A PROGRESSIVE VOICE FROM THE LLANO ESTACADO

Monday, September 22, 2014

Over 300,000 Turn Out For Climate Change March

Photo is from Mother Jones website.

Land Of The Free ?


The U.S. Public Supports The Start Of A New War



The top chart above (from a Pew Research Center survey done between September 11th and 14th of a random national sample of 1,003 adults, with a 3.6 point margin of error) shows that the American people clearly support President Obama's plan to go back to war in Iraq (and Syria). It is supported by a 53% majority of the general public -- and when the public is broken down demographically, we can see that every group shows more support than opposition (although the support is less than 50% in some groups like women, young people, those with a high school education or less, and Independents).

I admit that this support for a new war mystifies me. The reason given for the military action by members of both parties in Congress is because ISIS poses a threat to the United States. Since ISIS poses no military threat to this country, I have to believe they are talking about a terrorist threat. If so, then support for the new war makes even less sense. Note in the bottom chart above that a majority of the public (and of every demographic group) says the military action will either increase the threat of terrorism or have no effect on it at all. Why then do they support the new march to war?

It becomes even more mystifying when you note the chart below -- from a Rasmussen Poll done on September 17th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points. A majority (55%) of the public believes that the American military is already overstretched. Why would they then support a new conflict in the Middle East -- when we have learned from recent conflicts that it will assuredly be a prolonged conflict that will further stretch U.S. military resources?

Have Americans gotten so used to endless war that we now think it is the way things are supposed to be? Have we become so frightened by our politicians (who just want to be re-elected) that we will support a war even when we don't think it will do any good? Or do we still think it is our duty to be the world's policeman?


Determining Mid-East Policy

Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe at intoon.com.

Do The Issues Really Matter In This Election ?


The chart above is made from a recent Pew Research Center survey. That survey was done between September 2nd and 9th of a random national sample of 2,002 adults, and has a margin of error of 2.5 points. It shows the issues that are important to Republican and Democratic voters.

In a normal election year, this chart would be very important, and could give the politicians a guide as to how to conduct their campaigns. But this is not a normal election year. This is a year in which the voters are very angry with Congress -- angry that they didn't even try to compromise to get the economy moving again and create jobs. The folks on Main Street are still hurting, and haven't recovered from the recession -- and they are not happy at all that Congress has ignored that to play ideological games (especially the Republicans).

There are some safe seats for both parties, and the incumbents in those seats will be sent back to Congress. But there are also a lot of competitive seats, and the voter anger has resulted in a definite anti-incumbent mood. The incumbents in those competitive seats are all in danger, and the voters (especially the Independents) could send a lot of new representatives to Congress this year.

This is a year in which the anti-incumbent mood is more important than the parties stands on the issues. The voters want a Congress that will get something accomplished.

YEEHAW-dist

Political Cartoon is by John Cole in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Business Schools Must Do Better At Teaching Responsibility

There was a time in this country when corporations were expected to have a duty toward their workers and their community and country. That seems to have disappeared, and been replaced with a much more narrow view of corporate responsibility -- that a corporation has only one duty, which is to maximize profits. This new view gives them permission to hog all productivity and keep wages abnormally low for workers, to poison the air and water in the community, and to avoid the taxes they owe -- and it is contributing to the decline of this country and its economy.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (pictured) believes this new attitude starts in our business schools, and that those schools are failing to properly teach corporate responsibility. He says even our most prestigious universities (like Harvard University) are guilty of this, and he has issued a call for all business schools to examine what they are teaching and do a better job of producing business leaders who know they owe a debt to their workers, their community, and their country. While these schools are not wholly to blame, they could be instrumental in helping to solve the problem.

Here is how he puts it in an article he wrote for the Harvard Business Review's Blog:

No institution is more responsible for educating the CEOs of American corporations than Harvard Business School – inculcating in them a set of ideas and principles that have resulted in a pay gap between CEOs and ordinary workers that’s gone from 20-to-1 fifty years ago to almost 300-to-1 today.

survey, released on September 6, of 1,947 Harvard Business School alumni showed them far more hopeful about the future competitiveness of American firms than about the future of American workers.

