Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

I hope you are right but I am pessimistic like Greger. It’s early and things will change many say. Again I hope they are correct. The prospect of a Trump presidency is really too much for me to comprehend.

Yet both Trump and Sanders have a similar message in some areas. Both say they will bring back the former middle class to its former glory. But i wonder how that would be possible? Globalization is not going away and it’s unlikely free trade agreements will be rescinded. If they were to be it would mean international contracts are not worth the paper they are written upon-- so they mean nothing. Yet I agree that they have hurt the former US middle class and to a large extent they have been left behind as a result of them. The rest of the globe has prospered at the US workers expense.

The federal government was remiss to just let those people hang out to dry but I am not sure what they could have done for them aside from transfer payments or “education”. But were/are those people capable of becoming high tech workers in a high tech economy? Did/do they have the skills, education, and savvy to do so?

It is said manufacturing is returning to the US and it is. Yet those new manufacturing facilities employ a fraction of the workers they used to. Most of those former jobs have been replaced by robots and technology and that will just continue to increase exponentially. i really have no clue as to how to reestablish the former US middle class aside from a massive new transfer payment program.

Does anyone really have an honest and workable answer to any of this? I certainly don’t have a clue.

See, this is something that really bothers me about Sanders "Socialism": He's talking about taking the Middle Class from slightly poorer to slightly richer. What about the poor? What about the people who are too sick to work, either physically or mentally?

Sure, he talks about redistribution of wealth so the rich are not so rich. But how about a minimum income for the poor? Or does he really plan on that but doesn't want to mention it because it infuriates so many middle class or working poor people?

Also he is a "Socialist" who only cares about US residents. Those trade deals have really helped people in India, China, etc. Don't those people matter? Look at this graph of increase in income for different income levels:

Income levels

This shows that people in the 77th to 87th percentile of income have not had a raise between 1988 and 2008, but look at the folks in the 10th to 65th percentile: They have more than 40% raises, and that's a LOT of people. Sure the really rich made more, but their incomes did not rise as much as the bulk of the lower waged.

Those gains are the result of increased world trade, and that increased world trade is the result of trade deals lowering tariffs. And those trade deals are Bill Clinton's legacy. So I guess Bill Clinton caring about all the world's people is not selfish enough?

First: Sanders is concerned with all Americans because he was running for president of this country, not the world.
Second: Why do you draw a connection between a global lessening of the the poverty level and trade deals? Much of that improvement comes from those countries internal economic policies - such as those implemented in Brazil from 2003 - 2010. Brazil is not part of the trade deal that Clinton tried to foist on South America in the 90s.
Your premise requires proof of the connection between trade deals and improvement of poverty levels.

You really don't think that trade deals with China did not help Chinese workers? I thought that was what people are complaining about: Exporting jobs to the developing world. I would think that if you export a job to China, somebody in China gets a job. Forgive my naivete.

Trump did NOT get an 8-point bump. The only poll that had that was inaccurate because it compared June to July. Trump got 3-4 which is low-average. FiveThirtyEight

It is also important to take into consideration the built-in bias of the polls. FiveThirtyEight does a good job of that. In addition, be mindful that it is to need media advantage to report poll changes to drive views/clicks.

Similarly, the favourable/unfavorable numbers haven't really changed. I don't know where you got that info. Trump is underwater by about 22.5%, Clinton by 17 (RCP), but even that is questionable given timeframes of surveys.

I expect Clinton bounce to be 6% or so. Dems have a more positive message, better speakers, more unity, and DNC follows RNC.(One should also not discount location. Philly has historical significance.) As I said before, I think this is Trump's apex and Clinton will gain a point a month August- November. Don't panic, but do vote.

bounce Politico.

The trend, BTW, is smaller convention bounces.

Forgiven. You assume that paying slave wages improves the poverty level? There are dozens of examples where the mere existence of jobs, exported or not, do nothing to improve the station of those workers. In fact, exporting jobs generally goes hand in hand with low wages as a way of cost reduction to the international capitalists.
Usually said improvement comes about as the result of a more equitable internal policy of the distribution of wealth. Or better internal social programs that protect the citizens.

I agree that there is a good chance Clinton's numbers will improve. But RCP unfavorability numbers for both candidates are:





His trend is improving more than hers although her current number - July 25 - is better than his.

But again I think this is a reasonable assessment:

Dixie Chicks still not ready to make nice. I can imagine them appearing onstage playing "I hope" to Clinton's "they're watching us" ad.