Interactive Election Game: 2016 (TURN 5)

[NHI]

I'll need an extension. I had everything written out then my computer crashed.

How do you need?

My apologies for delay. Was held up last night. Update is ready to go whenever GoTfan is ready.

[NHI]

Update: August 27-September 6, 2016

People's Party In Talks of Being Formed.

Senator Bernie Sanders' independent bid for the Presidency, has sparked an intense debate over the future of the two-party political system, so much so that progressives are discussing the possibility of forming a new third party, centered around progressive economic proposals and policies. One of the persons involved in the talks is Harvard Professor and Sanders supporter Lawrence Lessig, who said, "the hope is that we can rally people around a set of ideas and principles which are in stark contrast to the policies and ideas offered by the two major political parties." Lessig, also stated his belief that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are 'debunked' and that the time has come for a 'new legitimate third party, to offer a real choice to the American people.

---

Warrens goes on the offensive

Senator Warren recently went on the attack, slamming her one-time primary opponent, and now election rival as 'tipping the election to the Republicans'. Warren's criticisms of Bernie Sanders comes as Democrats look to shore up their party base in the wake of Sanders' challenge, and proposal for a new political party. We share the same goals, and we should be working together, rather than dividing the Democratic Party over our petty squabbles." Warren told a group of supporters in Virginia.

Warren, has made repeated calls for Democrats to unite, saying that a fractured party would lead to the election of Marco Rubio. Nationally Warren continues to trail Rubio, 44% to 40%, and is down in the many of the critical battleground states, including in Virginia, where Rubio now leads: 47% to 45%.

Another state Warren appears to be in trouble in, is in Washington. She currently leads with 38% of the vote, to Rubio's 34%. Sanders polls third with 16%.

Warren's efforts to attack Rubio, and provide a contrast, have been muddled, given the Sanders factor in the race. Adding to the drama is a new poll which found 47% of voters are less likely to vote for her after revelations in the DNC email hack were made public.


Rubio Focusing on the Midwest

In contrast to past Republican candidates, Marco Rubio is playing major attention to the states of Ohio & Pennsylvania, as well to the Democratic 'blue wall' of: Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. All three states have voted straight Democrat since 1992, but with a divided Democratic vote between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Rubio's focus on economic populism, his chances in the region have improved greatly since the start of the campaign.

Current polls find Rubio leading in Michigan: 43% to Warren's 41%. He's also up in Wisconsin, a state which hasn't voted for a Republican since 1984. Rubio currently leads 44% to 41%. In Minnesota, Warren holds a narrow lead of 40% to 39%, with Sanders pulling an impressive 15%.

Rubio, has also hit Warren hard in the region for corruption, as well as for ties to the Obama Administration, reminding voters she supports many of the policies of the President. This is seen as a way to draw away some Democratic and Sanders voters.


The Revolution?
Ron Paul is running a quiotix campaign. Nationally, he's polling in the low single digits and does not receive much mention from either Marco Rubio or Elizabeth Warren, but he seems to be keeping his nose to the ground, and playing hard in states where he has a chance.

The Paul effort seems to be most concentrated in the states with a larger Republican presence: Namely, Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and his home state of Texas. The state with the best likelihood of going to Paul is Alaska, while the rest appear to be potential spoilers for Rubio, should the former Texas Congressman rise in the polls.


Polling:

Ohio:
Warren: 43%
Rubio:   42%
Sanders:  9%
Paul: 3%

Iowa:
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 2%

North Carolina:
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 42%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 1%

Colorado:
Warren: 40%
Rubio: 38%
Paul: 9%
Sanders: 3%

New Mexico:
Warren: 44%
Rubio: 40%
Paul: 10%
Sanders: 3%

Minnesota:
Warren: 40%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 2%

Wisconsin:
Rubio: 44%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 12%
Paul: 1%

Michigan:
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 11%
Paul: 1%

Hawaii:
Sanders: 35%
Rubio: 27%:
Warren: 25%
Paul: 1%

Washington:
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 34%
Sanders: 16%
Paul: 1%

Texas:
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 13%
Sanders: 1%

Idaho:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 34%
Paul: 8%
Sanders: <1%

Alaska:
Rubio: 35%
Warren: 25%
Paul: 24%
Sanders: 4%

New Hampshire:
Rubio: 27%
Warren: 26%
Sanders: 20%
Paul: 17%

Maine:
Rubio: 35%
Warren: 33%
Sanders: 17%
Paul: 7%


Vermont:
Sanders: 48%
Rubio: 26%
Warren: 20%
Paul: 2%

Florida:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 38%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 2%

New Jersey:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 38%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 2%

New York:
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 7%
Paul: 1%

Connecticut:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: <1%

Rhode Island:
Warren: 44%
Rubio: 36%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: <1%

Oregon:
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 36%
Sanders: 13%
Paul: 1%

California:
Warren: 46%
Rubio: 35%
Sanders: 11%
Paul: 2%

Nevada:
Rubio: 42%
Waren: 39%
Paul: 5%
Sanders: 3%

Illinois:
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 41%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 1%

Delaware:
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: <1%

Maryland:
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 38%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: <1%

Washington, D.C.:
Warren: 56%
Sanders: 33%
Rubio: 9%
Paul: <1%

Pennsylvania:
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 42%
Sanders: 8%
Paul: 2%
 



----
Electoral Map Based on Polling:

Rubio: 313
Warren: 218
Sanders: 7
Paul: 0

This round will last until September 6: at 10:00 pm est

[NHI]

Breaking News:

Terrorist attack kills 57 people in Gaziantep, Turkey

The Battle For Congress

The NH Senate Race; projected to be the most expensive in history. Polls show Ayotte narrowly ahead of Hassan 46% to 44%.

Senate Map:

Republicans: 54

Democrats: 46

Tossup

[NHI]

Sept. 7-14, 2016

-- Candidates Set to Meet for First Candidates Forum on NBC; all Candidates to Appear. Matt Lauer to Moderate

-- First US Commerical Flight to Cuba; August 31st. President Obama calls it a "great first step"

-- US conducts joint exercises with South Korea to counter increasing tensions on Korean Peninsula.

Race Heating up between Warren & Rubio

The main contenders for the Presidential Election, Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren are doubling their efforts. Rubio continues to make a play of the midwest, while playing up his middle class upbringing, and focusing on pocketbook issues. Warren, for her part continues to pitch a competency argument; stressing her experience fighting for the little guy. Warren, is also making a pitch to disaffected Democratic voters, by laying out a 'doomsday scenario', saying that by voting for Bernie Sanders, voters are in turn electing Marco Rubio.

The Independents

Senator Bernie Sanders continues to tour the industrial states, targeting disaffected Democrats;
 hoping his populist message will resonate. Ron Paul for his part has been going after Elizabeth Warren, this time on the issue of the Supreme Court; as well as rebuffing her criticisms for his controversial newsletters.

Gallup Polling: September 1-6, 2016

Marco Rubio: 42%

Elizabeth Warren: 39%

Bernie Sanders: 8%

Ron Paul: 5%

CNN/ORC Poll: Sept. 5, 2016

Marco Rubio: 43%

Elizabeth Warren: 40%

Bernie Sanders: 7%

Ron Paul: 3%

Fox News Poll: Sept. 6, 2016

Marco Rubio: 44%

Elizabeth Warren: 38%

Bernie Sanders: 9%

Ron Paul: 4%

ABC/WASH Post Poll: Sept. 5, 2016

Marco Rubio: 42%

Elizabeth Warren: 40%

Bernie Sanders: 6%

Ron Paul: 4%

Ohio Poll:

Warren: 44%

Rubio: 43%

Sanders: 8%

Paul: 4%

Pennsylvania:

Rubio: 45%

Warren: 43%

Sanders: 6%

Paul: 2%

Michigan:

Rubio: 44%

Warren: 42%

Sanders: 8%

Paul: 1%

New Hampshire:

Rubio: 30%

Warren: 27%

Sanders: 20%

Paul: 18%

Iowa:

Rubio: 46%

Warren: 37%

Sanders: 7%

Paul: 3%

Virginia:

Warren: 49%

Rubio: 47%

Sanders: 2%

Paul: 1%

Minnesota:

Warren: 39%

Rubio: 37%

Sanders: 17%

Paul: 2%

Indiana:

Rubio: 48%

Warren: 37%

Sanders: 9%

Paul: 2%

Illinois:

Warren: 45%

Rubio: 40%

Sanders: 5%

Paul: 2%

California:

Warren: 40%

Rubio: 31%

Sanders: 14%

Paul: 5%

This turn will last until next Wednesday at 11 PM EST

[NHI]

Rubio: 300

Warren: 231

Sanders: 7

[NHI]

New Polling shows Competitive Race in Many States; Warren Gains

Nevada: Rubio +1

Rubio: 40%%

Warren: 39%

Sanders: 7%

Paul: 5%

Maine: (State Wide) Rubio +4

Rubio: 39%

Warren: 35%

Sander: 14%

Paul: 6%

Maine CD: 1 Warren +2

Warren: 37%

Rubio: 35%

Sanders: 19%

Paul: 5%

Maine CD 2: Rubio +8

Rubio: 39%

Warren: 31%

Sander: 13%

Paul: 9%

Wisconsin: Rubio +2

Rubio: 42%

Warren: 40%

Sander: 10%

Paul: 1%

Oregon: Warren +4

Warren: 39%

Rubio: 35%

Sanders: 17%

Paul: 5%

Washington: Warren +4

Warren: 39%

Rubio: 35%

Sanders: 16%

Paul: 7%

Alaska: Rubio +5

Rubio: 31%

Warren: 27%

Paul: 20%

Sander: 14%

Hawaii: Sanders +4

Sander: 34%

Rubio: 29%

Warren: 26%

Paul: 2%

Vermont: Sanders +21

Sander: 47%

Warren: 26%

Rubio: 24%

Paul: 2%

Massachusetts: Warren +20

Warren: 56%

Rubio: 36%

Sanders: 4%

Paul: 1%

New York: Warren +6

Warren: 45%

Rubio: 39%

Sanders: 8%

Paul: 1%

Connecticut: Warren +5

Warren: 49%

Rubio: 44%

Sanders: 4%

Paul: 1%

[NHI]

Congressman Ron Paul:

"Tonight, we are joined by Former Texas Congressman and now Independent Candidate for President Ron Paul."

1. What are your qualifications to be commander-in-chief?

Well, I served as an representative for 22 years, during this 22 years I sponsored many bills, for example a bill to end embargo on Cuba that I sponsored in 2003 and I was part of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, I am also the only candidate on the race who is a veteran.

2. North Korea is in the news; how would a Paul Administration handle the increasing threat posed by the rogue nation?

We need to acknowledge something when talking about North Korea, North Korea, today, only exists because of China, without China, North Korea wouldn't be here anymore, it would have collapsed. China provides aid and block really significant sanctions against the country, but even with China helping, North Korea is still a weak country, it still uses soviet post world war 2 technology, they still use planes like the SU-7, which was made by the soviets in 1955, but not because North Korea is underdeveloped and a "potential giant threat" we should conduct military strikes on them, it doesn't work like this, this could cause a war, we would win, but it would still be devastating to our South Korean and Japanese allies and it would have a big economic impact.

Knowing this, my plan is to talk with China, to tell them: "hey, we want to cooperate with you, we want good relations with you, we need to face it, the US is dependent of China and China is dependent of the US, without one of us, the other one falls, but if we want to cooperate, to have good relations, we will need to deal with North Korea", and after talking with China we could work with them to deal with this problem without a war.

3. Was the War in Iraq a mistake, and how do you rectify the on going crisis in the middle east?

Yes it was, a big mistake, a mistake that Marco already tried to justify, the Iraq war deposed a government that we didn't have to depose because they were doing nothing against us, Hussein wasn't a good person, but he also wasn't doing anything against the US, he didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that Bush and the neocon establishment claimed, the war left big economic consequences and we need to face it that ISIS only exists today because of it.

Now, in regards to how I will solve the problems in the Middle East, I won't depose Assad, deposing Assad will make Syria unstable, if we depose him before we defeat ISIS it will be the perfect situation to them to take control of the country, If we depose him after defeating ISIS it will create a situation where new terrorist groups will appear. To defeat ISIS I will try to make our relationship with Russia better, so we, our European allies and Russia can defeat ISIS together, I won't work to create a no fly zone, it would only create conflict and maybe a war between us and Russia, this is another thing Marco doesn't see, I will stop sending guns to the "moderate" opposition, because they aren't moderate and while there is a minority of moderates, we can't identify them so we don't send our guns to the radicals or ISIS, so instead of arming this groups we will arm the Kurds and work with them to defeat ISIS and then give them they're own country, lastly, we will stop sending money to countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan because they finance terrorist radical groups, they finance groups against the Kurds, Saudi Arabia had a role in 9/11, we can't continue cooperating with this people unless something changes.

Doing all this I said, we will be able to defeat ISIS and make the Middle East stable again and end our unnecessary interventions there.

4. The ongoing crisis with the VA has veterans across the country outraged over a lack of care. How would you solve this crisis and deliver veterans the care they deserve?

Well, I think that privatizing the VA is the best option here, the government has proven itself inefficient and bad in most things it does and the private sector has always been better, event because it has competition that makes the companies need to get better and cheaper.

Some people will say this won't help because veterans won't be able to pay because it will be private, but I disagree, the free market will regulate itself, just like it did in New Zealand and other countries that privatized services and the services ended up being affordable because the free market regulated itself. I'd also support the idea of people donating to charities that support our veterans.

5. President Obama said four years The Cold War is over, and declared a new era of international relations between Russia and the United States, but now there is speculation over Russian involvement in the DNC email hacking. What is your policy towards Russia and are they a friend or foe?

Before answering the question, I'd just like to remember that Obama lied to us when he tried to put himself as a dove, Obama is a war hawk, a liberal war hawk just like Hillary Clinton, the biggest proof of this is what he did by arming Syrian rebels and what he did in Libya.

Now answering your question, Russia isn't a friend of a foe, it also isn't a threat to our existence like neocons like Marco like to tell you, Russia is a country that fights for what it thinks it will be good to itself, Putin isn't there to be a friend or a foe to the US he is there to do what he thinks that will be better to his people. My policy towards Russia is simple, no one wants a war, the cold war is over, there is no necessity to be the world police anymore, I am in favor of having better relations with Russia so we can cooperate, not only to defeat the terrorists in Syria but for other things too. I think that if the US works with Russia there could be a better world, I'd support treaties to decrease both countries nuclear stockpiles so there can be less tension. So basically, I don't think Russia is a friend or a foe, but I think that there could be a cooperation between both countries because the Cold War is over and there is no necessity anymore to be the world police.

6. What is the Paul Doctrine?

It is the idea that the Cold War is over, that we don't need to be the world police anymore, that instead, we need to look more to ourselves than to other countries, it's the idea that there is no necessity to intervene in countries to depose their government or intervene in a war that isn't threatening our interests. The Paul Doctrine would benefit our economy because we wouldn't be intervening in wars and spending our money on it, it would be good to the soldiers who would come back home and their families, it would benefit everyone.

So this is the Paul Doctrine, the idea of looking more to ourselves, to take care of ourselves and not from countries that are minding the own business and doing nothing against us.

Closing Statements: Why should voters elect you, and why should they feel comfortably with as commander in chief?

Because I have many years of experience, you can see my record and I have always fought for what I'm fighting today, less military intervention, I have voted against my own party because I vote for what I think it is right, not for what the establishment wants.

I think people should choose me because I am an outsider who defends what I always defended and will look more to solve our problems than the problems from countries that are doing nothing against us.

[NHI]

"Next we are joined by Independent Vermont Senator, and now candidate for President Bernie Sanders."

1. What are your qualifications to be commander-in-chief?

I have spent time and effort in taking care of our veterans, and oppose the pointless brushfire wars that gets so many people killed on all sides. I have over 30 years of experience in government; and know when to exercise caution and when to apply pressure. I have done that my entire life.

2. North Korea is in the news; how would a Sanders Administration handle the increasing threat posed by the rogue nation?

Obviously North Korea is a major rogue state. Their development of nuclear weapons endangers the entire world, but sanctions have not worked. A military solutionis simply not viable; not when they have 11,000 artillery guns pointed at Seoul.

A diplomatic solution is available. I believe that through dialogue with China, we can apply significant economic pressure to the regime and bring them to reality.

3. Was the War in Iraq a mistake, and how do you rectify the on going crisis in the middle east?

I opposed the Iraq War from the start because I was not convinced of the reasoning behind it, and I stand by that. We need to start using our diplomatic muscle in the region, and we need to stop supplying arms to the rebels in Syria, who have become radicalized. We need to realize that while Assad is a genuinely awful human being, ISIS will fill the void if he is toppled.

I will makw this promise: under my administration, I will not send Americans overseas to fight a pointless brushfire war that costs trillions of dollars for no gain!

4. The ongoing crisis with the VA has veterans across the country outraged over a lack of care. How would you solve this crisis and deliver veterans the care they deserve?

