being used in ways that can affect our infrastructure, affect the stability of our financial systems, and affect the integrity of our institutions like our election process. i just received a couple weeks back -- wasn't widely reported on -- a report from our cyber security commission that outlines a whole range of strategies to do a better job on this. but it's difficult because it's not all housed -- the target of cyber attacks is not one entity but it's widely disbursed and a lot of private like the dnc. we can't tell people what to do. we can inform them, get best practices. what we can also do is to, on a bilateral basis, warn other

countries against these kinds of attacks. and we have done that in the past. so just as i told russia to stop it, and indicate thread will be consequences when they do it, the chinese have in the past engaged in cyber attacks direct it at our companies to steal trade secrets and proprietary technology, and i had to have the same conversation with president xi, and what we have seen is some evidence that they have reduced but not complete he eliminated these activities, partly because they can use cutouts. oneq of the problems with the internet cyber issues there's not always a return address, and by the time you catch up to it, attributing what happened to a particular government can be

difficult. not always prove enable court, even though our intelligence communities can make al-an assessment. what we have also tried to do is start creating some international norms about this to prevent some sort of cyber arms race, because we have offensive capables as well as defensive capabilities, and my approach is not a situation which everybody is worse off because folks are constantly attacking each other back and forth, but put something guardrails around the behavior, including our adversaries so they understand that whatever they do to us, we can potentially do to them. we do have some special challenges because often times our economy is more digitalized, it is more vulnerable, partly because we're a wealthier nation, and we're more wired

than some of these other countries and we have a more open society, and engage in less control and censorship over what happens over the internet, which is also part of what makes us special. last point. the reason i'm going on here is because i know that you guys have a lot of questions about this, and i am addressing all of you directly about it. with respect to response. my principal goal leading up to the election was making sure that the election itself went off without a hitch, that it was not tarnished and did not feed any sense in the public that somehow tampering had taken place with the actual process of voting. we accomplished that. that does not mean that we are

not going to respond. it simply meant we had a set of priorities of the utmost importance. our goal continues to be to send a clear message to russia, or others, not to do this to us, because we can too stuff to you. but it is also important for us to do it in a thoughtful,ing me e methodical way. some we do publicly, some of it we will do in away they know but not everybody will. and i know that there have been folks out there who suggest somehow that if we went out there and made big announcements and thumped our chests about a bunch of stuff, that somehow that would potentially spook the russians, but keep in mind that we already have enormous numbers of sanctions against the russians. the relationship between us and

russia has deteriorated, sadly, significantly, over the last several years so how we approach an appropriate response that increases cost for them for behavior like this in the future, but does not create problems for us, is something that is worth taking the time to think through and figure out. that's exactly what we have done. so, at a point in time where we have taken certain actions that we can divulge publicly we will do so. there are times where the message will good -- will be directly received by the russians and not publicized. i should point out, bill the way, part of why the russians have been effective on this is because they don't to around announcing what they're doing. it's not like putin is going around the world publicly saying, look what we did. wasn't that clever.

he denies it. so, the idea that somehow public shaming is going to be effective, i think doesn't read that the thought process in russia very well. okay? >> did clinton lose because of the hacking? >> i'm going to let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election. it was a fascinating election so i'm sure there will be a lot of books written about it. i've said what i think is important for the democratic party going forward, rather than try to parse every aspect of the election, and i've said before, couldn't be prouder of secretary clinton, her outstanding service and she has worked tirelessly on behalf of the american people

and i don't think she was treated fairly during the election. i think the coverage of her and in the issues was troubling. but having said that, what i've been most focused on, appropriate for the fact i'm not going to be a politician in about -- what is it, 32 days? 31? 34? or what i've said is that eye can maybe get some counsel and advise to the democratic party, and i think the thing we have to spend the most time on because it's the thing we have the most control over, is how do we make sure that we are showing up in places where i think democratic policies are needed, where they're helping, making a difference, but where people

feel as if they're not being heard. and where democrats are exacterrizeds a cultural, liberal, latte-sipping politically correct out of touch folks, we have to be in those communities, and i've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference. that's how i became president. i became a u.s. senator, not just because i had a strong base in chicago but because i was driving around, downstate illinois going to fish fries and sitting in vfw halls and talking to farmers, and i didn't win every one of their votes but the got a sense of what i was talking about, what i cared about. i was for working people. i was for the middle class. that the reason i was interested

in strengthening unions and raising the minimum wage and rebuilding our infrastructure and making sure that parents has decent child care and family leave, was because my own family's history wasn't that different from theirs, even if i look different. same thing in iowa. so the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole so that there's not a county in any state -- i don't care how red -- where we don't have a presence and not making the argument. i think we have the better argument. but that requires a lot of work. it's been something i've been able to do successfully in my own campaigns and not something i've been able to transfer to candidates in mid-terms and sort of build a sustaining

organization. that's something that i would have liked to have done more of, but it's kind of hard too do when you're also dealing with a whole bunch of issues here in the white house. and that done mean it can't be done, and i think they're going to be a lot of fall lents folks -- talented out there folks, progressives who share my values who -- will be leading the charge. >> this week we heard hillary clinton talk about how she thinks the fbi director's recent announcement made a difference in the outcome of the election, and we just heard in an op-ed her campaign chairman talk about something being deeply broken within the fbi, talked about thinking that the investigation early on was lackadaisical in his words. what do you think about this comments?

do you think there's a danger that they're calling into question the integrity of institutions in a similar way that donald trump's team has done? and sect part to that is why did trump's team repettedly -- giving the indication that the investigation of the russian hack, as well as retaliation, might not be such priority once he is in office. so what do you think orisk is there and are you going to talk to him directly about some of those comments? >> well, on the latter point, as i said before, the transition from election season to governance season is not always smooth. it's bumpy. there's still feelings that are raw out there. the people who are still thinking about how things unfolded, and i get all that.

but when donald trump takes the oath of office and is sworn in as the 5 them president of the united states, he has different considerations and responsibilities. there's a sobering process when you bach into the oval office, and i haven't shared previously private conversations i've had with the president-elect. i will say they have been cordal and in some cases have involved me making some pretty specific suggestions about how to ensure that regardless of our obvious deep disagreements about policy, maybe i can transmit some thoughts about maintaining the effectiveness integrity,

cohesion of the office, of various democratic institutions, and he's -- he has listened. i can't say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way. and i will always make myself available to him just as previous presidents have made themselves available to me as issues come up. with respect to the fbi, i will tell you, i've had a chance to know a lot of fbi agents. know director comey. they take their job seriously. they work really hard. they help keep us safe, and save a lot of lives. and it is always a challenge for

law enforcement when there's an intersection between the work they're doing and the political system. it's one of the difficulties of democracy generally. we have a system where we want our law. investigators and prosecutors to be free from politics, to be independent, to play it straight , but sometimes that involves investigations that touch on politics and particularly in this hyper partisan environment we have been anything, everything is suspect. everything you do one way or the other other. one thing i have done is to be pretty scrupulous about not wading into investigation

decisions or prosecution decisions of decisions not pros cute. i have tried to be strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement, free from my own judgments and political assessments in some cases. and i don't know why it would stop now. >> mike of bloomberg. >> -mr. president. on aleppo, your views at what happens there, the responsibility of the russian government, iranian government, the assad regime, is pretty well aired, but do you as president of the united states, lead of the free world, feel any personal moral responsibility

now at the end of your presidency for the carnage we are all watching, and i'm sure disturbs you, you said disturbs you. southboundly, also on aleppo, you have made clear your practical disagreements with the issue, and president-elect trump has throughout his campaign, and he said again last night, he wants to create safe zones in syria. do you feel like in this transition you need to help him towards implementing that or is that not something you should be doing? >> mike, i always feel responsible. fell responsible when kids were being shot by snipers. i felt responsible when millions were being displaced. feel responsible for murders and slaughter that has taken place

in south sudan that's not being reported on, partly because there's not as much social media being generated from there. there are places around the world where horrible things are happening, and because of my office, because i'm president of the united states, i feel responsible. i ask myself every single day, there is something i could do that would save lives and make a difference? and spare some child, who doesn't deserve to suffer. so that's a starting point. there's not a moment during the course of this presidency where i haven't felt some responsibility. that's true, by the way, for our own country. when i came into office and people were losing their jobs and losing their homes and losing their pensions issue felt responsible.

