"It's the economy, stupid."
I was just watching numerous young Obama fans celebrating on the Fox News channel and read the stats scrolling across the bottom of the page. They stated that over 60% of voters who were worried about the economy voted for Obama. That, for me, summed it up in a nutshell. So many right-leaning types are trying hard to figure out what they did, what the Republicans did, and why they lost. Each election cycle, there's always a theme. For the last two elections, it was Iraq and national security.
Now those issues are in the background and this time around, it's the economic crisis, with a little (or a lot) of help from the media in pushing it to the forefront in people's minds. Why is this important? Because rather than think the country is going through some incredible demographic shift of Republican-hating left-wing ideology, it is rather comforting to know that the major reason people voted for Obama in this election was the economy. McCain was actually polling pretty well right before the economic crisis. Next election cycle, it will be something else. It might favor the Republicans or it might not. But to think that the entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security and gun rights is lost on a new generation of voters based on this one election is not only foolish, it shows a degree of cynicism that may not be accurate. The next two or three election cycles will need to be evaluated before we can can say that America has rejected the ideas of free markets and free minds.
Now those issues are in the background and this time around, it's the economic crisis, with a little (or a lot) of help from the media in pushing it to the forefront in people's minds. Why is this important? Because rather than think the country is going through some incredible demographic shift of Republican-hating left-wing ideology, it is rather comforting to know that the major reason people voted for Obama in this election was the economy. McCain was actually polling pretty well right before the economic crisis. Next election cycle, it will be something else. It might favor the Republicans or it might not. But to think that the entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security and gun rights is lost on a new generation of voters based on this one election is not only foolish, it shows a degree of cynicism that may not be accurate. The next two or three election cycles will need to be evaluated before we can can say that America has rejected the ideas of free markets and free minds.
Labels: politics
posted by Helen at 11:00 AM
54 Comments:
Dr. Helen,
I'll offer one small critique of your argument. Neither candidate did a credible job of explaining how they would fix the economy, so as a result, personal feelings/intuition/consultations with the friendly psychics at the psychic friends network/what have you accounted for the preference. Had McCain possessed the stomach to understand the economy and vigorously express his vision to correct the problem, he probably would have held off the Obama charge. How they came to trust Obama on the economy is equal parts guess work, media influence, and the legacy of brand damage eight years of big government conservatism did to the Republican party. The solution is to locate credible expositors of conservative/libertarian/rational anarchist theory and get them writing, talking, speech-making and politicking as Obama's victory is far from a mandate for a left turn.
The subprime crisis sealed McCain's fate. I checked the polling history. McCain was expanding his lead over Obama after his convention bounce when the crisis hit. Immediately the polls plummeted and he never recovered. People simply cannot divorce themselves from the stereotype of Wall Street = banks = Republican, and thus they are all to blame for the crisis. Perception trumped reality. But now reality will soon trump perception, and we have to hope that will remain the case in 2010, when we have a chance to win Congress back again.
Joe, while I agree with your points, I think you may be missing the divide in America over how to solve the money problems. It is interesting that my state, Tennessee, got redder this election!
Senator Obama, in my perception, offered people something for nothing. At least a lot of people got that impression from him. He offered a vilan, the oil companies and banking industry, and he offered a solution, play Robin Hood.
That is quite appealing on many levels. I think it is horrible economic policy, but it is quite appealing, especially to people who are not business savvy or have been groomed toward class envy.
Trey
While I agree with your assessment, that the election turned on the economy, and for irrational reasons, America prefers Democrats for economic issues, the thing that concerns me more deeply is the American public's chronic inability to reason on political and policy matters.
It is a matter of record that the GOP tried to head the whole macroeconomic mess off at the pass, and that between the two parties, the Dems had the greater contribution in the mess's making.
In what way does it make sense to give power to the Dems to solve that problem? What is the rationale basis here?
There simply isn't any, and so this decision turned on the irrational prejudice of the crowd.
If we're not operating on a basis of enlightenment, we're running on endarkenment, and it comforts me little to find distinction between a lack of mandate for the Left and a mandate for electoral voodoo.