I am currently drafting the Help for Heroes Act. The driving force here is to create federal housing and job training programs for our returned veterans. We can invest money into improving our mental health services. We can allow our veterans access  to medical marijuana. We need to slsh the sheer amount of red tape that exists, and ensure that our doctors receive the training they need and the VA gets the funding it needs.

I was chair of the Veterans' Affairs committee in the Senate, and Senator Rubio shot down one of the bills I proposed to releive our veterans. I have been honored by vererans for supporting them, and I will not break their trust now.

5. President Obama said four years The Cold War is over, and declared a new era of international relations between Russia and the United States, but now there is speculation over Russian involvement in the DNC email hacking. What is your policy towards Russia and are they a friend or foe?

The Cold War is over, and we need to turn a new page in our relations with Russia. However, we should also be wary of their intentions, as we should of any power. Personally, I'm a bit frustrated that the narrative over the email hacks is focused on who did ot, rather than the content that showed Senator Warren and the Vice-President in contact with the DNC to deny me the chance to run a fair campaign.

6. What is the Sanders Doctrine?

One that prioritizes diplomacy over force. We are not the world police. We need to work through the UN and other international organizations to achieve peaceful, diplomatic solutions to conflicts. We should only intervene to precent ethnic cleansing or to safeguard the interests of the American people.

Closing Statements: Why should voters elect you, and why should they feel comfortably with as commander in chief?

I will not send our brave men and women in the armed forces off to die to support the military-industrial complex. We need to focus on safeguarding the interests of our people, and not our corporations. If you want a commander-in-chief who will use diplomacy and only resort to force as a final resort, then I can promise you that. I will not use violence as a first resort, unlike my colleague, Senator Rubio. I have a veteran as my running mate, who understands what war is like, unlike my friends up here, who nave not been to war,  and have no idea what it is like.

I do not claim to know what war is like, but my running mate does, and we will not risk lives to enrich our corporations. Thank you.

[NHI]

"Next please welcome Republican Nominee Senator Marco Rubio."

(1/3)
. What are your qualifications to be commander-in-chief?

Well Matt, I have more foreign policy experience than my opponent Elizabeth Warren. I have been involved in several foreign policy challenges and every time I prevailed.

I pushed for Venezuela human rights sanctions that passed into law in order to condemn the tyrannical Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro and to promote freedom and democracy in this country. Passage of my sponsored Girls Count Act increased U.S. foreign assistance on the establishment of birth registries to properly document childbirth and prevent kids' exploitation, trafficking or exclusion from society. I authored legislation that became law and that sanctions Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran for supporting terrorism. In order to stop North Korea from reinforcing its nuclear arsenal and to keep us safe against the North Korean threat, I cosponsored the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 that increased sanctions against North Korea and against companies or banks that transfer dollars to the regime of Kim Jong-un who would have used this money to fund the construction of nuclear weapons. And last summer, I cosponsored the Bipartisan Counterterrorist Coalition Act that would reinforce our defense ties with our allies in the Middle East and in the Indian Subcontinent in order to fight terrorists more effectively and would make sure that Iran will use its nuclear energy for economic purposes, not to develop nuclear weapons.

As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence and of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I know what it takes to keep America safe, which requires stronger security measures, a stronger U.S. military, stronger alliances, a stronger diplomacy based on common interest and stronger American leadership. And that is the exact opposite of Elizabeth Warren's agenda, the exact opposite of Ron Paul's agenda and the exact opposite of Bernie Sanders' agenda, all agendas that will pursue Barack Obama's weak foreign policy that reduced our security measures, reduced our military at its smallest size since World War I, withdrew America from the fight against terrorism at the wrong time, created vacuums fulfilled by ISIS and made concessions to Iran through the Iran nuclear deal that is handing money to Iran who will use that money to keep sponsoring global terrorism and to develop nuclear arms. Our allies are trusting us less and our enemies are stronger. All of that will change when I'm President. America will be back, our allies will finally reclaim their trust in us and together we will finally defeat all of our enemies and make the whole world safe, free, stable and peaceful thanks to a stronger American leadership.

2. North Korea is in the news; how would a Rubio Administration handle the increasing threat posed by the rogue nation?

This administration has failed to take affirmative action against the North Korean threat. They are about to get missiles that will be able to hit Hawaii, Alaska and the Western Coast. My plan to remove the North Korean threat has six basic points :

Number one, putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terror. They should never have been removed from that list since they supported terrorist activities such as the 1987 bombing of Korean Air flight 858, gave asylum to Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members, orchestrated the Rangoon bombing in 1983, which was an assassination attempt against former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan, and are now developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to attack us and our allies. But they can be put back on that list and that's what I will do as President of the United States.

Number two, additional sanctions especially on North Korea's leadership who holds significant assets overseas. They need to be punished individually because while that country has no economy, their leaders are very wealthy and are putting their nuclear arsenal ahead of the needs of the North Korean people, using most of their money to reinforce their oppressive regime and to empower their nuclear program.

Number three, as provided in my co-sponsored North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 that was signed into law last January, we have to impose sanctions on any individual, company or bank around the world that serve as financial intermediaries for dollar transactions to North Korea to help this tyrannical and corrupt regime to evade U.N. sanctions and to fund the development of North Korean nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. That way, we can stop North Korea from getting such a powerful arsenal.

Number four, making sure that China will do more to increase pressure on North Korea and stop the North Korean threat because North Korea's nuclear missiles are so powerful that they can cause explosions that could extend on a very large zone, like the whole city of New York, and if North Korea launches a nuclear attack on Seoul, for example, it would be bad for China's economic activities in the Yellow Sea, especially fishing since several of local aquatic resources would also be destroyed by nuclear radiations. In addition, if South Korea is bombarded and annihilated by North Korean nuclear weapons, China would lose its second main import partner that is none other than South Korea because South Korea imports 10 % of exported Chinese products in the world. And the less importers China will have, the less they can boost their economy. So, for China, giving more efforts against the North Korean threat would save its economic interests in addition of ensuring national security all around the Pacific Ocean. That's why China has to join us to increase diplomatic pression on North Korea

Number five, we need to rebuild our military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. And that includes Japan, South Korea and others. That's why, in order to maintain peace and security on the Pacific, I proposed the creation of a NATO-like military association that I call Pacific Treaty Organization (PTO), but that would include the United States and its allies around the Pacific, especially Canada, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It goes back to the point I made about our navy. Our navy is technologically very capable, but our ships still cannot be in two places at once. So you can't provide the level of security we need in the Asia-Pacific region with the smallest navy in a hundred years, not to mention the issues we have with China in the South China Sea. So rebuilding our military, especially our navy, and reinforcing our navy's presence in the Asia-Pacific region in particular is critically important.

Number six, we need to recommit to missile defense. North Korea already possesses intercontinental missiles capable of reaching Hawaii, Guam and maybe even Alaska as well as the West Coast of the United States. We need a comprehensive missile defense system for the entire continental United States, both West Coast ad East Coast, as well as for Alaska and Hawaii in order to guard against the Iranian threat and also to guard against the North Korean threat. And that's a multi-faceted defense system. It involves naval assets near and theater and includes working with the Japanese that have a very capable navy it also includes missile defense units deployed both on the East Coast and West Coast because if trends continue, this lunatic and tyrannical leader in North Korea will possess a missile and a warhead capable of reaching the United States and we better be able to shoot it down before it gets anywhere near us and we need to invest and recommit to that again for the sake of America's security and international peace and stability.

[NHI]

(2/3)

3. Was the War in Iraq a mistake, and how do you rectify the ongoing crisis in the middle east?

Our intervention in Iraq was the right thing to do because even though we never found weapons of mass destruction there, we have to understand that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a safe haven for terrorism, which is something Senator Warren Congressman Paul and Senator Sanders denied for a long time. They were wrong to claim that there was no terrorist presence in Iraq before 2003 and that this regime was not supporting terrorism.

Saddam Hussein gave sancturay to some of the worst radical Islamic terrorists. He had given sanctuary to Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas (who was directly responsible for the death of Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew abroad the Achille Lauro) and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad terrorist who was involved in the millennium plot, a terrorist attempt to commit bombing attacks against tourist sites in Jordan as well as against the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and the USS The Sullivans in the context of millennium celebrations. After that, al-Zarqawi trained jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. After 2001, he flew to Iraq and Saddam Hussein gave him sanctuary and even rejected requests from Jordan to hand over al-Zarqawi, which proved him to be a sponsor of terrorism and made Iraq a safe place for jihadists.

By that time, al-Zarqawi founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq and was responsible for the 2005 bombing of three hotels in Amman, Jordan. But after we toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq was no longer a safe haven for terrorism and we finally killed al-Zarqawi in 2006.

