Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 9, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE NATIONAL VOTE....The average result of the five generic congressional polls taken over the final weekend before the election showed Democrats ahead by about 11%. So how does that compare to the final actual House vote? And how does that compare to the number of House seats the Democrats won?

First, the national House vote. Steve Sailer added up the votes in all the House races, did a little bit of extrapolating, and came up with the following two-party numbers:

Party

Vote

%

Democrats

40.2 million

53.7%

Republicans

34.6 million

46.3%

So Democrats beat Republicans by about 7.4 percentage points, which means the generic polls overestimated Dem strength by about four points. I think this is in line with what most people expected.

And how did this translate into House seats? Answer: Democrats won about 53.7% of the two-party vote, and assuming that they eventually win 232 seats, they won 53.3% of the seats. That's a pretty close match.

And it's a huge victory for simple-minded populist arithmetic vs. fancy-pants elitist poli-sci models. For yet another year, it turns out that the Democratic percentage of the two-party vote predicts the number of Democratic House seats pretty closely. Hooray for bloggy populism!

Kevin Drum 12:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I think the extrapolation is too high. Every large state voted for a Senate race which totaled 56 million ballots cast.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Following the link to Kevin's earlier post, I see that the first comment was from someone named Thomas1, who was trying to get people to bet him that the Democrats would not take both houses of Congress. Did anybody take the bet? How much did he lose, anyway?

Posted by: matt on November 9, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I find it interesting that so many of your entries have dealt with how the Democrats won the election, and so few have dealt with what happens next.

Certainly Pelosi, Reid, and Dean face many challenges -- from Democrats as well as from Republicans. How will they respond? How will the Democratic agenda evolve? Who will assume positions of leadership?

Posted by: Sweet Lou on November 9, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

So Democrats beat Republicans by about 7.4 percentage points, which means the generic polls overestimated Dem strength by about four points.


Or that's the rate of Republican suppression success.

Posted by: cld on November 9, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Are all the race tallies done? How many seats did the Dems gain? 29, 30, ?

Now, consider the electronic voting machines, special ballots and absentee ballots. Will those have had a significant effect on the outcome?

I'm told there is at least one anomaly in western Virginia which might've given Allen a better chance of winning than he deserved. Is it possible the Repubs were trying to rig several races, but that the blue tsunami was just too much for them to overcome?

Which states had significant Repub holdouts where the vote for them noticably bucked the Blue trend?

I think there are some stories yet to be discovered and told.

Posted by: MarkH on November 9, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

The word is that the fancy-pants poli-sci folks don't believe these exit-poll percentages. 53.7 is just two low, the argument goes. Keep you eye out for follow-up studies...

Posted by: Miller on November 9, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, a.k.a. Charlie, is a lying right-wing troll. Most sensible people here ignore his insane brain droppings.

Posted by: Winda Warren Terra on November 9, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

In the New York Times this morning, there's a large breakdown of who voted for which party. I did some math on the subway, so take this for what it is, but if you separate out the white, born-again Christians, the vote was something like 65-to-35 in favor of the Democrats.

Man, the tighter the Republicans embrace the Ted Haggard right, the better off the Democrats will be. The nation, too.

Posted by: jlw on November 9, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Once you factor in that ten of those points are from liberal media bias, the Democrats actually lost. As soon as there's media parity, the Democrat lose big.

Posted by: American Hawk on November 9, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure that the race-obsessed Steve Sailer is the kind of person who should be getting a link from a prominent mainstream blog for any reason.

Posted by: Yuck on November 9, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, a given majority of the popular vote in this election structure should lead to a larger majority of seats. The ratio I faintly recall from college or somewhere involves the ratio of cubes, which would produce about 61 percent of the seats. Maybe the Republicans do have a built-in structural advantage.

Posted by: Ken D. on November 9, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've read that the international oddmaking markets correctly picked all of the Senate races.

Posted by: Peter on November 9, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 has entered a Gambler's Anonymous rehab clinc. Blamed most of his problems on booze and getting away from the Lord.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 9, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I think there are some stories yet to be discovered and told. MarkH

You are right. And why should there be 4 percent discrepancy? Until we have a paper trail for every vote our democracy is suspect.


Posted by: ppk on November 9, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 has entered a Gambler's Anonymous rehab clinc....
Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 9, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Really? I thought it was a gay-deprogramming-camp.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 9, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I think the Democracy Corps analysis adequately addressed this issue as well as the "tightening". The tightening was just a converging of the generic ballot and the named ballot, the latter of which remained unchanged. The right was salivating over the so-called tightening, but in reality, nothing changed in the last days, except that perhaps Heather Wilson receieved all of the undecided vote in NM-01 and defied the wave.

Posted by: gq on November 9, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Before we throw our hats in the air and cheer for the triumph of the American Electoral system, maybe we should consider that (prior to Tuesdays vote) the Republican "majority" of Senators actually represented less people than the "minority" of Democratic Senators.

Posted by: Jon Karak on November 9, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Even though I only predicted 4 Senate seats officially, rdw exasperated me into laying out the conditions of the race, to explain why his Limbloviation was wrong and we were going to win.

At the end of that comment, I called all the Senate seats right -- not realizing at the time I was predicting more than four :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 9, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the failings of the GOP in general, George W Bush in particular, and the hypocracy of the religious right has opened the eyes of young people who now understand the implications of reality-free leadership.

In the South, they've experience reality free disaster management. I've seen the pictures. But San Diego is a long ways from New Orleans. But I know people who hail from that region. They are angry--at incompetence.

Young women, who may not like abortion in general, must realize that the evangelicals would take away their right to choose.

Young people now understand the pain and suffering experienced by their friends and relations who have come back from Iraq dead or wounded--one of the 20,000 and growing. These young people can see that the policy is failing and that these friends and family are dying for nothing--for incompetence.

Young people realize the difficulty they face in finding insurance.

The GOP Zealots are apparently happy to continue mouthing inanities about the liberal media, defeatocrats, cut-and-run, and similar us-versus-them, liberal versus conservative fabricated controversies.

The GOP Zealots are destroying their party and they apparently don't even realize it.

I believe greater access to information online, to news unfiltered by the Entertainment Media, will increasingly educate the electorate. I think this will be bad for the GOP. The GOP is ill and the GOP Zealots, including those who post here, are digging its grave with all their worthless commentary.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott on November 9, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hey American Hawk, didn't the RNC send you your pink slip yet? You're off the payroll as of Weds.

Posted by: RobG on November 9, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Once you factor in that ten of those points are from liberal media bias, the Democrats actually lost.

Face it, Americans are so dumb they vote the way the media tells them to. What a bunch of sheep. We'd win too, if the New York Times would only tell people to vote Republican.

Posted by: American Hawk's evin twin on November 9, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

See, Kevin's blog can't even spell my name right the first time.

Posted by: American Hawk's evil twin on November 9, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the Republicans do have a built-in structural advantage.

They do. It's called gerrymandering.

Posted by: tomeck on November 9, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

The word "gerrymander" comes from what Democrat and Ned Lamont ancestor Elbridge Gerry did to his opponents. Most recently, Democrats in the California state house opposed reforms to gerrymandering.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

This is very funny.

Repubs have suddenly found the religion of Bipartisanship!

Posted by: gregor on November 9, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Bipartisanship is defined by liberals - "everytime you agree with us."

I am still waiting for all of this liberal outrage about election fraud to bubble up and demand investigation. Notice all the lawsuits being filed by the Republicans concerning the election results. What, there aren't any?

Oh, it must be because Dems never steal any elections. Everytime a Dem is elected it is because the world is suddenly in harmony.

Wow, those Republicans must suddenly be lousy at stealing elections. I thought Rove was so good. I am sure none of this was an election tactic which will happen again in 2008.

