Did Obama's strong support of the TPP up until the election harm Hillary?

[Akamai]

I saw a posting noting that Obama publicly and loudly supported the TPP trade agreement up until the election, and the poster suggested that this may have had a large effect.

I think that reasoning is correct -- any thoughts on this?

I sure do like Obama's views on almost every other matter but I thought the TPP was a bad agreement and a give-away to international corporations, and would lead to a loss of local control, environmental actions, etc.

If the above reasoning is correct then no Democrat should support such a trade agreement in the future.

[bettyellen]

1. It didn't register high w voters in the polls I saw, so nope.

[Garrett78]

33. And major proponents of the TPP outperformed Trump in their respective states...

...including Rust Belt states.

This is another one of those narratives that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[shraby]

2. Russia harmed the election. Period. Nuff said.

[Schema Thing]

3. Sure didn't help.

I honestly can't say I know whether it was a bad agreement or a good agreement or something in the middle (hopefully leaning to the good side). But I do know it was perceived as bad by a majority of the voters we needed to swing.


I'll never forget hearing Jeff Sessions as the last speaker of the Texas GOP convention, trying to sell Trump (whose name had not been mentioned directly in three days of speeches) as their nominee to the Texas republicans saying "he's going to run to the left of Hillary on some things! Like trade especially!". I think it may have gotten some applause. Certainly didn't get any boos.


So as much as I love Obama and Hillary - this was just another example of high-stakes gambling with our future: "I bet we can get this through AND win the presidency. It's what I committed to for our Richie Rich constitch, so let's go for it....".

[Hoyt]

4. I'm betting down-the-road we'll appreciate Obama's support for trade. Canada's Trudea likes TPP.

[JHan]

8. Agreed. I think we'll learn to appreciate a lot about his vision in the next couple years.

[NobodyHere]

5. I think it was Hillary's past support for TPP that harmed Hillary

Calling it a "gold standard" didn't help her any.

[JHan]

6. She called it the gold standard while she was Secretary of State...

and while the deal was being negotiated. She was working for the Obama Administration and may well have seen things she liked regarding labor standards.

[NobodyHere]

7. They may be true

But there was never a clear reason as to why she changed her mind. To the public it just looked like she flip-flopped to get votes.

[JHan]

9. Well to be fair, some provisions changed.

2016 was a tough year for pro-traders, and I never really sensed trade to be a big thing for her - her husband yes, but not her specifically.

[NobodyHere]

10. What provisions in TPP changed?

Especially something that would get Clinton to change her mind? I never heard any details on this, especially from the Clinton camp.

[JHan]

11. I'm not sure, tbh I'm just guessing.

But when she was SoS the deal was being negotiated. The only trend I detect in her support for trade deals is labor standards.

[Akamai]

12. I don't see any indications of important changes in the TPP. At the same time,

the negotiations were negotiated in secret, with only lobbyists, corporate interests, participating in drawing this thing up.

A huge, huge problem with it is the structure for investor-state dispute settlements -- if the TPP passed, it would mean that businesses can sue governments in other countries if those businesses think that the practices of those countries are costing them even POSSIBLE revenue.

see: http://www.citizen.org/investorcases

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Attacks: Empowering Multinational Corporations to Attack our Domestic Laws, Demand Taxpayer Compensation


At the heart of today's "trade" agreements are provisions that grant multinational corporations extraordinary new rights and powers. This system – called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – empowers individual foreign corporations to skirt domestic courts and sue governments before a panel of three corporate lawyers.

ISDS cases are decided by tribunals composed of three corporate lawyers that are authorized to order governments to pay unlimited sums of taxpayer money to corporations that claim our domestic laws or government decisions violate special new rights provided in ISDS agreements. Payments include what the three corporate lawyers deciding the case surmise are the "expected future profits" that the corporation would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking. There is no outside appeal. Many of these lawyers rotate between acting as tribunal "judges" and as the lawyers launching cases against the government on behalf of the corporations. Under ISDS, multinational corporations are provided greater rights than residents of the countries signing these ISDS agreements or domestic firms.

[Hoyt]

13. Actually, if you look there were unions, environmentalists, universities, economists, and many more

involved in the negotiations.

Do you honestly believe all 12 countries were out to screw Americans in rural Ohio and themselves?

[JHan]

14. It wasn't all held in secret.

There have been meetings with consumer groups, trade associations, labor unions.Here is the full list: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/February/a-note-on-stakeholder-consultation

Note that negotiations started in 2009

Also note: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/january/fact-sheet-transparency-and-obama

Congress established a system of Advisory Committees to get input from affected industries. The Obama Administration has grown the size and membership of our trade advisory committees to add voices that were initially left out of the process. In doing so we have worked to ensure strong representation from:

Labor unions,
Environmental groups,
Faith organizations,
Public health and consumer advocates,
Consumer organizations,
Local and state officials,
Farmers, ranchers, small business, and many more diverse interests.
These advisors receive full and equal access to U.S. negotiating proposals and work with our negotiators in an interactive process that includes regular updates on the negotiations, the opportunity to review U.S. proposals before they are tabled, and the chance to provide meaningful input into negotiating proposals and decisions. Over the past year, USTR has been soliciting additional nominations for candidates to further represent labor and non-industry interests, as well as further representatives of agriculture, services, and other sectors of the economy. We welcome additional participants and are open to new ideas on how we can expand input.

We are always looking for new ways to engage the public and to seek views that will help inform and guide our trade policy, and enhancing transparency will remain a priority, consistent with the ability to deliver on our ultimate mission, which is to deliver agreements that achieve the maximum possible benefit for the American people. That’s our focus.

"WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH CONGRESS, THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES

The administration has worked closely with the people’s representatives in Congress as we pursue our ambitious trade agenda. This has included:

Providing access to the full TPP negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.
Holding nearly 1,700 Congressional briefings on TPP alone, and many more on T-TIP, TPA, AGOA and other initiatives.
Providing Members of Congress with plain English summaries of TPP chapters to assist Members in navigating the negotiating text.
Previewing U.S. proposals with Congressional committees before taking them to the negotiations.
Working with Congress to update them on the state of the negotiations and get feedback every step of the way."

Before it reaches congress, within 105 days of signing an FTA, the U.S International Trade Commission will issue a report on the economic impact of the deal. Once Congress receives the bills, they have five months for review and hold votes - their deliberations will be public.

Furthermore, the President has to make the entire trade agreement public, this is a required stipulation of the TPA :https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf

Also, it's pretty standard for the public to not have full access to an FTA prior to signing. These are rules dictated by Congress, not the President.

[Akamai]

16. Don't you remember the secrecy of the TPP? with Senators, Congress Persons

unable to view the treaty until shortly before it was to be voted on? They were not even allowed to take notes of the treaty so they could ask experts what the treaty stated.

Take a look at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/24/do-trade-negotiations-have-to-be-done-in-secret-heres-what-experts-think/?utm_term=.ccd99aab00f9

These negotiations were conducted in secret until the very end, and in the above 9-24-15 article, this was stated:

"In August, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) announced that he is blocking a trade nominee to protest the Obama administration’s secrecy in the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. Even the draft document is classified, which critics find objectionable."

I go with Senator Sherrod Brown on this issue!

This kind of secrecy about this issue almost certainly ramped up mistrust of the current administration.

Since Nixon first came up with the idea of "fast tracking" trade agreements with an up or down vote (and no ability to modify portions of the trade agreements with legislation), our trade agreements have been proposed in secret, have passed with almost entirely Republican votes, and have led to job-loss.

I would imagine these issues would have really motivated people to vote for Trump.

As Thom Hartmann has long been saying, "If a candidate opposed international trade treaties like the TPP, then that candidate may well win the general election."

From the AFL-CIO comes this comment:

"Labor's So-Called "Seat at the Table" at TPP Negotiations

"For the average citizen, the negotiating process for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is anything but transparent. The negotiators for the United States and the other 11 TPP countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) meet in private. The negotiating texts are not public. Even Members of Congress do not have unlimited access and cannot seek advice from outside experts.

"The TPP, like many of the failed trade agreements that came before it, will cover issues including health, food safety, conservation and environmental protections, Wall Street regulations, labor rights, and a whole host of other issues that, under our system of government, would have to be debated publicly in Congress before becoming law. But because the U.S. government treats trade deals differently than all other policies—it is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.

"I’ve heard “labor” has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true?
No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority
(85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Labor advisers are allowed to review and advise on draft U.S. proposals—advice that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can freely ignore. But we are locked out of the negotiating room and cannot see the actual negotiating texts, which combine the proposals from all 12 countries and evolve over time as negotiations progress. Nor can we share what we learn with members without violating national security laws."

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations

With the above concerns, it is not too difficult to think of reasons why union members voted for Trump.

[JHan]

19. Regarding fast track:

It gives the President more flexibility in negotiations, but it's reasonable to question fast tracking in this case - on that point I agree with the critics.

[Akamai]

22. Every major trade agreement since Nixon was negotiated in secrecy, was opposed

by the majority of Democrats and supported by the majority of Republicans. And all of them cost jobs to the American people.

In all of them, corporate interests controlled the trade agreement negotiations and that's why the .1% supports the agreements -- because the money flows to the richest corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Fast Track is very effective at not letting our representatives and the general public know what is happening in these agreements.

[JHan]

23. Our representatitives do know:

And sometimes I suspect they pretend not to know because of their political objections.

A representative can't claim not to know when there were 1,700 congressional briefings as the fact sheet I shared shows. The process has not changed, since NAFTA. And there were similar "Secrecy" claims then too which were unfounded.

We have benefited from Trade. We didn't mitigate the harmful effects of globalization ( partly due to our greedy management culture) but any negative broad brush of our trade agreements is disingenuous.

Fast Track was useful for a very important reason: it was a way for our trade partners to have faith that whatever was agreed on won't be hit by amendments which would vastly alter provisions. This doesn't mean that Congress is toothless- in exchange for an agreement being fast tracked, Congress sets its own terms for expediting the bills - which involves our representatives.

And the reason I give Obama space on this is because the alternative claims defy belief and I've read and heard them all: Obama was threatened to support the TPP, OBama was bribed, Obama doesn't care, Obama is a corporatist shill etc etc etc.

[Akamai]

24. Senators Brown, Merkley, Warren and Sanders

strongly oppose the TPP as do economists Stiglitz, Baker, Reich and others.

On the other hand, big corporations and the Republican party very strongly support it. John Stiglitz was in a very informative podcast interviewed by Ezra Klein and he said that the TPP was not a trade agreement but a pact to increase the power of corporations.

[JHan]

25. And some economists do support it.

I disagree with Reich and Stiglitz ( I also disagree with Stiglitz that the repeal of one provision in Glass Steagall caused the crash)

I am not 100% in support of the TPP - I don't like all of it , but the things I dislike don't outweigh the risk of not joining. It's hard enough getting a clear picture when there's so much misinformation being peddled out there.

And as for Sanders, his ideas on trade are awful.

[JI7]

15. no. her suppoet for blm undocumented immigrants and refugees hurt her

with a certain crowd.

[Rex]

17. HRC and Obama should have been strong on how they felt about the TPP

they seemed to waver a few times, over the years.

[Akamai]

18. Obama was very, very clear all along -- he was hugely for it although when

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2017, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

he ran in 2008, he assured union members and the public that no trade deal would be negotiated in secret, that no trade agreement would pass if it harmed American workers, etc.

Once again, I think Obama was an absolutely wonderful president in almost all ways. And so would Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley and others attest to, but the TPP is an area in which people strongly disagree with him.

Indeed, opposition to the TPP was a major plank in Bernie's platform.