But now, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq while our job to train Iraqi troops and to defeat terrorism was not yet completed, the Obama administration allowed ISIS to rise, to conquer a large territory and to commit terrorist attacks around the world.

If we don't take action, Iraq will become once again a safe haven for terrorism and use this country as a base to launch terrorist attacks against the United States.

That's what will happen if Senator Warren is elected. I'm elected President, we will prevent by pursuing our fight against ISIS until we obtain unconditional victory against them. We will destroy ISIS by increasing the FBI's counterterrorism budget, by reinforcing our homeland security, by increasing our defense budget, by strengthening and modernizing our military, by expanding our defense partnerships with our allies in the Middle East and Europe and working with them, by tracking terrorists wherever they are and striking them on their territory through military arsenal and strength, by giving our troops the mission to secure ISIS' oil refineries and give them back to the Syrian people and the Iraqi people in order to deprive terrorists of revenues to organize their terrorist activities and by arming the right groups in the Middle East (especially the Kurds and the Peshmerga) through background checks on Syrian rebels before arming them.

That way, Matt, we will make sure that there will be no safe haven for terrorists, that we will defeat ISIS and restore peace, freedom, security and stability in the Middle East. That's how we're going to make America safe and free.

4. The ongoing crisis with the VA has veterans across the country outraged over a lack of care. How would you solve this crisis and deliver veterans the care they deserve?

Well Matt, you know, I have a strong record in taking care of our veterans who bravely fought for their country in order to keep it safe and sacrificed so much for it. And my older brother Mario Rubio is himself a veteran and he represents a model to me. I'm proud of his service just like I'm proud of the service of all of our men and women in uniform. In 2011, I cosponsored the AGREE Act, a bill that increased tax credits and exemptions for companies investing in R & D, equipment and other capital and gave tax credits for veterans opening a business franchise. Two years ago, I successfully sponsored the 2014 VA reform law by introducing a measure empowering the VA secretary to hold managers accountable for incompetence, negligence and corruption and to care more about veterans than bureaucrats because it's another way to reward our veterans for their military service and their sacrifices for America.

Right now, we need to do more about it.. When I'm President, we're going to make the federal Department of Veterans Affairs work with state and federal agencies to stop corrupted bureaucrats who are diverting federal aid away from veterans.

If we take care of our veterans, as I always did and will always do, they will be thankful of the services we'll give to them just as we are thankful of their service for our country, for freedom and for our national security. I will use this leadership as President of the United States. So I can promise you that our future military veterans will have access to the same services as the current veterans do.

5. President Obama said four years The Cold War is over, and declared a new era of international relations between Russia and the United States, but now there is speculation over Russian involvement in the DNC email hacking. What is your policy towards Russia and are they a friend or foe?

President Obama has proven himself to be weak on Russia. He ignored and even mocked the warnings about Russia's geopolitical actions. Vladimir Putin's Russia is a foe. Russia is acting against America's interests and against the principle of international peace, stability, freedom and integrity. By invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea, Russia violated territorial integrity just like this nation did to Georgia in 2008. Russia is arming a terrorist pro-Russian insurgency in order to reinforce their hold on Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Under a Rubio Administration, we will abolish the ban on oil export and increase American oil exports to Ukraine, thus freeing them from their dependency on Russian oil. We will reinforce sanctions against Russia as well as our military presence on the Black Sea, send military advisers to assist our Ukrainian allies and provide weapons to the Ukrainian armed forces in order to help them to fight and defeat this pro-Russian terrorist rebellion, give Ukraine back to Ukrainians and dissuade Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine or any other Eastern European country.

By supporting the Assad regime, Moscow is allowing permanent tyranny, chaos and instability in Syria and made our fight against ISIS harder, thus allowing bloodbaths. Instead of making the fight against ISIS their first priority, they are putting the survival of the Assad regime ahead of the campaign against terrorism and national security. After defeating ISIS, we will have to ensure regime change in Syria because Assad's oppressive measures that are slaying its own people will push more people to radicalize themselves and to join terrorist groups. We saw such kind of situation in Egypt in the last few years. And by toppling Assad, we're going to make our fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups easier because Syrians will have reclaimed their trust towards their government thanks to the restoration of freedom, democracy, integrity and justice. By removing Assad, who is none other than Putin's puppet, we will give Syria back to Syrians.

[NHI]

(3/3)

6. What is the Rubio Doctrine?

The Rubio Doctrine is composed by four pillars.

Number one, American strength. We need to undo the damage caused by the sequester, which is why I've endorsed the National Defense Panel's recommendation that we return as soon as possible to Secretary Gates's fiscal year 2012 budget baseline. Adequately funding the military will allow us not only to grow our forces, but also to modernize them, which in turn will allow us to remain on the cutting edge in every arena before us—land, sea and air—but also cyberspace and outer space, the battlefields of the 21st century. By modernizing and innovating, we can ensure that we never send our troops into a fair fight, but rather always equip them with the upper hand. And when they come home, we should be as firmly committed to their well being as they have been to ours. A strong military also means a strong intelligence community, equipped with all the tools it needs to defend the homeland from extremism both home-grown and foreign-trained. And key to this will be extending section 215 of the Patriot Act. We cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue. We must never find ourselves looking back after a terrorist attack and saying « We could have done more to save American lives ». Some will argue that with all the fiscal challenges our nation faces, we simply cannot afford to invest in our military. But the truth is, we cannot afford not to invest in it. We must remember that the defense budget is not the primary driver of our debt. And every time we try to cut a dollar from it, it seems to cost us several more just to make up for it. This is because the successes of all of our initiatives depend on the safety of the American people and the stability of the global economy.

That brings me to the second pillar of my doctrine : the protection of the American economy in a globalized world. When America was founded, it took more than 10 weeks to travel to Europe. In the 19th century, the steam engine cut that down to around 12 days. In the 20th century, the airplane cut it to around six hours. And now in the 21st century, you can access global markets in a single second with the tap of your Smart Phone. Millions of the best jobs in this new century will depend on international trade. That is why I support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Those such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders failed to grasp trade's role as a tool of statecraft that can bolster our relationship with partners and in the process create millions of better-paying American jobs. As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space. This includes the economic disruptions caused when one country invades another, as well as the chaos caused by disruptions in choke points such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz. Russia, China, Iran or any nation that attempts to block global commerce will know to expect a response from my administration. Gone will be the days of debating where a ship is flagged or whether it's our place to criticize territorial expansionism. In this century, business must have the freedom to operate around the world with confidence.

The third pillar of my doctrine is more clarity regarding America's core values. We must recognize that our nation is a global leader, not simply because it has superior arms, but also because it has superior aims. America is the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom, rather than simply expand its own territory. In recent years, the ideals that have long formed the backbone of American foreign policy—a passionate defense of human rights, the strong support of democratic principles and the protection of the sovereignty of our allies—these values have been replaced by at best caution, and at worst, an outright willingness to betray those values for the expediency of negotiations with repressive regimes. This is not just morally wrong, it is also contrary to our interests. Because wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our nation are born. But whenever foreign policy comes unhinged from its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve. In this century, we must restore America's willingness to think big, to state boldly what we stand for and why it is right. Just as Ronald Reagan never flinched in his criticism of the Soviet Union's political and economic repressions, we must never shy away from demanding that China allow true freedom for its 1.3 billion people. Nor should we hesitate in calling the source of atrocities in the Middle East by its real name : radical Islamic terrorism. As president, I will support the spread of economic and political freedom by reinforcing our alliances, resisting efforts by large powers to subjugate their smaller neighbors, maintaining a robust commitment to transparent and effective foreign assistance programs, and advance the rights of the vulnerable, including women and religious minorities who are so often persecuted, so that the afflicted people of this world will know the truth. The American people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all, desire their freedom.

And finally, the fourth pillar of the Rubio Doctrine is to support anti-terrorist forces by providing them the necessary materials to fight radical Islamic terrorism. We are providing the Kurds in weapons because we know they are fighting ISIS, which is a good thing. Since we don't know whether some Syrian rebels are fighting for ISIS or other jihadist groups like Al Qaida or Al Nusra, I will, before arming the Syrian rebels, put in place background checks on Syrian rebels in order to help us to identify these rebels by learning more about their backgrounds, their past and their connections. If we don't know who these rebels are, who they are fighting for and why they want weapons, we will not provide them.

That's how we're going to make the world free, safe and peaceful.

Closing Statements: Why should voters elect you, and why should they feel comfortably with as commander in chief?

Well, here is why I'm the only one candidate the American people can trust to keep us safe, defeat global terrorism and restore peace and security. And here is a question the voters should ask themselves before making their choice : are you better off than you were eight years ago? There is stronger radical Islamic terrorist threat than there was eight years ago. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than it was eight years ago. The Middle East is in a deeper chaos than it was eight years ago. We suffered much more terrorist attacks than we did eight years ago. And our allies are trusting us less than they did eight years ago.

Like I said before, Senator Warren has proven over and over again her lack of foreign policy experience, judgement and leadership to keep our country safe. She is supporting every element of Barack Obama's weak foreign policy. Time after time, she voted in favor of cutting in the military while the terrorist threat is getting stronger and stronger. After the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, which is the deadliest terrorist attack in our country since 9/11, she voted against allowing the Attorney General to block the transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists like Omar Mateen, which is the right way to prevent such shootings or terrorist attacks without violating the Second Amendment. One of the reasons why we suffered the terrorist attack in San Bernardino is because Senator Warren and her colleagues voted in favor of weakening our security measures on June 2015, which is six months before this attack. While the Obama administration is arming Middle Eastern groups we have no idea who they are and could be fighting for radical Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaida, Senator Warren proposed nothing as an alternative to this. Even though Obama's Iran nuclear deal is handing money to the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and is allowing Iran to use that money to fund terrorist groups and to pursue the development of its nuclear arsenal that is aimed at launching nuclear attacks against the United States and our allies, including Israel, Senator Warren is supporting this so-called deal. Even after 9/11, her running mate Sherrod Brown voted against establishing the Department of Homeland Security.
   
I will use my experience as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence and of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to fight and defeat radical Islamic terrorism and keep us safe. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not hesitate to call the enemy by its name which is radical Islamic terrorism. I will fight and defeat that evil by allowing the Attorney General to delay the transfer of weapons to suspected terrorists, I will reinforce our borders and keep ISIS out of the United States through background checks on Syrian refugees before allowing them to pass because ISIS fighters could be among them. We will increase the FBI's counter-terrorism budget, reinforce our homeland security and our security measures, increase our defense budget in order to reinforce and modernize our military as well as our troops' readiness, strengthen and enlarge our alliances, track and strike terrorists wherever they hide with our military and our allies, establishing background checks on Syrian rebels before arming them, deprive ISIS of its oil refineries, repeal the Iran nuclear deal and reinforce sanctions against Iran in order to deprive them of the money they need to support terrorist groups and to build nuclear weapons and we will, thanks to an anti-missile shield, intercept and destroy any nuclear weapon launched by Iran against us and our allies.
   
If we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I know that the world is a better, safer, freer and stabilized world when America is the strongest military power in the world. And that's why my foreign policy agenda will promote peace through strength and that's why the American people will feel comfortable with me as Commander-in-Chief and live in a peaceful, free and safe world.

[NHI]

"Lastly, please welcome Democratic Nominee Senator Elizabeth Warren."

1. Matt, my credentials to be President are no different than Senator Rubio or Senator Sanders, having served in the Senate and voted on significant foreign policy issues, and Presidential nominations for key departments like the State Department and Defense Department. Congressman Paul doesn't have the chance to do many of these things in the House, therefore his qualifications are weaker.

2. I would encourage China to send troops into North Korea to overthrow the regime of Kim-Jong Un. We know Xi Jinping wants to avoid American troops on the Yalu River. If we want to solve the problem of North Korea, the best way to handle it is to arrange for China's deposing the current regime, without involving American weapons or troops.

3. The War in Iraq was a mistake, and we will continue to pay for it for years to come. A Warren Administration would continue the Obama policy of targeted bombing of ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria. I would not however support the Syrian Government, or the Iranian backed militias fighting in Syria.

4. I would appoint a veteran, such as John McCain as head of the VA who understands what Veterans need, and I would push for a significant increase in funding for the VA.

5. President Obama was wrong. Russia remains one of our most implacable foes. As President, I will consider any action short of outright war against Russia, from cyberattacks, to sanctions, to cutting off normal diplomatic relations with the Russian Government.

6. The Warren Doctrine is practical, but tough foreign policy, drawing upon the strength of America's allies around the world.

My Experience is roughly the same as Senator Rubio's and Senator Sanders's, and stronger than Congressman Paul's. Senator Rubio is a return to the George Bush era of neoconservatism, Senator Sanders and Congressman Paul's isolationist plans will never get anywhere in this day and age.

[NHI]

Who Won the Commander in Chief Forum?

Marco Rubio: 30%
Elizabeth Warren: 22%
Bernie Sanders: 15%
Ron Paul: 13%
None of the Above: 5%
Draw: 4%
Undecided: 11%

Divisions in AFL-CIO over Warren & Sanders

Several affiliate unions have directly contradicted the organisation's leadership by endorsing Senator Sanders over Senator Warren in the Presidential Election. The Warren Campaign has been actively courting the endorsements in hopes of bumping up support among union members.

End Goal for Paul and Sanders?

Many people on both sides of the political aisle are concerned about the independent campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul; believing their real objective could be to force the election into the House. The alliance between Sanders and Paul has created a stir in the national political campaigns.  Sanders and Paul have both pulled their names from the ballots in certain states so the other has chance of winning. So is the main objective to deadlock the electoral college? Many prominent Republicans and Democrats feel the answer is yes.

Rubio Blasts Paul for Donations from White Supremacist

Senator Marco Rubio is going after Ron Paul for Campaign donations from white supremacist Don Black, given to his campaign in 2008.

Electoral Map: Shift in Some States; Tightening Race

Marco Rubio: 250

Elizabeth Warren: 213

Bernie Sanders: 7

Ron Paul:
Tossup: 68

Battleground States:

PA: Rubio +3
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 42%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 2%

NH: Statistical Tie
Rubio: 27.4%
Warren: 27.2%
Sander: 22.9%
Paul: 20.4%

MI: Rubio +2
Rubio: 40%
Warren: 38%
Sander: 14%
Paul: 2%

Wisconsin: Rubio +1
Rubio: 40%
Warren: 39%
Sander: 16%
Paul: 1%

MN: Warren +1
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 37%
Sanders: 17%
Paul: 2%

OR: Warren+2
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 36%
Sanders: 16%
Paul: 1%

Electoral Map w/ Tossup States Included:

Rubio: 300

Warren: 231

Sanders: 7

Daily Tracking Poll:

Rubio: 43% (+3)

Warren: 40%

Sanders: 7%

Paul: 4%

Next Round will Last from: September 15-September 21, 2016

Our round will close: Next Thursday at 11 PM EST

[NHI]

CNN: Jake Tapper Games the Electoral Map

"Marco Rubio is the favorite in the electoral college, based on the latest polls. Real Clear Politics gives him 300 Electoral votes and Senator Warren 231 and Senator Bernie Sanders with 7.
  If things remain as they are, here is the electoral map as discussed:

For Senator Warren it's an uphill climb, given Bernie Sanders is running a third party campaign and effectively taking away votes from key Democratic states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So the Warren strategy is to look for other states in play; places where Ron Paul is running strong like in Montana, Texas, Alaska and Arizona. One strategy Democrats see is a flipped map. Rubio carries the midwest, while Warren does better in the southwest and mountain western states.

Warren: 292

Rubio: 239

Now if you're having a hard time believing this map, than you're right. The odds of Warren flipping a state like Texas is unlikely, but some Democrats do see a pathway which includes taking Arizona,
 taking Montana, holding Nevada, Michigan. This would get her exactly 270 electoral votes.

However, for Warren this all hinges on her ability to hold the Democratic wall -- states that have voted for the Democrats since 1992. That would be the states of: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Losing all three is a shut-out, but if she can hold at least two, she has a chance and Democrats see their best options as: Wisconsin and Michigan.

Which if that's the case the Senator would have 257, and would need only one big states like Pennsylvania, Arizona or a collection of smaller states; a New Hampshire and Nevada, Iowa and Montana.

Though all of this is speculation and as the polls suggest right now Senator Rubio is the favorite in the electoral college, but there is a nightmare scenario, a situation where one of the third party candidates performs better than expected.

Right now, Bernie Sanders is likely to win both Vermont and Oregon. It seems unlikely he'll flip another state in his direction, but he could flip a few states from Warren to Rubio, like Oregon and Minnesota, but the same goes for Congressman Ron Paul. He's polling strong in Montana, Nevada,
Arizona and Alaska; and a change in these states from Rubio to Warren could create the nightmare scenario - a deadlocked electoral college, where no candidates wins 270 electoral votes, and seeing the apparent strategy by both Paul and Sanders to actively campaign in strategic states, seems to suggest they could working to prevent both Warren and Rubio from clinching the magic number of 270.

