Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 24, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 643)

Obama-Mosque-Visit

President Barack Obama meets with members of Muslim-American community at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016, in Baltimore, Md. Obama is making his first visit to a U.S. mosque at a time Muslim-Americans say they’re confronting increasing levels of bias in speech and deeds.(Photo: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

On Wednesday, President Obama visited the controversial Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB), marking his first such visit to a mosque in America. The visit comes as Pew Research Center released a survey that finds roughly a half (49%) of Americans believe U.S. Muslims are anti-American.

That number includes 11% who said almost all/most Muslims are anti-American, 14% who said about half are and, roughly a quarter (24%), who said just a few. A significant number (9%) said they don’t know, possibly reflecting social desirability bias. According to PPD’s research, which averages the aggregate survey data on the question, 53% of U.S. Muslims support Sharia (Islamic law) becoming the law of the land, supplanting the U.S. Constitution.

Americans, according to Pew, are closely divided on how the president should address the root of Islamic terrorism. Half of Americans (50%) say the next president should “be careful not to criticize Islam as a whole when speaking about Islamic extremists,” while four-in-ten (40%) say the next president should “speak bluntly about Islamic extremists even if the statements are critical of Islam as a whole.”

Views are greatly influenced by party and ideological preference, as seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (70%)–including eight-in-ten liberal Democrats (80%)–say the next president should be careful not to criticize Islam as a whole. By contrast, about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (65%)–including seven-in-ten conservative Republicans (70%)–want the next president to speak bluntly about extremism even if it means being critical of Islam.

The president criticized Republicans and cautioned against what he said is a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and treatment during his speech.

“We’ve heard inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias and targets people because of religion.”

Indeed, the president’s narrative appears to be working. The Pew survey found that six-in-ten Americans believe there is “a lot” of discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. Further, three-quarters (76%) think discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. is increasing. Even most of those who do not think there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims nevertheless believe anti-Muslim discrimination is on the rise.

However, statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation simply don’t back that up. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to collect data about both single-bias and multiple-bias hate crimes, there were and are far more anti-Semitic crimes committed against Jews than anti-Muslim crime. In fact, the latest data from 2014 doesn’t at all reflect growing anti-Muslim sentiment spewing from white America, or any demographic group in the U.S. for that matter.

Of the 1,092 offenses reported as a hate crime motivated by religious bias, 58.2% were anti-Jewish crimes. On the other hand, 16.3% were anti-Islamic (Muslim); 6.1% were anti-Catholic; 4.7 percent were anti-multiple religions, group; 2.6% were anti-Protestant; .2% were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.; and, 11.0% were anti-other (unspecified) religion.

A Pew Research Center released a survey

Ted-Cruz-Donald-Trump

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, left, and Donald Trump, right. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

Donald Trump is calling for Sen. Ted Cruz’s Iowa caucus win to be nullified “based on fraud committed,” referring to a story that first broke on PPD Tuesday. As PPD previously reported, Cruz’s Iowa team members were falsely telling caucus-goers Dr. Ben Carson had suspended his campaign.

Following a thorough investigation, which included interviews with dozens of caucus-goers and captains, as well as reviewing the content and timeline of an internal campaign memo and social media activity, it would appear that the spreading of this false information was intentional and specifically targeted the supporters of Dr. Carson because the Cruz campaign previously identified them as voters highly likely to back Cruz as their second choice.

PPD reached out to Jeff Tyler, the communications director for Ted Cruz, but we did not receive a response to the allegations. On Tuesday night, Sen. Cruz apologized to Dr. Carson and sought to explain the campaign’s actions on “Hannity,” during which he said they should’ve forwarded a follow up.

“The problem with Sen. Cruz’s explanation is two-fold. First, it appears they started the false rumor. A small CNN blog blurb, fed by the Cruz campaign, isn’t the same as widespread confirmed reports,” said Richard Baris, PPD’s editor and senior political analyst. “Second, it is the location of the activity that is so suspicious. They had the data and targeted specific locations. If it was an honest mistake, the effort wouldn’t have been concentrated in specific caucus sites with higher numbers of Carson supporters.”

Trump previously commented on the report at a news conference before a campaign rally in Milford, New Hampshire on Tuesday. Trump also accused Cruz of insulting the people of Iowa when he sent out a voter violation mailer before the caucuses.

“What he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question. “What he did to Ben Carson was terrible. When they said Ben Carson is out of the race and come vote for him, I thought it was terrible.”