As the authors of the survey conclude, such a divergence is unsustainable. Without a large and growing middle class, Americans won’t have the purchasing power to keep U.S. corporations profitable, and global demand won’t fill the gap. Moreover, the widening gap eventually will lead to political and social instability. As the authors put it, “any leader with a long view understands that business has a profound stake in the prosperity of the average American.”

Unfortunately, the authors neglected to include a discussion about how Harvard Business School should change what it teaches future CEOs with regard to this “profound stake.” HBS has made some changes over the years in response to earlier crises, but has not gone nearly far enough with courses that critically examine the goals of the modern corporation and the role that top executives play in achieving them.

A half-century ago, CEOs typically managed companies for the benefit of all their stakeholders – not just shareholders, but also their employees, communities, and the nation as a whole.

“The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in a 1951 address, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly affected interest groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large. Business managers are gaining professional status partly because they see in their work the basic responsibilities [to the public] that other professional men have long recognized as theirs.” 

This view was a common view among chief executives of the time. Fortune magazine urged CEOs to become “industrial statesmen.” And to a large extent, that’s what they became. 

For thirty years after World War II, as American corporations prospered, so did the American middle class. Wages rose and benefits increased. American companies and American citizens achieved a virtuous cycle of higher profits accompanied by more and better jobs.

But starting in the late 1970s, a new vision of the corporation and the role of CEOs emerged – prodded by corporate “raiders,” hostile takeovers, junk bonds, and leveraged buyouts. Shareholders began to predominate over other stakeholders. And CEOs began to view their primary role as driving up share prices. To do this, they had to cut costs – especially payrolls, which constituted their largest expense.

Corporate statesmen were replaced by something more like corporate butchers, with their nearly exclusive focus being to “cut out the fat” and “cut to the bone.”

In consequence, the compensation packages of CEOs and other top executives soared, as did share prices. But ordinary workers lost jobs and wages, and many communities were abandoned. Almost all the gains from growth went to the top.

The results were touted as being “efficient,” because resources were theoretically shifted to “higher and better uses,” to use the dry language of economics.

But the human costs of this transformation have been substantial, and the efficiency benefits have not been widely shared. Most workers today are no better off than they were thirty years ago, adjusted for inflation. Most are less economically secure.

So it would seem worthwhile for the faculty and students of Harvard Business School, as well as those at every other major business school in America, to assess this transformation, and ask whether maximizing shareholder value – a convenient goal now that so many CEOs are paid with stock options – continues to be the proper goal for the modern corporation.

Can an enterprise be truly successful in a society becoming ever more divided between a few highly successful people at the top and a far larger number who are not thriving?

For years, some of the nation’s most talented young people have flocked to Harvard Business School and other elite graduate schools of business in order to take up positions at the top rungs of American corporations, or on Wall Street, or management consulting.

Their educations represent a substantial social investment; and their intellectual and creative capacities, a precious national and global resource.

But given that so few in our society – or even in other advanced nations – have shared in the benefits of what our largest corporations and Wall Street entities have achieved, it must be asked whether the social return on such an investment has been worth it, and whether these graduates are making the most of their capacities in terms of their potential for improving human well-being.

These questions also merit careful examination at Harvard and other elite universities. If the answer is not a resounding yes, perhaps we should ask whether these investments and talents should be directed toward “higher and better” uses.

Meter Maid

Political Cartoon is by Lalo Alcaraz and was found on his Facebook page.

Economics 101


Sunday, September 21, 2014

Today


This Makes Sense


Conservatives And Liberals Teach Some Different Values


This information is from a Pew Research Center survey done between April 29th and May 27th of this year of a random national sample of 3,243 adults, and has a margin of error of 2.3 points.

It lists 12 general values, and the percentages of conservatives and liberals who think it is important to teach those values to their children. Note that many more conservatives think it is important to teach religious faith (81% to 26%) and obedience (67% to 35%), while significantly more liberals think it is important to teach tolerance (88% to 41%), empathy for others (86% to 55%), curiosity (82% to 57%), creativity (85% to 63%), and helping others (90% to 77%). The other five values (responsibility, hard work, well-mannered, independence, and persistence) are all pretty close.