[NHI]

General Election Polling: All 50 States

Alabama: Safe R
Rubio: 60%
Warren: 33%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Alaska: Tossup
Rubio: 32%
Warren: 29%
Paul: 20%
Sanders: 12%

Arizona: Likely R
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 43%
Paul: 5%
Sanders: 1%

Arkansas: Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 35%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

California: Lean D
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 29%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 7%

Colorado: Lean D
Warren: 37%
Rubio: 30%
Sanders: 13%
Paul: 9%

Connecticut: Likely D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 1%

Delaware: Safe D
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 7%
Paul: <1%

Washington, D.C.: Safe D
Warren: 60%
Sanders: 30%
Rubio: 9%
Paul: <1%

Florida: Safe R
Rubio: 55%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

Georgia: Likely R
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 42%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

Hawaii: Lean I
Sander: 33%
Rubio: 27%
Warren: 26%
[color=orange:]Paul: 3%[/color]

Idaho: Safe R
Rubio: 59%
Warren: 29%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 4%

Illinois: Likely D
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 41%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 1%

Indiana: Likely R
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 3%

Iowa: Lean R
Rubio: 40%
Warren: 34%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 2%

Kansas: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 35%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: <1%

Kentucky: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 29%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Louisiana: Safe R
Rubio: 56%
Warren: 34%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Maryland: Safe D
Warren: 54%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: <1%

Massachusetts: Safe D
Warren: 55%
Rubio: 37%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Michigan: Tossup
Rubio: 40%
Warren: 38%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 1%

Minnesota: Tossup
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 35%
Sanders: 16%
Paul: 6%

Mississippi: Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 35%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Missouri: Likely R
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

Maine: Tossup
Rubio: 37%
Warren: 34%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 9%

Montana: Likely R
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 14%
Sanders: 1%

Nebraska: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

Nevada: Lean R
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 3%

New Hampshire: Tossup
Rubio: 27%
Warren: 27%
Sanders: 22%
Paul: 20%

New Jersey: Likely D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 1%


New Mexico: Likely D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 41%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%


New York: Likely D
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 1%

North Carolina:  Likely R
Rubio: 49%
Warren: 42%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

North Dakota:  Likely R
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 2%


Ohio:  Likely D
Warren: 44%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 3%

Oklahoma:  Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

Oregon: Tossup D
Warren: 38%
Rubio: 34%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 6%

Ohio:  Lean D
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 39%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 2%

Pennsylvania: Tossup
Rubio: 42%
Warren: 39%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

Rhode ISLAND: Safe D
Warren: 57%
Rubio: 35%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: <1%/[color]


South Dakota:  Likely R
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 38%
Paul: 9%
Sanders: 1%



South Carolina:  Safe R
Rubio: 56%
Warren: 36%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%



Tennessee: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 33%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%


Texas:  Likely R
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 38%
Paul: 12%
Sanders: 1%


Utah: Safe R
Rubio: 65%
Warren: 29%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%



Vermont: Safe I
Sanders: 49%
Rubio: 26%
Warren: 22%
Paul: 3%

Virginia: Likely D
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: <1%/[color]


Washington: Lean D
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 31%
Sanders: 16%
Paul: 7%/[color]

West Virginia: Safe R
Rubio: 54%
Warren: 34%
Sanders: 7%
Paul: 1%/[color]


Wisconsin: Tossup
Rubio: 41%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 13%
Paul: 1%[color]


Wyoming: Safe R
Rubio: 59%
Warren: 35%
Paul: 2%[color]
Sanders: 1%

[NHI]

Third Party Candidates Take Center Stage in Debate Battle

Senator Bernie Sanders and Former Congressman Ron Paul are angling to appear in the Presidential debates, despite the prerequisite 15% polling threshold to qualify. Both campaigns have argued given the fractured nature of the election, they should be allowed to participate, and Americans should have a choice, rather than the usual Democrat or Republican options.

CNN/ORC Poll: Should Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul be allowed to participate in the Debates?

Yes: 62%
No: 29%
Unsure: 9%

CNN/ORC: If the Election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for President?

Marco Rubio: 41% (+3)

Elizabeth Warren: 38%

Bernie Sanders: 7%

Ron Paul: 5%

Other: 1%
Undecided: 8%

CNN/ORC: Two-Person Presidential Race: Marco Rubio or Elizabeth Warren?

Marco Rubio: 47% (+2)

Elizabeth Warren: 45%

[NHI]

September 21st - 26th 2016

Breaking News: Sanders and Paul to Debate Warren and Rubio

The Commision on Presidential Debates announced Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Ron Paul will Debate Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Marco Rubio in all three presidential debates. The commission said, "given the diversity of the 2016 election we are seeking to present all views and ideas as the American people make their decision for President.

Senator Warren issued a statement, saying she supports the commission's decision.

David Petreaus Endorses Rubio
Retired General and former Director of the CIA David Petraeus  endorses Marco Rubio due to their common advocacy of a hawkish and strong foreign policy through a stronger military, stronger American leadership and stronger alliances.

Rubio Rolls out Big Endorsements Ahead of Debate

Retired General Stanley A. McChrystal endorses Marco Rubio due to his tough stance on foreign policy and terrorism.

Retired U.S. Marine John F. Kelly endorses Marco Rubio for similar reasons as David Petraeus and Stanley A. McChrystal.

The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda  endorses Marco Rubio because he's Hispanic and also due to his strong connections with the Hispanic community, to his plan to create economic opportunities through tax reform, free trade with Latin America and school choice and to reform America's broken immigration system after securing the borders.

The League of United Latin American Citizens  endorses Marco Rubio for similar reasons as the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda and also due to the fact that Rubio would become the first Hispanic President of the United States.

Senator Rubio has been making a strong play to boost Republican performance with Hispanic voters. Mitt Romney received 27% in 2012; a record low. Rubio has been looking to win Hispanic voters with an emphasis on his economic plan.



Following explosions in Seaside Park, New Jersey, and Manhattan, New York, on the previous day, another explosive device was discovered at a transit station in Elizabeth. The device was accidentally detonated in the early hours of September 19 when operated on by a bomb squad robot. Police have captured the subject.

The President condemned the acts as heinous and barbaric. National security is now the top concern for all voters.

Rubio: 42%

Warren: 39%

Sanders: 6%

Paul: 4%

This round will last until next Thursday and close at 11 pm ESt.
Debate questions are forthcoming

[NHI]

New State Polls:

General Election Polling: All 50 States

Alabama: Safe R
Rubio: 60%
Warren: 33%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Alaska: Tossup
Rubio: 31%
Warren: 29%
Paul: 21%
Sanders: 12%

Arizona: Tossup to lean R
Rubio: 46%
Warren: 43%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 1%

Arkansas: Safe R
Rubio: 59%
Warren: 34%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

California: Lean D
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 29%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 7%

Colorado: Tossup to Lean D
Warren: 36%
Rubio: 29%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 10%

Connecticut: Likely D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 1%

Delaware: Safe D
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 7%
Paul: <1%

Washington, D.C.: Safe D
Warren: 58%
Sanders: 32%
Rubio: 9%
Paul: <1%

Florida: Safe R
Rubio: 55%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

Georgia: Lean R
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 44%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%


Hawaii: Tossup to Lean I
Sander: 31%
Rubio: 29%
Warren: 27%
[color=orange:]Paul: 2%[/color]

Idaho: Safe R
Rubio: 59%
Warren: 29%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 4%

Illinois: Lean D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 41%
Sanders: 7%
Paul: 1%

Indiana: Lean R to Likely R
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 4%

Iowa: Lean R
Rubio: 39%
Warren: 34%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 3%

Kansas: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 35%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: <1%

Kentucky: Safe R
Rubio: 56%
Warren: 30%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Louisiana: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 33%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Maryland: Safe D
Warren: 53%
Rubio: 41%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: <1%

Massachusetts: Safe D
Warren: 55%
Rubio: 37%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Michigan: Tossup
Rubio: 41%
Warren: 39%
Sanders: 13%
Paul: 1%

Minnesota: Tossup
Warren: 37%
Rubio: 36%
Sanders: 16%
Paul: 5%

Mississippi: Safe R
Rubio: 59%
Warren: 34%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: <1%

Missouri: Lean to Likely R
Rubio: 49%
Warren: 45%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

Maine: Tossup
Rubio: 37%
Warren: 36%
Sanders: 12%
Paul: 9%

Montana: Lean R
Rubio: 44%
Warren: 40%
Paul: 14%
Sanders: 1%

Nebraska: Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

Nevada: Lean R
Rubio: 42%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 2%

