Amerikaanse verkiezingen 2016 #50 Op naar Californië

quote:

New York Republican Presidential Primary
Emerson
Trump 64, Cruz 12, Kasich 1
Trump +52

New York Democratic Presidential Primary
Emerson
Clinton 71, Sanders 23
Clinton +48

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 maart 2016 15:35 schreef Nober het volgende:
Sanders gaat het dus niet redden?

quote:

Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back

A plea to presidential candidates: Stop talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back from China. In fact, talk a lot less about manufacturing, period.

It’s understandable that voters are angry about trade. The U.S. has lost more than 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. And as Eduardo Porter wrote this week, there’s mounting evidence that U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, has caused lasting harm to many American workers. But rather than play to that anger, candidates ought to be talking about ways to ensure that the service sector can fill manufacturing’s former role as a provider of dependable, decent-paying jobs.

Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago.

Look at the chart below: Since the recession ended in 2009, manufacturing output — the value of all the goods that U.S. factories produce, adjusted for inflation — has risen by more than 20 percent, because of a combination of “reshoring” and increased domestic demand. But manufacturing employment is up just 5 percent. And much of that job growth represents a rebound from the recession, not a sustainable trend. (The Washington Post’s Abha Bhattarai had a great story this week on what the much-touted “manufacturing renaissance” really looks like through the eyes of one Georgia town.)



None of that, though, stops Donald Trump from promising at every debate and campaign stop to “take our jobs back from China and all these other countries.” Nor does it stop the other candidates from visiting factories in Southern and Midwestern towns and promising — albeit in less grandiose terms — to restore the lost luster of American manufacturing. “I’m tired of seeing them creating jobs all over the world while they’re laying off American workers,” Bernie Sanders told a crowd in Youngstown, Ohio, last weekend. “Not acceptable. That is going to end.”

There’s no mystery why candidates love to focus on manufacturing and trade. The U.S. economy faces deep structural challenges — stagnant wages, rising inequality, falling employment rates among men and other groups — and China presents an easy scapegoat. (Wall Street often plays a similar role, especially on the Democratic side.) And manufacturing in particular embodies something that seems to be disappearing in today’s economy: jobs with decent pay and benefits available to workers without a college degree. The average factory worker earns more than $25 an hour before overtime; the typical retail worker makes less than $18 an hour.

But those factory photo ops ignore an important reality: In 1994 there were 3.5 million more Americans working in manufacturing than in retail. Today, those numbers have almost exactly reversed, and the gap is widening. More than 80 percent of all private jobs are now in the service sector.



There is nothing wrong with politicians’ trying to save what remains of U.S. manufacturing, nor with trying to avoid repeating old mistakes on trade. But like it or not, the U.S. is now a service-based economy. It’s time candidates started talking about making that economy work for workers, rather than pining for one that’s never coming back.

Bern medicine?

Justified or not, railing against NAFTA seems to be popular, at least among a vocal segment of the Democratic base. So it was a bit odd that when the Progressive Policy Institute this week released a new policy agenda aimed explicitly at countering Bernie Sanders’s populist message, one of the key proposals was the liberalization of trade policy.

PPI is a centrist Democratic think tank that, while not formally affiliated with the Clinton campaign, is effectively an organ of the party establishment; it bills itself as “the original ‘idea mill’ for President Bill Clinton’s New Democrats.” Its new report was widely interpreted as a bid by centrists to show they could compete with Sanders on big economic ideas.

So what were those big ideas? In addition to free trade (including ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Sanders and now Clinton oppose), there was a grab bag of fairly familiar progressive policies: infrastructure spending, paid family leave, improved workforce training. The handful of bolder proposals seemed unlikely to inspire popular passion: Rather than make college free as Sanders wants to, for example, PPI would encourage colleges to offer cheaper three-year degrees. PPI also wants less regulation, lower corporate tax rates and a shift away from taxing income and toward taxing spending. None of those proposals are necessarily bad as economic policy, but in a year of insurgency they seem like strange politics.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 maart 2016 16:16 schreef Bram_van_Loon het volgende:

[..]

Het is wel een feit dat hij meer "electable" is. Hij wordt beter gepruimd door het andere kamp

quote:

hij heeft in het verleden al van alles voor elkaar gekregen door samen te werken met Republikeinen, o.a. die oorlogsheld en oud-generaal.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 maart 2016 16:21 schreef Bram_van_Loon het volgende:

[..]

Hoe wil je met die service sector voldoende middelen uit het buitenland aantrekken?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 maart 2016 17:20 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Mooi stuk van Politco. Het 'Stop the Trump' movement is zo goed als uitgespeeld.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/anti-trump-forces-contemplate-the-end-220953


[..]

quote:

Wall Street Journal to Trump: 'Better be careful!'

The Wall Street Journal fired back at Donald Trump on Thursday evening, hours after the Republican candidate demanded the newspaper's editorial board apologize for pointing out that he has thus far received fewer votes compared to Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
"On Thursday the businessman demanded an apology after we—'the dummies at the @WSJ Editorial Board'—accurately noted that Hillary Clinton has received about a million more votes than he has," the board wrote in a piece headlined "A Trump Reality Check."

"The truth hurts, though Mr. Trump would rather walk down Fifth Avenue shooting the messenger," the piece continued, alluding to Trump's joke in January that he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not lose any voters.
In a series of tweets Thursday morning, the Republican front-runner complained about the editorial board's coverage — for not the first and likely not the last time in the 2016 election cycle.

"@WSJ is bad at math. The good news is, nobody cares what they say in their editorials anymore, especially me!" Trump boasted in one, before tweeting another condemnation of the "dummies" at publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, with whom Trump has quarreled over coverage in his media properties, including the Journal (which expressed appreciation that the Manhattan real-estate magnate is "such a loyal reader").

".@WSJ Editorial says "Clinton primary vote total is 8,646,551.Trump's is 7,533,692"-a knock. But she had only 3 opponents-I had 16.Apologize," Trump tweeted Thursday morning.
Later in the evening, the paper responded, "Actually his rise has been cleared by the large and fractured GOP field. Of the 20.35 million GOP primary votes cast so far, he has received 7.54 million, or a mere 37%. Despite the media desire to call him unstoppable, Mr. Trump is the weakest Republican front-runner since Gerald Ford in 1976."

"The opinions he should care about are the 39% of GOP voters who said in Tuesday’s exit polls that they would consider supporting a third-party candidate if Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are the nominees, or the 44% of non-Trump GOP voters who said they won’t cast a ballot for him in November," the editorial board concluded. "As Mr. Trump likes to tweet, better be careful!"