POLL on TPP Fast Track poll

[yurbud]

What I find shocking here is not that TWO-THIRDS of Americans oppose fast-tracking TPP, but that a slight majority of DEMOCRATS FAVOR IT.

On some poll questions, not having enough options can skew the results, like on health care reform, so on the left "opposed" it not because they didn't want health care reform but because they wanted something different.

In this case, it's hard to see how there could be any distortion in the question since "fast track" can only mean they support passage of the TPP.

Does anyone here have an explanation for Democratic voters supporting TPP fast track?

Also, while entirely unscientific, Do you support TPP? Do you support fast-tracking it? Could those two issues be different?

By more than two to one, voters say they oppose (62%) rather than favor passage of fast-track negotiating authority for the TPP deal. Among those with a strong opinion, the ratio climbs to more than three to one (43% strongly opposed, just 12% strongly favorable). Demographically, opposition is very broad, with no more than one-third of voters in any region of the country or in any age cohort favoring fast track. Sixty percent (60%) of voters with household incomes under $50,000 oppose fast track, as do 65% of those with incomes over $100,000.

While opposition is relatively uniform both geographically and demographically, the survey data reveals a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

The survey goes on to simulate a public debate over the merits of fast track and the proposed TPP trade deal, by presenting each respondent with an equal number of arguments made by organizations supporting and opposing fast track. Respondents indicate whether they find each argument convincing, and then have the opportunity to express a more fully informed judgment on the issue of fast-track authority. However, voters’ informed judgment is the same as their initial response: overwhelming opposition to fast track.

* At least 50% of voters find eight different opponent arguments to be very or fairly convincing (more than 60% for four of them), but not a single argument by supporters meets that standard.

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support passing TPP and Congress fast tracking it.
	0 (0%)
	I support pass TPP but NOT fast tracking it.
	0 (0%)
	I oppose passing TPP AND I oppose fast tracking it.
	10 (100%)
	I oppose passing TPP BUT I support fast tracking it.
	0 (0%)
	OTHER
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Mass]

1. I oppose fast tracking because these bills need to be discussed and understood before taking a

decision.

Whether I support or oppose the TPP depends on what is actually in it (right now, I lean oppose).

[yurbud]

4. based on our trade agreements of the last couple of decades, it won't do most of us any good.

[NobodyHere]

2. Can someone explain to me the diiference...

of "fast-tracking" and some other way of passing the bill? I don't really get what the difference is.

[yurbud]

3. no amendments, debate, just the whole enchilada, yes or no.

[cali]

5. I smell bullshit with this poll.

[yurbud]

8. how so? Do you mean the article the OP refers to or the DU poll based on it?

[TBF]

6. One Million US Jobs Lost -

since NAFTA was passed.

And folks want TPP?

Seriously, with jobs flying out of the country we will have folks living in the street at this rate.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
Posted: 01/06/2014 3:19 pm

For NAFTA's unhappy 20th anniversary, Public Citizen has published a report that details the wreckage. Not only did promises made by NAFTA's proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies ...

Much more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

[yurbud]

11. good find. They should put that last excerpt on screen whenever a pol tries to sell a trade deal

[liberal_at_heart]

16. +1

[LWolf]

7. I don't understand why you are shocked.

That's what happens when Democratic voters support and elect neo-liberals.

A simple, clear explanation.

As for the rest? I oppose the TPP, and I oppose fast-tracking it. I'm no neo-liberal.

[Armstead]

12. "I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here."

[pampango]

9. Two reasons, I think. One is that Democrats tend to be more open to trade, immigration, diplomacy -

international engagement in general. When a Democratic president negotiates a treaty, they tend to support the concept even if they do not fully understand the details.

Conversely, of course, republicans are more likely to oppose such a treaty even if they do not understand the details. They (the base, not the politicians) reflexively tend to oppose treaties as an infringement on our sovereignty.

The other reason is that a lot of Democrats trust Obama (rightly or wrongly) and probably give him the benefit of the doubt on something that they do not fully understand themselves. (Republicans do just the opposite, of course.)

Earlier polls have shown Democrats to be more supportive of trade, immigration, foreign aid and solving world problems diplomatically. I imagine their initial support of the TPP has something to do with this predisposition.

[Armstead]

13. I'm all for those wonderful goals you mention -- and I'm totally against TPP

"Free trade" as embodied in these "agreements" is not about trade. It's all about subverting the ability of nations and their people to determine their own laws and policies.

It uses the ability to trade as blackmail, in order to make civil society subject to the rule of Big Capital.

That is not in the spirit of true enlightened internationalism.

[pampango]

15. I understand. Conservatives (particularly tea partiers) are against 'free trade' more than liberals.

Their reasons are undoubtedly different since they have no desire to see 'all those wonderful goals' that you and I want.

One unusual aspect of this is what happens in Europe. There liberals use the power of multinational treaties and organizations to curb the power of multinational corporations, while European conservatives stress national sovereignty and try to weaken the EU and other multinational organizations.

Here it seems that many liberals and many conservatives treasure national sovereignty and see little to be gained from multinational treaties and organizations. Conservatives are afraid these will be too liberal or 'socialist' (many of them see the UN as a liberal One World Government in the making) while liberals are afraid they will be too conservative or 'corporatist'. The only thing that liberals and conservatives agree on, in this context, is that multinational organizations are dangerous and to be avoided in most cases.

[Armstead]

17. This is not only a liberal/conservative issue.

I don't know your motives, I assume they are sincere. But your insistence on lumping together all people who oppose the corporate version of "free trade" that is being imposed as right wingers is off the mark. I wish these agreements were as benign as you seem to think they are.

There is progressive revolt against these "free trade" agreements around the world.

The version of "free trade" we are talking about is part of a larger architecture in which nations are places at the mercy of multilateral Big Business Big Money forces. It is related to the current "austerity" being imposed on nations like Greece, and which have been used to assert control over the economies and politics of many poor countries over the years.

It's basically loan sharking on a large scale. Big Banks do the equivalent of overselling loans to nations, then when the nations get in over their heads, the Big Bankers impose draconian conditions on them, which amount to enforced "free market" restrictions on their social safety nets, public infrastructures, etc.

Using the criminal analogy, which is apt, "free trade" is a form of blackmail. "ya wanta sell your goods to other countries? Ya gotta play by our rules." And their rules mean protecting the profit margins of Big Money and the philosophy of pirate corporate capitalism.

[Aerows]

10. Not just no

but hell no.

[Armstead]

14. Because too many Democrats trust their Corporate Centrist/Nei-Liberal leaders i guess

Remember how Democratic politicians and many rank and filers used to swoon over Alan Greenspan?

[arely staircase]

18. other

oppose fast track but could support TPP under certain conditions.