Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KY: 2010 Sen (SurveyUSA 5/27-29)

Topics: Kentucky , poll , Senate

SurveyUSA / Courier-Journal Bluegrass / WHAS-TV
5/25-27/10; 569 likely voters, 4.2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
51% Paul (R), 45% Conway (D) (chart)

 

Comments
kevin626:

This pretty much confirms that Rassmussen is way off on this one and Dkos/R2k is a lot closer.

____________________

iVote:

So much for Rasmussen's 25 point Rand Paul lead.

____________________

bgtd:

It seems good for Paul that he is over 50% in a sample that is 54% democratic. KY has plenty of Democrats, to be sure, but would any locals care to comment on whether a 54-40 party ID split is reasonable? Also, Paul's only getting 82% of the R vote. I would think that will go up as the establishment lines up behind him, probably some sour grapes from Grayson people.

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

Why is everybody on here so obsessed with Rasmussen? Some people mention Rasmussen in every post they make.

____________________

williame123:

@Speedo Bandit

"Why is everybody on here so obsessed with Rasmussen? Some people mention Rasmussen in every post they make."

Because Ras polls more frequently than any other pollster and thus drives the political narrative. Public perception can be driven and shaped with poll results due to the tendency toward herd behavior among some mammal species, including humans.

____________________

jmartin4s:

One thing people should realize is that Conway performed 7% to 17% better on election night than in polls and trailed in practically every primary poll. No one should be counting Conway out, this race is a pure tossup.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It would be a real shame if Rand Paul won this race. Hell, I saw Trent Lott interviewed, and he looked like a pretty reasonable guy in comparison to this freak.

____________________

Ryan:

Connway did do better than he polled, but that was against another Dem. I'm not saying he's not going to make a race of it, just that making up ground in a primary is very different from making up ground in a general election.

____________________

tjampel:

I notice some really incredible age-based numbers in this poll. Anyone looked at the race by age in other polls of KY? Take a look at this:

Age: 18-29 Conway leads 54/41; not a surprise

Age: 35-49 Paul leads 60/37; that's quite an extreme reversal in the GenX demo. I know that this demo didn't like Obama much but it seems to be particularly energized by Dr Paul. These people are starting businesses, investing, and trying to support a still young family, pay for tuition, and save for retirement. I guess they're most focused on these personal activities. Rand's their obvious choice.

Age: 50-64 Paul leads 51/47; as expected or a bit better, really with baby boomers, many of whom have stayed liberal or moderate as they've aged.

Age: 65+ 47/47. There's the shocker for me, though 35-49 is also quite extreme. These are the folks who vote. I think Rand has them worried about their benefits; KY IS a vast net importer of benefits, getting $1.80 for every dollar they pay in to the Federal kitty.

If the "don't let the government touch my Medicare crowd" is a factor anywhere it's bound to be a big one in KY

____________________

bgtd:

@tjampel

Do you see it as a bad thing that 35-49ers are apparently focused on these "personal issues," aka taking care of themselves. Should everyone just surrender to utility and collectivism? Also, query how starting a business is purely personal, as businesses employ people and drive the economy.

____________________

pion:

Survey USA is another automated phone pollster. The question is, how many adults are excluded from their surveys because these Kentuckians exclusively use cell phones?

According to

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508926,00.html

Kentucky is the 7th state with the most cell-only users:

Kentucky: 21.4 percent of households, 21.6 percent of adults only use cells.

For comparison, in CA this number is 8.4 of adults.

21% of the population is excluded from these automated phone surveys in KY!! Assuming the cell-only crowd trends Liberal, at best, I believe Paul is in a dead heat with Conway who may even have an edge.

To emphasize: keep in mind that 21% of the population is excluded from automated phone surveys in KY every time you see such a poll.

____________________

pion:

tjampel:

"Age: 35-49 Paul leads 60/37; that's quite an extreme reversal in the GenX demo. I know that this demo didn't like Obama much but it seems to be particularly energized by Dr Paul. These people are starting businesses, investing, and trying to support a still young family, pay for tuition, and save for retirement. I guess they're most focused on these personal activities. Rand's their obvious choice. "

In Kentucky, how many 35-49 start a business as opposed to simply hold a job?

