Here we go again - Trump claimed to have opposed the Iraq War before it happened, but he didn't - and can be seen on TV backing the invasion. He then tried to use it later as a "couldn't we use all that money for New York?", but that didn't keep him from boasting last year that he would have invaded Iraq and kept all their oil (or in other variants would have turned it into glass, similar to Iran).

That Trump can lie and spin and reverse positions with impunity is hardly a metric to judge a serious candidate that in former days had to take real positions and defend them and live with them (or painfully extract from them and heavy mea culpas - as Hillary already paid for heavily in 2008, even though the observably rather hawkish Obama undoubtedly would have voted the exact same way as Hillary in Sept/Oct 2002 *IF* he had been in the US Senate.

And Hillary made it clear in her speech that her preferred outcome was inspections, which *did* take place, which *didn't* immediately go smoothly, but which *eventually* worked out so we knew that Hussein didn't have a serious biochemical program or capability. That she should be able to assume that Bush would go to war anyway 6 months later and that the Republican majority would support him despite successful inspections  and that she should risk no inspections with the very real risk that Bush would just invade anyway begs a little more belief in magic. Here's her speech yet again in all its wonder, along with the oppositions criticisms for you to gloat over.

I've provided a ton of evidence re: NAFTA before, including the relation to the much bigger CHina offshoring, and you've ignored it, as have you ignored that TPP was supposed to balance the unfair tilt towards China in trade rather than give away the farm. But a few months later, out pops the same pablum: Hillary's a hawk, NAFTA & TPP are responsible for all our problems.

(BTW, did you know that while Zenith sent its TV production to Mexico, within that decade all the Japanese TV makers had gotten out of making LCD TVs in Japan, i.e. the *followup* generation. How long would Zenith have been able to compete with its US production of antiquated TV gear?)

We've been through one fact-free election. Don't really need another as a supposed solution to our problems.

Also, in case you didn't realize, those Mideast wars now are about tamping down terrorism, such as what killed a bunch of paople last week in Barcelona, Finland, Germany.... I'm sure that's going to win a lot of serious-on-terror-and-security votes to just abandon action against these terror cells and instead pivot to a "peace" footing. I agree we've fumbled our foreign policy and war actions many times, but it's not something a vacuum will cure, especially not with Russia using these settings to push its own interests forward.

HSG ....Hmmm . . .

I'm not sure how a link to a 2011 Weekly Standard article has too much to do with the mentioned 538 article.

A 538 article suggests that Trump is most vulnerable when he acts contrary to his supporters’ expectations.

But just for the hell of it here's the latest from Nate Silver I posted here a Dag.

Nate Silver: 7 Rules Reading Trump's Approval Rating

As I state there, there's a whole lot to digest and it's not as black or white as may be expected. There are just too many scenarios and variable there to deal with to make any solid concrete conclusions.

From the scenarios...

Speaking of “priced in,” Trump’s approval rating hasn’t been affected much when he does something, however controversial, that’s consistent with his previous behavior. If Trump’s equivocal stance toward white supremacists after Charlottesville was surprising to the media, it was perhaps less so to voters given that Trump had been slow to denounce groups such as the KKK as a candidate last year and that his rhetoric had often been racially tinged. In a poll conducted last August, 51 percent of voters described Trump as “racist.”

By contrast, the Republican health care bill was inconsistent with the promises that Trump had made to voters on the campaign trail. And Trump had also repeatedly promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he hasn’t been able to do yet. It’s not surprising, therefore, that health care hurt his numbers more than Charlottesville. By this rule, an economic downturn could be especially harmful to Trump given that he made very aggressive promises to voters about job creation.

That job creation line of crap was about creating 25 million jobs... And nowhere in the CCN article that Silver links to did it deal directly with NAFTA...
 

~OGD~

If your main target is the type of voter that voted for both Obama and Trump, (as I believe it is from most of your posts I have read) I doubt very much that it synchs with voters who are anti-hawk. Obama was as hawkish a Dem as any other hawk Dem. The "Hillary voted for Iraq" thing is applied personally against Hillary by such people, as a mistake in judgment. But they were happy with the "for smart wars, not dumb wars" Obama thing (i.e., Libya intervention.) This is not the making of any kind of coalition is what I am saying. Sure, Hillary probably suffered a bit for the "voted for the Iraq war" label, but I doubt that was with the little group of Obama-Trump types you are targeting. More likely just the opposite! Just as many of them or more might have supported the Iraq war and would certainly never vote for a peacenik candidate.