Will Clinton's detailed plan for the economy be a problem?

NEW YORK – Nearly two years ago, Hillary Clinton commissioned an armada of white papers on economic policy to prepare for what her team assumed would be a presidential battle with a Republican such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who were making wonky appeals to the middle class the central planks of their campaigns.

It was a strategic necessity, Clinton later confided to associates. She thought that voters would demand detailed plans from the candidates and reject what she called “easy answers” on the big challenges facing the country.

The campaign has not played out the way she imagined, with Republican nominee Donald Trump offering little detail about his promises to make America rich again. Still, when Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination this week, she stuck with her plan to lay out her economic proposals, declaring “I sweat the details of policy.”

As Clinton sets off on a three-day bus tour, she is struggling to connect with an economically anxious electorate: General-election polls show that voters, and by vast margins working-class whites, trust Trump more than Clinton to handle the economy.

Campaign officials say they have constantly heard from donors and outside advisers that their candidate needs to strip down her economic message. It's a challenge, they say, that weighs on them. “You don’t want to be, as the expression goes, bringing a calculator to a knife fight," said one senior Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the campaign strategy.

Clinton’s plan represents “a very sensible approach to economic policy and the challenges we face,” said Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist and former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers who is advising Clinton in the race. “The risk in the campaign is, it doesn’t fit easily on a bumper sticker.”

Arguably no issue represents the tensions facing Clinton’s economic agenda more than trade.

After Clinton lost the Michigan primary to Sanders, who had rallied voters against “disastrous trade deals,” donors pressured the campaign to adopt the Vermont senator’s more standoffish message on trade, according to senior campaign officials. They wanted her to say, flatly, that trade was killing American jobs.

Clinton rejected those calls for broad brush statements. Instead, according senior campaign officials, Clinton embarked on a more targeted strategy: Use details to show voters she recognized the downsides of trade, without embracing the full message they wanted to hear.

Her plan includes spending more than $1 trillion to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, allow students to attend college without incurring debt and help working families afford day care for their children and take paid leave to raise them. She thinks such spending would create jobs and accelerate economic growth, help low- and middle-income students gain skills that are increasingly necessary for high-wage work, and reverse a recent trend of women leaving the U.S. workforce.

Clinton’s team thinks wonkiness will win the day, by showing her to be a more serious candidate and by forcing Trump to flesh out his plans. “That’s going to be more persuasive than making these wild promises,” one senior adviser said, adding: “We’ll see.”

The trend for the past several election cycles has been for all candidates, Republican and Democratic, to add more detail to their policy proposals, especially as primaries give way to the general election. This year could be a massive exception.

confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm still optimistic that American voters won't make the same mistake that Indian voters made in 2014.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm still optimistic that American voters won't make the same mistake that Indian voters made in 2014.

So, what's your suggestion / preference for the next U.S. President -- Clinton or Trump?

confuzzled dude wrote:

NEW YORK – Nearly two years ago, Hillary Clinton commissioned an armada of white papers on economic policy to prepare for what her team assumed would be a presidential battle with a Republican such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who were making wonky appeals to the middle class the central planks of their campaigns.

It was a strategic necessity, Clinton later confided to associates. She thought that voters would demand detailed plans from the candidates and reject what she called “easy answers” on the big challenges facing the country.

The campaign has not played out the way she imagined, with Republican nominee Donald Trump offering little detail about his promises to make America rich again. Still, when Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination this week, she stuck with her plan to lay out her economic proposals, declaring “I sweat the details of policy.”

As Clinton sets off on a three-day bus tour, she is struggling to connect with an economically anxious electorate: General-election polls show that voters, and by vast margins working-class whites, trust Trump more than Clinton to handle the economy.

Campaign officials say they have constantly heard from donors and outside advisers that their candidate needs to strip down her economic message. It's a challenge, they say, that weighs on them. “You don’t want to be, as the expression goes, bringing a calculator to a knife fight," said one senior Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the campaign strategy.

Clinton’s plan represents “a very sensible approach to economic policy and the challenges we face,” said Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist and former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers who is advising Clinton in the race. “The risk in the campaign is, it doesn’t fit easily on a bumper sticker.”

Arguably no issue represents the tensions facing Clinton’s economic agenda more than trade.

After Clinton lost the Michigan primary to Sanders, who had rallied voters against “disastrous trade deals,” donors pressured the campaign to adopt the Vermont senator’s more standoffish message on trade, according to senior campaign officials. They wanted her to say, flatly, that trade was killing American jobs.

Clinton rejected those calls for broad brush statements. Instead, according senior campaign officials, Clinton embarked on a more targeted strategy: Use details to show voters she recognized the downsides of trade, without embracing the full message they wanted to hear.

Her plan includes spending more than $1 trillion to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, allow students to attend college without incurring debt and help working families afford day care for their children and take paid leave to raise them. She thinks such spending would create jobs and accelerate economic growth, help low- and middle-income students gain skills that are increasingly necessary for high-wage work, and reverse a recent trend of women leaving the U.S. workforce.

Clinton’s team thinks wonkiness will win the day, by showing her to be a more serious candidate and by forcing Trump to flesh out his plans. “That’s going to be more persuasive than making these wild promises,” one senior adviser said, adding: “We’ll see.”

The trend for the past several election cycles has been for all candidates, Republican and Democratic, to add more detail to their policy proposals, especially as primaries give way to the general election. This year could be a massive exception.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-has-a-very-detailed-plan-for-the-economy-that-may-be-a-problem/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_clintonecon-1135pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

I'm still optimistic that American voters won't make the same mistake that Indian voters made in 2014.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Your favorite friends - the Jehadis, LeTs and the JuD are the best friends of Trump. They will increase their Friday activities 2-3 wks before Nov 8 to win the elections for Trump. The enemies of US - including the Russians and the Chinese are praying for a Trump win as they know that he wont be able to do shyt - what with a heavily split Congress.

There are a couple of gun totting NRAs in my office discussing Trump's presidency. They said a few bombs and the if any hispanic is caught in your Jehadi gang, that would be a good reason for Trump to declare Martial Law, suspending immigration law and acting againt Messicans and the Musalmans.

...--indeed a lovable proposition for the midwesterners and Southerners.