Wednesday Open Thread [4.27.16]
Hillary Clinton reached out to Bernie Sanders in her Philadelphia victory speech tonight in an effort to begin to bridge the gap between their two campaigns.
“And I applaud Senator Sanders for challenging us to get unaccountable money out of our politics, and giving greater emphasis to closing the gap of inequality and I know together we will get that done,” she promised. “Whether you support Senator Sanders or you support me, there’s much more that unites us than divides us,” she added. Clinton then outlined some of those issues where we are united. “We all agree that wages are too low and inequality is too high. That Wall Street can never again be allowed to threaten Main Street. And we should expand Social Security, not cut or privatize it.”
Bernie Sanders, for his part, was also conciliatory and realistic as to the goals of his campaign going forward. From a statement released to the press last night:
“I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come. […]
“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.”
I am fine with all that. Fight for the Platform. I really have never viewed the Sanders presidential campaign as a campaign to elect Bernie Sanders President. Rather, it really was a campaign to keep the Democratic Party in the progressive column. Indeed, Hillary and Bernie might make a good team going forward. No, not as a ticket. That is a demotion for Sanders to be her VP. No, Bernie can use his position in the Senate to advance the progressive agenda while working with Hillary Clinton on issues where they agree with each other and can get things done. Bernie will keep the party anchored to the left.
A new Rocky Mountain poll in Arizona shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump in a general election matchup, 42% to 35%. In contrast, Ted Cruz would beat Clinton, 43% to 38%.
Ben Cohen says Bernie Sanders has changed American politics for the better:
Barring a miracle, Bernie Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination. While this may seem like the end of the world for the legions of his supporters, to the contrary, it is actually the beginning of something much bigger.
I believe the trajectory of Bernie Sanders has redefined American politics in such a way that will shift the future of the country in a very positive way — a victory that goes much further than the presidency.
Today, the Washington Post reported on a very interesting poll that showed just how deeply committed to Sanders millennials are…. but more likely an indication of just how liberal the next generation of Americans really are:
The data, collected by researchers at Harvard University, suggest that not only has Sanders’s campaign made for an unexpectedly competitive Democratic primary, he has also changed the way millennials think about politics, said polling director John Della Volpe.
“He’s not moving a party to the left. He’s moving a generation to the left,” Della Volpe said of the senator from Vermont. “Whether or not he’s winning or losing, it’s really that he’s impacting the way in which a generation — the largest generation in the history of America — thinks about politics.”
[…] More than anything, Sanders has propelled socialism into the mainstream and has injected the language of Occupy Wall St into public discourse — something that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago when Democrats avoided talking about inequality or increasing taxes like the plague. As the Washington Post report confirmed, the poll numbers show this is affecting the way young people think about these issues and specifically what the role of government should actually be.
Byron York: “What was once furious Republican opposition to Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the U.S. has turned to virtual silence in the face of widespread GOP voter approval.”
“Exit polls from the nation’s biggest Republican primaries show impressive majority support for Trump’s proposal. In the latest example, in Pennsylvania Tuesday, 69 percent of GOP voters said they support ‘temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S.’ In New York last week, the number was 68 percent.”
Dan Balz: “But there is more at work than just counting numbers. When Trump broke the 60 percent barrier in the popular vote in New York, it forced many Republicans to take notice and begin to acknowledge, if grudgingly, that he seemed more likely than before to prevail. That feeling could gather force on the basis of his powerful showing Tuesday night, when in state after state he rolled up huge margins.”
“Beyond his victories, there was evidence in the exit polls to suggest that the will among rank-and-file Republicans to stop a Trump nomination, even if he falls a bit short of 1,237 at the end of the primary race, might not be as strong as Cruz, Kasich and the GOP establishment would like to see.”
According to exit polling of Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut, more than 80% of Democrats said that they will support the Democratic nominee in the fall whether it is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. NBC News reported:
Despite the spirited and sometimes testy Democratic primary campaign, the vast majority of Democratic primary voters say they would vote for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders this fall, according to early results from the NBC News Exit Poll. Across the three states where NBC News conducted exit polls today – Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania – more than eight in 10 voters said they would definitely or probably support Clinton if she wins the nomination. Fewer than two in 10 said they would not. Similar numbers said they would support Bernie Sanders if he wins – about eight in 10. Just two in 10 said they would not.
