending order on the same page:
Wind Turbine That Might Cut Costs In Half
Will Barack Think Twice About Afghanistan?
Neil Young, The Star of Bethlehem and Us
Five Good Things Barack Said Today
Huffington Post Page
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose
Chambliss won because of both his natural advantage in GA (remember, he actually "won" on Election Day, too) and the fact that the GOP cared abot this race and pulled out all the stops while the President-elect was not willing to spend any of his "mandate" on a fairly likely loser.
I am glad the title of this post is put as a question rather than a statement. Suggests tentativeness about the analysis, and that tentativeness is appropriate in this case.
Yes, Saxby's tenor might have been semi-centrist and non-abrasive, but with the nastiness of the outside ads he could afford to be that way. He had someone else to do his dirty work, and the airwaves were saturated with the dirty. If you were a persuadable voter and saw the anti-Martin ads, you wouldn't want him near your kids, let alone serving as your senator. It is a shame, too. Much of what Martin was attacked for was his service as head of a Georgia agency that is always in the news for the wrong reasons. He did what we claim to want our leaders to do - took on a tough, thankless job - and he got punished for it.
But the main reasons for the magnitude of the loss are that Georgia is deeply red and that Martin was not a strong candidate. If there is a "way forward" lesson in this race for the GOP, it is "Make sure you only run in areas where you have a built in advantage and make sure your opponent is a C-lister."
I see a lot of comments describing what this site should be regarding stats vs. commentary.
My unsolicited opinion: During the election I came here for a few things: #1: the polling analysis because as many have pointed out, no one does it better. #2: Sean's reports on the ground game across the country - I found the reporting fascinating and this was really the only place to find it. It's fantastic that they have the resources to have someone do original reporting like that. #3: The commentary apart from the polling - Nate and Sean are both perceptive and smart, and I'm interested in reading their opinions. I read Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and many others for the same reasons.
I don't see the need to break it out into separate sites - hell, if you don't like the non-polling posts, just ignore them. I don't think it's a pollution of the "538.com" or "Nate Silver" brands to have both stats and non-stats content under the same umbrella, but that's just my $0.02.
I do hope that Nate or Sean or both write a book about the election - sort of a condensed history that shows the ebb and flow of both the primary season and the general.
Keep up the good work!
Nate, if you have pretensions to being a serious pundit, you need to avoid formulations like:
"...it doesn't help their cause to constantly be behaving like assholes..."
Something like the following would have been far better:
"...they shouldn't allow their party to be dominated by its most extreme reactionary and fundamentalist elements hiding behind a cloak of patriotism and piety..."
Calling republicans assholes (even if I agree with the sentiment) isn't going to wear well until the next election.
wv: fanon: a radical political theorist. Also, a way to generate a breeze.
Nate, I respect your comments, but as a metro Atlanta resident, I believe that you're off-base. Chambliss had this race in the bag all the way. As for the ads in the runoff cycle, you may be right about Chambliss' own ads being "warm and fuzzy", but I didn't see many of them. The airwaves in Georgia were overrun with vicious attack ads against Martin (mostly from 3rd party organizations). The ratio of these ads to pro-Martin was probably 10-1, at least. The 527/3rd party ad strategy is nothing new, so I do not see this being part of a trend. Let's face it. In this state at this time, this was a race the repubicans should have won, and did. It's really that simple.
Here's why the final number was so skewed.A huge number of white voters voted against Chambliss or for the 3rd party candidate due to anger over Chambliss' aye vote for the 700 billion dollar bailout. People around here were very angry. In the runoff, these voters came home, held their nose, and voted for Saxby.
Parties don't have ideas, individuals do. The Party that usually wins has a leader who people can believe in. George Bush was an exception and his election was more about tactics (Rove) than about inspiration and vision. The Democrats finally figured that out and refused to get caught in that trap. John McCain who had to resort to the gimick of Palin, had a line that he would not cross, having seen how destructive negative campaigning is.
This last election was one of accountability, with voters who could no longer deny that a change of personnel was required, that is the change they voted for. It is the expectation that common sense and competency will come with the new leaders. I expect it will since first they can articulate views and opinions a huge improvement over President Bush, the second is that they will not use their middle finger as was the case with Chenny and Rumsfield.
There is a huge difference between being tough versus being nasty and narrow minded.
At the risk of being corny the difference is what the objective is, winning elections or improving the lives of America. If the GOP wants to promote Paris Hilton (Sarah Palin) they might find a following among a small group of fans. If they however want to become a relevant force in guiding the country they need to have candidates with a real message that can help promote the future lives of all Americans.
I don't think the GOP can reorganize in time for 2012 and suspect they will have to live with their behavior and the problems they allowed to occur for quite a long time. The win by Chamblis is like the win the Detroit Lions may yet succeed in pulling off.
