Americans Now Overwhelmingly Support Free Trade

[Bojack Horseman]

As I've said before, the best thing about the Trump presidency is that his voters are getting hurt the worst. All the union workers who voted for Trump got the 1920s protectionism they voted for and now they're losing their jobs because of it.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

People don't know what they want, and trade is an abstract issue to understand. That means it's particularly easy for the media to influence people's views at a given time. This isn't really news.

[Progressive Pessimist]

People don't know what they want, and trade is an abstract issue to understand. That means it's particularly easy for the media to influence people's views at a given time. This isn't really news.

That's a good point. Trade is so esoteric in the public's general knowledge of it, that our current President doesn't even understand it. I guess that, disturbingly, is why he is so relatable to many.

[Badger]

Well yah given just those two choices , obviously people will choose Free Trade . What we had with China WAS NOT Free Trade so yes its time for the US to take action and I would argue that Trump should go even further than he has. Mark Cuban suggested banning Chinese IPO's from being traded, we should threaten that at the very least .


Time for talks is over, China are 100% bad faith actors so it should be made clear that their will be no deal unless they agree to strict enforcement provisions.

Without addressing your underlying narrative for the moment, would you concede that Trump by, literally every single foreign policy decision and diplomatic blunder aplenty, has robbed us of allies willing to back us on trade issues? I mean, we drop out of the Paris Accords, drop the carefully negotiated Iran nuclear deal because essentially Obama bad, commits gross insults of just about every friendly foreign nation and Alliance we have outside of Israel, looks like a complete dolt and liar ( prime example just this past month when he claimed Modi had asked that he mediate between India and Pakistan), and we're supposed to expect our traditional allies to bite the bullet in a unified show of support against China because of World War II and the Marshall Plan?

Trump's America First has truly turned into Trump's America alone.

[Sumner 1868]

The masses support slave labor because of LoWeR pRiCeS? What a shock!

I guess I'm not surprised that Democrats are eagerly spouting recycled New Economy talking points, given they already done it before. I'm only surprised just how enthusiastic they've become about it. Probably because they are now the party of the rich.

[Badger]

The masses support slave labor because of LoWeR pRiCeS? What a shock!

I guess I'm not surprised that Democrats are eagerly spouting recycled New Economy talking points, given they already done it before. I'm only surprised just how enthusiastic they've become about it. Probably because they are now the party of the rich.

Careful on that edge

[Sumner 1868]

Have you seen exit polls in the past couple cycles, Badger? They are consistently winning voters with incomes over $250,000 a year - something they couldn't do in 2006! Orange County is now Democratic turf. And Clinton's biggest swings in 2016 were country clubs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/2016-electoral-map-trump-clinton-vote-precinct-2017-5

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

There's no denying Democrats have become the party of rich people.

[Badger]

Have you seen exit polls in the past couple cycles, Badger? They are consistently winning voters with incomes over $250,000 a year - something they couldn't do in 2006! Orange County is now Democratic turf. And Clinton's biggest swings in 2016 were country clubs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/2016-electoral-map-trump-clinton-vote-precinct-2017-5

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

There's no denying Democrats have become the party of rich people.

That's profoundly silly analysis on several levels. First off, you are making broad assumptions based on swings in precincts, not individual voters. Go ahead and Google exit polls 2016 and see where they split on income. Hillary won by substantial margin among low and lower middle-class income people. Even for people in the 200 to 250k plus income range has Hillary ran anywhere from approximately tied to slightly behind Trump depending on which exit polls you review.

The Democrats gains have been primarily based on the amount of Education one has, and running even among the $200,000 set Walt winning handedly among the poor and lower-middle-class hardly makes them " the party of the rich". And while yes the power of money and lobbyists affects the Democrats as well oh, nothing distinguishes them better than the lines that were drawn over the grotesque millionaire suckling text Bill that Trump and the Republicans rammed through Congress

And BTW, well yes Democrats did make inroads among upper middle class professionals turned off by the Republican parties no nothing attitudes towards science issues, Orange County didn't flip because millionaire started voting Democratic. It flipped because the Hispanic portion of the population has grown markedly, and Asian voters there have flipped en masse away from the Republicans in the era of trump.

[Sumner 1868]

That's profoundly silly analysis on several levels. First off, you are making broad assumptions based on swings in precincts, not individual voters. Go ahead and Google exit polls 2016 and see where they split on income. Hillary won by substantial margin among low and lower middle-class income people. Even for people in the 200 to 250k plus income range has Hillary ran anywhere from approximately tied to slightly behind Trump depending on which exit polls you review.

Precincts often tell more of the story then exit polls, actually. Particularly since this bracket is rather small. When golf courses that gave Romney two-thirds suddenly vote for Clinton, it sure shows were the wind is blowing.

