That became a popular thing in the Republican Party because people were hurting. When people are hurting at home the last thing theyll say we have to go around the world and do things. To me the fundamental element is to make sure we have Strong Families. We have Strong Families that are together and raising children. I think it was putnam in his book said its more important for parents to read to their children the first four years of their life to pay for four years of college. I dont think that message is out there. That the message from either party about how important this Public Policy issue is of reknitting the American Family. Were going to go to nicole from roll call. [ inaudible question ] well, obviously, i talk about the importance of targeting voters who have been left behind by this economy in the last ten years. Thats why i announced on the factory floor. You look at stagnant wages and Median Income has declined. Part of that is the recession but it hasnt recovered. You see the stagnation that is really made this a much more important issue that i think republicans are have been and continue many not all many continue to ignore at our peril. This idea of laying out a vision for how progrowth economics can translate into improved Job Opportunities for the 74 of americans who dont have a college degree. And that theyre going to provide a pathway for a more stable optimistic future for them. Thats a that is an issue that was not as clearly as important ten years ago as it is today and Going Forward. Because the prospects dont look a whole lot brighter. The focus on that for me is nothing new. If you look at my track record when i was in the senate. We were always interested in these issues. But it now becomes more front and center. Obviously, the cultural issues i talked about, weve seen big changed in the culture in the last ten years. To me its a continuation of what weve seen for the last 30 years. Weve seen a continual breakdown of the understanding of marriage and family. It doesnt start with the current marriage debate. It started 40, 50 years ago. Weve seen the impact of that with ever increasing out of wed lock birth rates. Ever increasing absentee fathers. Ever increasing levels of poverty. As you read putnams book its pretty jarring to see the changes in communities and opportunities are available for young people growing up in broken families and in poor communities. There just isnt the network of support there. And so all of those things are big cultural shifts that require the Republican Party to begun to address them. I think were stuck. I think there Republican Party is stuck. I wrote this book last year and one of the chapters of the book is a chapter saying the rising tide lifts all boats unless your boat has a hole in it. I think republicans still use the rising tide lifts all boats, which is a John F Kennedy line. The tide is risen and im in deeper water and im bailing faster. Im feeling like im sinking as the tides going on. And we have to have specific policies oriented toward how were going to help those who are sinking. We dont. We talk still talk in Macro Economic terms. We are still unwilling to carve out Public Policy that addresses particular microeconomic categories or people. Because thats tinkering with the its not purest. I would just make the argument that thats a losing strategy on economics. And from my perspective, if were going to win this election and create a win for the American Public who are hurting, we have to have a different message than what weve been saying for the past 20 years. Well go to john from the bbc and todd gilman, and miles penson. You welcome the spotlight thats been shown on immigration by donald trump and the manner in which hes done it . I welcome the spotlight. The way hes done it is donald trump, not Rick Santorum. There will be a differentiation between the way we talk about this issue and the substance of what we talk about. Because, i mean, i saw donald over the weekend talking about how he wants more and easier legal immigration. He wants more people coming in and wants to make it easier for people to come in. I have a very different approach to that. Its important hes focused the issue of immigration which i do believe is important particularly for the workers ive been talking about. I said in my announcement, we have seen 35 Million People come to this country in the last 20 years. Thats over 10 of the population of this country have come to this country combined legal and illegal to live here. We have more People Living in this country that werent born here that at any time in our history. Were approaching the highest percentage of people not born in this Country Living here. That can all be good. Thats not necessarily bad. Let me just put it that way. We have to analyze what the impact is on the very people i was just talking about. What the impact on those that are struggling the most in america. To do that is not jinglistic, zeen phobic its a policy discussion we should be able to have without being called various names that are not particularly appetizing in the public. I always refer back to the last Immigration Commission that was consnuted under president clinton. She said immigration policy is in the national intres. We need to be a discussion of whats in the national interest. Part of that is how American Workers are doing under the system. I make the argument that when you look at flat lined wages now for those 74 of American Workers who dont have a college degree. You look at what theyre wages have been and their incomes over the last 20 years of this record immigration. Its not even close to any 20 year period. That includes the great wave. So i think its rational for Public Policy a Public Policy discussion to the people that are most affected. I would make the argument the people most affected are those workers i talked about and theyre not doing well under this. We have an obligation to take a step back and say what is in the best interest of the American Workers, by the way both native born and those who came into this country legally over the last 20 years and before that, and see what policy Going Forward will address those issues. Thats why ive suggested, not just, you know what most republicans talk about, which is, you know Border Security and tracking our visa overstays and talking about everify and the important of evarietyerify and using everify to find those who are here illegally. I use this number again age 2565. If you look at since 2000 theres been 6. 5 million net new jobs created in this country. What what percentage is held by people who are in this country that were not born in this country. The answer is all of them. There are fewernative born americans working today than there was in the year 2000. And theres 17 million more native americans in the work force. And so you can make the argument that while immigration is a good thing for america. If you look at stagnant wages, if you look at the fact that immigrants primarily are taking all the net new jobs and what the impact is on those wages and benefits i think its pretty clear whats happening. And so to suggest, as i have that we have to make some changes to that, i think is simply a topic that needs to be front and center and talked about. I think most americans would like to have this conversation without being made to feel by many that theyre somehow antiimmigrant. I dont think youre antiimmigrant if you, as i have suggested, still are after the proposal that ive laid out there, and i did a couple of months ago calling for a 25 reduction of legal immigrants in this country. We would still be at the highest level weve ever been at prior to this 20 year period. How about a transportation question. The tunnel at amtrak uses under the hudson river is more than 100 years old. Within 20 years it will bail because of damage from hurricane sandy. The existing car tanlunnels and bridges are at capacity. That will have a major impact in the northeast. So far not addressed. If you were president would you support build agnew tunnel. Ive taken the approach on transportation that the federal government should do less not more on transportation. In fact, i supported proposals that would dramatically reduce the gas tax and put the federal Government Back in the position of simply doing what we should be doing which is dealing with interstate commerce and movement of, which of course, includes movement of people from an interstate capacity. It doesnt necessarily mean just interstates with the classic definition, it could be u. S. Highways and other major interstate movers of goods and people. And that we reduce the gas tax to the level that can maintain and in fact improve that system. And then cap the tax at that amount and then send the rest back to basically credit and let the states then deal with all these other issues that are more local in nature. You know we have not traditionally, obviously, with passenger trains we supported amtrak very generously over the years. But as you know the federal government has traditionally not gotten involved with Rail Construction. Certainly freight Rail Construction we have stayed away from. Weve done some passenger Rail Construction. So i guess my gut reaction would be that getting involved with a project like that would be one of those gray areas that i would look at because it is interstate movement. But it would have a high bar in order to cross to do that kind of project. Jonathan from the hill. You said at the outset this in some ways a more satisfying campaign for you. But is it also frustrating at all . It doesnt appear the base you had in 2012 has transferred to support in 2016. Is it frustrating to be in some ways starting from scratch and trying to make the debate stage . I remind everybody that prior to the the Iowa Caucuses we were at 2 4 . A lot of support we got came late. And it was after looking at all the candidates they made the decision. Thats one of the things i certainly know about iowans as we call around and were talking to our supporters. Were getting a fair number of them to say, yeah, theyre still with us. Which is actually pretty encouraging. Al a lot of them are saying, you know what . We really like you, but as theres a lot of new models on the showroom. And were taking a look at everybody. Im not surprised at that at all. There are a lot of new models and there are as ive said publicly, a lot of good people out there that people are going to take a look at. Ive always felt confident that four years ago i felt this way when i was starting from scratch. I feel very much the same way this time in spite of all the new models. I think this model is a pretty good reliable model that people are going to come back to and say you know what . All that glitters is not gold. And, you know i use the example of donald trump. Everybodys talking about trumps the best guy in immigration. Then you read, he may be tough on the border but a lot of other immigration issues hes not considered a conservative on those things. That just takes time. My one of my concerns and i complained about this i didnt comment it on the time the lack of debates means that most americans have most primary voters have no idea where most candidates stand on the issues. They just dont. Its all just i always wish these National Surveys would start without saying who you are going to vote for and list the candidates to say who are you going to vote for. Just, you know can you name all the candidates running for president. I guarantee you, that most people couldnt name more than two or three candidates. And so its just all these questions are not relevant. And because it is so early and people arent paying that much attention. And clearly in iowa, what i do know about iowa is they make their decision the last month or so. Thats not to say they wont be for someone today. As i find out because theyre for someone today doesnt mean theyre going to be voting for someone later on. Id rather not be their favorite now. Id rather be their favorite when it matters. I have a two part question on the Supreme Court. Going back to 2005 when you were in the senate, knowing everything we know now would you still vote for john obtsroberts . Do you define marriage on a federal level or let states do it. Would i confirm job roberts . Look i confirmed john roberts because he had a good strong track record of someone who paid attention to what the constitution said and followed it. Everyones intieltentitled to a mistake every now and then and hes made one mistake twice. Thats disappointing. But hes also written a lot of really good and strong opinions. I wish i could say that every that everybody i ever voted for on anything not just judges, but for elections didnt disappoint me at some point in time. Thats just not the world. I think by and large hes been a pretty Solid Supreme Court justice. And, you know looking at the best case scenario, if you will, of his opinions, the opinion was one that was differential to the congress, which even though im running for president , i look president s and courts that defer to congress. Because thats the body that our constitution wanted to rest most of the power in washington, d. C. On. Again, im not happy with his decision, but, again, looking at it sort of the other way, i can get myself to not be as upset about it as i otherwise would be. As far as a constitutional amendment, i coauthored and pushed for the vote on that amendment way back in 2004. I believe we need a National Standard for emergency. Marriage. I dont think you can have one state to another what marriage is. I would continue to support an effort to define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history. [ inaudible question ] i think thats a mistake. I think i argued that ten years ago when others wanted to do that ten years ago. You cant have a hodgepodge of marriage. The reason one of the reasons the court decided the way they decided. They recognize you cant have different marriage laws in different states. It just creates too much confusion out there for on a variety of different levels. Todd gilman from dallas morning news. There are a number of contenders that are within the top ten, then all are those that are on the other side of the cusp. Do you see any evidence you said youre going to run some ads more than you might otherwise im not going to run ads, im going to do media appearances. I dont spend money this far out in a campaign. Do you see evidence that anyone in the field is gaming the system to try to get into the top ten . Is there way to juice your numbers, you or any of the other the people who set the game up have the biggest influence on who gets in. Its who theyre going to put on their network and give air time to. In a sense they control in some respects the ability to put their thumb on the scale to give someone not that theyre doing it. Im i dont watch a lot of television. I have no idea who what theyre doing. But they certainly have the ability to do that by if they decided, for example, they wanted Rick Santorum to be in the debates. And it would be helpful to them for some reason to they can easily say well put santorum on every single day and have our anchors talk about this guy were going to do stories on him. The point is they can. Im not saying they are or will. But they certainly can have an impact because whats driving National Numbers is its news coverage. Thats what drives National Numbers. If you folks hadnt written if you folks have written as many stories about jeb bush as you did Lindsey Graham my guess is jeb bushs numbers wouldnt be near what it is today. Is it a death spiral if you dont make the debate, you or anybody else youre probably not going to make the next debate or the next one after that. Heres what i found go back and look at look at every election cycle. People go up people go down. And that debate could be a very interesting time. And could prove to be a wonderful opportunity for some and as we saw in the past, it could be a disaster for others. It could shoot their campaign right between the eyes. And so you just the idea that being in the debate or not, there were debates i wasnt in last time and it had no impact on the campaigns. Again, i think something this early on with all the things that are going to happen between now and caucus day i just dont think its going to be that important. Dana millbank from the post. Yes senator on the trump effect, youve got this widely fragmented field. It appears in order to break out youve got to Say Something outrageous. And youre here very nicely talking about Robert Putnam which i think is terrific but its not outrageous. Do you think you can do basically what you did last time plodding along or you know, are the rules just going to be fundamentally different this time and it will be all that money and being provocative to get the Media Attention . Can you be plodding and get to the finish line . I hope so. I mean, because thats we havent really changed how who i am as a candidate and what i believe in. And i dont think iowa has changed. And i know everybody likes to look at all the things that are going on in the national media, in the end, iowa is going to cut this field down dramatically much more than whether you attend a debate or not. If you can go there and connect as we did in the past and be succes