Poll: Oregon pessimism grows

From Moore Information Poll press release:

With the economy emerging as a leading concern among Oregonians in 2008, it isn’t surprising to learn that voter mood in the state is also more pessimistic in today’s climate. Interestingly, in looking over the last eight years, we find a distinct correlation between economic concerns and voter pessimism in Oregon, as found in our recent review. Following are the details.

Oregon Voter Mood and the Economy: Trends 2000-2008 We reviewed eight years of data on voter mood (i.e. are things in the state of Oregon going in the right direction, or off on the wrong track) and the leading issue concerns of Oregon voters. As the chart below illustrates, trends reveal that when economic concerns are prominent, voters are more pessimistic about the direction of the state.

See chart here

So, why is this important? As demonstrated in past elections, a pessimistic electorate plays a significant role in voter turnout, and turnout by party. Pessimistic voters are typically dissatisfied with the status quo and thus, more likely to favor change. As a result, these voters are more likely to be motivated to express their Oregon Mood and the Economy 2

discontent at the ballot box than their more optimistic counterparts. It seems clear that economics will play a role in this year’s elections, and we are likely to see a larger turnout among voters focused on these issues. Historically, this type of climate has spelled bad news for incumbent officeholders.

Oregon Voter Mood: April-May 2008

Looking more closely at the current perceptions on the direction of the state, Oregon voters today are more likely to say things in the state are off on the wrong track than headed in the right direction (51% wrong track, 40% right direction). This pessimistic sentiment is not shared by all subgroups, however. Regionally, Multnomah County voters are positive about the direction of the state, while Clackamas and Washington County voters are divided, and those residing elsewhere in the state are negative. By age, voters 18-34 are optimistic about the direction of the state, while voters age 35 and older are pessimistic. By party, Republicans are negative about the direction of the state, while Democrats and Independents are divided. Education also plays a role in voter mood: voters with less education (15 years or less) are pessimistic, while those with college degrees or post graduate education are optimistic.

Most Important Issue: April-May 2008

Our current survey also offers deeper detail on the most important issue in the state today. Specifically, jobs and the economy clearly top the list of issue concerns for Oregon voters today. Indeed, one-fourth (25%) say jobs and the economy are the most important issue facing the state today, followed by health care/insurance/HMOs (8%), quality of education (8%), high gas prices (7%), taxes/tax structure (6%), and the environment/pollution (5%). Further, when we combine all economic related responses into one category, we find fully 43% of voters offered an economic-related concern.

This sentiment is consistent among most voter subgroups, with the exception of voters age 18-34, who are equally concerned about jobs/the economy and the quality of education, and Multnomah County voters who express similar levels of concern for three issues: jobs/economy, health care and quality of education. Please feel free to call or email with any questions.

Share
  • John Fairplay

    I propose that voters this November give the Democrats a chance to run things in Oregon. All these years of Republican control of the statewide offices and the Legislature have simply made it impossible to raise taxes high enough to create the utopian vision that we all desire.

    • mark

      After reading the above threads I am EVEN MORE pessimistic. John I hope you were kidding.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I second the motion. No government program at the state level is fully funded, the state clearly needs more revenue. For that matter no program at any level of government including local, state or federal is fully funded. Well, except for Defense, that’s fully funded. But everything else, if there is a problem with it, its not fully funded.

    Remember the proverb – No one is truly free while a single government program that is non defense related is not fully funded.

  • Crawdude

    I’m going back to bed….

  • dean

    If only 51% of Oregonians say we are on the “wrong track,” that is pretty darn good when you consider that nationally the answer is 85% wrong track. https://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

    Republicans may be more negative because they are out of power and increasingly out of prospects to get back into power. Powerlessness is debilitating. The (optimistic) and very large in numbers 18-34 cohort is strongly leaning Democratic,, and political identity usually locks in by age 30.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >The (optimistic) and very large in numbers 18-34 cohort is strongly leaning Democratic

      He who is not liberal when he is young has no heart.

      He who is not conservative when he is older has no brain.

      Generally, the Democrats seem great when one is younger. No one really starts earning money and paying taxes in any significant amount until they are at least thirty. At a young age, the Democrats seem great. They hand out other peoples money, sometimes to you, like it was candy. When you get older and realize that the tables have turned, and now they are taking money from you, its different. Its kind of like cigarette manufactures, gotta hook em while they are young!

      • Johnb

        One only hopes that you are kidding. Your dialog on how government programs make life better displays the thought process that is a product of our current educational system.
        Fact one Government does not create anything
        Fact two Government only redistributes wealth
        Fact three in the redistribution of wealth it keeps a lagre percentage of it
        Fact four with the money removed from the economy it does not lead to job creation or the development of goods and services
        Fact five the biggest hindrance to a stable and growing economy is the government. As our government has grown so has our economic growth been retarded.
        Fact five which always eludes the terminal socialist is taxes on business and investments are a tax on the working individuals who pay for goods and services. If the corporate tax in 23% the cost has that 23% built into it. It is called a stupid tax. If you are stupid enough to constantly support corporate and inheritance taxes why do you not just write a personal check and quite voting to give them my money.
        If I want to help the poor I find my money is best utilized by private and church groups who provide this assistance where most of the money , as high as 80%, goes to the poor and needy.
        Socialism only works until everybody runs out of money. Then who support who.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    I was pretty optimistic when I was 18-34 too….

    – Never had a full time job other than a summer job for the government one year when I was 18
    – I didn’t have any bills to pay, I still lived with my folks when I was 18
    – Upon graduation I went into business with my mom photographing horse shows and doing wildlife art, didn’t make very much more money than it cost to run the business, but like I said, I still lived with my folks and I loved what I was doing – that was 18-23
    – When the photography and art gigs didn’t make me enough money to make a living on my own, I went into construction where I did make good money
    – Then I moved out on my own and found out about bills, supporting myself, the fact that no matter how good or stable you thought the job was, it might not be there tomorrow so be careful and have contingiency plans, etc. – that was 18-35

    I’m 45 now, have my own business and after over 20 years of hard work learning my trade and going through the school of hard knocks, while I wouldn’t say that I’m really optomistic, I wouldn’t say that I’m pessimistic either. I’m more into very cautious optomism where I’m hedging every bet I can.

    I see things coming down the pike for both Oregon and for the USA that have me very concerned and it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether it’s a republican or a democrat in office. Mabye it’ll alter the time line a bit depending on who gets the job, that’s all. And I don’t think that it would make a whole lot of difference whether we have the three candidates in the presidential race or some other set of candidates. It doesn’t make a huge amount of difference who’s in power in the congress or at the state or local levels in the big picture and in the long run either. Oh, it’ll have an immediat and short term effect, but that’ll be transient.

    I have an idea that people who are 18-34 perhaps are more optimistic because they have less life experience than those in the older demographic. I remember what that was like.

    I can understand why jobs and the economy are, and should always be a person’s number 1 concern. Given the fact that we are generally no longer allowed to live a completely subsistence lifestyle, not that many people would want to anyway unless you want to go live in the outback of Alaska, if you have no job, you have no money. No money means no food, no shelter, no water, no clothing. If you don’t have those you’re going to either die or become dependant on the social programs, family, friends, etc.

    Now days, people have so many financial obligations and requirements on them just to live in society, if you don’t have a job, and one that makes you enough money to at least make it possible for you to provide yourself with the basics, you’re up a creek….

    • dean

      Well said Joanne. I just completed a book called “The Geography of Bliss,” in which the intrepid reporter travelled the world to find relationships between place and hapiness. Many nuggets there, but one in particular fits this discussion. People who are very poor, and who live in parts of the world with poor prospects, are not happy. People who are very rich, or who live in very rich places are not necessariy very happy either. Once a certain level of material wealth is reached, other issues kick in to determine bliss level, in particular health, friends, family, and relationships.

      People in the U.S. in general are less happy than they were in 1950, even though our material wealth is way higher.

      Also….happiness is a bell curve along one’s life path. Young people tend to be happy, as do old people. Those of us in between are in the unhappiness trough.

      Have a happy Sunday.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >People in the U.S. in general are less happy than they were in 1950, even though our material wealth is way higher.

        And this was read off the National Happiness Meter, which is installed where?

        You know, this sort of statement really makes me wonder. When Regan said this sort of thing, Democrats accused him of wanting to go back to some sort of Ozzie and Harriet 1950’s thing that never was. When Democrats use this bunk they then expect to be taken seriously.

        Give me a break.

        • dean

          Its social science research based on surveys. Not Democratic or Republican research. It can be interpreted as a desire to “go back,” or it can be interpreted as, maybe continuous material wealth growth is not going to bring us greater bliss, in and of itself.

          One of the findings you should find encouraging is that wealth disparity does not appear to be a factor in a nation’s “bliss rate.” That contradicts what we liberals tend to believe.

          • Crawdude

            If it can be interpreted anyway the reader wants, it’s flawed research.

    • eddie

      Of course 18 year olds are all optimistic… ever since they were in 4th grade teachers have been badmouthing the President, telling the kids how evil, horrid, people/earth/fluffy bunny-hating the Administration is… political conformity on campuses at any age is hard to avoid… I mean, my 3rd grader came home one day from school last year with this question: “Daddy, why do we have a dumb president instead of a smart one?”…

      Now those 18 year olds are all getting out of high school, or starting out in college, they’re voting age for the first time, AND the idiot, war-criminal president, who has been running things since they first realized there was a president at all, is about to leave office. They’re all upbeat because they know the rainbows, unicorns, and free TVs are coming!

      Saint Obama is going to wave his wand and we’ll all have high-paying tech jobs where we don’t actually have to work, but can play World of Warcraft all day… People who can’t play games will just go to the government free-stuff store down the street and get their plasma tvs and all the foodstamps they can carry. Marijuana and ecstacy will be legalized, and tobacco banned (it’s not natural, like pot, you know?)

      Evil rich people, who vote Republican, will have their $100,000 income reduced to $30,000, and they’ll have to clean up parks for eternal community service. Meanwhile, the multi-billionaires and trial lawyers will have their incomes doubled, so they can cruise their yachts around the world and check on global warming. We’ll all live in a biodegradable, recyclable world and ride bicycles to work, unless we’ve got a Lear Jet or limousine… even if we’ve got 4 kids to shepherd to schools and lessons… that’s why they have those little kid trailers after all.

      Everyone will be happy, except conservatives who deserve to suffer. All the white people will be abused and denigrated at will, except for them of course, because they’re hip enough to not really be white.

      We will all be able to be proud of America again, because the US flag will stand for nothing except Peace Marches and sporting events. Although, come to think of it, they might just stop with flags at sporting events, because after all, that’s not true patriotism. True patriotism is loving your country enough to want to change everything about it, and fill it up with people from elsewhere because… well… because you love it… although you’d really rather be in Europe trying to convince feckless Eurotrash kids that you’re not an American at all… but you’re definitely a patriot. Definitely.

      So, yeah… the kids are upbeat about the future. Flying cars are coming! although you can’t have one because it would contribute to Global Warming, so you’ll have to be happy with your bicycle…. but… um… Yay!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >It can be interpreted as a desire to “go back,” or it can be interpreted as, maybe

    I interpret it as nostalgia. I kinda did when Regan went on about it to. Huh…. now I’m nostalgic for Regan, who was nostalgic for the 50’s and now flames are coming back as being cool on hot rods and fat guy shirts.

    Wait a second…..what kind of weird moebius strip of logic have you got me caught up in?

    Unfortunately we do not have a National Happy Meter. I have a feeling there weren’t a lot of gay people, blacks or the approximately 25% of Americans without indoor plumbing in 1950 included in the survey.

    However, I do concur with your general idea that material possessions or wealth do not bring happiness. However, if one accepts that premise, and obviously you do, then it does immediately bring about a rather interesting consequence. To wit:

    If material wealth and possessions do not bring happiness, then there is zero reason for the government to be involved in income redistribution. Obviously if the quantity of your own wealth is irrelevant to your own happiness, then the quantity of my wealth is even further removed from it.

    As a corollary, it would also seem that given the disassociation of wealth from happiness, then surely envy of wealth or drumming up such envy in others with such admonishments as “the rich aren’t paying their fair share”, would be diametrically opposed to happiness.

    Welcome to the next level.

    • dean

      See…I told you these findings might encourage you.

      It turns out that envy is one of the keys to national unhappiness. The nation of Moldova is held up (or down) as a prime example of where a high level of cultural envy can inhibit happiness. The Moldovans are reportedly so envious that they prefer their neighbor’s failure over their own success. And it shows.

      Its not true that wealth is entirely disassociated from happiness. It’s just that it stops being a driver after a certain point, and that point is not all that wealthy. There apparently is such a thing as “enough” for a lot of people. Which is one reason the French opted for a shorter work week over more pay some years ago, as did I.

      The US ranks in the upper quadrant in overall national happiness, but a number of poorer nations rank higher than us. Qatar, which is very wealthy, ranks pretty low. Iceland ranks at the top, along with the Netherlands, Switzerland, and I think Denmark.

      Personally, I don’t feel raising the top marginal income tax rates has much to do with happiness or unhappiness. It has to do with going to the logical place to get the money to fund the things that are important for the good of the whole. And before you ask…no I don’t think Dean gets to decide the “good of the whole.” I think we do that together through politics.

      As for Reagan, fat guy t-shirts, the 69 Mets, and so forth….remember what Yogi Berra said. “Nostalgia is not what it used to be.”

      • dean

        For Johnb up above who wrote:

        “Fact one: Government does not create anything.”

        To paraphrase Monty Python (life of Brian) here: “What has government ever created for us?

        First, *Government* created most of the nation by purchasing it (Louisiana purchase, Alaska) or seizing it from the previous owners the original colonies, California) or waging war and taking it from other governments (Southwest). They then sent out explorers (Lewis & Clark) and the military to protect the homesteaders, who were setteling land that the *government* gave them for free or dirt cheap, but only if they proved up their claim, which was limited (i.e. socialism) in terms of acres alloted. *Government* also enticed the railroads to build by giving more land away, so we could say no government no railroads. Oh…and roads. *Government* built those. And schools, police stations, fire stations, battleships……should we continue? Ah…the internet (NASA).

        *Government* dredges the harbors, builds the jetties, keeps the entire economic system from imploding every 10 years or so by bailing out speculators, teaches most of our kids, finances and conducts (at public universities) most original research into just about all sciences, built and maintains most of our fresh water systems (i.e. Bull Run,) transports and treats our stinky water (sewage systems,) imprisons about 750 out of overy 100,000 of us (higherst number of citizens in jail in the world proportional to population,) gets killed and maimed chasing down terrorists in the Middle East….is there more?

        Lots. The LNG proponents can’t build their pipeline without use of *government* backed eminent domain. But I grow weary. Talk amongst yourselves.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Personally, I don’t feel raising the top marginal income tax …..to fund the things that are important for the good of the whole…….I think we do that together through politics.

        And that, in a nutshell, is the essential evil of class warfare politics, of which the Democratic party is the prime instigator.

        There is something uniquely horrid in generating a mentality that thinks there is nothing wrong in taking from another who has more in wealth, simply because the thieves have more in numbers.

        Obviously you know this as well as the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, “its where the money is” after all.

        This is the essential failure of any sort of income redistribution system. It results in people like you, who make the choice to work less and have more free time, eventually realizing that all that free time comes at a price, less money. Since thievery is easier than work, the thought of going to where the money is, those who decided to work hard, and have less free time, naturally arises. Justification of this theft, generally couched in nebulous terms such as social justice, then results. Its no different than the justification almost any common thief does in their own mind.

        The eventual result is soon everyone catches on, and a kleptocracy results, which is what we are approaching in the US. Given the amount of the budget devoted to entitlements, which is income redistribution by another name, I would say we are already there.

        • dean

          Spare me Rupert. A top marginal tax rate of 33%, or 38%, or 50%… at what point in your world does it become “stealing?” I would think on principle 1% would be stealing, or 1/10th of a %, so what is the ethical difference? What is the rich person being deprived of by paying a bit more into the public kitty?

          Warren Buffett…the richest man in America, just endorsed Obama for President. Does that mean he wishes to sanction “stealing” from himself and fortunate others like him?

          Jesus himself thought the rich should sell their jewels and give their money to the poor. Was he guilty of a “uniquely horrid” mentality?

          The fact is, since 2001 all of the eonomic gains have gone to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. The other 99% of us have had stagnant or declining incomes amid rising commodity prices. So yes…that is where the money is, those in the upper levels can afford to pay more, and they should pay more since they benefit most from the structure of the society that holds them aloft. Paris Hilton worked hard for her money, I know, but she can get by on a bit less of it.