Regardless, if we believe the NYTimes exit poll, Clinton carried the poorest voters with a pathetic 53%. That was ten points worse than Obama in 2012. Hardly overwhelming.

But the Trump-era results are the real eye-opener. Doug Jones won his seat on the votes of the over $250,000 crowd in 2017. And this pattern showed up in race after race in 2018 (aside from TX, but the evangelicals are a factor in that state, though even then Beto made huge gains in wealthy suburbs).

The Democrats gains have been primarily based on the amount of Education one has, and running even among the $200,000 set Walt winning handedly among the poor and lower-middle-class hardly makes them " the party of the rich". And while yes the power of money and lobbyists affects the Democrats as well oh, nothing distinguishes them better than the lines that were drawn over the grotesque millionaire suckling text Bill that Trump and the Republicans rammed through Congress

The GOP having it's same old donors doesn't change the jet set is now clearly swinging Democratic.

And BTW, well yes Democrats did make inroads among upper middle class professionals turned off by the Republican parties no nothing attitudes towards science issues, Orange County didn't flip because millionaire started voting Democratic. It flipped because the Hispanic portion of the population has grown markedly, and Asian voters there have flipped en masse away from the Republicans in the era of trump.

Science issues? What does that even mean? Sounds like a Bush-era talking point about stem-cell research (which apparently didn't offend these people at the time!)

Also, the precinct results show that the OC swing was basically across-the-board regardless of race.

[Badger]

That's profoundly silly analysis on several levels. First off, you are making broad assumptions based on swings in precincts, not individual voters. Go ahead and Google exit polls 2016 and see where they split on income. Hillary won by substantial margin among low and lower middle-class income people. Even for people in the 200 to 250k plus income range has Hillary ran anywhere from approximately tied to slightly behind Trump depending on which exit polls you review.

Precincts often tell more of the story then exit polls, actually. Particularly since this bracket is rather small. When golf courses that gave Romney two-thirds suddenly vote for Clinton, it sure shows were the wind is blowing.

Regardless, if we believe the NYTimes exit poll, Clinton carried the poorest voters with a pathetic 53%. That was ten points worse than Obama in 2012. Hardly overwhelming.

But the Trump-era results are the real eye-opener. Doug Jones won his seat on the votes of the over $250,000 crowd in 2017. And this pattern showed up in race after race in 2018 (aside from TX, but the evangelicals are a factor in that state, though even then Beto made huge gains in wealthy suburbs).

The Democrats gains have been primarily based on the amount of Education one has, and running even among the $200,000 set Walt winning handedly among the poor and lower-middle-class hardly makes them " the party of the rich". And while yes the power of money and lobbyists affects the Democrats as well oh, nothing distinguishes them better than the lines that were drawn over the grotesque millionaire suckling text Bill that Trump and the Republicans rammed through Congress

The GOP having it's same old donors doesn't change the jet set is now clearly swinging Democratic.

And BTW, well yes Democrats did make inroads among upper middle class professionals turned off by the Republican parties no nothing attitudes towards science issues, Orange County didn't flip because millionaire started voting Democratic. It flipped because the Hispanic portion of the population has grown markedly, and Asian voters there have flipped en masse away from the Republicans in the era of trump.

Science issues? What does that even mean? Sounds like a Bush-era talking point about stem-cell research (which apparently didn't offend these people at the time!)

Also, the precinct results show that the OC swing was basically across-the-board regardless of race.

Science issues isn't that hard of a concept comprehend. Global warming. Abortion and the effects they're up. Stem cell research. Fracking. Prohibition on even investigating or researching causes of gun violence with federal funds. There's a whole litany. Anyone remotely cognizant politics in the last 15 years should be well aware of the Strand, and the Hardline abandonment of educated voters from the Republican Party.

Yes, Precinct level data can be useful oh, but this is not one of those times. You're trying to conflate precincts which hold hundreds, or sometimes even thousands of Voters as large as largely uniform "rich", "Asian", etc, notwithstanding significant potential variation among the hundreds or thousands of Voters in said precincts. Again, the actual exit poll results are far more beneficial towards analyzing support of the candidates among wealthy voters rather than Precinct data, even though it doesn't support your argument.

My recollection of the voter swings in Orange County are very different from yours. I seem to recall the precinct Maps did not show a uniform swing among races, but in fact in Korean and Vietnamese neighborhoods the swings stuck out like sore thumbs, even with an overall countywide swing.

The bottom line is trying to argue that Democrats are the party at the rich because more upper-middle-class educated voters are supporting them to almost but not quite parity levels as the Republicans is just plain laughable. I realize you're trying to make some Grand point about policy, but again the recent debate over the Trump tax bill clearly defines a difference in the parties, and the Democrats are at best a second towards being Servants of the ultra-rich.