We heard about the downside to it, we heard that all day everyday and it was overwhelming as to how bad the downs were, assuming we were being fed correct info.

But the upside had to be considerable otherwise Obama would not have been for it.

And a lot not known until toward the end. But the initial ideas are what dominated even after they changed but people couldn't let go of some of it.

DU was pretty anti-TPP for a long time. I'm curious to see how it'll swing now after the exodus of various elements.

Indeed.

There are certain stock arguments which are applicable to any treaty.

"We are surrendering our sovereignty", and species thereof, is the go-to objection. Of course, that is what a treaty is intended to do. It is an agreement to do, or not to do, something that one otherwise can do within one's sovereign power. If one were not conceding an aspect of sovereign power, there is no need for a treaty.

In implementation details, there can be myriad issues. The question is whether those issues, collectively, outweigh the overall benefit of avoiding a fragmented market which China can dominate piecemeal.

For a long, long time, we got by in the world by playing Russia (f/k/a the Soviet Union) against China. That doesn't work anymore, as the Russians and Chinese have settled on a strategic cooperation arrangement.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/asia/russia-china-relations-us-intl/index.html

"China says relations with Russia at 'best level in history"

As pointed out by another comment, the "OMG, TPP!" folks have, to some extent, departed DU and they had been largely coextensive with the Assange/Snowden/Manning fan club.

We went from being the 800 pound gorilla with lots to offer to the loser flake who begs to be let back in.

Best negotiator ever, lol

Maybe Trump will catch up on how things like NATO work sometime in the future.

Since it is a multi-lateral agreement with which the other parties have proceeded for quite some time now without us.