          The “kleptocracy” you fear already happened. It was called the 1930s through the 1970s, i.e. pre Reagan-Bush, when the top marginal income tax rate was 70-90%, and we had the most thriving middle class and Tnd the most expensive “entitlement” we have, Social Security, tops out at taxing less than $100K per year in earnings, so we are hardly taking from the rich to support our meager entitlement to old age sans poverty.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    Everyone’s always saying government this, government that. What is the government anyway? It’s an extension of us, doing things that we either can’t or don’t want to do our selves. It’s run by a bunch of people we hire to do a job, and we’ve given quite a few of them the authorization to hire employees and subcontractors of their own. We give these people the authority to promulgate regulations that are then applied to various groups of us, we give them authorization to bill us for services, in the form of taxes, fees, etc..

    What happens when you hire someone to do a job and then don’t supervise them? If any one of us were to hire someone, we told them the job duties and the expected outcome, gave them authority to hire employees and subcontractors, and then didn’t give them any supervision and only checked on them in a haphazard manner, what would you have two or four years later? A whole bunch of people who aren’t happy with what that employee – the public official we hired – has accomplished during the term of his/her contract.

    Often times someone else, who was interested in spending the capital in time, effort and quite often money, to do the supervising that we should have been doing, winds up determining what the actual product is that public employee produces – be it public policy, regulation, etc.. We call these people ‘special interests’ and the supervising and directing that they do is called lobbying. They do their work while we have our collective backs turned. Those ‘special interests’ are populated by people just like us, who ‘hired’, that is voted for, the public officials too.

    And why do people have their backs turned? Because they’re out living life. Most people are more interested in spending time with friends and family and working enough hours to feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their families. I got involved in government in Mulino because I thought that the board of the CPO and later the Hamlet was keeping people in the dark about what it was doing. I stepped up to the plate and volunteered to do outreach to get more people in the community involved. And you know what I’ve found out in the past year? Getting people to meetings and getting them to spend some time getting involved in their own government over and above just voting is like pulling teeth. I understand where they’re coming from, I used to be the same way until something came along that pissed me off so much that it activated me. I got involved in the land use side of government in Clackamas county by volunteering to serve on the Urban/Rural Reserves Policy Advisory Committee for the same reasons, that is, I want to make sure that the people in Mulino have a say in how their land is zoned or not zoned.

    Now, and for the last 2 1/2 years, and probably for the rest of my life, I’ve devoted all of me free time to government and getting people involved more deeply in the running of government, all because I see now what not being involved can do. What I see from the inside, albeit on the edges of government, is that the officials in government are pretty much open to dialogue and direction, you just have to be willing to devote the time to get involved, go to the meetings, contribute. You don’t have to get elected, you just have to be willing to volunteer and give up a few hours a week or month, depending on what you want to get involved in and how far you want to run with it. Not getting involved yields the government, public policy, programs, etc. that we have now. If you like what we’ve got, all of it, then OK. If there is something you don’t like, then get involved directly in government and change it.

    OK, getting off the soap box now….

  • Stephan Andrew Brodhead for Congress

    By Stephan Andrew Brodhead

    Obama plays Social Security Card

    18 May 2008 Gresham, Oregon

    Barrack Obama 1st Term senator and Democrat candidate for president visited an assisted living home in Gresham, Oregon on Sunday. His message: We can save Social Security by raising taxes on our children. We can still support the 80 million strong “Baby Boomer” with extravagant benefits if we raise the cap on Social Security payments from 6.2 percent to 30 percent of an individual’s wage. This will ensure that the 2 workers supporting 1 person on entitlements will have enough money to buy food and live in a modest apartment. His message of “change” was applauded by the group of seniors. The visit was cut short however, when the assisted living folks needed their regimen of high dollar prescription drugs totaling $27,000 paid for by Medicare. While departing the meeting, a young woman asked if her children will have to pay for the retirement and entitlement benefits for 1/3 the population. Mr. Obama replied “yes we can”! The woman was then subdued by a pair of uniformed Drug Company Security officers and escorted from the premises.

  • Joanne Rigutto

    “The fact is, since 2001 all of the eonomic gains have gone to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.”

    Dean, not all of the increases in income have gone to the top 1%. My income will increase by at least 50% this year. This is due to a lot of work on my part and the support of my friends and family.

