The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Northwestcoug]

I think his criticism of Trump helped, it just didn't really help Rubio.

They should have started mocking Trump long ago.

No way it helped. I'll admit, I laughed at some of the video when Rubio was insulting Trump. It was funny. But no one can out-Trump Trump, and his die-hard fans know that. Serious voters want to support serious candidates. Rubio played the serious candidate for awhile, but was getting nowhere. I understand he had to try something different, but that was a serious miscalculation. Cruz, for the most part, didn't play the dick-joke game. And now he's considered the only serious candidate who has a shot of beating Trump.

[Uncle Ted]

Trump has a 86% chance of winning Florida: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...da-republican/

Kasich has a 70% chance of winning Ohio: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...io-republican/

Of course, Hillary had a 99% chance of winning Michigan and she lost: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...an-democratic/

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

[SeattleUte]

Bingo.

I don't believe blue collar workers have lost jobs to free trade agreements. Now you're swallowing the BS populism. It's not going to do the poor and middle class any good to cause the price of consumer goods to skyrocket. Jesus. Not so long ago it was settled that the Smoot Hawley Act facilitated the Great Depression and World War II. Protectionism is about a thousand times more untenable today than it was then

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't believe blue collar workers have lost jobs to free trade agreements. Now you're swallowing the BS populism. It's not going to do the poor and middle class any good to cause the price of consumer goods to skyrocket. Jesus. Not so long ago it was settled that the Smoot Hawley Act facilitated the Great Depression and World War II. Protectionism is about a thousand times more untenable today than it was then

Hey come on. I'm not arguing for protectionism. Go back and read the post i quoted. Yes the blue-collar workers may not have lost their jobs to free-trade agreements, but many of them are dumb enough to believe they did. And remember that Trump is drawing part of his base from angry Democrats.

[Commando]

Hey come on. I'm not arguing for protectionism. Go back and read the post i quoted. Yes the blue-collar workers may not have lost their jobs to free-trade agreements, but many of them are dumb enough to believe they did. And remember that Trump is drawing part of his base from angry Democrats.

This is it and it drives me batty. I would love to ask one of these dunce caps what job they or anyone they have ever met ever lost to a Mexican.

[Uncle Ted]

This is it and it drives me batty. I would love to ask one of these dunce caps what job they or anyone they have ever met ever lost to a Mexican.

[All-American]

The 2016 Presidential Election Primary Thread

This is it and it drives me batty. I would love to ask one of these dunce caps what job they or anyone they have ever met ever lost to a Mexican.

http://youtu.be/sIzivCJ9pzU

[byu71]

Talking to two good friends. One very liberal and one conservative. Neither said they would vote for bernie, hillary, trump or cruz. Can't believe friends and I are so different than the rest of the voters.

[PaloAltoCougar]

A useful addition to the current discussion about Drumpf: http://trumpdonald.org/

[SeattleUte]

I think the NY Times' Mr. Poniewozik is having too much fun covering the Trump grotesqueness. Here is another very entertaining piece from him.

http://nyti.ms/1Xd3gUm

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't believe blue collar workers have lost jobs to free trade agreements. Now you're swallowing the BS populism. It's not going to do the poor and middle class any good to cause the price of consumer goods to skyrocket. Jesus. Not so long ago it was settled that the Smoot Hawley Act facilitated the Great Depression and World War II. Protectionism is about a thousand times more untenable today than it was then

Also, since you only use one news source so you may have missed this, but Donald Trump said that Apple (and similar companies) should start making all of their products in America.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/how-d...-sentence.html

Trump is all for protectionism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...er_127893.html

Here's a historical fact that Donald Trump, and many voters attracted to him, may not know: The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover. Obviously that economic strategy didn't turn out so well — either for the nation or the GOP.

A draft of Trump's 14-point economic manifesto promises that, as president, he would "modify or cancel any business, or trade agreement that hinders American business development, or is shown to create an unfair trading relationship with a foreign entity."

I am still scratching my head wondering how you got the notion that I am for protectionism.

[venkman]

It is most definitely partly about racism and xenophobia.

For some people, yes. There are, however, legitimate reasons for curbing illegal and frankly, legal immigration that have nothing to do with racism or xenophobia. That's the majority IMO.

[venkman]

I don't believe blue collar workers have lost jobs to free trade agreements. Now you're swallowing the BS populism. It's not going to do the poor and middle class any good to cause the price of consumer goods to skyrocket. Jesus. Not so long ago it was settled that the Smoot Hawley Act facilitated the Great Depression and World War II. Protectionism is about a thousand times more untenable today than it was then

It's either free trade or Smoot Hawley, nothing in between, gotcha. To say jobs weren't lost as a result of NAFTA is ludicrous. That's demonstrably false. Did the benefits outweight the costs? That's another question and you can find good arguments on both sides.

[SeattleUte]

It's either free trade or Smoot Hawley, nothing in between, gotcha. To say jobs weren't lost as a result of NAFTA is ludicrous. That's demonstrably false. Did the benefits outweight the costs? That's another question and you can find good arguments on both sides.

The jobs have been lost not because of NAFTA but because corporations--whether or not U.S.-incorporated or U.S.-based--have found that they get more value from overseas labor than U.S. labor--either because they are harder working, better, or cheaper. And these are not sweatshops that our corporations operate--there is plenty of light shed by the press and philanthropists to expose abuses. On the contrary, this is work valued by overseas labor just as there are Americans who desire this work.

Who is to decide what this labor is worth to corporations? Donald Trump? Bernie Sanders? Congress? Or the market? And do we want Apple to be able to compete with Samsung as to price as well as quality? Do we want American consumers to be able to choose between their products?

Much has been written about the fact that there is plenty of work in America, but more that takes brains than brawn than in prior generations. The answer is to make more education and training available to children and grandchildren of the rust belt work force--they are as capable of programming as their ancestors were of working the assembly line.