When asked if he thought Cruz was running a dirty campaign, Trump responded that his rival “certainly was dirty.”

Nevertheless, Baris says there is zero chance Trump and his supporters will get what they are calling for, a redo or nullification. Further, the frontrunner has a large lead going into the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, and may be taking a big risk. But, then again, that isn’t always the consideration or the goal with Trump.

“The Donald can shout about fraud and makes his supporters happy,” Baris said. “They see him standing up against a perceived injustice and, frankly, expect it from him. Cruz loses some of the wind in his sails post-Iowa because, anytime you are apologizing for what was at least a dirty tactic, you’re losing. But Trump was a gracious loser Monday night. He runs the risk of looking not-so gracious taking this route.”

ORIGINAL STORY

Donald Trump is calling for Sen. Ted

service-sector-employee

A service sector employee sits at his desk. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Institute for Supply Management’s Report on Business (NMI), a gauge of service-sector growth slowed to 53.5 last month from 55.8 in December. The NMI reading was well below expectations for a much smaller decline to 55.1 and was the lowest since February 2014. Readings above 50 indicate expansion, while those below point to contraction.

The 10 non-manufacturing industries reporting growth in January — listed in order — are: Finance & Insurance; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Utilities; Retail Trade; Information; Construction; Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting; Health Care & Social Assistance; Management of Companies & Support Services; and Public Administration. The eight industries reporting contraction in January — listed in order — are: Mining; Educational Services; Wholesale Trade; Other Services; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Accommodation & Food Services; Transportation & Warehousing; and Professional, Scientific & Technical Services.

ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING SURVEY RESULTS AT A GLANCE
COMPARISON OF ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING AND ISM® MANUFACTURING SURVEYS*
JANUARY 2016
Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing
Index Series
Index
Jan
Series
Index
Dec
Percent
Point
Change
Direction Rate
of
Change
Trend**
(Months)
Series
Index
Jan
Series
Index
Dec
Percent
Point
Change
NMI®/PMI® 53.5 55.8 -2.3 Growing Slower 72 48.2 48.0 +0.2
Business Activity/Production 53.9 59.5 -5.6 Growing Slower 78 50.2 49.9 +0.3
New Orders 56.5 58.9 -2.4 Growing Slower 78 51.5 48.8 +2.7
Employment 52.1 56.3 -4.2 Growing Slower 23 45.9 48.0 -2.1
Supplier Deliveries 51.5 48.5 +3.0 Slowing From Faster 1 50.0 49.8 +0.2
Inventories 51.5 53.0 -1.5 Growing Slower 10 43.5 43.5 0.0
Prices 46.4 51.0 -4.6 Decreasing From Increasing 1 33.5 33.5 0.0
Backlog of Orders 52.0 50.0 +2.0 Growing From Unchanged 1 43.0 41.0 +2.0
New Export Orders 45.5 53.5 -8.0 Contracting From Growing 1 47.0 51.0 -4.0
Imports 46.0 49.0 -3.0 Contracting Faster 2 51.0 45.5 +5.5
Inventory Sentiment 61.5 64.5 -3.0 Too High Slower 224 N/A N/A N/A
Customers’ Inventories N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 51.5 51.5 0.0
Overall Economy Growing Slower 78
Non-Manufacturing Sector Growing Slower 72

* Non-Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for Business Activity, New Orders, Prices and Employment Indexes. Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for New Orders, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries.

** Number of months moving in current direction.
Indexes reflect newly released seasonal adjustment factors.

The Institute for Supply Management’s Report on

Bill O’Reilly, host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” had some down-to-earth post-Iowa caucus analysis Tuesday night, pointing out the FBI is Hillary Clinton’s biggest opponent, not socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.

O’Reilly criticized commentary in the media regarding the nomination on both sides of the aisle, slamming those who say Trump is damaged.

“Trump is likely to win in New Hampshire so those saying he is damaged are full of it,” O’Reilly said.

Bill O'Reilly had some down-to-earth post-Iowa caucus

jobs-report-getty

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 30: A job seeker holds a pamphlet during a job and career fair at City College of San Francisco southeast campus on May 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Hundreds of job seekers attended a career fair hosted by the San Francisco Southeast Community Facility Commission. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The National Employment Report conducted by payroll processing firm ADP found 205,000 people were added to private sector payrolls in January.

“One of the main reasons for lower overall employment gains in January was the drop off in jobs added at the largest companies compared to December. These businesses are more sensitive to current economic conditions than small and mid-sized companies,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, VP and head of the ADP Research Institute. “Over the past year, businesses with less than 500 employees have created nearly 80 percent of new jobs.”