    I work, at various different tasks, from sun up till sun down and often later than that, especially in the winter. As an example, I worked a long day yesterday and didn’t have the opportunity to eat dinner until 10:30 last night. I keep those hours 7 days a week, year round and rarely take a day off. If a person is willing to work hard like that, and has a modicum of brains they can go far in this world. But most people don’t want to work those kinds of hours, and I can’t say as I blame them. That’s why they have regular jobs that allow them some time off.

    If you work for someone as an employee you’re going to make less than if you work for yourself, if you do it right, and if you start a business and have employees you can make a lot of money from the producton that those people provide to you, but you can also loose your ass so fast it’ll make your head spin.

    The bottom line is this – if you work hard you’re going to make more money than if you just go through life and your job on cruise control. That applies to people who are in business for themselves as well as people who are working for someone as an employee of that person or company.

    If your job isn’t paying enough, then you’re going to have to ‘Cowboy up’ and get yourself to a better job, or if you have the mettle for it, you can start a business. You’re going to have to hunt for it – that job or market – and you’re going to have to fight for it. You might even have to take it away from some other poor schmuck who needs it, but it isn’t going to be handed to you.

    • dean

      Joanne…I was writing statistically. Of course there are people in lower income brackets who have had income increases, and people in upper brackets who have gone down over the past few years. I was generalizing.

      I admire your work ethic. I’m also self employed and have been for most of my adult life. Fortunately or unfortunately I have a very easy going employer (me) who does not drive his employee (me) very hard. I make a high hourly consulting rate, which allows me to opt for more time over more money (and material possessions)when given the choice.

      But that is me. Many, if not most people in lower income brackets work very hard for very low wages with little or no benefits. They can’t get ahead by working harder. There are only so many hours in a day, and 8 or 9 bucks and hour does not add up very fast.

      Getting a better job is a good strategy, but there are only so many better jobs out there. A given individual, through hard work, smart choices, and a bit of luck can get ahead. But most cannot. I heard the other day that nearly all the new jobs created in Oregon since 2000 have been below $17 an hour. I have very smart and capable former students with master’s degrees from UO who either can’t find a job in their field, or have trouble finding one that pays decently. Its not their fault, and its not that they don’t want to work hard.

      Starting a business takes more than mettle. The first year failure rate for busineses is around 80%. I come from a long line of failed small business people who had a lot of mettle, but sometimes had bad luck or just limited options. As a professional who started his own business too early, I don’t advise that to others since it can lead to all sorts of problems.

      We could organize our society as dog eat dog capitalism and live with the consequences of that (a few very rich, a whole lot of poor,) or we could opt for pure socialism and live with that (everyone poor together,) or we could find a happy medium. In that case we would tax those with the most at higher rates, give a boost to those at the bottom, provide good public services to all, and live happily ever after until the next crisis errupts. i’m for door number 3. We are in this leaky boat together and should accept that as reality.

      For Stephan…you are making it up. Senator Obama has not proposed raising SSI taxes on anyone except those at the top. The way SSI is presently structured one stops paying once one gets past around $100K per year. That means Warren Buffett, Ted Kennedy, Greorge Soros, and Paris Hilton pay something like 1/1000th of a percent on their incomes into SSI while working stiffs pay 6.2% and self employed people like Joanne and I pay 12.4%. Obama proposes to raise the cap, which will make SSI a more equitable tax, and could allow cutting rates for those lower down the ladder. I say go for it.

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: pengertian israf()

  • Pingback: signifikan adalah()

  • Pingback: dampak kenakalan remaja()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: pengertian dokumentasi()

  • Pingback: tata cara sholat berjamaah()

  • Pingback: pengertian eksistensi()

  • Pingback: pay4you()

  • Pingback: kids table and chairs()

  • Pingback: cape cod real estate()

  • Pingback: supplemental health care()

  • Pingback: pengertian budaya menurut para ahli()

  • Pingback: perbedaan demokrasi langsung dan tidak langsung()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: observasi adalah()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: pengertian siswa()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: manfaat keberagaman budaya()

  • Pingback: observasi adalah()

  • Pingback: pengertian observasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian komunitas()

  • Pingback: doa ulang tahun untuk diri sendiri()

  • Pingback: contoh pembangunan berkelanjutan()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: pengertian dokumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: cara berhubungan intim menurut islam()

  • Pingback: new nike roshe colors()