Posted by: Orwell on November 9, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

If you are accusing the Democratic pasrty of election rigging, please cite your sources. Once again you are reposting on another thread a point that has been refuted on another. I cited examples of voter suppression efforts in St. Louis. Shall I retrieve the permalink. I cited my source. You do the same or stfu.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'll look for your sources when I get back from school. Back in 3.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats in the California state house opposed reforms to gerrymandering.

The Democrats in California refused to unilaterally disarm in the face of Tom Delay's grab of 6 House seats in Texas. If you want to reform the redistricting system, do it in all 50 states at the same time, not just in big Democratic states.

Posted by: tomeck on November 9, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

The ACORN scandal doesn't look too good for the Democrats.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

I can't understand why rdw hasn't shown up. Based on his body of posts and the quality of their relationship to reality, I'm fully expecting him to appear and gloat over the GOP's continued hold on the House, Senate, majority of governorships and majority of state legislatures. Then, he'll tell us that if we renounce George Beelzebub Clooney and all of Old Europe, we might do better next time.

Posted by: shortstop on November 9, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Too weird for coincidence?


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/8/183154/217


In 2000 in Connecticut the Republican challenger, who lost to Lieberman, received 448,077 votes.

In 2006 Ned Lamont received --448,077 votes.

It's magic!

Posted by: cld on November 9, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Back on topic, if one assumes that Steve counted the numbers on the Fox News website correctly, here's the breakdown of the House vote:

Democrats 36,648,024 51.2%

Republicans 33,262,303 46.5%

Other 1,660,487 2.3%

Total 71,570,814

Steve accurately notes that "the Democrats had 30 seats where their House candidates were unopposed, so Fox didn't list a vote total, versus only 4 where the Republican candidates had a walkover." My specific issue is with Steve using the average number of votes for all parties in the above 401 contested districts (178,481) and extrapolating that to get a new total of 77,639,162. I readily agree the real total is somewhere between 71 million and 77 million.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Off Topic:

The Death of Bipartisanship

The Murderer, GWB

Bush intends to try to push through the nomination of John Bolton in the lame duck Congress. Gee, that guy is really conciliatory, isn't he?

Posted by: David in NY on November 9, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

That must have been a pretty close race in 2000, cld, particularly in a state in which only 20 or so percent of registered voters identify as Republican.

You're not trying to tell us that Connecticut failed to appreciate Joe's genius and goodness back then, too? (I know what you're actually trying to tell us, but anyway...)

Posted by: shortstop on November 9, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

T.R. Elliott: But San Diego is a long ways from New Orleans. But I know people who hail from that region. They are angry--at incompetence.

San Diego County is still conservative. It went for Bush by about 6 percentage points in 2004. But Kerry and Gore both carried the city of San Diego.

The folks I hang out with in San Diego are as liberal as anybody you will find anywhere. They find a lot more than incompetence to be angry at.

Posted by: anandine on November 9, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

I have to give the trolls around here some credit-- even in light of the total Dem takeover of everything that was available to be taken over-- House, Senate, governorships, state legislatures-- they are still arrogant, condescending schumcks.


Posted by: zoe kentucky on November 9, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

David in NY: Bush intends to try to push through the nomination of John Bolton in the lame duck Congress. Gee, that guy is really conciliatory, isn't he?

Can you imagine what all else he's going to try to shove through in the lame duck session? Fasten your seatbelts!

Posted by: shortstop on November 9, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, those Republicans must suddenly be lousy at stealing elections. I thought Rove was so good. I am sure none of this was an election tactic which will happen again in 2008.
Posted by: Orwell on November 9, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

The dems were ready for them this time. 7000 lawyers.

Plus - election cheaters tended to lose their chutzpah when it seemed that Dems were going to win anyway. Hm - having an opposing party in charge of investigating sure makes a difference in keeping these slimeballs honest.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 9, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell on November 9, 2006 at 1:33 PM:

Notice all the lawsuits being filed by the Republicans concerning the election results. What, there aren't any?

Silly man...Do you actually think that 'Publicans actually want any investigation of voter suppression or fraud?...*snicker*...

Posted by: grape_crush on November 9, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

So, no one wants to discuss the actual thread topic about the House vote tally?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

anandine: I agree with your observations about San Diego. I only focused on Katrina because I believe some in the GOP have discounted how damaging this had been for them. The Democrats need to continue to focus on competence. The GOP are supposed to be the business party, but I think they are really the old-boys party, less concerned about economics, effectiveness, and efficiency, more concerned about back-scratching, slush-funds, and payola.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott on November 9, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think there is an issue with incumbency in the current era that these simple math projections miss that doesn't show how strongly people feel. Every party that goes in as the majority gets a 2% pts. boost in representation compared to their actual vote totals. So, that would mean that the public supported the Dems by at least 9% pts. Also shouldn't you be counting the 32-24m votes in the Senate too. Last time I checked the Senate was part of the Congress.

Posted by: mdana on November 9, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

They are generic congressional polls, not generic House of Representative polls.

Posted by: mdana on November 9, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I note that Kevin starts his analysis with "First, the national House vote." That may mean he's working on a Senate vote count thread as we speak.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Merikun Hack

Once you factor in that ten of those points are from liberal media bias, the Democrats actually lost. As soon as there's media parity, the Democrat lose big.


How about we just go back to media objectivity. We don't need dueling Pravdas.

Posted by: Ex - Republican Yankee on November 9, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nice to know that the majority of people are not in favor of piles of debt, more pollution and endless war, which is all the modern Republican Party really offers....

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 9, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK
How about we just go back to media objectivity.

Hard to go "back" to a place you've never been.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 9, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell, I'm back. Where are your sources?

Don't have any?

Maybe because they are as fictional as those WMD's?

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Anandine: Ever been to the Belly Up? Or better yet - have you ever heard of a band called The Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash?

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

What made Rove so effective was a combination of marketing genius and a willingness to use any tactic/tool to win no matter how unethical/immoral/illegal so long as he could set up cut-outs to prevent it from tracing back to him and his candidate. For the most part he has been successful in his career with this; the SBVfT was one of the very rare times he ever left a fingerprint. After all, while it may have been obvious that these groups supported Rove's candidate it was rarely if ever that one could point to actual evidence showing a link beyond common candidate support. Rove also believed in the scorched earth approach to politics as well as believing that to be bipartisan was to show weakness and be ineffectual.

He managed to take what should have been a massive disaster for his guy and turned it into a powerful club with which to smash any opposition with on any topic, remember when if you didn't support tax cuts and such in the first term you were helping terrorists by being disloyal to the President in time of war? Recall also that the main reason the GOP did as well as it did in 2002 was the combination of using the Homeland Security legislation to deunionize tens of thousands of public sector workers which caused resistence from several Dems and the Iraq war resolution which Bush said had to be passed prior to the election. It was used to beat up on any candidate that dared disagree, and it made it that much harder for any up for reelection politician to speak against it for fear of being branded disloyal to a President in time of war and being "overly partisan" after promising to be bipartisan after 9/11/01.

2004 it was again the Iraq war that was mainly used as a club, along with the so called war on terror. It was following the script that Americans preferred strong if wrong to weak but right/correct. At no time did Rove demonstrate anything more than an absolute disregard for the laws regarding election campaigns combined with a willingness to do/say anything against an opponent regardless of how true or false (usually false in his case) and then market his guy as the only salvation against these clearly dangerous lunatics opposing his guy.

