Part of the problem is that it has always been easy to demonise trade deals -- from Perot to Trump! A large part of the problem is that economics involved is complicated. The other is that impacts of trends that had little to do with the trade deals were attributed to the trade deals and very few people - especilally politicians were willing to speak against things that were just not true.
With Bernie, I have no doubt that he believes what he says and has said the same things for decades. Yet, I heard Jeffery Sachs, one of his economic advisers speaking of TPP after the election. His comment boiled down to the fact that the economic deal did increase the size of the "pie", BUT that there were still winners and losers -- and to be fair, some of the additional profits from the "winners" needed to taxed to keep whole the "losers' by improving options for replacement jobs. This is miles away from Bernie's own comments.
With HRC, it is particularly frustrating as the biggest accomplishment of her time as Secretary of State was a very ill defined pivot to Asia which TPP was the cornerstone of. (The clearest explanation I ever read was that Asia will be where many of the big economic gains will occur and power will shift there. The pivot was designed to improve our position and the positions of our natural allies there.) Anyone reading DU for as long as I did would have understood why HRC abruptly changed her position. The Democratic left was 100% against it seeing it as aiding international companies and Wall Street and hurting people.
My guess is that the primaries would have played out the same way had HRC continued her nuanced position that TPP was important, but that it might need some tweeks. (This (defined for whatever current treaty was discussed) incidentially has been the position of virtually every Democrat who has run since the 1990s.) Though I can't prove it, I would assume that almost anyone for whom this was a litmus test issue, already voted for Bernie. I doubt I am the only one who figured that HRC would back some way to pass TPP in the lame duck or in her Presidency if she won.
I also think that had she and her team worked to make the issue easy to understand, she would have been given credit for her intelligence, articulateness and her willingness to defend an unpopular position. Note that as Trump pushes on NAFTA - the pushback is that it would hurt many Americans, especially farmers, if it really was ended.
(To complete this, I have no idea what Trump really thinks and assume he has little idea what was in the treaty - just that Obama was for it.)
= new reply since forum marked as read