Geekwitha.45,
I think the rationale is that the media connected bankers, CEOs, and Republicans to the mess, and people decided to teach them a lesson. I think you have to realize the impulse of the voters to get rid of the politicians in power--since they figure they are all corrupt, why not get a new set of corrupt ones in?
As I saw stated on another blog late last night, even Murtha got re-elected. This was not going to be a cycle for conservative thought.
We are broke right now, as a nation. I don't see how we are going to spend our way out of it. I can't believe that message was not effectively conveyed by the one side, or admitted by the other.
Something like 2.3 trillion dollars has been borrowed by our government to pay current S.S. obligations, in the last three to five years.
Expect 401 K's to be gobbled up.
Two things that damaged McCain's campaign.
McCain never delivered a coherent message, at least nothing that resonated outside of his base.
Palin hurt him. She may have energized the base, but she killed his chances with independents.
to be truthful McCain may have said as many stupid things about the economy as Obama did
McCain's visit to DC to pretend to save or change Paulson plan mod 1 made him look both grouchy and ineffective when that plan went down to defeat in the House.
McCain's statement that the President should fire Chris Cox and hire Andrew Cuoumo was projectile vomit inducing - although it didn't get much media attention.
I think the middle undecideds were swayed. These are essentially the same people who voted W in twice. Given the popular spread of 6 % it only took 3% in the middle to change their mind and throw it to O. I think people who are solid D or R generally are rational but the in the middle they are swayed by odd things like Willy Horton or some other non-ideological factor. I can't figure them out.
I think the dramatic fall in gas prices helped Obama a lot.
Obama's energy policy ('no coal, no nukes, no drilling') is certain to jack up gas prices and put the energy back on the table.
Why McCain didn't continue to emphasize the energy issues in the last few weeks is a total mystery to me.
I think McCain really doesn't 'get' capitalism at all, which isn't surprising since he's always worked for the government.
I think the rationale is that the media connected bankers, CEOs, and Republicans to the mess
Bingo. There is and was ample evidence that Democrats were the main contributors from a government perspective to the Fanny/Freddy collapse, and equally incontrovertible evidence that they were the prime beneficiaries of Fanny/Freddy largess. This had Enron written all over it.
Yet the media showed no interest in pursuing it. All they could do was put people on who would, at most, call it a 'bipartisan problem'.
There's a scene near the end of the 1993 movie Falling Down, where the police detective played by Robert Duvall confronts the Michael Douglas character, a normally mild-mannered fellow who's been on a road-rage inspired killing spree across L.A.
Douglas looks at Duvall with a puzzled look of realization and says: I'm the bad guy?
Duvall replies: Yeah.
And Douglas says: How did that happen?
In six months, when the economy isn't fixed yet and people are howling President Obama for not fixing it, that's going to be him.
But to think that the entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security and gun rights is lost on a new generation of voters based on this one election is not only foolish, it shows a degree of cynicism that may not be accurate.
Good point. I voted for McGovern but by the time Carter came around I was voting Libertarian.
Good economies favor the incumbent party, bad economies favor the challenging party. This doesn't always make sense when considering the individual candidatets and their platforms but that's the way it is.
Had McCain presented some type of middle-class tax cut, he would have taken the air out of Obama's unending and brutal talking point of cutting taxes on 95% of Americans.
If any single thing McCain shoulda done, that was it.
it is 'comforting" to know it is the economy? tell that to those who lost jobs, money for retirement, homes, etc etc...ps: economy issue always trumps all else and we have known that for some years now.
Bush thought after 2004 that he had a mandate. How'd that work for him?
"...it is rather comforting to know that the major reason people voted for Obama in this election was the economy."
I must disagree. It is very discomforting to know that "the major reason people voted for Obama" was because they turn to the left-wing ideology of socialistic (statist) economic policies when they believe they are in trouble.
That is extremely disturbing, not comforting - especially when even the Republicans (including the Republican presidential candidate) act upon the same principles and do the exact same thing as the Dems. All the bailing out and all the blaming of bankers' "greed" etc and the demands for greater govt control and regulation of the industries certainly demonstrate that the "entire philosophy of individual rights" is being completely ignored - by both parties and by all "generations of voters".
By the way, in case anyone in the media or Democratic public officials read this, I was only kidding! Obama is, uh, my savior! Yeah, that's it. Yup, he's my guy, I'm behind him 100%.
