Likely political impact of tit for tat tariffs.

Long term economic large scale impact is a different discussion but those impacts will could take a while to hit.

Sure across the board American consumers will fairly immediately pay more for a variety of imported products, and even domestically produced one that use imported materials and parts. That may hit the pocketbook some but likely not enough to impact voting.

But the EU and China both target their tit for tat with intention. The idea is to cause immediate impact on American companies in states that politically matter.

Wisconsin (cranberries and Harley-Davidson), Kentucky (whiskey), Florida (orange juice), North Carolina (tobacco and pork) … these states in particular (and maybe a few others?) are specifically in the crosshairs.

Will the impacts in those states have a leveraged impact in November? Two at least are pretty purple and all are likely to impact rural districts more than urban ones.

There may not be enough time for the impact of these decisions to sink in. I’d guess without some major economic drop most people have their minds made up already.

It just might affect donations to politicians in those states. The donations are more important than the voters.

To the politicians they are. Sometimes losses at the polls lead to more donations, so they can’t lose with that system.

G7 unity torpedoed by angry Trump tweets

Having pissed off each and every one of the other G7 leaders and abruptly reversed his endorsement of the G7 communique on human rights, climate, and trade, Trump has pretty much precipitated a global trade war.

What if we look not at the voting population, but at the lobbyists? I don’t know the answer here, but do those industries have big lobbying budgets? Ocean Spray, probably the best known cranberry product manufacturer, in addition to Wisconsin, has growers in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Florida. That means a cranberry lobby covers much more than just Wisconsin.
Tropicana, the largest OJ manufacturer in the US, is owned by PepsiCo, which is pretty much everywhere. The number 2 OJ producer is Simply Orange, owned by Coca-Cola.
Those are some pretty big lobbying groups.

Political impact? If much damage comes from them, hopefully voters fix the problem. Next presidential election is 2020, as long as bullets don’t start flying within NATO things should fine.

Waiting 2 years to replace the president is not a great idea, though. The damage could be really bad by then. He only has the power to unilaterally create these trade wars because Congress gave it to him, meaning Congress can also take it away. Hence why it’s an important issue in the midterms.

I really am hoping that campaigns will push “We’ll stop all these foreign countries from costing you more money.” Don’t frame it as “restoring things back to the way they were.” Frame it as “these other countries are doing something, and we can do something to stop it.”

Kentucky resident here. This is a big tobacco state, as well as whiskey. And the cost of a carton of cigarettes is about to go up by $5 effective July 1 due to an excise tax already. And people locally are not happy about it. The higher tax is already going to impact the bottom line for the tobacco producers, and it’s going to hit people in the on place they feel it the most; the wallet. It’ll affect wages, which won’t change at the same level as the new tax(es). Production costs will go up to compensate for the change.

Still, this is a solid red state. I’m not sure what the political fallout would be at a bigger-than-state level, or even if there would be much of one.

Suppose they raised taxes on U.S. owned luxury hotels, resorts and golf courses in their respective countries? Or U.S. owned luxury handbag, jewelry and clothing sellers?

That’s what I’ve idly wondered: what are the ethics/legal ramifications/potential impacts of targeting Trump industries in particular?

I’m sure they (foreign entities) could make life difficult for an investor (trump) who held specific types of property within their country. This is another weakness of the current administration, it can be hit by hitting the assets of the great leader.

The political impact won’t be felt in time for the upcoming elections. There’s still cautious optimism that some sort of deal can be worked out to avoid an all-out trade war, though that optimism is rapidly fading. There’s anxiety, but since there hasn’t been any apparent damage yet, and since those repercussions probably won’t be visible initially, the political impact is minimal. In fact, the image of Trump standing up to foreign powers who have been viewed skeptically might actually play well to at least some of his base. The real political risk for Trump isn’t in the short-term, but the longer term. There’s obviously no strategy here on his part, just reaction. But his behavior will necessitate trading partners investing less of their ‘eggs’ in the American ‘basket’. They simply have no choice but to spread their risk now.

Ethics and legal ramifications? Zero. A madman is at the helm targeting our alliances. They’re retaliating against the very people who support him and think he’s doing a great job. That’s how it should be.

Yeah, I don’t see the problem with Trump having to pay the piper for music he demanded.

Ahahahahahahaha! Remember that these voters are the ones who put Trump in office in the first place!

Minnesota is a big Pork producing state (#3, although #1 Iowa produces almost as much as #'s 2-4 combined) and it is an issue raised here, freaking out the farmers, but even here where right wing trolls and russian bots dominate the local news online site comments, they’re getting a healthy dose of “you voted for this”. Trump got a lot of support in the rural areas and it isn’t uncommon to see Trump signs and Trump painted on barns.

We’re also the #3 Soybean producer ($2 billion a year) and #4 Corn producer.

Local article points out that farmers basically shot themselves in the foot by failing to understand that all of these international agreements that Trump convinced them were bad were actually very good for them. Some of them are starting to figure this out, but they’re still not turning on Trump, they’re just going for the “maybe if someone explains this to Trump he’ll help us out” malarky.

Let’s not forget how Tr*mp keeps going after Canada and Mexico, the closest trading partners of the US. He is putting NAFTA in serious jeopardy and telling lies about how NAFTA has negatively affected the US since it was enacted (I don’t think this is true at all - all countries have benefitted from free trade, and the US has benefitted to the detriment of Canada in some instances). I have a hard time imagining how pissing off your two closest trading partners, with whom you have had a lucrative free trade deal for a long time, is going to benefit the US economically. Canada would rather trade with the US since you’re right there next door, but China and the EU will also buy our products. You’re not the only game in town.

Advantages of NAFTA.

This is thing.

Things that impact or even will impact local economies make big news in local papers, local radio, and local coffee shops. Even in this area of most local media being owned by Sinclair Broadcast.

Plus tariffs have pretty immediate impacts on pricing and demand. Also these are industries that do not do well with uncertainty to demand and prices. You don’t change what you planted once it’s in the ground so easily. Will there be a market for my product or not? Should I dig it up and plant something else or wait for another reversal by tweet tantrum? Those selling antacid are the ones making a killing in many of these regions I’d think.

Politically one does not need voters to flip or “turn on Trump” and in midterms that is not typically the dynamic. Just influencing who does and does not come out to vote that day.

Here you go.