____________________

obamalover:

@Farleftandproud

Dude, we are talking about Kentucky. Saying you WOULD vote for the Civil Rights Act would hurt more than saying you would vote against it.

Again this proves my point that the most racist states in the country are pro-Republican.

____________________

ndirish11:

Easy obamalover. Rand Paul isn't racist and it's obvious. Liberals just can't understand that he has said he appalls all racism. He has problems with the philosophy of government being able to tell a private business how to run itself. He would not work to reverse the Civil Rights Act.

Also why would it be such a shame if Rand Paul won the Senate seat? Jack Conway? Really? Jack Conway is nothing, he is as good as horse with no legs. How is he going to make even an ounce of difference in the senate? Is it really too much that we have one libertarian minded person in the senate? Someone who will actually provide an alternative point of view then the view of the establishment politicians.

Remember today's Democrats and Republicans are pretty much exactly the same. Republicans preach small government but spend like liberals. Democrats say there liberal on social issues, but who ever pays attention to those at all? Once they get in, it doesn't matter what platform they ran because it just becomes politics as usual and nothing changes.

____________________

tjampel:

@Pion;

Of course most just hold jobs. Many, if not most, who are starting a business find that window of opportunity in their early 30s to late 40s. Most people in this demo are also raising families with young to college age kids...they need to save for tuition; many are also trying to build up savings for the future and for investment purposes.

@bgtd:

@tjampel

"Do you see it as a bad thing that 35-49ers are apparently focused on these "personal issues," aka taking care of themselves. Should everyone just surrender to utility and collectivism? Also, query how starting a business is purely personal, as businesses employ people and drive the economy."

Starting a business is a purely personal decision. I own a small business with one partner; we started it without help from anyone. We make the decisions ourselves. We affect the economy by employing others, by producing something of value for our clients, by purchasing from our vendors, and by spending the money we receive for our product.You might as well state that buying a car, sending a kid to college, buying ice cream, doing to a movie, etc....that none of these things are purely personal either because they create jobs and stimulate the economy. Every time I decide how many sheets of toilet paper to use isn't personal either because it has a role in determining (collectively, of course...multiply by a few hundred million) how many trees get cut down, how many timber companies make money, which lumberjacks get laid off or hired, etc.

Rand Paul's philosophy, if fully implemented might make it easier for our business to operate more freely, might lower its tax burden, free it from having to follow regulations, free it from having to hire or accommodate certain people, etc. This is the basis of my previous post's statement.

Is that a good thing? Well, it's great if your goal is making more money, holding on to more of it, and having less hassle from the government in doing so. If your concerns are directed more towards others; if, for example, you feel that it's wrong to make money at ALL COSTS then it's not always so great. I am in the latter group. I have no apologies for feeling that way.

For example:

let's say you have a business which requires workers to be exposed to some degree of risk in order for you to produce your product. Let's further say that you know that 50% of your workers will definitely die each year if you run your business the most cost-effective way (with no safety regulations at all). What do you do? Hopefully no one here will say...."I'd run it the most cost effective way". Hopefully no one would object, either, if the Federal Government says that too and regulates this industry. This is the basis for all regulation. The degree of regulation is usually the thing debated, not the need for it. The need usually arises out of disasters where, upon investigation, it was determined that owners of businesses were ONLY looking at the bottom line, at their workers peril.

There are definitely some who would claim that this choice in terms of how to run the business should be left solely to the discretion of the operator, and the the Gov should stay out of this, even if that meant 2-chamber Russian Roulette for any worker that worked at a facility which decided to make the most money they could.
I can't argue with such people because our philosophy is too fundamentally different.

Where we know people will die in significant numbers where they're hired to engage in some activity, related to a particular industry it's appropriate to minimize the risk to their lives. We regulate such dangerous industries to minimize death while preserving the incentive to keep such industries running (and, hence, profitable). I'm all for that. The devil is in the details. There has to be a balance. I tend to prefer seeing people not die to seeing sky high profits but I also know that driving crucial industries out of business through regulating them isn't a good strategy either.

I would apply the same standard to the environment. That's what President Nixon did when he signed NEPA into law. It's appropriate to use a cost-benefit analysis in determining things like...whether it's a good idea to have drilling rigs in deep water with known defective equipment and no way to stop a major blowout should one happen (because of that defective equipment, maybe?); Saying S____ happens isn't appropriate in such a situation, IMO. Regulation is entirely appropriate when the costs are an entire region's economy.

I have considered a number of other areas where people may die or suffer greatly if government fails to intervene and have decided that these, too, are appropriate actions.

One example which most agree with me on is a major disaster such as an earthquake, volcano, flood, tornado, etc. I notice that even when there's an earthquake in Haiti most people don't get too angry when the Gov helps out. Most Republicans agree we should help in Haiti, help with famines in Africa, give free drugs to Africans with HIV, etc.

I don't see it as a stretch to think our own Gov should do the same thing when nearly half the people who died in Haiti die each year in the US due to lack of access to long-term medical care, despite having good ER care.

These people work, of course and can't get care they would get if they don't work at all... through Medicaid. Because they work and make 30, 40, 50k for their whole family, (and are self-employed, aren't insured through work, or have been dropped by their insurer) they have no access to medical care for a whole host of fatal diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, cancer, etc. which always are terminal without that care. I believe each American should get that care.

If the cost of medical care for these American workers is too high why this outpouring of compassion and support for Haitians and Tsunami victims and a total lack of it (in the form of willingness to take care of them) for our own citizens...working Americans who'll die without the same kind of support? How can we drop a few Billion in Haiti and call that an emergency but deny there's such an emergency here when 45,000 dies here (or 35 or 25, etc if you don't believe the Harvard Med School study)? If people die slowly and out of sight is it any less an emergency? Is it best for our country to make the decision that saving their lives is less valuable than using the money to, say, prosecute our two current wars? I think not. So I am a collectivist when it comes to this issue.

I believe that failing to take action with regard to the environment endangers the lives of all succeeding generations; it's not just having a tree-hugger philosophy; it's apply what's known and becoming more clear each year. For example, the past 12 months were the hottest (yeah, you heard right...and I live in NYC too) 12 months, globally, on record, and the amount of ice in the Arctic dropped at an unsurpassed rate. No matter what the cause of this is, making no attempt to do anything about it is stupid. This is another area where I favor Gov intervention in the form of direct Gov support for wind, solar and, yeah...for now....nuclear, because oil isn't our future. Coal needs to be produced for now and for foreseeable future as well for certain industries such as the steel industry, for example; there's no other way. It should NOT be used to produce power 25 years from now. Greenhouse gas emissions from existing plants need to be curtailed. I'm open to any solution from conservatives as to how to do this. Doing nothing simply isn't an option. Even if much of the warming is unrelated to CO2 some of it certainly is, and CO2 certainly makes the situation worse. Most climatologists believe the situation is mostly man made. I wouldn't take any chances at all.

I also favor regulation of banks and investment firms. When the regulations that kept banks "boring"for 70 years were gutted and, through deregulation, banks became multinational bank holding companies which, along with investment firms, whose main focus suddenly became investing their own money for themselves, along with investment-oriented insurance companies began playing poker with our twice-bartered mortgages, (in the form of CDSs) and when real estate prices dropped, all hell broke loose.

There were other factors at work here as well, including Fannie Mae Freddy Mac-related ones; but the ability to take my mortgage, sell it to the highest bidder, who would then bundle it with other mortgages and sell them as a group with others getting in on the action through bets on how it would do, if it would fail, etc. didn't have the slightest positive effect on main street commerce, on production of goods and services, etc. except in my own town, NYC...we had a surplus during the boom years.

Banks should go back to being small and boring. Government is right to put them back in their place, as happened during the Great Depression. Breaking them up would be just fine with me, as we did with ATT in the 70s.

