[danso]

TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to. I think Clinton eventually [0] took a public stance against the TPP, but ignoring the public's perception of her relation to the truth, she clearly did not prioritize the dismantling of TPP in the way that Trump did. In fact, it's really hard to imagine her undoing President Obama's work were she in office.

If someone believes international free trade is the cause of the gutting of American manufacturing and by proxy, local/regional economies, it's hard to argue that Clinton presented little more than nominal lip service to the cause, at least compared to the way that Trump and Sanders made it a core priority of their campaign and stump speeches.

[0] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trade-tpp-20160926...

[deeth_starr]

Well, rust-belt protectionism played a key part (NAFTA, TPP). I was a Bernie supporter and was really disappointed when Hillary didn't co-op Trump's working-class rhetoric or get energized to at least compete in that battlefield. This is what Bill excels at. Obviously she shut him out of the core team.

Also, she was not that compelling as a candidate. And had all those negatives that I won't go into. Most of them false. But still, why do you put up a establishment candidate on a change cycle (looking at you Wassermann and Brazille, core dems)?

Edit: I don't especially like TPP but I saw it as a strategic shift to Asia for the US. Now China will likely join a TPP-light and really benefit. For better or worse this is going to be a big change over the next 20 years.

[emodendroket]

Because everyone in the party agreed it was her turn.

[baytrailcat]

This has been proven true more than once. Whenever "their turn" candidates run, they loose. See Kerry, McCain, Romney. Socioeconomics aside, Americans love novelty. With Trump in power, the game has been elevated to a different level and I think none of leading Dem politicians can unseat him in 2020. After a sufficient time has passed, when his novelty has worn off, some red blooded alpha-male type has to burst into scene and start challenging him. I am looking at you, Jason Kander!

[bigtex]

Don't forget Bob Dole in 96.

[emodendroket]

You could go all the way back to Henry Clay if you want.

[rayiner]

> This is what Bill excels at.

Bill signed NAFTA, not to mention moved the Democratic Party to the right on many economic issues. He just looked cool doing it.

[deeth_starr]

I meant co-opting your opponents message.

[degenerate]

This Podesta email isn't one of the DKIM-signed ones, but it shows that Clinton was ultimately going to support TPP regardless of what she was saying:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6616

(note the email is from 2015)

As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office (PDF):

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...

[stephancoral]

>As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office (PDF)

Pretty easy to hit milestones when the goals are low. "Announce intent" and "Stop bill that was never going to pass congress" aren't exactly adroit acts of statesmanship.

[kafkaesq]

"Announce intent" and "Stop bill that was never going to pass congress" aren't exactly adroit acts of statesmanship.

OTOH "making a clear, simple statement about something that hits a raw nerve with tens of millions of working-class Americans -- but which Hillary won't touch with a ten-foot pole until way too late" matters a hell of a lot. And has a lot to do with how this man came to get as far as he has, so far.

[794CD01]

Better to under-promise and over-deliver.

[emodendroket]

TPP didn't look like a dead letter like a year ago though.

[zardeh]

No it doesn't, or at least not as far as I can read. A summary of that email is

> Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).

[polartx]

Handy having a plan with contingency for a 180 degree pivot on her position.

[lhc-]

It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.

[dv_dt]

Uh, huh, and was there evidence of planning with regard to what to do with trade with those nations should she not sign the TPP?

[koolba]

> It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.

The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.

[tinus_hn]

>The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.

Sounds like direct democracy to me! She's following the will of the people!

[danso]

"Contingency" was exactly the word I was thinking of. From the LA Times article I referenced, here is one summarization of her publicly stated opposition:

> “I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of State,” she said in a statement. “But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it.”

Of course Clinton, nor Obama, would sign a trade agreement that wouldn't be a "fair" agreement. But "fair" is not binary. Clinton could just as easily sign the bulk of the agreement as president after she claims that her advisers have negotiated for some concessions to make TPP more "fair". But Trump from the very start said he was going to kill it.

As another example, Trump, and every other politician, has been following the popular sentiment that drug companies (e.g. Shkreli, Epi-Pens, etc) shouldn't be gouging people on life-saving drugs. There's a lot of strong ways to criticize drug companies, and every politician does it because it means free positive press. But Trump outright said in his last president-elect presser that drug companies were "Getting away with murder." [0]

With healthcare in general, it remains to be seen if his promised reforms are going to be a net benefit. Or whether killing free trade will be a net benefit, for that matter. But Trump at least states his views in clear terms. Again, not saying that that's ultimately a great way of governance (massive government decisions and policy are a work of process and compromise), but hey, that's the kind of personality people say they want in their politicians.

[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-drugpricing-idUS...

[anigbrowl]

it remains to be seen [...] whether killing free trade will be a net benefit

Sure, if you hate reading history books. The thing is, we actually have quite a lot of evidence about matters of international trade already which one side in this debate consistently ignores in favor of hypotheticals.

[hyperbovine]

I personally prefer having somebody in office who(se staff) plans for unlikely scenarios as well as likely ones.

[anigbrowl]

Keeping your options open is sound strategy because humans are imperfect at predicting the future and frequently overestimate their intellectual acumen. Why wouldn't you want a fallback position in case your first plan didn't work out?

[deeth_starr]

Look, this email is pretty typical for political operatives of every campaign. You would see much uglier stuff (I think) if you saw the emails of Trump operatives (graft, self-dealing, calling voters idiots where you could shoot someone on 5th st, etc).

TPP was an easy call. For NAFTA he's going to pull some Carrier renegotiate bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. It's too big to kill. Maybe over 10 years. Maybe.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/08/news/companies/carrier-jobs-...

Don't get me wrong I like protecting jobs in the US and have been very pro-US made. But Trump is not that and is just turning the steal-from-middle-class dial up to 11.

[burkaman]

Following through on your promises is not a good thing if you make bad promises. People who voted against him did so because of what he promised to do, not because they didn't think he would deliver.

[dragonwriter]

> This Podesta email isn't one of the DKIM-signed ones, but it shows that Clinton was ultimately going to support TPP regardless of what she was saying:

No, it doesn't show that at all. It shows that staff had done some preparatory work on the explicitly-uncertain assumption that an ongoing discussion would end up a particular way. Which clearly shows that, at least as far as the author of the email was concerned, what Clinton would end up doing was unknown.

[hackuser]

> As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office

What does this have to do with the discussion? It seems to be purely political advocacy. Personally, I'd prefer we not have it on HN.

[noobermin]

I am not for Trump and will actively protest him, but what "degenerate" pointed out is completely relevant to the discussion.

[hackuser]

How?

[noobermin]

The discussion is that US pulls out of TPP...because Trump promised it and he initiated it.

[dragonwriter]

No, the US never joined the TPP because that would have taken Congressional action that never occurred.

Trump made it clear that he wasn't going to change the status quo, but painting it as a change to the status quo is false.

[hackuser]

But what does Trump's PR about his workers program and now much as been accomplished have to do with it? It's just political promotion.

The first part of the comment in question seems fine; the last is an ad for a politician.

[slg]

>TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to.

It also helped define Trump's campaign because like a lot of issues his stance on it had little relation to the actual facts. TPP had plenty of problem that made it overall a bad agreement. Opposing it was generally smart. However, there was no indication that such a deal would have harmed the US economy. There is also wide consensus among economists that free trade benefits the nation at large. It isn't the fault of the economists that this country does a bad job of sharing the benefits of such deals with the entire population.