You're not looking at this in the right context.
The game here was 60 seats... That was the looming threat, that was the rally cry.
There are a lot of moderates that may lean one way or the other, but are uncomfortable with the idea of 60 seats... They would have leaned heavily towards Chambliss or stayed home.
There are a lot of democrats that are still a bit timid at the idea of having a supermajority and complete control of Washington, they would have been reluctant to vote, and would have stayed home in greater proportions.
Then the republican party was in a state of panic. They had lost the election and faced complete irrelevence with the prospect of 60 votes... They would have been EXTREMELY ENERGIZED, and showed up in higher numbers.
These special elections are always a measure of enthusiasm, rather than a measure of the bias of the general public at large... After a huge win, and facing an unchecked control... democrats were simply less motivated than the republicans that were still smarting from a complete trouncing and were facing 2 years of complete and total irrelevence.
You're not looking at this in the right context.
The game here was 60 seats... That was the looming threat, that was the rally cry.
There are a lot of moderates that may lean one way or the other, but are uncomfortable with the idea of 60 seats... They would have leaned heavily towards Chambliss or stayed home.
There are a lot of democrats that are still a bit timid at the idea of having a supermajority and complete control of Washington, they would have been reluctant to vote, and would have stayed home in greater proportions.
Then the republican party was in a state of panic. They had lost the election and faced complete irrelevence with the prospect of 60 votes... They would have been EXTREMELY ENERGIZED, and showed up in higher numbers.
These special elections are always a measure of enthusiasm, rather than a measure of the bias of the general public at large... After a huge win, and facing an unchecked control... democrats were simply less motivated than the republicans that were still smarting from a complete trouncing and were facing 2 years of complete and total irrelevence.
I think Chambliss won because a prominent website advertised a simple and powerful message:
STOP The Liberal Takeover
In full agreement with Glenn Doty, whose comment appeared after I clicked post-a-comment, so I don't have to type any more :-).
Glen Doty's points are accurate in a sense, But to the larger point, they are totally irrelevant. People outside Georgia don't seem to realize how Red of a state this has become. Moderate republicans? Where are they? Not many around here.
Chambliss won a race he should have won. This was not a referendum on Obama. This was not an anti-60 seat backlash.
The only thing about Mr. Doty's post that is relevant to this race is that the GOP did have a rallying cry, and was somewhat energized, which helps explain why Senator Bum Knee won by 14 points instead of the 6 or 7 points the polls said. But either way, he was going to win.
"it has already become harder for Democrats to pin our country's problems on the Republicans. "
Amazing no one has reacted to this. This is truly the place that reflectiveness gives way to spinelessness. Democrats, draw a line in the sand: Absolutely nothing is Obama's fault until after, oh, let's say, Sept 11, 2009. The benchmark has been set, folks. Reflect in private.
I'm glad they didn't start to learn the "don't be assholes" lesson until after the election.
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
I knew that Chambliss would win. It was nice that Martin got within 3 on Election Day, but that was largely because of Obama-enthusiasm.
Voter turnout was predictably less, which heavily favored the Republican. It's 3 weeks until Xmas and most people have lost interest in politics. It is also Georgia, which McCain easily won despite losing Florida and North Carolina that both border the state.
Obama's approval ratings are higher than Bush or Clinton at this point. He has been busily taking assembling his team. He is only the "shadow president" because Bush has been phoning it in for 2 years or more, so anyone that acts presidential partially fills the void known as the Bush White House.
I never thought the Dems would get 60 nor would they need it. Even if they got to 60, that's only by counting Benedict Lieberman. They will probably win MN, so they only need 2 Republican votes for cloture when Benedict can't be counted on.
The 2008 election was far too long. People are tired of it and just want a govt they can trust to help solve the Bush Depression.
Nate:
Sometimes an election is just an election. :)
The result was due to 2 factors:
1) Racism/Fear among whites
2) Lowered AA turnout (since there was little impetus for them to do so - Obama already in office AND there being no real prospect of a bulletproof majority for Dems in Congress.
I'm not much concerned about Nate and Sean taking selfish criticism to heart, because this argument was repeatedly raised by Republican partisans over the past several months, but just to reiterate:
Going on someone's blog and telling them "don't post stuff I don't like" is always obnoxious. Cloaking it in "you're going to lose credibility" and pretending you speak for the masses instead yourself is even more so. No one's making you read the analysis posts. If you don't like them, skip them, or Get Your Own Blog.
AxelDC: Frankly, the one silver lining in this is not having to spend the next two years with the pundits opining that the Democrats have a "filibuster-proof majority" when those of us with more sense know that it's 60 votes on each bill that are important, not 60 seats.