If you think that having the government act in this way on the above issues would drive us to a collectivist economy then I am a collectivist/socialist and proudly so, though any real socialist would laugh at me should I make that claim. But, just as the word racism has morphed into something quite different over the years from its original meaning, so has socialist, since Obama IS one according to many mainstream Republicans. And, if he is one according to those standards that's cool with me. Calling him just that has managed to move the Overton window for the word in a way that would have been utterly impossible that its use been reserved for everyone to the left of Bernie Sanders. The proof of this is the last survey I looked at regarding reaction to the word "Socialist". Young people, by a small margin, now have a positive reaction to it. It's the new word for liberal I guess.


____________________

tjampel:

@ndirish11:
"Remember today's Democrats and Republicans are pretty much exactly the same. Republicans preach small government but spend like liberals. Democrats say there liberal on social issues, but who ever pays attention to those at all? Once they get in, it doesn't matter what platform they ran because it just becomes politics as usual and nothing changes."

In virtually every policy area of interest, whether it involves spending or not Dems and Repubs have virtually no agreement.

1. DADT...complete disagreement
2. Climate Bill...same; a few Repubs will support this in the end...very few
3. Stimulus....ditto
4. HCR...same
5. DOMA, ENDA..any bill that removes Fed restrictions from gays...same split
6. Jobs bills...Repubs have generally opposed all the spending-related parts,so they've been stripped out, generally. Dems overwhelmingly support some new infrastructure spending
7. EFCA...this bill has no chance at present because of near-unanimous opposition from Repubs plus some Dem opposition in right-to-work states; other Dems support it solidly. If card check is removed from the bill then it will resemble HCR with almost all Repubs opposing and most Dems supporting. I don't think it will pass, but not because of Dems...

____________________

obamalover:

@ndirish11

He said he would vote against the Civil Rights Act. Fact. You can sugar coat it any way you like, but he is a nut case and most likely a not so secret racist.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Age: 35-49 Paul leads 60/37; that's quite an extreme reversal in the GenX demo. I know that this demo didn't like Obama much but it seems to be particularly energized by Dr Paul."

Here's how the 2008 exits in KY shaped up by age:

Age: McCain / Obama

18-24: 50 / 48
25-29: 45 / 55
30-39: 52 / 45
40-49: 67 / 32
50-64: 56 / 43
65 + : 59 / 40

So those numbers you mention are not surprising and probably accurate. They are generally indicative of some larger trends that were visible on the national level. The most liberal age group are those in their late 20s or right around 30. The most conservative age group nationally was over 65, but people in their 40s are more conservative than those younger and older than they are. In KY this was quite a bit more pronounced for whatever reason.

From my experience teaching undergraduates and from conversations with my colleagues that have been doing it far longer, I feel that people are very much influenced by the events that happen to them and around them between the ages 14-21 or so, which is generally when people start paying attention. My theory is that how you feel around the time you graduate from high school (come of age) will broadly influence your worldview the rest of your life. I don't believe this "grow more conservative as you grow older" b.s. Young people during the Reagan years were conservative. Old people during the 1950s and 60s were liberal.

People aged 40-49 in 2008 graduated high school between the years 1979-1988, the worst of the Carter years followed by the Reagan years. That contrast has stayed with them.

Those ages 25-29 graduated between 1999 and 2003 - years that offered the most marked contrast between Clinton and Bush II. They came of age with the Iraq War. I believe Bush will have the same affect on that group that Carter had on people who are today in their 40s. They will not forget how much they disliked him.

____________________

Paleo:

Exactly right will123. This just shows how biased and off the mark rASS is.

____________________

melvin:

ITS GOING TO BE A SAD DAY IN AMERICA IF KY ELECT THIS GUY,THIS WOULD PUT AMERICA BACK 145 YEARS.

____________________

bgtd:

@tj

Such a lengthy response is appreciated but unnecessary. I'm no pure Libertarian like Paul. I just wanted to know if you intended to sound so disdainful about people worrying about their "personal issues." It's hard to tell tone online. Personally, while I'm a conservative, I find people like Paul's ideological rigidity both admirable and childish. It's refreshing to see someone who's willing to carry his guiding philosophy to its natural end, even if that means saying things that aren't popular. At the same time, the abstract notion of complete Libertarianism is too impractical, for some of the reasons you cite and others.

