Datasets:

Glow-01

/

multi_news_dataset_edited

like 0

Photo Two months before the Iowa caucuses, Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton are showing no signs of losing steam. A new national poll from Quinnipiac University finds the leading candidates solidifying their positions in the races for the Republican and Democratic nominations, fending off challenges from rivals such as Ben Carson and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. On the Republican side, Mr. Trump has benefited from recent stumbles by Mr. Carson, the retired neurosurgeon whose rise has been stymied by questions about his biography and his knowledge of foreign policy. A month ago, the two were deadlocked, but the survey results released Wednesday show Mr. Trump clearly in first place with 27 percent of Republican voters. Mr. Carson has dropped to third place with 16 percent, having been overtaken by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida at 17 percent. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is tied with Mr. Carson at 16 percent, having risen from 13 percent in a previous poll. Hoping to strengthen his foreign policy credentials and to educate himself about foreign affairs, Mr. Carson made an impromptu trip to Jordan over the weekend to see the Syrian refugee crisis firsthand. On Wednesday, he heads to South Carolina, and later this week he will go to Iowa, where he will seek to solidify his support among evangelical Christian voters. Mr. Trump’s endurance comes as he continues to face questions about his honesty and as he stirs controversy with his ideas about aggressive surveillance of Muslims, his proposal to reinstitute waterboarding and his mockery of a New York Times reporter with a physical disability. Many Republican leaders are actively fretting about Mr. Trump’s continued strength, but they remain wary of attacking him directly out of fear that they will have to endure his vicious counterattacks. This week, Mr. Trump called Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio a “lunatic” and ridiculed Gov. Chris Christie’s record in New Jersey after the two rivals for the nomination were openly critical of him. “It doesn’t seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the ‘political correctness’ is challenged, Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar,” Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll, said in a statement on Tuesday. “The G.O.P., 11 months from the election, has to be thinking, ‘This could be the guy.’ ” For Democrats, this appears to be good news. Quinnipiac’s poll shows both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders beating Mr. Trump handily in head-to-head matchups. At the moment, Mrs. Clinton appears to be the clear favorite, having widened her advantage against Mr. Sanders: The poll shows her ahead by a margin of 60 percent to 30 percent among Democratic voters. Mr. Sanders lost some momentum after the Democratic debates, where Mrs. Clinton performed well. While voters still have doubts about her honesty, questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state have subsided for the time being. Mrs. Clinton’s momentum has improved her standing in face-offs against all the leading Republican contenders, the poll shows. However, Mr. Rubio, who has been rising steadily, fares the best against her, trailing by just one percentage point. The Quinnipiac poll had a margin of error of four percentage points for Republicans and Democratic voters, and three percentage points over all. ||||| December 2, 2015 - Bump For Trump As Carson Fades In Republican Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Clinton, Sanders Surge In Matchups With GOP Leaders PDF format Additional Trend Information Eleven months before the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump is the undisputed leader in the Republican field, as Dr. Ben Carson, in a virtual tie with Trump four weeks ago, drops to third place, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today. On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton widens her lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to 60 - 30 percent, compared to 53 - 35 percent in a November 4 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has 2 percent, with 6 percent undecided. Trump gets 27 percent of Republican voters today, with 17 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 16 percent each for Carson and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and 5 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. No other candidate tops 3 percent, with 8 percent undecided. Last month, Trump had 24 percent, with 23 percent for Carson. Among Republicans, 26 percent of voters say they "would definitely not support" Trump, with 21 percent who would not back Bush. "It doesn't seem to matter what he says or who he offends, whether the facts are contested or the 'political correctness' is challenged, Donald Trump seems to be wearing Kevlar," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "Dr. Ben Carson, moving to center stage just one month ago, now needs some CPR. The Doctor sinks. The Donald soars. The GOP, 11 months from the election, has to be thinking, 'This could be the guy.' "Secretary Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders have to be hoping Trump is the GOP's guy." American voters shift to Clinton as the Democrat gains ground against Republicans: 47 - 41 percent over Trump, compared to 46 - 43 percent November 4; Clinton at 45 percent to Rubio's 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Rubio lead last month; Clinton tops Cruz 47 - 42 percent, compared to Cruz at 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent last month; Clinton at 46 percent to Carson's 43 percent compared to Carson's 50 - 40 percent lead last month. Sanders does just as well, or even better, against top Republicans: Topping Trump 49 - 41 percent; Getting 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent; Beating Cruz 49 - 39 percent; Leading Carson 47 - 41 percent. Clinton has a negative 44 - 51 percent favorability rating. Other favorability ratings are: Negative 35 - 57 percent for Trump; 40 - 33 percent for Carson; 44 - 31 percent for Sanders; 37 - 28 percent for Rubio; 33 - 33 percent for Cruz. American voters say 60 - 36 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 59 - 35 percent. Sanders gets the best honesty grades among top candidates, 59 - 28 percent, with Carson at 53 - 34 percent, Rubio at 49 - 33 percent and Cruz at 43 - 39 percent. All American voters say 63 - 32 percent, including 69 - 27 percent among independent voters, that Clinton would have a good chance of beating the Republican nominee in a head-to- head matchup. Voters are divided 46 - 49 percent on whether Trump would have a good chance of beating the Democratic nominee, with independent voters divided 47 - 48 percent. From November 23 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,453 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 672 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points and 573 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points. The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research. For more information, visit http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling, call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll. 1. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) If the Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote? REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS...................... Wht POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Tea BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE Mod/ Tot Party Evang Very Smwht Lib Men Wom Bush 5% 1% 4% 6% 2% 7% 5% 5% Carson 16 17 19 15 15 16 14 18 Christie 2 1 - - 2 4 2 2 Cruz 16 29 24 29 14 3 16 17 Fiorina 3 3 2 2 3 5 2 4 Gilmore - - - - - - - - Graham - - - - - 1 - - Huckabee 1 1 2 2 - - 1 - Kasich 2 - - - 2 3 2 1 Pataki - - - - - 1 1 - Paul 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 Rubio 17 12 13 11 26 15 17 16 Santorum - - - 1 - - - 1 Trump 27 29 24 25 25 31 30 24 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - - - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 1 1 - 1 2 2 - DK/NA 8 5 8 8 8 8 7 10 MOST IMPORTANT FOR REP PRES NOMINEE Q70 Shares Strong Honest/ Values Leader Trustworthy Bush 2% 2% 3% Carson 23 10 17 Christie 1 4 1 Cruz 15 20 18 Fiorina 1 3 4 Gilmore - - - Graham - - - Huckabee 1 2 - Kasich 2 2 1 Pataki - - 1 Paul 3 - - Rubio 16 15 19 Santorum 1 1 - Trump 27 30 21 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - 2 2 DK/NA 8 9 12 REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS...................... MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE Q72........... Economy/ Foreign Jobs Terrorism Policy Bush 8% 5% 3% Carson 12 19 17 Christie 3 1 5 Cruz 13 16 19 Fiorina 2 5 4 Gilmore - - - Graham - - - Huckabee 1 1 1 Kasich 3 1 1 Pataki 1 - - Paul 2 - - Rubio 17 18 22 Santorum - - 1 Trump 23 29 19 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 - 2 DK/NA 13 7 4 1A. (If candidate chosen q1) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary? REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS............................... CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q1.......................................... CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q1......................... Tot Carson Cruz Rubio Trump Made up 32% 26% 33% 23% 46% Might change 65 71 65 75 53 DK/NA 2 3 2 2 1 2. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, or Trump? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed) REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS...................... Wht POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Tea BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE Mod/ Tot Party Evang Very Smwht Lib Men Wom Bush 21% 25% 17% 27% 20% 15% 23% 18% Carson 10 2 3 11 7 13 10 9 Christie 13 13 9 14 14 11 15 10 Cruz 6 1 1 4 5 9 7 4 Fiorina 11 8 9 9 12 13 10 12 Gilmore 9 9 4 13 8 8 9 10 Graham 11 16 7 16 9 6 12 10 Huckabee 9 5 2 11 8 9 10 9 Kasich 13 16 9 21 11 7 14 13 Pataki 11 13 5 16 9 7 11 11 Paul 13 11 9 16 13 9 11 15 Rubio 5 5 3 7 4 5 6 4 Santorum 9 5 1 10 8 8 9 9 Trump 26 16 24 25 20 34 24 30 No/No one 30 32 32 28 34 27 31 28 DK/NA 6 5 5 4 5 10 6 6 3. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders, for whom would you vote? DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......... POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY LIBERAL..... Mod/ Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Clinton 60% 48% 60% 62% 53% 65% O'Malley 2 - 3 2 3 1 Sanders 30 47 33 24 39 23 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - - 2 - 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 - - 2 1 2 DK/NA 6 5 4 8 4 8 MOST IMPORTANT FOR DEM PRES NOMINEE Q69........................... Shares Strong Honest/ Right Values Leader Trustworthy Cares Experience Clinton 58% 70% 44% 53% 81% O'Malley 1 3 3 1 3 Sanders 31 24 39 39 6 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - 5 - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 1 1 - DK/NA 7 2 8 6 9 MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE Q71 Economy/ Foreign Jobs Policy Clinton 59% 64% O'Malley 3 1 Sanders 31 23 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 - DK/NA 5 12 3A. (If candidate chosen q3) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary? DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS........ CANDIDATE CHOSEN Q3................. CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q3 Tot Clinton Sanders Mind made up 57% 62% 50% Might change 41 37 49 DK/NA 1 2 1 4. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would definitely not support for the Democratic nomination for president: Clinton, O'Malley, or Sanders? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed) DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......... POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY LIBERAL..... Mod/ Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Clinton 8% 2% 7% 11% 12% 6% O'Malley 15 13 11 17 13 16 Sanders 7 - 5 11 5 9 No/No one 60 78 67 51 63 57 DK/NA 13 7 12 14 9 16 5. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Ben Carson the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 46% 8% 89% 41% 39% 53% 54% 42% Carson 43 84 7 42 49 37 39 45 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 1 10 7 5 4 7 DK/NA 4 2 2 6 4 4 1 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Clinton 49% 51% 48% 38% 32% 43% 38% 82% 74% Carson 37 42 42 50 57 46 52 12 15 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 8 4 5 5 5 6 6 4 8 DK/NA 5 2 2 7 3 4 4 1 3 6. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 47% 7% 91% 45% 39% 56% 55% 44% Trump 41 82 7 37 49 33 34 45 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 6 1 9 6 5 6 5 DK/NA 4 4 1 5 3 4 3 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Clinton 52% 50% 49% 39% 31% 45% 38% 87% 76% Trump 32 42 44 46 57 43 50 7 13 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 9 4 4 6 6 6 6 4 5 DK/NA 3 2 3 7 4 3 4 2 5 7. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Marco Rubio the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 45% 7% 87% 40% 36% 53% 51% 41% Rubio 44 89 8 41 51 37 43 45 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 1 10 6 4 3 6 DK/NA 5 1 2 8 5 4 2 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Clinton 45% 49% 47% 40% 30% 42% 36% 83% 69% Rubio 38 44 43 52 59 49 54 10 18 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 - 3 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 8 3 5 3 6 4 5 2 5 DK/NA 8 3 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 8. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Ted Cruz the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Clinton 47% 8% 90% 43% 39% 55% 55% 43% Cruz 42 87 5 39 50 34 38 44 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - 2 2 2 1 2 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 1 2 9 5 5 4 5 DK/NA 5 3 1 7 4 5 2 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Clinton 51% 50% 49% 39% 32% 45% 39% 84% 72% Cruz 33 42 43 52 58 45 51 9 17 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 8 2 5 3 4 5 4 3 4 DK/NA 7 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 8 9. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Ben Carson the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Sanders 47% 11% 84% 47% 41% 53% 52% 45% Carson 41 81 6 40 48 35 41 42 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 5 5 6 4 7 4 7 DK/NA 5 3 4 6 5 5 2 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Sanders 60% 49% 46% 35% 35% 46% 40% 77% 72% Carson 33 41 43 49 57 43 50 16 13 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 9 5 6 4 6 5 3 6 DK/NA 5 1 4 7 3 4 4 3 7 10. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Sanders 49% 11% 86% 52% 43% 55% 56% 46% Trump 41 80 8 36 47 35 36 43 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 - 3 2 - 1 1 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 5 3 4 4 6 4 5 DK/NA 4 3 2 5 4 4 3 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Sanders 62% 49% 48% 40% 36% 47% 42% 82% 78% Trump 29 43 45 45 54 43 48 13 11 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 2 2 - 1 1 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 6 3 7 4 6 5 3 3 DK/NA 5 1 3 7 4 4 4 2 6 11. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Marco Rubio the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Sanders 44% 7% 81% 45% 39% 49% 48% 43% Rubio 43 85 8 39 50 35 44 42 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 5 5 3 7 3 6 DK/NA 6 4 5 9 6 7 5 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Sanders 59% 46% 43% 33% 33% 40% 37% 80% 68% Rubio 33 41 44 53 58 45 51 12 18 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - 8 5 5 3 5 4 3 6 DK/NA 7 3 6 8 4 8 6 4 8 12. If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders the Democrat and Ted Cruz the Republican, for whom would you vote? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Sanders 49% 9% 87% 51% 43% 54% 54% 46% Cruz 39 83 4 34 48 31 38 40 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 4 5 3 7 3 6 DK/NA 6 4 4 8 4 7 4 6 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Sanders 62% 50% 49% 34% 37% 45% 41% 86% 71% Cruz 28 36 41 52 55 39 48 8 15 SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 9 5 5 3 6 4 3 7 DK/NA 7 3 4 8 3 8 5 3 6 Q13-24. Summary Table - Is your opinion of [Candidate] favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him/her? Table ranked by net favorability (Favorable - Unfavorable). REGISTERED VOTERS................. Hvn't Fav Unfav hrdEn REF NetFav Sanders 44 31 24 1 13 Rubio 37 28 34 1 9 Carson 40 33 25 1 7 Cruz 33 33 32 1 0 Fiorina 28 29 42 - -1 Kasich 19 23 57 1 -4 Clinton 44 51 3 2 -7 Huckabee 29 41 30 1 -12 Paul 23 40 36 1 -17 Christie 28 48 24 1 -20 Bush 32 54 12 2 -22 Trump 35 57 5 3 -22 REPUBLICANS....................... Hvn't Fav Unfav hrdEn REF NetFav Rubio 66 8 25 1 58 Cruz 65 9 26 - 56 Carson 67 13 19 1 54 Huckabee 56 18 27 - 38 Trump 64 27 6 3 37 Fiorina 49 17 33 - 32 Bush 53 34 11 2 19 Christie 43 31 25 1 12 Kasich 27 20 52 1 7 Paul 32 36 31 1 -4 DEMOCRATS......................... Hvn't Fav Unfav hrdEn REF NetFav Clinton 85 11 3 1 74 Sanders 68 7 24 1 61 13. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 44% 9% 85% 38% 36% 52% 50% 41% Unfavorable 51 89 11 56 59 43 46 54 Hvn't hrd enough 3 2 3 5 4 3 2 4 REFUSED 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 44% 45% 48% 39% 30% 41% 35% 84% 64% Unfavorable 48 50 48 57 66 54 60 14 27 Hvn't hrd enough 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 9 REFUSED 3 2 - 2 1 2 1 - - 14. Is your opinion of Ben Carson favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 40% 67% 13% 44% 45% 36% 40% 41% Unfavorable 33 13 54 32 31 36 47 27 Hvn't hrd enough 25 19 33 22 24 26 13 31 REFUSED 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 31% 37% 42% 49% 49% 41% 45% 22% 20% Unfavorable 32 39 36 26 30 38 34 45 25 Hvn't hrd enough 35 24 21 22 20 19 20 33 55 REFUSED 1 - 1 3 1 2 1 - - 15. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 35% 64% 10% 31% 41% 29% 27% 39% Unfavorable 57 27 86 60 52 63 67 53 Hvn't hrd enough 5 6 3 5 5 6 3 6 REFUSED 3 3 - 3 2 3 2 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 23% 36% 39% 39% 47% 36% 42% 9% 9% Unfavorable 69 57 56 49 45 54 50 87 84 Hvn't hrd enough 5 5 4 8 5 6 6 3 7 REFUSED 3 2 1 4 2 3 3 1 - 16. Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 44% 15% 68% 47% 41% 46% 49% 41% Unfavorable 31 58 7 29 36 26 31 31 Hvn't hrd enough 24 27 24 24 22 26 18 27 REFUSED 1 - 1 - - 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 59% 43% 43% 32% 39% 43% 41% 57% 60% Unfavorable 22 30 32 40 41 32 36 11 16 Hvn't hrd enough 19 27 24 26 20 24 22 32 23 REFUSED - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - 17. Is your opinion of Marco Rubio favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 37% 66% 15% 36% 42% 32% 43% 34% Unfavorable 28 8 51 23 28 28 33 25 Hvn't hrd enough 34 25 33 41 29 39 22 40 REFUSED 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 27% 34% 38% 48% 46% 38% 42% 21% 22% Unfavorable 22 33 32 23 27 26 26 33 42 Hvn't hrd enough 50 33 28 27 27 34 30 46 36 REFUSED 1 - 2 2 1 2 2 - - 18. Is your opinion of Ted Cruz favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 33% 65% 8% 30% 38% 28% 31% 34% Unfavorable 33 9 60 30 32 35 47 27 Hvn't hrd enough 32 26 31 40 30 35 22 38 REFUSED 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 25% 31% 33% 43% 42% 33% 38% 15% 25% Unfavorable 24 38 40 28 31 34 33 38 33 Hvn't hrd enough 51 30 25 26 26 31 28 47 41 REFUSED - - 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 19. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Jeb Bush favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 32% 53% 19% 27% 33% 31% 38% 29% Unfavorable 54 34 67 60 56 53 51 56 Hvn't hrd enough 12 11 13 12 10 14 9 13 REFUSED 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 24% 32% 32% 35% Unfavorable 55 54 59 51 Hvn't hrd enough 21 11 8 10 REFUSED - 3 1 3 20. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Chris Christie favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 28% 43% 15% 28% 30% 26% 36% 24% Unfavorable 48 31 58 50 47 48 48 47 Hvn't hrd enough 24 25 25 21 23 25 15 28 REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 23% 21% 30% 36% Unfavorable 42 53 53 40 Hvn't hrd enough 35 26 15 22 REFUSED - - 2 2 21. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Carly Fiorina favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 28% 49% 11% 25% 31% 25% 31% 27% Unfavorable 29 17 48 24 27 32 37 26 Hvn't hrd enough 42 33 41 50 42 43 31 48 REFUSED - - - 1 - 1 1 - AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 21% 20% 33% 37% Unfavorable 18 34 35 28 Hvn't hrd enough 60 46 32 34 REFUSED 1 - - 1 22. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Mike Huckabee favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 29% 56% 5% 29% 36% 23% 28% 29% Unfavorable 41 18 60 46 37 44 52 36 Hvn't hrd enough 30 27 34 26 26 33 20 34 REFUSED 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 19% 32% 25% 40% Unfavorable 26 47 51 37 Hvn't hrd enough 55 22 24 22 REFUSED - - 1 1 23. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of John Kasich favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 19% 27% 16% 17% 23% 14% 21% 18% Unfavorable 23 20 26 20 25 21 26 21 Hvn't hrd enough 57 52 57 62 52 63 52 61 REFUSED 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 5% 18% 24% 27% Unfavorable 19 18 23 30 Hvn't hrd enough 76 63 52 42 REFUSED - - 1 2 24. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Rand Paul favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Favorable 23% 32% 10% 26% 29% 17% 27% 20% Unfavorable 40 36 50 36 42 39 49 36 Hvn't hrd enough 36 31 39 37 28 43 23 42 REFUSED 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Favorable 24% 25% 23% 19% Unfavorable 25 37 47 51 Hvn't hrd enough 50 38 29 29 REFUSED - - 1 1 33. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 36% 7% 73% 26% 30% 41% 37% 35% No 60 91 23 68 67 54 60 61 DK/NA 4 1 3 6 3 5 3 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 38% 29% 40% 37% 24% 32% 28% 65% 60% No 57 66 58 60 74 63 69 31 35 DK/NA 6 5 2 3 2 6 4 4 5 34. Would you say that - Donald Trump is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 35% 58% 12% 36% 40% 30% 29% 38% No 59 36 84 57 54 63 67 55 DK/NA 6 6 4 7 5 6 4 7 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 28% 33% 37% 41% 44% 38% 41% 10% 22% No 67 62 58 51 51 55 53 84 73 DK/NA 5 6 5 8 5 7 6 6 5 35. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 59% 39% 78% 64% 62% 57% 68% 55% No 28 45 11 25 27 28 22 31 DK/NA 13 17 11 11 11 15 11 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 70% 58% 60% 48% 60% 54% 57% 69% 67% No 18 28 29 34 29 29 29 18 20 DK/NA 12 14 10 18 11 16 14 13 13 36. Would you say that - Ben Carson is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 53% 79% 31% 54% 59% 48% 52% 54% No 34 13 55 33 32 36 41 31 DK/NA 12 8 14 13 9 16 7 15 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 45% 49% 56% 63% 64% 52% 58% 39% 43% No 37 40 35 24 29 33 31 49 37 DK/NA 17 11 9 13 7 15 11 13 19 37. Would you say that - Marco Rubio is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 49% 74% 32% 46% 54% 44% 54% 47% No 33 12 47 37 35 31 32 34 DK/NA 18 14 20 17 11 24 14 19 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 42% 43% 51% 59% 59% 50% 55% 31% 38% No 33 37 36 26 31 25 28 48 45 DK/NA 25 20 13 15 10 25 17 21 17 38. Would you say that - Ted Cruz is honest and trustworthy or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 43% 74% 18% 42% 51% 36% 42% 44% No 39 13 63 40 37 42 46 37 DK/NA 17 13 18 18 12 22 13 19 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 35% 42% 43% 52% 56% 41% 49% 26% 28% No 40 44 45 30 34 35 35 57 54 DK/NA 26 14 12 18 10 23 17 16 18 39. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 60% 26% 91% 62% 53% 67% 65% 57% No 38 73 8 35 45 32 34 41 DK/NA 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 68% 59% 62% 52% 47% 58% 52% 87% 77% No 27 40 37 47 52 39 46 12 22 DK/NA 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 40. Would you say that - Donald Trump has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 58% 80% 35% 61% 63% 54% 56% 60% No 39 18 63 36 34 44 43 37 DK/NA 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 60% 62% 58% 52% 67% 60% 64% 38% 38% No 38 36 40 43 31 37 34 60 60 DK/NA 1 2 2 5 2 3 2 3 2 41. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 46% 22% 68% 47% 44% 48% 49% 44% No 41 60 21 40 46 36 40 41 DK/NA 13 17 11 13 10 17 11 15 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 61% 43% 43% 35% 39% 44% 41% 59% 62% No 25 41 47 48 50 39 45 26 26 DK/NA 14 16 9 16 10 17 14 15 13 42. Would you say that - Ben Carson has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 40% 60% 20% 40% 43% 36% 33% 43% No 49 29 68 48 50 48 58 45 DK/NA 12 11 11 11 7 16 9 13 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 37% 38% 40% 44% 46% 38% 42% 34% 26% No 48 51 52 44 49 46 48 57 52 DK/NA 15 11 8 12 6 16 11 9 22 43. Would you say that - Marco Rubio has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 47% 70% 32% 43% 48% 45% 54% 43% No 36 17 49 40 40 33 34 38 DK/NA 17 13 20 17 12 23 13 19 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 40% 44% 46% 54% 52% 49% 51% 28% 43% No 36 37 41 32 39 27 33 54 38 DK/NA 24 19 13 14 9 24 16 18 19 44. Would you say that - Ted Cruz has strong leadership qualities or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 43% 69% 20% 42% 47% 38% 44% 42% No 43 17 66 43 43 43 45 42 DK/NA 15 14 15 15 11 19 11 17 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 40% 40% 41% 50% 51% 43% 47% 25% 31% No 37 47 48 38 40 39 39 58 53 DK/NA 23 14 11 12 9 18 14 17 17 45. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 46% 14% 84% 40% 37% 55% 50% 44% No 51 84 15 56 60 42 47 53 DK/NA 3 2 1 4 2 3 2 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 50% 42% 52% 42% 31% 46% 38% 80% 65% No 47 54 47 54 67 51 59 17 31 DK/NA 3 3 1 4 2 3 2 3 4 46. Would you say that - Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 36% 66% 11% 33% 43% 30% 30% 39% No 59 30 88 60 54 65 66 56 DK/NA 4 4 1 7 3 5 4 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 25% 33% 40% 43% 46% 38% 42% 9% 14% No 71 63 57 52 51 56 53 88 83 DK/NA 4 4 3 5 3 6 5 2 3 47. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 53% 26% 75% 59% 55% 51% 61% 49% No 35 59 15 30 37 32 31 37 DK/NA 12 15 10 11 7 16 8 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 68% 49% 57% 37% 52% 48% 50% 66% 61% No 21 37 35 46 41 34 38 21 26 DK/NA 11 14 8 17 6 17 12 13 13 48. Would you say that - Ben Carson cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 50% 75% 25% 53% 56% 44% 47% 51% No 38 15 64 34 36 39 45 34 DK/NA 13 10 11 13 8 17 9 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 45% 46% 52% 56% 61% 48% 55% 33% 35% No 34 43 40 32 33 35 34 55 49 DK/NA 20 11 8 12 6 17 11 12 16 49. Would you say that - Marco Rubio cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 46% 76% 25% 43% 52% 41% 51% 44% No 39 14 59 42 39 38 36 40 DK/NA 15 10 15 15 8 21 12 16 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 41% 42% 47% 54% 56% 48% 52% 26% 28% No 36 41 43 35 36 32 34 57 57 DK/NA 23 17 10 12 8 20 14 16 15 50. Would you say that - Ted Cruz cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 42% 75% 17% 39% 49% 36% 39% 44% No 43 15 70 43 43 44 50 40 DK/NA 15 10 13 17 9 20 11 16 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 38% 41% 42% 48% 54% 42% 48% 21% 24% No 39 47 48 40 39 38 39 63 58 DK/NA 23 13 10 13 7 20 13 15 18 51. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 67% 34% 96% 70% 62% 71% 73% 64% No 32 64 4 30 38 27 27 35 DK/NA 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 1 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 77% 71% 67% 52% 55% 65% 60% 93% 86% No 21 28 32 46 44 33 39 7 14 DK/NA 2 1 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 52. Would you say that - Donald Trump has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 34% 60% 9% 32% 42% 26% 28% 37% No 63 37 90 64 56 70 71 60 DK/NA 3 3 1 4 2 4 2 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 27% 33% 36% 37% 47% 32% 40% 6% 17% No 70 65 61 58 52 64 58 91 81 DK/NA 3 2 2 5 1 4 3 3 2 53. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 47% 24% 68% 50% 47% 48% 50% 46% No 42 64 21 41 46 37 41 42 DK/NA 11 12 11 9 7 15 9 12 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 68% 46% 46% 30% 44% 44% 44% 62% 59% No 20 40 46 58 49 42 46 22 29 DK/NA 12 13 8 12 7 13 10 16 11 54. Would you say that - Ben Carson has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 28% 42% 14% 30% 32% 24% 21% 31% No 62 46 76 63 62 62 72 57 DK/NA 10 12 10 7 6 14 6 12 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 31% 23% 26% 34% 34% 25% 30% 23% 21% No 56 67 66 56 60 61 61 72 62 DK/NA 12 10 8 10 5 14 9 6 17 55. Would you say that - Marco Rubio has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 43% 67% 22% 46% 48% 39% 48% 41% No 41 20 60 39 43 39 40 41 DK/NA 16 12 18 16 9 22 11 18 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 40% 43% 40% 49% 52% 44% 48% 29% 27% No 35 38 51 40 40 37 38 45 54 DK/NA 25 19 9 11 9 19 14 26 19 56. Would you say that - Ted Cruz has the right kind of experience to be President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 44% 70% 21% 44% 51% 38% 44% 45% No 41 19 63 40 40 42 47 38 DK/NA 15 11 15 16 9 20 9 17 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 47% 44% 41% 47% 55% 44% 50% 30% 24% No 32 40 51 40 37 39 38 53 49 DK/NA 21 16 9 13 8 17 13 18 27 57. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 42% 8% 84% 33% 34% 51% 47% 40% No 55 91 15 60 65 45 50 57 DK/NA 3 1 1 6 2 4 3 3 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 45% 40% 46% 38% 27% 41% 34% 79% 65% No 53 56 50 60 71 55 63 18 35 DK/NA 3 4 3 2 2 4 3 3 - 58. Would you say that - Donald Trump shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 35% 65% 8% 32% 42% 28% 27% 39% No 61 30 90 62 54 67 70 56 DK/NA 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 25% 34% 39% 40% 46% 35% 41% 13% 15% No 70 64 56 55 50 59 55 82 83 DK/NA 5 2 5 5 3 6 5 5 2 59. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 44% 13% 73% 47% 42% 46% 50% 41% No 44 71 17 45 50 38 40 46 DK/NA 12 15 11 9 8 16 10 13 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 59% 43% 45% 30% 39% 44% 42% 56% 59% No 32 45 43 54 54 39 47 29 32 DK/NA 9 12 12 16 7 17 12 15 9 60. Would you say that - Ben Carson shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 46% 75% 17% 50% 53% 40% 41% 49% No 43 14 71 41 41 45 51 39 DK/NA 11 11 12 9 6 15 7 13 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 44% 39% 49% 53% 57% 44% 51% 32% 32% No 38 53 42 36 37 42 39 55 51 DK/NA 18 8 9 11 6 14 10 12 17 61. Would you say that - Marco Rubio shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 40% 71% 15% 39% 46% 35% 44% 39% No 43 15 70 43 43 44 43 43 DK/NA 17 14 15 18 12 21 13 18 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 32% 35% 41% 51% 50% 42% 46% 18% 25% No 42 48 45 39 39 37 38 65 61 DK/NA 26 17 14 11 11 21 16 17 14 62. Would you say that - Ted Cruz shares your values or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 35% 68% 8% 34% 44% 27% 33% 37% No 48 15 77 50 45 51 56 44 DK/NA 16 17 15 15 11 22 11 19 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 27% 32% 36% 46% 49% 33% 41% 15% 21% No 51 53 49 40 41 44 43 72 64 DK/NA 22 15 14 14 10 23 16 13 15 63. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton would have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 63% 34% 87% 69% 62% 64% 69% 60% No 32 61 10 27 35 30 26 36 DK/NA 5 5 3 5 4 6 6 4 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 68% 66% 66% 52% 56% 56% 56% 95% 73% No 30 31 29 39 40 37 38 4 22 DK/NA 2 3 5 9 4 7 5 1 5 64. Would you say that - Donald Trump would have a good chance of defeating the Democratic nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 46% 73% 20% 47% 50% 43% 36% 51% No 49 22 77 48 47 50 59 44 DK/NA 5 5 3 5 3 7 5 5 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 45% 45% 46% 47% 55% 50% 53% 21% 18% No 52 50 48 46 41 42 42 77 74 DK/NA 2 5 5 7 3 8 6 1 8 65. Would you say that - Bernie Sanders would have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 34% 17% 49% 39% 34% 34% 31% 35% No 55 75 39 51 59 52 59 54 DK/NA 10 8 12 10 7 14 10 11 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 54% 33% 29% 23% 30% 30% 30% 48% 53% No 39 57 61 64 64 56 60 41 32 DK/NA 7 10 10 13 6 15 10 11 15 66. Would you say that - Ben Carson would have a good chance of defeating the Democratic nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 31% 55% 11% 30% 35% 28% 31% 32% No 58 34 79 60 57 59 61 57 DK/NA 11 11 9 10 8 13 9 12 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 28% 27% 35% 35% 39% 31% 35% 16% 20% No 59 63 58 53 55 56 55 80 55 DK/NA 13 10 8 12 6 13 10 4 25 67. Would you say that - Marco Rubio would have a good chance of defeating the Democratic nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 39% 63% 23% 37% 43% 35% 44% 37% No 47 25 65 47 47 47 43 49 DK/NA 14 12 11 16 10 18 13 14 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 30% 40% 39% 48% 48% 42% 45% 19% 20% No 50 46 49 43 43 40 42 72 55 DK/NA 20 14 12 9 9 17 13 9 25 68. Would you say that - Ted Cruz would have a good chance of defeating the Democratic nominee in the general election for President or not? COLLEGE DEG Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No Yes 31% 59% 10% 28% 34% 29% 27% 33% No 55 28 78 55 56 54 61 51 DK/NA 14 12 11 16 11 18 11 15 AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE..... 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Yes 21% 33% 31% 41% 38% 34% 36% 11% 19% No 57 54 60 47 53 49 51 80 56 DK/NA 22 13 9 12 9 17 13 9 25 69. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) Thinking about the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, which of the following is most important to you: Someone who shares your values, cares about the needs and problems of people like you, has strong leadership qualities, is honest and trustworthy, has the right kind of experience, or has the best chance of winning? DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......... POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY LIBERAL..... Mod/ Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Shares values 15% 16% 13% 15% 15% 15% Cares needs/problems 27 33 36 22 27 27 Strong leadership 19 10 11 25 13 23 Honest/trustworthy 17 14 19 17 22 14 Right experience 13 14 12 14 14 12 Best chance/winning 6 13 7 4 7 5 DK/NA 3 - 1 2 2 3 70. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Thinking about the Republican nominee for president in 2016, which of the following is most important to you: Someone who shares your values, cares about the needs and problems of people like you, has strong leadership qualities, is honest and trustworthy, has the right kind of experience, or has the best chance of winning? REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS...................... Wht POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Tea BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE Mod/ Tot Party Evang Very Smwht Lib Men Wom Shares values 22% 28% 28% 28% 22% 15% 27% 15% Cares needs/problems 11 6 9 7 9 17 9 13 Strong leadership 26 28 23 24 31 24 23 31 Honest/trustworthy 23 24 27 23 23 23 24 22 Right experience 6 1 3 2 5 10 4 8 Best chance/winning 8 5 7 10 8 6 7 9 DK/NA 4 8 2 6 2 6 5 3 71. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) Which of these is the most important issue to you in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination for President: the economy and jobs, terrorism, immigration, the federal deficit, health care, foreign policy, climate change, race relations, abortion, gun policy or taxes? DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS.......... POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY LIBERAL..... Mod/ Tot Very Smwht Cons Men Wom Economy and jobs 43% 40% 44% 45% 48% 40% Terrorism 8 3 5 11 5 10 Immigration 4 4 3 4 3 4 Federal deficit 3 - - 4 3 2 Health care 11 8 7 13 10 12 Foreign policy 12 14 11 11 13 10 Climate change 8 20 12 3 9 7 Race relations 2 3 2 2 2 2 Abortion 2 2 4 - - 3 Gun policy 3 3 4 2 1 3 Taxes 2 2 1 3 1 3 DK/NA 3 - 7 2 4 3 72. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Which of these is the most important issue to you in deciding who to support for the Republican nomination for President: the economy and jobs, terrorism, immigration, the federal deficit, health care, foreign policy, climate change, race relations, abortion, gun policy or taxes? ||||| Ben Carson on TODAY Show: Welcoming Syrian refugees 'exposes us to danger' share share tweet pin email GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson tells TODAY's Matt Lauer that allowing the United States to welcome tens of thousands of Syrian refugees would not help resolve the crisis but only put the nation in jeopardy. "Bringing them into this country does not solve the problem, and it exposes us to danger," Carson said during an interview Tuesday. Carson last week visited Jordan to tour Syrian refugee camps in an effort to bolster his foreign affairs credentials, something he has been criticized for lacking. Carson called the camps "really quite nice" and suggested they should serve as a long-term solution. On TODAY, he called the Jordanians "very generous people" who have set up camps and hospitals "that work very well" but just lack to the resources to support the efforts. "Why don't we take advantage of things that are already in place, before we start trying to come up with other things," he said. When reminded that refugee camps aren't places where settlers can build their future, Carson said that most of the refugees he met with want to return back home to Syria. But they also suggested ways that foreign nations can help outside of opening their borders. "What can nations like the United States do? They can support the efforts of places like Jordan and other places that might offer them a safe place to inhabit until such time as they can return home," he said. Carson also addressed his recent slide down polls in Iowa, which will hold the nation's first presidential caucus on Feb. 1. RELATED: Watch Donald Trump put a price on his participation in an upcoming debate "Poll numbers will go up and down. It's a marathon, not a sprint," he told Lauer. Carson said voters are still evaluating where each candidate stands on issues and how views fit "their impression of what they need." "I think there is plenty of time to make the appropriate arguments," he said. Carson has been courting the Christian conservative vote for months in Iowa, where he once led the polls. His standings have taken a hit recently, and the retired neurosurgeon finds himself in third place in numerous polls, behind Donald Trump and either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Some conservative pundits have noted that Carson's slip has coincided with an increase in world events, including the growth of the Syrian refugee crisis and the deadly attacks in Paris. Follow TODAY.com writer Eun Kyung Kim on Twitter. ||||| Ben Carson took a tumble in the latest national poll, falling 7 points from last month in the Quinnipiac University survey, after weathering heavy criticism for his lack of foreign policy expertise and scrutiny about his personal tale of redemption. After pulling a virtual tie with Donald Trump in the previous poll, the retired neurosurgeon dropped to third place with 16 percent support among Republican respondents. Trump moved up 3 percentage points to dominate the field at 27 percent. Story Continued Below Also enjoying a bump — Sen. Marco Rubio, who moved up 3 percentage points and into second place with 17 percent support, and Sen. Ted Cruz, who also gained 3 percentage points and tied with Carson at 16 percent. The 3-point hikes for Trump, Rubio and Cruz are all within the poll's margin of error. Behind Trump and the triumvirate vying for position behind the Manhattan businessman, no other candidate finished in the double digits. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush earned 5 percent, followed by former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina at 3 percent. No other candidate received more than 2 percent support, and 8 percent of respondents were undecided. Carson's dip follows a series of unforced errors, including a flap over his assertion that China is involved in the Syrian conflict and his struggle to answer what nations he would call first to form a coalition against the Islamic State. He also has come under increased scrutiny for the stories he has often retold about his violent childhood and his religious redemption that helped him to become a highly successful pediatric neurosurgeon. After surging in the early fall, nipping at the heels of Trump and even surpassing him in some polls, Carson appears to be settling back down in some surveys. “Poll numbers will go up and down. It’s a marathon, not a sprint," Carson told NBC's "Today" on Tuesday in addressing his slide among Iowa Republicans specifically. This most recent poll delivered some good news for Rubio and Cruz, who have both recently upped their profiles on the campaign trail and engaged in some nasty back-and-forths about their respective political records, especially regarding immigration. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy a sizable advantage over her rival Bernie Sanders, outpolling the Vermont senator 2-to-1 — 60 percent to 30 percent — among registered Democratic voters surveyed nationwide. The only other candidate, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, took just 2 percent, with 6 percent of Democratic respondents undecided. Matched against potential Republican challengers next November, Clinton performed better than in Quinnipiac's previous survey. Facing Carson, Clinton earned 46 percent to 43 percent, a 6-point jump from the last survey, when Carson held a 50 percent to 40 percent advantage against the former secretary of state. Against Trump this time, Clinton earned 47 percent to 41 percent, an improvement from 46 to 43 percent in the late October/early November survey. Matched against Rubio, Clinton led 45 percent to 44 percent, while Rubio held a 46 percent to 41 percent advantage in the last poll. More than six in 10 American voters surveyed — 63 percent — said Clinton would have a good chance of beating any potential Republican opponent in the general election, while 32 percent said she would not. About 69 percent of independents gave Clinton a better chance of winning than a GOP challenger, while 27 percent did not. Conversely, just 46 percent of all respondents said that Trump would beat the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, while 49 percent said he would not. Among independents, the split is similar, at 47 percent to 48 percent. But Sanders fared just as well in some head-to-heads, even better than the current Democratic front-runner, holding wider advantages in matchups over Carson, Trump and Cruz than did Clinton. As has been the case in recent national polling, Trump and Clinton led the field among voters in their respective parties but failed to register positive image or trustworthiness ratings from the larger sample of all registered voters. Trump holds a net negative favorability rating of 35 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable (-22 points), while Clinton earned a more respectable, if still negative rating of 44 percent to 51 percent. Sanders, on the other hand, earned the highest net favorability rating among all respondents of any candidate in either party (at +13 points), with 44 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable and 24 percent who said they still have not heard enough to decide. Among just Democrats, however, Clinton earned the highest net favorability (85 percent to 11 percent), while Rubio led Republican hopefuls with a net-positive rating of +58 points (66 percent to 8 percent), narrowly edging out Cruz (65 percent to 9 percent) and Carson (67 percent to 13 percent). Only 35 percent of all respondents said Trump is honest and trustworthy, similar to the 36 percent who said the same of Clinton, while 59 percent and 60 percent, respectively, said they were not. The poll was conducted Nov. 23-30, surveying 1,453 registered voters nationwide via landlines and cellphones, with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The sample included 672 Republicans with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points, and 573 Democrats with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story said Carson dropped six points from last month. He dropped seven points. ||||| If Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton or any other presidential candidate said the things Donald Trump says, did the things Donald Trump does, or had led the controversial life Donald Trump has, his or her campaign would already have died in a pile of negative headlines and video clips. But Donald Trump is alive. It is evident that the regular rules do not apply to him. Two months into his rowdy campaign, it is instead the political media that has been leveled by Trump — floored, mystified and stupefied by a candidate who prospers where others would perish. What’s more, the press corps is beginning to realize that nothing it might do — no report it can publish, no question it can ask – has the power to push this candidate an inch off the course that is preordained for him, one which is far more likely to burn out on its own terms than flame out under some great bonfire set by the media. Story Continued Below That is the consensus, anyway, of the nearly two dozen journalists, pundits, campaign strategists and political advisers who spoke with POLITICO this week about what many described as the “exceptionalism” of Trump’s campaign. Trump’s bombast and bluntness are resonating with voters, they said, and there’s not a damn thing the press, pundits or rival campaigns can do about it. The list of offenses that would likely cripple other candidates is long: Trump called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists. He said that Sen. John McCain, who spent five-and-a-half years in a North Vietnamese prison, is not a war hero. He has referred to women as “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs” and worse, and had those remarks read to him before 24 million Americans by one of the most popular female news anchors in the country — because, Trump later suggested, she was menstruating. Far from dismantling Trump’s campaign, these controversies have only benefited him. “The only thing that takes him out is either Father Trump or Father Time,” said Matthew Dowd, the former chief strategist for President George W. Bush. “So far, he is immune.” More recently, Trump sat down for an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Asked who he talks to for military advice, Trump replied: “Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great — you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and — and you have certain people that you like.” If Trump’s remark called to mind Sarah Palin’s inability, in a 2008 interview, to name a single newspaper or magazine that she had read before being tapped as McCain’s vice presidential nominee, it has not had the same effect. For Palin, it was an embarrassment that continues to dog her reputation. For Trump, the ‘shows’ remark barely registered. “In any other campaign cycle, another campaign would have been making Trump pay for that remark before he even walked out of the studio,” Kevin Madden, the senior adviser and spokesman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said. “It’s an entirely disqualifying statement, yet we didn’t see other campaigns move with much speed or purpose to expose it.” Trump’s ability to shrug off controversy and criticism, to out-shame his detractors in the media and on the campaign trail, is almost certainly a reflection of widespread public frustration with career politicians and the mainstream press, and with its way of covering elections. In fact, Trump is playing according to a different bit of wisdom, one that belongs to show business and is thought to have come from circus-master P.T. Barnum: all publicity is good publicity. He has done this before. Among the small conclave of family and corporate dynasties that have long dominated New York City’s real estate industry, discretion has forever been a watchword — the preferred method of influence is boardrooms and living rooms and wood-paneled offices not made up for a reality television show like “The Apprentice.” Trump did not succeed (or at least survive) in the cutthroat world of New York real estate by playing by its rules, but by flouting them. It only worked because it made him an outlier: None of the rules have changed for his equals in the industry. That Trump can bring those rules with him on the road to the 2016 presidential election makes him a completely different candidate from the rest of the pack. The rules of show business are just as fickle as those of presidential politics. But they are completely different. And they are serving him in politics as they once served him in business. “The conventional wisdom doesn’t apply to Donald Trump — at least not so far,” Roger Stone, the former top adviser with Trump’s campaign, said. Part of it is the peculiar environment in which Republican primary contenders are now selling their wares. “He’s not a career politician, so voters aren’t holding him to the same standards. He’s a larger-than-life figure that comes from outside politics,” said Stone. “When you combine that with voters dislike of politics, political institutions, and the media, it’s very effective.” “He’s not a candidate,” said Brad Todd, the Republican advertising strategist. “He is a protest vehicle.” There was a moment where the journalism-theory crowd was gnashing its teeth about Trump. His candidacy, they said, was enabled by the media, which was only looking for cheap page views and Nielsen ratings. Whether they created the monster that is the perpetually successful Trump candidacy or not, they are certainly not the people who can dismantle it. They don’t even understand it. In a recent Facebook video, The Atlantic’s Molly Ball acknowledged as much, listing Trump’s offenses and his resulting rise in the polls, and then admitting: “Pundits like me are terribly clueless when it comes to predicting how Donald Trump is going to do. What’s going to happen next to Trump? I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re all totally clueless.” “Maybe this is why so many people like Donald Trump,” Ball concluded. “American voters really don’t like pundits. They think we’re all stupid. … So maybe, when Donald Trump can come along, and make us all look like fools, people think that he must be doing something right.” There is perhaps no clearer illustration of the media’s inability to faze Trump than his exchange with Fox News host Megyn Kelly at the inaugural Republican primary debate in Cleveland. Her first question to him — in which she listed a litany of misogynistic remarks he’d made about women — was the sort of unforeseen torpedo that could have decimated any politician. Trump’s response was a brazen quip, off the cuff: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” In any other cycle, the win would likely have gone to Kelly, a rising television star with the vast admiration of the Fox News audience. By the time the dust cleared, however, the win had gone to Trump. His poll numbers went up, his quip was the talk of the Twitterverse, and, after threatening to boycott Fox News, he received a call from the network’s chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, assuring him that he would receive fair and balanced coverage. “It represents the genuine Trump,” Stone said of the candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks. “He’s not practicing his lines in the mirror like Marco Rubio. He’s not checking everything with his pollster. That’s why he’s doing so well. Voters like that.” To be sure, there are many who think the media colluded in this whole thing. From the beginning, Trump’s campaign has been covered more like theater than politics — in a bit of grandstanding, The Huffington Post has filed all Trump copy under its entertainment section — and as a result, many news organizations have only recently started to hold Trump to account on his personal history and policy positions. “Everyone is stuck in process stories and not reporting about real Trump,” said Rick Wilson, the Florida-based GOP strategist. “He’s a celebrity, and the media is only reporting on him as such. It’s all process.” Wilson said the media should instead be reporting “on all the hinky bullshit in his business life and personal life.” Trump’s history isn’t rosy: It includes multiple marriages, suspect business deals and confirmed ties to organized crime in Atlantic City. Wayne Barrett, the author of “Trump: The Deals and the Downfall,” an unauthorized biography, told POLITICO that Trump’s personal past and business dealings would almost surely ruin a conventional candidate. “He is the embodiment of crony capitalism,” Barrett said, noting that, as “a very formidable donor in New York politics,” Trump “always hired the right insider to put the fix in for him.” “He’s the antithesis of conservative wealth, or at least the wealth that conservatives pretend to revere,” he said. “It’s not market wealth, it’s state wealth. It’s crony wealth. Every deal he did was laced with crony connections.” Barrett also said that Trump “would have been personally bankrupt” if he hadn’t been bailed out by bankers who decided that he was too big to fail. “I would think that if reporters were out there doing some serious digging, they ought to be talking to the bankers who used to deal with him,” he said. Michael Cohen, Trump’s legal counsel and top spokesperson, did not respond to requests for comment. Trump’s marital history might also have proven problematic for a more conventional conservative candidate. Trump is in his third marriage, and some of his remarks about his past partners have been callous. In 1990, he told Vanity Fair: “When a man leaves a woman, especially when it was perceived that he has left for a piece of ass—a good one!—there are 50 percent of the population who will love the woman who was left.” And the mob ties: Barrett has alleged that Trump organized a land purchase from “a top leader of the murderous Scarfo crime family in Atlantic City so that his name would not appear in the transaction,” and that Roy Cohn, Trump’s former lawyer and close friend, also represented Fat Tony Salerno, the head of the Genovese crime family. Importantly, Barrett told POLITICO that while a handful of reporters have contacted him about these connections, nothing has materialized. And even if the connections did make headlines today, Barrett’s not convinced it would do much to sway voter sentiment. “For most of the Americans that are enchanted by Donald, the mob is not a real thing. It’s a Hollywood thing, but it’s not real. If you lived in New York, the power of the mob was enormous,” he said. “But who can figure out what would affect the people who are for him?” Barrett asked. “It’s almost a mystical connection he has with these people. What would demystify him is very hard to figure. I don’t know if the media can do it, because his supporters are not a fact-based constituency.” Some pundits have argued that the best way to dismantle Trump’s campaign is to take him seriously and expose his lack of feasible, detailed policy positions. But Trump’s recent 40-minute sitdown with “Meet The Press,” and subsequent interviews with personalities like Bill O’Reilly, have focused almost exclusively on policy and done little to curb support — even if Trump says he watches “the shows” for military advice, or defers to lawyers when asked how he would change the 14th Amendment to implement his immigration policy. As Trip Gabriel, The New York Times political reporter, has argued, Trump “may be the first post-policy candidate.” His campaign is “built on his unfettered style, rather than on his positions, which have proved highly fungible.” So if Trump can’t be beat on his past or his policies, and if he can’t be matched for style, what could possibly stop him from securing the nomination? For most observers, it is, as Dowd said, up to Father Trump or Father Time. One theory posits that Trump will say something so radically inappropriate that it jettisons his support with conservatives: “Where he says or does something too outrageous, and people have time to reflect more on what the choice means,” Dowd said. Another theory posits that Trump will bow out before the Iowa caucuses because he doesn’t want to run the risk of losing. “It would be completely out of character for him to subject himself to voters to be judged,” Stuart Stevens, the top strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, said. “What’s his greatest put-down? ‘Loser.’ Will Trump be the next president? No. Does Donald Trump want to go through the rest of his life known as a loser? No.” “When he inevitably drops to second or third in polls … I wonder how he handles adversity,” one prominent political journalist said. “I think he could take his ball and go home.” The final theory is that Trump’s support — about 25 percent, according to the latest national polls — simply won’t translate into votes. “What does it matter to someone now if they say they are for Trump? It means nothing. And 75 percent of the Republican voters aren’t for him even though he has the highest name ID and has been in the public eye far more than any other candidate,” Stevens said. He also noted that Trump had 26 percent support in 2011: “Four years ago, he had about the same vote when he wasn’t even running,” he said. “So despite saying he’s a candidate and debates and campaigning, he has the same vote share he had before. That’s a success?” Brad Todd, the GOP strategist, said Trump’s campaign would end with “someone passing out actual ballots at elementary schools at a thousand Iowa caucus locations, making this less like “American Idol” and more like a decision with consequences.” “Summer beach flings rarely morph into lasting love,” Todd said. Until then, or perhaps beyond then, the political media looks on, “totally clueless.” “In politics, particularly presidential races, my oft repeated mantra is the UFO rule. At some point, the unforeseen will occur,” Tom Brokaw, the veteran NBC News anchor who has covered presidential elections dating back to Johnson vs. Goldwater, told POLITICO. “Gary Hart and Monkey Business, Dukakis failing to defend Kitty, Bush 41 and the Perot factor. What the UFO will be this time, I don’t know yet, but there will be one — and not just for Trump,” he said. “All the candidates in both parties are vulnerable.” Authors:

