Bernie plans to use his opposition to the TPP to frame his message:

[cali]

<snip>

Sanders' basic message will be that the middle class in America has been decimated in the past two decades while wealthy people and corporations have flourished.

His opposition to a proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (T.P.P.) shows how he plans to frame this key issue of his campaign.

"If you want to understand why the middle class in America is disappearing and why we have more wealth and income inequality in America than we have had since the late 1920s, you have to address the issue of trade,” Sanders said in a phone interview on April 23.

<snip>

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-run

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

1. 151 Dems + unions with Bernie, ALL Republicans and Wall Street with Obama/Clinton

151 House Dems Telling President They Will Not Support Outdated Fast Track For Trans-Pacific Partnership

http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

[polichick]

2. The people will have a clear choice.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. The people had a clear choice in 2014

and the people picked Republicans.

Don't put too much faith in the American people.

Remember when over 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks?

[truebrit71]

25. Bullshit. The majority of people that bothered to get up off their couches. ..

.. and go to the polls, picked republicans. But "the people" didn't pick republicans. Plus, based on the races it was always on the cards to lose the Senate. In 2016 the roles are reversed.

[Martin Eden]

51. 63.6 is a HUGE number

63.6% of eligible voters did not cast votes in the 2014 midterms.

The People, for the most part, saw nothing to vote FOR. They didn't pick Republicans. They picked none of the above.

The key to victory is GOTV.

The key to GOTV is a candidate who will inspire and motivate people to go to the polls.

[CrispyQ]

54. And yet, election after election dems will cater to the "undecided" voter.

[Martin Eden]

56. They shift to the "center" (which keeps moving farther to the right) ...

... and millions of voters see nothing to vote FOR, so they stay home.

Less inspiring and/or motivating is telling people they need to come to the polls to vote AGAINST the Republicans.

[Scuba]

52. Democrats got ~ 2 million more votes than Republicans in 2014 in Congressional races.

It was gerrymandering that resulted in Republican control of the House.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. I don't doubt your claim, but do you have a link by any chance?

I hadn't heard that before.

[Scuba]

59. I'm sorry, my memory was not very good on this. In the current Senate, Democrats got ...

... 20 million more votes than their Republican counterparts. That's right, 20 million more votes yet Democrats are the minority party.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/05/3589157/millions-more-votes-were-cast-for-democrats-in-the-incoming-senate-than-for-republicans/

A ThinkProgress review of the electoral results from 2010, 2012 and 2014 Senate races reveals that millions more Americans actually cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate than voted for a Republican candidate during the three election cycles that built the incoming Senate.

...

When the results from all three elections are combined, a total of 5,204,364 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans. To put that number in perspective, that’s nearly a quarter of a million more votes than the gap between the number of voters who supported President Obama in 2012 and the number that backed Republican Mitt Romney.

I couldn't find 2014 numbers for the entire House, but here's a few good examples of how gerrymandering helped the Republicans ...

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

In the midterm elections, Republicans appear to have won their largest House majority since the Hoover administration. Republicans won on the weakness of Democratic candidates, a poor resource allocation strategy by Democratic party leaders, particularly DCCC chair Steve Israel, and an election narrative that did little to inspire base Democratic voters. That being said, in many ways, the game was rigged from the start. The GOP benefitted from the most egregious gerrymandering in American history.

...

Here’s an example from the election last night. In Pennsylvania, one state in which the GOP drew the congressional districts in a brazenly partisan way, Democratic candidates collected 44 percent of the vote, yet Democratic candidates won only 5 House seats out of 18. In other words, Democrats secured only 27 percent of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats despite winning nearly half of the votes. See the graph below:

...

A similar dynamic played in North Carolina, another state in which GOP control in 2011 created intensely partisan congressional boundaries. In the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats in North Carolina secured only three out of 13 seats (23 percent of NC’s congressional delegation) even though Democratic candidates in that state won about 44 percent of the vote:

Could not get the graphs to imbed, sorry.

[Cali_Democrat]

60. Thank you for the info. nt

[LondonReign2]

57. No, that was the problem, the people didn't have a clear choice in 2014

Instead, we had the DLC wing of the party run a bunch of candidates that tried to be as indistinguishable from Republicans as possible under the theory that perhaps the voters would be confused and their candidates would get elected accidently. Liberals still voted, but unfortunately the big mass of middle voters who might otherwise have leaned Democratic didn't see a clear choice at all and stayed home.