Rove is nothing more than someone willing to use any and all means to gain and hold power regardless of morality and legality combined with some real skills as a marketing person. That is all Rove ever was. That does not take away from just how dangerous and effective he was in stealing the 2000 election as well as turning/using the fuckup of his guy on 9/11/01 in 2002 and 2004 to paint Bush as the strong warrior leader that will take America's revenge on the evildoers that attacked on 9/11/01. What he is not is a true political genius, as what he did was done by not staying within the rules and laws of his profession, he broke them all whenever he could and that doesn't take genius, working within them and winning does. Breaking the rules/laws shows not genius but immorality and power lust, nothing more.

Incidentally, I also thought frankly0's post to be a good read on things, as I did cmdicely's.

Posted by: Scotian on November 9, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I thought frankly0 and cmdicely's posts to be good reads too, over on the Rove "Will of the People" thread.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 9, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, if 232 is the final number, Alan I. Abramowitz (definitely a poli-sci type) got the House absolutely correct. (See my list here.)

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) on November 9, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

Thanks I must of hit the wrong tab and didn't realize it when I posted this. I've copied over to the proper thread. Sorry about that, I'm still a little short on my sleep from the last couple of days.

Posted by: Scotian on November 9, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

orwell: Bipartisanship is defined by liberals - "everytime you agree with us."


"Bipartisanship is just another word for date-rape." - GOP Grover Nordquist

Posted by: mr. irony on November 9, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I blame Diebold.

Posted by: minion of rove on November 9, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, winning 53.3% of House seats with 53.7% of the two-party vote is pretty bad. The winning party should always win a higher fraction of seats than its fraction of the two-party vote in a first past the post constituency system. Just think of a more extreme case: winning 70% of seats if you won 70% of the two-party vote would be pretty bad.

The current system generates results that are biased towards Republicans, and under a more equal system this Democratic vote share would have gained Democrats more seats. Partly this phenomena is due to gerrymandering, partly majority-minority districts, and partly sectionalism -- and those overlap.

The closeness of these two figures is just luck. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Posted by: Stefan on November 9, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, those Republicans must suddenly be lousy at stealing elections. I thought Rove was so good. I am sure none of this was an election tactic which will happen again in 2008.
Posted by: Orwell on November 9, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

The dems were ready for them this time. 7000 lawyers.

Plus - election cheaters tended to lose their chutzpah when it seemed that Dems were going to win anyway. Hm - having an opposing party in charge of investigating sure makes a difference in keeping these slimeballs honest.
Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 9, 2006 at 2:05 PM

Exactly right. What was different this time? Besides the 1000's of lawyers anxiously waiting with suits ready-to-file, there were 10,000's of activists watching every step of the way with video cameras, camera phones, and organizations like Working Assets' Immediate Response Network. And, of course, the tireless efforts of non-partisan groups promoting election integrity activism.

Bev Harris' group, blackboxvoting.org , are the real heroes of this election.

The point is, if everybody's watching you, it becomes awfully hard to steal anything. If you keep shoplifting the same store, and next time you go in the security guard follows you around, guess what? You're not gonna try anything.

And another thing to consider- election fraud can only really work when an election is close. That way, there's plausibility to the fake results. Most of these races were not so close, and they knew it.

Personally, I think that the margins would have been even larger... but that could just be the tinfoil talking.

BTW, blackboxvoting.org is currently looking at about 500 irregularities nationwide.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/45197.html

Posted by: RobW on November 9, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK
those Republicans must suddenly be lousy at stealing elections.... Orwell at 1:33 PM
Apparently, there are some serious election problems in FL13, Katherine Harris' old district, natch. An unusually high percentage of under votes has given the district to a Republican, by some extraordinary chain of improbable events.

Democrat Christine Jennings lost to Republican Vern Buchanan by 368 votes, making it the second closest congressional race in the country.
More than 18,000 voters who showed up at the polls voted in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings race.
That means nearly 13 percent of voters did not vote for either candidate -- a massive undercount compared with other counties, including Manatee, which reported a 2 percent under vote.

