https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street...-congress/

So much for the talking point that the rich favor Republicans. Democrats have been significantly outspending Republicans for the last 10 years. Now this is a change for Wall St., but I think its a change that has been coming. That industry is no longer dominated by Republicans. The Wall ST. Journal actually has more Democrats reading it than Republicans.

"...There's still a week to go before the midterm elections, but Wall Street has already voted -- with its campaign contributions.

The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared to Republicans' $33.4 million. (The data cover the current electoral cycle through Sept. 30.)

It's the first time in a decade that the securities industry has given more to Democrats than Republicans. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate is following a similar pattern. Its firms have given $174 million to Democratic candidates against $157 million to Republicans...."

Gridlock is good for them. No drastic changes.

People sometimes say that Bill Clinton was not a “transformative” president, and in a lot of ways that is true. But I think it’s undeniable that the cumulative impact of his campaigns and of his administration triggered a deep shift in the partisan loyalties of America’s various income levels (upper and upper/middle towards Dems, lower and lower/middle towards GOP).

Are they betting on them? Or making an investment?

(11-01-2018 06:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  People sometimes say that Bill Clinton was not a “transformative” president, and in a lot of ways that is true. But I think it’s undeniable that the cumulative impact of his campaigns and of his administration triggered a deep shift in the partisan loyalties of America’s various income levels (upper and upper/middle towards Dems, lower and lower/middle towards GOP).

And actually it was Clinton more than Obama who strengthened the Democrats grip on the Black vote. I often wondered why Blacks were so enthralled with the Clintons. But then I saw a chart of Black income and wealth in the 90s. They cut the gap vs. Whites in half as they grew much faster.

(11-01-2018 06:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are they betting on them? Or making an investment?

Both.

(11-01-2018 06:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are they betting on them? Or making an investment?

They bet on the side they expect to win, but they lay enough both ways in case there is an upset. They want access, no matter who wins. With all of the blue wave talk early, I'm guessing they loaded up on democrats, then backed republicans who looked like they had a chance.

My point was somewhat different... perhaps because of my background

Someone making a 'bet' is interested in the outcome alone. Someone making an investment is interested in having influence after the outcome.

As some have suggested... log-jam is often good for business/the wealthy because the conflicts of ideas that often come out of congressional committees creates loopholes