____________________

ndirish11:

Look at the overall picture tjampel, they both are for bigger government and that's the root of our problems. And the stimulus? What are you talking about? George Bush had a stimulus bill remember? Obama's "Economic Recovery" stimulus was the same exact thing just much larger.

The stimulus is the root of our problems. We need the opposite of a stimulus. We got into this mess because of borrowing too much and consuming too much. Now we are "stimulating" to do the same thing. We are borrowing to consume more to fix our problem of excess consumption.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Damn my generation...the 35-49 year olds were a conservative generation. I tried my best to change some minds, but they are stubborn. I am glad the generation Y ers are a bit more progressive.

The show Family Ties in the 1980's was sort of a portrayal of that. The parents grew up with Bob Dylan, John Lennon and the hippies and their son grows up during the height of the 80's which was the most innovative generation of American capitalism for some and de industrialization and globalization.

When the over 65's are less supportive of Paul than the Gen xers, that is a good sign. 47-47 split among the elderly is really good. Rand Paul is not going to be the nice guy to the elderly that a Trent Lott or Mitch Mcconnell would. Most Republicans threaten against cutting medicare, but Paul will probably be very honest about intending to cut medicare.

____________________

John:

ndirish11:

"The stimulus is the root of our problems. We need the opposite of a stimulus."

Mass depressants all around? More seriously the american (and the world) economy, I would argue, needed the stimulas packages in order to avoid a downward spiral which would have became increasingly difficult to escape especially as each economies health are increasely closely linked. However now we are out of the immediate danger, comes the difficult task of trying to keep growth steady (the most important factor in reducing national debt) whilst reducing the deficit as rapidly as possible. Overconsumption was/is a problem but trying to deal with it whilst in a recession would have most likely lead to a situation similiar to Japan.

Re. the poll I would be somewhat careful at over-interpreting the age percentages as, for the susa poll, even the largest category has less than 200 people. That's a fairly hefty margin of error especially between 2 canditates.

The electorate of the poll seem to be a little bit too white and male, (although the later would make little difference), both of which favour the Conway, but the party id (with only 5% independents?!) probably favours Paul, so in at least electorate terms its about a wash.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Dude, we are talking about Kentucky. Saying you WOULD vote for the Civil Rights Act would hurt more than saying you would vote against it.

Again this proves my point that the most racist states in the country are pro-Republican.

AMAZING. Simply amazing.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

@farleft

"Damn my generation...the 35-49 year olds were a conservative generation. I tried my best to change some minds, but they are stubborn. I am glad the generation Y ers are a bit more progressive."

You need credibility to change minds. Most 35-49 year olds are self dependent people with children, mortgages, and lots of other adult responsibilities. Who can take someone like you seriously? Aren't you a grown man that still lives with his mommy? Yeah I thought so.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

I agree. it is amazing how racist Paul and his supporters are.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Most 35-49 year olds are self dependent people with children, mortgages, and lots of other adult responsibilities."

They split their vote. But I guess the half of them that vote republican are superior in some way to those who vote more democratic than thay do. Because the only people who vote democrat are those who sit at home stoned and get free checks in the mail.

I'm sure you are working really hard when you find time to post on here.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

I guess I'm racist then. But, its amazing to me how racist Obama supporters are, thus so are you! See how meaningless your statements are?

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

@Aaron,

1,850 from pollster.com for aaron_in_TX.

1850 post on pollster from you Aaron. That's sooooo rich.

LOL, when libs stick their feet in their mouths the really stick them deep. What a joke.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"obamalover:
@Farleftandproud

Dude, we are talking about Kentucky. Saying you WOULD vote for the Civil Rights Act would hurt more than saying you would vote against it.

Again this proves my point that the most racist states in the country are pro-Republican"

That is probably true Obama lover and this is a sad reality I wish weren't true but I think it is. I am shocked that even in Kentucky that they would support anyone repealing laws to protect blacks as well as even disabled people. What is wrong with that state? I have never heard even some of the most conservative southern politicians like John Shelby actually suggest a repeal of such laws.

