The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: sinkspur on September 24, 2016, 02:09:27 pm
-
POLITICO-Harvard poll: Amid Trump's rise, GOP voters turn sharply away from free trade
Eighty-five percent of Republicans say that free trade has cost more jobs than it has created, the survey found.
By BENJAMIN ORESKES 09/24/16 07:44 AM EDT Updated 09/23/16 09:43 AM EDT
Observers on both side of the political divide say that Donald Trump’s anti-trade message has xenophobic undertones.
In a stunning reversal, a large majority of Republicans are repudiating their party’s traditional support for free trade, and falling sharply in line with nominee Donald Trump’s insistence that trade costs Americans more jobs than it creates.
Meanwhile, Democrats, whose representatives in Congress have traditionally been far more skeptical of trade deals — and largely voted against giving President Barack Obama the “fast-track” authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership last year — are now far more apt than Republicans to see the benefit of trade, according to an exclusive poll conducted for POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Forty-seven percent of Republicans surveyed said that trade deals have hurt their communities over the last 10 years, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic voters. Only 18 percent of Republicans surveyed said that trade deals helped, while 33 percent of Democrats believe free trade helps.
The poll results, which come ahead of Monday night’s highly anticipated presidential debate, show a stark turnabout in public opinion from a decade ago, when George W. Bush was president and Republican lawmakers — with the notable exception of some lawmakers from textile industry states — championed free trade. In 2006, a Pew Research Center poll showed Democrats — who traditionally have stronger ties with organized labor — to be considerably more negative about free trade than Republicans.
Now, the POLITICO-Harvard poll shows, 85 percent of Republicans say that free trade has cost the U.S. more jobs than it has created, compared to 54 percent of Democrats.
Trade has “gone from the gold standard to being something that’s bad,” Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s former chief strategist, told POLITICO. “I think it’s a disaster across the board for the Republican Party, because you’re betting against all these trends [in globalization] that are not going to stop.”
“The reason people don’t like trade is the people at the top are not doing a good job of selling it,” says Stevens, who has worked for a slew of pro-trade Republicans through the years. Romney talked tough during his 2012 presidential bid about the need to force Beijing to change its trade practices, but held a fundamentally pro-trade view of the world.
But the problem isn’t salesmanship, says Peter Navarro, a senior policy adviser to Trump and an economist at the University of California, Irvine.
“There’s been a schism for a long time between registered Republicans and the party leadership. That was the essence of the primary election. You had a group of insider politicians singing the same old globalization song. And one candidate saying the emperor has no clothes,” he told POLITICO.
Beyond the presidential race, Republican voters’ journey away from free trade support has left several prominent GOP Senate candidates in a bind as they attempt to distance themselves from the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership deal between the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim countries. One is Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, who has been a stalwart free trade backer but now faces a tough re-election and opposes TPP. Another is Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — an architect of Bush’s free trade agenda as his U.S. Trade Representative — who opposes a pact he might have once supported.
Ohio Democrats have slammed Portman for flip-flopping on the issue — and one observer of the race told POLITICO to watch for a considerable number of Ohioans to vote for both Trump and Portman’s Democratic opponent, Ted Strickland.
The trade numbers are just one of several findings that portray an electorate deeply divided about the state of the economy and increasingly hostile toward drug companies:
— The poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the economy has either stayed the same or deteriorated since the 2008 economic recession.
— There is a partisan split in how people view the income gap between rich and poor: 59 percent of Democrats view it as a “very serious problem,” and only 20 percent of Republicans say that.
— Americans are divided over what Congress should do to improve the economy, with almost equal numbers saying lawmakers should focus on narrowing the income gap (42 percent) and cutting taxes (40 percent). Democrats favor narrowing the income gap, while Republicans want to cut taxes.
— On health care, respondents identified drug companies as the No. 1 culprit for rising health costs. Democrats and Republicans alike hold the pharmaceutical industry responsible for rising costs more than any other health care sector, though that sentiment is stronger among Democrats.
— On another emerging hot-button issue, Americans favor creating a government-sponsored health insurance plan, or public option, as part of the Affordable Care Act — and not just Democrats. A slight majority (54 percent) of all Americans favor adding such a plan — and among Democrats, fully three-quarters back the idea, as do 52 percent of Independents. Among Republicans, 60 percent oppose the public option but more than one in four support it (26 percent).
The most striking poll results, however, demonstrate the changing perceptions of trade in a party that has long been identified with support for open markets and low tariffs.
