Conservatives Monitoring The Liberal Left
Posts tagged Liberal Power Grab
Now The White House Is Fighting With Car Website Edmunds.com
Oct 31st
George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.
But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.
They’re actually using The White House blog to dispute the site’s analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (viaDetroit News).
The post is snarkily titled: “Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers”
Harsh!
Here’s the full post:
—–
On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter – the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade – Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:
1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.
In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program.
This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn’t how many mainstream analyses, including Moody’s and IHS Global Insight approach the problem (see pages 5 and 15 of this CEA report [PDF]). In fact, Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “The important takeaway from recent sales trends is that it suggests that there has been minimal ‘payback’ for the U.S. government’s ‘cash for clunkers’ program.”
2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.
Major automakers including GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler all increased their production through the end of the year as a result of this program, which will help boost growth beyond the third quarter. The actions of private market participants, who would not increase production if they didn’t think demand for their product would be there through the end of the year, is a far better indicator of market dynamics – and one that Edmunds.com conveniently ignores.
Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009. The strength of recent auto sales data suggest that, if anything, this projection underestimates the actual impact of the program. CEA’s analysis is transparent and comprehensive, laying out all of its assumptions for the public to understand. Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis.
So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself:
Seriously, what’s the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it’s great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning’s GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we’re with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.
Read imore at : http://www.businessinsider.com
Posted using ShareThis
School kids taught to praise Obama (Updated, w/Lyrics) and now the video Banned By Bernice Young Elemantary’s Lawyers
Oct 29th
None of the actual videos are stored on townhallmob.com internet servers. The videos live on youtube.com servers. Our web site points to those videos and are inserted on to your screen from youtube.com servers. We have been contacted by Bernice Young Elementary School’s legal team, and the video is no longer viewable from the link we point to. Technically, youtube.com removed the video, not us. If you really need to see the video, look a little harder on the internet. It’s there.
This has been tried manny manny times before in various guises around the world in history. The last time it got out of control was in Germany in the 1930s. It started out as a voluntary youth movement, ad became compensatory (mandatory) for all youth to join the Hitler Youth in the Late 1939.
Check out the book, “Hitler Youth” by Michael H. Kater. This book focuses on the German youth movements, how the Nazi’s sized and co-opted the existing youth clubs, scouts, etc and over time they became the Hitler Youth, Basically this was designed to teach allegiance to the fuller, and groom young boys and girls for their roles in military service. Obama has a similar idea. Indoctrinate them in elementary school, become volunteers (Acorn for teens) and then Americorps. (10 year service to a Government mandated work program).
Here’s an earlier video I posted a few weeks ago. Once again, Obama Youth praising Barack, interwoven with Hitler Youth praising
Praising Adolph Hitler and the Nazi dream.
This was filmed around June 19, 2009, at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ.
Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
segue to
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say “hooray!”
Hooray Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
Parties Nearly Tied for Congress in 2010
Oct 7th
Given in a polite, understated, terribly-sorry-to-bother-you sort of way:
Parties Nearly Tied for Congress in 2010
PRINCETON, NJ — Roughly a year before the 2010 midterm elections, Gallup finds the Republican and Democratic Parties nearly tied in the congressional ballot preferences of registered voters. Forty-six percent of registered voters say they would vote for the Democrat and 44% say the Republican when asked which party’s candidate they would support for Congress, if the election were held today.
The interesting part of this article is in what it lacks: to wit, any good news for Democrats. Gallup pointed out the registered/likely voter differential, the fact that historical trends are arguing for serious Republican gains next year if this keeps up, and even that the public despises the job that Congress is doing (which also is notably lacking in good news for Democrats, although it tries to give a little). No doubt there will be people out there that will try to explain why all of this shows how horrible things are for the GOP right now; which is fine. We all need more comedy in our lives.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Liberals seek health-care access for illegal aliens
Sep 28th
By Stephen Dinan
Fearful that they’re losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access.
The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party’s spines on the contentious issue, say it’s unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they’ve been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.
“Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room,” said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Mr. Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands.
Coverage for immigrants is one of the thorniest issues in the health care debate, and one many Democratic leaders would like to avoid. But immigrant rights groups and the Democrats who sent the letters say they have to take a stand now.
President Obama has said he does not want health care proposals to cover illegal immigrants. The bill drawn up by Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, excludes illegal immigrants from his proposed health care exchange.
Mr. Honda and his allies, though, say illegal immigrants should be allowed to pay for insurance if they can afford it, even if it comes through a government-established exchange. As a generally young, healthy part of the population, illegal immigrants could help reduce overall costs for those who buy into health exchange plans, the lawmakers said.
The Democrats’ letters, however, do not issue ultimatums or threaten to withhold support for the bills if their requests aren’t met.
The National Council of La Raza launched its own “flood their voice mail” campaign last week to put pressure on Mr. Baucus to expand coverage in his proposal to include all legal immigrants and to drop verification language in the legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining coverage.
Mr. Honda told The Washington Times that he’s not pushing for illegal immigrants to gain access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits. “That’s an argument that’s been done already,” he said.
Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said proposals that include government coverage for illegal immigrants leave him incredulous.
“If anybody can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our law and for the most part are criminals, I don’t know where they ever would draw the line,” he said.
Mr. King, who opposes Democrats’ health care plans in general, said illegal immigrant access in legislation “would be a poison pill that would cause health care to go down” to defeat.
Twenty-nine Democrats signed on to the letter on legal immigrants, while 21 signed the letter on covering illegal immigrants. Although the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus signed the legal-immigrant letter in their capacity as CBC officials, they signed the other letter as individual members of Congress.
Under the 1996 welfare law overhaul, Congress restricted most federal benefits to longtime holders of green cards – those who have been in the country at least five years.
But Democrats chipped away at that rule when they reauthorized the State Children’s Health Insurance Program earlier this year and allowed states to cover all immigrant children and pregnant women, regardless of how long they’ve been in the country.
In their letter, the Democrats said health care costs are much lower for legal immigrants than for native citizens.
“Immigrants are part of our families, our communities, our economy, and contribute to the fabric of America,” they wrote. “It is simply wrong that their taxes would pay for public health insurance programs to which they are not allowed access.”
Source: The Washington Times
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll September 21, 2009
Sep 21st
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).
Among voters without health insurance, 58% favor passage of the health care plan working its way through Congress. Thirty-five percent (35%) are opposed. Most uninsured Democrats favor the plan while most uninsured Republicans do not.
The President recently said he is open to considering the idea of giving tax breaks to struggling newspapers. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American adults say it would be better to provide some federal subsidies rather than let the newspapers go out of business. However, only 17% favor a government bailout of the newspaper industry.
In fact, just 25% even favor the creation of a White House commission to help find ways for struggling news organizations survive.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty (50%) now disapprove. A Month-by-Month Review of the President’s ratings shows that the Presidential Approval Index served as a leading indicator by declining months before the President’s overall job approval ratings fell.
Members of Congress have now slipped below corporate CEOs to become the least favorably viewed profession. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of the legislators while 27% say that about the business leaders.
Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release data measuring public reaction to the President’s decision to halt deployment of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe. Also, an update on which of the President’s priorities is considered most important. Premium Members can get an advance look at the data.
Rasmussen Reports has recently released polling on the upcoming Senate races in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. We are also polling regularly on the 2009 Governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia and have taken a look at the 2010 Colorado Governor’s race along with the Texas GOP Primary battle.
Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
(More Below)
Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated polling techniques. While some of our competitors diss the approach and prefer their own operator-assisted technology, Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
Additionally, an analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race. That stability is one reason that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I’d want with me on a desert island.”
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.7% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 29.6% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Baucus Unveils $856 Billion Health-Care Legislation
Sep 16th
![[Baucus]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-EL746_0916ba_D_20090916135424.jpg)
WASHINGTON — Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus formally unveiled a 10-year, $856 billion bill that would extend health insurance to tens of millions of Americans but that found lukewarm support among other key senators, indicating changes to the measure are in store.
After months of wrangling, a health-care reform proposal — minus a public option — has been released. WSJ’s Janet Adamy says now it’s a question of whether Democrats can win bipartisan support.
“This is a good bill. This is a balanced bill. It can pass the Senate,” Mr. Baucus said at an afternoon news conference at which he provided details on the plan.
But Mr. Baucus’s measure has yet to win any Republican support. Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of three Republicans Mr. Baucus has wooed for the package, said the bill is inadequate to win her support even as it “moves in the right direction.”
Ms. Snowe identified three areas where the bill needs changes: tax credits to make insurance affordable to consumers; cost to the government of expanded coverage; and ensuring competition in the new insurance exchanges created by the bill.
Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the two other Republicans that are negotiating with Mr. Baucus, have also said they are disappointed with the Baucus proposal and can’t sign on. But both also expressed their willingness to keep talking with Mr. Baucus toward a deal.
“This is a first step in the process, and those of us as members of the bipartisan Group of Six fully intend to keep meeting, moving forward and continuing to work with the chairman during the committee process toward crafting a bill that I, and hopefully other Republican members of the Finance Committee, can support,” Ms. Snowe said.
The bill moves toward committee action starting next Tuesday.
The sweeping measure is designed to steer a more moderate course on health policy than other major bills moving through Capitol Hill, and it doesn’t propose to create a new government insurance plan to compete with private insurers, as proposed in rival House legislation and favored by many liberal lawmakers. Instead, the Montana Democrat is proposing to expand coverage by creating a network of nonprofit health-insurance cooperatives. The cooperatives would be seeded with $6 billion in federal money, enough to cover start-up costs and meet insurance solvency requirements.
More than a year in the making, the bill would overhaul the nation’s health-care system and has sparked a sharp battle between Republican leaders and the White House over the size and role of government in the nation’s economy. (Read the full text of the Baucus plan.)
The bill was swiftly denounced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who complained it would cut Medicare, which provides insurance to the elderly, and impose new tax burdens on families and small businesses.
“Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy,” he said, adding taxpayers don’t want “yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program.”
The measure would broaden eligibility for Medicaid, the existing federal-state health program for the poor, and it would create a new national insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses can purchase insurance. Individuals and families would be required to purchase insurance and would face penalties ranging from $750 to $3,800 for not complying.
However, those at the lower end of the income ladder and who aren’t on Medicaid would receive federal tax subsidies to defray the cost.
Under the bill, the subsidies – in the form of a refundable tax credit — would flow to individuals and families with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level. For those with incomes from 300% to 400% of the poverty level, the bill would cap annual insurance premiums at 13% of income. Liberal critics say that level is too large and would expose middle-income families to big new expenses.
The bill wouldn’t require employers to provide insurance, a break with the more aggressive House bill. But it would require businesses that have more than 50 workers and don’t offer insurance to reimburse the government for part of the cost of any taxpayer-backed insurance subsidies the workers receive.
Insurers would be barred from using a range of practices that critics say have created economic turmoil for millions of families. Among other things, the measure would bar them from denying health coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions or imposing annual or lifetime limits on coverage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to convene a caucus of Senate Democrats Thursday to discuss the legislation. Mr. Baucus is intent on bringing the bill before the influential Finance panel next week.
Some Senate Democrats Wednesday also were measured in their assessment of the Baucus bill.
“We all know that, while this is a very good start, it is not a finished product,” said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, part of the Group of Six that has been negotiating. “Colleagues from both sides of the aisle will have ample opportunity to further improve this already quality proposal.”
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon has said he wants changes to the bill to provide more subsidies to low- and middle-income families to purchase health insurance.
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a key moderate, offered qualified support. “Conceptually, Max is headed in the right direction,” he said, declining to detail his specific concerns with the bill. “I support the majority of it.”
“There are honest and principled differences on all of us working for reform, and this package may not represent all of our first choices,” Mr. Baucus said at the afternoon news conference. “But at the end of the day, we all share a common purpose, that is to make the lives of Americans better tomorrow than they are today, and to get health-care reform done, which means the time to come for action is now.”
Mr. Baucus stressed the bill wouldn’t add to the federal deficit. The bill is financed by some new taxes and by holding back the rate of growth in programs like Medicare.
Read More: Wall Street Journal
Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent (report # 2)
Sep 9th
WASHINGTON – Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the country’s glowering mood as the White House made a renewed pitch for an
overhaul.
Just 42 percent approve of the president’s work on the high-profile health issue. The survey was released Wednesday before his nationally televised effort to persuade Congress and voters to back his drive to reshape the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year medical system.
Spotlighting how Obama lost ground this summer, his latest approval figures on health were essentially reversed since July, when 50 percent approved of his health effort and just 43 percent disapproved.
The poll was taken over five days just before Obama’s speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama’s determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles.
“I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it,” Obama said Wednesday night. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the
way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we’ll call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution.”
The poll illustrates how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession. Fifty percent approve and 49 percent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 percent to 42 percent.
The slipping figures were an ominous sign for Obama, who by year’s end wants Congress to send him legislation lowering health costs while covering millions of uninsured Americans. Besides near unanimous opposition from Republicans, the president’s proposal has divided lawmakers from his own party, with liberals battling for a far-reaching plan that would include optional government-run insurance, and moderates demanding a scaled-down version without public coverage.
The poll found that discontent with Obama’s health care effort is not isolated to Republicans. While nearly nine in 10 from the GOP disapproved of his handling of the issue, so did about six in 10 independents and two in 10 Democrats.
“How in the world can anybody look at this and evaluate it and see if it makes effective change?” Kelly Hoots, 35, a pharmacist and independent from Weaverville, N.C., said of the health care legislation. “Who knows what’s in it?”
Further spotlighting the opposition Obama is encountering, 49 percent in the AP-GfK poll said they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.
People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do next on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.
Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is, a positive sign for Obama.
“It’s about time” for expanded health coverage, said Randy Yarborough, 56, a retired cabinetmaker and Democrat from Fort
Lauderdale, Fla. “Everybody ought to have it. Anybody who says we can’t afford it or we shouldn’t have government health care, you need to wake up.”
There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on health care. Eight in 10 say it’s important that any plan that passes Congress have the support of both parties, with Democrats, Republicans and independents all saying so by roughly that proportion. Two-thirds say if Obama and congressional Democrats can’t win support from Republicans to pass a bill this year, they should keep trying until they get
it.
Obama’s marks are also declining on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he’s handled that issue. Just 46 percent disapproved in a July AP-GfK poll, and 35 percent disapproved in April.
About half disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul, and of unemployment, which has been on the rise. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused federal revenues to sink.
While 77 percent say health care is important to them, 92 percent said the same about the economy, more than any other issue in the AP-GfK poll. That suggests that despite Washington’s focus on the health care struggle, few voters have taken their eyes off the recession.
“They ought to scrap the whole thing” on health care, said Republican Wendy Sanders, 39, a homemaker from Kingsland, Ga. “People need jobs. Do that.”
The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Read More: Here