– While nothing seems to be able to topple Donald "Teflon Don" Trump, Ben Carson isn't enjoying the same kind of luck. The former neurosurgeon plummeted 7 percentage points in a newly released Quinnipiac University poll, falling to third place with 16%, Politico reports. Meanwhile, Trump absorbed 3 points, boosting him to a healthy lead of 27%. Ascending to second-place position in the poll: Marco Rubio, who gained 3 percentage points for a total of 17%. Ted Cruz also drew in 3 additional points to tie Carson at 16%, while Jeb Bush languishes in a distant fifth place with 5%. The rest of the GOP comes in at 3% or less. The poll surveyed 1,453 registered voters between Nov. 23-30, with a 2.6-point margin of error. What seemed to precipitate Carson's sudden dip—he was "deadlocked" with Trump just a month ago, the New York Times points out—were flaps over both his origin story and his apparent lack of foreign policy knowledge. Carson isn't letting on, though, that he's fazed by the latest setback. "Poll numbers will go up and down," he told Matt Lauer Tuesday on the Today show. "It's a marathon, not a sprint." The assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll adds his own take. "Dr. Ben Carson, moving to center stage just one month ago, now needs some CPR," Tim Malloy says. "The Doctor sinks. The Donald soars. The GOP, 11 months from the election, has to be thinking, 'This could be the guy.'" Meanwhile, on the Dems' side, Hillary Clinton maintains a large lead over Bernie Sanders (60% to 30%), with Martin O'Malley barely making a blip at 2%. (Carson's unusual theory about the pyramids probably didn't do him any favors.)

Contains archived websites, blogs, editorials and other materials posted online by, or on behalf of, 17 Russian political and cultural figures who have expressed some opposition to foreign and domestic policy in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The archive also captures eight websites that chronicle a range of contemporary political and human rights positions and events that reflect the prevailing climate. The political and cultural figures whose websites and/or blogs have been captured include: Rustem Adagamov, widely-read Russian blogger; Sergei Aleksashenko, economist, businessman; Konstantin Borovoi, entrepreneur and opposition politician; Leonid Gozman, opposition politician; Il’ia Iashin, opposition politician, co-founder of Russian “Solidarity” party; Oleg Kashin, political journalist and author; Oleg Kozyrev, author, screenwriter, blogger and journalist, leader of youth movement “Democratic Alternative”; Andrei Makarevich, founder of classic rock group Mashina Vremeni [Time Machine]), who Russian state media condemned as a “traitor” for performing a charity concert for Ukrainian children displaced by the war; Andrei Mal’gin, journalist, literary scholar and critic, publisher, and political activist well known for his blogging; Aleksei Naval’nyi, Russian political and social activist, lawyer, and popular blogger; Boris Nemtsov, prominent Russian opposition leader gunned down in Moscow on February 27, 2015; Valeriia Novodvorskaia (d. July 2014), a political activist, dissident, human rights advocate, independent journalist, and founder of liberal political parties; Dmitrii Oreshkin, political scientist and activist; Sergei Parkhomenko, publisher, journalist, political observer; Irina Prokhorova, literary scholar, editor, television personality, opposition political figure; Artemii Troitskii, rock journalist, music critic who emigrated to Estonia in 2014 because of the worsening political climate; Nikolai Uskov, historian, journalist and publishing executive. This archive also includes captures of the following sites: Civil Platform, founded in 2012, with the aims of establishing civil society in Russia, upholding of the rights of the individual, and economic reform. Human Rights in Russia, a website dedicated to raising awareness of threats to human rights in Russia, funded by the MacArthur Foundation and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. Nashi, a pro-Kremlin youth organization. Politkom.Ru, web platform of the Center for Political Technology, which purports to be an independent source of news and analysis and an open forum for exchange of opinions between politicians, analysts and journalists. Putin. Itogi publishes “independent, expert” reports on Putin’s leadership, among them reports written by Boris Nemtsov. Solidarnost’ is a “united democratic movement” founded in 2008 as a coalition of opposition organizations against authoritarianism. Bolotnaya Square Case is a website devoted to documenting the consequences for dozens of protesters after their participation in an opposition rally in Moscow in May of 2012. Traitor.net is a website that singles out political and cultural figures for their expression of disagreement with Russian incursions into Ukraine. ||||| Rossia 1 Kiselyov speaking on his news program on state television on Sunday. An anchor on state-run television threatened that Russia could "turn the U.S. into radioactive ashes" and showed a simulation of a Russian nuclear strike during his program on the U.S. response to Russia's interference in Ukraine. Dmitry Kiselyov, who hosts a current affairs talk show on the Rossiya television network and heads a new Kremlin-backed news agency, accused U.S. President Barack Obama of supposedly dithering in talks with President Vladimir Putin, and suggested on his Sunday program that the U.S. leader was intimidated by his Kremlin opponent, who is "not an easy one." "And Russia is the only country that could really turn the U.S. into radioactive ashes," Kiselyov said, against the backdrop of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear blast appearing on a huge screen behind him. Kiselyov also suggested that threats of a nuclear strike were coming from the Kremlin. "I do not know if this is a coincidence or what, but here was Obama calling Putin on Jan. 21 — probably, again trying to pressure somehow — and the very next day, on Jan. 22, the official media outlet of the Russian government ran an article that spelled out in simple terms how our system of nuclear response works," he said. While Kiselyov's comment suggested that Obama's Jan. 21 call had to do with the Ukrainian crisis, an earlier statement from the White House said the U.S. leader spoke to Putin on that day to wish him a "safe and secure" Olympics in Sochi. The Kremlin has unleashed a large-scale propaganda war over Moscow's takeover of Crimea and the peninsula's referendum on Sunday, in which more than 90 percent of voters cast supported seceding from Ukraine to Russia, according to preliminary results released by Crimea's pro-Russian administration. The promotion by state-run television of the Kremlin's views has also helped Putin's approval ratings in the country to soar to 72 percent this month, a recent survey by the Levada pollster showed. The number of respondents who said they would like to see Putin as Russia's president for a fourth term increased this month to 32 percent, from 26 percent in in April, 2013, while the number of people who said they would like the job to go to a "person who proposes a different solution to Russia's problems" declined from 41 percent to 31 percent over the same period. The poll, conducted on March 7-10 among 1,603 people around Russia, gave a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| As the United States condemned a referendum on the future of the Crimean peninsula staged by pro-Russian separatists on Sunday, one of Russia’s most influential television hosts appeared on the evening news in Moscow, before a huge mushroom cloud graphic, to remind viewers that Russia is still “the only country in the world capable of turning the U.S.A. into radioactive dust.” On Russian state TV: lovely closing ceremony of Sochi Paralympics v. warning that Russia can turn the US into radioactive dust. Good night. — Steven Lee Myers (@slmmoscow) 16 Mar 14 Although the saber-rattling comments came from Dmitry Kiselev, a news anchor well known for his “mad as hell” delivery of diatribes on the supposed threats to Russia posed by foreign plotters and native homosexuals, the report still stunned viewers of the state broadcaster’s main channel. Киселев продолжает! Прямо сейчас: Россия – единственная страна, которая может превратить США в радиоактивный пепел //t.co/zNTh7imMKz — Коробков-Землянский (@korobkov) 16 Mar 14 One reason is that, as the Russian journalist Leonid Ragozin observed, Mr. Kiselev was the man recently chosen by President Vladimir V. Putin to lead an official news agency charged with explaining Kremlin policy to the world, a media organization to be called Rossiya Sevodnya, or Russia Today. Kiselev is not your average moron. He is Russia’s most senior government media executive, essentially minister of propaganda. — Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) 16 Mar 14 Mr. Ragozin noted that the anchor also claimed that President Obama was deeply worried by Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Kiselev then talks abt Russia’s ‘dead hand’ system that will destroy America automatically after all Russians are dead. — Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) 16 Mar 14 Kiselev claims a publication about “Perimeter” – the Russian nuclear extermination system – prompted Obama’s frantic calls to Kremlin in Jan — Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) 16 Mar 14 A Moscow correspondent for The Associated Press, Laura Mills, reported that the broadcaster had then moved on to attack a “fifth column” of supposedly traitorous Russian dissidents who signed an open letter against the Kremlin’s “de facto annexation of Crimea.” Russian state TV anchor lists intellectuals who oppose Crimean annexation, says: “If this isn’t the fifth column, what IS the fifth column?” — Laura Mills (@lauraphylmills) 16 Mar 14 Mr. Kiselev’s appointment, and the shuttering of a more independent state news agency, was described by Russia’s respected business daily Vedomosti as a sign that Mr. Putin had abandoned any hope of persuading educated Russians to embrace his policies, my colleague Serge Schmemann explained. “The Kremlin acknowledged that it has lost the educated community,” the editors of Vedomosti wrote in December, “and has neither the means nor the will to hold a dialogue about values, and therefore instead of culture began to impose ideology, and instead of information, propaganda.” The instant online reaction to Mr. Kiselev’s Sunday night riff from Russian bloggers seemed to indicate that they are indeed not the target demographic for his editorial commentaries. A screenshot of the segment, with a caption suggesting that the host might have a substance abuse problem, was posted on the Twitter feed of Aleksei Navalny, an opposition leader currently under house arrest whose blog was blocked by Russian Internet authorities last week. Mr. Navalny’s feed, which is ostensibly under the control of his wife until the end of his ban on using the Internet, also drew attention to another opposition activist’s suggestion of how the segment should have ended, with the host being dragged away by men in white coats. По логике вещей, эта клоунада должна закончиться так //t.co/z9abXeb0dW — Владислав Наганов (@naganoff_ru) 16 Mar 14 Other bloggers heaped scorn on Mr. Kiselev’s false claim that Mr. Obama’s hair had turned gray from worry over Russia’s nuclear might. Киселев говорит, что Обама резко поседел из-за того, что боится Россию. Это, конечно, какой-то КВН,а не журналистика. //t.co/ZMzXq9rENs — Алекс Заборовский (@sazam) 16 Mar 14 As my colleague Ellen Barry reported on Saturday, some influential members of the Russian president’s inner circle “view isolation from the West as a good thing for Russia,” and seem to welcome the revival of Cold War tensions. On Sunday, she noted, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, Dmitri Trenin, told RT, a Kremlin-funded news network that broadcasts in English, that the new standoff between Moscow and the West “closes the books on what I would call inter Cold War period” that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Russian bloggers also turned their attention to reworking an Associated Press photograph of a confrontation on Saturday between the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, and her Russian counterpart, Vitaly I. Churkin. Photo

– The man Vladimir Putin hand-picked to run a new state-run news agency turned a number of heads yesterday when he stood before an image of a mushroom cloud and declared that "Russia is the only country that could really turn the US into radioactive ash." Dmitry Kiselyov then showed a simulation of a Russian nuclear strike, and suggested that the Kremlin had threatened Washington by running an article on such a strike on Jan. 22, a day after an Obama-Putin phone call, the Moscow Times reports. Kiselyov is known as a pro-Putin anti-gay firebrand, but he's "not your average moron," one Russia expert tweeted. "He is Russia's most senior government media executive, essentially minister of propaganda." Russian bloggers responded with shock and mockery, the New York Times reports; one opposition leader's Twitter feed suggested that Kiselyov was intoxicated, then pointed out a Photoshopped image of the host being dragged away by men in white coats.

(CNN) Investigators have identified a suspect in the death of a western Pennsylvania police officer who was gunned down during a traffic stop. Rahmael Sal Holt, 29, shot and killed officer Brian Shaw on Friday, police said. "Consider Holt armed and dangerous," the Pennsylvania State Police tweeted. Update New Kensington Police Officer Shooting: Rahmael Sal HOLT (DOB 05/31/88) has been identified as the person who shot and killed Officer Shaw. A warrant has been issued for Holt's arrest. Consider Holt armed and dangerous! Call 911 with info on his location. Pictured below pic.twitter.com/6L6vqQ0WVs Brian Shaw had been a patrolman with New Kensington's police department for less than a year when he was killed Friday night, according to police Chief James Klein. The traffic stop resulted in a foot chase before Shaw, 25, was shot, Klein said. New Kensington is about 20 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. Our thoughts and prayers are with the New Kensington police and all who mourn the loss of Officer Brian Shaw. #EOW pic.twitter.com/xnVj2xM25E — Pittsburgh Police (@PghPolice) November 18, 2017 Authorities have put up a $40,000 reward for information leading to the suspect's arrest, according to a Pennsylvania State Police spokesman, with money pooled from multiple agencies, including the US Marshals Service, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Officers from Westmoreland County and neighboring Allegheny County, as well as Pittsburgh police, combed the area overnight and processed the scene, CNN affiliate KDKA reported Trooper Stephen J. Limani, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Police, emphasized the importance of any information people can provide. We are again deeply saddened by the loss of another officer. Our thoughts and prayers are with the officer's family and friends and the New Kensington Police Department. Lest We Forget. #EOW #LODD — FBI Pittsburgh (@FBIPittsburgh) November 18, 2017 "If you look back in the history of many horrific incidents, a very small, minute tip could be the tipping point to lead us in a direction of who the person was that committed this crime," Limani said. Shaw graduated from the Allegheny County Police Training Academy in 2014, according to a post on the Allegheny County Police Department's Facebook page. "Officer Brian Shaw, you were taken from us too soon," the department wrote. "You are in our thoughts and prayers. Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin tweeted his condolences to Shaw's family and New Kensington police. My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Officer Brian Shaw and the entire New Kensington Police Department. So sad. RIP. — Mike Tomlin (@CoachTomlin) November 18, 2017 Shaw played for Slippery Rock University's football team, according to the school athletic department's Twitter page "Words can't describe how I feel," head football coach Shawn Lutz told KDKA . "He was part of our 2011 and 2013 championship teams." Shaw was the team's kicker, Lutz said. The university is about an hour's drive north of Pittsburgh. "He said he wanted to be a police officer, he was a hard working guy, such a positive young man," Lutz said of his former player. "Every time I think about Brian, I think of such a positive guy who would be successful at anything he did." ||||| ... wanted person investigation. On September 15, 2018, the Allegheny County Police Department (ACPD) assisted the Pitcairn Police Department in attempting to apprehend Jerome Solomon on outstanding arrest warrants at a residence in Pitcairn. Solomon was wanted on charges from two different incidents. As officers were approaching the residence, Solomon fled on foot. Officers gave chase and located Solomon behind a garage at 625 Second Avenue. Solomon had gone over a wall and fallen approximately 15 feet. He was suffering a compound fracture of his left ankle and was transported to a local hospital where he underwent surgery. The hospital contacted ACPD to advise that Solomon was out of surgery. Before officers could get to the hospital, Solomon had fled the hospital with an IV and a heart monitor still attached to him. Police reviewed surveillance video from the hospital and discovered that Jerome Solomon, a 39-year-old black male, had absconded from the hospital with the help of two other black males and two black females. Solomon is wanted on robbery, theft, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and other charges on the two outstanding arrest warrants. Anyone with information concerning the whereabouts of Jerome Solomon is asked to call Pittsburgh Crime Stoppers at 412-255-TIPS (412-255-8477). A reward of up to $1,000 is offered for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals wanted for featured crimes. Callers may remain anonymous. Pittsburgh Crime Stoppers is seeking the public’s assistance with a ||||| The man who authorities say shot and killed a Pennsylvania police officer was caught Tuesday morning following a manhunt that lasted nearly 3 1/2 days. Pennsylvania State Police announced early Tuesday that authorities had apprehended Rahmael Sal Holt, who is accused of fatally shooting New Kensington Police Officer Brian Shaw following a Friday night traffic stop about 20 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said at a news conference Tuesday that Holt, 29, was arrested at a home in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported that several associates and relatives, including the suspect’s mother, Sherry Holt, and another woman, Aysa Benson, were also arrested and accused of helping Rahmael Holt. Court records show the two have been charged with hindering apprehension, a third-degree felony. Rahmael Holt has been charged with first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer; murder of the first degree; possession of a firearm; and carrying a firearm without a license, according to an online court docket. The shooting happened just after 8 p.m. Friday, when Shaw tried to pull over an SUV. Holt, who was the passenger, jumped out of the moving vehicle and Shaw ran after him, according to an affidavit. Surveillance footage shows Holt running to a nearby parking lot, where authorities said he shot Shaw. [Suspected cop killer arrested following days-long manhunt, Pennsylvania State Police say] Peck said Holt fired six shots, striking Shaw multiple times. The officer, who was wearing a vest, was able to radio to the 911 center that he had been shot. He tried to stand up before he fell down and was not able to return fire, Peck told reporters. The surveillance footage shows Holt running toward the back of a building and into an alley after he shot Shaw, the affidavit said. The 25-year-old officer, who had been with the New Kensington Police Department for less than a year, died at a hospital less than an hour later. The affidavit said he had multiple gunshot wounds to the torso. Police later found the SUV not far from where the shooting occurred. The suspected driver, 27-year-old Tavon Jamere Harper, was arrested over the weekend and is facing fleeing and drug-related charges, court records show. Harper told investigators that he was accompanying Holt when Shaw tried to pull them over. After Holt leaped out, Harper said he kept driving, “clipping” Holt as he fled, the affidavit said. Peck said investigators received information from “various informants” that led to Holt’s capture. He did not elaborate further. He said the investigation is still ongoing. The suspect’s weapon has not been found, but Peck said .40-caliber casings were found at the crime scene. Investigators also are still looking for people who had contact with Holt before and after the shooting. It also remains unclear why Shaw tried to pull over the SUV. Videos and photos taken by local media Tuesday show Holt wearing a black hooded jacket as he was being led by officers to a small courthouse, where he was arraigned. Jail records show Holt is being held without bail. The Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported that he would hire a private attorney. Westmoreland Detective Ray Dupilka and New Ken police Chief Jim Klein spoke briefly before they led suspect Rahmael Holt to his arraignment on homicide charges. pic.twitter.com/6UVwSDdKAU — Renatta Signorini (@ByRenatta) November 21, 2017 Multiple law enforcement agencies and several residents had offered a total of $55,000 to anyone who could provide information leading to Holt’s capture. Authorities have not said if that money has been awarded to anyone. Speaking briefly at the news conference Tuesday, New Kensington Police Chief James Klein said Holt’s capture would allow him and his police officers to finally start grieving. “Our officers are dedicated to providing the best possible service to protect you and keep you safe. There’s no better example than Officer Brian Shaw who gave his life serving this community,” Klein said, taking deep breaths and pausing several times mid-sentence. “I promise you that officers will continue to serve with the same honor that Brian did.” Klein, as he did in previous news conferences, spoke only for a few minutes and did not take any questions from reporters. “At this time, it is important for me to spend time with the Shaw family,” he said. He also asked reporters to refrain from contacting the officer’s family, thanked them and left the news conference before it was over. [Slain border agent may have been beaten to death by rocks in ‘grisly scene,’ union leader says] Holt has a lengthy criminal history that stretches back to at least 2007. Court records show he had pleaded guilty to gun and drug charges, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. He does not have a license to carry a firearm, the affidavit said. Shaw left behind his parents, a brother, a grandmother and his girlfriend, according to his obituary. He loved working out, hunting and playing with his dogs, Satie May and Gus. He was also a fan of sports and enjoyed playing soccer and football. Shaw graduated from the Allegheny County Police Academy. He worked as a part-time officer for three other towns before he joined the New Kensington Police Department, the Associated Press reported. Shaw’s parents, Stephan and Lisa Shaw, watch while their son’s casket is moved into the Rusiewicz Funeral Home in Lower Burrell, Pa., on Nov. 18. (Pam Panchak/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, via AP) He attended Burrell High School and Slippery Rock University, where he received a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and played football for four years. “Our hearts are broken this morning as we mourn the loss of former Rock football player Brian Shaw, who was killed last night while serving as a police officer in New Kensington,” the university’s athletics department said Saturday on Twitter. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the Shaw family and The Rock football brotherhood.” A procession to move Shaw’s body to the Rusiewicz Funeral Home in Lower Burrell, Pa., where the officer lived, took place Saturday morning. Residents, many of whom carried American flags, and firefighters, all wearing their gear, waited on the streets to pay their respects. People line the street during the procession of slain New Kensington police officer Brian Shaw in Lower Burrell, Pa., on Nov. 18. (Nate Smallwood/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, via AP) Read more: Man accused of fatally shooting a Missouri police officer during a traffic stop has been arrested Parolee’s anger at police may have led to shooting ‘I’m not playing, Mister Officer’: Gunman appears to complain about police mistreatment in video months before shooting NYPD officer ||||| Brian David Shaw December 30, 1991 - November 17, 2017 Share this obituary Brian David Shaw Age 25, of Lower Burrell died Friday November 17, in 2017 in his line of duty as a New Kensington Police Officer. He was born in Pittsburgh on December 30, 1991 to Stephan A. Sr. and Lisa J. Kristofik Shaw and has been a life long resident of Lower Burrell. Brian was a 2010 graduate of Burrell High School and attended Slippery Rock University where he was the place kicker for four years. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice then graduated from Allegheny County Police Academy. He worked as a police officer for the New Kensington Police Department and had previously worked East Deer, Frazier, and Cheswick Police Departments. He was a member of St. Joseph Roman Catholic Church, New Kensington and the F.O.P. Lodge 39. He enjoyed working out, soccer, football, hunting, playing with his dogs Satie Mae and Gus and was a fan of all sports. He will always be remembered for his charismatic, outgoing personality and addictive smile. In addition to his parents he is survived by his brother Steffan Shaw of Plum Boro., maternal grandmother Bernadine Kristofik of New Kensington, girlfriend Haylee Oliver of Lower Burrell and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins. He was preceded in death by his grandparents Lillie and Donald Berkoben and Frank Kristofik. Friends will be received Monday and Tuesday from 1-4 and 6-8 PM at THE RUSIEWICZ OF LOWER BURRELL FUNERAL HOME, 3124 Leechburg Road at Alder Street where Prayers of Transfer will be said Wednesday 9:15 AM followed by Christian Funeral Mass at 10 AM in Mount St. Peter Church, New Kensington. The F.O.P. will conduct services at 8 PM Tuesday in the funeral home. Donations may be made to the First National Bank, c/o Officer Brian Shaw Memorial Fund,110 Burrell Plaza, Lower Burrell, PA 15068 www.RusiewiczFH.com

– Police have identified a suspect in the tragic shooting of a rookie officer in western Pennsylvania. Per CNN, authorities named Rahmael Sal Holt, 29, as the alleged gunman who killed officer Brian Shaw Friday during a traffic stop turned foot chase. Details about the incident are still unfolding, including why Holt was pulled over and how many gunshots were fired, the Washington Post reports. A warrant for Holt’s arrest has been issued. “Consider Holt armed and dangerous!” Pennsylvania State Police warned in a tweet calling for tips. A $40,000 reward has been posted for information leading to the suspect’s arrest as a manhunt is under way (the money was reportedly pooled from multiple agencies, including the FBI.) "If you look back in the history of many horrific incidents, a very small, minute tip could be the tipping point to lead us in a direction of who the person was that committed this crime,” said a Pennsylvania State Police spokesman. The Allegheny County Police Department offered condolences to Shaw’s family and colleagues in a Facebook post, writing, “Your life mattered and you will be missed.” Shaw, 25, had been on the force for under a year. According to his obituary, he is survived by his parents, brother, grandmother, and girlfriend. “He will always be remembered for his charismatic, outgoing personality and addictive smile,” it said.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers says an article in The New York Times on Benghazi doesn’t square with intelligence assessments about last year’s attacks on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the Michigan Republican declined to answer when asked by host Chris Wallace whether The Times story was designed to exonerate Hillary Clinton, who was the secretary of state at the time of the attacks. “I find the timing odd,” Rogers said. “I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it.” In a story published online Saturday, The Times said it had “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault” and that the attacks were, in fact, “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, said intelligence assessments indicate that Al Qaeda was involved in the attacks. But, he said, The Times story “adds some valuable insights.” “It is a complex picture,” he said. Read more about: Hillary Clinton, Mike Rogers, Benghazi ||||| poster="https://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201312/81/1155968404_2990356625001_video-still-for-video-2989614297001.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Sunday during an interview with NBC's 'Meet the Press' defended his past statements on Benghazi in response to a New York Times story. Issa on defense over Benghazi statements Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Sunday defended his past statements on Benghazi in response to a New York Times story that said it had “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” “There is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al Qaeda,” the California Republican said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” insisting that he was accurate in his past assertion that Al Qaeda was involved in the attacks. Issa’s committee has been investigating last year’s assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, and the congressman has repeatedly slammed the Obama administration for its handling of the issue. (Also on POLITICO: Rogers knocks NYT over Benghazi) On Sunday, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory asked Issa to respond to The Times story, which was published online Saturday. The story also said the Benghazi attacks were “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” “We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi,” Issa said Sunday. “People from this administration … have said under oath there was no evidence of any reaction to a video. “What we know, David, is the initial reports did not name this video as the prime cause,” he added. Issa also commended The Times for doing “some very good work” in its reporting on the issue. ||||| Lieberman stands by Obamacare vote Former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that, knowing what he knows today, he still would have voted for Obamacare. “The rollout of Obamacare has been bad,” Lieberman acknowledged on “Fox News Sunday.” But, he said, the status quo before Obamacare was also bad. “The best thing that could happen now is for both parties to sit down and figure out how to fix the current system,” he said. Lieberman, a former Democratic vice presidential candidate, retired from the Senate as an independent. Austin Wright is a defense reporter for Politico. ||||| Dean predicts more Obamacare problems Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean acknowledged on Sunday that Obamacare would suffer additional setbacks as it continues rolling out next year — but, he said, ultimately the health care overhaul “will work.” “There are going to be problems,” Dean said on “Fox News Sunday,” explaining that the Obama administration was having trouble getting young, healthy people to sign up for health care plans — an issue that could drive up costs. “The data does show that less healthy people are signing up,” he said. “Younger people are signing up less frequently than hoped.” Dean, a physician who formerly chaired the Democratic National Committee, also defended Obamacare and knocked its critics, accusing them of “hyperbole” and saying they “look incredibly partisan.” “I think the first year is going to be more successful than most people think,” he said. Dean sparred on Sunday with Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who said the health care plans offered under Obamacare are “very, very narrow” and “exclude a lot of specialists.” ||||| Navarro: Senate GOP won't get 'Lugared' again Senate Republicans have learned their lesson since their colleague, Dick Lugar, was felled by a tea party challenger in Indiana in 2012, GOP commentator Ana Navarro said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." Several Republican incumbents - including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming - are facing challenges from the right in next year's midterm elections. "I think you're going to see them win their primaries because they're taking it seriously, they're campaigning hard, they're raising the money and they're doing what they have to do," Navarro said. "They're not about to get Richard Lugared." "They see it coming now," said host Candy Crowley. Cited as one indicator of congressional Republicans' changing frame of mind: House Speaker John Boehner's "Are you kidding me?" moment, when he was discussing outside groups' support — and low expectations — for the government shutdown earlier this year. Republicans need to net six seats to take back control of the Senate in 2014. ||||| Sen. Ted Cruz is unapologetic for what he acknowledges was a “whirlwind” first year as a senator. “This is a city where it’s all politics all the time. And I’m trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics, to focus on fixing the problems,” the Texas Republican said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Really,” interjected ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl, who did the interview. “I know it’s hard to believe,” Cruz went on, “because no one in this town does that. This is a time for people to step up and do the right thing. And that’s what I’m trying to do.” Read more about: Ted Cruz, Jonathan Karl

– Congressmembers took turns today swinging at yesterday's New York Times report that al-Qaeda wasn't involved in the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, with Darrell Issa defending his past statements implicating the terror group. "There is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with al-Qaeda," he said, per Politico. Of the Times' conclusion that the attack was "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam," Issa countered, saying, "We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi. People from this administration … have said under oath there was no evidence of any reaction to a video." Democrat Adam Schiff of California stood by Qaeda's involvement, but said the Times report "adds some valuable insights," reports Politico. "It is a complex picture." Said Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, "I find the timing odd. I don’t want to speculate on why (the NYT) might do it." Elsewhere on your Sunday dial, as per Politico: Ted Cruz on his 'whirlwind' first year: "This is a city where it’s all politics all the time. And I’m trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics, to focus on fixing the problems. I know it’s hard to believe, because no one in this town does that. This is a time for people to step up and do the right thing. And that’s what I’m trying to do." Howard Dean on ObamaCare: "There are going to be problems. The data does show that less healthy people are signing up. Younger people are signing up less frequently than hoped." Critics, however, are guilty of "hyperbole" and "look incredibly partisan," and "the first year is going to be more successful than most people think." GOP commentator Ana Navarro on GOP incumbents vs. the Tea Party: "I think you're going to see them win their primaries because they're taking it seriously, they're campaigning hard, they're raising the money and they're doing what they have to do. They're not about to get Richard Lugared." Joe Lieberman says he would still vote for ObamaCare: "The rollout of ObamaCare has been bad," as was the status quo. "The best thing that could happen now is for both parties to sit down and figure out how to fix the current system."

Some people frequently check and re-check their mobile phones. Once this impulse is triggered, it may be more a question of not being able to leave the device alone than actually hoping to gain some reward from it. These insights are drawn from a study1 by psychologists Henry Wilmer and Jason Chein of Temple University in the US and are published in Springer's journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Their findings shed light on the reasons why some people are so attached to their smartphones and mobile technology, while others are less so. A better understanding of the impact of smartphone and mobile technology usage is needed to assess the potential problems associated with heavy use. Although these electronic devices are playing an increasingly pervasive role in our daily activities, little research has been done about a possible link between usage behaviour and specific mental processes and traits. Therefore, Wilmer and Chein set out to determine if people who report heavier mobile technology use might also have different tendencies towards delaying gratification than others, or might exhibit individual differences in impulse control and in responding to rewards. Ninety-one undergraduate students completed a battery of questionnaires and cognitive tests. They indicated how much time they spent using their phones for social media purposes, to post public status updates, and to simply check their devices. Each student's tendency to delay gratification in favour of larger, later rewards (their so-called intertemporal preference) was also assessed. They were given hypothetical choices between a smaller sum of money offered immediately or a larger sum to be received at a later time. Participants also completed tasks that assessed their ability to control their impulses. Finally, participants' tendencies to pursue rewarding stimuli were also assessed. The results provide evidence that people who constantly check and use their mobile devices throughout the day are less apt to delay gratification. "Mobile technology habits, such as frequent checking, seem to be driven most strongly by uncontrolled impulses and not by the desire to pursue rewards," says Wilmer, who adds that the findings provide correlational evidence that increased use of portable electronic devices is associated with poor impulse control and a tendency to devalue delayed rewards. "The findings provide important insights regarding the individual difference factors that relate to technology engagement," adds Chein. "These findings are consistent with the common perception that frequent smartphone use goes hand in hand with impatience and impulsivity." ||||| Are you the type to respond to every single text ASAP? Or are you capable of putting your smartphone down for hours and forget about its flashing blue light? A new study suggests that the more people check their devices, the more impulsive they are in their everyday lives. Two researchers from Temple University had 91 undergraduates fill out a questionnaire assessing how often they used their phones to update social media, browse the Internet, or interact with friends. Then they tested students' ability to delay gratification (aka wait) by asking them whether they'd prefer a small sum of money right now or a large sum anywhere from a few days to a year from the immediate moment. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below The researchers also assessed students' sensitivity to rewards by having them rate how greatly they identified with statements like, "I'll try anything once," and, "I like wild and uninhibited parties." Finally, they ranked students' impulsivity by placing them at a computer and asking them to press a button whenever an "x" popped up on the screen but resist pressing a button whenever they saw a "k." (The more participants hit buttons when they weren't supposed to, the less impulse control the researchers concluded they had.) Impatient undergrads — the ones least interested in waiting more than a day to get a hypothetical amount of money — were more likely to be preoccupied with their smartphones on a regular basis. Those who had a harder time controlling impulses to press buttons were also more tethered to their devices. Surprisingly, students' sensitivity to rewards didn't appear to be an influence on their phone-checking habits. The more compulsively you check your smartphone, the more impulsive and impatient you probably are. And not just when it comes to technology. (Other studies have found similar parallels between how compulsively people check their cellphones and how negatively it can impact their well-being.) If you're the type to never let a retweet remain un-liked or a friend request go unnoticed, take a peek at some other areas of your life. If you're having trouble reining in urges — to, say, eat the whole pint of ice cream, resist ordering one more round, or flip out at a coworker or friend — it may be time to take a break from your smartphone and start practicing some self-regulation. Follow Katherine on Twitter. ||||| Mobile electronic devices are playing an increasingly pervasive role in our daily activities. Yet, there has been very little empirical research investigating how mobile technology habits might relate to individual differences in cognition and affect. The research presented in this paper provides evidence that heavier investment in mobile devices is correlated with a relatively weaker tendency to delay gratification (as measured by a delay discounting task) and a greater inclination toward impulsive behavior (i.e., weaker impulse control, assessed behaviorally and through self-report) but is not related to individual differences in sensitivity to reward. Analyses further demonstrated that individual variation in impulse control mediates the relationship between mobile technology usage and delay of gratification. Although based on correlational results, these findings lend some backing to concerns that increased use of portable electronic devices could have negative impacts on impulse control and the ability to appropriately valuate delayed rewards. Keywords Cognitive and attentional control Impulse control Reward sensitivity Technology Electronic devices have become more and more portable and convenient, providing nearly constant (and ever more efficient) access to the Internet and a diverse range of software applications and digital media. With this ease of access, technology is playing an increasingly large role in our mental lives, serving as a form of “extended cognition” (Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2015; Clark & Chalmers, 2002; Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015). This situation can be viewed as a double-edged sword: although it allows us to communicate, learn, and entertain ourselves, it also makes it difficult to avoid doing so—even when engaging with technology is likely to detract from other ongoing activities. Notifications built into smartphones and other e-devices can intrude on three of our five senses, with lights, tones, and vibrations each beckoning us to extricate ourselves from our current tasks and engage instead with the device. Even in the absence of notifications, internal and external cues (a thought about work or a social relationship, something brushing against your pocket, noticing others on their phones, etc.) provide regular reminders of the opportunity to engage with the digital world. These constant notifications and cues, and the relative immediacy with which we can acquire information and satisfy specific desires by responding to them, may alter our basic cognitive and affective functioning. Regular intrusions into ongoing cognition present a challenge to the self-regulatory, cognitive control processes that support the maintenance of goal-directed behaviors. And, by offering an often-gratifying escape from ongoing tasks, engagement with e-devices may occupy basic reward-related processes and even impact the fundamental mechanisms through which we valuate and process rewards (Atchley & Warden, 2012). Indeed, some have argued that today’s youth—referred to at times in the popular media as the “Now Generation” and “Generation C” (for “Connected”; “Introducing Generation C,” 2012), having grown up in an era in which mobile technology is omnipresent, possess an especially strong need for instant gratification, which has diminished their ability to plan effectively for the future (Muther, 2013). Such assertions are part of a larger movement generally espousing the ills of technology access and use (Bauerlein, 2008; Ellison, 2012; Greenfield, 2013; Sutter, 2012). Unfortunately, most of the relevant assertions (e.g., today’s youth are more immediacy oriented) are based principally on anecdote, while empirical evidence regarding any relationship between technology habits and delay of gratification (or other aspects of cognition) is still quite limited. Some foundational work, such as that of Atchley and Warden (2012), shows a close parallel between the willingness to delay the receipt of monetary rewards and to delay responding to informational prompts (to text or call someone back). These findings indicate that technology behaviors can be understood in terms of frequently researched decision-making processes (i.e., intertemporal preference), though the specific mechanisms that are most directly linked to regular technology use remain poorly understood. Prior research on intertemporal preference (Kalenscher & Pennartz, 2008; Peters & Büchel, 2011; van den Bos & McClure, 2013) has established that individual differences in the inclination to forego a smaller near-term reward in favor of a larger delayed reward (i.e., to delay gratification) relates to the behavior of two interacting systems: one governing the capacity to control impulses and the other influencing the individual’s sensitivity to immediately available rewards (McClure, Laibson, Loewenstein, & Cohen, 2004). Put differently, the tendency to seek immediate gratification can be explained either by weak impulse control (i.e., the inability to withhold a reactive or reflexive response in favor of more deliberative actions; Ainslie, 1975) or greater immediate reward sensitivity (i.e., the tendency to seek out novel or rewarding sensations and to experience greater sensation upon acquiring a reward; Carver & White, 1994). As the opportunities for technology use have grown, so too has a body of literature investigating the resultant cognitive and behavioral impacts (cf. Baumgartner, Weeda, van der Heijden, & Huizinga, 2014; Minear, Brasher, McCurdy, Lewis, & Younggren, 2013; Ralph, Thomson, Seli, Carriere, & Smilek, 2014; Wang & Tchernev, 2012). Understandably, a significant area of focus in recent research is the safety implications of using a cellphone while driving (e.g. Atchley, Atwood, & Boulton, 2011; Strayer & Drews, 2007). For example, work in this field has demonstrated that individuals who have a tendency to text on their cellphones while driving show a steeper discounting function compared to those who do not (Hayashi, Russo, & Wirth, 2015). That is, those who more frequently engage in this dangerous behavior are also generally less inclined to delay gratification in favor of a larger, later reward. This work shows that at least one technology-related habit—texting while driving—is related to variation in intertemporal preference. Whether this relationship arises from individual differences in impulse control or reward sensitivity (or some other correlated variable), and whether it generalizes to other mobile technology habits, remains undetermined. Additional clues come from work by Pearson, Murphy, and Doane (2013) and Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, and Watson (2013). As in the aforementioned studies, Pearson and colleagues examined cell-phone use while driving, and explored possible relationships with individual traits that are related to impulse control and reward sensitivity (using the Urgency Premeditation Perseverance Sensation Seeking Impulsive Behavior Scale [UPPS]; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Likewise, Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013) asked participants to report how often they used their cellphones while driving, assessed a broader facet of technology engagement captured by the Media Multitasking Index (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009), and also examined trait impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Version 11; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) and sensation seeking (Sensation Seeking Scale; Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978). In both studies, a significant relationship was found between the assessed technology habits and the individual trait questionnaires. These findings encourage the conclusion that personality variables related to both impulsivity and reward processing are relevant factors in mobile technology use. Still, some concern has been raised about the specificity, utility, and reliability of the particular questionnaires used in those studies (Gray & Wilson, 2007; Zuckerman, 2007). For instance, as noted by Zuckerman (1996; see also Zuckerman, 2007) the original Sensation Seeking Scale contains a number of “anachronistic” questions and may be too narrowly focused on specific contextualized activities; limitations also adopted (in revised form) into the UPPS. Zuckerman and colleagues have since constructed a revised scale meant to better capture overall sensation seeking (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). Subsequently, Steinberg et al. (2008) introduced the use of only a carefully selected subset of questions from the revised scale to disentangle impulsivity and reward/sensation seeking. In our pursuit of the question of what motivates smartphone usage, we hoped to delineate in a single study the interrelationships between smartphone usage, delay of gratification, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. In so doing, we first sought to develop a survey instrument with a focus on smartphone usage. Researchers have already developed a large number of self-report indices of technology use (Alloway & Alloway, 2012; Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Junco, 2012; Ophir et al., 2009), but there exists little consensus on which instruments most aptly capture relevant individual differences. One recent, and already widely deployed, measure of technology usage is the aforementioned Media Multitasking Index. While media multitasking is certainly an important aspect of technology use, this instrument focuses on only this facet of technology-related behavior (multitasking with technology) and does not isolate the type of usage that differentiates smartphones from other technology (short, frequent usage throughout the day). Thus, we sought to develop an ecumenical, but still targeted, assessment of personal mobile technology device usage. With this assessment, we sought to determine if individuals who reported heavier mobile technology use also exhibit a differential tendency to delay gratification, as measured by performance on a “delay discounting” task. Merely establishing a relationship between technology habits and delay of gratification would not be sufficient to clarify the factors that drive this relationship, whether differences in impulse control or differences in reward processing. So, we further assessed individual differences in both impulse control and reward sensitivity to determine which, if either, of these variables mediates the relationship between technology engagement and delay of gratification. To avoid the pitfalls of relying on individual, and potentially conflated, questionnaire instruments, we followed Steinberg et al. (2008) in using a validated subset of questions from existing questionnaires (as explained in the Method section), and additionally collected responses from secondary measures of both impulse control and reward sensitivity in order to develop construct-level estimates of each variable. Method Participants Participants were 91 undergraduate students (71.4 % female; age M = 20.05, SD = 2.19) who completed a battery of questionnaires and cognitive tests. The sample was racially (59.3 % self-identified as Caucasian or white, 15.4 % as African American or black, 14.3 % as Asian, 1.1 % as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3.3 % as more than one race, and 6.6 % declined to respond) and ethnically (4.4 % self-identified as Hispanic) diverse. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Temple University, and participants were given course credit for participation. Measures Technology engagement We created a technology engagement scale with the purpose of indexing mobile technology usage.1 By assessing self-reported behaviors regarding different facets of mobile technology, we hoped to create an index that could characterize individual technology engagement patterns while not being overly biased by any one technology-related habit. The three components of this scale were brief self-report questionnaires assessing (1) phone-based social media use, (2) frequency of public status updating, and (3) phone-checking behavior. Phone-based social media use was determined by the participants’ responses to three Likert-style questions about their daily usage of various mobile social media applications (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Snapchat). Frequency of posting public status updates was determined by the participants’ response to a single question, “How often do you post public status updates?” Phone-checking behavior was determined by the average response of participants’ answers to three Likert-style questions: “How often do you check your phone for new activity?”, “How often do you find yourself checking your phone when you have a few moments to spare?”, and “How often do you find yourself checking your phone during conversations or when hanging around with friends?” The study sample indicated acceptable internal reliability for this construct (α = .65). To further explore the validity of this technology engagement scale, we also gathered, from a subset of our participants, information regarding their technology multitasking habits using the Media Multitasking Index (MMI; Ophir et al., 2009) and examined correlations between the Technology Engagement scale and the MMI. The MMI provides an estimate of the amount of time one spends multitasking with various forms of media. In the standard form, participants are asked to estimate the total number of hours they spend engaging in 12 different forms of media (e.g., watching television, playing video games, talking on the phone, instant messaging) and to specify, across a series of pages (one for each media type), the degree to which they use each media technology concurrently with each of the other media formats (i.e., engage in media multitasking). The MMI score is an aggregated score based on the sum total of multitasking habits (specific calculation is described in Ophir et al., 2009). For expediency, in the present study we created a matrix-style version of the MMI (see supplemental online information), which allowed participants to detail their media multitasking habits on a single computerized form rather than across a series of repeated forms pertaining to each media type. Intertemporal preference We assessed individual differences in the tendency to delay gratification in favor of larger, later, rewards using a delay discounting task (O’Brien, Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2011). In the delay discounting task, participants were asked to make hypothetical choices between a smaller sum of money offered now versus a larger sum of money (always $1,000) offered at six different delays, ranging from 1 day to 1 year. The smaller sum of money offered was varied systematically, until the participant reached an indifference point—the value at which the subjective value of the smaller immediate offer matched the subjective value of the larger ($1,000) delayed offer (Ohmura, Takahashi, Kitamura, & Wehr, 2006). Participants completed 10 trials at each delay interval. Using this data, we calculated each individual’s discount rate (k) as well as their indifference points at each delay. As is commonly done, a natural log transformation was applied to all k values in order to reduce skewness to an acceptable level. While we investigated indifference points at each delay, based on previous experience with this task (O’Brien et al., 2011; Weigard, Chein, Albert, Smith, & Steinberg, 2014) we expected the responses to the longer delays to have the greatest individual subject variance. Thus, the longest two delays (6 months and 1 year) were averaged and taken as a more sensitive index of individual variation in immediacy orientation. Reward sensitivity Two instruments were used to create a reward sensitivity construct: a subset of questions from Zuckerman’s revised Impulsive Sensation Seeking scale and a subscale of the BIS/BAS questionnaire. The Impulsive Sensation Seeking measure (Zuckerman et al., 1993) is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that intentionally conflates impulsive and sensation-seeking behaviors in order to broadly characterize these personality traits. To isolate sensation seeking, Steinberg et al. (2008) identified a subset of six items from the updated Zuckerman scale that most purely related to this construct (“I like to have new and exciting experiences and sensations, even if they are a little frightening,” “I like doing things just for the thrill of it,” “I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening,” “I’ll try anything once,” “I sometimes do ‘crazy’ things just for fun,” and “I like wild and uninhibited parties”). These items were answered as either true (coded 1) or false (coded 0), and item scores were averaged to create a mean Sensation Seeking score. This subset of items has been shown to exhibit good internal consistency (α = .70; Steinberg et al., 2008). In the current sample, the internal consistency was similarly good (α =.73). The BIS/BAS scales are measures of behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach (Carver & White, 1994). For the purposes of the present study, we were primarily concerned with the behavioral approach component (BAS), which is itself comprised three subscales: Fun Seeking, Reward Responsiveness, and Drive. Because we were specifically focused on targeting individual reward sensitivity, only the Reward Responsiveness subscale was used in our analyses. This subscale has been shown to have good internal consistency (α = .73; Carver & White, 1994). The present sample indicated acceptable internal consistency (α = .68) with this subscale. Impulse control An Impulse Control construct was calculated by taking the average score from two measures, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and false alarm rate on a go/no-go task. The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale is a widely used self-report measure of impulsivity (Patton et al., 1995). Again, based on the findings of Steinberg et al. (2008), we elected to use only 18 items of the full 30-item questionnaire having specificity with respect to impulsive behavior (rather than to sensation seeking). Each item was answered on a 4-point scale (rarely/never, occasionally, often, almost always) and scores were averaged, with higher scores indicative of greater impulsivity. Steinberg et al. (2008) showed that this subset of questions has good internal consistency (α = .73). In the current sample, the internal consistency was similarly good (α = .75). The go/no-go task used in the current study involved the rapid presentation of a series of go (x) and no-go (k) stimuli. Participants were instructed to give a button press response following each x, but to withhold responding whenever they saw a k stimulus. The stimuli were presented for 250 ms each, followed by an unpredictable ITI ranging between 750 ms and 1,750 ms. In total, 333 stimuli were presented, of which only 50 were no-go trials (ks). These no-go trials were pseudo-randomly interspersed into the series so that a no-go trial was equally often preceded by 1 to 10 prior go trials (five occurrences of each). The entire task lasted just over 8.5 minutes. Normalized scores from both the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and go/no-go measures were inverted so as to reflect impulse control rather than impulsivity (i.e., a higher score on the construct indicated a stronger tendency to control impulsive responses). Results Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations 1 2 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation MMI 0.01 7.31 3.22 1.61 Technology engagement Phone-based social media use 4 25 12.32 4.76 Phone-checking behavior -2.72 1.59 -0.03 0.78 Frequency of posting public status updates 1 7 2.36 1.15 Intertemporal Preference (ITP) Mean indifference point 57.43 970.13 489.41 249.03 Impulse control Go /No-Go false alarms 2 44 19.95 8.88 Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 1.22 2.93 2.03 0.37 Reward sensitivity Zuckerman’s Impulsive Sensation Seeking scale 0 1 0.68 0.29 BAS-reward 13 20 16.57 1.86 Open image in new window Basic descriptive statistics for each measure are provided in Table, and correlations between individual measures are shown in Table. To verify the validity of our Technology Engagement scale, we first examined the bivariate correlation between normalized scores on this scale and the MMI scores obtained from a subset of our participants (n = 50). The significant correlation (r = .310, p = .028) indicates that, despite focusing on different aspects of technology use, the two measures explain overlapping variance with respect to general technology habits. Relationship between technology engagement and intertemporal preference 1a Open image in new window A primary aim of the present study was to determine whether there is a relationship between technology use and intertemporal preference. Indeed, we found a significant correlation between individuals’ discounting rate (logk) and their self-reported technology engagement (r = .240, p = .023). Next, we confirmed that the correlation was driven by participants’ responses at the longest 2 delays. As expected, technology engagement scores were highly correlated with the mean indifference points for 6-month and 1-year delays (r = -.286, p = .006; see Fig.), but not for any of the shorter delays (all ps > .05, for the average of indifference points at the shorter delays: r = -.020, p = .849). Relationship between technology engagement, impulse control, and reward sensitivity We next sought to determine whether there was also a relationship between technology engagement and either impulse control or reward sensitivity. Bivariate correlations revealed a significant negative relationship between technology engagement and impulse control (r = -.234, p = .025; see Fig. 1b), indicating that individuals who report more engagement with e-devices tend to exhibit a lack of impulse control. Meanwhile, no such relationship existed between technology engagement and reward sensitivity (r = .052, p = .627; see Fig. 1c). Mediation of the relationship between technology engagement and delay of gratification 2004 2013 2004 2 Open image in new window The pattern of correlations we obtained suggested the possibility that the relationship between technology engagement and intertemporal preference might be specifically mediated by individual variation in impulse control, and not in reward sensitivity. To test this possibility we conducted mediation analyses using the bootstrapping methods delineated by Preacher and Hayes () and utilizing Hayes’ PROCESS Model (Hayes,; Preacher & Hayes,). Each analysis was performed using 10,000 bootstrap resamples to estimate the indirect effect of the proposed mediator variables. The bootstrapping method yields 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for each proposed mediator and its indirect effect. If zero is not included within an estimated 95 % CI, the indirect effect is taken to be significantly different from zero. In an initial mediation analysis we tested whether impulse control plays a mediating role in the relationship between technology engagement and intertemporal preference. The indirect effect of technology engagement through impulse control yielded a bootstrapped CI that did not include zero (b = .059, 95 % CI [0.005, 0.187]), indicating that impulse control is indeed a significant mediator of the relationship. That is, as shown in Fig., while higher levels of technology engagement are related to a tendency toward accepting a smaller immediate reward, this relationship is due in part to the relationship between technology engagement and impulse control. A further mediation analysis sought to determine whether reward sensitivity mediates the relationship between technology engagement and intertemporal preference. This mediation analysis yielded a bootstrapped CI that included zero, indicating that reward sensitivity is not a mediator in this relationship (b = .012, 95 % CI [-0.037, 0.116]). ||||| An article published by TIME in 2015 reported that on average Americans check their phone 48 times a day, with 18- to 24-year-olds averaging the most at 74 checks a day. Prompted by our growing dependence on technology, a new study published in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review seeks to find out why some people are more addicted to their phones than others. I admit it — I am guilty of being one of the frequent checkers. Every time there is a Facebook or a Twitter notification I feel a burst of satisfaction. Sometimes, I even click the screen without being prompted by the soft “ding” that signals an update. Me and my phone are best buds, and if anything happened to it, I’d be devastated (and that's not just because I can’t afford to replace it). But it seems checking my phone is due to more than seeking a reward or just a modern tic. Psychologists Henry Wilmer and Jason Chein of Temple University believe that frequent phone use is a telling behavior that might say something vital about our impulse control and behavior. The study, which examined what is driving the impulse to check and recheck our mobile devices, assessed if heavy usage is tied to certain mental functions and traits, such as delayed gratification and impulse control. To do so, 91 college undergrads were put through a volley of cognitive tests and questionnaires. These methods collected data on how much the students checked their phones and posted to social media on a daily basis. [Embed] The students were also tested on their ability to delay gratification by answering hypothetical questions about their preference towards receiving a large amount of money in the future or a smaller sum instantly. Tasks which tested their ability to control their impulses, as well as tests which measured their reaction to reward stimuli were also administered. The evidence from the study suggests that the people who obsessively check their phones are less likely to delay gratification. The tendency to devalue rewards that are not immediate and subpar impulse control are connected to the growing use of portable electronics as well. So, if you're wondering why you are having a hard time editing yourself on social media, perhaps our phone scanning compulsion is partly to blame. Wilmer described the findings to Springer, "Mobile technology habits, such as frequent checking, seem to be driven most strongly by uncontrolled impulses and not by the desire to pursue rewards." I mean, if you asked if I wanted a small cookie now or a big cookie later, I would DEFINITELY choose the cookie now. Great, now I've made myself hungry again. [Embed] With these always accessible devices we have the world at our fingertips. Dr. Chein, who led the study, warned that there may be a downside to our growing dependence on this technology. "The findings provide important insights regarding the individual difference factors that relate to technology engagement," says Chein. "These findings are consistent with the common perception that frequent smartphone use goes hand in hand with impatience and impulsivity." Perhaps it's finally time to fight my smartphone addiction with a little digital detox? [Embed] Images: Pexels; Giphy

– There's no denying that humans are mad for their cellphones, but some are clearly more attached than others—and scientists now have a clearer understanding of why. Generally speaking, people who constantly check their phones have a problem controlling impulses, period, and they're not so great at delayed gratification, either, reports Bustle. Once a person of this nature checks their phone, it triggers the impulse to keep checking it again and again, even if the reward will be a paltry one, say psychologists Henry Wilmer and Jason Chein of Temple University in a post at Science Daily. They drew the conclusion after putting 91 undergrads through a series of tests that measured how often they checked their phones, how well they controlled their impulses, and whether they'd prefer to receive a small amount of money immediately or a larger sum if they waited a few days to a year. Among other things, Wilmer and Chein found that students who were least interested in waiting for that hypothetical sum of money—in other words, they were impatient—were more likely to check their phones frequently. "Mobile technology habits, such as frequent checking, seem to be driven most strongly by uncontrolled impulses and not by the desire to pursue rewards," Wilmer concludes in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. A post at Cosmopolitan draws a lesson from the research: "If you're the type to never let a retweet remain un-liked or a friend request go unnoticed, take a peek at some other areas of your life," writes Katherine Schreiber. "If you're having trouble reining in urges—to, say, eat the whole pint of ice cream, resist ordering one more round, or flip out at a coworker or friend—it may be time to take a break from your smartphone and start practicing some self-regulation." (Some people have "ringxiety.")

Charlie Sheen gets standing ovation in Chicago's 'Torpedo of Truth' show after Detroit's bombed show Kersey/AP Charlie Sheen waves to fans as he leaves the Chicago Theatre after getting a standing ovation. Charlie Sheen got the audience on his side Sunday night as he took his "Torpedo of Truth" tour to Chicago. Fresh off getting panned and slammed by fans Saturday night in Detroit, the fired "Two and a Half Men" star sought revenge on the Motor City Sunday night. He ended up getting a standing ovation. Sheen kicked off the show at the Chicago Theatre by reading a poem about how much he hates Detroit as the audience chanted, "Detroit sucks!" When an audience member yelled, "Train wreck," Sheen shot back, "Go back to Detroit, dude." The 45-year-old sobriety-challenged actor pleaded with the crowd not to boo him. They didn't. Someone in the crowd instead shouted, "Get naked!" prompting Sheen to trade shirts with him. Sheen seemed to have retooled his act after Saturday's debacle. Instead of winging it, he had an anonymous interviewer ask him questions Sunday night. The actor revealed that the first time he smoked weed was with the late actor Chris Penn. He talked about partying once with Mick Jagger and Eddie Van Halen and owing ex-Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss $2 million - saying he pays for sex because he has millions to spare. Sheen still got panned by Chicago film critic Richard Roeper, who tweeted from the audience: "Whatever you're doing right now, including sleeping, it's probably more engaging than this." Online ticket brokers say they've been flooded with people trying to dump their tickets since the star's Saturday show. On StubHub.com, tickets for his New York show at Radio City were plummeting in demand and price. lalpert@nydailynews.com ||||| Charlie Sheen's life has been lived, at times, as if he were starring in his own reality show, part "Celebrity Rehab," part "Cribs," part "Howard Stern Show," part "The Girls Next Door."If we accept that premise, then Sunday at the Chicago Theatre was the makeover episode.Instead of the disjointed exercise in hero worship he had presented on night one of his theatrical tour in Detroit Saturday, Sheen mostly sat and fielded an interviewer's questions, bantering with the crowd, dropping the F-word, and actually seeming to satisfy, if not amaze, concertgoers.Gone was the dime-store Hunter S. Thompson manifesto he had recited, losing much of the Detroit crowd in his first half-hour on stage. Gone was the raucous banging bass and the videos cobbled together from old movies and YouTube clips about Sheen.And gone, almost entirely, were the boos for the embattled, family-troubled, recently fired, oft-interviewed sitcom star.It was a canny shift of the show's tone, from epic self-aggrandizement to a more casual, at times even likable, persona. We will not go so far as to say "humble," because Saturday's Sheen seemed to be lurking at Sunday's edges, ready to return, especially for a few minutes early on when the 45-year-old actor seemed to be resisting the new stage-show format.While it didn't fully justify $80 main-floor ticket prices, it got the job done. And it gave the tour -- which looked doomed after Saturday -- a format it can work with going forward. The show was still not "My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat Is Not an Option," as the tour title promises, but it was at least a forward-moving projectile of moderate dish about celebrity.People outside before the show said they didn't expect magnificence. They just wanted to see and hear Sheen being more or less himself, like in all those TV interviews he's done since his life blew up this spring. And in the Chicago Theatre's interview setting, with Sheen chain-smoking, wearing a shirt borrowed from a guy in the front rows, they got it.They also got some news. Sheen said he would return to "Two and a Half Men," the hit CBS sitcom that fired him after he viciously criticized creator Chuck Lorre. "If they say 'Here's your job back,' I'll go back to work," he said."I think it's a great f------ show," he said, but his bosses, not so great: "They didn't give a f--- that I was hammered for eight years money, ratings, money, ratings."He apologized to co-star Jon Cryer for having called him a "troll," Sheen's most-used word for his perceived enemies, as things were going south: "I was wrong. Jon's not a troll. Jon's a rock star."He acknowledged being jealous of George Clooney and how Clooney's movies always seem to work, told at least a little bit of what it was like to live with two women, his "goddesses," and saved some special venom for Brooke Mueller, who has been listed as his ex-wife, but whom Sheen said he is still technically married to.Credit Sheen for being willing to dump the show he had planned for his mutlicity tour. And for taking on the Detroit debacle -- in which he was serenaded with chants of "refund" -- early and often. "I had the best f------ time of my life, unlike that death sentence that was Detroit," he said at show's end Sunday.The Chicago crowd was ready to please him, too, delivering an unbidden "Detroit sucks" chant right away.And give special credit to Sheen's interviewer, former radio deejay Joey Scoleri, a co-producer on the tour who works in marketing for promoter LiveNation. He worked hard to keep the actor on track, telling stories rather than being distracted by noises in the crowd. One of Sheen's biggest problems in Detroit was that he had rabbit ears, only hearing the boos and letting it derail any control he had of the crowd.Sheen would start a story about, say, crack cocaine use, but when not everybody in the Motor City gave him instant adulation and approval, he stopped, only making the crowd's revolt worse.In Detroit, he told the folks in his manifesto that "it's about to get a lot more radical," only to later answer a question about the possibility of another sequel to "Major League" (indeed, he said Sunday there will be a "Major League 3"). He talked big about telling the truth, the "REAL story," as he put it. But he delivered less insight than you would get were Oprah to interview him.Before the show Sunday, as TV cameras and reporters swarmed the entrance, the mood was one of cautious optimism. Few interviewed before Detroit or Chicago came in with expectations any higher than being able to say they had been there for a potential public implosion. It's a powerful draw."I wanted to not go at all, then I read the review (of the Detroit show) this morning and it changed my mind," said Bill Termunde, 26, a Wicker Park resident who works in marketing. "I wanted to see this disaster."Termunde and a friend paid $15 for $35 tickets outside the Chicago Theatre from someone who, they said, had made the opposite decision.Sheen was, in a sense, bulletproof. "I'm not expecting him to do that well, or he wouldn't be Charlie Sheen," said Jenna Schaefer, a student at Eastern Illinois University from Gurnee.Said her date, consultant Michael Mock: "I just want to pretty much see all the interviews I've seen on TV in real life. Tell us what he's done. Tell us about some 7-gram rocks (of cocaine). It's either gonna make history or it's gonna be a great show."Inside the theater, the preshow mood was decidedly more mellow than in Detroit; Jimmy Buffett was part of the music. Lines were long for official tour merchandise, including $35 T-shirts that made such proclamations as "Sheenius" and "Bangin' 7Gs." The theater listed a drink special called the "Train Wreck": $9 for vodka and Red Bull, mostly. It was not, alas, a Sheen-inspired concoction, but something that has long been available there, the server said.Sheen's tour comes on the heels of a tabloid maelstrom during which he was hospitalized after trashing a New York hotel room and again after hosting what sounded like a marathon bender at his home. But through most of that, he continued to hold down his job as star of CBS' "Two and a Half Men" just fine. It wasn't until Sheen began insulting his employers, especially the show's creator, Lorre, that production was halted (in late February) and Sheen was fired (in early March).As lawsuits regarding the TV show wait to be settled, Sheen decided to follow the Conan O'Brien model: Take his personality directly to the people. But O'Brien has been running, writing and starring in very funny TV shows for decades. He knows what it takes to entertain crowds. Sheen apparently made the mistake, initially, of believing that his sitcom popularity and subsequent mass Twitter following meant he could do anything.As it turned out, all he had to do was sit back and, with a little guidance, be himself.sajohnson@tribune.com ||||| Charlie Sheen on His Chicago Show: 'I Won' Email This After an The "winning" actor said he stayed up until 4:30 Sunday morning re-working his live show, which debuted to "Gotta go with what got you to the dance and give the people what they want," the actor said. "On the bus someone said, 'You know, we could just keep driving to LA.' I said, 'F**k that. That's what losers do. I won.'" Apparently so, since Sheen was greeted with a standing ovation from the Chicago crowd, along with chants of "Detroit sucks!" The former 'Two and a Half Men' star decided to ditch everything that didn't work during his first show -- like opening acts and video segments -- and give the audience what they want: Charlie Sheen. The actor sat in a chair with a pack of cigarettes as he was interviewed by the tour's co-producer Joey Scoleri -- just like the After an epic fail in Detroit, Charlie Sheen said he "got back to basics" for the second show of his 'Torpedo of Truth' tour, according to E! Online The "winning" actor said he stayed up until 4:30 Sunday morning re-working his live show, which debuted to boos and heckling Saturday night in Detroit."Gotta go with what got you to the dance and give the people what they want," the actor said. "On the bus someone said, 'You know, we could just keep driving to LA.' I said, 'F**k that. That's what losers do. I won.'"Apparently so, since Sheen was greeted with a standing ovation from the Chicago crowd, along with chants of "Detroit sucks!" The former 'Two and a Half Men' star decided to ditch everything that didn't work during his first show -- like opening acts and video segments -- and give the audience what they want: Charlie Sheen.The actor sat in a chair with a pack of cigarettes as he was interviewed by the tour's co-producer Joey Scoleri -- just like the interviews that prompted the bizarre rants that catapulted Sheen further into pop culture fame earlier this year. Looks like the second time's the charm for Sheen because the packed show ended as it began -- with a standing ovation from crowd. http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=691977&pid=691976&uts=1294158078 http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/music/?s_channel=us.musicpop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1 http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf PopScene: Week's Hottest Pics Reese Witherspoon keeps her hands in her pockets as she tries to stay warm while out in New York City on January 3rd. X17online X17online During the show, he talked about marriage -- "I'm 0-3" -- and estranged wife Brooke Mueller. "Nice try, bitch," he said of Mueller's attempt to take away his twin sons. "I got those kids back, didn't I? She sent 9,000 cops to my house looking for drugs and guns. They found one gun from 1848."Of course he touched on the 'Two and a Half Men' debacle. "I didn't walk away from s**t. I got fired," he said. "That's not f**king cool. They didn't give a f**k that I was hammered for eight years ... If they hired me back I'd do it again."He also revealed his attempt to add a third "goddess" to his group didn't work out so well. "I tried a third. I did," he said. "You can't keep an eye on the third one. I have two eyes. I have two goddesses. I'm not bipolar. I'm bi-winning." ||||| Whoever this guy is questioning Sheen, he's just awful. If you were sitting next to these two guys in a bar, you'd find another table...

– Charlie Sheen may have totally bombed in Detroit, but with a few changes, he managed to score a standing ovation last night in Chicago. Gone was the "disjointed exercise in hero worship" from the first night of his Violent Torpedo of Truth tour, writes Steve Johnson in the Chicago Tribune. In its place was Sheen, fielding questions from an interviewer, "chain-smoking, wearing a shirt borrowed from a guy in the front rows" ... "bantering with the crowd, dropping the F-word, and actually seeming to satisfy, if not amaze, concertgoers." The result? The boos were nearly entirely gone. The Chicago show shifted the tone "from epic self-aggrandizement to a more casual, at times even likable, persona." Did it justify the $80 ticket price? Not exactly, but "it got the job done. And it gave the tour—which looked doomed after Saturday—a format it can work with going forward." (Even so, the New York Daily News reports that at least one audience member called out "train wreck"; noted Chicago film critic Richard Roeper was not impressed.) Click to read more about Sheen's show, which included some nasty comments about one of his babymommas.

A 73-year-old Vietnam veteran paid a high price for a free muffin. Joe Koblenzer says he was fired by a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Florida after he gave a needy person a corn muffin for free, WWSB reported. Koblenzer, who had been with the eatery in Sarasota for three years, told the station that he was previously written up twice before the muffin infraction: once for having a fountain drink while on duty, and another time for allegedly giving a woman a free cup of coffee. In the latter instance, Koblenzer says the customer paid for the coffee. “It's a rule. They legally can do this because I did break the rule." - Joe Koblenzer Cracker Barrel, however, says the muffin giveaway was Koblenzer’s fifth violation of company policy, which includes not giving away food and not consuming food without paying for it. Koblenzer told WWSB that on the day he was fired, a man who looked like he may be homeless asked him for mayonnaise and tartar sauce. “He said he was going to cook fish,” Koblenzer told the station. Koblenzer said he got the man the condiments, and added a corn muffin to the bag as he handed it over. The kindness cost the Vietnam vet his job, but he understands why he was fired. “It's a rule. They legally can do this because I did break the rule. I completely forgot about it. I am a host at Cracker Barrel with a little above minimum wage job, " Koblenzer told the station. He said he took the job to supplement his monthly Social Security benefits. “I’m not casting doom and gloom on the company. They did their thing, and now people know about it,” Koblenzer told Fox News. Was the gesture worth it? “Yes, it was worth it," Koblenzer told Fox News. "I would do it again. A moral issue comes in." The veteran says that if Cracker Barrel would have asked him to pay for the muffin, he would have. Cracker Barrel released the following statement on the matter: “Mr. Koblenzer has worked as a host at Cracker Barrel’s Sarasota store since April 2011. During the time he was employed, he violated the Company’s policies regarding consuming food without paying or giving away free food, on five separate occasions. Mr. Koblenzer received multiple counselings and written warnings reminding him about the company’s policies and the consequences associated with violating them. On the fifth occasion, again per Company policy, Mr. Koblenzer was terminated. Cracker Barrel is grateful for and honors Mr. Koblenzer’s service to our country as we honor all service men and women and their families.” Koblenzer says he is looking for a new job, but is unsure what he will do next. Click for the story from WWSB-TV. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites.

– A 73-year-old Vietnam veteran has lost his job for giving a needy man a muffin—and says he doesn't regret his moment of charity, Fox News reports. Joe Koblenzer was working as a Cracker Barrel host in Venice, Fla., when a homeless-looking man came in asking for tartar sauce and mayonnaise. "He said he was going to cook a fish," Koblenzer told WWSB. Koblenzer gave him the condiments and plunked a corn muffin in the bag as well. Soon after, he says, the general manager called him in and "said he had some bad news for me. 'Joe we are going to have to let you go.'" Cracker Barrel issued a statement saying this was Koblenzer's fifth time giving away food or consuming it without paying, but Koblenzer says it was only strike three, and one accusation was unfair. Either way, he's now jobless after three years at the company where he earned the highest number of stars on his apron for job performance. He admits to breaking a rule, but says he'd do it again because "a moral issue comes in." The story has gained traction in social media, WWSB notes, and became a hot topic on the restaurant's Facebook page with more than 30 negative comments. "I feel badly," says Koblenzer. "I would not want that on any company, but it happened."

1 of 4. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (L) and China's Premier Wen Jiabao (R) smile during their meeting at the Zhongnanhai leadership compound in Beijing August 19, 2011. CHENGDU, China (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday rejected views that American power is waning and said Washington would never default, wrapping up a China visit that has played down tensions between the world's two biggest economies. "We are still the single best bet in the world, in terms of where to invest," Biden told a university audience in Chengdu, the provincial capital of Sichuan, the southwest province that is the second and last stop of his visit to China. "Please understand that no one cares more about this than we do, since Americans own 87 percent of all our financial assets and 69 percent of all our treasury bonds," Biden said, answering a question about U.S. debt. "So our interest is not just to protect Chinese investment. We have an overarching interest in protecting the investment, while the United States has never defaulted and never will default." "You're safe," he added. Biden also used his speech to renew U.S. calls for Beijing to do more to rein in North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear ambitions have alarmed the West. "The fact is, China and the United States face many of the same threats and share many of the same objectives and responsibilities," he said. But his key theme was, as it has been throughout his five-day visit to China, economic: that the United States can reverse its high debt and low growth, and that China should play a part by buying more American-made goods and services. "I also know that some of you are skeptical about America's future prospects. With that in view, I would like to suggest that I respectfully disagree with that view and will allay your concerns," said Biden. He told the audience to remember that the United States was by far the largest economy in the world, about two and a half times as large as China's. Biden and President Barack Obama, both Democrats, face re-election next year. Biden said the debate with Republicans over how to tackle U.S. fiscal problems would be at the heart of the 2012 presidential election. Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, who is virtually certain to succeed Hu Jintao as Chinese President in early 2013, has hosted Biden during this visit. Obama administration officials have said they want to build trust with Xi ahead of the transition that begins in late 2012, when Hu gives up his post as general secretary of the ruling Communist Party. Next year would need careful political footwork from both governments, said Biden. "Both our countries are going through a political transition in 2012. It is very important, in my view, that we both are aware of the political sensitivities in each of the countries as they go through that," he said. "NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT" Sichuan province is a fast-growing example of the inland development that Beijing hopes will power the Chinese economy in coming decades -- and also a slice of the rising consumer power that Washington hopes will buy more U.S. goods and reduce a huge trade deficit with China. With 80 million people, Sichuan enjoyed economic growth of 15.1 percent last year, according to government statistics. Such economic concerns have dominated Biden's visit to China, which began on Wednesday, and has featured a succession of unusually vocal declarations of Beijing's confidence in the U.S. economy, despite Standard & Poor's recent downgrade of the sovereign credit rating of the United States. China has quarreled with the United States on trade, Internet censorship, human rights and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. While those thorny disputes have not disappeared, they appear to have been overtaken by a shared desire to show confidence and cooperation to a jittery global economy. In Sichuan, Biden raised human rights in general terms. "Liberty unlocks a people's full potential, and in its absence, unrest festers," he told the university audience. Biden told Premier Wen Jiabao on Friday that China had "nothing to worry about" over the safety of its holdings of Treasury debt, and Wen voiced confidence in the resilience of the U.S. economy, troubled by debt worries and sluggish growth. Analysts estimate two thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, the world's largest, are in dollar holdings, making it the biggest U.S. foreign creditor. Biden will fly to Mongolia on Monday morning for a day before heading onto Japan. (Writing and additional reporting by Chris Buckley and Michael Martina in Beijing; Editing by Yoko Nishikawa) ||||| U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's head is framed by the teleprompter as he delivers a speech at Sichuan University in Chengdu in southwestern China's Sichuan province, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011. Biden says... (Associated Press) U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's head is framed by the teleprompter as he delivers a speech at Sichuan University in Chengdu in southwestern China's Sichuan province, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011. Biden says... (Associated Press) Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that the United States and China need to recognize their mutual global concerns and responsibilities and ensure greater fairness in trade and investment conditions. Biden brought a strong message of mutual interdependence on his visit to the southwestern Chinese city of Chengdu on the final day of a five-day visit to the world's second-largest economy and a key U.S. trading partner. "The more we can work together, the more our people can benefit ... the more the world can benefit," Biden told students in a speech at Sichuan University. Biden emphasized the frequent exchanges between President Barack Obama and China's Hu Jintao along with government officials in the political and economic field. He said there needed to be more exchanges between their civilian and military leaders over security issues, especially on cybersecurity and maritime issues where the sides view matters from different perspectives. "The fact is, China and the United States face many of the same threats and share many of the same objectives and responsibilities," Biden said. "Our generals should be talking to each other as frequently as our diplomats." Biden said both countries need global stability, which includes preventing Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also reasserted that the U.S. will remain a Pacific nation in future, saying that the American presence had benefited regional stability and allowed China to focus on economic development. "Asia and the United States are not separated by this great ocean. We are bound by it," he said. Biden said he recognized frustrations among many Chinese businessmen and officials at the length of time needed to obtain visas to visit the U.S. and said Washington was working on improvements. But he said U.S. companies continue to face major investment barriers in China, a frequent complaint among the business community here. He said U.S. businesses were locked out of entire fields and face "restrictions that no other major economy imposes on us or so broadly." Biden also looked to reassure his audience over the security of China's $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt following the downgrading of America's credit rating. He said Chinese and U.S. prosperity was key to reviving the global economy. "We're the two biggest engines in the world to be able to do that," he said. Biden was to spend the rest of the day Sunday visiting sites with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, who is expected to become the country's next leader.

– Vice President Joe Biden wrapped up his five-day visit to China with a strong message of China-US interdependence and firm promises that the United States would never default on its debt, reports Reuters. Speaking in the southwest city of Chengdu earlier today, Biden emphasized the continued strength of the US economy, noting that America 's economy is two-and-a-half times larger than China's. He also pointed out that, as the United States owns 87% of its financial assets and 69% its treasury bonds, compared to the 1% of financial assets and 8% of treasury bills owned by China, it was in the US interest to pay its bills, adding "the United States has never defaulted and never will default." Biden called on China to be more forceful in reining in North Korea and Iran, and encouraged Beijing to allow a freer flow of information and greater political dialogue, reports the AP. "Liberty unlocks a people's full potential and in its absence, unrest festers," said Biden. In general, the visit emphasized common ties and building trust between the two countries. "Asia and the United States are not separated by this great ocean," said Biden. "We are bound by it."

A tweet from the McDonald's corporate account called President Trump "a disgusting excuse of a President" on Thursday morning, which the company said was the work of a hacker. The tweet, which was briefly pinned to the top of the account before being deleted, mocked Trump and called for the return of former President Obama. "@realDonaldTrump You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President and we would love to have @BarackObama back, also you have tiny hands," the tweet read. McDonald's later said in a statement that the account was hacked and apologized. "Based on our investigation, we have determined that our Twitter account was hacked by an external source. We took swift action to secure it, and we apologize this tweet was sent through our corporate McDonald’s account," spokeswoman Terri Hickey said. Twitter notified us that our account was compromised. We deleted the tweet, secured our account and are now investigating this. — McDonald's (@McDonaldsCorp) March 16, 2017 oh my it’s even pinned pic.twitter.com/tGv6EdpZEm — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) March 16, 2017 Trump was once in a commercial for the fast food giant, and has posted images eating McDonald's food on his social media accounts during his campaign. Celebrating 1237! #Trump2016 A post shared by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on May 26, 2016 at 2:29pm PDT --This report was updated at 11:04 a.m. ||||| The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

– Is McDonald's anti-Trump? It briefly appeared so Thursday morning when a tweet insulting the POTUS was posted and even pinned to the top of the McDonald's corporate Twiitter feed, but the tweet was quickly deleted and McDonald's said its account had been "compromised." The Hill has a screenshot of the original tweet: "@realDonaldTrump You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President and we would love to have @BarackObama back, also you have tiny hands." McDonald's now says it is looking into who compromised its account. President Trump, who has been pictured eating Mickey D's, was even in a McDonald's commercial once.