I have a numbers analysis Nate could do related to this Georgia race:
Is there any reason to have the run-off systems like Georgia's? Does the temporary-loser in the general election ever win? And you have to correct for third party candidates when they are to the ideological extreme of the temporary-loser's party position (which was not the case in Georgia).
While I sort of wanted Martin to win, I can't exactly say this is surprising. I know we had no accurate advance polls, but I think we're all still a little heady off November 4th. This is still Georgia, where Obama did underperform most the polls (and he still did better than most Dems do, but mostly because of a resounding turnout in the African-American vote, which just didn't materialize for, well, another boring white guy). I mean, look at this from outside the perspective of someone following this election season so closely: a run-off caused by a much more conservative candidate taking votes from the conservative candidate during a national landslide for the Democrats.
And there's the simple fact that Martin was a bit of a filler candidate. The Dems didn't really think Georgia was in play -- the Obama campaign, for pete's sake, didn't even bother with Georgia to much of an extent until incredibly late in the election. So, they just picked a fairly disposable candidate to lose against the Republican incumbent.
It might have been a good thing to have 60 Dems in Senate -- we'll not know for at least two years, maybe ever -- but let's not let a fairly predictable hiccup ruin one of the most triumphant elections in decades.
This race was as nasty as Sissy Saxby's campaign against Cleland. He accused a guy who spent his political career protecting kids of being soft on crimes against children. Typical Rove tactic.
And the STOP the Liberal Takeover message should also have pulled some libartarian votes over to Chambliss.
I live in GA - listen to me when I say this - the white vote going for Saxby was not based on racism. Some if it may have been, but I really doubt you could count the large majority of the swing was due to it. Here are the following reasons why whites voted Saxby:
a) There was a belief that democrats can never win in this state - we tried as hard as we could in Nov 4th and we didn't succeed. (except locally) This state is red through and through and is impossible to change, so why vote? (This is actually in an Outkast song - "Get out and get something")
b) For the independents - they want to balance he power out (independents being libertarians and real indeps) I actually heard this being a reason why they are voting chambliss pretty frequently.
c) Negative campaigning was much more effective on the part of Saxby. Martin never really pulled out all the stops. I don't remember Saxby's quote about Muslims in GA being played on television or his Sugar comments being played on TV and most of the state doesn't have proper internet coverage (rural)
I'm sorry but anyone who is saying that it's _all_ racism or rednecks just hasn't visited the state.
kennyb---there are a number of states that have provisions for general election runoffs. All of those states are in the South. I think general election runoffs are a residue of the past when the "Solid South" was a one party region---run by conservative Democrats. General election runoffs helped ensure Democrats would stay in power.
Ironically, it hurt the Democrats in 1992 when Democratic incumbent Wyche Fower won a plurality but not 50% in his race agains Republican Paul Coverdell, and Coverdell won the runoff. Democrats in the Georgia state-house changed this law after '92, but when republicans took over the Georgia statehouse in 2002, they changed it back!
There is always something to learn from a loss, but I just don't see how Martin had chance to begin with. He didn't put forth an appealing argument, didn't grab the heart of the voter, the constituency is very conservative. These are the people who willingly believed Cleland was unpatriotic.
There was also timing issues and the inability to get Obama down there for a symbolic face off. Not only that, but Martin commanded no particular segment of the voting population, arriving at the runoff not that long after he even became noticed.
I think the circumstances of this election and the candidate himself was weak.
if Obama could have squeezed in a few visits to Georgia I think that would have made all the difference. that idiot Palin was allowed to run around GA unopposed - claiming Saxby was "mavericky like me!"
Who can deny that in an objective analysis of rep vs dem ads that reps hit much harder and lower? Max Cleland morphing into Osama? Liz Dole's godless ads? McCain accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to 5 year old kids?
Dems may play the "take words out of context" game, but calling people godless, treasonous, terrorist socialists has been the Rep playbook for a long time. That Obama ran such a smear-free campaign was a large part of his change message. McCain and Palin didn't get the memo, but as Nate notes, Chambliss seems to have.
sad but true: black georgians didn't show up this time around. they already had their victory, and obviously just don't care enough about senatorial politics to show up and vote.
food for thought: had martin been black, what would have happened?
The Republicans go back to being the opposition party. It's what they are best at, even when they are in control. I think it's why they screw everything up when they do get power.
here, for what they're worth, are my thoughts on the comments on this thread so far:
1 Nate can do what the hell he likes. It's his website. I expect he will take suggestions, but he doesn't HAVE to. If he loses traffic he may change what he does, but otherwise, some extras along with the numbers seems good to me. No-one pretended to be apolitical, Nate just didn't let the numbers themselves get polluted by bias.
