Do AZ/FL & Wisc/Mich have an inverse relationship regarding Trade, etc...

[SCNCmod]

In General.... It seems that AZ (& Prob FL) would naturally be in favor of  Free Trade Policies ... where as Wisc/Mich/(& prob Penn) would be naturally more opposed to Free Trade Policies...

So if Trump ends up gaining popularity in Wisc/Mich/(& Penn)- due to trade & other policies ... will he have an inverse trend in AZ (& FL)?

I think there is at least a chance- that Dems path in 2020 will be via AZ & FL (if Trump gains popularity in Wisc & Mich & Penn)... 

(also in AZ... those who voted against Trump in '16.. will most likely vote against Trump again- & many who voted 3rd Party in AZ in '16 ... will be more likely to vote Dem in 2020 since Dems will have a "non-Hillary" candidate)

272 Dem - 268 Trump

[politics_king]

Depending on his policies and how it actually affects everyone with Trump, if it goes bad then Arizona will go Democratic and Florida would too. It was close, and the demographics in 4 years will change. Trump buried himself by pandering to all the workers in Middle America that they were "taking their jobs" they weren't. Their jobs were lost, and it wasn't fair, but they live in a declining state. Countries are businesses, and it's up their local government to adapt.

[SCNCmod]

Depending on his policies and how it actually affects everyone with Trump, if it goes bad then Arizona will go Democratic and Florida would too. It was close, and the demographics in 4 years will change. Trump buried himself by pandering to all the workers in Middle America that they were "taking their jobs" they weren't. Their jobs were lost, and it wasn't fair, but they live in a declining state. Countries are businesses, and it's up their local government to adapt.

I tweeted back in April/May ... that Hillary was making a mistake not choosing Castro as VP- b/c he would give her the best chance of winning AZ & FL (... to protect against the possibility that Trump would take Wisc- Mich- Penn, which (even in the Spring) some anecdotal evidence suggest was a possibility).

[politics_king]

Depending on his policies and how it actually affects everyone with Trump, if it goes bad then Arizona will go Democratic and Florida would too. It was close, and the demographics in 4 years will change. Trump buried himself by pandering to all the workers in Middle America that they were "taking their jobs" they weren't. Their jobs were lost, and it wasn't fair, but they live in a declining state. Countries are businesses, and it's up their local government to adapt.

I tweeted back in April/May ... that Hillary was making a mistake not choosing Castro as VP- b/c he would give her the best chance of winning AZ & FL (... to protect against the possibility that Trump would take Wisc- Mich- Penn, which (even in the Spring) some anecdotal evidence suggest was a possibility).

Castro would've done nothing but feed into a narrative because of his last name. She should've chose Elizabeth Warren for the mere fact she would've been that "attack-dog" and delegitimized who Trump was at the end of the day. But, Hillary wanted her wing to have that time of day, Tim Kaine is that example of a Centrist. She made a bad pick, if she really wanted to win, Bernie would've been the pick. Our wing would've been out in force when it came to the grassroots.

[Donerail]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for Julian Castro, he would have done nothing to win Florida. Given his last name, he may have hurt the ticket. If it's Luis Gutiérrez then maybe you get enough of an effect on turnout in the Orlando burbs to swing the state, but that's unlikely. There's not really any other nationally prominent Cuban or Puerto Rican Democrats (even Gutiérrez is a stretch).

[politics_king]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for Julian Castro, he would have done nothing to win Florida. Given his last name, he may have hurt the ticket. If it's Luis Gutiérrez then maybe you get enough of an effect on turnout in the Orlando burbs to swing the state, but that's unlikely. There's not really any other nationally prominent Cuban or Puerto Rican Democrats (even Gutiérrez is a stretch).

You're right. But trade was never a General Election issue, she would've won on the mere fact if someone like Warren or Bernie with the VP that the progressive part had a say. The younger vote 18-30 would've turned out, especially for Bernie but Warren was a good substitute because she was so Anti-Wall Street. The reason Bernie did so well because he talked about how the Elite has flushed so much money into campaigns because of Citizens Untied, we all saw the corruption but a lot of us didn't vote just "complained". It's sad but now we have Trump and it was an "Oh, sh**t!" wake up call. Trump is Mr. Wall-Street, he's never talked bad about them, he talked trade and how outsourcing stole all the jobs while it was actually Wall-Street manipulating their investments in companies that didn't send jobs overseas to make numbers lower. It's a pyramid scheme if you want to get to semantics. I've always thought that Wall-Street is just legalized gambling over business, their needs to be tighter regulations. Bernie raises so much money without a corporate handout it's baffling.

[Rjjr77]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for Julian Castro, he would have done nothing to win Florida. Given his last name, he may have hurt the ticket. If it's Luis Gutiérrez then maybe you get enough of an effect on turnout in the Orlando burbs to swing the state, but that's unlikely. There's not really any other nationally prominent Cuban or Puerto Rican Democrats (even Gutiérrez is a stretch).

You're right. But trade was never a General Election issue, she would've won on the mere fact if someone like Warren or Bernie with the VP that the progressive part had a say. The younger vote 18-30 would've turned out, especially for Bernie but Warren was a good substitute because she was so Anti-Wall Street. The reason Bernie did so well because he talked about how the Elite has flushed so much money into campaigns because of Citizens Untied, we all saw the corruption but a lot of us didn't vote just "complained". It's sad but now we have Trump and it was an "Oh, sh**t!" wake up call. Trump is Mr. Wall-Street, he's never talked bad about them, he talked trade and how outsourcing stole all the jobs while it was actually Wall-Street manipulating their investments in companies that didn't send jobs overseas to make numbers lower. It's a pyramid scheme if you want to get to semantics. I've always thought that Wall-Street is just legalized gambling over business, their needs to be tighter regulations. Bernie raises so much money without a corporate handout it's baffling.

Bernie yes, but there is nothing to suggest the youth vote would have turned out for Warren. A large chunk of sanders youth support was more about outsider appeal than actual policy. The progressive wing definitely exists, but if you think progressives not turning out was Hillary's biggest problem you're wrong.

[politics_king]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for Julian Castro, he would have done nothing to win Florida. Given his last name, he may have hurt the ticket. If it's Luis Gutiérrez then maybe you get enough of an effect on turnout in the Orlando burbs to swing the state, but that's unlikely. There's not really any other nationally prominent Cuban or Puerto Rican Democrats (even Gutiérrez is a stretch).

You're right. But trade was never a General Election issue, she would've won on the mere fact if someone like Warren or Bernie with the VP that the progressive part had a say. The younger vote 18-30 would've turned out, especially for Bernie but Warren was a good substitute because she was so Anti-Wall Street. The reason Bernie did so well because he talked about how the Elite has flushed so much money into campaigns because of Citizens Untied, we all saw the corruption but a lot of us didn't vote just "complained". It's sad but now we have Trump and it was an "Oh, sh**t!" wake up call. Trump is Mr. Wall-Street, he's never talked bad about them, he talked trade and how outsourcing stole all the jobs while it was actually Wall-Street manipulating their investments in companies that didn't send jobs overseas to make numbers lower. It's a pyramid scheme if you want to get to semantics. I've always thought that Wall-Street is just legalized gambling over business, their needs to be tighter regulations. Bernie raises so much money without a corporate handout it's baffling.

Bernie yes, but there is nothing to suggest the youth vote would have turned out for Warren. A large chunk of sanders youth support was more about outsider appeal than actual policy. The progressive wing definitely exists, but if you think progressives not turning out was Hillary's biggest problem you're wrong.

I worked with my Union out in Nevada for Clinton and I can tell you, it's true. If she didn't pick Bernie, Warren was the next best bet. Kaine was ultimately uninspiring and Biden made the VP a much more important choice because of how he helped Obama govern. A big part of the Bernie-wing was being Anti-Wall Street. We were all involved that housing-bubble crash and she was a champion against them. She would've never hurt her chances, Trump/Pence could've still won but we'll never know. Hillary was never a good politician, she lost to Barack in '08 and almost lost to Bernie, she should've known and her team that Trump was formidable.

[Rjjr77]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for Julian Castro, he would have done nothing to win Florida. Given his last name, he may have hurt the ticket. If it's Luis Gutiérrez then maybe you get enough of an effect on turnout in the Orlando burbs to swing the state, but that's unlikely. There's not really any other nationally prominent Cuban or Puerto Rican Democrats (even Gutiérrez is a stretch).

You're right. But trade was never a General Election issue, she would've won on the mere fact if someone like Warren or Bernie with the VP that the progressive part had a say. The younger vote 18-30 would've turned out, especially for Bernie but Warren was a good substitute because she was so Anti-Wall Street. The reason Bernie did so well because he talked about how the Elite has flushed so much money into campaigns because of Citizens Untied, we all saw the corruption but a lot of us didn't vote just "complained". It's sad but now we have Trump and it was an "Oh, sh**t!" wake up call. Trump is Mr. Wall-Street, he's never talked bad about them, he talked trade and how outsourcing stole all the jobs while it was actually Wall-Street manipulating their investments in companies that didn't send jobs overseas to make numbers lower. It's a pyramid scheme if you want to get to semantics. I've always thought that Wall-Street is just legalized gambling over business, their needs to be tighter regulations. Bernie raises so much money without a corporate handout it's baffling.

Bernie yes, but there is nothing to suggest the youth vote would have turned out for Warren. A large chunk of sanders youth support was more about outsider appeal than actual policy. The progressive wing definitely exists, but if you think progressives not turning out was Hillary's biggest problem you're wrong.

I worked with my Union out in Nevada for Clinton and I can tell you, it's true. If she didn't pick Bernie, Warren was the next best bet. Kaine was ultimately uninspiring and Biden made the VP a much more important choice because of how he helped Obama govern. A big part of the Bernie-wing was being Anti-Wall Street. We were all involved that housing-bubble crash and she was a champion against them. She would've never hurt her chances, Trump/Pence could've still won but we'll never know. Hillary was never a good politician, she lost to Barack in '08 and almost lost to Bernie, she should've known and her team that Trump was formidable.

I just can't disagree more. Progressives didn't lose Hillary the election, white Union moderate democrats did. There were plenty of mistakes along the way, but her biggest was ignoring Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania until the end, and that had nothing to do with progressives, just seeing how Ohio was looking solidly in trumps camp the entire election, she should have been way more worried about the industrial Midwest.

I agree she isn't a great politician, never was, but her and her staff were killed by hubris not defecting progressives.

[Mr. Morden]

There's no sizable pro-free trade bloc in the Florida electorate. Not sure what demographic you're suggesting exists that would vote like that. In a lot of Rust Belt states, it's easy to point out which folks are voting against free trade, because the impacts of free trade are tangible (this factory shut down, that kinda thing). There's no opposite effect of similar magnitude in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

Yeah, the benefits of trade are diffuse, and I don't think there's really any sizeable "pro-free trade" voting bloc anywhere in the country.

I'm still curious as to how the issue will play out in 2020, should Trump actually be a protectionist president.  If he's not making trade deals, then there won't be any TPP equivalent for other candidates to either oppose or support.  If the president himself is protectionist, then such deals simply don't get negotiated in the first place, so there's nothing to talk about.  Though I suppose you could have a situation where Trump gets us into a bunch of trade wars, and that creates a rallying point for some.  But if he simply stops negotiating new trade deals, then how does the trade issue play out?

[NOVA Green]

I think one item that is often frequently neglected in the conversation of Florida politics, is the influence of retirees from the MidWest, that compose a significant proportion of out-of-state retirees....

If my "Old Man Memory" serves me correctly, South/Southeast Florida tend to have a significant number of NorthEast retirees, and Tampa-St Pete areas tended to have quite a bit more MidWest retirees....

Not so sure about retirees moving to places like Orlando or the white sandy beaches of the Panhandle....

Needless to say, Blue Collar MidWest retirees will not necessarily be huge proponents of trade deals that are perceived as economically damaging to their former industries (Auto, Steel, etc...).

