You'd see the headline is appropriate

... rather than a right wing rag

but no luck yet

I am not trying to be snarky ... If you can't find it on a reputable site that should give you a lot of pause

Biden did speak out on the tone of the election and expressed disgust at the way tRump conducted himself... you artiicel claims its from CNN's state of the union on CNN ... you can easliy find transcripts for that show

....unlike the Newsmax article and text originally posted.

that are right wing, but I just don't. People make mistakes, thanks for letting me know

The link is to CNN, but the article excerpt is still from Newsmax.

This kind of right-wing bullshit doesn't belong on DU.

Sid

I use Newsmax links because I don't know any good news sources. No kidding!

what, Breitbart didn't have anything good?

Sid

posted this in good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt in the Jury If NewsMax said it and no one else
Its probably MALARKY.

I edited it. I don't know every organization's political bias, I just used the article for the quotes from the interview

without linking to it.

Some would call that plagiarism.

Sid

Either put back the link to the newsmax article, so DUers will know where your text is from.

Or take down the newsmax content.

FFS.

Sid

You know better!

He wants to win back the voters that helped flip the rust belt red

The excerpted section quoted in the OP does not appear anywhere in the CNN transcript linked in the original post.

The excerpted section quoted in the OP appears word-for-word in the newsmax article that the OP originally sourced.



Sid

spun to perfection

which MSNBC promptly reported as breaking news: "Email investigation has been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceed to parade every right wing politician across their screen to reinforce that LIE. About an hour later CNN, and the other networks followed with the same LIE. This went on for several days.

Three days later when things started to calm down slightly, Bret Baier from fox news, reported, "From his sources in the FBI an indictment against the Clinton Foundation was about to occur". That was also a LIE. Google news, and other news outlets picked up that story. 48 hours later Bret Baier apologized, and said his information was wrong, and there was no pending indictment against the Clinton Foundation. That of course did stop fox news, the trump campaign, or other outlets from continuing to repeat the LIE.

Before the Comey interference, Hillary was doing ok in the polls, especially in the swing state polls. After the Comey interference, the poll numbers dropped significantly.

Russ Feingold lost, Zyper Teachout lost, and every swing state Democratic running for Senate lost against the establishment republican incumbent.

Then there was the case of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary.

In Michigan, Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote.
Similar things occurred in Wisconsin, and other critical states.

Then there was a consorted effort to suppress the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the voting rights act as unconstitutional in its June 25, 2013 ruling.

Before the 2016 election 14 states added restrictive voting law requirements aimed primarily toward people of color. This was a direct result of the Supreme Court decision striking down of a key section of the Voting Rights Act.

This really isn't rocket science

candidate in recent history, Trump, who divided his party, couldn't even get living former GOP presidents to vote for him, had legal cases against him, on tape saying grab their p*****, won the traditionally blue rust belt states because of Fox News and one letter 11 full days before the election? Or was it that he went to the rust belt repeatedly and told them what WE usually tell them... that big corporations have sucked your jobs away and the syst is rigged against you... And then said what we didn't.. That he's going to fight to bring back those jobs or at least save the ones we still have..

The latter seems much more obvious to me

for Senate lost against the ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT. Explain that one, will ya.

I know it is too easy to blame it on the Supreme Court rolling back a key provision in the voter rights act, and the 14 states that had restrictive laws which made it more difficult for people to vote after the 2013 ruling, or the long lines, etc.

nothing to see there.

of course the broken machines in Michigan had nothing to do with it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/us-election-recount-michigan-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

nope, nothing to see there.

and it wasn't just fox news, MSNBC, and CNN were right up there pushing the lies, along with the FAKE NEWS sites, and Comey's bullshit did influence the election, because the poll numbers dropped significantly after that. It was NOT an anomaly, there was a cause and effect.

and whether you believe or not, the FAKE NEWS and social media which propagated constant lies and falsehoods through the campaign did influence the election.

Those who voted for trump knew he was a racist and a sexist, that does say something.

47% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

A significant number of self-identified progressives would not vote for Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512643916

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632931

The last campaign ads in swing states for Hillary and Trump. Hillary's was the Katy Perry ad, which I personally really liked, and Trump's was about the masses vs the rich and the loss of jobs to Mexico and China. Now, if I'm in the rust belt and I've seen the slow death of a whole way of life because of globalization, which ad would I prefer? In your own post you said it - 47% didn't even bother to vote. Hillary's turnout was lower than Obama's. There are multiple factors involved, yes, but it's not just a coincidence that the states hit hardest by globalization, the rust belt states, are the ones that flipped. Now either we give a shit about winning again and we listen to those people, or we go through this again in 4 years.

and that 14 states implemented restrictive voting requirement after that, and before the 2016 election. None of that was in place when President Obama ran.

Obama won twice, Hillary did not. The reason is the rust belt. Now I can go around with a million conspiracy theories or I can focus on the fundamentals of winning campaigns just as America has been doing for over 200 years. Find out what the people need, offer them solutions. Do this in all 50 states.

nor were the 14 states that instituted repressive voting requirements in place then.

You still haven't answered this. How come Russ Feingold lost? How come Scott Walker won multiple times? How come Zypher Teachout Lost? How come the Democrats running for Senate in the swing states lost against the establishment republican incumbents? They DID talk job, globalization, and the economy. I know, I was call banking on their behalf into those swing states.

That is NOT a conspiracy theory, and the fact that you deny that the repeal of the key provision in the voting rights act, and the 14 states that added repressive voting restrictions had no effect on the election outcome is naive to say the least.

until someone shows me solid evidence that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were all rigged, I'm not going to turn into Alex Jones and start cooking up conspiracy theories. That way lies madness

the establishment republican incumbent for Senate. 50% of those Democrats were progressive and spoke to the issue of globalization.

Also, I never use the word rigged, but it WAS definitely influenced

intentional ignoring of the Supreme Court decision to repeal a key provision in the voting rights act, along with the 14 states that implemented repressive voting restrictions, is not a conspiracy theory.

There is a cause and effect with all of these things, and it really isn't rocket science

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2016, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Source/headline of this story aside, this is an ongoing issue that's caused many pain - I'm still earning 30% less than I did when the economy crashed in 2009 and I haven't seen a single raise in all those years. I'm happy to have a job - many less educated are scared - I worry too - we're not really in a boom right now, even though unemployment is low, so at least those who want to work can get a job, but perhaps not a great one. I know anecdotal evidence isn't all that valuable, but if he said it was "partly" to blame, I can't argue that she could have reemphasized a little perhaps. She didn't lose by much, so it's easy to nitpick.

getting Trade Asjustment Assistance in these battleground states, which means there's a lot of people still feeling the effects of globalization and loss of manufacturing jobs. I hear you on the stagnant wages. Cost of living goes up but our salaries don't. Tons of people are barely getting by. That's why the economy ALWAYS needs to be the centerpiece of any Democratic campaign..

Flat out bullshit.