Now, please don't search my public records or anything like that.
"I think McCain really doesn't 'get' capitalism at all, which isn't surprising since he's always worked for the government."
Bingo.
McCain couldn't passionately explain free markets, spontaneous order, and the virtues of limited government because he doesn't believe in these things. At best, he hasn't given them any thought whatsoever. Does anyone think he is familiar with any libertarian thought or writing? Hayek, Postrel, Kling, whatever? Does he have any idea what "libertarian" means when he says, "I am not a libertarian?"
When he rushed to DC to help ram the $700 Billion "bailout" down the throats of an American public that opposed it from left, right and center, did that make anyone trust his free-market principles?
I agree with GeekWithA.45, but then again I generally do.
Still, what did McCain offer other than being the not-Obama?
I am actually more concerned with Obama's apparent penchant for toying with totalitarianism than I am with his economic policies -- not that his policies aren't potentially ruinous, but I can't think how McCain's are better. To put it simply: I might have to hide my guns now, but I'd have to try to hide my wallet no matter who won.
Cap and trade, which implements near-fascist corporatism, and which Obama himself said would "bankrupt" anyone trying to build plants burning our best current domestic fuel source, is a policy that both candidates support! Do McCain's rhetoric about "greed", his rush to hand our billions to Wall Street, or his inability to articulate how Democrat's "houses for the poor" pressures (with ACORN's help) contributed to the crash, make you confident that he knows a market from a marsh?
In many ways, I'm GLAD McCain didn't win, when I think about it. Now it won't be so easy to blame the Republicans' "free market" policies for the emerging economic debacle, when it gets worse. McCain, by being Obama in Reagan's clothing, could have killed conservatism for decades to come, if Bush hasn't already.
all the blaming of the mess on the Dems, or stating that O. has no coherent economic plan is just utter nonsense.the economy tanks and so the party in power gets punished for it. Very simple. No need to blame this or that. You ruined my economic party? I don't like you and will not play with you.
I'm not half as concerned about the economy as I am what Obamessiah will do to it, as well as national security and foreign policy. Welcome to the Socialist States of America.
In my opinion...the election was lost to a combination of things...not the least of which was McCain's inability to maintain a coherent message. He bounced all over the place today this, yesterday that, and another tomorro.
When you add the mortgage meltdown, which in my opinion was engineered by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer, by the obstinate refusal to oversee the rape of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac in 2003 as well 2005...
Throw in a dash of irresponsible spending (K Street Project) by the Republican controlled Congress 2001-6, and you end up w/an impossible situation.
Thus, an enigma was elected to the presidency, with the coniving of the MSM, who actively shilled for him and avoided any and all substantive questions into either his background or his positions.
fred --
Blame, as in scapegoating, no. Blame as in assigning cause, yes.
Sorry, America is a socialist country now. Deal with it.
Quote Ayn Rand all you want. But America is in Europe now.
Our elections are fixed by date, our economy's health is not. I can't say for certain what the economy will be like in November 2010, but can say we will have an election then. It's a game of chance for politicians.
What about free speech, gun rights, property rights, etc? Those issues are truly within the realm of government protection. Did the founders miss an obvious right as Obama seems to imply?
The sell by the media was easy to do, because it was accompanied by Republican self admission of part of the guilt without proof and Democrat denial of guilt with proof.
The election may be over, but the discussion should not be. It appears we instituted some of these bad ideas when the economy was pretty good, CRA, for example. anyway.
The Republicans have 2 choices, they can spend the next 2 years complaining about the last election, badmouthing members the opposing parties and pointing fingers on who caused the sorry mess of the current economy OR figuring out what went wrong, what needs tweaking and how to best serve the country for the future. Whatever choice they make will predict the growth or the collapse of their party.
In six months, when the economy isn't fixed yet and people are howling President Obama for not fixing it, that's going to be him.
No, it won't. It'll all (still) be Bush's fault. And if you think it's the President's fault anyway, well, then, you're a raaaaaaaaaaacist!
Besides, you can sit back and watch the televised war crimes trials of Bush, Chenney, Rumsfeldt, Rove and any other dirty Republican.
I am actually more concerned with Obama's apparent penchant for toying with totalitarianism...
I'm with bear and sfcmac on this. Whatever Obama tries to do economically will be easier to endure than what his totalitarian tendencies might produce.
the economy tanks and so the party in power gets punished for it.
This is how people think. The trouble is the president, whomever that may be, and the party has much less control over the economy that most people seem to understand. The parties love to perpetuate this myth by blaming each other for bad economies and trying to take credit for good ones.
Most people I know have grossly simplistic reasons for voting the way they vote. And, not just little understanding of the issues but little knowledge of what issues the candidates are discussing. They're just hoping someone will come along and make their lives easier, punish those evil rich people, hurt the terrible corporations, or something else equally irrational.
dadvocate-
You forgot about Manbearpig. Voters want to know that, whatever the cost, they can be safe from Manbearpig.
I have yet to hear an y resected ec onomist blame the economic meltdown totally upon Fredies. After all, they once were govt entities, and then they went private or semi-private, and had as did so much else regulatory constraints removed, beginning with Ronnie R., carried on by Sen Phil Graham, and approved by both parties in congress. To blame the entire mess upon a few Dem senators is simply trying to shift blame. Hey, my wife works for a fairly large bank. They are conservative in what they do. Guess what? They have no problems because they did not let greed take over.
Obama is a socialist or a this or that? what do you call it when the taxpayers money is used to help out private companies and the auto industry or when there are price supports in place to protect farmers and oil etc? that is hardly a 'free market."
The party in control for lo these many years takes the responsibility, and if you want to call the voters this or that, then democracy as it is is not for you.
most of the comments above are right on, but look at the numbers.O got a near 13 million vote majority from the monolithic black vote.Any kind of split in that group and McC wins.How can you win when a large and growing bloc votes as one?Given a 50-50 split, the Rs win almost everything.Second the huge difference in the amt
of money , McCs own fault for which we all will pay dearly.finally, the financial mess which he did not appear to understand or address.
I wish I could agree. But much of it simple seems to be out of ignorance, because they simply listen to the MSM. Just read the comments here.
Somehow Bush gets blamed for everything, even though most wasn't his fault. And he gets no credits for things he does.
Meanwhile, Democrats somehow escape blame for the problems they caused.
Oil prices? Oil companies are evil. Never mind the fact that dems won't let them drill or build refineries.
The whole housing financing mess was largely led by Barney Frank (not to mention Democrats controlled Congress the last 2 years). But it's the greedy Republicans fault.
And I love the arguments about it being social conservatives/Palin's fault, while in the same election gay marriage failed in every state it was on the ballot (including California)
Blah blah blah, Iraq, Bush is a murderer. Never mind he likely saved net lives considering how many Saddam killed per year. And installed a democratically elected government.
And lets not forget his AIDs programs in Africa. Maybe only Bob Geldoff has noticed, but Bush has probably saved more lives there than all previous US presidents combined. (The only time most convservatives bring it up, is attacking it)
Thank you, Fred, for so clearly illustrating the point that votin for Sen. Obama because of economic crisis has little rational basis.
"I have yet to hear an y resected ec onomist blame the economic meltdown totally upon Fredies. (sic)" Nobody said "totally," but a 15 minute Google will reveal reams of data clearly illustrating the cause and effect chain resulting from the sub-prime mortgage problems, largely caused by the lower capitalization requirements at Fannie and Freddie, requirements that both Bush and McCain sought to regulate, efforts that were fought tooth-and-nail by Frank and Dodds et. al.
I tend to side with geekWithA.45 in finding yet more evidence of an ill-informed, unquestioning and and emotionally swawable electorate as no comfort at all.
And as for those who imagine that a worse economy in '10 or '12 will benefit Republicans, I have to say that my experience in Memphis shows that Democrats possess an amazing capacity for denial and willingness to accept the most ridiculous reasons to blame Republicans if it will allow them to reelect their party's representatives.
America rejected Sarah Palin and morons like her.
America did not reject Sarah Palin. The Main Stream Media did and the American public (most of them anyway) followed like sheep. Sarah will be the Republican darling if the press wishes it to be so. If they can get a con man from Chicago elected, they can get anybody elected! The press decides the winners and losers. The sheep will follow.
McCain did not have a focused campaign and that hurt him alot.