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the report would show 195,000 private sector jobs created. Meanwhile, December’s payrolls were revised higher by 10,000 to 267,000.

“Job growth remains strong despite the turmoil in the global economy and financial markets. Manufacturers and energy companies are reducing payrolls, but job gains across all other industries remain robust,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “The U.S. economy remains on track to return to full employment by mid-year.”

However, it is also the case that private sector job creation is being led by the service sector, which offers working American lower-wage positions. Service-providing employment rose by 192,000 jobs in January, down from an upwardly revised 237,000 in December. Still, the service sector represents nearly all of the jobs created in the prior month.

Manufacturing, which has contracted over the last four months, created 0 jobs–zero.

The National Employment Report conducted by payroll

Rand-Paul-FOX-Business-debate

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kty., looking visibly annoyed after being interrupted by former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who did so to multiple candidates during the GOP debate hosted by FOX Business on Tuesday Nov. 10, 2015.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is suspending his 2016 campaign for president only two days after his poor showing in the Iowa caucus, PPD confirms. Paul finished in fifth place in the Iowa caucuses, unable to gather the same level of support as his father, and currently polled at roughly 3.6 percent on the PPD average of New Hampshire Republican primary polls.

“It’s been an incredible honor for me to run a principled campaign for the White House,” Paul said in a statement. “Although, today I will suspend my campaign for president, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term.”

“Across the country thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy,” he said. “Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I.”

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is suspending his

Scott-Brown-Donald-Trump

Donald Trump speaks beside former U.S. Senator Scott Brown at a campaign rally in Portsmouth, N.H., in January. (Photo: Reuters)

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who came close to toppling a popular Granite State incumbent, has endorsed Donald Trump less than a week before the New Hampshire primary.

Appearing at a rally for Mr. Trump Tuesday night, Brown said he doesn’t take endorsing candidates lightly but decided to get behind the celebrity frontrunner because he was the one candidate who “has actually been a change agent.”

“That was clear to me, it was Donald Trump,” the former senator said. “It’s something that’s very important to me.”

Brown’s endorsement was definitely seen by the Republican field as coveted, though he is a more moderate Republican. Candidates, including the last-stand governors, have been courting Brown for his endorsement ahead of the New Hampshire primary for months.

While Trump placed second in the Iowa Republican caucus Monday night, the Granite State is a far better natural political fit for the Republican frontrunner. However, if Trump is to remain viable, he must win the state he has been leading in for more than five months. The good news for Trump and his supporters is that he is far ahead of the rest of the pack.

Donald Trump currently leads the GOP field on the PPD average of New Hampshire Republican primary polls by nearly 22 points.

Mr. Trump has planned a number of rallies in New Hampshire leading up to the state’s primary on Feb. 9. Asked by reporters if he needed to conduct more after his Iowa performance, Mr. Trump said they were adding events “pretty rapidly.”

“I’m just happy with the way we’re doing,” said Mr. Trump, who said he hoped to win New Hampshire’s primary. “There’s just a big bonding process going on.”

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown endorsed Donald

Ted-Cruz-Iowa-Caucus

Ted Cruz’s team is deploying what it says is 12,000 volunteers for the Iowa caucuses. | AP Photo

Senator Ted Cruz’s upset victory against Donald Trump has robbed “The Donald” of his stock answer to any criticism from rivals– that he is winning and his critics are losers.

Now that he has lost, Mr. Trump may finally have to try to come up with some substantive arguments about the complex issues facing this country, rather than simply boast about the great things he will do when he becomes president.

Trump may turn out to be like the Wizard of Oz, after the curtain was pulled back to reveal the real man who was been busy projecting an awesome image.

Everything, however, depends on Trump’s followers, and on how much they have what William James called “the will to believe.” Iowa’s system of caucuses forced those followers to confront other people with different views before they could vote. In other states, they can simply walk into the voting booth and vote their unchallenged beliefs.

Although Trump was defeated in Iowa, he was by no means routed. Without the special handicap that the Iowa caucuses presented, he may still bluff his way through to the Republican nomination. And with Hillary Clinton’s lies and illegalities catching up with her more and more, this could still end up with a President Trump in the White House.

With this country at a crossroads, facing social degeneration at home and dire threats from abroad, the last thing we need is an uninformed bluffer with a runaway ego in charge of our fate. Neither Trump’s talent as a media performer nor his wheeler-dealer economic success is a substitute for the depth of knowledge and the chastening experience required for governing a great nation.

What about the alternatives to Trump?

After months of media fixation on Trump, and so-called “debates” that featured sound-bites which seldom got below the surface, we know remarkably little about the other candidates. The fact that there have been so many candidates has added to the problem of trying to understand any of them.

We can only hope that never again will the fate of this nation depend upon a media gimmick like these “debates,” which obscure and mislead far more than they inform us about anything beyond the candidates’ talents for glib responses.

Having each candidate sit down alone with an experienced interviewer for an hour-long, in-depth discussion of the problems facing the country would tell us a lot more about the things that matter. But such discussions would be unlikely to have as high media ratings as the sound-bite circuses we have seen.

With current realities being what they are, we can only make our choices among the alternatives available. That means both the existing candidates and the existing ways of learning about them.

There is much to be said for choosing among candidates with a track record of governing that we can judge. But none of the candidates with experience as a governor had voter support as high as 10 percent in Iowa.

Senator Ted Cruz’s experience as attorney general of Texas is the next best substitute. But it is still only a substitute. Others have zero experience of actually running a governmental organization and having to take responsibility for the consequences of how it ran.

Senator Cruz’s refusal to pander to the sacred cow of ethanol subsidies in Iowa showed a resolve that is rare in politics, and may account for the Republican establishment’s sudden shift to a more favorable view of wheeler-dealer Trump– someone who can “rise above principle,” as an old-time politician once put it.
Dr. Ben Carson’s monumental achievements as a brain surgeon, and as a human being, have made him an obvious favorite, even among people who did not vote for him. But you have to get the votes.

Only three people received enough votes in Iowa to lift them above 10 percent– Senator Cruz, Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio. Unless something spectacular happens in New Hampshire, these may be the voters’ only viable choices.

Senator Rubio has both a heart-warming personal story and an attractive personality. But his fling at joining with ultra-liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer to try to push an amnesty bill through the senate suggests that he too has the ability to “rise above principle” that is all too prevalent in politics.

Although Trump was defeated in Iowa, he

Ted-Cruz-Iowa-Caucus-Victory-Speech

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during a caucus night rally as his wife Heidi listens Monday, Feb. 1, 2016, in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: AP/Chris Carlson)

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! They lead the betting at ElectionBettingOdds.com.

This scares me. Neither candidate shows any interest in limited government. They scoff at anyone who suggests that their grand schemes do more harm than good. But big government does do more harm than good.

I shouldn’t single out Rubio or Clinton, or even Donald Trump. Almost everyone running for office today declares himself a “leader” who “gets things done.” There’s no modesty, little acknowledgement that so much of what government does is costly attempts to fix problems that government created at home and abroad.

In the book “The Fatal Conceit,” Frederick Hayek wrote, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

I wish politicians understood that. Chris Christie clearly doesn’t.

He wins my vote for worst presidential candidate this week because of what he’s doing to New Jersey’s taxpayers in the name of “fixing” Atlantic City.

Six years ago, Christie promised to “reform” and “rebuild” Atlantic City “without government money.”

Without government money? Good! It sounds as if the governor respects small government principles and would protect taxpayers.

Nope.

Christie had a few options. Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold points out that the governor could have done “nothing and let the free market drive out the weaker casinos, hope that the city government and the big casino corporations would innovate their way out of the problem.”

That was the small-government option. There would have been upheaval. Some bills wouldn’t get paid in full. But heck, Atlantic City “had been rendered fat and inefficient” by casino taxes. It paid “$1 million a year in pensions for long-retired city lifeguards who only ever worked four months a year,” wrote Fahrenthold.

Time to cut fat. Instead, Christie partnered with Democrats to embrace a big-government option.

His advisers wanted to take over the entire city. Christie’s concession to limited government was that he took over only half — mostly the fun part: all 11 casinos.

Christie put them under the oversight of a state agency. He said those bureaucrats would restore Atlantic City and again vowed, “You have my word that it’s going to be done without any government money.”

Dream on. The agency used eminent domain to grab properties for development. Bureaucrats spent millions on public art projects, like a statue of a nude woman holding a dead deer. Somehow that didn’t inspire tourists to rush to Atlantic City.

The state spent on TV ads and came up with a slogan: “Do AC.”

It didn’t help. Casinos kept going bankrupt, as did a giant unfinished hotel/casino, the Revel. Christie decided that the state should finish it. He got the legislature to promise $261 million in tax incentives and a $2 million grant.