2 Sean is pretty important to the site too - and he has always posted about things other than purely numbers.
3 If everybody agreed on everything, the comments section would be bland and boring. I prefer comments without swear words and gratuitous insults, but I have no problem with people who post from a right of centre perspective. Even Mule Rider can make sense - his doppleganger is a bit of a problem, but hey, if a collection of geniuses like us who post on this site can't see wingnuts off to our own satisfaction via rational argument, there must be something wrong with us
4 GA was a foregone conclusion and Obama could have visited 50 times without affecting the result. If the gap was 3 points, maybe, but that big, he would have been wasting his time.
5 Having a second election for a run-off is expensive, time-consuming and unnecessary. You could get the same effect by introducing what I think you guys in the US call "instant run off" voting (we Europeans call it something else). It works. It really does.
6 I LIKE THIS SITE and I LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO COMMENT ON IT.
and finally,
what happens once the MN recount is over?
W won Georgia in 2004 by 17 points. That's a fair reading of how red Georgia is. If Chambliss won by 15 or so, that's within the margin. Clearly, Obama pulled people to the polls on Election day who ordinarily may not come, but he still lost in Georgia as in the rest of the deep south.
The more interesting point, which folks don't really talk about, is the myth of the 60-vote majority when it's the Democrats. Democrats don't often vote in lock step as the Republicans do because they're less ideological. If they can get to 58 Democrats in the next Congress, they'll get to 60 with a few moderate Republicans such as Collins, Snowe, Spector (who's running again in 2010) and others.
As another GA/Atlanta resident, I'd like to give a little perspective as well.
1) Whoever said the Chambliss/Martin ad ratio was 10-1 was being generous for the last week of the race. Chambliss' RNC and 527 ads were everywhere, all the time.
2) There was clearly nothing exciting about Martin.
3) If there weren't enough (D) votes to win this presidential race with all its excitement, there is (currently) NO WAY to beat a generic (R) in this state, statewide. Especially one who's a card-carrying good ol' boy. Outside of Atlanta, it's a very deep red, and heavy on the Limbaugh/Hannity listeners.
This is a state where it's now legal to carry a gun on the subway, and into a bar as long as you promise not to drink. It includes the airport ticketing area too, but the NRA and the city are fighting about that. I believe the 'he needed killin' rationale for murder is on the docket for next year...
This is a state that prays for rain with the Governor, on the Capitol steps, to solve drought issues. (btw-we're still in a major drought)
We don't need 60 votes, and 60 Dems wouldn't guarantee anything (note Lieberman) anyway. There are a handful of moderate R's who will want to be seen as uniters, and who will do so, imho. A few years of progress, then maybe we can get GA to broaden its options. Until then, don't read a whole lot into this.
Martin lost Georgia for three reasons:
1) He ran entirely in Obama's shadow, using Obama's language and message in a state Obama lost by 5.5 points. He did not say what he would do for Georgia, or make a case that he's an independent thinker. I never knew the guy, and I looked pretty hard for his message.
2) His ads were overwhelmingly negative and flooded the TV (most of which were by outside groups, but they still hurt). I saw a commercial break last week that had 4 political ads, all negative, and no other commercials. The race to Nov. 4th was long and tiresome, and there's nothing like incessant negative ads to convince people not to vote for you in a 'bonus' election.
3) Georgia Republicans were far more motivated to prevent a 60 seat Dem senate than Democrats were to win yet another senate seat.
I volunteered and donated to both Obama and Martin in the regular campaign, but I did not help with the runoff due to Martin's tactics. I also do not think one additional seat will make or break Obama's policies. In fact, I'd rather he take a more centrist and bipartisan approach, which he can do quite easily with 58 or 59.
Last time I looked (5 seconds ago), I didn't see any barriers to anyone who wants to read this blog, or to leaving if they don't like what's here.
Anyone who thinks Silver is only about numbers, or that he should stick to numbers without interpretating them, doesn't understand the motivation for this blog.
The numbers are a tool for analyzing and understanding certain facts. But their political meaning is not self-evident. That meaning is part of a narrative, how participants and observers interpret what's happening. And that narrative needs to be informed by much more than the numbers.
Jim Martin could have won the election without a run-off had he embraced the Obama candidacy early on. First time AA voters turned out in droves, but no one knew who Jim Martin was. And his campaign staff ran commercials that made it seem like he was running as an Independent, with no connection to Obama at all.
Martin lost many votes, because many admittedly, unsophisticated first-time young voters did not know Martin and did not trust him anymore than they trusted Chambliss. The result was a non-vote for the Senate Race. The voters showed up to elect Obama. Period. Had Martin drawn a connection to Barack, he would have won even though Obama did not defeat McCain in Georgia. His strategy to stay clear of Obama early on, backfired, and many AA voters recognized the slight for what it was – old white Southern politics. And though he tried to embrace Obama for the run-off, it was too little, too late. So we’ll live with the consequences until a Democrat steps up to the plate with the gonads to stare down the white racist voters and stand on principles.
Martin walked into this run-off with a six-point deficit (anyone who thinks that the Georgia "Libertarian" voters would choose a Dem over a Repub in any significant numbers is delusional). Outside of Athens and a few urban counties, you could run a dirty sock as a Republican and win in a walk in Georgia. Most local elections in Georgia are settled during the Republican primary. Martin is NOT an electrifying candidate, and he was not able to mobilize the minority vote that he needs to even be competitive in this state.
Don't endow Chambliss with any great political acumen--a Republican won in a Republican state against a run-of-the-mill Democrat. How shocking.
I know I'm coming to this argument late, but here's my take on Nate's "non-statistical" analyses ala "republicans are behaving like assholes."
I think the fallacy in the argument of those who don't like that analysis is that they are treating Nate's statement as an opinion, rather than a fact.
I'm sure Nate could take the amount of negative campaigning the Republicans did, the scandals, the screw you politicking in Congress, and the overall corruption of republican politicians, then throw it all into "The Model" and "statistically" conclude that Republicans are indeed acting like assholes by the socially accepted standard of assholery as defined by a collection of surveys in which people identify devious behavior.
Lest we forget, Nate had predicted a Chambliss win on November 4, and had assigned him an 88% chance of winning. In fact, Chambliss won a plurality (49.9%) but not a majority in that first round.
But his margin was much larger in the two-person run-off due to many factors that have already been pretty well summarized.
The question of the meaning of the Chambliss victory, however, beyond the explanation of where the votes came from on December 2nd, is a very different matter, and will become apparent largely in the future. What implications will it have for legislative strategies in the Senate? What will it do for Sarah Palin? Does it signal an energetic GOP or one that's hanging onto a narrow regional and racially-ethnically homogeneous base?
On those questions, stay tuned here and elsewhere for commentary. The numbers are not the whole story. But they will also be a significant part of the story as we watch the legislative and other initiaties to ameliorate the effects of the Bush Recession and mismanagement of nearly everything governmental.
Nate, Saxby's messaging may have been "softer" and more "centrist," but Saxby himself remains a hard-right conservative. He voted with Bush all the time and seems to agree with Sarah Palin on everything. Are you saying the potential "way forward" for the Republican party is to act nicer without actually moving to the center? If that strategy could succeed, it's a little scary.
One can't minimize the fact that the voters for the third candidate broke for Chambliss overwhelmingly(I assume). I don't think the GOP has a lot to hang their hat on here(although to hear NPR tell it they just won the whole cycle with this race).
This is just the "chalk" result without Obama drawing voters and a strong conservative third party.
Georgia, Tennesee, Kentucky - it matters not. If the GOP can't win there, they can't win anywhere.
It is the heart of the Bible belt, the heart of Baptist/Evangelical conventions.
Let them have it for now. The old white man generation is passing into history. It is their last hurrah! The Dems should just recede there, and save their energies for another day.
While I generally think that Nate's work on this item is pretty weak and flimsy, I still give him an A+ for the reference to "Porch Pals."
Imagine a Sarah Palin Senate race debate in 2010:
Some lemonade, Sarah?
Thank you.
Ummmm, you make the best lemonade!
I made it just for you!
Debate moderator:
"I think it conveys a nice message of sharing."
Home TV Audience:
"I think it sucks."
@Redshift: thanks, right on:
"I'm not much concerned about Nate and Sean taking selfish criticism to heart ...Going on someone's blog and telling them "don't post stuff I don't like" is always obnoxious. Cloaking it in "you're going to lose credibility" and pretending you speak for the masses instead yourself is even more so. No one's making you read"
IMO, good stuff from geek, Mrs B, C Diddy, and especially Wind Grieved Ghost. Sure, Nate could have used words that say the same thing in a different way, but we enjoy the spice.
re Palin =~ Paris Hilton, the latter is smarter about issues, despite the sass, but it's a great comparison.
As a long time occasional visitor but much shorter commented, I love this blog for its mostly uncensored quality, and also for some of the unique links and breaking news that appears in the commentary.
You go fivethirtyeight: given the huge mention all over the press (I found this through Newsweek) it would be foolish to change the name.
Lesson #1: If you want to get elected in a state where bald children play the banjo with their toes, win the Republican primary.
@ Wayward Son
post of the day and as trenchant an analysis as anything else;=}
I have no problem with Nate's off-number posts. He is a smart and sharp fella. I do think he is and has been overreactive to things at times, reading WAY too much into murky tea leaves, and this Chambliss deal is one of them.
The reasons for the Chambliss win are pretty obvious and have been discussed at length and well by folks such as Glenn Doty.
To put it in one (admittedly long) sentence:
Obama didn't show, Palin, McCain and Giuliani did, and the GOP white rednecks were more motivated to vote than the Georgia Af-Am Dems, esp. since Obama, signaled, by his absence, that he really didn't care.
Nothing deeper to get out of it than that, and I do think Nate is a bit of a concern troll on this. On the other hand, he got everyone's attention!
Oh, Mule Rider. I missed your ranting about the angry homosexuals! ;-)
The Republican message of 2010 is going to be something to the effect of "No excuses. You had everything in place to make your change, and either it didn't happen or it doesn't reflect American values, or some claptrap." Like Nate said, a couple of hands have to be played out.
One of those hands is the time when the credit markets reopen. When credit reopens, people will get hired again. When people get hired again, people buy again and the deficit goes down.
Another one of these hands is the end of our adventure in Iraq.
A third hand is how the Republican Party Civil War plays out. You still have the Sarah Palin types backed by the RNC and the base against, believe it or not, John McCain and the young guns.
Why wouldn't Chambliss win? He won on Nov 4th!
Chambliss would have won if Palin and Giuliani had stayed away. Chambliss would have won if Obama had moved to GA for the duration.
Michael grossly overestimates the effect of celebrity visits on voting. Usually, they just boost morale for their own side, they don't convert people.
A lot of posters on this site say they don't know what Martin stood for. That probably means he was a) an average/poor candidate and b) ran an average/poor campaign. But just being a Democrat in a red state would probably have been enough to sink him even if he was an outstanding candidate with a brilliant campaign. Obama was both, and he couldn't win GA.
Nate / Sean if you are reading this, can you post something about what volunteers are doing now that the election is (almost) over? I bet there are lots of people out there who could add their own experiences. Also, how about some analysis of GOP / Dem voting at the sub congressional level - did the country shift left or right, and are there local areas of strength for a party in unexpected places? Plus some analysis of how candidates from outside the two main parties did? And views on whether the polls as currently constituted take proper account of independents and minor parties - or do they by only reporting GOP v Dems stop people voting independent / other?
Just a few thoughts on number-related topics also of political interest.
The timing of how the hands play out is important, too. If the credit markets don't open up in a serious way until June 2010, there won't be enough time for cash to come through to hire people by November 2010. Therefore, no buying, no "feeling" of an economic recovery until 2011.
I believe Nate's analysis was way off. This is Georgia, thus the republican always has a big edge. Chambliss won on Nov 4 by 3 points with enormous AA turnout and Liberal turnout for Obama and a third party Libertarian stealing votes from the republican. Chambliss was never in trouble in this seat.
Without Obama on the ticket this was Chambliss vs. Martin and Martin got whooped. That simple. In 2010 we'll get an idea of how Obama is fairing, not before.
PS: Theres nothing anyone can do about the economy. 20 years of neglect and casino mentality has caught up with the "Free Market" and we must suffer through the pain. Obama's stimulus will have little effect neither will the billions being spent bailing out wall street. The best Obama can do is hope it turns around before 2012. If it does he'll be re-elected, if it does not he won't. It's that simple.
With regard to the "republicans running like pragmatists and bipartisans" thing...I think it's interesting to consider this in light of many of the discussions made before the election about Obama being the beginning of a new ideological era, ending the era of Reagan just as Regan ended the era of Roosevelt. To a certain extent, I think this prediction is starting to come true, but unlike Roosevelt and Reagan, who offered distinct ideological visions that could be neatly categorized according to "right" and "left" designations, Obama's vision (as expressed in the rhetoric and as evidenced in his cabinet choices) reflects more of an anti-ideology--a philosophy of governance based on pragmatism and open-mindedness towards both "right" and "left" policies depending on the situation. If anti-ideology is indeed the new ideology of the 21st century, and leads politicians to actually behave like grownups for a couple of years (as Palin seemed to be making an attempt to do), I would certainly welcome this era.
Nate/Sean, I'm new to this blog so I'll stay out of the renaming discussion, but it does seem that your 3-5 point shift that can't be accounted for by reduced AA turnout (and perhaps the drop in out of state voting absentee by college students? I wish we had a better idea of what the absentee population looked like). This was a 2 person race and the drop of the even more conservative libertarian off this ballot would potentially release 3% to Chambliss he didn't have before, although this would probably be closer to 2% in a run-off since conservatives are more likely to participate in a run-off than liberals. Just a thought.
If Martin didn't win the GE, he wasn't going to win the runoff. Maybe he simply wasn't a compelling candidate.
For an incumbent, Chambliss had a healthy scare. If he ran a milder campaign as a result, then that's progress.
Next time, the demographics might be friendlier for a Dem. candidate. Right now, the bodies aren't there.
Also, some people need to stop assuming black people will always massively, blindly, turnout and vote for Democratic candidates like zombies. It's offensive and silly. We can choose not to vote also.
vw: romatime - awesome!
You're over-thinking this one, guys. The final margin is well within the realm of what can be explained by lower African-American turnout and generally lower interest among Dems v higher interest amongst scared Reps. this hardly indicates a trend. Bottom line: Georgia is a very conservative place and Obama coming close(-ish) in November is a one-off due to high enthusiasm in the base and among African-Americans. Shameless Chambliss winning this is just back to the norm for Georgia and is exactly what any neutral observer would have expected.
Well, Jdizzle and tennessiene (go Big Orange!) have it about right. His analysis of the GA Senate race is right on: anyone with the slightest amount of political intuition saw this butt-whipping coming. Of course, Nate and Sean DID NOT see it coming! as most of their posts played to how Martin might actually win, etc. etc. Jdizzle is certainly right that in order to keep the revenue stream going, Nate HAS to play pundit, even if he's not very good at it (see his absurd post on Hillary and the SOS job for more evidence). He HAS to gin up ridiculous "models" like he has for the MN recount if he wants to retain his status among the fanboys. Bottom line, Nate Silver is an above average statistical technician. His electoral projection was good, just slightly better than RCP and Pollster.com and just slightly worse than Sam Wang with the PEC. (there's actually no statistical difference between ANY of the above, as all their predictions fell well within their respective errors (though only the PEC had the intellectual integrity to post those errors)). It's his lack of intuition, both political and statistical, that I find most troubling. He doesn't see that the dataset for this presidential election was so robust that much simpler models than his gave the same result. (of course, his model is not that complicated; any smart sophomore physics major could do as well). He doesn't really seem to believe, in his GUT, that "correlation does not imply causality". Perhaps that's because his livelihood depends on finding correlations before others and then getting them to believe that those correlations ARE causal. Of course, he's young, and it's possible he'll develop that intuition with time. Unfortunately, I tend to doubt that will be the case. REALLY smart people (Fermi, Feynman, Witton come quickly to mind) HAD that intuition at his age. REALLY smart people test themselves against other really smart people (in grad school, for example). Bottom line, if you want political intuition, listen to and read Lawrence McDonnell (among others); if you want physical and statistical intuition, check out Sam Wang at the PEC.
I'm not sure that the Democrats need to engage in too much navel-gazing in the wake of Martin's loss.
The cards were stacked strongly against Martin right away. He lost by 3% on November 4th, with a huge AA surge at the polls. No one, even Obama, was going to get all of those voters back to cast their ballot for Martin. Even if you were to give Martin all of Allen Buckley's votes on Nov 4, which would be silly, he barely beats Chambliss. Add to that any significant decline in AA turnout, and Martin loses.
Then there's the conservative backlash against the Obama victory in recent weeks. I don't know what the turnout was like compared to what was projected, but my guess is that casting a vote for Chambliss in the runoff was a way for Georgia conservatives to kick the dog in the wake of Obama's win.
I like Martin, but he really had nothing up his sleeve to overcome these odds in what is a solidly red state. One of the challenges in the coming years for the Democrats is to figure out how to bring southern AA to the polls consistently. They should have their eye on 2010 and developing a candidate who can beat Johnny Isakson, who may be very vulnerable. It will require bringing up a candidate that looks to be something more than typical Democratic cannon fodder.
Obama has proven to be a good learner in the past after he suffered several electoral defeats in the primaries and setbacks along the active campaign.
He has to translate this into voting for his associates and not just him as his name will not appear on the 2010 ballot.
I suppose a significant economic improvement will halp soften t he anticipated mid-term rebound the other way which normally happens.
I wish they hads been able to put up a better fight in GA or wish Martin had lost outright Nov 4 so the 15 point plus difference would not have appeared.
Georgia is still a red state. While some Democrats may have thought we had a chance, deep down, the vast majority of folks here (from either party or no party) must have expected this result.
I am sure many Democrats skipped the runoff, thinking it would not matter in the end, and I am sure many Republicans made a point of voting, to try to regain some feeling of power after Nov. 4th. These things may explain the breadth of the loss, but it would have been a loss anyway.
Jim Martin is a very good man and public servant, but it is hard to imagine how he or any other Democrat could have won in Georgia today. We'll see what the future holds....
The need to have 60 Democrats in the Senate was more of a media story than a political necessity. There are at least 4 moderate Republicans who would never support the blocking of a major legislative initiative.
The strong arming by the white house is gone and the last 2 elections demonstrated that voters will not tolerate obstructionists. The Republicans do not have the gall or desire to take the risk.
57 US Senators, plus the moderates, plus Senate Republicans who are no longer certain of their future will dare not employ a fillibuster.
The Chambliss election was not seen as critical by the Democrats who gave Georgia a shot but hardly an all out attempt. The people of Georgia are getting the kind of representation they desire and they have to live with that. I don't care for his stance on issues or the way he has campaigned particularly against Max Clelland.
@coolstar: Sam Wang? You've got to be kidding. He kept retrofitting and his prediction to the already tknown results! Before the election his model predicted 352 electoral votes (Nate predicted 353); Wang's website now says his "prediction" was 364. That didn't come from his model, but rather from his gut.
The guy wants (his model) to be a "winner" so he presents a fuzzy fact on front page that does not actually some from his model!
I respected Wang before he did that little bit of b.s.
I'm a late middle-aged white male who voted enthusiastically for Obama in November. I was so turned off by a barrage of robocalls over the past week that I refused to vote at all this time.
I'm no fan of Saxby (especially after his disgusting hatchet job against a true patriot, Max Cleland last time around), but Martin was dull as dust, and deserved to lose. This result was less symptomatic of a GOP resurgence than of a lackluster Democratic candidate in a very red state.
Porridge Gun said:
Including groping his grandaughter's tit. Good 'ole Republican family values.
Yup, that girl was about 2 years past the age of "sittin' on granpa's knee."
This is Nate's site. He has never, for a moment, cast any aspersions about whom he roots for or his personal perspective. The numeric analysis is objective. The non-numeric analysis isn't. This has been clear from the beginning.
And frankly, if you don't like it, no one is compelling you to visit here. Feel free to armchair market elsewhere.
As for Chambliss/Martin, understand, once again, that Georgia is a fools errand for Democrats. In addition to having a significant rural and exurban population, it has a large number of landed, urban, "southern" gentry that you simply cannot out emigrate, no matter how many gays and African Americans move into metro Atlanta, unlike Virginia and North Carolina. It is what it is, and gnashing teeth about a Democratic loss in a statewide race is a waste of time.
"jdizzle said...
Cugel, I’m not sure how this was a racist vote. If there was a date when racist voters would have turned out in droves, it would have been on November 4th to vote against the guy that was actually black. And it’s not as if Chambliss actually got more votes this time around, it’s that he got a wider margin because LESS Martin supporters showed up.
And do you really think right-wingers are going to not criticize Obama just because he hasn't had any power to do anything yet? Did you miss the entire election?"
Racist white voters in GA DID show up on November 4! That's my point! The only reason the election wasn't a 20 point McCain win was the unprecedented black turnout in GA. There was an equally large White racist turnout for Republicans.
And it's racist because it's directly focused on fighting back against black mobilization. It's formed of whites who are uncomfortable with blacks having political power. That's the very definition of a "backlash."
This is not something new!
The vast majority of that strong White support for Republicans comes from the South.
The South used to be the "solid south" for DEMOCRATS, until 1968, the first Presidential election after Lyndon Johnson passed the voting rights act.
Nixon pioneered the "Southern strategy" taking advantage of White Southern resentment over civil rights, and Republicans have won the overwhelming majority of Southern states ever since.
In this election there were outright racist appeals: "Don't let Atlanta blacks steal this election."
It was a forthright appeal to conservative rural whites to come together to resist the unprecedented mobilization of blacks during the election.
That's a racist backlash! Don't tell me Martin was such a horrible candidate that he couldn't get more than 23% of the White vote? Was he really worse than other Democratic candidates?
Or was he swamped by right-wing anger at all the uppity Blacks "taking over."
Bully, for you, in fact!
Your Senate predictions had the 50% probability line midway between 58 and 59 Senate seats.
So now Democrats have 58 plus a pending recount.
Bullseye.
I don't see the outcome of this election as evidence of a way forward for the GOP. Chambliss was supposed to win. Given the turnout, the margin really doesn't matter much.
You hope the 2010 election is a "grown-up" affair, and then proceed to call Republicans "assholes?" Good start.
Insulting honest decent American war heroes who left their limbs on foreign battlefields certainly is the Republican Way but I'm not sure their way will take them much of anywhere foward in this country.
Well, you're part right.
Saxby did show the GOP the way forward...
Namely, the way to win is to ensure your general election race does not coincide with Barack Obama being on the ballot.
For that reason, 2010 will probably be a much better year to run as a Republican than 2012, when Obama will presumably be seeking reelection.
Fortunately for the GOP, the disastrous 2006 election took most of their competitive seats away already...so they won't have much to lose in 2012.
The Republicans can't grow up so long as they represent fundies.
The idea that 2010 will be a "grown up affair" is beyond silly. Remember when people said that about 2008?
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,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^__^
Post a Comment