> Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).
The only "new evidence" that would sway Clinton's opinion on the TPP were poll numbers.
> “I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of State,” she said in a statement. “But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it.”
Of course Clinton, nor Obama, would sign a trade agreement that wouldn't be a "fair" agreement. But "fair" is not binary. Clinton could just as easily sign the bulk of the agreement as president after she claims that her advisers have negotiated for some concessions to make TPP more "fair". But Trump from the very start said he was going to kill it.
As another example, Trump, and every other politician, has been following the popular sentiment that drug companies (e.g. Shkreli, Epi-Pens, etc) shouldn't be gouging people on life-saving drugs. There's a lot of strong ways to criticize drug companies, and every politician does it because it means free positive press. But Trump outright said in his last president-elect presser that drug companies were "Getting away with murder." [0]
With healthcare in general, it remains to be seen if his promised reforms are going to be a net benefit. Or whether killing free trade will be a net benefit, for that matter. But Trump at least states his views in clear terms. Again, not saying that that's ultimately a great way of governance (massive government decisions and policy are a work of process and compromise), but hey, that's the kind of personality people say they want in their politicians.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-drugpricing-idUS...
Sure, if you hate reading history books. The thing is, we actually have quite a lot of evidence about matters of international trade already which one side in this debate consistently ignores in favor of hypotheticals.