New Hampshire: Tossup
Warren: 26.1%
Rubio: 26.0%
Sanders: 23.5%
Paul: 21.1%

New Jersey: Likely D
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 41%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 1%


New Mexico: Likely D
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 41%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%


New York: Likely D
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 40%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: 1%

North Carolina:  Lean R
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

North Dakota:  Likely R
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 40%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 2%


Ohio:  Likely D
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 3%

Oklahoma:  Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

Oregon: Tossup
Warren: 37%
Rubio: 36%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 5%


Pennsylvania: Tossup
Rubio: 42%
Warren: 40%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Rhode Island: Safe D
Warren: 55%
Rubio: 35%
Sanders: 4%
Paul: <1%


South Dakota: Likely R
Rubio: 46%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 10%
Sanders: 1%


South Carolina:  Safe R
Rubio: 57%
Warren: 35%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%

Tennessee: Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 33%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%


Texas:  Lean R
Rubio: 43%
Warren: 39%
Paul: 13%
Sanders: 1%


Utah: Safe R
Rubio: 65%
Warren: 29%
Paul: 1%
Sanders: 1%


Vermont: Safe I
Sanders: 48%
Rubio: 27%
Warren: 23%
Paul: 2%

Virginia: Likely D
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 45%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: <1%


Washington: Lean D
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 32%
Sanders: 15%
Paul: 7%

West Virginia: Safe R
Rubio: 54%
Warren: 33%
Sanders: 8%
Paul: 1%


Wisconsin: Tossup
Rubio: 41.5%
Warren: 41.3%
Sanders: 12.0%
Paul: 1.2%


Wyoming: Safe R
Rubio: 58%
Warren: 35%
Paul: 3%
Sanders: 1%

[NHI]

Electoral Map; Based on State Polling:

Senator Rubio: 296 (42%)

Senator Warren: 235 (39%)

Senator Sanders: 7 (7%)

Congressman Paul: 0 (4%)

[NHI]

Which Candidate is better equipped to handle terrorism?

Rubio: 51% (+15)

Warren: 36%

Sanders: 4%

Paul: 2%

Undecided: 7%

Which Candidate is best equipped to handle the economy?

Rubio: 43% (+7)

Warren: 36%

Sanders: 10%

Paul: 5%

Undecided: 5%

Which Candidate Cares about the needs of people?

Rubio: 39% (+6)

Warren: 33%

Sanders: 14%

Paul: 8%

Undecided: 6%

Top Concerns of the American Voter: 2016 Election

Terrorism/Safety: 41%

The Economy: 34%

Healthcare: 13%
The Environment: 9%
Other: 3%

Two-Way Race Poll: Rubio vs. Warren

Rubio: 50% (+5)

Warren: 45%

President Barack Obama's Approval Ratings: September 2016

Approve: 52%

Disapprove: 43%

Unsure: 5%

[NHI]

For those who would like it I'm allowing a 24 hour extension. This has been a busy week on my end, and will need to delay posting until tomorrow night; same time.

Thanks for understanding.

NHI

[NHI]

Once I have the Sanders' debate answers I'll upload the debate.

Thank you.

NHI

[NHI]

Presidential Debate

LESTER HOLT: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I'm Lester Holt, anchor of "NBC Nightly News." I want to welcome you to the first presidential debate.

The participants tonight are Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight's format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns.

The 90-minute debate is divided into six segments, each 15 minutes long. We'll explore three topic areas tonight: Achieving prosperity; America's direction; and securing America. At the start of each segment, I will ask the same lead-off question to both candidates, and they will each have up to two minutes to respond. From that point until the end of the segment, we'll have an open discussion.

The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns. The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.

I will invite you to applaud, however, at this moment, as we welcome the candidates: Democratic nominee for president of the United States,Elizabeth Warren, and Republican nominee for president of the United States, Marco Rubio, and the two independent candidates for President Senator Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul.

(APPLAUSE)

LLet's jump right into it: We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There's been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

Beginning with you, Senator Warren, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works?

I'm a better choice than Senator Rubio or Congressman Paul because the large tax cuts they suggest simply do not work. Their idea of trickle-down economics, contrary to the theory described only increases the Federal Deficit, and does not add any more revenue to the economy.


Senator Rubio, the same question to you. It's about putting money -- more money into the pockets of American workers. You have up to two minutes.

Thank you Lester. Thank you Senator Warren, Senator Sanders and Congressman Paul for being here tonight. And I want to thank the Hofstra university for hosting this debate, a great moment of democracy in which the American people has a choice to make. Because this election is about what kind of future we will give to America and to our children, including my four children. As a young, boy, I was raised paycheck to paycheck and despite their struggles, my parents succeeded to adapt in this new society called America and managed to make their children better-off than they were. So I understand the struggles of everyday Americans. As a son of Cuban immigrants, I understand what it means to lose the gift of freedom and opportunity, both principles that are only possible through the defense, preservation and reinforcement of the American Dream.

We are now witnessing the slowest economic progress in America's history. Right now, the unemployment rate is remaining stuck around 5 %. We are still dependent on foreign energy, our jobs and companies are shipping overseas, we are less competitive in the world economy, education is less accessible for our people. We can't settle this situation by having four more years like the last eight years as Senator Warren is running to continue Barack Obama's trickle-down government in which a bigger government taxes more, regulates more and spends more. We need to follow a different path to economic prosperity.

My plan has seven basic parts : number one, cutting taxes and regulations for all Americans, including the middle class, in order to reinforce their purchasing power as well as consumption because consumption is one of the important strengths of our economy. Number two, getting us to energy independence by taking advantage of our oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectricity, etc. Number three, pursuing our quest for open markets around the world in order to make America competitive in the world economy through lower tariffs and corporate tax reduction for America from 40 % to 20 %. Number four, promoting school choice to make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. Number five, balancing the budget. Number six, investing a part of future budget surpluses in the development of infrastructure in order to facilitate economic activities and the implementation of new businesses here in America. And number seven, making America the best place in the world to do business, because it's businesses, including small businesses, that create most of the jobs in America. I am sitting in the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and in the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. I know what it takes to help creating jobs, to get small business working again and to lead America to prosperity. That's how we're going to restore America's prosperity and get America to a New American Century.

Now Congressman Paul and Senator Sanders if either of you would like to weigh in:

Well Lester, I think I'm better than my opponents to bring economic prosperity and jobs to our country because my plane involves two main things, the first one is getting the government out of the economy and business, I plan to do this by cutting regulations and taxes, I want to abolish income tax, I want to reduce our taxes on corporations and our business because this way, they will have more money to create more jobs and the average american will also have more money to do more things he wants to do! About the regulations, I want to cut many regulations, by having regulations we only destroy small business who can't afford the cost and help big business who can't, but at the same time, we make them pay more and fire more people, by having regulations, we destroy jobs!

The second thing I was talking about, and here is where I'm different from Marco, is that I want to leave corporatist deals like the TPP, the TPP is not transparent, it pushes for more global and big government, it only helps the big corporations while hurting small business with regulations, the TPP will not help our country, but hurt it, while Marco wants to stay in it, like he showed everyone by voting yes to fast track it, I have always opposed it, and I still oppose it, because it won't bring economic prosperity to us.

I have been calling this theory out for the last 30 years, whether I was a Mayor, Congressman or Senator. The theory behind trickle-down economics is that the rich will reinvest their money into the economy. Well, that's been proven not to work. The repeal of Glass-Steagall has opened up the banks to do whatever the hell they want with the American people's money.

I believe in what I refer to as trickle-up economics. What this entails is raising taxes on the rich-not to the 91% of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, so forget about that-and raise the minimum wage. A wealthy person will invest maybe 5-10% of their annual earnings into the economy. A working or middle class person-of which I grew up as- will out of necessity, reinvest all of their money into the economy to purchase food and other consumer goods. That is trickle-up economics, and with the boom-bust cycle we find that trickle-down economics has put us in, maybe it's time we tried something different.

[NHI]

Presidential Debate

HOLT: OK, you are unpacking a lot here. And we're still on the issue of achieving prosperity. And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy.


Senator Warren and Senator Sanders, both of you are calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I'd like you to further defend that. And, Senator Rubio and Congressman Paul, you're calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Rubio, an then to Mr. Paul:

First of all, Lester, my plan is to cut taxes for all the American people, including the middle class and lower income Americans. Because we can't have a strong America without a strong middle class. Cutting taxes for all the American people is the path required to restore America's economic prosperity because it tax cuts as well as tax reform will reinforce our consumers' purchasing power, thus encouraging consumption because consumption is one of the main pillars of a free market economy like America. It will also help working class families to raise their children and to ensure their access to education.

Meanwhile, Senator Warren has pledged to be a voice in the room on behalf of the middle class families, but she failed miserably.

Congress had Warren overseeing how our consumers' tax dollars were spent on tarp bailouts, bailing out the same banks that helped cause the financial collapse, bailouts that handed a big bonus to bank executives while middle class Americans lost out. Later, Warren went on a charm offensive with some of the same banks who got bailed out. Senator Warren also supports Dodd-Frank, a policy that made big banks bigger because the government made them big by imposing thousands of pages of regulations. Unlike small banks, big banks are able to deal with all these regulations because they have an army of lawyers and compliance officers, thus making big banks bigger while small banks are struggling to lend or to exist. Dodd-Frank is also eviscerating small businesses and small banks since it wiped out 40 % of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses, which bankrupted small businesses, killed tens of thousands of jobs and drastically raised the unemployment rate. Since Dodd-Frank was signed into law in 2010, community banks’ market share has withered by 12 %, twice as fast as it did the previous five years. This has snuffed out the creation of businesses in the American communities that have the greatest need for new jobs and new economic activity. So Senator Warren is supporting a policy that puts the special interests of Wall Street individuals ahead of the needs of America's middle class and hard working families.

Her running mate Sherrod Brown voted against the Small Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000 that reduced taxes on small businesses and increased the minimum wage and also opposed the JOBS Act which cut regulatory burdens on small and medium-sized businesses making it easier for them to raise capital and create jobs. No wonder that Senator Brown voted over 35 times to raise taxes.

Senator Warren is seeking to pursue Barack Obama's failed big government policies that increased taxes and regulations on the American people, crushed the middle class, shipped American businesses overseas, made us dependent on foreign energy and made us less competitive in the world economy.

The right way to make this economy working for all the American people is to reduce taxes and to make America the best place in the world to do business. We're going to do this through tax reform, repealing Dodd-Frank in order to help smaller banks to recover and to get small businesses growing again to create jobs and hire people. If I'm President, we're going to get America to energy independence by abolishing regulations on coal industry, which will bring coal mining jobs in America and increase electricity production and increase Americans' access to heating, by promoting oil drilling and by using a part of revenues from oil drilling to help developing renewable energies. By cutting taxes and regulations on businesses, including small businesses. reducing the cost of doing business and lowering our corporate tax rate in half, we will not only increase our businesses' dynamism, competitiveness, productivity and ability to create jobs but will also make our trade deals fairer and more advantageous for America and bring American jobs back to this country while helping America to increase its competitiveness in the world economy through lower tariffs and lower costs of trading that will get more international consumers for America, a goal that will also be accomplished by tax cuts and regulation cuts on America's manufacturing industry.

The American people, including the middle class, has a choice to make : four more years of big government policies crushing the middle class or a brighter future making the American Dream possible again through a stronger economy and a stronger middle class thanks to free enterprise and free market solutions. You will earn the latter option if I'm elected President.



Paul: Just like I said in the last question, I want to decrease taxes, not only on the rich, but on everyone, my plan is to abolish the 16th amendment and abolish income tax, I don't want to replace it with anything, we will abolish it, because the income tax is most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes! The income tax is basically a way to the government to say that it owns your lives and your labor. While some might say that this will destroy our economy, it won't, most of our revenue does not come from income tax, more than half of our revenue doesn't come from it, it comes from other things like excise taxes and tariffs

I also seek to abolish the IRS, it only adds to the complexity of our tax code and ads to making it unsustainable, I went to Brazil in 2014, and during the time I was there I saw how I was in fact right about taxes, Brazil has an tax code that if you print and make a book, the book will have the weight of two hippos! And I'm not even joking, a man actually did this, this is the level of complexity of their tax code, now look how their economy is going! It is currently in a horrible state, it has an high inflation, high unemployment, their growth is low... The complexity of their tax code obviously wasn't the only reason, but it helped a lot, that's why I'm supporting, just like I always supported, that we should abolish the IRS.




HOLT: Senator Warren and Senator Sanders two minutes for each of you, and Senator are there any differences in your economic plans?
Warren: Lester, it's really simple. More taxes, equals more revenue for the Government, and since the wealthy are the people who have the most money, it makes the most sense that their taxes go up.

Sanders:Our wealthiest citizens have gotten away with gaming the American people since the 1980s. If you want an example of how trickle-down economics has failed, look at Kansas. Sam Brownback, the Republican Governor of Kansas, has cut taxes to the bone, and now the state government there is in the midst of an economic crisis because they simply do not have enough money to function, and make no mistake, that is what Republicans want to do on a national level.

Contrast this with Minnesota, of which my good friend Mark Dayton is the Governor. Republicans predicted an economic disaster in that state. What he has done is raise taxes on the rich by $2.1 billion, increased public spending and raised his state's minimum wage. The results are the complete opposite to Kansas. Unemployment is down massively, private sector earnings are at $891, 47,000 new jobs have been added, and he has a $1.8 billion surplus. That is what I want to do on a national scale, because it works.

HOLT: Senator Warren and Senator Sanders two minutes for each of you, and Senator are there any differences in your economic plans?

Honestly, there is not much. However, again, there are two questions that need to be answered. 1) What experience does my colleague from Massachusetts have in executive office? I am the only candidate up here tonight who has ever held executive office before. I know how to manage public programs with the concerns of our private sector; I cannot say the same for my colleague.

Secondly, can you trust someone who wouldn't reveal that she was colluding with the Democratic National Committee to deny a fair nominating process? Why did she not reveal it the second she knew about it if she knew it was wrong? Can she be trusted? If you asked me a year ago, I would've said yes without hesitation, now I'm not so certain.[/i]

[NHI]

Presidential Debate

HOLT: Senator Rubio, you've been critical of Senator Warren's plan to help working families, while at the same time she's criticized you for favoring the wealthiest Americans? Specifically, Senator how do you propose helping the plight of working families and is the solution more than just a tax cut?

Well, throughout this campaign, Senator Warren has been lecturing me about living paycheck to paycheck. I was raised paycheck to paycheck. And saying that my tax plan will cut taxes only for riches is simply not true. As President, I will cut taxes for all Americans from the bottom to the top, including the middle class and over the last eight years, the middle class has been crushed by the Obama administration's taxes and regulations. We need to reverse that situation.

And like I said earlier, the solution is not only to cut taxes but also to reduce wasteful government spending, making America energy independent by taking advantage of all of our sources of energy, encouraging free trade, improving our education system through school choice and balancing the budget. The solution is not to make rich people poorer, but to make poor people richer.

Senator Warren doesn't understand how the economy works. We are not the strongest economy in the world because of big government. Free enterprise is a basic element of America's economic prosperity. Businesses create jobs and most of jobs come from small business. Thanks to the hard work of the American people, we can promote opportunity. America is strongest economy in the world because of the ingenuity and entrepreneurship and hard work of the American people. That's why I want to make America the business-friendly environment in the world, which requires lowering the fiscal burden on all Americans of all incomes and on all businesses of all sizes. That's how working families will be awarded of their hard work, will earn a stronger purchasing power, will be able to raise their children and will finally enjoy the experience of the American Dream here on the land of opportunity.

Senator Warren has forgot that even President Kennedy, a Democrat, cut taxes during his presidency in order to boost economic growth. Thanks to these tax cuts put in place by President Kennedy, the economy accelerated and prospered, the GDP expanded by an average of 5.5% from early 1961 to late 1963, inflation was down at around 1 %, the unemployment rate declined from 6.6 % to 5.6 % during Kennedy's two years in the White House, industrial production rose by 15 % and motor vehicle sales rose by 40 %. That's why we need to reduce taxes for all Americans.

Senator Warren, you may be from the same political party as Jack Kennedy, you may be from the same state as Jack Kennedy and you may have had a member of the Kennedy family among your students when you were a teacher at the Harvard University, but Senator you're no Jack Kennedy.


HOLT: Senator Sanders, you describe yourself as a Democratic-Socialist and take a variety of positions on issues different from Senator Warrens. Two minutes Senator define a Democratic-Socialist, and moreover why are you the better choice for progressive Americans, than the Democratic nominee?

Sanders:Why am I a better choice for progressives? Take a look at my record. I have held the same positions all my life, and even through my career in politics. For my 30 years of public service, I have fought for the middle and working classes in this country, which is where I come from. I know how government operates.

And what is a democratic socialist? Simply put, it is a left-winger who is not afraid to publically stand up for their beliefs and risk being ostracized by the media. Someone who believes in higher wages, higher taxes for the rich, ending subsidies to Big Oil, and investing in our future. We don't believe in government control of consumer goods; that's just plain nonsense.