Some Republicans downplay the idea that the party is becoming more protectionist. After all, 49 of 54 Senate Republicans supported legislation to allow fast-track approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But longtime skeptics of U.S. trade policy think Republican leaders are missing the point: that for years, the GOP voting coalition has not been as pro-trade as their elected leaders in Washington.
“You have a paradox in the Republican party versus the populist sentiments,” says Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO. “For a long time big business has driven Republican members of Congress, and they’ve managed to keep the white working class happy with anti-immigration sentiments or social issues.”
“There’s always been a vulnerability in that position, and Donald Trump blew a massive whole in that position,” she says.
Both Trump and Bernie Sanders won big in the Michigan primary earlier this year, and the POLITICO-Harvard poll helps explain why. Regardless of party affiliation, 53 percent of respondents in the Midwest said free trade agreements hurt their communities.
Navarro, the Trump adviser, pegs the beginning of the change to 2000, when Congress voted to normalize trade relations with China as it prepared to enter the World Trade Organization. China’s accession occurred in 2001.
Navarro maintains that for more than a decade now, the Republican Party had abandoned its constituents, pursuing a slew of free trade deals that allowed foreign-made goods to flood U.S. markets.
“By 2012, Romney could’ve taken up that issue and won the swing states he needed to win the election but he allowed himself to be ensnared by secondary issues,” Navarro said, echoing Trump’s call for a renegotiation of NAFTA and huge tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods. “That’s not going to happen to Donald Trump.”
The Peterson Institute for International Economics recently released a study saying Trump’s proposals could cause another recession and cost the U.S. five million jobs. The think tank’s researchers ran three computer simulations on the economic impact of Trump’s proposed tariffs on China and Mexico. The most extreme outcome, it finds, is that the two countries would return fire with their own tariffs, leading to a shrinkage in goods moving in and out of the United States.
Still, Trump wins wild applause from supporters for statements like this one in June: “NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history, and China's entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history.”
Just a decade ago, when a Republican was in the White House, a Pew Research poll found that 43 percent of Republicans believed trade agreements had helped the financial situation of their family, and that only 27 percent of Republicans said free trade agreements hurt them. Forty-one percent of Democrats at the time said free trade hurt their families, with 30 percent saying it helped.
Now, of course, there’s a Democrat in the White House, which may help explain the increase in GOP voter opposition to trade deals. But the global financial crisis also helped to hollow out some depressed working-class communities that had already been affected by outsourcing to China, Mexico and Vietnam. Trump’s proposals, and the fiery rhetoric in which he wraps these ideas, have captured the imagination of many in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Observers on both side of the political divide say that Trump’s anti-trade message has xenophobic undertones. Stevens calls Trump’s talk on China and Mexico the “economic leg of the anti-Mexican-Muslim stew. He’s normalized this kind of hate talk.”
Sixty-four percent of Republicans said that free trade with China hurts the United States, versus just 38 percent of Democrats. Free trade with Mexico evokes a similar response. A mere 17 percent of Democrats think free trade across the southern border hurts the country; the figure for Republicans is 61 percent.
Trade with Canada, the European Union, Japan and South Korea is far less concerning to respondents.
Still, the POLITICO-Harvard poll shows an across-the-board skepticism toward international trade, with 65 percent of Americans believing that trade policies have led to a loss of U.S. jobs. Just 13 percent believe trade policies created jobs and 15 percent said it had no effect.
It’s an ominous sign for TPP, in particular. The poll found that 70 percent of the surveyed had not heard or read anything about TPP — and out of the 29 percent that heard of TPP, more than half opposed Congress approving the deal.
And while the poll shows a Democratic base more open to free trade than it was a decade ago, the issue still evokes strong emotional reactions from some in the party’s most liberal wing. Sanders riled up an enthusiastic bloc of liberal voters in his primary challenge to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, pushing the former Secretary of State to the left. After previously supporting Asia-Pacific trade negotiations during her time in government, Clinton renounced the TPP deal in October 2015.
“We’re glad [Clinton] has said that she thinks these free trade agreements need to be rethought,” says the AFL-CIO’s Lee. “She’s evolved in the direction where a lot of people are, which is not so much we need to stop trading. It’s that these trade agreements need to hit that sweet spot of balancing the corporate interests and things like labor rights, the environment and all else.”
The Clinton campaign declined comment on the poll.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/politico-harvard-poll-free-trade-trump-gop-228600#ixzz4LBM8Q5I9
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
-
See how Trumpism infects? Republicans now believe Trump's bullshit that free trade costs jobs.
As Stuart Stevens says above, the GOP, as once the enlightened party, is now turning luddite on global trade. And it will be economically costly to the country.
-
Fake headline alert!
-
Fake headline alert!
So please educate us oh wise tRumpkin just how the headline is fake?
-
(http://www.nycop.com/Spring2006/Globalization/cartoon_globo_large.GIF)
-
Well they're simple
-
@beandog Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1pwxHHp10
-
See how Trumpism infects? Republicans now believe Trump's bullshit that free trade costs jobs.
As Stuart Stevens says above, the GOP, as once the enlightened party, is now turning luddite on global trade. And it will be economically costly to the country.
I had mentioned some months ago that I had read that more Democrats currently viewed free trade in a positive light than Republicans.
I thought, at the time, that it was a harbinger of a realignment in the political landscape.
I still do.
The GOP is now a party of fear and hatred over *EVERYTHING* they self-define as the 'other'. Trade brings in goods made by that 'other', so naturally... it's 'bad'.
---
Just like the TOS, they are pushing more and more people out of the 'us' group into the 'other'.
The 2012 election 'post-mortem' identified exactly that as a persistent problem. And Trump pushed the 'overdrive' button on it.
-
The GOP is now a party of fear and hatred over *EVERYTHING* they self-define as the 'other'. Trade brings in goods made by that 'other', so naturally... it's 'bad'.
---
Just like the TOS, they are pushing more and more people out of the 'us' group into the 'other'.
The 2012 election 'post-mortem' identified exactly that as a persistent problem. And Trump pushed the 'overdrive' button on it.
At TOS one of the explanations of why ethanol subsidies were good was because it was better than the corn being sold to foreign nations at a discount.
-
I remember 2006-ish, it was liberals who vehemently argued against free trade and conservatives who argued for it.
It seems somehow the positions swapped without anybody even noticing?
-
Jobs and businesses leave because of endless regulation and taxes. Things like mandated maternity leave for example... One of the highest corporate tax rates in the world... Obamacare forced to be paid by employers... You can't hide from the world or competition. You either compete or wither away. When you have to build walls to keep people/business in the country - you've become the old Soviet Union... And brilliant people like you cheer that on...
-
Trump is never pro-freedom.
Unless its the freedom of the perverts.
-
Trump is never pro-freedom.
Unless its the freedom of the perverts.
@geronl How's that Constitution party thingy working out for you bud?
I hear your boy Castle raised over $10,000...
888high58888
-
I remember 2006-ish, it was liberals who vehemently argued against free trade and conservatives who argued for it.
It seems somehow the positions swapped without anybody even noticing?
The only explanation is that Republicans have turned stupid when it comes to trade. We live in a world of trade, and we engage or, as someone else said, we die. And tariffs will plunge the country into recession and cost thousands, maybe millions, of jobs. It is a luddite view to encourage protectionism. That raises the costs of imported goods (which is a great deal of what is sold to and bought by the middle class).
Trump is itching to raise taxes and this is his way of doing it.
-
Despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump is not going to push for 35% tariffs regardless of where a company moves nor is he going to do much re negotiating any trade deals. It may fire up his base of supporters, but he will not want to deal with the ugly resulting economic reality of pursuing such policies
-
@geronl How's that Constitution party thingy working out for you bud?
I hear your boy Castle raised over $10,000...
888high58888
How's that Republican party thingy working out for you bud?
More taxes, higher minimum wage, more federal overreach, more liberal activist judges, more leftism all around... You would think it were the Democrats in charge of congress... But hey, they're the lesser of two evils and all so swirling the drain a little more slowly is as good as it gets - lets party like we're winning anyway...
-
Despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump is not going to push for 35% tariffs regardless of where a company moves nor is he going to do much re negotiating any trade deals. It may fire up his base of supporters, but he will not want to deal with the ugly resulting economic reality of pursuing such policies
Of course not. Once he got together with the GOPe and told them that he was just shoveling manure for the morons and that he was ready to wheel and deal, the GOPe was on board 100%.
-
How's that Republican party thingy working out for you bud?
The hostile takeover is almost complete, and it's gonna be a while to complete the restructure...
...but no worries, it'll get done on time and come in under budget just like the man said it would be.
-
Weird wrote and asked:
"I remember 2006-ish, it was liberals who vehemently argued against free trade and conservatives who argued for it.
It seems somehow the positions swapped without anybody even noticing?"
I reckon that the "positions" have "swapped" precisely because people HAVE noticed.
-
These anti trade Trumpettes are the same silly bastards who flood Walmart at the drop of a hat to buy a dinette set for 38 cents. They're all frauds.
-
How's that Republican party thingy working out for you bud?
More taxes, higher minimum wage, more federal overreach, more liberal activist judges, more leftism all around... You would think it were the Democrats in charge of congress... But hey, they're the lesser of two evils and all so swirling the drain a little more slowly is as good as it gets - lets party like we're winning anyway...
Last I saw Democrats were in charge of congress. Mitch and Ryan/Bhoner are the most recent majority right? So there you go. Democrats in charge of all three branches.
-
The hostile takeover is almost complete, and it's gonna be a while to complete the restructure...
...but no worries, it'll get done on time and come in under budget just like the man said it would be.
The trains will run on time too.
-
The trains will run on time too.
Move to Mexico if you like slow trains, who's stopping you? :shrug:
-
Despite his campaign rhetoric, Trump is not going to push for 35% tariffs regardless of where a company moves nor is he going to do much re negotiating any trade deals. It may fire up his base of supporters, but he will not want to deal with the ugly resulting economic reality of pursuing such policies
Just because he's a liar doesn't mean he won't do dumb stuff. He demonstrates how capable he is of doing both, and his lack of understanding of economics is obvious.
-
Just because he's a liar doesn't mean he won't do dumb stuff. He demonstrates how capable he is of doing both, and his lack of understanding of economics is obvious.
Trump's economic program is different in that it put the interest of ordinary Americans first, ahead of other countries, Ivy League bubble heads, and multi-national corporations. Its understandable that such a drastic change in economic philosophy makes globalist shills like Romney advisor Stuart Spencer queasy. Fortunately millions of American voters of all kinds have woken up to the fact that these rat-faced establishment elites have been peddling the same economic horse manure for decades with zero positive effect for this nation..and they aren't having any more of it.
Take your dried tofu and Belgian endive bub and bring me some rare steak and mashed potatoes! ^-^
-
Trump's economic program is different in that it put the interest of ordinary Americans first, ahead of other countries, Ivy League bubble heads, and multi-national corporations. Its understandable that such a drastic change in economic philosophy makes globalist shills like Romney advisor Stuart Spencer queasy. Fortunately millions of American voters of all kinds have woken up to the fact that these rat-faced establishment elites have been peddling the same economic horse manure for decades with zero positive effect for this nation..and they aren't having any more of it.
Take your dried tofu and Belgian endive bub and bring me some rare steak and mashed potatoes! ^-^
Are you kidding me? The Tax Foundation's analysis demonstrates that, as bad as Clinton's plan is, Trump's is even worse. Clinton kicks the can down the road and increases the debt our kids and grandkids will have to pay. Trump goes her one better and kicks the can so far down the road our grandkids' grandkids will be paying for his idiocy.
It's pretty god-damned pathetic when you make a liberal look fiscally prudent.
-
Trump's economic program is different in that it put the interest of ordinary Americans first,
Baloney!
If he didn't hate ordinary Americans, he wouldn't propose dumping on them so badly, cutting their effective wages by a third by driving up consumer costs. He's so proud to be padding union and business leaders' wallets on the backs of ordinary Americans, knowing that many people no longer think things through thesevdays.
Despicable, loathsome anti-American troll, he is.
-
I notice the democrats are running against republicans on the same anti trade platform Trump ran against republicans in the primary.
Its almost too convenient.
-
GWB raised tariffs on steel in 2002 and the results were predictable. Despite the campaign rhetoric and his lack of understanding of basic economic principles, a President Trump will not change much when it comes to trade.
-
GWB raised tariffs on steel in 2002 and the results were predictable. Despite the campaign rhetoric and his lack of understanding of basic economic principles, a President Trump will not change much when it comes to trade.
No. He will kill what is left of it.
True unadulterated corporate fascism will replace what was once free trade.
And Hoover will look like a piker in the protectionism department.
-
Baloney! If he didn't hate ordinary Americans, he wouldn't propose dumping on them so badly, cutting their effective wages by a third by driving up consumer costs.
Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States. The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory. I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.
I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.
-
Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States. The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory. I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.
I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.
Don't forget deregulation at home .... 888high58888
-
The trains will run on time too.
AMTRAK doesn't run on time now, I guess more government money should help, lol.
-
Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States.
Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate?
Yes, such policies are great for a fledgling economy, but they trade that protection for prosperity. They transferred wealth from the citizen to the business sector, so it could succeed. But it's not American to have a long-term goal of making the citizen servile to business.
The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory.
Whoa, those roaring 1970s...let's emulate them, instead of the boom after we freed ourselves from the shackles! </sarcasm>
Isn't it funny how economies that use protectionism are held back, but those that use free trade tend to boom? The citizens in those economies do better, too, other than the fat cats who benefit on the backs of consumers.