and i would go home at night and ask myself, was there something better i could do or smarter i could be that would make a difference in their lives? that would relieve their suffering, and relieve their hardship? so, with respect to syria, what i have consistently done is taken the best course i can to try to end the civil war while having also taking into account the long-term national security interests of the united states. and throughout this process, based on hours of meetings, if you tally it up, days or weeks of meetings, where we went

through every option in painful detail, with maps and military and we had our aid agencies and we had our diplomatic teams, and sometimes we's bring in outsiders who were critics of ours, whenever we went through it, the challenge was that short of putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from congress, at a time when we still had troops in afghanistan and still had troops and iraq and just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars, and when the opposition on the ground was

not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country, and you had a military super power in russia prepared to do whatever it took to keep its client state involved, and you had a regional military power in iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send in as many of their people or proxies to supporhe regime. in that circumstance, unless we were all in, and willing to take over syria, we were going to have problems. and that everything else was tempting because we wanted to do something and it sounds like the right thing to do, but it was going to be impossible to do this on the cheap. and in that circumstance, i have to make a decision as president

of the united states as to what is best -- i'm sorry. what's going on. somebody is not feeling good? all right. while we have -- got were we can get our doctors black to help out. somebody want to go to my doctor's office and have them -- all right. where was i? so, we couldn't do it on the cheap. now, it may be that -- >> i think -- [inaudible] >> can somebody help out, please, and get the doctor in here? [inaudible] somebody getting our

doctor? >> of course. in the meantime, give them a little room. doctor will be here in a second. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you guys nowhere the doctor's office is?

just go through the palm doors. it's right next to me map room. there he is. there's the doctor. okay. doctors is in he house. so, -- i don't mean that -- i mean that with all sincerity. i understand the impulse to want to do something, but ultimately what i've had to do us to think about what can we sustain, what is realistic and my first priority has to be what is the right thing to do for america. and it has been our view that the best thing to do has been to

provide some support to the moderate opposition so they could sustain themselves and that you wouldn't see anti-assad regime sent. s just pouring into al nusra and al qaeda or isil, that we engage our international partners in order to put pressure on all the parties involved, and to try to resolve this through diplomatic and political means. i cannot claim that we have been successful, and so that's something that, as is true with a lot of issues and problems around the worlds, i have to go

to bed every night but i believe itself was what we could realistically get done. absent a decision, as i said to go into much more significant way. and that i think would not have been sustainable or good for the american people because we had a whole host of other obligations that we also had to meet, wars we had already started and were not yet finished. with respect to the issue of safe zones, it is a continued problem, a continued challenge with safe zones. if you're setting zones on syrian territory, that requires some force that is willing to maintain that territory, in the

absence of consent from the syrian government and now the russians. or the iranians. so, it may be that with aleppo's tragic situation unfolding, that in the short term, if we can get more of the tens of thousands who are still trapped there, out, that so long as the world's eyes are on them, and they are feeling pressure, the regime and russia concludes that they are willing to find some arrangement, perhaps some coordination with turkey, whereby those people can be safe. even that will probably be temporary, but at least it solves a short-term issue that's going arise. unfortunately we're not even there yet because right now, we

have russians and assad claiming that basically all the innocent civilians who were trapped in aleppo are out, when international organizations, humanitarian organizations who know better and who are on the ground, have said unequivocally there's still tens of thousands trapped ask are prepared to leave under any conditions. so right now our biggest priority is to continue to put pressure we can to get them out. >> not withstanding -- >> i can't have too much -- >> so -- >> do you feel responsibility not withstanding proving in the direction or help president-elect. >> i will help president-elect trump with any advice, counsel, information, that we can provide so that he, once sworn in can make a decision. between now and then, these are

decision is have to make based on the consultations i have with our military and the people who have been working this every single day. peter alexander. >> mr. president, thank you very minute. can you given all the intelligence we have heard, assure the public this is once and for al a free and fair election, and specifically on russia, do you feel any obligation now as they've been zipsing that this isn't the -- insisting that this isn't the case to show the proof, put your money where your mouth is, and declassify some of the information and as relates to donald trump, are you concerned about his relationship with vladimir putin, especially given the recent cabinet picks, including selection of secretary of state, rex tillerson, who toasted champagne with putin. >> i may be getting older because these multipart questions i start losing track.

i can assure the public that there was not the kind of tampering with the voting process that was our concern, and will continue to be a concern, going forward, that the votes that were cast were counted, counted appropriately, we have not seen evidence of machines being tampered with, so that assurance i can provide. that doesn't mean that we find every single potential probe of every single voting machine all across the country, but we paid a lot of attention to it. we worked with state officials, et cetera, and we feel confident

that that didn't occur and the votes were cast and counted. and -- so that's on that point. what was the second one? >> about declassification -- >> declassification. look, we will provide evidence that we can safely provide, thats to not compromise sources and methods. but i'll be honest with you, when you're talking about cyber security, a lot of it is classified and we're not going to provide it because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know and if wore going to monitor the stuff effectively going forward, we don't want them to know we know.

so, this is one of those situations where unless the american people genuinely think that the professionals in the cia, the fbi, our entire intelligence infrastructure, many of whom, by the way, served in previous administrations, and who are republicans, are less trust bury than -- truthworthy than the russians, then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say. this is part of what i minute when i said that we have too think about what is happening to our political culture here. the russians can't change us.

or significantly weaken us. they are smaller country, weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. they don't innovate. but they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. they can impact us if we abandon our values. mr. putin can weaken us just like he is trying to weaken europe, if we start buying into notions that it's okay to intimidate the press. or lock up dissidents. or discriminate against people because of their faith or what

they look like. and what i worry about more than anything is the degree to which, because of the fierceness of the partisan battle, you start to see certain folks in the republican party and republican voters suddenly finding a government and individuals who stand contrary to everything that we stand for, as being okay because that's how much we dislike democrats. i mean, think about it. some of the people who historically have been very critical of me for engaging with the russians and having conversations with them, also endorsed the president-elect,

even as he was saying that we should stop sanctioning russia, being tougher on them, and work together with them. i guess our common enemies. very preliminariry of mr. put -- very complimentary of mr. putin personally. that wasn't news. the president-elect, during the campaign, said so. and some folks who had made a career out of being anti-russia, didn't say anything about it. and then after the election, suddenly they're asking, oh, why didn't you tell us that maybe the russians were trying to help our candidate. well, come on. there was a survey, some some --

some of you saw -- just one poll but pretty credible source, 37% of republican voters approve of putin. over a third of republican voters approve of vladimir putin. former head of the kgb. ronald reagan would roll over in his grave. and how did that happen? it happened in part because, for too long, everything that happened in this town, everything that is said, is seen through the lens of, does this help or hurt us relative to democrats or relative to president obama?

and unless that changes, we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence. because we have lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for. with respect to the president-elect's appointments, it is his prerogative for him to appoint who he thinks can best carry out his foreign policy or his domestic policy. it is up to the senate to advise and consent. there will be plenty of time for members of the senate to go through the record of all his appointees and determine whether or not they're appropriate for the job. >> mr. president, want talk to about vladimir putin again. just to be clear do you believe vladimir putin himself authorized the hack and do you

believe he authorized that to help donald trump? and on the intelligence, one of the things donald trump cites is saddam hussein and the weapons of mass destruction they were never found. can you say unequivocally that this was not china, that it was not a 400-pound guy sitting on his bread, as donald trump said, and do these types of tweets and kinds of statement from donald trump embolden russia? >> when the report comes out before i leave office, that will have drawn together all of the threads, and so i don't want to step on their work ahead of time. what i can tell you is that the intelligence i've seen gives me great confidence in their

assessments that the russians carried out this hack. the hack of the dnc and the hack of john podesta. now, the -- but again, i think this is exactly why i want the report out so that everybody can review it. and this has been briefed and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan basis. not just to me. it's been provided to the leaders of the house and senate and the chairman and ranking members of the relevant committees. and i think that what you have already seen is some of the folks who have seen the evidence, don't dispute. think the basic assessment that the russians carried this out. >> is it -- >> well, martha, whatnot i want to make sure of is that i give

the intelligence community the chance to gather all the information but i think a point that not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. this is pretty hierarchical situation. there's not a lot of debate and consideration when it comes to the policies directed at the united states. we have said and i confirm that this happened at the highest level's the russian government and i'll let you make that determination as to whether the high level russian officials who go off rogue and decide to tamper with the u.s. election process without vladimir putin knowing about it.

>> i would be wrong in saying that the president approves -- >> i gave you what i'm going to give you. your second question. >> do the tweets and statements by donald trump embolden russia? >> as i said before, i think that the president-elect -- it's still in transition mode from campaign to governance. i think he hasn't gotten his whole team together yet. still has campaign spokes persons filling in and appearing on cable shows and -- that's just a whole attitude and vibe when you're not in power as when you're in power. so, rather than me characterizing the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what he is doing at the moment, i think what we have to see is how will

the president-elect operate and how will his team operate when they've been fully briefed on all these issues, they have their hands on all the levers of government, and they've got to start making decisions. one way i do believe that the president-elect can approach this that would be unidentify -- unifying is to say we welcome a bipartisan, independent process that gives the american people the assurance not only that votes counseled properly -- counted properly other, lexes are fair and -- elections are fair and feet, and that we have learned lessons about how

internet propaganda from foreign countries can be released into the political bloodstream and that we have strategies to do will if for the future. the more this can be nonpartisan, the better served the american people are going to be. which is why i made the point earlier, and i'm going to keep on repeating this point. our vulnerability to russia or any other foreign power, is directly related to how divided, partisan, dysfunctional, our political process is. that is the thing that makes us vulnerable. if fake news that is being released by some foreign

government is almost identical to reports that are being issued through partisan news venues, threaten it's note surprising the foreign prop began do will have a greater effect. doesn't seem that far fetched compared to other folks are hearing from domestic propagandaists. to the extent that our political dialogue is such where everything is under suspicion. everybody is corrupt and everybody is doing things for partisan reasons, and all of our institutions are full of ma live

plant actors. if that's the storyline being pout out there by whatever party its out of power, then when a foreign government introduces the same argue; with facts made up, voters who have been listening to that stuff for years, who have been get that stuff every day from talk radio or other venues, they're going to believe it. so if we want to really foreign influence on our elections we better make sure that our political process, our political dialogue, is stronger than it's been.

mark? >> thank you, mr. president. move you from russia to chain. your successor spoke with phone with the president of taiwan today and declared subsequently he wasn't sure why the united states needed to be bound by the one china policy. he suggested it could be used as bargaining chip perhaps to get better terms on trade deal or more cooperation with north korea. there's already evidence that tensions between the two side have increased and today the chinese have seized an underwater drone in the south china sea. do you agree as some do that our china policy could use a fresh set of eyes and what's the big deal about have ago short phone call with the president of taiwan, or do you worry that these types of up orthodoxes approaches are setting us on a political course with our

adversary? >> great question. i'm somewhere in between. i think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. i think one of the -- i've said this before -- i'm very proud of the work i've done. i think i'm a better president now than when i started. but if you're hear for eight years in the bubble, you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit from the democracy benefits, america benefits, from some new perspectives, and i think it should be not just the prerogative but the obligation of a new president to examine everything that has been done and see what makes sense and what doesn't. that's what i did when i came in and i'm assuming any new president is going to undertake the same exercises, and given the importance of the relationship between the united states and china, given how much

is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the asia-pacific, china's increasing role in international affairs, there's probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance and where there's also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into full conflict modes, that everybody is worse off. so, i think it's find for him to take a look at it. what i advised the president-elect, across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure you're doing in a systemic, deliberate, intentional way, and since

there's only one president at a time, my advice to him has been that before he starts having a lot of interactions with foreign governments other than the usual courtesy calls, that he should want to have his full team in place, that he should want his team to be fully briefed on what has gone on in the past, and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we have learned from eight years of experience, so that as he has been maybe taking foreign policy in a new direction, he's not all the -- got all the information to make good decisions and, by the way, all of government is moving at the same time and thinking from -- singing from the same him

hymnal. with respect to china -- and let's take the example of tie juan -- taiwan -- there was an long-standing agreement between china, the united states, and to some degree the tie -- taiwaneses which is to not change they status quo. taiwan operates differently than mainland china does. china views taiwan as part of china, but recognizes that it has to approach taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. the taiwanese have agreed that as long as they're able to continue to function with some

degree of autonomy, they won't charge forward and declare independence, and that status quo, although not completely satisfactory any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the taiwanese to be a pretty successful and -- economy and people who have a high degree of self-determination. but understand, for china, the issue of taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. the idea of one china is at the heart of their conception as a

nation. and so if you are going to upend underring, you have to have thought through what are the consequences because the chinese will not treat that the way they'll treat some other issues. they won't even trite the way they treat issues around the south china sea. this goes to the core of how they see themselves and their reaction on this issue could be significant. that doesn't mean you have to adhere to everything hat is done in the past. you have to think it through and planned for potential reactions. all right. politico. >> two questions. first, what --

leaves news a really good spot. if we take the -- >> what do you think electors who are going to meet on monday and are thinking of changing their votes, do you think they should be given an intelligence briefing about the russian activity or bear in mind everything you have said already, should they -- should votes be bound by the state votes as they've gone? and long-term do you think there is a need for electoral college reform that was tied to the popular vote. >> sounds like two but that was all one. >> you know the way that's goes. >> i love how these are asked. two questions, each one has four parts. >> on the democratic party you labor secretary is running to be the chair of the democratic national committee. is the vision you have seen million putting forward what the

party needs to focus on and what do you say to the complains that say the future of the democratic party shouldn't be a continuation of your political approach, part of that is complaints that decisions you have made as president of and leader of the party have structure walk ended the democracy party and let to in logses in elections do do you regret any decisions? that my question. >> got: i'll take the second one first. and say that tom perez has been, i believe, one of the best secretaries of labor in our history. he is tireless. he is wicked smart. he has been able to work across

the spectrum of labor, business, activists, he's produced and if you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he has push for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job. he has been extraordinary. now, others who have declared are also my friend and are fine people as well, and the great thing is i don't have a vote in this. so, we'll let the process unfold. don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. i described to you earlier what i think needs to happen, which is that the democratic party,

whether that is entirely through the dnc or through rebuilding of state parties or some other arrangement, has to work at the grassroots level, has to be present in all 50 states, has to have a presence in counties, has to think about message and how are we speaking directly to voters? i will say this -- and i'm not going to engage in too much punditry, but i i could not be prouder of the coalition i put together in my -- each of my campaigns. because it was inclusive. and it drew in people who normally weren't interested in politics and didn't participate. but i'd like to think -- i think

i can show that in those elects i always cast a broad net. always said, first and for most, we're americans, that we have a common creed, that there's more that we share than divides us, and i want to talk to everybody and get a chance to get everybody's vote. i still believe what i said in 2004, which is this red state, blue thing, is a construct. now, it is a construct that gotten more and more powerful for a whole lot of reasons, from gerrymandering to big money to the way that the media is splintered and so people are just watching what reinforces their existing biases as opposed to having to listen to different opinions of view. all kinds of ,

but outside of the realm of electoral politic is still see people the way i saw them when i made that speech. full of contradictions and -- some regional differences, but basically folks care about their families, they care about having meaningful work, they care about making sure their kids have more opportunities than they did. they want too feel safe and feel like things are fair, and whoever leads the dnc and any candidate with democratic brand going forward, i want them to feel as if they can reach out and find that common ground, speak to all of america. and that requires some

organization. and you're right, that -- i said this in my earlier remarks, that what i was able to do during my campaign, i one able to do during mid-terms. not that we didn't put in time and effort into. i spent time and effort in it. but the coalition i put together didn't always turn tout to be transferable. and the challenge is that -- some of that just has to do with the fact that when you're in the party in power and people are going through hard times like they were in 2010, they're going too punish to some degree the president's party, regardless of what organizational work is done. some has to do with deep-standing traditional challenges for democrats, like during off-year elections, the electorate is older and we do

better with the younger electorate. but we know those things are true, and i didn't crack the code on that. if other people have ideas about how to do that even better, i'm all for it. so, on your -- with respect to the electors, i'm not going wade into that issue because, again, if the american -- it's the american people's job and now electors job to decide my successor. it's not my job to decide my successor, and i have provided people with a lot of information about what happened during the course of the election, but more importantly, the candidates themselves i think talked about their beliefs and their vision for america. the president-elect has been

very explicit about what he cares about and what he believes in, and so it's not in my hands now. it's up to them. >> long-term about the. >> long-term about the electoral college, the electoral college is a vestige, a carryover from an earlier vision of how our first government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states and used to be that the senate was not elected directly, it was through state legislatures, and it's the same type of thinking that gives wyoming two senators senators ah about a half million people and california with the 33 million get the same two. so there are some struc