Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:16 AM
Krugman: Wall Street Now Hates Democrats (including you-know-who)
Over at Vox, Jonathan Allen notes that Hillary Clinton, sometimes derided on the left as doing Wall Street’s bidding, is actually getting a lot less Wall Street money than people think. Allen notes that during her husband’s administration Clinton was known for her relative antipathy toward financial types, which may be part of the story. But you should also put this in the context of finance’s hard turn against Democrats in general. In 2004, facing an election whose outcome was uncertain, finance and insurance split its donations almost equally between the parties; in 2012 it gave well over twice as much to Republicans as to Democrats. The reason is, of course, financial reform. Anyone who tells you that reform was meaningless and that there’s no difference between the parties should follow the money, which thinks that there is a big difference indeed. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/wall-street-now-hates-democrats/
|
11 replies, 1384 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
 11 replies |
Author | Time | Post |
 Krugman: Wall Street Now Hates Democrats (including you-know-who) (Original post) |
pampango | Aug 2015 | OP |
| merrily | Aug 2015 | #1 | |
| BillZBubb | Aug 2015 | #2 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Aug 2015 | #4 | |
| SidDithers | Aug 2015 | #3 | |
| whatchamacallit | Aug 2015 | #6 | |
| malthaussen | Aug 2015 | #5 | |
| Adrahil | Aug 2015 | #11 | |
| marmar | Aug 2015 | #7 | |
| djean111 | Aug 2015 | #8 | |
| jwirr | Aug 2015 | #9 | |
| Romulox | Aug 2015 | #10 |
Response to pampango (Original post)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:29 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
1. Since this is obviously a lot in support of Hillary, it should be in GD:P
Response to pampango (Original post)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:55 AM
3. DU rec...
|
Anyone who tells you that reform was meaningless and that there’s no difference between the parties should follow the money, which thinks that there is a big difference indeed.
Sid |
Response to SidDithers (Reply #3)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:18 AM
6. Unless the money is from UBS of course
diS |
Response to pampango (Original post)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:14 AM
5. Up to 08, there was relative parity in the graph...
Response to pampango (Original post)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:23 AM
marmar (75,439 posts)
7. ...............
|
Hillary Clinton papers reveal a third of top backers linked to financial industry Eight donors whose family wealth is based in finance gave $4.8m of $15.6m raised in 2015 but media figures like Steven Spielberg are second-biggest group A third of Hillary Clinton’s top backers made their money from the financial services industry, according to Guardian analysis of new campaign finance disclosures released on Friday. The list of donors to Priorities USA, a super Pac which allows unlimited contributions, includes well-known financiers such as George Soros as well as a clutch of less well-known hedge fund managers and investment advisers. Together, eight donors whose family wealth can be traced back to the finance industry accounted for $4.8m of the $15.6m total raised in the first half of the year and nine of the 28 donations worth at least $100,000. ..................(more) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/31/hillary-clinton-third-top-backers-financial-industry If this is hate, I can't imagine what love must be like. 
|
Response to pampango (Original post)
Sat Aug 1, 2015, 10:30 AM
10. So Hillary is only taking *some* of the filthy, filthy Wall Street $$$$? I guess she'll do "some"