I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.
Funny...your fellow Trumpians blasted me when I pointed out their epithets against Ivy Leaguers would include the buffoon himself. They rightly pointed out that Wharton is not really Ivy League, as it's just the business school. Oh, I get so confused as to which story to use when!
I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.
Trouble is, we're not in an Alexander Hamilton America now. Remember that thing called the 16th Amendment? That wasn't around in early America, so now we already have a big burden on ordinary Americans. I applaud Trump if he will try to relieve that burden, but his plans to increase costs on ordinary Americans when they're already stagnated is just plain sadistic.
Fascist-style central planning -- where Trump will decide on winners and losers -- might sound good, but if you look at where it has been tried, such as Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc., it has been horrible for the people.
I love my fellow Americans too much to support such policies.
-
Don't forget deregulation at home .... 888high58888
Deregulation can be enacted raising the cost-of-living on Americans by 45%.
-
Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate?
Yeah the original architect of the American economy and first Secretary of the Treasury whose contributions earned him a spot on the national currency...that guy.
Whoa, those roaring 1970s...let's emulate them, instead of the boom after we freed ourselves from the shackles! </sarcasm>
The move to fiat currency and fractional reserve banking played a large role in that breakdown, and that boom you're referring to was the result of the same kind of tax reform that Trump is proposing. If you believed your own rhetoric you'd support Trump.
Funny...your fellow Trumpians blasted me when I pointed out their epithets against Ivy Leaguers would include the buffoon himself. They rightly pointed out that Wharton is not really Ivy League, as it's just the business school. Oh, I get so confused as to which story to use when!
That sounds like a problem you're having, not me. :shrug:
Fascist-style central planning -- where Trump will decide on winners and losers -- might sound good, but if you look at where it has been tried, such as Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc., it has been horrible for the people.
Nothing Trump has proposed is worse than the system we're currently living with under Obama, in fact Trump plans to roll back much of the Obama agenda starting with Obamacare.
Electing Clinton would be an extension of that agenda, so it would seem your 'outrage' over government intervention and central planning is selective.
Your liberal bias is showing.
-
Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate?
Nothing Trump has proposed is worse than the system we're currently living with under Obama, in fact Trump plans to roll back much of the Obama agenda starting with Obamacare.
Yeah. Roll back Obamacare and replace it with single payer, which Trump is very fond of. After all, as Trump says, we can't be like Republicans who are leaving "people to die in the streets."
You are so naive.
-
Yeah. Roll back Obamacare and replace it with single payer, which Trump is very fond of.
No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.
I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.
-
The handy thing about Trump is that he advocates multiple, contradictory policies, so you can always say he's advocated your pet one and ignore that he's also advocated abhorrent ones.
-
No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.
I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.
How does "deregulating" health care involve forcing coverage of preexisting conditions??? The only way you can cover preexisting conditions is by forcing everyone to buy health insurance because otherwise no one would buy it until they needed it. Trump originally supported the "mandate" until others "clarified" what the mandate meant, the primary issue with Obamacare, and he backtracked... Now he wants it both ways, coverage of preexisting conditions but you don't have to buy it which isn't logically possible. Only a fool who ignores reality buys that.
And now for the bottom line, nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to manage/mandate our health care. Zip. The constitution spells out what the federal government has authority over and everything else is left to the states. The fact that you accept Trump dictating our healthcare terms means you already accept the premise of big government in our lives that is not restrained by the constitution. You claim to be a conservative but the evidence says otherwise.
-
No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.
I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.
You don't even know what your own prince has said and agreed with on the subject.
Like all the other True Believers, you loft upon Trump as fact what YOU PERSONALLY believe he will do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs
-
Trump was whom H.L. Mencken was thinking about when he said (paraphrase) for every complex problem there was a simple solution...and it was usually wrong.
-
The fact that you accept Trump dictating our healthcare terms means you already accept the premise of big government in our lives that is not restrained by the constitution.
This seems to be the fight this election cycle. Instead of addressing our fiscal situation, both camps are fighting over not only who can grow the size and scope of the federal government, but who can then manage it better. Trump supporters argue that Trump is better equipped to run a large and growing federal government because he has experience managing big business. Her backers say she does because of her experience in Washington and politics.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, especially future generations, will get stuck with the bill
-
@DB Trump has already indicated that he favors deregulating the healthcare insurance industry, which is a far cry from a single payer healthcare system.
Congress can repeal the Obamacare insurance mandates any time it chooses, President Trump won't stand in their way.
None of this is remotely possible under President Clinton, so choose carefully.