John Judis has thoughts on Donald Trump’s chances in the fall:
One of the key voting blocs that has gone Democratic over the last fifty years is professionals. It’s a census category and after the November election, there will be surveys that will allow us to chart their vote, but in the meantime, you can get a rough estimate by looking at voters with advanced degrees. These are not the same as voters with the highest income. They make up about a fifth of the electorate nationally and close to a quarter or more in states like Maryland, Oregon, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Obama won these voters over Romney by 55 to 42 percent in 2012. If you look at the Republican primary results this year, they are the one group that Trump does not do well among. In Pennsylvania yesterday, Trump got only 38 percent of these voters. Kasich got 32 percent and Cruz 25 percent. And they made up 20 percent of the electorate. (By comparison, Trump got 70 percent of the voters who had no more than a high school diploma.) In Michigan, another swing state in November, Trump got only 23 percent of these voters and Kasich got 37 percent.
In a contest between Clinton and Trump, this group may flee the Republican party en masse. There is almost nothing that Trump is saying that will appeal to them. I would expect something like 60-40 or 62-38 percent margins. And that could make it very difficult for Trump in many swing states. And it could also hurt down-ballot Republicans in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Illinois where there will be competitive senate races.
From 29th @HarvardIOP poll of #Millennials:
TRUMP GETTING CLOBBERED BY CLINTON IN GENERAL, 61-25. #HarvardIOPPoll pic.twitter.com/2ss6GJfo10— John Della Volpe (@dellavolpe) April 25, 2016
Josh Marshall says the primary reached a fitting end last night:
Listening to Trump he was brimming with confidence (even for him) and totally coherent. His emphasis was very different. Trade. Stagnating wages. Clinton “destroyed this country economically” with NAFTA. The wall came up but it was an after thought. This is a powerful message, even if he may have no clear or plausible way to fix these problems. From anyone else, anyone without his mammoth negatives, this could be a potent center-right message.
But then at the end there it was. “I think the only card she has is the woman’s card. She’s got nothing else going. And Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5% of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card and the beautiful thing is women don’t like her, okay?”
You hear the first part and you think …well, maybe. And then, WOMP! No. The indiscipline and aggression is deep in the DNA.
Trump cannot help himself. And certain people should stop fearing him so much.
Markos Moulitsas says Hillary hasn’t won and Sanders hasn’t lost:
Now I understand the pain so many of you are feeling. I’ve been on the losing end of more campaigns than I care to remember. I’ve poured my heart and soul into so many losing battles, on behalf of so many candidates I admired and respected and fervently wished to get elected, that I know exactly how Sanders’ supporters are feeling right now. It’s a sickening, dark place, one that I don’t wish on anyone who isn’t a Republican.
If you are a Clinton supporter, have some damn compassion, will you? You haven’t won yet. The primary? Who gives a shit! Donald Trump will win his too, and has he won shit yet? The real winner will get crowned in November. That’s the victory that matters. Beating another Democrats shouldn’t bring you any joy unless that Democrat is Joe Lieberman.
So why would you piss on people we need for November, not just for the White House but all those downballot races as well. How well do you think Clinton will do with a Republican Congress? We need everyone we can get. So maybe it’s time for some olive branches?
Also, be impressed. It’s not every day we get to see the creation of a whole new class of people excited about politics. Hillary certainly didn’t manage that. So it behooves you to harness as much of that energy as possible. Of course, Sanders people won’t be as excited about Clinton as you are, but who cares? There are more Democrats on the ballot than Clinton, and some of them are pretty awesome. Help them get excited about fixing our party.
If you are a Sanders supporter, you haven’t lost yet. I don’t mean the presidential contest, that was always an uphill fight. Yet you guys fought despite an indifferent media, despite a hostile establishment, and despite people like me harping on the “math”, and you proved lots of people wrong along the way (including me). I’m not embarrassed or angry or annoyed. I’m excited and in awe of what you were able to accomplish, and I fervently hope that 1) you stay engaged inside the Democratic Party, because that’s how we improve it, and 2) that you maintain that energy for the November elections (and looking ahead at what will be a brutally tough 2018 cycle). See? That’s how much I don’t hate Sanders, despite some suggestions to the contrary. I want his influence to continue inside my Democratic Party, where it can make a difference.
I don’t care if you are excited about Clinton or not, she’ll be fine. I care that you get excited about Democrats down the ballot, about giving Clinton a Congress that will push her to the Left even when she might not want to. Clinton doesn’t get to pass a $15 minimum wage. Congress does. You want strong climate change legislation? We don’t have a dictatorship. Congress has to pass it.
But don’t make the mistake, either, of thinking that Clinton is the evil harpy of so many caricatures. She’ll do good things, she’ll do great things, and she’ll do shitty things. Our job will be to apply the same kind of pressure we’ve applied all these years of the Obama presidency. And no matter what she might do with the executive branch, all of that will pale to that single Supreme Court pick Republicans are hell-bent on giving her.
In case you haven’t noticed, as a Clinton supporter, I have taken my cue from Markos today.
Markos should have written that post a month ago. He (and DD) sounded just the opposite back then.
The race is on to see if Hillary can win over (some) Sanders supporters before Trump moves left to capture them instead.
DD, I love the open threads. But I hope they don’t become a daily routine of whistling past the graveyard with regard to Trump. The press loves the barbs, and the quirky anti-candidate Trump that comes through in his speeches, but the real text is the “preventing companies from moving jobs overseas” the “we are on the losing side of these trade deals.”
Clinton is vulnerable on economics, and as a wise Dem once said “It is the economy, stupid.” All of Clinton’s politics of inclusion will work fine for people who already like her. But the working/middle class is likely to go with the reality TV star who promises to reopen the town’s air conditioner factory.
Did I ignore it today? No. Read the Marshall piece.
Your love for Trump is getting tiring.
And Puck, if any Sanders supporter here or anywhere starts supporting Trump, I can tell you one thing, I will ban them here outright.
You Sanders support can never take an olive branch, can you?
While I don’t think that all of “the masses are asses” I think enough of them are that the Dems need to work, and work hard, to counter Trump’s message and to speak to the real concerns that some of those easily swayed have. Simply reminding people of his misogyny, while important, is not enough. Democrats must offer an alternative vision and alternative solutions to fear and “I’ll fix it.”
” if any Sanders supporter here or anywhere starts supporting Trump, I can tell you one thing, I will ban them here outright.”
The nation trembles under your mighty ban-hammer.
Thanks for the crumb. Your love of saying I love Trump is getting tiring.
Here is the problem with DD’s threats. Trump is right about free trade. Period.
We have been getting our asses handed to us, and NAFTA has hollowed out American manufacturing. These are simple facts. They don’t add up to me “loving” Trump – they add up to me having an interest in objective facts.
The trade treaties are one of many engines installed by the 1% to funnel wealth upward. Hillary is out of touch with that truth; some would say is up to her neck in it. Would I take a Trump opposed to the trade treaties over a Hillary complicit in them? No. Both would hurt but Trump will hurt more, not sure how much or how little more.
I “believe” in voting for Hillary (see how that works?)
jason here’s the thing. There are two possible outcomes in the General with Clinton v Trump. The first, and admittedly most likely, is that Clinton wins big. The second, however, is that Trump ekes it out in 2000-style (possibly even with hanging chads). I personally put the odds of the second as high as 1 out of 3, and potentially rising based on the way that both Trump and Sanders have been able to change the rules of the game, and the fact that what you will really have is Clinton the Democrat running against Trump the Independent (who will only really be using the GOP nomination for ballot access status).
The problem is that 1 out of 3 odds is way too high to confidently bet the Republic, and too many Democrats refuse to believe it could happen under any circumstances, and they get cranky about us talking about it because they think that talking about that kind of future helps create it rather than helping avoid it. I believe just the opposite.
Hasnt Jason said he’d support Clinton? I dont understand the back and forth. I think this is more about Captain America and Tony Stark than “you Sanders people”
Bringing up the very real issue of NAFTA hurting this country is one of those “keep questioning and demanding more of” things.
And it isnt a Republican talking point… It was THEIR IDEA. Clinton (Bill) was just the guy who signed it in to law… after talking about how great it would be… and taking full credit for it’s short-term successes… and having the First Lady stump for it. Jason (if you’ll allow me to say what you’re thinking… it being one of my former super powers) doesnt like Trump for bringing it up, but please dont ignore the fact that it WILL resonate with people. Every time Trump has said something that “conventional wisdom” suggests would end his campaign, it has only made him stronger. Ignoring that is denying that it is possible for Trump to win. As soon as that happens, he wins.
Anyway, I appreciate the olive branch. May all my attempts future to make the Nominee and the party more progressive always come across as genuine.
Steve, we are so on the same page.
If a ballot for Hillary comes to my desk, I will sign it.
(what – you were looking for a stronger committment?)
lol – You are so proud of yourself for having cracked the code. It is cute!
“No. Both would hurt but Trump will hurt more, not sure how much or how little more.”
Much, Much more. Think of how empower and emboldened Joe Arpaio would feel to have a Klansman in the white house. Trump just getting the nomination has already opened the floodgates and shown that blatant racists can win big.
“If you are a Sanders supporter, you haven’t lost yet. I don’t mean the presidential contest, that was always an uphill fight. Yet you guys fought despite an indifferent media, despite a hostile establishment, and despite people like me harping on the “math”, and you proved lots of people wrong along the way (including me). I’m not embarrassed or angry or annoyed. I’m excited and in awe of what you were able to accomplish, and I fervently hope that 1) you stay engaged inside the Democratic Party, because that’s how we improve it, and 2) that you maintain that energy for the November elections (and looking ahead at what will be a brutally tough 2018 cycle). ”
I send my silent prayer up to Superman that this comes to fruition…
Steve… First, appreciate your posts. Always nice to have an adult in the room to keep us juveniles grounded!
About the circa-2000 possibility… If it all played out exactly like Gore-Bush, how would the Supreme Court vacancy and the 4-4 ideological split impact things?
Speaking about cracking the code, see if you can spot the weasel words in this otherwise great-sounding committment from Hillary’s issues page:
“[Hillary will] Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age…”
dd: you would ban somebody for finding something good to say about trump? i personally can’t think of anything, but it’s amazing how fast some liberals adopt a totalitarian mindset.
Not super amazing if you’ve been here for a while.
Fine. I spoke too hot. I take that back. It is just infuriating how Hillary is going to have to fight the media, Trump, Republicans and her own fellow liberals to win this election. I expect that Jason will trash her through to November at every opportunity. I just have to ignore it.
The remedy is she has an epiphany on free trade. It could happen.
Pointing out her wrongness and her political weakness on trade is not trashing or bashing. It’s telling the truth and you think it’s hell. Hillary got the vetting everyone wanted but failed to develop a credible response to a valid challenge. Telling Trump to tone it down won’t cut it.
DD, what are your personal views on NAFTA? Not Clinton…. Bill or Hill, not Trump, not BernieBros.
IN a vacuum, NAFTA… what say you?
Because if you’re ok with it, we disagree, but at least I understand your reactions to it being brought up.
As an intellectual exercise, it is fun and important to debate about who has better ideas, who is better for America, what policies can realistically get through the system, and even who is the better and most pure progressive that deserves sainthood from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Progressive Church.
For me, who doesn’t belong to that church, it is about two things and two things only. The first is to ensure that someone lives in the White House that is qualified to govern effectively. The second is to ensure that the GOP does not get to live in the White House when we have a GOP Congress and when there are likely to be multiple vacancies on the Supreme Court.
And if someone thinks I don’t bleed enough for the little people, just imagine a GOP Congress, White House and Supreme Court. When there is a tsunami warning, dishing out food in the soup kitchen is probably not the best course of action.
Some may think I am overstating the threat. That I am an alarmist. But when you all are talking about whether Sanders supporters would vote for Trump, that’s the proverbial canary in the coal mine because even if you are not serious and are just being grumpy about the outcome, there are many other people who may be serious.
While many of you want a revolution, the Law of Unintended Consequences should inform you that you need to be careful about what kind of revolution you are going to get. Trump will lead a revolution. I’m not sure America will survive it.
Ben…. I’m a Fair Trader. I oppose absolutely free trade, and I oppose absolute protectionism. I do not share this universal antipathy to all trade deals. I want us to make trade deals as fair as possible with worker and environmental protections.
Having said that, my feeling on trade deals is kinda like resignation. Trade deals are just going to happen in this world. If you are against NAFTA, which is fine, what I need to know is what is the alternative theory? If NAFTA didn’t pass, are you saying all factories and jobs lost allegedly because of it are still here today?? I highly doubt it.
I dont think it is as simple as one thing or the other. Since everything has unintended consequences, you need to be ready to say “ok… this did some good in the short term, but had some undesirable long-term effects. Let’s find a way to keep the ship above water, while trying to fix these problems that arose because of the trade deal”. I think, for one, that FAIR trade should take precedent over FREE trade. I’m perfectly fine with a world economy, and while it is very attractive to move toward isolationism, you cant ignore that such a move would cause mass starvation around the world as American money evaporates…. and that’s with the pittance the working people in other countries actually see.
It isnt Bill Clinton’s fault that other nations dont have worker protection laws and use slave labor. It IS the future president’s responsibility to use the power of the American dollar to leverage influence on other country’s business practices. It is the responsibility of the next President to fight for trade laws that prevent mass lay-offs in order to fund a CEO bonus. I personally feel that much of this can be don’t simply by increasing tariffs and offering tax incentives to companies who keep a majority of their labor force in this country. I’ll gladly pay more for everything if I can be reasonably sure it wasn’t the product of exploitation.
It would be cool to have a discussion about NAFTA and it’s effects with links and data, rather than shorthand “everybody knows that NAFTA killed the American economy” assumptions. I haven’t gone back to look at the provisions in decades.
Anyone have any real analysis of what impact it has had economically to the three countries involved?
Exactly Ben. I agree. And I agree with Geek too
To lighten things up a bit…..Jimmy Fallon played the crazy Tom Carper clip in his monologue last night…got national attention……Funny stuff! Notice how Carper campaign not responding to any of the bizarre behavior…
prop joe–I did not mean the 2000 comparison that literally, but I did mean it coming down to a razor-thin possibly disputed edge in the last state.
“everybody knows that NAFTA killed the American economy” isn’t a mere assumption.
So we should analyze the nuances and resonant frequencies of the giant sucking sound?
You should at least provide a link that specifies what part of the agreement actually caused the sucking sound.
For example, one of the companies that I work for has outsourced a lot of their information workers (project managers, server admins, etc.) to Mexico. Is that because of a provision in NAFTA or the improvement of technology that allows fast connectivity between countries?
@J “The remedy is she has an epiphany on free trade. It could happen.”
Or that you will. It could happen.
Have you tried to look at this issue from a more global perspective (i.e. not just what’s best for just you)?
There is a bit of a straw man “everybody knows that NAFTA killed the American economy.” I’ve said time and again that NAFTA devastated American manufacturing, which is true on its face.
That tech jobs are going overseas now is interesting, and perhaps comeuppance, but not what I was worried about.
I have contempt for Democrats like Bill Clinton who think that America doesn’t need or want manufacturing jobs.
“Is that because of a provision in NAFTA or the improvement of technology that allows fast connectivity between countries?”
False dichotomy. NAFTA involved dissolving Mexican protectionism, which they gave up in order to remove US tariffs and other barriers to Mexican agriculture and to usher in the growth of maquiladoras, including your client’s IT shop.
North American trade has too many variables for me personally to track down each lost job or reduced wage to a specific page number in the treaty. I also think effective tax policy regarding foreign investment and outsourcing can cut through a lot of the negative effects of the trade treaties.
As an aside, I know at least two of my clients built data centers in Canada because their Canadian customers by law could not allow their data to be subject to provisions of the Patriot Act. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to use the existing US data centers.
So no link? Just “on its face”? I didn’t think that was how a fact-based argument worked.
It appears that the TPP, if approved, would replace many of the NAFTA provisions. It would be awesome if we had a real discussion about how NAFTA screwed US manufacturing rather than, for example, tax policy that allows companies to write down their tax bill with any “taxes” paid to foreign countries.
For reference, here’s a pretty graph:
http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.
Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.
Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.
Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
“But the evidence shows that the predicted surpluses in the wake of NAFTA’s enactment in 1994 did not materialize,” notes Robert Scott, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank in Washington,D.C.
What kind of evidence? “Jobs making cars, electronics, apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made,” says Scott. “By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 U.S. jobs, mostly (60.8 %) in manufacturing.”
“Have you tried to look at this issue from a more global perspective (i.e. not just what’s best for just you)?”
Have you looked at it yourself? Among the largest class of NAFTA victims were Mexican family farmers. Look it up.
Protective tariffs are fine in theory, but our Congress illustrates why the theory works so poorly in practice: The tariffs are seldom set based on rational goals, often set by special-interest lobbying. See the sugar tariff for an illustration. And our Congress is, theoretically, harder to bribe than those in other nations.
The threat of the TPP lies in granting broad grounds for corporations’ profits to supersede national sovereignty in the signatory countries, including ours. Look that up. It does that literally, so that if a nation passes an environmental law that hinders, say, a mining operation, that corporation could (most likely would) demand compensation for lost profits.
I have no intention of just shrugging my shoulders in resignation at that, as a commenter above has. These deals are not inevitable, and some of the conservative Trump supporters are against it for their own reasons.
http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Many trade experts say that in the long term, free-trade deals such as NAFTA produce benefits despite some painful short-term costs such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders. But according to at least one major study, the benefits are limited. The Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA’s economic consequences in 2003, and concluded that:
U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA’s implementation, and would likely have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that “dwarfs the effects” of NAFTA itself;
the direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small, and thus the direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small; and
overall, the NAFTA deal has only expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) “very slightly,” with a similarly small and positive effect on the Canadian and Mexican economies.
The solutions suggested are interesting. Which one is Trump?
In defense of fearing Trump: It’s not just trade. Trump’s supporters — he got 70 percent of those with no education beyond high school — also interpret his talk of a military so powerful nobody would attack us as less hawkish than Clinton, who they think (perhaps thinks is the wrong word) is therefore anti-war.
If you view the election through a populist lens, that’s two big issues on which Trump is seen as having the more populist position (seen to, as opposed to really having, since he has no real positions). “She’ll enrich Wall Street and take us to war” is a solid base on which to build negative advertising aimed at young males.
For those who believe she already has turned aside every possible attack, when did she face charges from the opposition that she’s a war-hawk? Never, I think, because everyone in the GOP but Trump is hawkish too. What if he really scrambles the chessboard and starts attacking her strong support of Netanyahu? That would become another area of vulnerability. The same cohort that hates minorities here might be willing to add anti-Semitic sentiment to their portfolio. The Israel support among conservatives comes from evangelicals and war hawks (and there are more of the former than the latter), and as we have seen they no longer make up more than half the GOP electorate.
Trump is the one thing traditional political campaigns have trouble with — unpredictable. Traditional campaigning involves tying the opponent to things voters dislike. That’s more difficult when that opponent abandons positions and adopts new ones several times a week. Countering it will not be impossible, and this Clinton campaign team seems much stronger than ’08, but it will present a challenge.
Envision the debates. Hillary is a grinder. Give her time to prep and she destroys her opponents. See the marathon Benghazi grilling for an example. Her challenge will be thinking fast enough to keep up with Trump’s wordstream, which has the speed advantage of not going through his brain’s verbal filter. Though she is the better candidate by an absurdly large margin, can he rattle her into what the media will tout as a “game-changing gaffe”? It’s possible.
Clinton vs. Trump is a choice between civilization and chaos. The surprise of this cycle has been the sheer number of people, including some (not all) Sanders supporters, who are embracing the promise of chaos.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp
U.S. economic winners and losers under NAFTA vary with company size, type of industry or sector, and geographical location. Sectors affected positively include planes, trains and automobiles, large agri-businesses, appliance makers and energy corporations. Clearly, large multi-national companies with investment capacities, world-market savvy and capital resources have benefited from protected investment and cheap labor. These companies enhanced management performance-based compensation while putting downward pressure on production-worker wages and benefits, collective bargaining clout and available jobs, especially in manufacturing. Many view their actions as a major contributor to compensation inequality. (To read more about how income inequality is determined, and its importance, read The Gini Index: Measuring Income Distribution.)
With their lack of internal resources, small regional businesses are not offered the same opportunities by NAFTA, and in fact, the agreement makes them more vulnerable to the concentrated local effect of a multi-national competitor. U.S. manufacturing, often in concentrated geographical areas, suffered large business and job losses as NAFTA cast a shadow over any labor-intensive process that is not highly automated.
Read more: NAFTA’s Winners And Losers | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp#ixzz472zU65zK
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Why aren’t any of you focusing on the clear and ominous economic threat of TPP which if/when approved will allow non-signer China to provide a monopoly of slave-wage, environmental and health destroying manufacturing capabilities to the other 11 countries who can sell the finished products here with no repercussions written into the treaty. This agreement is more threatening to the economy and jobs and planet than any “gold-standard” trade agreement ever written. I confirmed these facts with Obama’s deputy trade official in Seattle before the NCSL resolved to oppose TPP. Malaysia’s significantly horrid human-rights record forbade them from being a negotiating partner until our own state department upgraded their human-rights rating from a 3 (murder nuns and activists in the street) to a 2 (murder them behind closed doors) to allow them into the negotiations. More info if you wish but everything about it is disgraceful and economically immoral. We can also discuss Dupont and Johnson Controls construction of brand new manufacturing facilities in China with absolutely no tariff or trade restrictions in play.
Representative John Kowalko
If you want an idea of why Hillary’s hawkishness so troubles some progressives, the Times ran an interesting piece on the evolution of her foreign policy positions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0
Here’s a sample:
A foreign policy strategist who advised Clinton on Pakistan and Afghanistan at the State Department told the Times “Hillary is very much a member of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment.” Like Reagan and Kennedy, Clinton fervently believes “in asserting American influence.”
The strategist added: “Her affinity for the armed forces is rooted in a lifelong belief that the calculated use of military power is vital to defending national interests, that American intervention does more good than harm and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as Bush once put it, into ‘any dark corner of the world.’”
Also, for those who doubt the influence of her Republican upbringing, the Times says Clinton has long channeled the views of her father, “a staunch Republican and an anticommunist.”
That won’t bother some people, but it does others.
Also, for those who doubt the influence of her Republican upbringing, the Times says Clinton has long channeled the views of her father, “a staunch Republican and an anticommunist.”
And what is the source of that conclusion?
There’s a link above. Read it yourself.
I have no objection to Clintons views that the calculated use of military power is vital to defending national interests and really, who isn’t anti-communist? Obviously the key word is “calculated” which is not a euphemism for “cowboy.”
I did read the article:
” For those who know Clinton’s biography, her embrace of the military should come as no surprise. She grew up in the buoyant aftermath of World War II, the daughter of a Navy petty officer who trained young sailors before they shipped out to the Pacific. Her father, Hugh Rodham, was a staunch Republican and an anticommunist, and she channeled his views. She talks often about her girlhood dream of becoming an astronaut, citing the rejection letter she got from NASA as the first time she encountered gender discrimination. Her real motive for volunteering, she has written, may have been because her father fretted that “America was lagging behind Russia.”
There is NO source that states she channeled her father’s views.
I apologize for summarizing that paragraph in a way of which you disapprove. That was my interpretation of the information. Why is such information more authoritative if someone other than the author of the article says it? Would “reflects” make you feel better? Would you still balk at the obviousness of the conclusion?
I would offer that this is a distinction without a difference. The views are quite similar whatever the verb.
This is the sort of Hillary-protecting bullying I expect from the sort of Democrat you are. Weren’t you once a Republican?
“I have no objection to Clintons views that the calculated use of military power is vital to defending national interests”
Then you are an imperialist. “National interests” means “overseas corporate interests,” not “national defense.”
“really, who isn’t anti-communist”
I suspect you are thinking, as the writer shows Clinton is, of Soviet or Chinese communism. It shows a Cold War mindset. Actual progressives are not in favor of American military power being used to further corporate interests in other nations.
Those who want to dispute what progressives believe seem motivated by a desire to think of themselves as progressive without having to change any of their positions or beliefs.
“Then you are an imperialist. “National interests means “overseas corporate interests,” not “national defense.” ”
By whose definition? Did someone die and leave you as the authority what the definition of “national interests” is? In fact you are wrong by almost all authoritative accounts. Our national interests are vast and varied and includes the defense of other nations, protection of the Artic, and even protection of whales. There are many, many things that are in our national interest.
“I suspect you are thinking, as the writer shows Clinton is, of Soviet or Chinese communism. It shows a Cold War mindset.”
I suspect that I am using the actual definition of communism. You can look it up for yourself though.
“Actual progressives are not in favor of American military power being used to further corporate interests in other nations.”
First, who said I was in favor of using military power to further corporate interests? That’s based on your definition of our national interests which I already told you is incorrect.
Second, I’m not a progressive, which everyone here knows. I’m not even a Democrat (or a Republican for that matter).
Is access to Middle-East oil a national interest? I believe it is considered so. Is United Fruit a national interest? I believe it has been treated as one. Etc. I don’t know what you mean by “authoritative accounts.” Am I supposed to believe them instead of my lying eyes?
If you are expecting congratulations on our varied “national interests” being protected by force in your name, you are, as you acknowledge, no progressive, and are indeed an imperialist. So is Hillary Clinton, I believe.
If you reject all communism, then obviously not everyone agrees with you, starting with those in kibbutzim. You are the one who made the sweeping generalizations to start with, setting yourself up as arbiter. Why are your sweeping generalizations better than anyone else’s? I see nothing beyond conventional wisdom and defensiveness in your response. That is illustrated by your notion that we aim to “protect” the Arctic rather than exploit it.
For that matter, we still haven’t been told specifically how Ms. Clinton intends to “protect” Social Security. John Carney specifically says he is protecting it by calling for cuts in benefits. Do we know for sure she doesn’t think the same? Avoiding the Grand Bargain was a boon for Obama’s legacy. Must we sweat out eight more years with a president willing to negotiate that?
This is all in play because we were told that we would be treated like Republicans if we said certain things about Hillary Clinton. I want to know if we’re free to point out when she is the one acting like a Republican. I believe foreign policy is such an area, and see nothing in her defense positions that reflects anything progressive.
Those who doubt Hillary Clinton’s commitment to progressive goals have been repeatedly subjected to criticism for a lack of party loyalty. This blog does not include the name of a political party in its name. I would consider it a loss if it were to start acting as if it did, and I see that possibility in the so-called civil war as it has played out here and elsewhere in the progressive blogosphere.
Hillary’s plan to protect Social Security.
Not that a GOP Congress (or Carper or Coons) will go along with that plan, but there is a plan.
The common accepted meaning of communism is the Marxist kind. Kibbutzim do not meet that definition.
“Is access to Middle-East oil a national interest?” Yes, so what?
“Is United Fruit a national interest?” Maybe. Again so what?
As I said our national interests are diverse.
Here, since you wondered what Clinton would do to protect Social Security, I looked it up for you on her website using the Internet.
•Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
•Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
•Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
•Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.
Yes, I have read that already. “Oppose, oppose, oppose.” All defense. A little offense in expansion, but when you start negotiations from a defensive position, you must bargain chips away to get a deal, and she is running on her ability to get partial gains. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Even this document acknowledges the way to secure the program is to raise the income cap and apply the tax to other forms of income. But look at the language she uses in proposing these progressive 101 solutions:
“Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.”
ASKING them? I believe we have been asking them for some years now. “Options” to tax “some” of their income above the current cap? Why not all? Etc.
This is a legally trained person who chooses her words very carefully. I notice an attempt to avoid stepping on the toes of the wealthy here, an avoidance of the populist position.
This is the wrong election to avoid populist positions.
“Is access to Middle-East oil a national interest?” Yes, so what?
So you support American military action to secure access to raw materials? Wow. Even more imperialist than I thought.
Get back to me when you find your moral compass.
From rationalrevolution.net:
“Basic Communist ideology holds that the purpose of “the State” is to enforce social and economic disparity. According to Marxist thinking the State developed as a tool for a minority of people to oppress other people. Marxists contend that we are all naturally relatively equal, and that significant inequality among people can only exist through the use of State force. Historically the State has always been used as a means to support a wealthy and powerful minority. From the Sumerians and Egyptians to the British Empire and beyond, the traditional role of the State has been to protect the interests of the wealthy and facilitate wealth transfer from the working masses to the wealthy property owners, as Adam Smith noted.”
How does this analysis line up with what the Black Lives Matter movement is protesting against? So to say “really, who isn’t anti-communism?” shows that you’re still feeling the effects of Cold War propaganda.
“So you support American military action to secure access to raw materials? Wow. Even more imperialist than I thought.”
Come back sometime once you have a better grasp of the rules of inference and deductive reasoning.
I’m sorry, what did I miss? You approve of treating Middle Eastern oil as a national interest, you approve of using the military to protect national interests. Ergo, you approve of using the military to protect Middle Eastern oil. Perhaps there are circumstances under which you wouldn’t, but otherwise nothing you have said indicates you would rule it out. If that’s in error, kindly show me the error.
While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain how protecting Middle Eastern oil is not protecting corporate interests.
Anonymous-
1. Asking questions about sources is hardly bullying
2. I have NEVER been a Republican. I have always been a Democrat and was elected to office as a Democrat 4 times (once winning the R primary with a write-in). I was a Democrat councilman in West Chester for 3 terms and a Chester County judge (the only D at the time) for one term. I was county chair for Democrats Milton Shapp, George McGovern and Ted Kennedy. Those are my credentials. Yours?
3. The point is that a credible story requires sources that have FIRST HAND information-newspapers used to require two sources. The Time story that you seem to stress is a conclusion without sources. “Her father was an anti-communist and hawk, so she must be too”. My mother loved needlepoint-so does that mean I do too? The article would have credibility if there were sources who Hillary TOLD that her father’s politics influenced hers.
4. I write under my own name (so people like you can attack with misinformation. If you are so strong in your beliefs, use your own name.
Mitch, it seems that Hillary’s positions are always linked to the men in her life. We’ve come a long way, baby. *sigh*
so mitch crane is a party hack?
” My mother loved needlepoint-so does that mean I do too?”
@Mitch
Deductive (or any) reasoning ability doesn’t seem to be in evidence here. Best just to move on.
” My mother loved needlepoint-so does that mean I do too?”
No, but it means when somebody asks you “Do you like those needlepoint projects all over your house, or not?” you need to have a convincing answer one way or another.
The writer’s conclusion was based on the evidence provided by sources. The sentence would be an opinion no matter who said it, unless she said it herself. Does it really make a difference if that opinion were a source’s instead of the writer’s? This is what is meant by a distinction without a difference.
You are a party hack, and crying foul over what is not a foul is the sort of bullying I am expecting throughout this campaign and her tenure as president.
Yeah… there’s definitely a bully on this thread.
Mitch Crane asked a question he knew the answer to. His misconceptions about reporting aside, the statement obviously was an opinion, which was backed up by the copious evidence provided by sources.
He could have just challenged the statement, but he played it cute and clever instead.
Pointing out that a party functionary should be expected to bully people over what people here like to call “slander” is not bullying. But then you alter evidence to fit your preconceptions every day, so nothing new here.
@anonymous
“I’m sorry, what did I miss?” Quite a bit. But I attribute that to your youth.
“If that’s in error, kindly show me the error.” Sure, because I’m generally a kind person and today is Thursday.
Premise 1: You approve of treating Middle Eastern oil as a national interest
Premise 2: you approve of using the military to protect national interests.
Conclusion: Ergo, you approve of using the military to protect Middle Eastern oil.
You committed a syllogistic fallacy. Specifically, if one premise is particular, (that is, not universal) the conclusion is particular. Your major premise “you approve of using the military to protect national interests. “ must be universal and yours is not.
It’s an easy error to make. So don’t sweat it.