The survey also compared the teaching of these values by gender, race, education, and age group -- but they didn't show as big a difference as political ideology did. You can go to their website to view those comparisons.

Not Happening

Political Cartoon is by Tom Toles in The Washington Post.

Air Force Now Says "God" Can Be Omitted From The Oath



Last Sunday I posted about the  U.S. Air Force refusing to let an airman re-enlist because he refused to include the words"So Help Me God" in his military oath. The Air Force had allowed those joining or re-enlisting to omit the words in the past, but changed that last October. They said those words must be in the oath, and claimed they were just coming into compliance with federal rules.

Of course their action violated an article of the Constitution saying no religious test could be required as a "qualification for any office or public trust", and also violated the freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment (which also guarantees the right to be free from religion). The American Humanist Association (AHA) wrote the Air Force on behalf of the atheist airman, and threatened to sue unless he was allowed to omit the four offensive words.

Now, only a week later, there is good news to report. The Air Force has reversed their decision, and will allow the airman (and anyone else) to omit the words from his military oath. They did so on orders from the Department of Defense, who said the airman must be allowed to re-enlist without having to include _So Help Me God" in his oath of service. Here is the press release from the Air Force on this matter (released on September 17th):

 The Air Force has instructed force support offices across the service to allow both enlisted members and officers to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses.

In response to concerns raised by Airmen, the Department of the Air Force requested an opinion from the Department of Defense General Counsel addressing the legal parameters of the oath. The resulting opinion concluded that an individual may strike or omit the words “So help me God” from an enlistment or appointment oath if preferred.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected.”

The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so.

The language in previous instructions was based on an Air Force legal interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 502, 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Title 32, which contain the oaths of office.

The Air Force requested the review following a ceremony at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in which an enlisted Airman struck out the words, “So help me God” on the Department of Defense Form 4 and did not include them in his verbal oath. The Airman's unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, which prohibited any omissions. Now that the Department of Defense General Counsel has provided an opinion, the Airman’s enlistment paperwork will be processed to completion.

No Divorce

Political Cartoon is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.

GOP Could Lose Both Senate & Governor Races In Kansas





This is something the Republicans, both in Kansas and on the national level, didn't expect. Kansas is normally a reliably Republican state, and most pundits thought the GOP could rather easily hang on to the senate seat in that state. But it's certainly not working out that way.

The Democratic candidate (Taylor) saw he was running third (behind both incumbent Republican Roberts and Independent candidate Orman), and since he didn't have the funding to try and fix that, he dropped out of the race to give the Independent a better chance -- and that has worked. Even if Taylor's name stays on the ballot, Orman now has a 7 point lead over Roberts (41% to 34%).

This has scared the heck out of Kansas Republicans, and their Republican Secretary of State ruled that Taylor's name could not be removed from the ballot. They know their only real chance to win is to split the Democratic and Independent vote. But a few days ago, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taylor and said his name must not be included on the ballot. The GOP is trying to find a way around that, but if they do they'll just anger Kansas voters -- since 63% of them agree that Taylor's name should not be on the ballot.

Without Taylor on the ballot, Orman's lead over Roberts stretches to 10 points (46% to 36%). That's a huge lead to try and overcome with only six weeks left before election day.

And that's not the only problem facing Kansas Republicans. Their candidate in the governor's race (incumbent Brownback) is trailing his Democratic opponent (Davis) by about 4 points (42% to 38%). That's a smaller deficit to make up than in the senate race, but it's still a significant lead (exceeding the poll's margin of error). It's conceivable that the GOP could lose both races.

All of these charts were made from information in a new Public Policy Polling survey. That survey was done between September 11th and 14th of a random sample of 1,328 likely Kansas voters, and has a margin of error of 2.7 points.


Behind The President

Political Cartoon is by Lee Judge in the Kansas City Star.

Don't Let Congress Kill The U.S. Postal System


The Republicans want you to think the United States Postal Service (USPS) is a failure, and needs to be abandoned in favor of private carriers. That is a lie. The USPS has always performed effectively, and continues to do so. The only reason it is in any kind of trouble is the onerous requirements that have been placed on it by Congress (especially the Republicans, who don't want their corporate buddies to have to compete with the USPS).

Here is how Texas populist Jim Hightower puts it on his blog:

One public service that people really like and count on is the post office – which literally delivers for us.

Antigovernment ideologues and privatization dogmatists, however, hate the very word "public," and they've long sought to demonize the US Postal Service, undercut its popular support, and finally dismantle it. Their main line of attack has been to depict it as a bloated, inefficient, outmoded agency that's a hopeless money loser, sucking billions from taxpayers. Never mind that USPS doesn't take a dime of tax money to fund its operation – it's actually a congressionally-chartered, for-profit corporation that earns its revenue by selling stamps and services to customers. And here's something that will come as a surprise to most people: The post office makes a profit – expected to be more than a billion dollars this year.

Yet, the media keep reporting that the USPS is losing billions of dollars each year. What they fail to mention, however, is that those are phony paper losses manufactured by Congress at the behest of corporate privatizers.

Late in 2006, the lame duck Republican Congress rammed into law a cockamamie requirement that the Postal Service must pre-fund the retiree health benefits of everyone it employs or expects to employ for the next 75 years. Hello, that includes workers who're not even born yet! No other business in America is required to pre-fund such benefits for even one year. To add to Congress' cockamamie-ness, the service is being forced to put up all of that money within just 10 years – which has been costing USPS more than $5 billion a year. That artificial burden accounts for 100 percent of the so-called "losses" the media keep reporting.

It's like tying an anvil around someone's neck, throwing the person out of a boat, and saying, "Swim to shore, sucker."

Exaggerating ?

Political Cartoon is by Mike Thompson in the Detroit Free Press.

Questions & Religion Don't Mix


Saturday, September 20, 2014

Language


Nearly A Quarter Of Americans Would Like Their State To Peacefully Secede From The United States



In the wake of Scotland's vote on whether to stay in the U.K. or not, Reuters decided to ask the same question of Americans. Do they want their particular state to secede peacefully from the United States? They asked over 9,000 Americans that question, and say their survey has a margin of error of about 1.2 points.

Of course, this is a silly question. The United States is not going to break up -- and we fought a vicious civil war to show that no state has the right to withdraw from this country. But the results of the survey was fairly shocking anyway. It seems that nearly a quarter of the general public would like to see their state secede (if it could be done peacefully). I suspect this is mainly right-wingers, who see the power of Whites starting to wane -- and they don't like that at all. Note that more than half of all teabaggers would like to secede.

Teddy Would Not Approve

Political Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times.

Is Race A Factor In GOP Blocking Student Loan Relief ?



I would like to think that race is not a factor in loan debt relief for college students, but the GOP has made it clear that much of their party's policies, especially since the election of President Obama, is decided by the large racist element in their party (commonly called the "tea party"). These teabaggers like the idea that their party is primarily made up of Whites, and they have made sure their elected representatives don't vote for racial or ethnic parity.

It only makes sense then that these same racial views might be affecting the GOP's opposition to letting college students refinance their loans at a lower rate -- especially when you look at the charts above. Those charts show that, while a growing percentage of both Whites and Blacks are finding college unaffordable with loans, both historically and currently Blacks need those loans more than Whites (and usually need bigger loans than Whites).

Traditionally, education has been a great equalizer in the United States. Both poor people and minorities have been able to use education to climb the economic ladder to better themselves and their children. But that only works when those people can afford to get that education -- and get it without incurring an enormous debt. Unfortunately, that is no longer true for too many Americans -- and it affects Blacks more than it does Whites (and the poor and working class more than the rich or upper middle class).

We could partially solve this problem by lowering the interest rates on education loans, and letting those with those loans refinance them at the lower rate. But the Republicans have blocked that. They have done it to protect the exorbitant profits of Wall Street banks -- but after looking at these numbers, I have to wonder if there is not also a racial element to their action. Is this just one more way to preserve power for rich Whites?

The charts above were made from a recent Gallup Poll. That survey was done between February 4th and March 7th of a random sample of 29,560 adults with a Bachelor's degree or more. The survey has a 1 point margin of error because of the large sample.

Allies ?

Political Cartoon is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Warren Blasts GOP For Blocking Student Loan Bill

We have known for a while now that the congressional GOP is in favor of passing only two kinds of bills -- bills that cuts taxes for the rich and corporations, and bills that funnel more money into the corporate pockets of the military-industrial complex. But something the GOP doesn't want to do is pass a bill that helps ordinary Americans, especially if that bill might take a bit of cash out of corporate hands (like the Wall Street banks).

The Republicans showed this once again last week, when they blocked a bill in the Senate that would have allowed college students to refinance their college loans at a smaller interest rate. This would have reduced the amount they had to pay back and reduced the time it would take them to pay off those loans -- allowing them to get on with their lives and begin to build up their own wealth much sooner (which would benefit the nation as a whole).

But it would also have cut some money from the exorbitant interest rates charged by the giant Wall Street banks -- and the Republicans couldn't have that. They have filibustered the bill, and last week upheld that filibuster to keep the bill from getting a vote on the Senate floor. In other words, they chose to protect the abnormally large bank profits over helping millions of students.

That has angered the bill's sponsor, Senator Elizabeth Warren (whose caricature above is by DonkeyHotey) -- and she is blasting the excuses those Republicans are giving the voters on why they blocked that bill. Sen. Warren says:

The excuses have started. Once again, the Republicans blocked a vote on our student loans bill – and now that they are about to head home to face voters, they are pouring out the excuses.
Excuse #1:  Some Republicans say that the benefit of letting people refinance their student loans is too small. Too small? Tell that to young people with 8%, 10%, even 12% interest rates (and higher on some of the private loans). They could save hundreds – or even thousands – of dollars on their excessive student loan payments each year.

But if the Republicans really think the benefit of the bill is too small, I'll call their bluff. I'm all for finding ways to give our students an even bigger break.

Excuse #2:  Some Republicans say that the $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt just isn't a big deal – that we should be focused on the rising costs of college instead. Yes, the rising cost of college is a terrible problem – and we need to stop it – but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything for the millions of people who already went to school and are being crushed by debt.

But if the Republicans really want to do more, I'll call their bluff. Let's work together to do even more to help our students. I'm ready.

Excuse #3:  Some Republicans don't like that the bill is paid for by closing the tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires and making them pay their fair share.

But if the Republicans' only problem with the bill is how it's paid for, I'll call their bluff. If they have ideas on other ways to pay for it, we're eager to listen.

Excuse #4:  Some Republicans – including Mitch McConnell – went so far as to say that Democrats don't really want this bill to pass. Really? That's just plain ridiculous. Only in Washington can you vote against something, and then when it doesn't pass, blame the people who voted for it.

Excuses. Excuses. But they don't fool anyone. They don't fool each of you who signed our petitions, made phone calls, posted on Facebook and tweeted asking for a vote.

This isn't complicated. It's a choice – a choice that raises a fundamental question about who the United States Senate works for. Does it work for those who can hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to protect tax loopholes for billionaires and profits for the big banks? Or does it work for those who work hard, play by the rules, and are trying to build a future for themselves and their families?

This fight isn't over. Millions of Americans are getting crushed in student loan debt, while the rich and powerful hang on tight to their tax loopholes. When the choice is between billionaires and students, I know which side I'm on, and I'm going to keep hitting back.

No Boots

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Issues Supported By Wendy Davis -- Immigration And Border


Immigration and Border

  • Securing the Border

Wendy Davis is fighting to secure our border by ensuring the resources are available for the public safety officials responsible for keeping it safe. Wendy Davis will focus public safety resources specifically to combat organized criminal activity from every level, including resources for district attorneys and targeted investigations.