[mcar]

20. The polling and interview I've seen

don't indicate that at all. Just like with the economy argument, it did not sway the small #of voters who decided this election.

Sexism and racism did.

[Akamai]

21. Look at the dislike of TPP with Trump supporters...

https://ballotpedia.org/The_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal:_Public_opinion_on_TPP_and_TTIP

From the above:

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal, has been a major issue in the 2016 presidential and congressional elections; however, multiple polls show that many Americans are unsure what the trade deal is and whether it would be good or bad for the country.

"HIGHLIGHTS

"An August 2016 Morning Consult (MC) poll revealed a slight increase in support for the TPP and a slight increase in voters' knowledge of it since MC's March 2016 poll; however 62 percent of those polled still said that they know "not much" or "nothing at all" about the 12-nation agreement.

"A March 2016 Morning Consult poll found that only 24 percent of Republicans, who have historically supported free trade, support the TPP, while 34 percent oppose the deal.

"A March 2016 Pew Research Center poll found that of voters supporting Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Ted Cruz (R), John Kasich (R), and Donald Trump (R), all of whom were still candidates for president at the time, Clinton's supporters were the most supportive of free trade. Fifty-eight percent of Clinton's supporters said that free trade is a "good thing," and 31 percent said it is a "bad thing." Trump's supporters expressed the most negative opinions about free trade deals. Only 27 percent said that free trade is a "good thing," and 67 percent said it is a "bad thing.""

*******************

Sure seems this might have been a hugely important issue in the election - e.g., in Michigan, Ohio

[JI7]

26. thats nice, but they still voted for Kasich , johnson over feingold and portman over strickland

they can claim many things but we look to their actions.

[Akamai]

27. Things are cumulative -- maybe they would have been more likely to vote for Hillary (I think so) if

she and Obama had STRONGLY come out against the TPP. Especially at the margins, but they didn't come out strongly against TPP.

We'll never know -- coulda, shoulda, woulda.

[JI7]

28. Hillary did better than dems who were anti trade and worst than dems who were pro trade

and Trump did worse than pro trade republicans.

the pro trade republicans did the best.

[Akamai]

32. I thought Hillary was a perfectly fine candidate but I

remember saying here that I was concerned about Trump repeatedly saying, "Crooked Hillary."

Trump lied like a rug but his epithets were believed by his supporters and they have been so warped in their beliefs that they say Putin is a better leader than Obama. And the MSM sure hurt Hillary with the false equivalence, with the lies told about Obama and his accomplishments.

[snowy owl]

29. I sent Feingold a fair amount of money but Johnson got more and more and more...

Is it all about money and ads? I knew Trump had a fair chance of winning but I was surprised that the nation gave the House and Senate to Republicans. So dangerous given their views on social security and medicare. I had more belief that Americans knew better than that. So where are we? That we are so red scares me plenty.

[JI7]

30. Wisconsin continually has elected Scott Walker for Governor

that should tell a lot about where people in the state stand.

[bettyellen]

37. Their hatred of Obama encompasses everything he did or supported ...

And it's not because they know jack shit about it, it's because they demonized Obama with ignorant bigots.

[Exilednight]

31. Now it's Obama's fault. Is there anyone else we need to blame before we get to HIllary?

[Akamai]

35. No one's fault but seems okay to try to understand

what happened.

I thought Obama was a wonderful president and that Hillary was a great and very competent, knowledgeable, caring candidate, and I sure as hell wish she had won.

[taught_me_patience]

34. It helped cost her the election no doubt

She was really suck between a rock and a hard place with trade. Going forward, Democrats are going to struggle with trade policy... Cater to the anti-free traders and you start losing white collar Dems on the coasts that have benefited greatly from free trade.

Trump had no issues because he could just lie through his ass on free trade.

[Akamai]

36. I guess you are right that coastal dems were not as anti-TPP

as dems in the central states.

[uponit7771]

38. Right, Comey... voter suppression and Russia had NOTHING to do with why she lost :rolleyes: