Wall Street Already Betting On Who Wins in November

[Pryderi]

With just 100 days left until the U.S. presidential election, investors are beginning to make bigger bets on which candidate will carry the day.

One analysis concludes that last week's sharp three-day market surge can only mean that Wall Street is banking on a victory from Republican Mitt Romney.

That's the logical interpretation one can draw from a rally amid conditions that otherwise would demand a selloff, Morgan Stanley chief U.S. equity strategist Adam S. Parker said in an analysis that asserts there is no other reason now to like stocks than a Romney win.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48400076

Oligarchy.

[rfranklin]

1. What will this genius say when stocks go down next week?

That is a purely political lie.

If they knew anything about history, they would recognize that Republicans are just plain bad for business. The economy always does better under Democrats. That's a fact.

[reflection]

2. Yeah, I saw Drudge pimping this yesterday.

Whistling past the graveyard, nothing more.

[HughBeaumont]

3. Of course "Crap, Nothing But Conservatives" would write this . . .

CNBC is one of two dedicated Republican networks, and they're not even ashamed to admit it. Nothing but one big Anti-Obama, Anti-Government, Anti-Worker, Anti-Democratic agitprop channel. It goes without saying that they would love to see a corporate raider, serial firer like RobMe as the president (too bad it's not going to happen).

Watch it sometime. Nearly all of the anchors are right-wingers propping up right-wing economics 24-7. The ones that aren't are milquetoast moderates that shrug as if to say "Weeellllllll, that's just Joe Kernen being Joe Kernen!".

[upaloopa]

4. This seems like propaganda to me. If you look at times when the market rose lately you would

see that Clinton and Obama made more money for investors in the market than Bush. And Romney is Bush on steroids.

I think investors are more sophisticated than to bet their money on right wing ideology.

But then being rich does not mean you are sophisticated.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Sure. And I saw a tree root that looked like Obama.

[yellowcanine]

6. If you read the whole article it is more murky as to a political interpretation of the surge.

In any case it is pretty much nonsense to suggest that a market surge in July has anything to do with the possible outcome of the November election. Stock markets are just not that linear in terms of cause and effect.

[Pryderi]

7. True. The article also mentions "Intrade" which has Obama at 57% of winning. n/t

[MadHound]

8. Reading anything into the markets is a fool's quest,

About the only things you can read is broad strokes. Details are impossible, as are political predictions.

[RBInMaine]

9. Why would anyone on this board even think about Drudge or any other right wing lying shit?

[grantcart]

10. Silliest article I have read in a long time

The last three day run is a direct result on seeing some improvement in the Spanish Debt crises and the proof of that is that European stocks and the Euro rose in tandem.

It is noted in the article that Intrade continues to give the President a commanding lead, Romney just barely over 40%, which at this time is kind of a baseline number.

[abolugi]

11. If they believe that

They should put their money where their mouth is and let loose of some of those billions they are holding on to and invest it in the economy...

I'll be waiting with bells on....

[cbdo2007]

12. The markets have already priced in a win by President Obama because...

that's about a 90% probability at this point.

These aren't polls with some random group, these are people who make Billions of $$$ based on probability and statistics on a level you and I can't imagine. Trust me, at this point they're strongly predicting a win by President Obama and will continue to do so unless something major happens to change that.