  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Wendy Davis is pushing Congress to implement comprehensive immigration reform that facilitates the employment of essential workers by U.S. companies and allows hard-working, tax-paying workers to eventually earn legal status and continue contributing to our economy.

  • DREAM Act

Wendy Davis supports the Texas DREAM Act, which was signed into law in 2001 by Governor Perry with the strong backing of both Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature. The Texas DREAM Act says that children brought to this country by their parents through no fault of their own, who grew up in this state, stayed out of trouble and got good grades should have the opportunity to get an education and contribute to our economy.

Pleas

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Police Shooting Deaths


Friday, September 19, 2014

"Day Care"


Message Sent

Political Cartoon is by Daryl Cagle at cagle.com.

U.S. Government Moves Toward A Wider War In Mid-East

(This image of Kerry asking Congress for more war funds is from rt.com.)

More than three-quarters of the United States Senate voted to fund the arming and training of some Syrian rebels to oppose ISIS (and the Assad government). The same measure was approved by the House already by more than a 120 vote margin. And both in the House and Senate, there were members of both political parties voting to inch ever closer to getting back into a full-blown war in the Middle East. We are already bombing in Iraq, getting ready to bomb in Syria, and even though the president promised there would be no "boots on the ground" in that area, we have over a thousand soldiers now in Iraq. This we send to arm and train the Syrian rebels will just increase that number.

Time and time again, I listened to senators from both parties say that ISIS posed a serious threat to the United States. That is just an outrageous lie. ISIS poses no military threat to the United States at all -- and if they pose some kind of terrorist threat, that should be handled by the FBI (with the help of the CIA) and not by military intervention in some foreign country. We supposedly went to Afghanistan to stop the terrorist threat of al-Queda, and we are still there nearly 14 years later -- and the threat still exists while there seems to be no end to that ridiculous war. Are we now going to make that same mistake in Syria and Iraq?

While ISIS poses no military threat to the United States, it does pose a military threat to the countries of that region. Why aren't those countries acting in their own defense. Why is the United States (with a little help from other Western nations) doing the heavy lifting for them. The nations in the Mid-East should be leading the effort against ISIS, but they are still on the sidelines. Until they take charge of their own self-defense, the Western nations, including the United States, should be taking no action. This is not really our war, and we are doing nothing but creating new enemies by taking the lead in this religious fight.

We have let ourselves be scared (by the military-industrial complex and its congressional supporters) into a state of perpetual war, and it makes no sense. It is good for the corporate bank accounts, but it is bad for the United States. Terrorism cannot be defeated with military power, but must be fought as the criminal enterprise that it is -- and that can only be done by law enforcement and intelligence services.

I simply cannot support the president on this. He has gone down the same road to endless war that Bush started (and couldn't finish) -- and he has taken too many Democrats down that road with him.


The following 22 senators voted "no" on the resolution:

INDEPENDENT
Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

DEMOCRATS
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin)
Mark Begich (Alaska)
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
Edward Markey (Massachusetts)
Christopher Murphy (Connecticut)
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)

REPUBLICANS
John Barrasso (Wyoming)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Mike Enzi (Wyoming)
Dean Heller (Nevada)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)

Pentagon Escalator

Political Cartoon is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.

More Polls On Various 2014 U.S. Senate Races


This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 604 likely Kansas voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.


This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 605 likely North Carolina voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.


This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 617 likely Louisiana voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.


This is from a Fox News Poll done between September 14th and 16th of 600 likely Iowa voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.


This is from a Quinnipiac University Poll done between September 10th and 15th of 1,167 likely voters, with a 2.9 point margin of error.


This is from a Quinnipiac University Poll done between September 10th and 15th of 1,211 likely Colorado voters, with a margin of error of 2.8 points.


This is from a Rasmussen Poll done on September 15th and 16th of 750 likely Georgia voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.


This is from a Hays Research Group Poll done on September 13th and 14th of 500 likely Alaska voters, with a margin of error of 4.38 points.


This is a Vanguard Public Affairs Poll done between September 11th and 13th of 600 Michigan voters, with a margin of error of 4 points.