The general public watches the MSM 30 second blurbs and doesn't bother to check out the truths & lies - on both sides.
Does anyone else believe there needs to be a major overhaul of the left-leaning MSM in the very near future? Is there a way we can stop it from shaping our countries future?
It is sad and amazing that most people see the actions of government as being the result of one person, the President. The financial crisis convinced most swing voters that the economy had to be given to the Democrats as the more trustworthy party. It is a great irony that the wrong party is blamed.
The current financial problems were created by government pressuring the loan market to make bad loans, and empowering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up those loans so that the process could continue. This was promoted by Democrats and tolerated by Republicans, so there is blame all around, but not for all Democrats or Republicans.
The Democrats said "we are arranging loans to good people who will pay back the money". The Republicans couldn't say loudly "we don't want to make those loans, they are too risky", although they said it softly in committee.
The government ran an off-budget loan-department (Fannie and Freddie) that borrowed $5.4 trillion ($5,400 billion), as much as the total debt of the US before that. Fannie and Freddie were regulated and directed by the House Financial Affairs committee, chaired by Barney Frank (D. MA) and controlled by the Democratic majority for the last two years. The bad loans were made mostly in the last two years, under their direction and encouragement.
I predict more irony. For eight years the cry has been "It is the fault of the devil President Bush". In the next four years, despite a Democratic President Obama, and regardless of any continuing economic problems, the cry will be "It is the fault of the prior devil President Bush".
See We Guarantee It
Andrew Garland
Easy Opinions
Well, when I was 5 years old, for Christmas my mother made me a Batman costume, and I became Batman.
We went over to my grandparents' house and my grandfather said, "The Republicans are ruining the country." I thought, "The Republicans are ruining the country? This is a job for Batman!"
Then we went over to my other grandparents' house and my grandfather said, "The Democrats are ruining the country." I thought, "The Democrats are ruining the country? It's a conspiracy! It's the Joker and the Penguin! This is really a job for Batman."
So for a few years I patrolled the streets of San Antonio, looking for Republicans and Democrats to beat up, keeping America safe for Democracy. Shortly after I outgrew my Batman outfit I came to the realization that the criminals I was patrolling the streets looking for to beat up were my grandparents.
This is why I don't get involved in politics. I love both of my grandfathers.
That said, I'll tell you exactly why the Republicans lost this election. They were given the majority of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2004, and they did not represent the people who put them in office or govern by the platform they were elected on. It's that simple.
To say that they spent money like drunken sailors would be an insult to drunken sailors. They did not limit government but expanded it. They refused to secure the borders, even after 9-11, and they refused to enforce the law. They failed to regulate the financial sector or stand up to the Democrats who were using Fannie and Freddie as a political slush fund unto bankruptcy. In short, once given power, they immediately became exactly what the people elected them not to be.
The proof of this is in their candidate for President. John McCain has made a career out of criticizing the conservative base and making deals with liberal politicians. Therefore, there is no difference between him and a Democrat. Thus, the people elected the Democrat.
As to the economy, there's not much the President can do about it, except make it worse. I believe that would have happened regardless of who was elected.
The entire world has been living off a credit bubble for over a decade, and now that bubble has burst. There will be a market correction, and it will be painful for everyone involved.
The entire Republican party needs to be reconstituted around individual rights, fiscal responsibility, limited government, national defense (which begins with securing the borders), and economic growth.
And all that really does sound like a job for Batman, but I'm not him.
Cham - tell me why conservatives/libertarians should act any better over the next 4 years then the libs did over the previous 8? Why should I take the "high road" when demonizing the opponent obviously WORKS.
Alex: I didn't say take the high road. If all one does is complain nothing will change. I suppose the Republicans can spend the next 2 years blaming all the problems of the country on the Democrats but that doesn't work when it comes to winning elections. It is easier to get people to vote because they like a candidate than getting them to vote against one.
But if you want to demonize the opposing party, go ahead.
I see faith in Obama showed itself today in the stock market. I was waiting to see what would happen.
Biggest drop ever after the election of a democrat, which historically brings a drop in the Dow anyway. But it's Bush's fault.
Gee, cham. A paragraph of high road words, all so you could make your last statement.
Palin / Jindal. Let's que 'em up. Time to regroup and get moving, folks.
