Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,063 posts)
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:48 PM May 2012

Banking sector puts its money on Mitt Romney

When the head of JPMorgan Chase met with shareholders to answer for a trading loss of more than $2 billion Tuesday, it was against an evolving political backdrop: Donors from big banks are betting on Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama and repeal new restraints on risky, large-scale investments.

“There’s no doubt that there’s been a big diminution of support for the president,’’ said William M. Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff and a former top JPMorgan Chase executive. “People in the financial services sector are saying, ‘The president has been too tough on us, both in policy and on rhetoric.’ ’’

The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.

By contrast, Obama’s top five contributor groups include individuals and PACs affiliated with high technology giants Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., and the global law firms DLA Piper and Sidley Austin, and do not include those associated with banks. In 2008, financial institutions backed him generously.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-16/metro/31712250_1_jpmorgan-chase-volcker-rule-president-obama

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Banking sector puts its money on Mitt Romney (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2012 OP
Appeasement is almost always a failed tactic and failure is automatic TheKentuckian May 2012 #1
no big surprise magical thyme May 2012 #2
I'm a peasant and I have a pitchfork tularetom May 2012 #3
So Rmoney is basically Politicalboi May 2012 #4
no surprise here; 2008 was a rather exceptional year. unblock May 2012 #5
oh, and just to be clear, they are not "betting on" rmoney to win. unblock May 2012 #6

TheKentuckian

(24,936 posts)
1. Appeasement is almost always a failed tactic and failure is automatic
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:56 PM
May 2012

when attempting to appease unbridled avarice.

Their hatred should have been welcomed. The banks should have been nationalized.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
2. no big surprise
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:03 PM
May 2012

They got everything they could possibly have dreamed of from Obama. He had a chance to rein them in -- they were prepared even to be forced to cram down or modify every under water loan. Instead, immediately after advising them he was the only one standing between them and the pitchforks, he gave them everything they could have possibly dreamed of and more.

They thanked him by totally dissing him. They know he won't be fooled again, so they want him gone. Which is precisely why I'm willing to give him a second chance.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
4. So Rmoney is basically
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:11 PM
May 2012

Apologizing to the banks. Sorry guys. Now you have no regulations, go create those "jobs" now.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
5. no surprise here; 2008 was a rather exceptional year.
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:49 PM
May 2012

while there are plenty of liberals in the new york area financial sector, the top execs certainly are mostly republican, or at least find republican policies more profitable.

what made 2008 an exceptional year was that it was SO obvious, from early on, that it was time for a democrat to win. this is why the banks backed obama, at least once he won the nomination. not because they liked him or disliked him, but simply because they knew he was going to win and needed to curry favor.

all thanks to shrub completely trashing the republican party's image.

this also explains the huge amount of money spend in the democratic primary -- because that was the real decision, not the general election.


2012 is a much more normal year. even though obama's quite likely to win, additional contributions this go-round aren't going to make obama any less tough on them, but a better showing for republicans in congress is the best political route to greater profit for them.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
6. oh, and just to be clear, they are not "betting on" rmoney to win.
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:57 PM
May 2012

"rooting for", sure. but "betting on" is something else.

there are many reasons to contribute to political campaigns, but "because i think he's gonna win" actually is pretty low on the list.

in this case, the smart BET is certainly on obama to win re-election. but that's what intrade is for, or other forms of investment that might be influences by an election outcome.

but a campaign contribution is not a bet, but an attempt to influence outcomes (and not necessarily just for the recipient of the contribution) and post-election policies. in fact, the most effective contribution is to a campaign that you think WOULD LOSE were it not for your contribution.

mostly, i think their contributions are with an angle to capture the senate. even contributions to rmoney are with the senate in mind, because a failing presidential candidacy can spell disaster for a senatorial candidate of the same party.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Banking sector puts its m...