Regardless, I don't see Trade Policies being the definitive policy issue in Florida either way, but I suspect that some of Trump's strength among Florida Anglos was most closely connected to regions with a significant number of MidWest/ "Rust Belt" retirees..... I think there has been some interesting work done on the Tampa-St Pete area in particular that might support that theory.

[NOVA Green]

Forgot to add the interesting point, slightly OT from the AZ/FL/WI/MI OP, but some of the biggest mass demonstrations against "Free Trade" agreements have actually happened in cities, that at least accordingly CW and extremist economists promoting this agenda, should be net beneficiaries of "free trade" policies..... Smith & Ricardo "Apples and Oranges" or "wine and cloth" economic theory and all of that debunked junk from the late 1700s and early 1800s of "comparative advantage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

So.... explain why in Seattle, Washington, the children and grandchildren of Boeing, Longshoremen, Mill Workers, and more recently tech employees took to the streets in the famous "Battle of Seattle" that was a protest against free trade agreements from allowing China MFN status under George Bush Sr, Bill Clinton signing NAFTA into law, which was mainly backed by the Republican members of the House and Senate, along with some Democrats smoking the "Free Trade" Opium Pipe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

Even with decades working as a subcontractor for a Fortune 100 Tech company, there wasn't a ton of support for "free trade", since inevitably it mean entire manufacturing lines being shipped overseas and even Business Process Outsourcing (BPOs) led to some of my friends who were computer programmers facing unemployment insecurities, and decreased wages under temp contracts, while meanwhile all of the Corporate profits were being stashed in places like Ireland and Singapore, as part of complex attempt to dodge Corp taxes instead of repatriating and reinvesting capital in the United States....

Might sound a bit harsh, but having seen firsthand the consequences of Trade Policies running amok (Supported by both major Democratic & Republican political figures), even in regions/states that "in theory" with "all other economic conditions being equal", I find it a bit strange that a large Tech Facility that I worked at with (10,000 direct FTE) saw (500) jobs directly relocated to Mexico within a few years of NAFTA being signed, next to go was Final assembly lines literally disassembled over a several year project, with (2000) jobs disappear while techs are training their replacements in Ireland, Puerto Rico, & Singapore....  The drip became a Tsunami, and now there are only 2k employees in a facility that employed 10k back in early '97....

Now, for those workers in "traditional" manufacturing sectors in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, & Pennsylvania  seeing the same phenomenon is it any wonder that they swing hard towards a candidate (Trump) that some believe might actually bring jobs back to smaller communities, where there is a lower rate of College graduates, fewer employment opportunities, and when a large facility closes its doors or lays off a massive number of employees there is a huge downward economic spiral and impact?

When I was in High School several decades ago, there was not a Crystal Meth epidemic in much of Oregon, like there is now.... "Crank" was something that you heard about, but generally associated with workers running 3rd shift at the Mills/Factories or Long-Haul truckers looking for an upper to keep them alert and awake (Much in the same way that these "4 Hour Energy Drinks" are now chugged regularly....

Again, this is a bit OT, but what I am increasingly starting to believe was the appeal of Trump to many of these small town/rural voters was a mixture of directly addressing the impact of "Free Trade", combined with talking about the dramatic increase of Drug Addiction (Opioid in the NE/MW/Appalachia and Meth in the Western US).

Now, I am not a Trump supporter, as anyone who reviews my posts will attest to, and I am personally convinced that Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA, combined all previous Democratic Presidents/Nominees, created a giant snowball avalanche that created the rise of Trump, who ran against his own Party on "Free Trade" issues, pulled out his vacuum cleaner and sucked up a ton of Perot '92 voters, and now the Democrats are hoisted by their own petard, and trying to figure out how they support this NeoLiberal corporate agenda for decades, when the Labor Movement and Progressive Movement have been fighting against this for decades!!!!

How the Democrats allowed this to happen is astounding... Trump is now representing a large chunk of Americans that feel sold down the river by both parties, sacrificed on the altar of an obscure extremist economic paradigm that dates back over 200 years.....