How would a new financial crisis effect this election season?

[GoldenThunder]

All indications point to some sort of financial upheaval in 2016. The near collapse of 2008 had a major effect on the race that year and the underlying causes appear to be significantly worse this time around. How the election year plays out may very well depend on when this crisis hits. I find the points laid out in Thom Hartmann's book "The Crash of 2016" just way to compelling to ignore. I think it would be prudent for all of us to figure out the best way for each campaign to deal with such an upheaval. We need to do some brainstorming on this one.

[forest444]

1. It would be YOOOGE for Trump.

I wouldn't put it past Wall Street to cook one up just for the occasion.

[GreatGazoo]

3. Wall Street already has a candidate in this race

and it ain't Trump

[forest444]

7. I'm referring to the general in November.

I realize they prefer that sweaty whore Narco Rubio; but unless they assassinate Trump (I'm sure it's crossed their mind), Narco has no chance.

And I'm not convinced that Hillary's selling herself to Wall Street as much as she has will persuade them to back her instead of the Republican nominee - even Trump.

[GreatGazoo]

10. She is selling off cabinet positions to them right now

BlackRock, which controlled $4.6 trillion worth of assets as of the end of last year, has ties to the Clintons that extend beyond Mallow. The firm’s founder Larry Fink has signaled his belief that a Clinton victory in 2016 could put him on the receiving end of a presidential appointment to become treasury secretary,

http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-goes-back-to-well-hits-up-financial-industry-for-fundraisers/

[UglyGreed]

8. +1000000

[brentspeak]

4. Vast majority of Wall St. don't want Trump anywhere near the WH

They're afraid he really would be the economic populist he's portraying himself to be.

[forest444]

11. I hope you're right. You usually are, brentspeak.

My impression thus far is that whatever reservations they have against Trump, they are trumped by their desire to have the GOP back in the White House after eight years. Especially given the number of Justices that may soon retire or pass away (Thomas is next, I believe, and they don't want that puppet replaced by even a center-right Clinton appointee - and so soon after losing their biggest puppet).

Then again, you may be right. Hillary has earned their trust, after all (has she ever!).

On another note, I wanted to thank you for this post from last month: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027587144

It really summed up in a clear, concise, and forceful way what should be obvious to everyone by now: that Singer makes his fortune by extortion and loan sharking (the Delphi/GM heist alone makes him a terrorist as far as I'm concerned).

Of course, it doesn't help matters that the new, right-wing president of Argentina (Macri) has literally handed him a $2.5 billion payout representing 60 times his investment. I guess he figured that if he could bribe Greasa, Macri would be a cinch.

Nevertheless, the Argentine Congress has to approve such a giveaway - and given their center-left majorities, they're not likely to do so. Stay tuned!

Thanks again, brentspeak. It was a privilege.

[brentspeak]

12. You're welcome

I'm still learning more about Singer. He's one of the primary money men financing the GOP's campaigns, and the DNC naturally doesn't want to bring him up as an issue -- which they should.

[forest444]

13. You'd think the DNC would - but this might explain why they won't:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/day_of_the_vulture_over_argentina_20140724

A shocking case in point of the cluster-fuck quid pro quo Bernie Sanders has spent so much of his political life trying to shine a spotlight on.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Depends on when it occurs

Before the election:

Given Trumps wealth and shady dealings that finance that wealth, he looks bad, but would make the most of blaming Obama. HRC is going to have a hard time making any credible threat against Wall Street given that they finance her. Sanders has the best chance of saying "See, this is what happens unless we fundamentally change the system."

After the election:

Trump tries to push through some of his crazy schemes and fails, country descends into full economic depression. HRC bails out the banks, and the taxpayer is on the hook for the calamity. Millions of jobs lost, more cuts to the safety net since we "can't afford them", and no prosecutions or regulatory changes. With Sanders in office, we finally use the "Shock Doctrine" to our advantage and push through Wall Street reform with an angry populace's backing. People start going to jail.

Just my opinion.

[GreatGazoo]

5. Depends on the timing of the bailout.

and who can capitalize on the backlash to the bailout.

[BernieforPres2016]

6. I think it would create further backlash against the establishment

Which would drive more voters toward Bernie and Trump. But Bernie would have the coherent argument about where the financial upheaval came from. It would be an illustration of the rigged economy caving in again. Bernie has been pointing out that real unemployment and underemployment is about twice the official government rate while Hillary has been promising an Obama 3rd term.

[BernieforPres2016]

9. It likely would also prove Bernie right on breaking up TBTF banks

versus Hillary pretending you can just keep an eye on them and deal with them if there are signs of trouble. The signs of trouble are there right now (collapse in oil prices, huge junk debt issuance over the last couple of years and a steep decline in junk bond prices, Deutsche Bank stock trading below 2008-09 lows and other financial stocks down big over the last 12 months) and she doesn't see them.