Obama dominates on Wall Street, beats Romney even at firm Romney ran. HRC 2nd, ahead of McCain

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Last quarter the battle on Wall Street was close, with Obama narrowly defeating Rudy Ghouliani and HRC placing a close third. This quarter Obama crushed the competition on Wall Street and HRC moved past the New York Republican and comfortably beat third place John McCain in the Wall Street sweepstakes.

The only other Democrat whose figure is mentioned is Edwards. The populist Edwards received about $40k from the top 10 investment banks, 1/17th of Obama's total and 1/10th of the DLC icon's total.

I am glad Wall Street is buying Obama and HRC's message of change. Wall Street is hungry for a change in the status quo and the establishment. It is so great Wall Street has finally seen the progressive light! :sarcasm:

== July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street donors are demonstrating their disenchantment with President George W. Bush and his policies on Iraq and the economy by giving more to Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to Republican candidates.

Obama, an Illinois senator, is leading among employees of the top 10 investment banks, raising at least $739,579 in the second quarter, Federal Election Commission filings show. Clinton, a New York senator whose constituency includes Wall Street, followed with $424,545. By comparison, the top Republican recipients, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, each received a little more than $330,000.==

==On the Republican side, McCain received $334,585 from employees of the top 10 investment banks, while former New York Mayor Giuliani, 63, got $330,450 and Romney, 60, took in $220,950.

Romney, who previously ran the Boston-based investment firm Bain Capital LLC, received $79,400 in the first quarter from his ex-colleagues, many giving the maximum. In the second quarter, Obama bested him in Bain Capital donations -- taking in $20,700 compared with $9,700 for Romney.==

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2fIFVWje23E&refer=home

[dugggy]

1. Wonderful...so now Obama will be in pocket of Wall Street?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. He is beating a DLCer and Republicans on Wall Street

People can reach their own conclusions. Either Wall Street has suddenly become a progressive bastion or they like what Obama and, to a much lesser extent, HRC are selling...

[TeamJordan23]

3. <self delete>

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. No comment on corporate America's embrace of DLCism over Republicanism? nt

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Wall Street is betting that a Democrat will be elected in 2008

It's generally smart to bet on a winner.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. So why is Obama getting almost twice as much support as the DLC front-runner?

If this were just about winning then HRC would be the best bet. If this were just about winning Obama would not have raised 17 times more than the populist Edwards.

How often has Wall Street supported Democrats in the past? How often by this much of a margin? I think this is just more evidence of the DLC's success in moving the Democratic Party to a more corportatist stance. It is no accident that the two Third Way Democrats crushed the rest of the Democratic field. The reason Wall Street loves them is because they are no threats to the status quo and establishment. When you hear these two pose as agents of "change" remember Wall Street is laughing all the way to the bank...

[Hippo_Tron]

7. What will Edwards do to significantly change the status quo that Hillary or Obama won't do?

All three candidates' rhetoric, platforms, or records suggest that they are too much farther to the left than Bill Clinton on economic issues, although I'd say that all three are at least somewhat farther to the left.

Edwards may or may not change things a tad bit more, he's not proposing anything radical like repealing Welfare Reform or forcing the rich to pay 70% income taxes like they did before Reagan.

I've looked at Edwards' plan for fighting poverty and it looks very similar to Obama's.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/

Again, I think Wall Street is placing bets on who they think can possibly win and currently it doesn't look like Edwards has much of a chance. As to why Obama gets more than Clinton, I can't say for sure. Perhaps they think he has a better shot at winning the General Election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Edwards is no Kucinich

Let's make that clear. He is just substantially more progressive than the other top-tier candidates. Here is one good article on the subject http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

==Edwards may or may not change things a tad bit more, he's not proposing anything radical like repealing Welfare Reform or forcing the rich to pay 70% income taxes like they did before Reagan.==

No one is.

==I've looked at Edwards' plan for fighting poverty and it looks very similar to Obama's.==

Edwards' plan will cost $15 billion a year. He also consistently mentions poverty before any audience, not only when his pollsters tell him a particular audience would like to hear about it. Obama has yet to tell us how much he is willing to spend on poverty. This is an important distinction. Why? An Edwards victory is a mandate for a return to Great Society/New Deal-style progressive government activism. Do you think Wall Street wants a return of "big government" or would prefer Bill Clinton-style DLC governance?

=Again, I think Wall Street is placing bets on who they think can possibly win and currently it doesn't look like Edwards has much of a chance.==

He is closer to Obama than Obama is to HRC. If Edwards is a non-factor than HRC is a shoo in for the nomination. Why did McCain, Ghouliani, and Romney (probably some more Republicans) also beat Edwards soundly? McCain and Ghouliani beat Edwards 8-to-1 on Wall Street (while Edwards and McCain were on par in overall fund-raising and Ghouliani beat him 2-to-1 overall). Does anyone really think McCain has a better chance at winning than Edwards?

There is also the first quarter. HRC expanded her lead in the polls over Obama and the field in the second quarter. In the first quarter HRC was on par with Obama on Wall Street, as was Ghouliani. Yet, after HRC expanded her lead she was out-raised by Obama almost 2-to-1? How can this be? If they are simply giving money to who they think will win the shift in the second quarter would have been in favor of HRC, not Obama. What about Ghouliani? He was on par with Obama in the first quarter but was crushed by him by over 2-to-1 this quarter. If it was about winning why would a distant 2nd place candidate be out-raising the Republican's front-runner, who happens to be from New York City?

==As to why Obama gets more than Clinton, I can't say for sure. Perhaps they think he has a better shot at winning the General Election.==

On what evidence would they believe that? HRC is on par with him in GE trial heats and that is after 15 years of attacks on her by the right-wing. Obama is a pristine blank slate right now. His GE numbers will only drop as people learn more about the real Obama, which often will not match up with the idealized image they projected onto Obama, the blank screen (the same thing has already happened to Ghouliani, who has went from 44% in primary polls to the low 20's in a couple of months). Perhaps Wall Street is lining up behind Obama because they realize he is the best vehicle for pushing their agenda...

[Hippo_Tron]

46. I read the article, still not convinced that he's substantially more progressive

But obviously you and I have very differing views about both Edwards and Obama. I don't agree with most of the opinions you've stated here, but I can't say that mine are any better or worse.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Yes we have differing views but I applaud you for being open minded

:toast:

[jefferson_dem]

10. Maybe "change" is "in" and Wall Street knows that.

Surely, it's more than "irrational exuberance"...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Yes, after decades Wall Street suddenly saw the progressive light...

...and the ultimate beneficiaries of the status quo want change...

Oh, it is certainly not irrational that they love Obama and HRC is second. Wall Street certainly knows who will serve their interests the best. ;)

[jefferson_dem]

13. Miss this part of the article?

...

"Employees at the top hedge funds and private-equity firms, whose tax rates are under assault from lawmakers including Obama and Clinton, didn't give nearly as much to White House hopefuls and are largely hedging their bets, FEC filings show."

EDIT: Oh, as a rebuttal to your "status quo" argument...

``When a party has been in power, both at the presidency, and the Senate and House for years and failed, on the Street you get fired,'' said Mark Gallogly, 50, an Obama fund-raiser and policy adviser who is also founder of the New York-based buyout firm Centerbridge Capital Partners LP. ``Accountability and the need for change is why Wall Street is supporting Democrats,'' said Gallogly, a former executive at Blackstone.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Hooray for corporate influence!

:sarcasm: It is hilarious to see Obama supporters, who like most progressives, used to decry corporate influence in politics suddenly cheering Wall Street's influence now that their hero is Wall Street's darling...

=="Employees at the top hedge funds and private-equity firms, whose tax rates are under assault from lawmakers including Obama and Clinton, didn't give nearly as much to White House hopefuls and are largely hedging their bets, FEC filings show."==

You forgot to mention that what hedge funds are giving is a small fraction of the Wall Street number. Hedge funds combined to give the top three Republicans $50,750; the top 10 investment banks gave them nearly $900,000 (almost as much as they gave to Obama alone...). Hedge funds gave $62,211 to Democrats; the top 10 investment banks gave Obama $740,000 and HRC $425,000 (a total of roughly $1.2 million).

==``When a party has been in power, both at the presidency, and the Senate and House for years and failed, on the Street you get fired,'' said Mark Gallogly, 50, an Obama fund-raiser and policy adviser who is also founder of the New York-based buyout firm Centerbridge Capital Partners LP. ``Accountability and the need for change is why Wall Street is supporting Democrats,'' said Gallogly, a former executive at Blackstone.==

So Wall Street is suddenly for progressive change after all these decades? Surely you do not believe that... You took one quote and claim it represents Wall Street. Besides, do you think he would have said "I like Obama's pro-corporate policies. I think he will be even better for us than Clinton was. This is why I am supporting him."

[jefferson_dem]

16. I took one quote and never claimed it represents "Wall Street"

I was merely highlighting your reductionist (il)logic.

It'll take far more than a sample of candidate contribution numbers and a biased interpretation of a single news report for you to succeed in your latest line of attack -- Obama is into "pro-corporate" policies (ooga booga).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. lol. So corporate support is suddenly kosher?

My my, another example of how some are willing to discard long-standing progressive principles for their hero...

==It'll take far more than a sample of candidate contribution numbers and a biased interpretation of a single news report==

People need to know the facts. When you have two candidates--particularly Obama--posing as "change" candidates and then we learn that they are Wall Street's favorites. It is particularly important in Obama's case. Why? He is playing the "change" card far more than HRC. He is marketed as the anti-HRC, the anti-DLC (and one of the fundamental criticisms of the DLC is its pro-corporate stances). Yet he is crushing the field, even HRC among the ultimate embodiment of the status quo and establishment. People need to know this. They can then look to their own thinking on corporate influence, the current context, and other relevant factors and reach their own conclusions. This is an election for president of the United States, not freshman class president where image is all that matters.

==latest line of attack -- Obama is into "pro-corporate" policies.==

So on the one hand you say Wall Street lining up behind Obama is great. Then you turn around and say pointing this out is an attack. Which is it?

Wall Street itself has spoken. Corporate America is voting with its financial might as to who they would like to see in the White House. The same type of people who have long supported pro-corporate Republicans are now favoring two Third Way Democrats, with Obama being much preferred over HRC. Somewhere Al From must be smiling...

[jefferson_dem]

23. Hero?...Edwards. Progressive principles?...Fortress. Posing?....Povery Populist.

Third Way DLC-er?...Edwards.

Touche.

See how easy that is.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. That is rhetoric. Obama dominating on Wall Street is a fact nt

[jefferson_dem]

27. You are right. Obama is raking in more $ from "Wall Street" ...

according to that report. That's all.

Nothing about loyalties or motivations or pro-corporatist policies or any of the other wild-eyed assumptions...er rhetoric (as you call it)...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. People with progressive principles can reach their own conclusions

Being the favorite of corporate America is troubling regardless of the party label or last name of a pro-corporate individual.

Ah, wild-eyed assumptions. Yes, the same assumptions progressives have been making for generations...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. How about this quote regarding why hedge funds prefer Obama over HRC (and everyone else)?

Note: All these figures are for the first quarter (as we know, he has expanded his lead among corporate America since then)

==But, even as Obama plays the people's choice by building his war chest in two- and three-figure increments, he is also relying on a growing cadre of young, eye-poppingly rich hedge-fund and private-equity managers to keep him at the head of the money primary. During the first quarter he nearly doubled Clinton's take from private-equity firms--$85,350 against $47,900, according to the magazine Private Equity Hub--and, with $479,209, he placed first among candidates from both parties in giving from investment banks, many of which run their own hedge funds and private-equity operations (Rudy Giuliani, the runner-up, got $473,442).==

==These stars--what New York magazine calls the "baby bundlers"--are helping Obama tap into Wall Street's fabulously rich elite. His most recent catch is the relatively gray-haired Paul Tudor Jones II (he's 53). Head of the $15 billion Tudor Management hedge fund, Jones is holding a 500-guest event for the candidate at his Greenwich, Connecticut, mansion later this month. The event will mark Obama's entry into the hedge-fund winners' circle: Greenwich, the toniest of New York exurbs, is home to more than 100 hedge funds--and, as one observer told the Financial Times, "The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama."==

==There is also a more Machiavellian element to these young turks' support. Precisely because the Clinton dynasty has been around so long, the door to her innermost fundraising circles--and thus influence and possible White House posts--is largely closed. The top jobs in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton White House aren't exactly taken, but they're not available to newcomers, either. Obama's door, on the other hand, is wide open. So it's no surprise that while Wall Street stalwart Rattner is a big-time Hillary backer, his right-hand man at Quadrangle, Steiner, is going with Obama. The same is the case with Jamie Rubin, the son of Clinton's economic consigliore Robert. "If we all lined up for Hillary, we wouldn't have even gotten into the anteroom, let alone seats at the table," one of Obama's young fundraisers told New York. "But that's not how it is with Barack. We're already at the table."

==Of course, hedge-fund and private-equity managers don't dish out money for their health: An industry that once studiously avoided politics is now rushing into it. Jones' Tudor Investment recently became the first hedge fund to start a political action committee, while both the Private Equity Council and the Managed Funds Association are intently lobbying Washington.==

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070507&s=risen051107

[jefferson_dem]

17. Simple question: Are you really criticizing Obama for being too cozy with *hedge funds*?

Are you sure you want to pursue that line of attack, given the history of your guy and all...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. You posted a quote to give a benign face to corporate support of candidates

I posted another quote that shows the other side of this. Care to respond to that?

People are entitled to information. After all, this is an election for president of the United States, not freshman class president. People should take into account Edwards' brief stint at a hedge fund but also take into account who hedge funds are lining up behind, who not so incidentally, is the same guy Wall Street is lining up behind. If Edwards is so great for hedge funds why is he being dwarfed by Obama and HRC in hedge fund support?

[jefferson_dem]

20. No need to respond to your quotes.

Fact is, there are many reasons why Wall Streeters support various canidates. The article points that out. That was my point too.

I agree that more information is good. Put this out there. It's important we know who's greasing the pockets of our candidates.

That being said, when you post the information with snide editorial comments about how this alone shows Obama is a pro-corporate toady, etc because he gets $ from evil hedge fund types ... when the candidate you are supporting actually worked for (and benefited from) the same evil hedge fund types is just about the height of hypocrisy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Sure, but progressives have long known what Wall Street wants

Are there exceptions? Yes. But progressives for generations have known what Wall Street by and large wants. Now that Obama is the Wall Street darling suddenly some progressives thing corporate support is great...

==That being said, when you post the information with snide editorial comments about how this alone shows Obama is a pro-corporate toady==

When he out-raises a DLCer married to a pro-corporate former president by almost 2-to-1 on Wall Street, a New York City Republican by more than 2-to-1, a Republican with strong business ties by more than 3-to-1, and the 2004 VP nominee by 17-to-1 Wall Street has spoken for itself...

As I showed, hedge funds account for a small slice of the Wall Street pie. Even among that slice, though, Obama is leading. If you are arguing Edwards is pro-corporate (Wall Street disagrees) what does that make a candidate who raised 17 times more than him on Wall Street?

[jefferson_dem]

9. Those "Wall Street" types sure know how to pick a winner...

:bounce:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Yes, they picked Bush*, Bush, Reagan, and so on for decades

They know who to invest in for the best return for them.

[Tellurian]

21. So, by ANY logic..

The supposedly, Democratic Obama is really running as a stealth Republican under the guise of a mirrored DLC candidate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Apparently Wall Street thinks he is pro-corporate enough

Very ironic for someone posing as an agent of change and being marketed as the anti-DLC, anti-HRC (the DLC and HRC are both denounced by BO supporters for their views on corporate issues. yet Wall Street prefers their hero!).

[welshTerrier2]

22. fyi, this link says otherwise

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. That link shows HRC and Obama in a dead heat for first

Even if we accept that figure--and we don't know what the methodology behind it was--it does not change the basic premise of the thread. Those figures are not also broken down by quarter. During the first quarter HRC and Ghoulian were on par with Obama on Wall Street; in the second quarter he crushed her by almost 2-to-1 and Ghouliani by more than 2-to-1. What does this say? Wall Street liked him initially but after seeing more of him is now lining up behind him. There is something about Obama that the ultimate status quo and establishment people prefer over what HRC, Ghouliani, Romney, McCain, and not to mention all the others who barely register on Wall Street are selling...

The methodology of the article, from Bloomberg (who would know something about who Wall Street prefers! ) in the OP is clear. It looked at the top 10 Wall Street investment banks and tallied up the contributions.

[ieoeja]

30. Go Obama! n/t

[jefferson_dem]

31. Go Obama indeed! This is just more evidence that his base of appeal is broad....

and growing.

He's the kind of leader we need today!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Define growing

You've been saying Edwards has been faring poorly (such as in post #33). I am curious what your definition of growing is. Is a candidate falling from 16% to 13% in a free-fall while a candidate going from 30-33% to 19-23% is "growing"?

[jefferson_dem]

37. I wouldn't say "free fall" but i would agree with your general point.

Do you really need for me to educate you on electoral trends, momenetum, and such?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. A 3% decline is horrible and knocks JE out the game but a double digit decline is "growing"?

The truth is both Edwards and Obama have lost ground over the past couple months, while HRC has benefited at their expense. Of course, it is obvious why some Obama supporters are praying it will quickly become a two-way race between him and HRC. For all the hype about his money, his "charisma", his appeal, etc. they know his only chance to beat HRC is in a one-on-one battle (of course, this applies to other candidates too but only BO supporters hype the "strength" of a thus far losing campaign).

[jefferson_dem]

40. I totally agree with your assessment here...right up until the "losing campaign" nonsense.

Cheers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Thus far, only HRC is running a winning campaign. Of course, that can change. Ask Dean

:)

[Tellurian]

44. Better put- Hillary will be president before Kerry...

[illinoisprogressive]

32. DMC: Jealous????

[jefferson_dem]

33. I think so. He's having a bad week. His guy is trailing just about everywhere.

Hell, his candidate even gets a job at a hedge fund but they still don't toss their dough his way.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Edwards leads in Iowa, Oklahoma, and North Carolina

That is more than anyone aside from HRC. And he is 2nd in Nevada.

It is funny how whenever BO is criticized by someone who is not a HRC supporter Team Obama claims it is because of Obama's "success" in the polls. Does this mean the steady stream of anti-HRC comments and threads by Team Obama are motivated by Obama's growing deficit to HRC (remember, Obama once led...), which is larger than the gap between Obama and Edward? :rofl:

[Tellurian]

45. Edwards will overtake Obama.. before this is over.

Obama supporters are going to have to put their Obama hats in storage for the next cycle.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. Edwards overtaking Obama is more likely than Obama overtaking HRC

This seems lost on the BO supporters who like to dismiss Edwards because he is a 8-10 points behind Obama. Obama is as much as 19 points behind HRC!

Let's, for the sake of discussion, assume that the gap in national polls remains 8-10 points 6 months from now. Since the polls are sacred, let's assume the Iowa polls hold true as well. Edwards wins Iowa and Obama finishes a weak 3rd. Who do you think will do better after this in Nevada (where Edwards has already moved into a tie with Obama for 2nd)? NH? And what effect will success in Iowa, Nevada, and NH have on SC and Florida? No candidate will remain viable if they go 0-for-5 in the early states. Obama supporters are overconfident if they think this is a two-way race between him and HRC.

Personally, I think all three--and perhaps Richardson if he can finish 3rd in Iowa (ahead of Obama) and then win or finish a strong 2nd in Nevada (Richardson is the only candidate really campaigning in NV thus far)--will be contenders by Jan. 29, when SC, FL, and maybe even Ohio vote. By then the second round of the playoffs will be over (with the first round being the campaign prior to IA). One candidate will emerge as the alternative to HRC. This candidate will then square off with HRC on Super Tuesday. On that day the nomination will probably be effectively decided.

Edwards has tanked in NH but I am still confident of his chances going forward. An Iowa win should, at least, boost him to be on par with Obama nationally, if he does not reach that level before Iowa. It should at least give him a strong 2nd, if not a win in Nevada. Then, as it did last time, the test for his momentum will come in NH. If he continues to remain in the 9-10% range in NH he will be unlikely to turn his momentum into a win in NH. For him to win NH he needs to probably be hovering around at least 20% before Iowa.

As far as Obama goes, curiously, he has never gained traction in Iowa, his neighboring state. He is now only 5 points ahead of Richardson for 3rd. If he finishes 4th in Iowa that would cripple his candidacy. People tend to ignore his weakness in Iowa when assessing the polls and election chances. That said, if he can muster at least 3rd (and if he finishes 2nd he would get a boost because that would be unexpected) in Iowa he will be able to survive as long as he finishes 2nd in either Nevada or NH. His make or break state, based on current polling, will be South Carolina, like it was for JE last time. If he can win SC he will be viable heading into Super Tuesday. If he loses SC, even if he finishes 2nd in IA, NV, and NH, it is hard to see him being viable by Super Tuesday (of course, the ways things look now, if Edwards loses Iowa he is done).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Of what? nt

[William769]

39. Well the cooperate whore has it doesn't he?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. I don't think we will hear much about HRC being a :"corporate whore" now

;)

[Kat45]

43. Sure, they're betting on those they think most likely to win, the front-runners

That way, whichever one of them wins, Wall Street has him or her. Since there is not one clear front-runner yet, they have to spread it around to all of them to hedge their bets.