If NAFTA were up for a vote today

[kcguy]

I was looking at the numbers for the NAFTA vote back in 1993, and I was surprised at how much Bill Clinton owed its passage to the Republican minority.

Republicans sided overwhelmingly with Bush and Clinton, with Senators voting 34-10 in favor and House members 132-44 in favor.

Despite Clinton, however, Democrats remained skeptical, fearing the giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico (to paraphrase Ross Perot).  Senators narrowly voted 29-27 against, while House members voted against by a wider 157-102 margin.

So here's my question:

Suppose that an agreement, to further open the borders with Mexico, were up for a vote today in Congress.  Would the parties still vote the same?  Would Democrats still be opposed?  Would they be more opposed than 20 years ago?  Would Republicans still vote 3 to 1 in favor?  How do you think the various presidential candidates would come down on the issue?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

One of our nation's greatest moments.  I fully support NAFTA and commend Clinton for signing it almost as much as I commend Reagan and Bush for paving the way.

[Sumner 1868]

It would be a situation similar to the TPP most likely.

[kcguy]

It would be a situation similar to the TPP most likely.

You can see that I've stopped paying attention to actual policy issues.

So, based on the numbers I can find, the parties have become even more polarized.  Republicans were somewhat more in favor of TPP than they were for NAFTA in 1993 (Senators 48-6 in favor, House members 191-55 in favor), while Democrats are MUCH more opposed (Senators 32-14 opposed, House members 160-28 opposed).

I'm actually somewhat surprised about both parties.  For the Republicans, Donald Trump comes across as the voice of everything Pat Buchanan put in motion a generation ago, so I can't imagine him being pro-trade any more than Buchanan was.  This is a nice reminder that Trump doesn't necessarily represent the mainstream of the Republican party.

I'm also somewhat surprised about the Democrats.  I wasn't sure what to expect.  If anything, I would have thought that the Gephardt/labor wing was weaker now than a generation ago.  I never would have expected a change in the opposite direction to such a large degree.

[Sumner 1868]

It would be a situation similar to the TPP most likely.

You can see that I've stopped paying attention to actual policy issues.

So, based on the numbers I can find, the parties have become even more polarized.  Republicans were somewhat more in favor of TPP than they were for NAFTA in 1993 (Senators 48-6 in favor, House members 191-55 in favor), while Democrats are MUCH more opposed (Senators 32-14 opposed, House members 160-28 opposed).

I'm actually somewhat surprised about both parties.  For the Republicans, Donald Trump comes across as the voice of everything Pat Buchanan put in motion a generation ago, so I can't imagine him being pro-trade any more than Buchanan was.  This is a nice reminder that Trump doesn't necessarily represent the mainstream of the Republican party.

I'm also somewhat surprised about the Democrats.  I wasn't sure what to expect.  If anything, I would have thought that the Gephardt/labor wing was weaker now than a generation ago.  I never would have expected a change in the opposite direction to such a large degree.

Much of the Democratic Yeas on NAFTA came from Southern Blue Dogs/boll weevils wing that represented district without much labor influence. This wing of the Democratic Party is now borderline extinct, so it's not completely surprised there is more consistency on trade and other labor issues.

[DavidB.]

The popularity of anti free-trade views, both on the left-wing side of the political spectrum and on the right-wing side side, illustrates how American politics has stopped being aimed at compromising and became incredibly centrifugal, pushing both parties to the extremes, of which Trump and Sanders are exponents. It is also no coincidence that Cruz voted against TPP.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Why were you surprised that Republicans were responsible for the passage of a bill that the business community desperately wanted and labor unions fiercely opposed?

[Kingpoleon]

I'd probably Abstain on the grounds that Congress may not legally pass international trade deals which affect labor unions and small business negatively.

[RINO Tom]

I'd probably Abstain on the grounds that Congress may not legally pass international trade deals which affect labor unions and small business negatively.

Well, that describes neither NAFTA nor TPP.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd probably Abstain on the grounds that Congress may not legally pass international trade deals which affect labor unions and small business negatively.

Well, that describes neither NAFTA nor TPP.

It's a direct lack of regulation of commerce, which the federal government is Constitutionally required to provide.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It would be a situation similar to the TPP most likely.

You can see that I've stopped paying attention to actual policy issues.

So, based on the numbers I can find, the parties have become even more polarized.  Republicans were somewhat more in favor of TPP than they were for NAFTA in 1993 (Senators 48-6 in favor, House members 191-55 in favor), while Democrats are MUCH more opposed (Senators 32-14 opposed, House members 160-28 opposed).

I'm actually somewhat surprised about both parties.  For the Republicans, Donald Trump comes across as the voice of everything Pat Buchanan put in motion a generation ago, so I can't imagine him being pro-trade any more than Buchanan was.  This is a nice reminder that Trump doesn't necessarily represent the mainstream of the Republican party.

I'm also somewhat surprised about the Democrats.  I wasn't sure what to expect.  If anything, I would have thought that the Gephardt/labor wing was weaker now than a generation ago.  I never would have expected a change in the opposite direction to such a large degree.

How did it fail then

Cause House vote would be : 191 +28 = 219(A slim majority in house)

Senate would would be: 48+14 = 62(which means the filibuster would fail)

[darklordoftech]

Why were you surprised that Republicans were responsible for the passage of a bill that the business community desperately wanted and labor unions fiercely opposed?

Republicans tend to be more nationalistic and anti-immigration, both of which tend to go with protectionism. Also, which party's convention did Pat Buchanan speak at?

[Dr. MB]

It would go dead like the TPP.

[mvd10]

Why were you surprised that Republicans were responsible for the passage of a bill that the business community desperately wanted and labor unions fiercely opposed?

Republicans tend to be more nationalistic and anti-immigration, both of which tend to go with protectionism. Also, which party's convention did Pat Buchanan speak at?

Buchanan got 20% of the vote though, so it's not like all Republicans in the 90s were raging paleoconservatives. Pre-Trump Republican voters were much more pro-trade than Democratic voters, though the gap narrowed during the Obama years.

[RINO Tom]

Why were you surprised that Republicans were responsible for the passage of a bill that the business community desperately wanted and labor unions fiercely opposed?

Republicans tend to be more nationalistic and anti-immigration, both of which tend to go with protectionism. Also, which party's convention did Pat Buchanan speak at?

Buchanan got 20% of the vote though, so it's not like all Republicans in the 90s were raging paleoconservatives. Pre-Trump Republican voters were much more pro-trade than Democratic voters, though the gap narrowed during the Obama years.

And I suspect a lot of that had to do with voters blindly following their Presidents ... there's just no mathematical way that Republicans in 2008 were THAT different than Republicans in 2016, yet the polling numbers have changed quite a bit.

[darklordoftech]

Why were you surprised that Republicans were responsible for the passage of a bill that the business community desperately wanted and labor unions fiercely opposed?

Republicans tend to be more nationalistic and anti-immigration, both of which tend to go with protectionism. Also, which party's convention did Pat Buchanan speak at?

Buchanan got 20% of the vote though, so it's not like all Republicans in the 90s were raging paleoconservatives. Pre-Trump Republican voters were much more pro-trade than Democratic voters, though the gap narrowed during the Obama years.

I wasn't agreeing with the idea that Republicans are protectionist. I was just explaining why someone might think that the Republicans are protectionist, especially if they were uninformed about trade pre-Trump.