If lots more corporate money starts moving toward Obama, it’s a sign that fat cats think the race is all but over

Noah Millman of the American Conservative has an INTERESTING THEORY:

The business community – Wall Street in particular – has been overwhelmingly supportive of Mitt Romney this year. But that is neither typical – there was a lot of support for Obama last time around, from Wall Street in particular – nor particularly wise if a Romney victory is doubtful.

Paul Krugman suspects that the Romney campaign’s attempts to spin away President Obama’s poll lead is an effort to prevent corporate donors from hedging their bets by donating to Obama as well. I doubt that – spinning is what campaigns do; they don’t need a reason. But he’s right that if it looks like Obama has a good chance of winning, he should suddenly discover that Wall Street and other corporate donors who have been shunning him become much more generous. President Obama’s fundraising numbers have already been perfectly respectable, but if they become substantially better than respectable that will be another sign that the smart money thinks this game is probably over.



  1. Wall Street ought to love Obama. The stock market has doubled under his watch.

  2. Why would “Wall Street” be happy? Their incomes are going down, I’m sure just as you dreamed.

    You should be happy if you have any money in a 401k or other such investment vehicle.


    FORTUNE — The 99% may soon have some new members – employees of Goldman Sachs.

    The average compensation at Goldman (GS) is likely to fall by nearly $100,000 by the end of next year as new regulations, fewer deals and legal payouts hurt the firm’s profitability. That’s the conclusion of a recent report from a European division of rival JPMorgan Chase (JPM).

    As recently as two years ago, Goldman’s annual pay, which includes everyone from the people who work in the firm’s IT department to CEO Lloyd Blankfein, had averaged $412,000. That salary put employees of the elite investment bank solidly in the top 1% of all earners in the United States. Last year, the cut off for the 1% was $368,000.

    But by the end of next year, though, analysts at JPMorgan Cazenove expect compensation at Goldman to average just $314,000. That will bump the average Goldmanite all the way down to near the bottom of the top 2% of all U.S. earners. The cut off for the 98% tops out at around $290,000.

  3. Luke Fredrickson

    Can I see a show of hands? Anyone disappointed that the Democratic Party thwarted GWB’s plan to hand the Social Security trust fund over to Wall Street to manage? The Republic Party will try again if Ryan has his way.


    Emulate Jesus and throw out the Money Changers!

  4. Luke, you liberals suck at math, and suck even more at finances. Collapsed stars don’t suck as much as your side. I would love to take the 5% that is stolen from may paycheck for SS and combine it with my 13% that I contribute to my IRA. My retirement would be much, much higher if I could do that as opposed to having 2 sources of retirement income.

  5. Yes but Neftali, that would go against all things that the Nanny state believes (even though it would like be far better for you).

    You are not smart enough to run your own life (even though you are) or able to choose what is best for you (even though you can). No your favorite Nanny Uncle Sam know’s best and will protect you from all that is bad.

  6. And if SS were to collapse in a private structure because the markets tanked or you lost your shirt because you didn’t know how to choose investments, the GOPers would be the first in line for the bailouts. . .

  7. Well doc, you have reconfirmed the republican, self-centered, me-first, me-only philosophy. GS employees will not like Obama because their average salary is all the way down to a little over $300,000 rather than supporting him because millions of people have seen their retirement funds increase significantly due to the increase in the stock market.

  8. I have no idea what you are talking about Jerry.

    The teachers in Chicago certainly seem mad that they were offered ONLY a 16% RAISE over the next 4 years. Does that make them Republicans too? Somehow I doubt it.

    Besides I said YOU should be happy that the GS gang has taken a cut in pay. Isn’t that what YOU would love to see? How does that make them (or me) self centered?

    What the hell kind of classwarfare warrior are you Jerry.

  9. kevind1986

    Typical pointless propaganda from PC. If industry gives money to Obama, they support his policies. If they give money to Romney, they are buying the election. Same tired drivel.

  10. kevind1986

    Jerry’s rant doesn’t need to make sense. It is anti-conservative and given with a heaping of spittle, so it counts as an insightful argument from the left. Isn’t there any other note than the class warfare? Are you so morally and ethically bankrupt that that is all you’ve got?

  11. Gee, I’ve seem to have hit a nerve. The truth hurts, doesn’t it boys. LOL!

  12. That’s not a response Jerry. That’s an admission that you lose.

  13. Luke Fredrickson

    expdoc says:
    September 11, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    You are not smart enough to run your own life (even though you are) or able to choose what is best for you (even though you can).


    Curious comment from a “doctor” who wants big government presiding over a woman’s medical freedoms. You must be a white Republic Party male with a good income. And plainly a hypocrite.

  14. Exactly which “medical freedoms” are you referring to Luke?

    Abortion? I would presume the fetus to have some right to “medical freedom” as well.

    Contraception? It is cheap and readily available.

    What exactly do you mean by “doctor”? Do you doubt my professional credentials? What does my race or income level have to do with this topic?

  15. Luke Fredrickson

    > Exactly which “medical freedoms” are you referring to Luke? All of them, as defined by the SCOTUS.

    > What exactly do you mean by “doctor”? You self-define as a doctor yet you do not stridently refuse to use your name, so I certainly do not take it as fact. Deal with it.

    > What does my race or income level have to do with this topic? Affluent white male wingnuts push for “limited government” in all things except women’s reproductive choice, so I was pointing out how very, very predictable and inconsistent you are.

  16. Luke Fredrickson

    Correction: “…you stridently refuse”

  17. Women have reproductive choice. Men, less so than women. A fetus has even less choice, in fact none.

    I stridently refuse to use my name for obvious reasons. At least obvious if you live in Wisconsin and have watched the hysterical behavior of the left toward those with whom they disagree. Deal with it.

    I am in fact a physician. Deal with it.

  18. Luke Fredrickson

    Strange, I’ve never heard of liberals targeting “doctors” for their political views…seems reserved for republican anti-choice idiots who think killing OB-GYNs is part of the “culture of life”.


    Any counter examples? Or is your anonymous commenting identity needed for…other reasons?

  19. Anti -choice, pro-life… it all depends on where you stand or whose uterus you are being formed in.

    I’m not talking about doctors, I am talking about anyone who disagrees with a liberal.

    The examples range from death threats to physical confrontation and general harrassment and are everwhere.

    I am not sure what you mean by….other reasons? But I would be happy to respond if you have an actual question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *