Things Clinton Democrats don't seem to get

[RaphaelDLG]

A lot of great stuff in this thread, especially on the first page.

I would add: 

Especially in the long-term (2-3 election cycles), economic populism is a winning election strategy.  The whole Slick Willy DLC strategy of outflanking the Republicans on deregulation and cuts to SS/medicare may help bring in $ for your campaign coffers and give you the air of being a "very serious adult," but in the long-term it damages your brand!

In the 30s-60s, the Democratic party was synonymous with the working man.  Nowadays, it does not enjoy that reputation - despite the fact that, though they are doing badly under both regimes, working class folks pretty obviously do better under Democratic leadership.

Why did this happen?  I believe that a lot of it is due to the failure of Democratic party leadership to resist structural forces/corporate power in pursuit of short-term gains (of course, there are a lot of threads to disentangle, like racism, etc).

[RaphaelDLG]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

[RaphaelDLG]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

Are you trying to suggest that we should permanently suspend the economy at our current level of technology and development and prevent technological advances for the sake of preserving old jobs?

Would you be satisfied if hypothetically the government gave people who lost their jobs the opportunity to go back to school for free or close to free to learn how to adapt their skills into a slightly different position, and provided bedrock necessities like healthcare and high quality education for their children?

Of course (like we complained in the discussion you quoted) the government currently doesn't provide anything like any of those three things, and SHOULD, to serve the heartbreaking cases that you describe.

But I DON'T think that we should be telling people that they should expect to hold the same job for their entire life anymore, or that they should not expect their industry to dramatically change.  And we should adjust our public education accordingly so that it does a much better job of preparing people for that rapidly changing kind of world.