I think what bothers me about Rand Paul is he claims to be libertarian, yet deporting illegals and stripping their children of citizenship takes a semi-police state to enforce. It sounds contrary to libertarian philosphophy. I would expect libertarians to encourage foreigners to come and get a job, learn skills and learn skills to contribute to society without a lot of government help.

Rand Paul sounds more like a Pat Buchanan style conservative who would like to limit all immigration to a certain number per year and throw all the ones who are here illegal out.

I really like the amnesty idea. I never ever thought Bush and I would have ever agreed on anything, but George W. Really made an effort at immigration reform. It was his own party who rejected it. Again this is one extra headache left for the Obama administration.


____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think if it wasn't for the stimulus, our unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent. I think it could have been another great depression.

If I had been Obama, I the only way I would have saved money and decided against a huge stimulus overhaul, was to bring them all back from Iraq and most of them from Afghanistan.

If the GOP said that was a great thing to do, I would have said, "okay we don't need a stimulus".

Find me a politician who doesn't want to spend any money at all, and I'll say, "you must have found me a robot".

All things are investments, including our people. The Stimulus was putting forth capital to put people back to work. It was an investment that created many more jobs than had our government done nothing.

____________________

Farleftandproud:


TeaPartyRules:
@farleft


"You need credibility to change minds. Most 35-49 year olds are self dependent people with children, mortgages, and lots of other adult responsibilities. Who can take someone like you seriously? Aren't you a grown man that still lives with his mommy? Yeah I thought so."


Oh come on Tea party rules. There is no need to be insulting to me just because I disagree with you. I think that was a very rude insensitive statement.

I make pretty good money and am self sufficient. I am insulted that you stereotype people's success or lack of, as their political views.

I know some very successful progressives, and some poor and down and out conservatives. In fact, from my experience, I meet a lot of people with conservative views who have had rough times, and are just getting by.

If you want to insult Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Russ Feingold or whoever, go ahead, but personal attacks are not cool.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Besides, from my personal experience, and the people I have known, fiscal concerns and what economic class they are in is not one of the major issues they vote on.

I know many wealthy people who are concerned about those less fortunate than them, and have a sense of social justice. Many of the more affluent progressives I have known personally and famous people I find to be sensative.

I have spent a lot of time with the creative artistic community and musicians. I am a songwriter myself, but I don't think I'm that great. I have always been inspired by songs and artists of all genres who write about struggle. Other than country-western and religious music, much of it has fairly progressive overtones to it.

____________________

GoTo123:

Well well well, I thought Paul was ahead by 30% according to Rasmussen...

Obamalover: What a bigoted comment. Since when did you know how every single voter in Kentucky felt about the Civil Rights Act? Have you even visited Kentucky before or are you just assuming that because it happens to to have people with Southern accents and votes Republican so therefore it must be racist? I personally know plenty of Republicans and they certainly are not racist at all. Its these types of comments that you and some of the other extreme lefties make that really turn people away from your cause. You should refrain from throwing the race card in the future.

Anyways, with all of that said, I believe that Paul will lose come election day. While his ideas may make since from an extreme libertarian point of view, most people realize that government regulation is needed in cases of discrimination.

The problem with Randy and Ron Paul's ideas is that while they may sound good in theory, unfortunately they would be awful in practice.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

If you could vote on the American with Disabilities Act would you vote for it?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Goto,

Yes, i encourage Obamalover and his nutty, extremist, and bigoted self to keep it up so the country sees the nuttiness they voted for last November.

____________________

ndirish11:

I agree, without the stimulus we would of had another great depression. And we needed that great depression to fix our economy. A recession used to be defined as something to fix our economy. The free market would put an economy into recession when imbalances needed to be fixed. But now we try to stop the recessions. We don't let them happen. As a result, we have kicked the can down the road and we still have too many imbalances in the economy. We haven't solved anything, we are just on a government "high" of stimulus. Once it runs out we will either need another hit of stimulus or will need to go through detox and rid ourselves of the toxins in our economy. If we just keep shooting up with stimulus we will eventually overdose and we will have mass inflation in an economic doomsday scenario similar to Zimbabwe.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR