Senate & House Democrats against TPP?

[Kevin]

Just wondering.

Who specifically in the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership Fast Track deal?

From what I understand it's just as hazy among Dems as it is among the GOP side about where individual members in both chambers stand on this. With tensions about the deal breaking down along ideological, regional lines etc.

On the Senate side the I know that Warren, Brown, and Sanders have been quite vocal in their opposition to TPP. I also can't see Franken, Stabenow, Murphy, Peters or Baldwin supporting it . I think others such as Manchin, Casey, Durbin, McCaskill, Nelson, Whitehouse, or Markey would be hard pressed to support it.

On the House side the only one I can think of so far is Sandy Levin but I know alot more Dems there feel very strongly about it too.

Does anyone have a specific breakdown of who supports or opposes TPP among the Democrats?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The bulk of the congressional black caucus lead by Maxine Waterd have opposed the deal.

Conyers; Bobby Rush and Rangle has supported Obama on trade.

[publicunofficial]

There's no definite numbers, but it's most of the CBC and Progressive Caucus. Jim McDermott wrote an op-ed in Roll Call against the TPP, for one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama is falling in line with TARP; he ran as a progressive, amd governing like a Clintonite. He wasnt true to his progressive cause.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama is falling in line with TARP; he ran as a progressive, amd governing like a Clintonite. He wasnt true to his progressive cause.

The new mode is to run as a progressive, and govern as a neoliberal. There's no doubt that Hillary will follow Obama and her husband. We can trust Sanders to actually be progressive,

[Ebsy]

We can trust Sanders to lose the general and end up with something worse than an alleged neoliberal: an actual neocon.

[NeverAgain]

We can trust Sanders to lose the general and end up with something worse than an alleged neoliberal: an actual neocon.

I'd rather have a president who has the ability to stand for their beliefs instead of flip-flopping to either side of one party.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama has to fight his own congressional caucus on this; as Donna Edwards; hopefully Dems MD nominee opposes this.

[Brewer]

We can trust Sanders to lose the general and end up with something worse than an alleged neoliberal: an actual neocon.

I'd rather have a president who has the ability to stand for their beliefs instead of flip-flopping to either side of one party.

That's right, I'm fine with having a right-winger in the White House because #principles!

[Ebowed]

We can trust Sanders to lose the general and end up with something worse than an alleged neoliberal: an actual neocon.

I'd rather have a president who has the ability to stand for their beliefs instead of flip-flopping to either side of one party.

That's right, I'm fine with having a right-winger in the White House because #principles!

What makes you so sure that Bernie Sanders can't win against a nutjob?  Let's be sensible here, the Dems aren't going to suddenly lose millions of supporters because they nominate an unexpected candidate with a slightly different, but equally broad, appeal.  It's a presidential election, after all.  It's not really inconceivable that we make it to 50%, or win with a plurality, or whatever, with Sanders on the ticket.  I think it's actually more risky to nominate any of the others, who are more dull and wouldn't provide a natural base of supporters to substitute for the loss of Hillary Clinton.  Granted, all of this is just pointless hypothetical nonsense given that Clinton should win the nomination.

You could bring up that Sanders identifies as a Socialist, but given that every Democratic nominee now automatically gets assigned this label, it's fair to say that it wouldn't even make that big of a difference.  The 'independent' politics of defunding a system designed to benefit corporate interests have appeal across strict ideological lines.

The harder thing than winning the general, IMO, would be then actually having to work with Congress to try and pass anything remotely close to his agenda.

[Brewer]

We can trust Sanders to lose the general and end up with something worse than an alleged neoliberal: an actual neocon.

I'd rather have a president who has the ability to stand for their beliefs instead of flip-flopping to either side of one party.

That's right, I'm fine with having a right-winger in the White House because #principles!

What makes you so sure that Bernie Sanders can't win against a nutjob?  Let's be sensible here, the Dems aren't going to suddenly lose millions of supporters because they nominate an unexpected candidate with a slightly different, but equally broad, appeal.  It's a presidential election, after all.  It's not really inconceivable that we make it to 50%, or win with a plurality, or whatever, with Sanders on the ticket.  I think it's actually more risky to nominate any of the others, who are more dull and wouldn't provide a natural base of supporters to substitute for the loss of Hillary Clinton.  Granted, all of this is just pointless hypothetical nonsense given that Clinton should win the nomination.

You could bring up that Sanders identifies as a Socialist, but given that every Democratic nominee now automatically gets assigned this label, it's fair to say that it wouldn't even make that big of a difference.  The 'independent' politics of defunding a system designed to benefit corporate interests have appeal across strict ideological lines.

The harder thing than winning the general, IMO, would be then actually having to work with Congress to try and pass anything remotely close to his agenda.

There's a pretty significant difference between the same tired Republican attacks on Democrats as "socialists" that anybody who wouldn't already immediately vote GOP regardless can tune out, and being able to legitimately bring up personal admissions from a candidate that he is, in fact, a socialist, which largely remains a dirty word among many Americans (including independents and some Democrats), to the chagrin of myself and others who actually do like Bernie.

Naturally, as I have said before, any other Democratic candidate besides Hillary would have an uphill battle in the general, let alone someone who publicly expresses an ideology that I'm sure is unfairly equated significantly among the American public with communism and other extremes. This of course isn't based on any factual evidence that I have at hand, merely a hypothesis.

[Maxwell]

Not to mention that Bernie Sanders looks like Larry King's father. The guy looks like a fringe candidate. By comparison, Republicans have fringe candidates that, if you aren't paying attention, look perfectly acceptable. Sanders can't win against any non-Ben Carson Republican.

[badgate]

Obama is falling in line with TARP; he ran as a progressive, amd governing like a Clintonite. He wasnt true to his progressive cause.

The new mode is to run as a progressive, and govern as a neoliberal. There's no doubt that Hillary will follow Obama and her husband. We can trust Sanders to actually be progressive,

and to lose.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Melissa Bean and Alexi Ginnoulias supported Tarp; and lost anyway in his home state. Bailouta didnt help Dems all over.