Where would Barack Obama be re-elected if an election were held today?
We can't know for sure, and it would depend on many contingencies, such as the identity of his Republican opponent. One quick-and-dirty way to assess this question, however, is to look at those states where Obama's approval rating is 50 percent or higher. Based on a compilation of public polls since February 15th, that appears to be the case in the following states:
Now, how did we come up with these numbers? We did a lot of work, that's how. First, we compiled a database of all publicly-available Obama approval and favorability numbers since February 15th, since which time Obama's approval ratings have been exceptionally steady. (Obama's disapproval ratings have increased some over this period, but we're only looking at the approval side of the coin for this exercise). A maximum of one poll was used in each state from each survey firm; this totals 88 polls in all, covering 39 of the 50 states.
Secondly, we performed an adjustment for house effects , just like we did during the election. Most of the approval ratings are from Public Policy Polling, SurveyUSA, Quinnipiac, Research 2000/Daily Kos, or Rasmussen; polls from all other survey firms were then lumped into an "Other" category. The PPP, Rasmussen and Research 2000 produces slightly lower numbers than average for Obama, and so were adjusted upward; the Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA and Other polls produced slightly higher numbers for Obama than average, and so were adjusted downward.
A summary of Obama's approval numbers, with our house effects adjustment, follows below.
Obama's approval equals or exceeds 50 percent in all of the states that he won on November 4th, plus Arizona (10 electoral votes), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Missouri (11), South Dakota (3) and Tennessee (11).
Thirdly, in states where no approval polls have been conducted since February 15th, we took Obama's share of the vote on November 4th and added 6.1 points to it, which corresponds the average gain that Obama has made over his election day results in states where approval ratings are available. This flips Montana (3), Nebraska's 1st Congressional District (1) and North Dakota (3) to Obama.
...and that's how we got the map you see above, which contains 445 electoral votes for Obama.
Generally speaking, Obama's approval ratings are extremely strongly correlated with his November 4 results. If you take his election day total and add 6 points to it, you'll have a very good estimate of his approval rating in that state.
There are a couple of places, though, where there is a little bit of a suggestion that Obama is overperforming or underperforming. His approval ratings are somewhat slack in the Southwest relative to his election day totals, although it is hard to reach a definitive conclusion since we only have one poll to look at in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Conversely, there are some signs that Obama is overperforming in the Inner South or what we sometimes call the "Highlands" region -- states like Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These are places where Obama appeared to suffer somewhat owing to racial animus. I have theorized before that Obama might gain ground in these states as the manifest familiarity of his Presidency displaced the fear of his otherness. It is too early to confirm or refute that hypothesis, but we perhaps shouldn't completely rule out the possibility that Obama could be competitive in some of these states in 2012.
6.13.2009
Obama Approval Rating Exceeds 50% in States Containing 445 Electoral Votes
by Nate Silver @ 2:15 PM...see also 2012, approval ratings, obama, race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

54 comments
This seems like a pretty dishonest assessment of how an actual election would work. "Let's assume that the Republican party would nominate someone that wouldn't positively affect their numbers, and also let's assume they wouldn't be able to fire up their base and promote their candidate effectively." Actually, maybe that's not such a dishonest assumption at all.
Confused...
You say you picked the highest poll numbers from one poll? Why not an average?
And why did you add the average gain to those states, for which you have no recent polling data? Shouldnt you at least add based on region or urban% or red-state consideration, rather than a national average? I very much doubt that those states which did not vote for him would exhibit the same increased in approval on average as a nation that did.
David -
Your logic is weak. States that voted for him (50%+1) are no different than states that did not vote for him (50% minus 1). The only difference is a slight preference. So the average could jump uniformly in all states.
Andrew -
Actually, assuming the GOP wrongly decides that their problem in 2008 was nominating a moderate and nominates a far-right conservative (likely), the numbers will be much better for Obama than this approval suggests.
Palin-
50%+1, 50%-1? Obama lost North Dakota by 8 points, and states in the south by 5% to as much as 20+%. You really think states that voted against him 3:2 will warm to him as much as states that voted for him by 7% margins (national average margin?
Palin -
I think that's very likely to be the outcome of the 2012 nominating contest. Look at views in the party, the lack of any of the potential nominees even TRYING to appeal to moderates, and the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire's republican parties are becoming more radical as the states shift to the left depleting the pool of moderate republican primary voters.
Off topic I know... But can Nate give any insight on the results in Iran - specifically, given the available polling how likely is the result that has been declared? The numbers that have been released are a landslide, and I'm sure that many western commentators will jump to the conclusion that the election was rigged. So can we postluate a null hypothesis that the election result is accurate and test?
Uh,guys - shouldn't you be talking about Iran right now?
A interesting column. I take it as nothing more than "a" indicator. The first 100 days have had some difficult issues to contend with and I am impressed his numbers have held.
While there are some who are highly vocal, it is heartening to see that so many are willing to separate the hard decisions and actions.
I found the results in Texas interesting and see that as a trend that could follow through.
A highly interesting bit of work nate.
They're not thinking about Iran because they don't know anything about Iran. Glad you guys have time on your hands but this post is 95% Obama-wank.
from the post below:
GROG said...
We've seen a drop in Obama's polling numbers this week, but no mention of it from 538.
June 13, 2009 9:31 AM
*****************
@GROG,
Looks like Nate is listening...but No drop...
:P
Isaac said...
Uh,guys - shouldn't you be talking about Iran right now?
June 13, 2009 2:53 PM
**********
would You like to read something like:
"BOMB,BOMB,BOMB,IRAN" ????
David-
The data show the opposite- states with room to warm to him (your 3:2 against) rose more than the CA, MA and IL type states that were his solid support. If South Dakota, Tennessee and Arizona are flipped (and all three were polled by multiple groups), I see no reason why flipping MT and ND is unreasonable.
The larger issue for me is the 50% approval mark. The argument was made that 50% approval doesn't mean those people will vote for you, as there may be a more attractive alternative than abstract approval. But I would submit that the opposite is also true- If you have 45% approval and your opponent is a babyeater, you might get 50% of the vote.
While that particular scenario is a joke, what drew my attention was Texas. We often say that Texas is 3-4 election cycles away from flipping due to demographic changes, but what are we basing that on? The last republican candidates for president were from AZ (08) TX (04,00) KS (96) TX (92, 88). Were they getting a boost in TX from hailing from prairie west states? Would Romney, Palin or Crist get that bump?
If Romney is not an attractive candidate to Texans, would 48% approval of Obama translate into 50% of the vote? The world may never know.
I don't know that approval numbers have much relationship to eventual election results, but I tend to think there is a possibility of a landslide in 2012. Most Presidents fair better in their re elect than first time out, or end up losing. I tend to think that whoever the Republicans nominate will hardly effect the result. I personally doubt Palin's staying power in a primary battle, and tend to think Romney is the likely front runner, remembering that in open primaries moderates are likely to vote Republican, assuming nothing untoward has put the Democratic nomination in the balance. I also think Governor Sanford might be moving up in the rankings, though perhaps he is more focussed on 2016. But the truth remains that by 2012 either Obama will be unbeatable or will be seriously struggling!
@Nate: a suggestion. First of all thanks for doing this exercise. Second, I think you should put some sort of confidence interval around each state estimate. If you do that, then you're going to get a range of EV outcomes projected, H, M, L perhaps. That would be more realistic.
wv: cults (the RW batshit crazies)
@Nate: related suggestion. Develop something akin to your "SuperTracker" for translating state-level polls into national-level estimates of both popular vote and EV.
In any case, I think you need to reflect uncertainty better, as I mentioned in my previous post.
matador said...
from the post below:
GROG said...
We've seen a drop in Obama's polling numbers this week, but no mention of it from 538.,
Probably because he hasn't dropped. And if he has, it's so small, it's barely worth mentioning. Then again, it's GROG who is pissing and moaning.
Obama has a 6+ jump in the last two days in Gallup (63% - 29%). He's also improved since last month in Ipsos/McClatchy and FOX.
Anyone interested in Iran's results might want to look at this Juan Cole post, which does a good job of breaking down the 'irregularities' in the results...
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html
Maybe you should try doing a prediction based on the gap between approval rating and disapproval rating, rather than approval alone?
Also seconding other commenters - influence of GOP candidate non-negligible
Uberfrost-
Thanks!
Interesting to see that Arkansas has the highest change from vote % to approval rating. Other nearby states have gone up almost as high, but the extra 1-2% probably has to do with the appointment of Hillary Clinton.
Equating a 50% approval rating in a state to winning that state in an election seems like a big jump in logic to me. What if the candidate he's running against has higher than a 50% approval rating? Or what if they both have low approval rating? I know we don't have the approval rating of his unknown opponent to compare with, but 50% seems like a fairly arbitrary cutoff.
What I'd find interesting and what would help the analysis in this post would be a look at the correlation between approval ratings and vote percentages. It's probably fairly strong, but do we know that?
So we can conclude that the Republican tactic of "fear and smear" was good for about six points on average? IOW, it was about as effective as a well-managed "ground game". It seems cost-effective.
There is a limit, of course, to how many times you can cry "wolf" (or "secret Muslim", in this case) before you see diminishing returns. And the massive registration drives by the Democrats (HRC and Obama) are an investment that will continue to pay off in 2012. In contrast, the Republicans seem to have reached their limit in 2008 for registrations.
DEAR NATE!
Please do a post about the Iranian elections! Your number-crunching skills may make you the best person in the world qualified to expose the vote rigging and fraud in that election. What happened to the absentee ballots? How could Ahmadinejad have won even in his opponent's heartland. Please go over the results!!!
Add me to the list of people who would like to see Nate's analysis of the Iranian elections.
I'm with Billy Pilgrim. I'd rather see a comparison of Obama's current approval by state with his approval rating on election day, not his vote percentage. Has Obama's approval increased since election day in MO, MT, and th eother states that look here to flippable? Or did Obama already have a 55% approval rating, but McCain did too? I seem to recall that both candidates had pretty good approval ratings nationally.
While we can't predict the attractiveness of the Republican candidate, we can estimate whether Obama would be a stronger candidate today by looking at changes in his approval numbers since election day, state by state. Comparing current approval number to November vote totals is comparing Apples and Oranges.
I'm with Billy Pilgrim. I'd rather see a comparison of Obama's current approval by state with his approval rating on election day, not his vote percentage. Has Obama's approval increased since election day in MO, MT, and the other states that look here to flippable? Or did Obama already have a 55% approval rating, but McCain did too? I seem to recall that both candidates had pretty good approval ratings nationally.
While we can't predict the attractiveness of the Republican candidate, we can estimate whether Obama would be a stronger candidate today by looking at changes in his approval numbers since election day, state by state. Comparing current approval numbers to November vote totals is comparing Apples and Oranges.
I would suggest that VA, NC, TN, and AR are the upper South in contrast to SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA which are the deep South. Historically the states of the deep South seceded first and the states of the upper South did not secede until Lincoln called for armed suppression of the rebellion.
Something I've thought about a lot since the election (and actually dating back to 2004) is what is the significance to a "landslide" election. If you are a politician, would you rather win by 5% (a clear victory) or by 20% (clear mandate)? The immediate answer for most is to take the mandate. But historically, the presidents without mandates (JFK, W.) still held enormous power due to external events, while presidents with mandates (Harding, Hoover) could wind up being forgotten by most people (except as scapegoats).
Does Obama NEED a landslide? Probably not- he can ride the economy to implement his policies. Does he want one? I'm not so sure. Would campaigning in Texas and Alabama really allow him to further his objectives? Or would pandering to audiences outside his range of influence weaken his positions? I think we blow the elections way out of proportion. Candidates want to win. They want people to believe what they believe. I don't think a blowout election will change anyone's mind. Only good policies will do that.
It's a little crowded in here, but I want to highlight two takeaways I see from this.
First, one of the contingencies that this method can't synthesize is the categorical difference between 'approval' and 'voting.' More than the effects of an opponent or campaigning, I believe, the use of electoral prerogative is inherently distinct from expressing positive opinions to a survey.
Just like similar efforts to model the popularity of commercial products, surveys and focus groups and such are trying to tease out the essential psychological moment of 'agency,' when a person chooses which detergent to put in her cart and which bubble to fill in on her ballot.
Detergent, however, may not enjoy the same poignancy as electoral agency. This is a just an amateur hypothesis of mine, so read it skeptically please.
Second, I think it may be significant that CO and NV were the two places where Obama's approval slipped from his vote. It doesn't bode well for Dems in those states (although the sample was small).
Reid's operation must be measuring Obama's popularity in NV, raising this question: if they see fit to hold a big fundraiser with him, are they confident that he'll stay popular or are they sneaking him in before his approval ratings collapse?
To echo some of the earlier posters, the logic behind this post is flawed. Approval rating does not equal votes in an actual election. Obama may have 60+ approval ratings now, but McCain would probably have positive approval ratings too, including in many blue states -- that doesn't mean those same voters would vote to reelect him. In fact, the two measure completely different things: for example, my wife makes me watch "So you think you can dance," and I can tolerate it just enough not to get up (lets say a 51-49 approval rating); but that doesn't mean I'm going to choose to watch it over House or Family Guy when they come on.
PorridgeGun said...
Obama has a 6+ jump in the last two days in Gallup (63% - 29%).
June 13, 2009 3:16 PM
***************
this is a good news for John McCain !
p.s.
@Porridge,
I was kidding with GROG...
Bye.
:)
The logic behind this post is
NOT
flawed.
Maybe some of the presumptions can be quibbled with, but which ones?
As to 'approval rating does not equal votes', that is very true. But if the approval rating in a state is 50% or more, that necessarily means that the DISapproval rate is lower.
When someone goes to the poll, how many actually vote for a candidate they disapprove of? Not many. Usually they'll only vote for candidates that they actually approve of, leaving blanks for many offices.
In a campaign running up to an election, the candidate has two basic goals:
1. Reinforce your approval rating (your 'likability factor') among those who already approve of you; and
2.a. Increase the likability factor of yourself, and/or
2.b. Increase the UNlikability factor of you opponent, among those who don't approve of you.
If you succeed with point 1., and you have more than 50% approval in the state, you are much more likely to win that state in the election.
If you succeed in 2.a., you might pull that voter from voting for your opponent, even if they don't vote for you. If you succeed in 2.b., you might pull that voter from voting for your opponent, even if they don't vote for you.
In a close election, those votes NOT cast can be the difference. True, they didn't go to you, but they didn't go to your opponent either.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
This Louisianan has to agree with some of the criticism here. There's certainly nothing here to indicate that the Democrats have gotten any healthier than last year- otherwise, there wouldn't have been so many articles about Stormy Daniels as Vitter's only declared opponent (and a Republican). And Obama consistently underperformed his polls in the Upper South, both in the primaries and the general election.
The "naive" map seems more accurate- it would give Obama SC and take away KY, TN, AR, and LA, giving him 419 electoral votes against a theoretical bog-standard Republican.
This is an interesting exercise. I don't think Nate's trying to read too much into it, and I don't think we should, either.
I bet Reagan's approval ratings were very high in '84, when he was elected by a landslide; and I bet Jimmy C's were not in '80, when he...um...wasn't.
Butt on OTOH, GHW Bush's approval ratings were very high in '91, after the successful first Iraq War. I believe that's why some powerful Dem names chose not to challenge him in '92. The economy kinda tanked, and a relatively obscure skirt-chaser from Arkansas scored a victory that nobody had predicted just 12-18 months prior.
As I noted, this is just a single data point or indicator however when you put it in context it tends to support the challenge facing the GOP.
General approval ratings are usually flawed. Congressional approval rating has always been low but re-election for members high.
Elections are always tough but running as a member of a party that has such high negatives is a problem that should not be ignored. The Obama bashing would not be as problematic if the last election was close or if the GOP was selling a message that could be bought by moderates and independents. The current tactic appeals to a small amount of souther and mid western states and the Republicans cannot become a majority party with that strategy.