[raindaddy]

18. Damn rights...

A real populist who has been fighting for the middle class for his whole career. And a third way dem who hasn't

[MaggieD]

19. Actually she is very progressive

People need to stop confusing her with Bill, as if she didn't have a mind of her own. Here is just a small part of her record:

Pushed for SCHIP
- Early childhood education
- Expansion of the earned income credit
- Expansion of CPSF
- Spoken out about outrageous CEO compensation
- Wants decrease in corporate welfare
- Against corps using bankruptcy to do away with pension responsibilities
- Support for universal healthcare
- Wants repeal of corporate subsidies for companies moving US jobs offshore
- Criticized "corporate elite" for treating workers as "invisible"
- Against school vouchers
- Voted against CAFTA / opposed NAFTA even though she wasn't a senator yet (gets a 17% rating by right wing group CATO on free trade)
- Supports constitutional amendment against Citizen's United
- Supports same day voter registration
- Supports increase in the minimum wage - has repeatedly stated the working poor deserve a living wage
- Supports unions
- No SS privatization - rejects COLA adjustments that screw seniors
- Pushed for unemployment insurance extensions
- Voted no on raising estate tax exemption from $1 mil to $5 mil
- Rated 80% by CTJ in supporting progressive taxation

Sure seems populist to me.

[betterdemsonly]

28. SHE OPPOSED NAFTA?

How come she didn't tell Bill to not sign it then?

[MaggieD]

29. She did

[betterdemsonly]

30. He either doesn't value her opinion much or

she didn't press him very hard on the matter. Which story makes sense? Did she bring up the fact that signing Glass Steagall was a bad idea too?

[MaggieD]

31. Political history books are fascinating....

"Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically."

However, she has not been shy about condemning it since 2004.

[betterdemsonly]

32. She supported it publically, BUT DIDN'T MEAN IT? Yeah well.........

that inspires confidence. She values the opinions of her peers more than her own. Who are her peers? New Democrats and the Third Way! Yeah we progressives can rest safely with Hillary as POTUS!

[MaggieD]

34. Newsflash - Laura Bush is pro-choice too!

HRC is well to the left of Bill. Sorry if that blows your meme.

[betterdemsonly]

36. Laura Bush isn't running in the dem primary

so what is your point, precisely?

[MaggieD]

37. That a first lady doesn't share a brain with her husband

She is capable of independent thought. And her record since going out on her own politically is not pro-trade by any means. She has a 17% rating by the right wing Cato Institute on trade issues. Actions speak louder than words.

[cali]

33. she most certainly did NOT

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-tradehttp://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htmhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/

[MaggieD]

35. NPR should do better research

"Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically."

[cali]

38. hahaha. hardly just npr and there

are dozens of glowing quotes from her on it- not to mention that she met with high ranking officials to lobby for it. It means jackshit th as t she supposedly opposed it in her secret heart.

[MaggieD]

40. She has a 17% rating on free trade by the right wing CATO institute as senator

Do you think they gave her such a low grade because she is big time pro-trade? Actions speak louder than words.

Did you expect her to campaign against her husband's policy issues when he was president? HA HA HA right back atcha. Absurd.

[cali]

41. oh for pity's sake. she supported. live with that FACT

And she's been all over the map on the issue, just like she is on issue after issue. She's a center right candidate. She'll get the nomination, no doubt and then she'll fail in the general.

[MaggieD]

46. No, she hasn't been all over the map on trade

And I can damn sure guarantee that she understands the actual issues about trade about a thousand times better than you appear to.

[frylock]

44. can you believe this shit?!

[frylock]

42. Just like I'm sure she opposed the war privately, but supported it publicly..

because it was important to her politically.

[Mnpaul]

61. Reading that

made me dizzy

[raindaddy]

43. And it begins...

Has Hillary had enough time to carefully consider the TPP to announce her opinion?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/

"Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA," Obama said. "But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' "
-Barack Obama

[MaggieD]

45. Tell us what you know about how asian market currency manipulation

Causes trade unfair deficits and puts US workers out of jobs.

Now, I am against the TPP. But I am not going to debate someone with zero understanding of it. And don't throw out that "but it's secret" nonsense. There is plenty of openly available info about it to discuss it rationally.

And by the way, Obama talked a lot of shit when he ran against Hillary that was bogus. It's called politics. They ALL do it.

[raindaddy]

47. I'm not falling into that trap, here's the reason "I" oppose the TPP..

I don't like the prospect of global corporations undermining local, state and federal laws because they feel they're detrimental to their never ending desire for more profits.

And Hillary talked a lot of shit in between dodging bullets at airports and we can expect even more in between $200,000 speeches at Goldman...

[MaggieD]

48. So you think Obama is just a corporate tool....

... itching to see more Americans out of work and in poverty? HRC too, huh? Or do you think maybe there are some pros and cons to it that maybe you haven't considered or don't understand?

Remember, I am saying this from the point of view of opposing it as you do (for different reasons). Where we differ is in the meme the purist have advanced that Obama is evil or HRC is just a tool for corps even though she has a 17% rating by the right wing CATO Institute on trade pacts (CATO loves trade pacts).

[raindaddy]

49. I don't think Obama or Hillary wants to see anyone out of work or in poverty...

Simply put, I do think they've bought into globalization myth.. Somehow allowing global corporations access to cheap labor and easier access to the worlds resources will in time uplift everyone.

Let's make the TPP public and spend the next few months debating the pros and cons.. If Hillary's the progressive you're suggesting, she should join with the other progressives who are asking the President to make the TPP public,,,

[MaggieD]

50. I'm going to take a wild guess that....

The president and his former Secretary of State know more about trade policy and trade pact economics than you do. But admittedly I'm just guessing.

There is more than enough public info available about the TPP for people to debate it rationally and specifically. Yet most of the people that claim to be so concerned about clearly haven't made the effort to learn anything about it. I find that strange.

How can you determine that they've "bought into globalization myth" if you haven't taken the time to understand what their actual economic concerns are in relation to Asian markets? Agree or disagree with the TPP, there are in fact real concerns that need to be addressed. The only real question is whether the TPP is the right vehicle.

[raindaddy]

53. I'm sure they do know more than I do about trade and economics..

Just as the generals who planned the invasion of Iraq know more about war than I do.... But we're talking about objective, not the knowledge it takes to accomplish that objective...

Follow the money, this is only as complex as you want to make it.... We just witnessed the complete demise of the US manufacturing base and millions of good American jobs that went with it. We've seen Democratic Presidents appoint industry insiders to what was once oversight positions... What's been the objective here, building a stronger middle class? Or more profit for global corporations and Wall Street?

As in the Iraq war if the objective was really to spend 2.5 trillion dollars to protect the American people from WMD then it was a colossal failure. But if it was to secure the oil fields for global oil then I guess you could say it was a success.

We've seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in modern history, Americans are working longer hours for less money,the cost of higher education has gone through the roof... If the objective has been to represent the middle class then it's been a complete failure... But if the objective has been more profit for global corporations and Wall Street and vague promises to Main St. then we're watching a huge success.. Here's where you and I are in agreement. I think they've been pretty good at accomplishing their objective.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

63. Bernie Sanders on the issues

It's a much longer read. Enjoy!!

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#Foreign_Policy


Whatever, I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and say socially they're a push. They differ on economics.

[ucrdem]

3. So Bernie has an ulterior motive?

Shocker.

[cali]

4. lol. that makes no sense whatsofuckingever. not a shocker.

He's always been consistent on what he'd run on. It's what he's talked about for 30 years- since he first ran for Mayor of Burlington.

Duh

[pa28]

10. And by "ulterior motive" you mean "principle" right?

[ucrdem]

14. I hope he has better principles than what he's shown on this issue

because I frankly think the three of them have acted in very bad faith and that's the family-friendly way of putting it. JMHO of course, YMMV.

[cali]

15. he's been nothing but principled. he voted against NAFTA

And every other fta. you may disagree with him but he Damon well is principled on the issue. He opposes ftas that are vehicles for corporations to fuck people both here and abroad- which is not the same thing as being anti trade.

President Obama has been repeatedly less than honest about the tpp

[newfie11]

20. ++++++++++++++

So true

[Autumn]

22. Some people are just having a bad day. others?

I just stumbled across the coolest post ever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026584339#post34

[pa28]

16. We must guard ourselves against the three of them and their bad faith. Got it.

[LittleBlue]

24. Are you going to explain your statement?

Or is this a smear-and-run?

[Hoyt]

5. Think he'll need more than that, but the debates will definitely be more interesting.

And, yes, if he somehow wins I'll vote for him, put a bumper sticker on my car, etc.

[cali]

8. well of course he has more than that, as anyone familiar with him knows

But he is running on what he is; an economic.if populist and social liberal. That's his springboard. And make no mistake, Bernie's record on social and civil rights issues is as good as it gets

[leftofcool]

6. Bernie will have to be more than anti-Wall Street.

[cali]

11. he is more than that. he has a great record on social issues and civil rights

He has the best record in Congress on Veteran's issues. Anti military waste. And much more

[think]

26. He was principled enough to vote against the Iraq war. Does that count for anything?

[patricia92243]

9. I would think the TPP is a done deal by the time prez politics kicks into

action.

[cali]

12. it's already kicked in and the tpp and tpa are both stalled at the moment

[aspirant]

13. I hope Bernie starts raising the roof

about making TPP public for the people now..

[Zorra]

17. Recommend. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

21. That's an excellent thing around which to frame a message

The watchword is democracy and the TPP is as undemocratic a document we've seen in my lifetime.

[cali]

23. it's a great springboard from which to launch it

[hopemountain]

27. the status quo is in for a good shaking!

bernie and elizabeth have only set the stage for the good shaking our country needs. we cannot continue in the direction we are headed. wall street and corporations are going to hear about it from the middle class and others who have been reasonable and willing to reach consensus like grown adults. but, to no avail. i sincerely hope the democratic party rises up and reclaims it's dignity.

[Aquavit]

39. what can I do to help Bernie? n/t

[Babel_17]

58. It would be a given for everyone running except that ...

It would be a given for everyone running except that their campaigns have millions of reasons to not also oppose the TPP.
Sanders will be encumbered, at least at first, by not having access to the sources of cash most TPP supporters can chase after. So I will enjoy seeing Sanders providing a teachable moment as his campaign prospers merely by doing the right things.

[woo me with science]

62. K&R