February 3, 2012

From the ‘What-Did-They-Expect?’ File

From the Huffington Post:

Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates As Donors Flee To Romney

President Barack Obama has been abandoned by the world of finance.

Over the course of the 2012 election, his presidential campaign has received about one dollar in donations from the financial sector for every five dollars given to his top competitor, Mitt Romney, according to figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). During the final three months of 2011, however, the margin has widened dramatically.

In the fourth quarter of 2011, Romney raised $1.49 million from employees of those 68 companies while the president’s reelection campaign raised just $127,000 — an 11.7-to-1 ratio. It was the most lucrative quarter for Romney yet.

“Clearly it was a great quarter for Romney, in terms of fundraising from Wall Street and from securities and banking firms, in particular the biggest one,” said Sheila Krumholz, CRP’s executive director. “It is not surprising that he was able to do that. It is just surprising how rapid the shift has been towards him and away from Obama.”

The abandonment of the president by the financial sector has, indeed, been remarkable in scope and speed. Some of the very companies whose employees cut checks for Obama in 2008 now seem fully devoted to funding his competitor in 2012.

Four years ago all these Wall Street types flocked to Obama in spite of his anti-business, pro-redistribution rhetoric. “He’s so reasonable, so cerebral, so inspiring, so … cool! Why, just look at that crease in his pant leg. He can’t possibly mean all that crazy stuff.”

Surprise! He really DID mean it. After four years of being the political punching bag for this administration, after repeatedly passing open-ended regulations like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, after fourĀ  years of being made the scapegoat for the economy, the financial sector has had enough. It’s finally sunk into their heads that maybe, just maybe in spite of that great crease in his pants, Obama might be a bad investment.

Gee, ya think?

And the Democrats can’t figure out why they’ve turned against them. Note this quote from the article (emphasis added):

Why the world of finance is leaving Obama is a subject of some irritation among Democratic fundraisers. Wall Street executives, after all, have thrived under the Obama administration. The Justice Department has been notoriously slow in pursuing investigations of fraud. Ditto for the Securities Exchange Commission.

Sure the administration has been treating these guys like toadies, but for crying out loud! They been been holding up and delaying prosecutions for them. What more could they possibly want!?!

That is so wrong on so many levels. First, it is an acknowledgement that Justice is not blind in this administration. They have been pulling strings for the rich and powerful, hoping to incur favors in return. Second, the Democrats define “thriving” as not having the Government prosecute you.

What an interesting glimpse into the mind of a Democrat.

There are reasons this all came together in the fourth quarter of 2011. Just before the quarter began Obama called that joint session of Congress and launched his class warfare offensive. The Occupy Wall Street movement took their cues from that and took off. The Administration and other Democrats promptly fell all over themselves talking up how wonderful these new patriots were.

It was finally too much for the financial sector. They finally could see the handwriting on the wall. The Obama administration doesn’t like them. (Funny how such supposedly smart people could be so dense sometimes.) And so they turned to Mitt Romney.

I find that interesting. If you remember the history of the fourth quarter, first you had the big Cain surge from October to about mid-November, and then you had the big Gingrich surge that replaced Cain and lasted to the end of the year. Mitt was nowhere to be seen, yet Wall Street chose Mitt as the object of their largess.

Certainly, Mitt is the one with the best business background (though some argued that Cain was just as good), but his nomination was far from assured even a month ago. Yet the financial sector went to him nearly 12 to 1 over Obama in the quarter, and Mitt wasn’t even the presumptive nominee. That is quite a statement.

A final point to make. What ramifications does this have on Obama’s purported “One Billion Dollar Campaign”? Wall Street has abandoned him. Hollywood is hopping mad at him for going against SOPA. There are rumors that Silicon Valley is grumbling, as well.

And don’t be too sure that Big Labor will ride to the rescue, either. First of all, they’re none too pleased with the President killing the Keystone pipeline. And second, they’ve got problems of their own to worry about. In three states — Wisconsin, Indiana, and New Jersey — Republican Governors have made major inroads into union power. Labor is going to sink as much as they can into those three states. Obama will have to wait his turn.

What about the little guys? They’ll make up the difference, right?

I wouldn’t count on it. Consider the fresh evidence of this week’s One-Term-Fund / Two-Term-Fund contest. Mitt Romney has raised in direct challenge to Obama about 1.1 Million dollars. Obama, in response has raise about 1.6 Million dollars. Obama wins, right?

Not quite. That overlooks the fact that Obama is the sole Democrat running for President, and Romney is only one of four Republicans currently doing the same. Mitt at best can only count on about a third of the Republicans for support at this time. Obama should then be raising north of 3 Million dollars to be the equivalent of Mitt’s haul. He’s not. He’s only raised about half that.

I am beginning to suspect that Obama is NOT going to have the huge financial advantage that he and the MSM have been bragging about for so long.

 

by @ 11:43 am. Filed under Barack Obama, Fundraising, Mitt Romney
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2012/02/03/from-the-what-did-they-expect-file/trackback/

47 Responses to “From the ‘What-Did-They-Expect?’ File”

  1. K.G. Says:

    Read Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men” (no hit piece on Obama) to understand how shockingly dumb Obama is about the economy and the financial world.

  2. Machtyn Says:

    Right now, One-Term is nearing $1.25 M, and Two-Term is about $1.7 M. The growth rate for One-Term seems to be slightly larger.

  3. Matt Y. Says:

    Interesting. Maybe Obama won’t raise quite as much money as some expect.

    Off-topic: Here’s an interesting article about the man behind Rick Santorum’s Super PAC.

    His name is Foster Friess; he’s a Wyoming cowboy, a mutual fund manager, and a born-again Christian. He has also supported Santorum prior to this campaign, and intends to keep supporting him. But he had a lot of positive things to say about Romney as well.

    Friess is a born-again Christian who, along with his wife, Lynn, has given millions to conservative and Christian causes, including $1 million to Koch-brothers-related causes, as well as non-political charities, including raising money for children orphaned in the Haitian earthquake.

    He sounds a lot more likable than the gambler who’s supporting Gingrich.

  4. teledude Says:

    “Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates As Donors Flee To Romney”

    This video explains why

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkKl3Y8xmQ

  5. Dave Says:

    Once the outcome of the Republican Primary is indisputable, look for giving to Romney to really step it up. When the financial sector gives to Romney, they are giving to turn the economy around, to fight against the indignities it has suffered for 3 years, and attempting to preserve itself.

    Obama may not be underfinanced, but he won’t make it to a billion bucks.

  6. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    Well, Obama has already raised $250 million. And we’re barely into 2012. He’s gonna be loaded.

  7. Not Your Promiscuous Daddy Says:

    Matt Y, I like and respect Santorum and wish him well. I wish that it were a race between Santorum, Romney, and Paul. That would be great.

  8. Dave Says:

    BTW,

    Indiana just became a Right To Work state, which is a real breakthrough. Union power is under assault, and if Romney gets in, labor union goons might learn what’s behind Mitt’s labor stooges rhetoric. It’s just a few pieces of legislation that allows Unions to hold the private sector hostage. The Wagner Act, Taft-Hartley, the National Labor Relations Act, allied with numerous regulations, and some court orders….has dramatically distorted the economy, to the detriment of the whole.

    Look for Romney to alter this equation….fundamentally.

  9. RayinRI (Romney / Rubio) Says:

    Money will not be an issue in the GE once Mitt starts fund raising

  10. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    I’d like to see Trump dump a couple hundred into Restore Our Future for the general.

  11. Vin Says:

    So… being favored by the industry responsible for the economic collapse is a good thing?

  12. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    a couple hundred MILLION, that is ;)

    Nah, if any, it will be something like $1 million.

  13. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    11

    Washington DC is responsible for the collapse. They want Mitt because Obama is killing the long-term employment in this country with his regulations and policies.

  14. Vin Says:

    13, yes, of course. Banks were the angel capitalists simply trying to help out America.

  15. John Mark Says:

    I really find the premise of a downtrodden wall-street fleeing from the Obama oppression to be doubtful. Four years ago it was pretty clear Dems were going to win, and this time Republicans have the advantage, this is just fat cats buying the winning horse.

  16. marK Says:

    Vin.11,

    Why not? Their money is just as green as the most saintly of groups.

  17. Vin Says:

    If Romney is trying to appeal to the middle class, being viewed as the guy that the evil finance and banking industry wants as president isn’t going to be a good thing.

  18. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    15

    That’s exactly what’s happening. Good comment.

  19. K.G. Says:

    They want to go with the winner. That’s why this is not good sign for BO.

  20. CF Says:

    So if Obama is still able to raise FAR, FAR more money WITHOUT Wall Street, it begs the question:

    “Is Wall Street really the bad guy?”

  21. CF Says:

    20

    So who is the Socialist-loving organization, packed to the brim with money, is backing Obama? THIS is the group who we should be attacking and ridiculing, NOT Wall Street.

  22. Bobinator Says:

    A couple of takeaways and ironies:
    1, The white House is currently staffed almost exclusively with Wall Street people.
    2, Watch for the ABM croud to start screaming about Mitt’s ties to Wall Street.
    3, Mitt should start fundraising for the general election.

  23. Matt Y. Says:

    11 – It’s not that simple. I’ve always like Factcheck.org’s discussion of who and what is to blame. Here’s their “partial list” of those at fault:

    -The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
    Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
    -Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
    -Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
    -The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
    -Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
    -Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
    -Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
    -The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
    -An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
    -Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

  24. pea-jay Says:

    Wall Street is just investing where in a way that will maximize it’s returns. Four years ago, investments in Obama ensured that his administration would continue to stave off a financial collapse and bail them out. Guess what, it worked. Now the choice is who will better maximize returns/be more advantageous to them? The current president (who has both been helpful and costly to the sector) or a financial insider who is more familiar with their world and sees their way on tax and regulatory policy? That’s a no brainer really.

    Woulda been fun to see the Wall Street donors reactions if a more populist like Huckabee or libertarian like Paul would have gotten the nomination.

  25. pea-jay Says:

    #23: I’d add the removal of the separation between banking and financial sectors in the late 90s and past government bailouts in the 70s (key industries) 80′s (the S&L debacle) and 90s (LTCM) as a sign that if they grow “big enough” and fail “big enough” then the gov’t would have their back. Those factors also helped create this mess

  26. Harold Says:

    The Wall Street crowd is supporting one of their own in this R primary, Willard.

    Duh.

    They already have Obama in their pocket, now they’re merely ensuring they have both presidential candidates bought and paid for. Soros called it… there’s no difference between these 2.

    I’d expect their funding to be a wash come the general.

    Hell, I’m half expecting them to withdraw ALL support for BOTH candidates. They’re going to win either way, so why bother? Keep your cash in your pocket.

    It’s laughable that somebody actually thinks those WS clowns actually care about the country or the economy. Dream on. There’s something they care about, but that sure ain’t it.

  27. Anybody but NEWT Says:

    Mitt Romney on Obama vrs Religious Liberty http://thecompetentconservative.com/mitt-romney-president-obama-versus-religious-liberty/

  28. Annette Says:

    I have never been able to understand how Wall Street or anyone in business went for Obama in the last election. It baffles my mind. I remember Obama muttering how the economy works from the bottom up and the top down doesn’t work. I can understand the college kids and Hollywood thinking he’s cool, but Wall Street? His anti-investment, anti business, class warfare rhetoric and policies are suffocating our economy. Obamacare threatens to turn insurance companies into public utilities

    If unemployment goes back up to 9%, Obama is finished for sure. Barack Obama is no match for Mitt Romney.

  29. Bloodshy Says:

    Teledude -

    Soros is one of the most sophisticated political/economic manipulators in history. Through run-on-bank ploys combined w/orchestrated public statements by people in his pocket he’s literally been a primary cause of multiple national economic collapses. Every word he says publicly has a purpose and he knows he is only slightly behind Alinsky on the conservative hate list.

    Why then would he express approval of Romney during a GOP primary? Is there any chance he realizes such statements may cause a few witless conservatives to vote for someone else?

    My reverse psychology works on my 6 year old. Soros’ reverse psychology appears to work on you.

  30. MarqueG Says:

    This will be a double-edged sword in the general election. Romney gets a deep-pocketed funding source, and the Bamster gets another tailor-made example that Repubs only care about making the rich richer. “Just look!” he will cry. “The fat-cat Wall Street bankers who enriched themselves off of the middle class during the unregulated Bush years want one of their own to help them get richer again at your expense.”

    The BS about “unregulated finance” during the Bush years is grating since it’s so obviously untrue. But Dems and their media allies have pimped out that lie non-stop for the past decade. Never mind that the ruinous Sarbanes-Oxley law was passed with Bush’s signature. Regulations during the Bush years ran amok in all sectors. Yet the media narrative for the period claims the exact opposite.

    It’s exasperating. But it is the made-up story that Mitt will have to fight against.

  31. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    30

    These sorts of narratives are not decisive. If Mitt weren’t raising tons from Wall Streeters, O-mamba and his media cronies would say something else that would be equally effective.

    What ends up mattering in the end are the approval rating of O-mamba and the strength of the challenger as a campaigner and debater.

  32. Harold Says:

    I have never been able to understand how Wall Street or anyone in business went for Obama in the last election.

    .

    They’d already bought and paid for McCain, who was busy doing their bidding and suspending his campaign to go and “save the country”, and ram TARP through Congress.

    So they poured cash into Obama, to cover both candidates, same as they’re doing this year with Willard.

    Wall Street ain’t that hard to figure out, willardbots. Their motives are pretty straightforward.

  33. K.G. Says:

    #28 Annette: Like I said in my first post, read Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men.” It’s a hard slog, getting through the financial collapse beginning in 2007 or so. Remember when the economy collapsed, right before the 2008 election? Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Reid all met with financial gugus in government and on Wall St. It was apparent to all who were in the room that McCain, Pelosi and Reid had NO clue ’bout nuttin’ when it came to the financial sector.

    Obama didn’t either, but he had enough sense to keep his mouth shut and people ASSUMED he knew more than he did. After he was POTUS, it became all too clear that Obama was just as dumb on the financial world, but by then it was too late.

    Of course, Wall St. firms had contributed long before then, but mainly because they believed he would win.

    This is why I’m such an avid Mitt supporter. Whatever else our president is, he MUST be able to understand all this convoluted stuff and it’s gazillions of moving parts. I don’t believe any one can, but he has a much better shot than anyone else on the scene.

  34. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    HA!

    I found Casuist! He comments elsewhere, and here’s his picture! LOL!!!! He looks like a psycho, as you would expect!

    http://intensedebate.com/profiles/casuist

  35. K.G. Says:

    #27 Interesting article by Goldberg. The takeway line:

    A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first ten minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble.

  36. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    And by the way, Casuist is an Orthodox Jew with a PhD who lives in Canada. Not exactly what I expected.

  37. K.G. Says:

    #35: EXACTLY as I imagined.

  38. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    37

    I imagined him to look like that, maybe be a writer or professor. But living in Canada and being an Orthodox Jew? Hmmm

  39. saladdin Says:

    Remember, Obama doesn’t have to spend a single dime until the General, whereas, Mitt, Newt et al will be spending until the convention…

  40. Harold Says:

    What “short leash” is Willard gonna be on?

    Harry Reid’s? He was on Ted Kennedy’s leash, when he invented ObomneyCare, so why would anybody suddenly fantasize that he’ll be on some imaginary “leash”.

    Look, gang, this guy loves Bailouts, Porkulus, big government and spending, redistributionist tax policy, global warmingism, ObomneyCare, money printing and open Fed windows, IMF Euro bailouts and the whole rest of the Obama agenda.

    Good Lord, fine to be tickled over your boy, but these willardbot delusions are clinical.

  41. John Mark Says:

    36, Yeah you must have missed it, he mentioned all of that at one point or another. He’s a rhetorics professor, and every now and again he’d show a flash of intelligence, but he seems to suffer from OCD when it comes to Romney, so he got very repetitive and often lacked substance.

  42. jaxemer11 Says:

    @6 – The RNC has raised a lot of money too. In fact, if you add Obama $$$ and DNC money it is about the same as RNC money + Romney money.

    The money disparity is a myth:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197463950725038.html?mod=WSJ_article_forsub

  43. opey Says:

    Harold Says:
    February 3rd, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Look, gang, this guy loves Bailouts, Porkulus, big government and spending, redistributionist tax policy, global warmingism, ObomneyCare, money printing and open Fed windows, IMF Euro bailouts

    I thought he said that he would leave Europe to their own devices to solve their monetary woes. Are you just making stuff up?

  44. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    41

    I tried to avoid reading his posts as much as possible. Sometimes I couldn’t resist reading them and lashing out at him, but for the most part, I tried to avoid reading him.

  45. Bloodshy Says:

    41. Casuist was rarely intelligent or insightful. He did know a bit about argumentation and he was quick to point out when someone would use one of the most common fallacies, but he had little capacity to actually deconstruct and evaluate real meaning. Knowing he’s a professor of “rhetorics” makes me think much less of him. He constantly used common Phil 101 fallacies by accident. Like many professors, he appears to not understand his own craft.

  46. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    45

    You nailed it.

  47. Harold Says:

    I thought he said that he would leave Europe to their own devices to solve their monetary woes.

    Actually, no, Willard didn’t say that. Gingrich and Paul have, but Willard is just fine with the way Fed and Treasury are acting.

    Now, the Tea Party freshmen in Congress are yammering about withdrawing IMF borrowing authority, but Willard has been silent and hasn’t supported their efforts.

    Sorta like he’s silent on most conservative efforts, as during the budget battles last year.

    And like he’ll be silent when Walker is facing a recall election this Summer, we’d assume.

    This progressive is nothing like a conservative, so all this behavior is much to be expected. He ignores the fight, and rolls over and lets the Left scratch his belly, like Teddy scratched it over ObomneyCare.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main