Mariah Carey’s ex-husband Tommy Mottola urges the singer to seek “more seasoned and respected professionals” to guide her career after her disastrous New Year’s Eve performance. He also blasts the singer’s decision to do a reality show in a letter exclusively given to Page Six. “MC is arguably the greatest pop voice to come along in the last three decades. She has had more number one hits than any pop artist in history!!! She is a global icon and a treasure with incredible talent not only as a singer but as a great songwriter. What happened on NYE could’ve happened to anyone! Yes, her technical people should’ve helped pay more attention to all of it so that there was no chance of that happening.” Mottola launched Carey’s career in 1990 with “Vision of Love.” They wed in 1993, but divorced in 1998. Still, he continues to criticize her management and reality show, “Mariah’s World.” “My only advice is that she should hire more seasoned and respected professionals to surround her and help her with her career! I would never have encouraged her or guided her to do something like a reality television show!!!!! I don’t get it!!” Mottola wrote, adding, “That does absolutely nothing for her integrity, her credibility, or her massive talent!! She should take a step back, think carefully and figure out what to do next. That is what she does best.. most certainly none of these issues or problems ever existed with her in her early days at Sony for the first 10 years when she skyrocketed to global superstardom!! Where absolutely meticulous and methodical attention was paid to every single detail and nuance that went on into her career!” Mottola, now a producer of Broadway’s “A Bronx Tale,” believes there’s still hope for Carey. “It could have happened to anyone and it has, so everyone should just get off her back and leave her the hell alone and hopefully she will find her way to the right professionals for guidance. It’s never about the fall, it’s all about the recovery.” Meanwhile, Carey’s manager Stella Bulochnikov fired back, “Really? Tommy is a relic. Did he give you that statement from a rotary phone?” ||||| Tommy Mottola Blames Mariah Carey's Professional Team For Botched NYE Performance Mariah Carey should ditch her advisers and “hire more seasoned and respected professionals” in light of her disastrous New Year’s Eve performance. That’s the line according to her ex-husband, Tommy Mottola. Mottola, the one-time Sony Music chairman who helped guide Carey from a 19-year-old backup singer to one of the most popular singers on the planet, weighed in on her awkward appearance at Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve With Ryan Seacrest. Carey should take some of the rap for her epic-fail, but only for choosing the wrong support team, he suggests. Describing Carey as a “global icon and a treasure with incredible talent,” Mottola admits the snafu “could’ve happened to anyone.” And it should never have happened in the first place. And nor should her participation in the reality TV show Mariah’s World. “My only advice is that she should hire more seasoned and respected professionals to surround her and help her with her career,” he wrote in a letter to the New York Post’s Page Six column. Carey made global headlines with her headlining set which, leading up to midnight, went careening downhill as she got to “Emotions" and “We Belong Together." With the pop star apparently unable to hear through her in-ear monitor, she removed it completely. Then, unable to follow the backing track over the noise of the crowd, Carey eventually abandoned singing and lip-syncing all-together as she became frustrated, addressing the crowd, “I’m trying to be a good sport here.” Both camps deflected blame and presented conflicting explanations for what went wrong. The singer and her reps said the in-ear monitors were faulty (and that action wasn't taken on prior warnings) and BWR-PR's Nicole Perna told Billboard that "production set her up to fail." Dick Clark Productions issued its own statement claiming, “To suggest that dcp ... would ever intentionally compromise the success of any artist is defamatory, outrageous and frankly absurd,” and insiders previously told Billboard that Carey’s tech team had her in-ears “set to the wrong frequency” and that she had used a body double for rehearsals earlier in the day. Mottola, who recounted how he romanced, wed and later divorced Carey in his tell-all 2013 book Hitmaker: The Man and His Music, argued that Mariah’s World was an unnecessary distraction which “does absolutely nothing for her integrity, her credibility, or her massive talent.” He added, “She should take a step back, think carefully and figure out what to do next.” Carey’s manager Stella Bulochnikov reportedly fired back: “Really? Tommy is a relic. Did he give you that statement from a rotary phone?” Billboard reached out to a rep for Mottola for additional comment. ||||| The fallout from Mariah Carey's headline-making New Year's Eve performance continues. Carey's manager, Stella Bulochnikov, is doubling down on accusations against the producers of Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve with Ryan Seacrest in a new interview with ET. "I'm furious," Bulochnikov told ET's Carly Steel on Wednesday in Studio City, California. "She cut her vacation short. She came there to have a festive moment, not a disastrous moment." The singer suffered technical difficulties after hitting the stage just before midnight on Saturday in New York City, eventually causing her to walk off stage. After the show, Carey tweeted: "S**t happens. Have a happy and healthy new year everybody. Here's to making more headlines in 2017." Shit happens 😩 Have a happy and healthy new year everybody!🎉 Here's to making more headlines in 2017 😂 pic.twitter.com/0Td8se57jr — Mariah Carey (@MariahCarey) January 1, 2017 WATCH: Mariah Carey's New Year's Eve Performance: Dick Clark Productions Denies Sabotage, Ryan Seacrest in Shock "They could have cut to a commercial, they could have edited the west coast feed to make her look good," Bulochnikov suggested. "So when we say words like sabotage, I'm not saying you intentionally decided, 'Hey! We're gonna sabotage Mariah Carey tonight.'" While Bulochnikov made it clear that she doesn't believe DCP intentionally sabotaged Carey's performance, she still insisted that "it happened!" Bulochnikov went on to challenge the production decision to air the moment again on the west coast feed, saying: "There are a myriad, a million ways to fix the feed for the west coast, because the people deserve better." DCP previously released a statement saying that they "had no involvement in the challenges associated with Ms. Carey's New Year's Eve performance" after Bulochnikov stated that "a production issue" and "technical difficulties" were to blame for the moment. On Wednesday morning, ET asked DCP executive vice president of television, Barry Adelman, for his side of the story. "We have no comment on this," he said. "I think the statements have been made." WATCH: Jenny McCarthy Says It's 'Completely Unfair' for Mariah Carey to Blame Others for 'Train Wreck' NYE Performance Carey voiced her displeasure with the situation on Tuesday, telling Entertainment Weekly: "I'm of the opinion that Dick Clark would not have let an artist go through that and he would have been as mortified as I was in real time." The songstress added that she would be wary of working with external crews on future performances. "It's not going to stop me from doing a live event in the future," she said. "But it will make me less trusting of using anyone outside my own team." WATCH: Mariah Carey Plagued by Technical Difficulties During Live New Year’s Eve Performance Related Gallery

– Finally, Mariah Carey has received what she's likely been waiting for ever since her awkward New Year's Eve performance: advice from her ex-husband. In a letter given exclusively to Page Six, Tommy Mottola calls Carey "arguably the greatest pop voice to come along in the last three decades," a "global icon," and a "treasure with incredible talent not only as a singer but as a great songwriter," but he says she needs to get some help. "My only advice is that she should hire more seasoned and respected professionals to surround her and help her with her career!" In addition to having once been married to Carey, Mottola also launched her career back in 1990 when he was a Sony Music exec, Billboard reports. That was three years before marrying her (and eight years before divorcing her). Mottola says that, while the New Year's Eve debacle "could've happened to anyone," Carey's tech crew should have paid more attention in order to prevent it from happening. He also takes issue with her decision to do a reality show, Mariah's World. "I would never have encouraged her or guided her to do something like a reality television show!!!!! I don't get it!!" he wrote. "That does absolutely nothing for her integrity, her credibility, or her massive talent!!" Amusingly, Carey's current manager responded to Mottola's letter like so: "Really? Tommy is a relic. Did he give you that statement from a rotary phone?" That same manager told ETOnline Wednesday that she's "furious" over what happened to Carey at New Year's Rockin' Eve, again calling out Dick Clark Productions: "They could have cut to a commercial, they could have edited the West Coast feed to make her look good" after it was clear she was having issues with the audio. (Carey has also called out Dick Clark Productions.)

Mr. Kelley then moved to a recreational vehicle park in Colorado Springs, where four witnesses told the police that they had seen Mr. Kelley chase down his white-and-brown Siberian husky and punch the dog four or five times, yelling at it, before dragging it into his camper, according to a report from the sheriff’s office in El Paso County, Colo. Mr. Kelley was charged with animal cruelty, pleaded guilty and received a deferred sentence, records show. Image Devin P. Kelley Credit via Texas Department of Public Safety Brent Moody, a neighbor who called the police, said in an interview that he and his wife moved out sooner than they would have liked because they were scared of Mr. Kelley. “In his eyes, he looked like there was intense anger,” Mr. Moody said. “Something didn’t seem right with him.” Last Sunday morning, Mr. Kelley took a Ruger AR-556 assault rifle to the First Baptist Church and opened fire, killing 26 people and wounding at least 20 others. After a shootout outside the church with a bystander, in which he was hit twice, Mr. Kelley raced away in his car, chased by the bystander and another man, and soon crashed. He was found dead, having shot himself in the head. Officials have said that the massacre may have stemmed from acrimony between Mr. Kelley and the family of his estranged second wife. His mother-in-law, who attended the church, was not there on Sunday, but his wife’s grandmother was among those killed. But as they try to delve deeper into what might have motivated the rampage, investigators said, they have hit a roadblock: They have not been able to unlock the killer’s cellphone, reviving an issue that received national attention after another mass shooting two years ago. “Unfortunately, at this point in time, we are unable to get into that phone,” Christopher H. Combs, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I.’s San Antonio office, said. He refused to name the brand of the phone, saying that it would encourage other criminals to get the same kind. After 14 people were shot to death in a conference room in San Bernardino, Calif., the F.B.I. was unable to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the attackers. The bureau went to court to try to force Apple to build a software “back door” allowing law enforcement agencies to get into phones, but the company refused. ||||| HOUSTON - Channel 2 Investigates obtained law enforcement documents revealing Devin Kelley escaped from a behavioral center in New Mexico a little more than five years before Sunday’s deadly rampage in Sutherland Springs. The incident report, filed by the El Paso Police Department, states Kelley was picked up at a bus terminal in downtown El Paso before midnight on the evening of June 7, 2012. The report states two officers were dispatched to the terminal to look into a missing-person report. READ: Incident report on Devin Kelley Download File When they arrived, the two officers learned Kelley had escaped from Peak Behavioral Health Services, a mental health facility in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, that has a dedicated unit for service members and veterans. Xavier Alvarez, who was the director of military affairs for Peak Behavioral Health at the time, told the officers on scene that Kelley, who was 21 years old at the time, had “suffered from mental disorders and had plans to run to from Peak Behavioral Health Services” by purchasing a bus ticket out of state. NBC News spoke with Alvarez, who according to the police report, said he informed officers that Kelley “was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms onto Holloman Air Force base,” located approximately 100 miles from the bus terminal. The report further states that Kelley “was attempting to carry out death threats” he had made on his military superiors. Alvarez told NBC News Kelley was ordered to Peak Behavioral Health Services by the military. On the day of the escape, Alvarez told NBC News he was home when he received a call at 1 or 2 in the morning that Kelley had absconded. "He jumped a fence," he said. The facility is in a desolate area. Alvarez jumped in his truck and began driving through the desert while other Peak staffers were talking to patients "to get any clues to what transpired." "It turned out that several times he had mentioned he was practicing for a 12-mile run. So I asked Siri, 'What is the distance to the Greyhound station' and lo and behold, it was 12 miles," Alvarez told NBC News. Alvarez called Sunland Park and El Paso police and El Paso police created a perimeter around the Greyhound station. Alvarez sat there in the dark, watching for Kelley's arrival. He saw a taxicab pull up and he crept over to it; when it pulled away, he and Kelley were "eye to eye." "Because he made a reaction as if he was going to run, I quickly restrained him. He put up no fight. He laid on the ground and police were there in seconds," Alvarez said. He noted Kelley was wet. "He thought he was going to be tracked and he went through the river to cover these tracks." "He was very quiet, but he did mention that given the opportunity he would try to go for the [officers'] guns," Alvarez said. When he went back to the facility, Alvarez told NBC News Kelley was very docile. He was there only a couple of weeks before the military picked him up for his court-martial. Alvarez confirmed that during his time at Peak, "he [Kelley] had verbalized that he wanted to get some kind of retribution to his chain of command." He said other patients also reported that Kelley seemed to be up to something on the computers they were allowed to use to pay bills, etc. The military examined the computers and it turned out "he was ordering weapons and tactical gear to a PO Box in San Antonio," Alvarez told NBC News. He said he could not talk about Kelley's diagnosis but added, "I had a very strong relationship with all the service members but this kid -- he was hollow. I could never reach him." He said that after Kelley was identified as the suspect, one of his former colleagues contacted him. The message? "We stopped the first one." El Paso police officers spoke with Kelley after finding him at the terminal. The report states he did not make threatening comments. Kelley was released to police officers from Sunland Park Police Department in New Mexico, located just across the state line. The report states there was an entry submitted to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database. READ: Military Discharges Explained The El Paso incident took place months after Air Force documents state Kelley had attacked his wife by striking and kicking her and pulling her hair. Kelley, according to the documents, also pointed a loaded firearm at her. Kelley was also charged with unlawfully striking his child on various occasions between April 27, 2011, and June 16, 2011. Records indicate Kelley plead “G” (guilty) to assault on a child and the assault on his wife. Records show he pleaded “NG” (not guilty) on the others that were “withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice” after Kelley’s arraignment. Kelley received a general court martial and was sentenced Nov. 7, 2012. He was handed a bad conduct discharge, 12 months of confinement and a reduction in rank to the grade of E-1. The sentence came exactly five months to the day after the attempted escape from the behavioral facility in southern New Mexico. An Air Force spokesperson told Channel 2 Investigates that they cannot comment on the 2012 report, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Rick Rousseau, a retired Army Colonel and Judge Advocate for 27 years, said he is not surprised that Kelley may have been in a behavioral facility in the midst of his legal battles. “It would be a normal course of negotiation that he had been in behavioral health in advance of going to court," he said. Rousseau also added that if the move was a preventative measure by Kelley and his team that it probably would have been revealed. “At a minimum the defense attorney may have told the prosecutor," Rousseau said. Copyright 2017 by KPRC Click2Houston - All rights reserved. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. / Updated By Tracy Connor and Daniel Arkin The gunman accused of the worst mass murder in Texas history escaped from a mental health hospital during his stint in the Air Force — after making death threats against his superiors, according to a 2012 police report. The incident raises new questions about whether Devin Kelley's past should have prompted authorities to make sure that he could not purchase weapons long before he killed 26 people at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday. Police took Kelley into custody on June 7, 2012, at a bus terminal in downtown El Paso, Texas, after he broke out of Peak Behavioral Health Services, just over 10 miles away in New Mexico, according to the report, which was first obtained by NBC Houston affiliate KPRC. Kelley, who was 21 at the time of the escape, had been sent to the facility after he was accused of assaulting his wife and fracturing his baby stepson's skull. The person who reported Kelley missing told El Paso officers that Kelley "was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms onto Holloman Air Force Base," where he had been stationed, according to the police report. He "was attempting to carry out death threats" he had made against his military superiors, the report said. Xavier Alvarez, a former Peak Behavioral employee, confirmed to NBC News that during Kelley's time at the facility he "verbalized that he wanted to get some kind of retribution to his chain of command." He said other patients had reported that Kelley seemed to be do something suspicious on computers they were allowed to use for things like paying bills. When the military examined the computers, it turned out that Kelley was "ordering weapons and tactical gear and magazines to a P.O. Box in San Antonio," Alvarez said. Alvarez said he had a strong relationship with all the service members in the military wing at Peak Behavioral — but Kelley was an exception. "This kid — he was hollow," Alvarez said. "I could never reach him." Peak Behavioral declined to comment on the incident citing patient confidentiality. Alvarez said he could not discuss Kelley's diagnosis or any of his medical care. "This kid — he was hollow. I could never reach him." But he vividly remembered getting the call that Kelley had "jumped a fence" in the middle of the night and was on the loose. He hopped into his truck and began driving through the desert while staff at the facility questioned other patients about Kelley's intentions. "It turned out that several times he had mentioned he was practicing for a 12-mile run," Alvarez said. "So I asked Siri, 'What is the distance to the Greyhound station?' And lo and behold, it was 12 miles." Alvarez, joined by police, said he spotted Kelly getting out of a cab at the bus station, where he "quickly restrained him." "He put up no fight," Alvarez said of Kelley. "He laid on the ground and police were there in seconds. ... He was very quiet, but he did mention that, given the opportunity, he would try to go for the [officers'] guns." Kelley was taken back to the facility but eventually discharged for his court-martial. The Air Force reported that after Kelley was convicted of assault, he was confined for a year, given a bad conduct discharge and reduced in rank to E-1, or airman basic. Related: Senators Call for Probe After Military Error Let Texas Gunman Buy Weapons The military failed to enter the domestic violence case into a database that would have made it illegal for him to buy the Luger AR-556 rifle he used to commit the massacre — a mistake that is now under investigation by the Air Force. The entrance to the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, the site of the shooting, is seen in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Nov. 7, 2017. Jonathan Bachman / Reuters And in Comal County, Texas, the local sheriff is investigating another apparently missed opportunity to take action against Kelley. After being discharged from the military, Kelley returned to his hometown of New Braunfels. That's where, in June 2013, deputies received a report of sexual assault against Kelley. Sheriff Mark Reynolds, who was not the sheriff at the time, said the case file shows that detectives were working on the case in July, September and October "and then it just kind of stalled out." Police believed Kelley had moved to Colorado, but made no apparent attempt to contact or arrest him there, Reynolds said. Four months later, they were called to Kelley's New Braunfels home after receiving a report of abuse, Reynolds said. A woman inside the home had texted a friend that she was being abused, and the friend called police. Reynolds would not identify the woman in the home, but a source familiar with the incident said it was Kelley's girlfriend, and future second wife, Danielle Shields. She told deputies she had sent the texts but denied being abused, and after interviewing Kelley, police chalked it up to a "misunderstanding," the sheriff said. "Why didn't someone put two and two together?" Reynolds said. "That's what my office is trying to investigate."

– Fives years before killing 26 people in a Texas church, Devin Kelley escaped from a psychiatric hospital after trying to sneak weapons onto his Air Force base and making death threats against his superiors, the New York Times reports. Kelley was sent to Peak Behavioral Health Services in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, in 2012 after he was charged with assaulting his wife and young stepson, who was left with a fractured skull. He would later plead guilty to those charges and spend a year in a Navy prison. According to KRPC, Xavier Alvarez, former director of military affairs at the psychiatric hospital, said in a police report at the time that Kelley "was a danger to himself and others." Prior to hopping a fence to escape, Alvarez tells NBC News that Kelley was caught using the hospital's computers to order weapons and tactical gear, which he was having shipped to a PO Box. In the police report, he said Kelley "was attempting to carry out death threats" against "his military chain of command." Following his escape, Kelley was apprehended at a bus station in El Paso. Alvarez says he told the arresting officers he would go for their guns if he got the chance. "This kid—he was hollow," Alvarez says. "I could never reach him." Meanwhile, authorities are still trying to piece together a motivation for Sunday's shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, hampered by an inability to unlock Kelley's cellphone.