May 11, 2015

Here you go:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll done in April of Democrats only:

Initial TPA Ballot
Q5. From what you have heard, do you… granting President Obama trade promotion authority?

Strongly support 25%
Somewhat support 39%
Somewhat oppose 13%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 14%

SUPPORT 64%
OPPOSE 21%

Initial TPP Ballot
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf

68% of republicans (74% of 'conservative republicans') will hold a pro-fast track vote against their candidate compared to 17% of Democrats.

I wonder who the 11% that want their politician to support fast track.

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

My guess is that there are many polls on TPP and fast track being conducted now since the latter is before congress. The only one I have seen released recently is the second one above.

... a "rank-and-file" Democrat who doesn't really know what is actually in the TPP, would almost naturally say "Yes" if it were a simple yes-or-no question."

I tend to agree although I think many believe that most Democrats would usually answer "No" given a negative view of past trade agreements. Democrats almost always poll as more supportive of trade agreements, international diplomacy in general, foreign aid, etc. than republicans who tend to oppose almost all forms of international involvement, other than bombing and invasion.

As far as a knowledge of TPP, 30% in that poll said they did not know enough to offer an opinion. Democrats who did offer an opinion supported TPP 52% to 18% - which is consistent with the 1st poll above.

May 7, 2015

Poll: More Americans (particularly Democrats) See Trade Pacts as Beneficial to U.S. Economy

After years of post-recession skepticism, Americans increasingly see international trade pacts as beneficial to the U.S. economy, fueled in part by a jump in support from Democratic voters.

According to a new NBC/WSJ poll, 37 percent of Americans now say that free trade with foreign countries has helped the United States, while 31 percent disagree.

Democratic support has jumped significantly in the past five years. In the latest poll, 43 percent said free trade has helped the U.S. economy, compared to just 27 percent who said the same in 2010. African Americans and Latinos have also registered huge gains in the past five years. Specifically, African American support has doubled since 2010 from 14 percent to 31 percent last month.

Meanwhile, only 33 percent of Republicans say international trade has helped the United States, compared to 36 percent who disagree. But conservative support has risen compared to 2010, when just 21 percent of the party believed that trade pacts boost the U.S. economy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/poll-more-americans-see-trade-pacts-beneficial-u-s-economy-n354111

This poll was co-sponsored by the WSJ so take it with a grain of salt. Hopefully, there will be more polls in the near future sponsored by more trustworthy organizations. The opposition of the republican base has remained fairly constant for many years.

May 7, 2015

To play the "Who's for it and who's against it" game:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll done in April of Democrats only:

Initial TPA Ballot
Q5. From what you have heard, do you… granting President Obama trade promotion authority?

Strongly support 25%
Somewhat support 39%
Somewhat oppose 13%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 14%

SUPPORT 64%
OPPOSE 21%

Initial TPP Ballot
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf

And in the "Who's against it column there are plenty of "Crooks, criminals, traitors, liars, and repukes" as well.

Join Donald Trump and tell Congress to stop Obama’s bad trade deal!
Sen. Jeff Sessions blasts Obamatrade (that's the right's pet term for TPP; makes it sound like Obamacare in order to fire up the conservative base)
Mark Levin Opposes Fast Track – and Congress should, too!
Dick Morris: Obamatrade = Unrestricted Immigration
Lou Dobbs & Ed Rollins blast Obamatrade
Americans for Limited Government: No Fast Track for Obamatrade
Eagle Forum: No Fast Track for Obamatrade
TheTeaParty.net: No Fast Track for Obamatrade
Center for Security Policy: No Fast Track for Obamatrade
Obamatrade: A gift for Sharia regimesAlan Keyes blasts Obamatrade and those who love it
Conservatives hate Obamatrade even more than Democrats do

http://obamatrade.com/

May 2, 2015

If past international negotiations/agreements did not work as planned, the progressive approach is

to stop negotiating with other countries and have the US act unilaterally. Withdraw from NAFTA and other trade agreements as well as the WTO. (No one is going to trust "renegotiation" even though that sounds good.)

Tell other countries that the US had decided to impose pro-American trading rules on the world. FDR and Truman had a excellent opportunity to do this when American power was at its zenith and blew it with their stupid "multilateralist" ITO and GATT. (Oh, and thank you republicans for killing the ITO in the Senate or this 'multilateralist' crap would have been even worse than it is. If only you had won control of congress in time to kill GATT as well. Oh well.)

We hope you understand what we are doing with these new rules - but we really don't care whether you do or not. We are big and strong. You? Not so much.

Acting unilaterally without respect to what other countries want may have a conservative history to it but the world should trust us on this one. We know this sounds like the trading world of Coolidge/Hoover that FDR thought he had banished forever, but trust us. This is a progressive version of C/H unilateralism on trade whether you can tell the difference or not.

However (and we hate to go all 'republican' on you) we really don't care whether you trust us or not. We are doing what we think is in our national interest and you can't stop us. And don't give us that ol' "America the bully" or "American exceptionalism" stuff! Have you seen how many planes and ships we have compared to you? We are 'exceptional'! No one wastes money on the military like we do! And "bully" is in the eye of the beholder and the 'beholder' is, by definition, weaker so who really cares!

Negotiations are for weak liberals! Taking unilateral action is for strong conservatives and progressives! So, according to these rules, anyone who goes the "international negotiation route" to improve things is, at best, a 'weak liberal' but, more likely, is a 'corporate sellout', corrupt politician selling his support for a comfortable retirement.

TWP