Gawain's Ghost said it better than I could. We won on principles in 1994. By 2006 the Republicans had sold out on everything.
I'm still a small government, limited powers, fiscal conservative. I had no candidate.
I, for one, look forward to demonizing the Democrats. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it wasn't so tragic, it'd be almost amusing watching the Democrats drive this country into the ground.
I don't know really what to say but...chin high, my friends(Ack, Look what I caught by listening to McCain so much). Remember, the United States survived worse challenges. Sure, Obama will probably make the sluggish economy even worse...but we conservatives will reinvent ourselves(our image, our rhetoric) and revitalize our ideas. The Republicans will become the party of conservatism, once more. And while we do not have a great leader...we still have plenty of great leaders long passed that we can look towards for wisdom. Furthermore, unlike the left, we learn from past mistakes, we will learn from this defeat, we will come back stronger.
Therefore, I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to remain civil. However, remaining civil does not mean resting or giving our political enemies even a moment of rest. Attack the left's ideas and programs with logic and evidence. Even if our enemies are so absorb with their leaders(with their charisma yet lack of accomplishment) and their feelings that they can't mount a coherent argument usually, but others(those not absorbed by Obama's charisma) will see these arguments and will see clearly which side offers the correct choice. Remember, we may of lost an election but we have not lost our spirits. And despite our political enemy's gloating of his victory, Conservative principles are NOT dead in this great nation, and I can see no case where they ever will be.
Trey's comment (12:08 PM) reminded me of the classic Six Stages of a Project office graffito (one of many versions is here). The Obama campaign, the Democrat establishment, and their media wing brilliantly took control of steps 4 through 6.
Dear Dr. Helen:
Being a libertarian, the 'entire philosophy of individual rights, small government, national security' (the latter also in the sense of being wary of putting the lives of other human beings at stake) is pretty important to me. Add to this a reluctance to impose my moral views on other human beings, a reflected belief in free markets (that -- as anyone with economic training can tell you -- do NOT work without regulation in general), a belief in meritocracy, science, reason, free thinking, and informed decision-making. Consequently, I could never have voted Republican in this or the past elections and -- as you can imagine -- am deeply relieved about the character, intellectual rigor, and empathy of our President-elect.
Should the Republican Strategists be worried about types like me -- highly educated, professional, subscribers to The Economist:)? Maybe.
Between Doctors, I am very worried about some of the other comments here, too.
At this point, I just don't give a shit anymore. I say bring on the apocalypse. Fuck America. It can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. It betrayed me, and I have no more loyalty to this piece of shit nation.
Helge - go to hell. There is nothing libertarian about Hussein. That you voted for him says you have a real IQ lower then pond scum. No that's insulting to pond scum.
"Between Doctors, I am very worried about some of the other comments here, too."
//////////////////
LOL. What a dick.
Don't be too down on McCain. I believe he outperformed the Republicans in a year which was always going to be very, very, bad for the GOP.
Yes, the economy played a role. It was a gift to Obama. Bush saying things about the economy like 'this sucker could go down' was absolutely devestating. Even if McCain had more eloquence and composure than Obama, he was never going to win in a change year.
What also needsfactoring is the sheer exhaustion of the Republican will to govern. The GOP has simply run out of fresh ideas, lost the support of the younger generation and sapped the well of patriotism with two wars that needed to be waged, but where the peace has yet to be won.
But the GOP must regroup and rethink quickly. America cannot afford a decade of Republican navel gazing as we have endured from Conservatives here in the UK. No circular firing squads!
Yay to circular firing squads. The GOP needs a MASSIVE purge immediately. Kick every last RINO out of the party.
Your optimism is refreshing. Thank you.
I feel like I can put away the freeze dried food and chemical suits and relax now;)
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
18成人免費影片sex免費成人影片辣妹影片直播慣性背叛無限動漫色色網女同志聊天室ut 聊天室環球辣妹聊天室 90691同志色教館日本免費視訊線上aa片免費看18成人圖片區情色交友色情遊戲情色視訊色情色情網站非常好色天下第一色站免費視訊辣妹色色辣妺視訊免費線上a片85cc免費影片絕色影城hinet遊戲網
Post a Comment
<< Home