Until the a serious leader of the GOP emerges, the Republican Party can be expected to further diminish in size and all the data indicators support that prediction.
Might I submit that the exercise of "would the man who just won a large victory in a presidential election win again six months later?" is manifestly idiotic naval gazing. Obama's current approval ratings matter not a bit. The economy, the deficit, the war, his performance in the 2010 midterms: these will determine his fate. Your gaming of the state polls to make him look good is meaningless. For instance, the recent Rasmussen putting the Dems up in the Gov. race (which many of you were crowing about) had Obama with pretty middling approval numbers. Even in this rosy analysis, he is only JUST over 50% in a lot of states. To my eye, this list shows how flimsy a 63-5% national number can actually be when you break it out. Cap and trade, national health care, higher taxes, huge deficits, inflation: these could do him in all over the place. I actually think he's got a very tricky situation in California. To bail or not to bail? And if only for California, how cynical will that look?
David said...
Confused...
You say you picked the highest poll numbers from one poll? Why not an average?
Got a reading comprehension problem, David, or are you projecting a bias or opinion?
Nate stated, "A maximum of one poll was used in each state from each survey firm;" In fact, if you search for the word "high" (the root word for highest) in this entire thread, the first occurrence of that word is in your post, David.
That 'one poll' might have been the latest poll by a particular polling firm for a particular state (which I suspect is probable); it might have been a random selection of one of the polls by that polling firm; it might have been the earliest poll; or Nate might have used some other selection method.
Nate didn't state how he selected a poll from each firm, so how you read that Nate "picked the highest poll numbers from one poll" shows that, as I stated earlier, you have:
1. A reading comprehension problem; or
2. Are projecting your bias.
One thing I didn't mention above is that if it's item 2. (above), you just might be here to troll (making that an item 3. for consideration).
So is it:
1. ?; or
2. ?; and/or
3. ?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Interesting corollary to this post is a report in the June 14, 2009 edition of the Washington Post's "The Take" column, titled "For Republicans, the Forces Aren't With Them".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061301209.html?referrer=emailarticle
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Cool your jets, people, the election isn't today.
The qualifier "if" appears in the first sentence.
What this post tells me is that the critics you hear (like Hannity saying Obama tripled the deficit in his first 4-months) are not the majority. If anything, they are a shrinking minority. The exaggerated rhetoric is just that.
What will happen to the approve/disapprove numbers once the conservatives figure out Obama isn't going to take their guns away?
The Dems already relaxed gun laws with that whole guns-in-parks business.
I'd guess it's a 5-point swing.
10kZebra,
Better question: what will happen when folks figure out that Obama IS going to raise their taxes; is NOT going to save their job; IS busting the budget and courting inflation? What the hell does gun control have to do with anything?
Jeff brought up some very popular misconceptions.
what will happen when folks figure out that Obama IS going to raise their taxes;
Taxes do have to be raised across the board in the future to pay for the excesses of the last 8.5 years no matter who is in office. It's not happening in the short term though, so it won't affect approval ratings.
[Obama] is NOT going to save their job;
There are no data to support this claim, this is just an appeal to fear.
[Obama] IS busting the budget and courting inflation?
"Courting" inflation has no definitive meaning. Any debt increase may lead to inflation, but this year we had a deflationary adjustment. Evidence does not yet point to rampant inflation. Politicians on both sides endorsed the stimulus.
What the hell does gun control have to do with anything?
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or being rhetorical, but some might not know of the issue. Many conservatives fear that Obama is going to take away their guns. This has resulted in huge increases in gun sales. This hot button myth stole votes from the Democrats.
Guns are not an issue for me and many others, but for some, they are the only issue.
So what guns have to do with it is that these voters have been lied to, and when they discover that, they may stop supporting the liars and a new block of support will swing away from the Republicans.
If the Electoral Map looks like this in November 2012 I can die a happy man! Even if the board looks different it is nice to see that our President has such nice broad support across the country, despite all the comment section repulican trolls who like to live in a fantasy world where President Obama is as unpopular as... say Baby Bush! Nate thanks for bringing a one bright spot into what was a pretty crappy day!
Jeff said...
what will happen when folks figure out that Obama IS going to raise their taxes;
I guess Jeff thinks the only people who have opinions that we should listen to and consider are those who make more than $250,000 per year? After all, it is only those who make more than $250,000 per year who will see an income tax increase in the near future.
Kind of classic 'separating the citizens into different classes' talk, isn't it Jeffy? Something you GOOPers keep saying that only members of the Democratic Party engage in? Haven't we been told by the 'good old boys' of the GOOPers that the 'good old boys' of the GOOPers don't separate the citizens into separate classes?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
If the election was re-run today with Obama versus McCain, my sense is that the outcome would be essentially the same, even with the knowledge of the past 100 days.
Raising tax's or cutting social security is usually the 3rd rail effect, however these are not normal times. I suspect that more people will hold the Republicans responsible for the current economic circumstances than will dislike the Democrats for the remedial measures.
Keeping the finger on the pulse of public opinion and yes popularity polls is not a fools pursuit, it is necessary in crafting policy, recruiting candidates and raising money.
If you are looking at a given amount of campaign funds you are not going to waste them in places you cannot compete. The GOP now knows it cannot have a 50 state strategy, it cannot afford it and worse will diminish there chances in places they need to hold on to.
The cry of increasing tax's has worked in the past, however our current circumstances is dire and most understand that spending cuts and tax increases are viable alternatives.
One point that everyone seems to be missing here is that Obama will be the incumbent in 2012, and such elections are almost always a referendum ON the incumbent. Obama's approval ratings (at THAT time, not now) will be a much better predictor of the voting than his and McCain's approval ratings would have been in 2008.
Also, many commenters are stressing the possibility that the Republicans might also nominate someone with a greater-than-50% approval rating. No one seems to remember that in 2004, we had an election between two people who were both UNpopular, which went to the incumbent by a small margin. The majority of Americans, according to the polls at the time, didn't believe that Bush deserved reelection. Yet Kerry ran such an inept campaign, and did so little to convince the electorate that he would be an im provement, that Bush won anyway.
At the moment, all the potential Republican candidates are so unpopular that it's hard for me to imagine any of them having an approval rating substantially over 50% in 2012. So it seems to me that the 2004 scenario is more likely than a race between two popular candidates. Therefore the Republican chances in 2012 probably rest more on the hope for a drop in Obama's popularity than on nominating a popular candidate themselves.
Yes, but in this case the numbers defy common sense. Ahmadinejad got 5,000 of the 7,000 votes in MAssoui's hometown. It is kinds like Bush winning Boston over Kerry.
This election was fixed.
fred said...
Yes, but in this case the numbers defy common sense. Ahmadinejad . . . .
Get your act together, fred. Wrong thread.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
10kZebra can, like, totally lick my balz.
Love,
24Ktroll
@Jeremy,
That's what I get for revealing my secret identity. Don't mistake him for a real troll, he just lives under a bridge. Among our circle of friends that sort of language is actually quite complimentary.
But for the last time, no matter how nicely you ask, no matter how many of your lady friends you offer to let watch, I WILL NOT partake in such activity ever again.
Wait, where's my backspace key. Aw snap, it's broken. Which one is cancel? I think it's this PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT button, I'll try that.
Those of you convinced that Obama will only raise taxes on those making over 250,000 are drinking the cool aid. That will pay for nothing, and Obama wants to pay for a very great deal. Apparently you've missed the news that he is seriously considering taxing health benefits (and idea he mercilessly derided McCain for). This will have the effect of adding a couple of thousand dollars to everyone's tax bill. But go on telling yourself that this will be blamed on Bush. Sure.
Could you post a list of the surveys you used in each state, and their original numbers?
I really wish these polls were accurate. Since the second month of Obamas admin, I have not found one person who is willing to admit they voted for him and I can't find anyone who is happy with anything he is or has done. WHERE ARE THE JOBS? NO SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE
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