2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPaul Krugman: Since 2010, Wall Street donations almost all going to GOP.
So their influence on Democratic candidates will be very limited.
Krugman also points out that if any Democrat is elected, that person's actions are going to be limited by Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=1
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesdays debate but it wasnt about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldnt be stronger.
For what its worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasnt.
But is Mrs. Clintons promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
Well, if Wall Streets attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican.
SNIP
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)"Well, if Wall Streets attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican."
But we know big money is not liking the Bern, but do like H.
And of course, they love R's who kiss their asses. But to say that the crooks are indecisive about which D they want is hooey.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)R first but who's the D? We all know. D3.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)...how he managed to get out from under the bus long enough to write this. Someone's gonna be in trouble.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Soft money is secret.
But 66% is less than "almost all."
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I'm not saying that proves anything. But if we're going to accept Krugman's premise that people support whichever candidate they think will regulate their industry less, then they think Hillary Clinton would regulate Wall St less than Bernie Sanders.
Hard money as of last reporting date from employees in Securities & Investment
Hillary Clinton $1,945,559
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/indus.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f
Bernie Sanders $47,833
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/indus.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f
In other words, Hillary Clinton got 40x as much hard money from Wall St employees as Bernie Sanders.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)But as any investor knows, you don't put all your eggs in one basket, so they're hedging their bets with Hillary. Maybe should could tell them to cut it out.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...which leaves the public largely in the dark.
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush received similar amounts of hard money from Wall St employees.
His Super PAC raised over $100 million, and her Super PACs raised about $20 million, and so it's likely that he's gotten more from Wall St employees. But because of the Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court which legalized Super PACs, we don't know.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)And there are numerous reasons why... it wasnt just wall street