Posted by: Mike on November 10, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK


什么是糖尿病
什么是糖尿病
糖尿病治疗
糖尿病和高血压

糖尿病治疗 糖尿病和高血压

Posted by: dsfds on November 10, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

Outsourcing company
access_control_solutions
advantage
application_development_india
application_development_using_java
application_maintenance
application_porting
biometric_application_development
card_software_development
client_server_application_development
client_server_based_application
custom_application_development
database_application_development
database_solutions
develop_offshore_software
development_model_in_outsourcing
development_services
application_integration
enterprise_application_development
it_outsourcing
it_outsourcing_india
j2ee_application_development
java_application_development
java_card
java_card_applet_development
java_card_consultancy
java_card_programmers
java_card_programming
java_card_solutions
java_consulting
java_j2ee_development


java_programmers
loyality_solutions
loyality_solutions_on_card
major_benefits
microsoft_net_development
migration_porting
migration_services_software
mobile_application_development
mobile_solutions
net_application_development
odc_offshore_center
offshore_development
offshore_development_center
offshore_india_company
offshore_outsourcing
offshore_outsourcing_india
offshore_outsourcing_services
offshore_partner
offshore_product_development
offshore_programming
offshore_programming_india
offshore_services_of_realitexperts
offshore_software
offshore_software_development
offshore_software_development_to_india
offshore_software_india
offshore_software_programming
oracle_consulting


oracle_consulting_companies
oracle_migration
oracle_outsourcing
oracle_outsourcing_solution
oracle_programming
oracle_solutions
outsourced_product_development
outsourcing
outsourcing_application_development
outsourcing_common_fears_faq.
outsourcing_meaning
outsourcing_oracle_application
outsourcing_software_india
outsourcing_to_india
palm_application_development
pl_sql_programming
pos_programming
post_rfp_rfi
Title
programming_j2ee
programming_smart_card
programming_using_net
quality_engineering
site_map
smart_card
smart_card_consultancy
smart_card_development
smart_card_programmers
smart_card_programming
smart_card_solutions
software_application_development
software_development
software_development_india
software_development_outsourcing
software_migration
software_outsourcing
software_outsourcing_center
software_outsourcing_company
software_outsourcing_india
terminal_application_development
vb_application_development
vendors
web_enabling_legacy_application
web_enabling_legacy_applications
web_services
why_realitexperts
windows_application_development
wireless_application_development
wireless_mobile_application_development
wireless_solutions
xml_application_development
xml_development
outsourcing_application_development
software_development_outsourcing
development_services

Posted by: alan on November 10, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av电影 情色电影 同志电影下载 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 美女写真 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Posted by: awq on November 11, 2006 at 3:55 AM | PERMALINK

Hi, nice site. I really like it.
http://wtc.awardspace.com/best_watch_world/ best watch world http://wtc.awardspace.com/jacob_style_watch/ jacob style watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/tag_heuer_alter_ego_watch/ tag heuer alter ego watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/classic_michele_watch/ classic michele watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/omega_speedmaster_watch/ omega speedmaster watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/expedition_pocket_timex_watch/ expedition pocket timex watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/cartier_strap_watch/ cartier strap watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/2_watch_way_wrist/ 2 watch way wrist http://wtc.awardspace.com/diamond_lady_movado_watch/ diamond lady movado watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/military_watch/ military watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/fossil_lord_ring_watch/ fossil lord ring watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/reconditioned_rolex_watch/ reconditioned rolex watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/discount_fendi_watch/ discount fendi watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/baby_casio_g_shock_watch/ baby casio g shock watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/guess_sale_watch/ guess sale watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/omega_de_ville_watch/ omega de ville watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/swiss_mechanical_watch/ swiss mechanical watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/seiko_watch_battery/ seiko watch battery http://wtc.awardspace.com/army_swiss_vip_watch/ army swiss vip watch http://wtc.awardspace.com/band_nixon_watch/ band nixon watch
see you soon..

Posted by: Watches - Casio, Seiko, Rolex on November 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly