Pundits, NAFTA, IWR, Wall Street, and Electability.

[DanTex]

This year, all the pundits that got 2016 completely wrong are saying that nominating Warren or Bernie would be a disaster, and we should go with Biden or Bloomberg instead. Why? Because those pundits still don't get the unpopularity of things like NAFTA, IWR, and Wall Street.

It's a simple fact that starting in 2004, no Dem with a record of being pro-NAFTA or pro-IWR or having close Wall Street ties, has won the presidency. Obama had none of those when he ran. Kerry and Clinton had all three. In 2000, before IWR, Gore had two out of three.

And why don't pundits get that? Pundits, unlike most voters, still think NAFTA and trade agreements are great. Pundits got IWR wrong back in 2003, and don't see that as a big deal. And pundits hang out in Wall Street circles.

The most important thing is beating Trump. We need candidates who will win. Picking a candidate with a record of being pro-NAFTA, pro-IWR, or having close Wall Street ties is a very risky proposition.

[showblue22]

1. Bernie is wrong about NAFTA and TPP

Now that more data is out about what really is the cause of people losing their jobs I welcome the debate. Especially since Bernie's trade policies are basically Trump's and are not working out well.

[DanTex]

3. Maybe, maybe not. But voters, especially in industrial swing states, agree with Bernie.

When factories move abroad, people who get laid off don't tend to dig into piles of data. How much NAFTA is to blame is debatable, but whether it's popular in Michigan is not debatable.

[showblue22]

5. I think People now know

what they did not know in 2016. I think it's why Bernie isn't humping the issue like he was in 2016. Remember? He was yelling 'NAFTA" at every rally back then. He doesn't do that anymore.

[redstateblues]

31. Manufacturing is not coming back to those states. If he tells them it's coming

he's not telling the truth.

[PETRUS]

14. US employment levels is only one reason to object to the global trade regime

There are other problems with the system in place (and deals like NAFTA and the TPP). But on the job loss front, while trade isn't the only reason (e.g. automation has also played a role), it has had a major impact. The cumulative US trade deficit in goods since 1995 is close to $14 trillion dollars. You can't tell me with a straight face that producing even a portion of that domestically wouldn't have required more labor.

[showblue22]

15. USA loves cheap things from China and others

I mean, poor folks here in USA rely on cheap products from China.

[PETRUS]

17. That response suggests there is much you do not understand.

I'm not sure I have the patience to explain it in detail. But I'll leave you with these thoughts: In real terms, goods from China are not cheaper. For several years, my job involved arranging production of consumer goods. I used Chinese factories often. They were less efficient that their US equivalents (more resources consumed, more labor involved), plus I was shipping raw materials halfway around the globe, then back again as finished products. This cost me (or more accurately, my employer) less money than doing it here, but it was hardly "cheaper" in the most meaningful sense of the word. Currency management is a part of the explanation, as are various forms of arbitrage, as well as the market's inability to account for externalities. We're living in a world engineered to benefit a minority of the population.

[guillaumeb]

28. Wages for working families have been essentially stagnant for over 40 years.

And that is a huge reason that workers buy cheaper goods.

And while these wages have stagnated, the rich get richer and richer.

[PETRUS]

32. That's another point.

Lower prices don't help if wages are also lower. It's the relationship between the two that matters.

[guillaumeb]

33. Exactly.

And we all know that demand drives supply, not the reverse. Low wage workers can only shop for cheaply made products.

[octoberlib]

24. The steel industry and farmers have been hit hard due to tariffs.

Farmers are declaring bankruptcy and committing suicide. Tariffs are basically taxes on consumers.

[R B Garr]

2. You were a Hillary supporter and switched to Bernie. You keep trying to conflate the Democratic

primaries with the GE.

Republican's supported Bush's Iraq war.

Republican's supported senior Bush's NAFTA.

No offense, but it does seem like you took a long break from politics between elections, and that is completely understandable. Your takes don't really match what voters opted for.

You don't acknowledge the 2018 Blue Wave where voters chose more moderate Democrats and rejected Bernie's revolution. You are trying to isolate Bernie's talking points into every election, and it's just not working.

[DanTex]

4. Yes. And I got 2016 just as wrong as the pundits.

Now we have more data.

[R B Garr]

6. No offense, but you have gotten a lot more wrong than 2016. It's just an observation

based on your attempts to force Bernie's talking points into every election way before 2016.

It seems like you've taken a long break from politics, which is understandable. I would think most people do that. But you don't even seem to be aware that the 2018 Blue Wave was dominated by "centrist" Democrats. Not Bernie's revolution. So your lack of awareness about that is odd, or you think that ignoring it will help. But it doesn't really help in the long run because your takes are off unless you consider what voters actually opted for and that's where the Bernie talking points don't fit, sorry.

[DanTex]

7. Your personal attacks are great and all, but the fact remains.

No Dem with pro-IWR, pro-NAFTA, or close to Wall Street has become president.
Obama, with none of those things, did become president.

This is not about your opinion of me. It's about defeating Trump.

[R B Garr]

8. Observing that you are omitting large portions of news cycles that are common knowledge

now is certainly not an attack. It's like saying that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. They didn't do that, and repeating it doesn't make it true. Sorry, that was an Animal House reference, but it seemed to fit this circumstance. Yes, Pearl Harbor got bombed, but the Germans didn't do it.

You keep trying to conflate the Democratic primary with the GE. GOP voters don't care about Bernie's talking points. Bernie was defeated in the last primary despite his repeated Iraq and NAFTA talking points. GOP voters supported Bush's Iraq war. GOP voters supported Bush senior's NAFTA.

[DanTex]

9. The general election is what matters, in the end.

That's where every previous pro-IWR, pro-NAFTA and Wall Street connected candidate has lost to a Republican.

You're right. Such candidates can and have won the primary. It didn't end well. That's the whole point.

We don't want to nominate the kind of candidate that can win a primary but not the general election.

[R B Garr]

11. No, the whole point is that you are cherry picking Bernie's talking points that failed

in the Democratic primary and incorrectly assigning those rejected issues on to our GE candidates. It's very self-serving to the current war on "centrists", but it really has no actual application or relevance to what voters actually opted for, sorry.

[DanTex]

19. You seem to think that changing one's views in the face of new evidence is a bad thing.

I know a lot of Clinton 2016 supporters who are now choosing between Warren, Bernie, or Yang. Because a lot of Clinton 2016 supporters (like me) were on board not because she had better policies than Bernie, but because people thought she was the most electable.

For people like that, the general election in 2016 was a wake-up call. Voters cared more about things like IWR and NAFTA than pundits thought. Centrism wasn't as appealing as pundits thought. The most qualified candidate in history lost. The guy who nobody thought had a chance, either for the nomination or for the GE, won. Even Bernie's 2016 primary run surprised everyone. Pundits thought he was another Kucinich, and wouldn't get past 10%.

So, yeah, in 2016 I was for Clinton, and now I'm leaning towards the more progressive/nonestablishment candidates: Bernie, Warren, and Yang. I change my views in the face of new evidence. That's called being rational.

[R B Garr]

20. Let's face it, you are just adopting Bernie's talking points and repeating them without any context

into what actually happened. "concern" about the IWR and Iraq. Bernie lost the primary, so your take on what Democrats went for is completely false. The results show you what mattered to them, and Hillary won -- by millions.

Your statement: "centrism wasn't as appealing". The Blue Wave of 2018 contradicts you. Voters went for more centrists. Bernie's revolution lost.

Bernie lost the primaries; Bernie's revolution lost in 2018.

Those are the facts. Those are the election results.

edit: Hillary was attacked by 3 opposition campaigns. You keep ignoring very real news cycles that have occurred the last few years, so that's why I've thought maybe you took a break from politics.

[DanTex]

21. I'm making a rational case for electability. Call it what you will, but you ignore the facts.

Bernie did lose the primary. Then Hillary lost the general. And IRW and NAFTA played heavily, as did Wall Street connections.

You can deny that all you want. You can call them "Bernie talking points." But those are facts. Nobody thinks that Hillary is president right now.

Attacking me personally or accusing me of changing my mind in the face of evidence doesn't change those facts either.

[R B Garr]

22. Actually, you are the one inoring the facts. Your changed opinions aren't fact.

Your analysis can't be that strong, though, if you refuse to acknowledge proven common knowledge of what transpired in the primary and election and just choose to adopt new talking points.

You have a new distraction with Iraq and NAFTA, but Bernie lost the primary despite his obsession with those talking points. Other Democrats over a decade and half have won the Democratic primary despite Iraq and NAFTA, so it's not even a relevant connection to say that Democrats lost to Republicans over Iraq and NAFTA. GOP voters didn't object to Bush's Iraq war. GOP voters supported senior Bush's NAFTA.

[DanTex]

23. My changed opinions are based on facts that weren't available previously.

The "proven common knowledge" is that Hillary lost the 2016 general election, and that during that campaign the issues of IWR, NAFTA, and Wall Street played heavily. Are you denying this? What part?

[R B Garr]

25. You refuse to acknowledge the 2018 Blue Wave that completely contradicts

the war on centrists. Voters preferred more moderate Democrats and rejected Bernie's revolution. Those are the facts; those are the election results.

That's just for starters.

Ah, lol, Trump copied Bernie's talking points. Trump is a con man. Goodness, is this what this is coming down to?? LOL,

BTW, Clinton WON. So here's another part you refuse to acknowledge: Russian interference helped Trump, Bernie, and Stein. No offense, but just repeating falsehoods is what the tactics against Hillary looked like: amplify smears against her.

Seriously, your takes don't incorporate even the most basic of news cycles from the last few years.

[DanTex]

26. That was a midterm, which as everyone knows, is totally different dynamic.

Come 2022, the 2018 midterms would be a fine thing to look at to help decide what kinds of candidates we should run in which districts. So would, say, 2010 midterms, where the same kinds of candidates resulted in catastrophic losses at all levels. Midterms generally go against the incumbent president. But yeah, by and large, I do agree with the strategy of running more centrist candidates in centrist districts, and progressive candidates in Blue districts.

But midterm strategies are besides the point, because this isn't a midterm. This is about a presidential election. For that, it's (obviously) much more pertinent to look at what happens in presidential elections.

BTW, Clinton WON. So here's the other part you refuse to acknowledge: Russian interference helped Trump, Bernie, and Stein. No offense, but just repeating falsehoods is what the tactics against Hillary looked like: amplify smears against her.

Clinton obviously did not win. She won the popular vote, but not the EC. Basing any primary analysis on the assumption that Clinton won and is currently president is an extremely bad idea.

Of course there was Russian interference and all the other factors. You think that's not going to happen again this time? That's another really poor assumption to make. Of course there will be.

I would like to see the Dems actually win the presidency this time. And by win, I mean get inaugurated as president next January. That's why I recommend trying something different than the strategy that didn't win us the White House in 2016.

[R B Garr]

27. The Blue Wave completely contradicts you. Now you are throwing in "dynamic" as if that excludes

the rejection of Bernie's revolution. Once again, your takes completely ignore what the news cycles reported for literally years. There was lots of news about the midterms and how Sanders' Justice Democrats and others were primarying more centrist candidates, and the centrists won. That's it. That was the news. Those were the results. You don't even seem to be aware of those common knowledge election results and the stories that led up to them.

It seems you are just riffing, which is understandable in a lot of ways because you have adopted Bernie's talking points and you want everything to fit into those points, but there are a lot of actual elections results and news cycles that you are omitting.

And no one said Clinton was president. Lots of news cycles, literally years worth of news analyzed the 2016 election, and it is proven fact what happened. She had 3 opposition campaigns running against her. She did very well considering that level of sabotage.

[DanTex]

29. Again, that was a midterm. 2016 was a presidential election.

Sure, people who think apples are oranges might buy into your story. But, you know, since we have actual presidential elections to compare to, obviously that's much more informative. And like I said, no Dem who was in favor of IWR has ever won the presidency.

Midterms are lower turnout, there's nobody at the top of the ballot, they usually go against the party with the presidency, it's really about swing districts and less about base turnout, etc. Again, everyone knows this. Sure, some people who voted for IWR, or NAFTA, or with Wall Street ties, can win in certain swing districts. Winning the presidency is a different thing. As we've seen.

You are right, Clinton did do very well considering the sabotage. There's going to be sabotage again this year, it's already started. I don't want a candidate that does very well considering. I want a candidate that wins.

[R B Garr]

30. A midterm is still an election. If midterms don't matter, then neither does AOC.

But, no offense, you don't even take into consideration the news cycles about the 2016 election since you've adopted Bernie's talking points after you switched from Clinton. You just have your own narrative that is separate from actual news cycles and voter results.

Your desire to repeat Iraq/NAFTA/Wall Street is straight from Bernie's talking points, but really were defeated in 2016 and in 2018. Democrats didn't prioritize those talking points, and no matter how much you keep typing it, those issues did not take priority with voters. Sorry. Voters preferred more mainstream candidates.

[DanTex]

35. Of course they matter, as does AOC.

They're just not good indicators of what happens in presidential elections. That goes for AOC as well as any pro-life, or pro-war, or Social Security cutting centrist Dem that won in a red district.

Again with the personal attacks. I'm just stating facts. You're the one failing to acknowledge the facts. Hillary did, in fact, lose. She was pro-IWR and pro-NAFTA, and had close Wall Street ties. And those things did come up, a lot, in the general election campaign.

You dismiss those as "Bernie talking points" and then level ad-hominem attacks at me. I suspect the reason that you won't acknowledge the facts is that there is no answer. It's easier to dismiss than to acknowledge.

Voters who don't like NAFTA, IWR, or Wall Street don't care if those are "Bernie talking points" or not. Calling those things "Bernie talking points" didn't put Hillary in the White House.

[R B Garr]

36. It certainly isn't an attack to notice that your posts do not

match current news cycles of what actually happened. Obviously you chose to omit certain facts and events and instead opt for the Bernie buzz words.

Just random words and phrases don’t reflect what the news cycles have told us. You are trying to pretend that the GOP cares about Bernie’s talking points, but they don’t. The GOP supported Bush’s war. The GOP supported senior Bush’s NAFTA.

You refuse to acknowledge the 2018 Blue Wave which completely nullifies your theories. If the Blue Wave is irrelevant, then so is AOC. That’s how silly it is for you to ignore the Blue Wave.

Hillary won the primary, so your take on what Democrats wanted doesn’t match that win. LOL Wall Street.

[redstateblues]

34. There was a huge turnout in 2018. Did any of the "Our Revolution" candidates win?

That was a definite rebuke of Bernie.

[MineralMan]

12. I agree. That is why I am supporting Joe Biden.

As you said:

"We don't want to nominate the kind of candidate that can win a primary but not the general election."

[Sloumeau]

10. You wrote:

The most important thing is beating Trump. We need candidates who will win. Picking a candidate with a record of being pro-NAFTA, pro-IWR, or having close Wall Street ties is a very risky proposition.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported NAFTA, and they both won two terms and were successful Presidents. They also received a lot of funding from Wall Street. The financial sector was Obama's single largest contributor. Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA, the IWR, and received money from Wall Street, and she got about 2 million more votes than Trump. I do not think that support for those positions is the death sentence that you seem to think that it is.

[DanTex]

13. Obama campaigned against NAFTA in 2008. It was one if the big issues.

Once he became president, yes, he become more pro-free trade. And yes he appointed Wall Street connected people to his administration. But Obama the candidate was not pro-NAFTA and wasn't particularly close to Wall Street. Part of that is just that he hadn't been in the Senate for very long, so he couldn't be pinned down to being close to anything.

You're right about Bill Clinton, he was definitely pro-NAFTA and also close to Wall Street. That was the last time a Democrat like that has won a presidential election. And, since then, Democrats have been running away from votes and policies from the Clinton years, whether it's NAFTA, welfare reform, financial deregulation, crime bill, etc. Clinton was the high-water-mark for that sort of centrist Dem. Since then, Dems that have followed his centrist ideology have lost presidential elections.

[Sloumeau]

16. The Democrats have won the popular vote for President in six of the last seven elections.

In all of those elections, the Democrats took money from Wall Street. As far as NAFTA, Obama was critical the specifics of NAFTA agreement itself, but supported Free Trade overall, which you can see here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-obama-trade/obama-targets-nafta-but-says-supports-free-trade-idUSN2414727720080225

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/241704-obama-all-in-on-free-trade

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/23/obama-defends-free-trade-push-to-supporters-this-isnt-nafta/

Even though Obama was critical of the specifics of NAFTA, he made no effort to make any changes to NAFTA, as you can see here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21nafta.html

Of the last seven candidates who ran for President, one or two may have been critical of NAFTA itself, but all have supported the idea of Free Trade in general, and Obama never bothered to make any changes to NAFTA, meaning he did not think changes to NAFTA were as badly needed as other things, like fixing the economy and health care.

In 2008, we had a choice between John McCain who supported the Iraq War at first and Barack Obama who never even had to vote on the Iraq war because he became a Senator after the Iraq war had started. After the Republican Convention in 2008, John McCain was leading in the polls. McCain was primarily sunk by two things--the crash of the economy, and the fact that Sarah Palin was a moron. Neither of these subjects was about the Iraq War.

Trump won the electoral College in 2016, despite the fact that he initially supported the Iraq War, and he was opposed by Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War Resolution--and got 2 million more votes than he did. You may think that support for the IWR may preclude someone from getting to the White House, but it is only one of a number of factors, and it seems to be down the list of things that determine who ends up in the White House.

[DanTex]

18. Yes. The Electoral College is a problem.

It should be gotten rid of, of course. Until then, we need to win the EC.