That “no tax money” pledge? Gone. Now taxpayers were “investing.” “We are going to make the type of investment,” said Christie, “to make sure that we bring this city to a new renaissance.”

The renaissance never came.

The Revel opened, lost money and filed for bankruptcy just one year later. It’s now a 47-story hulk with 1,000 empty rooms. Its new owner considered naming it the Tower of Geniuses.

That would be a good name for Obamacare, “temporary” farm subsidies, Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and lots of other boondoggles designed by politicians.
So is Christie apologetic after spending millions of taxpayer dollars on failure? No, of course not. Recently he was asked whether, in hindsight, he would have done anything differently. “Nothing,” Christie replied.

Politicians never apologize. They charge forward. Their solution to failed government investment is more government. Last week Christie announced that the state would take over all of Atlantic City, claiming, “Greater state involvement makes sense.”

He says the new Atlantic City will “be delivered at an affordable cost to the taxpayers.”

Sure. And Mexico will pay for a giant wall, stimulus spending will revive the economy and arming Syrian rebels will bring peace.

The arrogance of the political class is endless.

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks

Bernie-Sanders-Iowa-Caucus-02-01-2016

People cheer as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during his caucus-night event at the at the Holiday Inn, Feb. 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

All eyes may be on the Republican primary and the brewing battles between Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump and Fox News, and Donald Trump and National Review, and Donald Trump and fill-in-the-blank — but the Democratic race is where the real news is happening.

The fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist, is heating up the campaign trail against the one-time presumptive primary winner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is one of the biggest tragedies facing America right now. It also happens to be one of the most under-reported.

Flash back to February 2009 when the cover of Newsweek blared forth the shocking headline, “We Are All Socialists Now” and the inside article elaborated with the subtitled query: “Can America Adopt a More European Model, Only With a Faster Rate of Growth?” Then there were the widely watched “Hardball” interviews of July 2015 and January 2016 when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked the Democratic National Committee’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mrs. Clinton, respectively, to define the differences between their political party and Socialism, with the ensuing results in both cases being wide-eyed stutters and off-guard stumbles. Then there was the should-be-historic reach-out of President Obama to Socialist Mr. Sanders with a January 27 closed-door meeting at the White House, the nation’s highest hallways of power, to trade thoughts on ISIS, foreign policy and other matters of political importance.

Anybody else see the alarm here?

Add in Mrs. Clinton’s lagging poll numbers, due in large part to her own doing, and the simultaneous rise of Mr. Sanders’, and what we have is a seismic shift in politics, one that says bluntly, “It’s okay to admit being a Socialist.” The tag doesn’t bring a blacklist. It brings an invite to the White House.

True, Democrats have been leaning Socialist for some time. But they’ve been masking it as progressive policy.

Mr. Sanders now represents for Socialists what Michael Sam, the first openly gay NFL player, represented for the homosexual rights movement – legitimacy. His Simon and Garfunkel “America” all-court press has freed Socialists from the shadows. Their stigma is gone. And that – not the poll numbers, or the day-to-day politicking, or the he-said, she-said arguments, but rather the sad disappearance of America’s noble republic, complete with principles of limited government as based on God-given rights – is the big story, the media-missed picture. Giving Mr. Sanders such a large platform is a startling commentary on the state of U.S. politics and culture. Watching his Socialist race be greeted with such favor is a pitiful discovery that speaks volumes about the country’s demise.

The fact that some argument has popped from the far-left camps condemning Mr. Sanders as little more than a Socialist wanna-be, and that the candidate himself often says he’s more a Democratic-Socialist, is little comfort to those who see America in the same vein as the Founding Fathers – or little matter. It’s the movement of Socialism into the mainstream, in either hyphenated form or stand-alone, that’s the larger concern, the loudest outrage.

Thomas Jefferson was said to have written, “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, offered this, in a January 19 Twitter post: “Our job is to tell every kid in this country, that if they work hard, regardless of family income, they will get a college education.” Or this, the same day: “I got a message for the Walton family of Walmart: Get off of welfare and pay your workers a living wage.” Or this a day earlier, of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote: “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth.”

These are the ideas that are gaining steam in America. Truthfully, they have been for years, and from both sides of the political aisles. The disappointing and depressing realization, though, is that thanks in large part to Mr. Sanders and his steaming charge through Iowa toward New Hampshire, outing them out as Socialist is not dimming their appeal.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

The fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial