Wall Street Democratic donors won't back Warren

[the game]

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party’s nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.

“You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump,’” said a senior private equity executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders. The executive said this Wednesday, a day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

A spokeswoman for Warren declined to comment. She tweeted her response to CNBC’s report later Thursday.

During the campaign, Warren has put out multiple plans intended to curb the influence of Wall Street, including a wealth tax. In July, she released a proposal that would make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy. Trump, meanwhile, has given wealthy business leaders a helping hand with a major corporate tax cut and by eliminating regulations.

Warren has sworn off taking part in big money fundraisers for the 2020 presidential primary. She has also promised to not take donations from special interest groups. She finished raising at least $19 million in the second quarter mainly through small-dollar donors. The third quarter ends Monday.

Trump, has been raising hundreds of millions of dollars, putting any eventual 2020 rival in a bind as about 20 Democrats vie for their party’s nomination.

Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have raised over $100 million in the second quarter. A large portion of that haul came from wealthy donors who gave to their joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory. In August, the RNC raised just over $23 million and has $53 million on hand.

The Democratic National Committee have struggled to keep up. The DNC finished August bringing in $7.9 million and has $7.2 million in debt.

Biden, who has courted and garnered the support of various wealthy donors, has started to lag in some polls. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Warren virtually tied with the former vice president. Biden was one of three contenders that saw an influx of contributions from those on Wall Street in the second quarter.

The business community’s unease about Warren’s candidacy has surged in tandem with her campaign’s momentum. CNBC’s Jim Cramer said earlier this month that he’s heard from Wall Street executives that they believe Warren has “got to be stopped.” Warren later tweeted her response to Cramer’s report: “I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message.”

Some big bank executives and hedge fund managers have been stunned by Warren’s ascent, and they are primed to resist her.

“They will not support her. It would be like shutting down their industry,” an executive at one of the nation’s largest banks told CNBC, also speaking on condition of anonymity. This person said Warren’s policies could be worse for Wall Street than those of President Barack Obama, who signed the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Yet before Obama was elected, his campaign took over $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

A hedge fund executive pointed to Trump’s tax cut as a reason why his colleagues would not contribute or vote for Warren if she wins the nomination.

“I think if she can show that the tax code of 2017 was basically nonsense and only helped corporations, Wall Street would not like the public thinking about that,” this executive said, also insisting on anonymity.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall...nominated.html

[Draco-Onis]

And your point? Warren hasn't needed their money she and wall street have been life long enemies even before she was a senator. If anything this is good PR for her campaign and more reason for her to win the nomination unlike a certain somebody who claimed to be self funded but was sucking off Wall Street.

[nonameelf]

This seems like a huge plus to me. Is this supposed to be a negative? I can't tell, since you've added literally 0 text to your post and just copied an article.

[Gaidax]

This is basically Trump's path to 2020 victory right there.

The whole Ukraine thing will put enough shadow on Biden to make him lose and then he'll just smack down Warren with a help on the side. EZ.

[nonameelf]

This is basically Trump's path to 2020 victory right there.

The whole Ukraine thing will put enough shadow on Biden to make him lose and then he'll just smack down Warren with a help on the side. EZ.

I think you underestimate how many Americans hate Wall Street.

[Drutt]

Wow, I wonder why Wall Street donors won't back Warren? If anyone is surprised by this they clearly don't pay much attention to Warren's positions.

Ironically, knowing that Wall Street are afraid of her will likely only help her overall. Most voters are tired of taking the fall for them.

[Zaktar]

Shocking, the people who are leeching off the country's lifeblood don't like a candidate who wants to stop them.

[Sunseeker]

I want Trump out of office....but what's our choice here?

More Trump.

Or more Wall Street?

We get the latter with Trump anyway.

So if our choice is Biden and Wall Street or Trump and Wall Street...I'd like to just be fucked in the ass with a rusty fork.

[kaid]

I can't think of a better endorsement than having the wall street people pissed off at her.

[draynay]

This is basically Trump's path to 2020 victory right there.

The only advantage I see for Trump is that while these democratic donors won't support polices that go against their own interests, republican supporters happily vote against their own interests all the time.

[Gestopft]

Good. They probably shouldn't.

[Shadowferal]

This is basically Trump's path to 2020 victory right there.

Yeah, because we know the whole "drain the swamp" thing was just so much bullshit anyway.

Wall Street not backing Warren is an endorsement to me.

Reminds me of what FDR once said. "I welcome their hatred."

[Masark]

Reminds me of what FDR once said. "I welcome their hatred."

Should we be preparing to counter the Business Plot, MkII?

[jeezusisacasual]

Should we be preparing to counter the Business Plot, MkII?

I actually read Smedley Butler for a class in college, it was an interesting take on the entire process of that era. I wonder if that makes him the Grandfather of the Alex Jones type of people?

[Redwyrm]

Wait a minute. Wasn't one of the major complaints against Hillary from the Right was that she was in the pocket of Wall Street. And that she would pack her administration with Wall Street moguls?

But suddenly the Right repescts Wall Street?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Shadowferal]

Should we be preparing to counter the Business Plot, MkII?

I wish that things were that simple.

[Skroe]

You folks saying "good" need to get real. It's in no way shape or form good that they would be resourcing her adversary. That is definitionally bad. Especially in what promises to be the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history by far.

"Two billion". All Democrats need to get used to that number. That is what they need to raise.

On the other hand, Democrats have found that <=$200 donations from millions upon millions of people has far more than offset the disparity in raising money between their party and Republicans. Republicans are dependent on big donors, and now days raise less overall money because of it. Democrats should be fine relying on small donors but will need a gargantuan amount of them. Way more than 2016.


If I were Elizabeth Warren, I'd be finding ways to get these donors to sit out. If they are not going to help, neither should they be freely allowed to go to the other side.

But really... "good"?! If only you could fund a political campaign with pride. If only you could hire staff and buy commercials with pride. If only you can do that extremely expensive high-resolution polling in the hinterlands of America's shittiest states that you need to win, with pride.

Think strategically. Shit like saying "oh this is a big plus" will get Donald Trump... any candidate really... a second term, because money is the lifeblood of political campaigns and a big set of donors financing the opposition means that the campaign money war gets that much harder.

[Zaktar]

You folks saying "good" need to get real. It's in no way shape or form good that they would be resourcing her adversary. That is definitionally bad. Especially in what promises to be the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history by far.

"Two billion". All Democrats need to get used to that number. That is what they need to raise.

On the other hand, Democrats have found that <=$200 donations from millions upon millions of people has far more than offset the disparity in raising money between their party and Republicans. Republicans are dependent on big donors, and now days raise less overall money because of it. Democrats should be fine relying on small donors but will need a gargantuan amount of them. Way more than 2016.


If I were Elizabeth Warren, I'd be finding ways to get these donors to sit out. If they are not going to help, neither should they be freely allowed to go to the other side.

But really... "good"?! If only you could fund a political campaign with pride. If only you could hire staff and buy commercials with pride. If only you can do that extremely expensive high-resolution polling in the hinterlands of America's shittiest states that you need to win, with pride.

Think strategically. Shit like saying "oh this is a big plus" will get Donald Trump... any candidate really... a second term, because money is the lifeblood of political campaigns and a big set of donors financing the opposition means that the campaign money war gets that much harder.

We'll see how the fundraising plays out. Saying "good riddance," when some douchebags threaten to abandon ship is par for course. It is a good sign for her prospects as an agent of change if she scares people like this; it introduces obstacles as you point out, but it is heartening in a way. As you fairly point out, it may harm her electability, but that remains to be seen. Personally I would rather try to elect someone with a solid track record and an agenda that I can get behind than a wall street stooge. Winning the long game accomplishes nothing if you sacrifice your substance to achieve victory.

[Shadowferal]

Damn pity that today reflects so poorly back during FDR's time. (not talking economically, which needed someone like FDR)

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

[Paranoid Android]

You folks saying "good" need to get real. It's in no way shape or form good that they would be resourcing her adversary. That is definitionally bad. Especially in what promises to be the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history by far.

"Two billion". All Democrats need to get used to that number. That is what they need to raise.

On the other hand, Democrats have found that <=$200 donations from millions upon millions of people has far more than offset the disparity in raising money between their party and Republicans. Republicans are dependent on big donors, and now days raise less overall money because of it. Democrats should be fine relying on small donors but will need a gargantuan amount of them. Way more than 2016.


If I were Elizabeth Warren, I'd be finding ways to get these donors to sit out. If they are not going to help, neither should they be freely allowed to go to the other side.

But really... "good"?! If only you could fund a political campaign with pride. If only you could hire staff and buy commercials with pride. If only you can do that extremely expensive high-resolution polling in the hinterlands of America's shittiest states that you need to win, with pride.

Think strategically. Shit like saying "oh this is a big plus" will get Donald Trump... any candidate really... a second term, because money is the lifeblood of political campaigns and a big set of donors financing the opposition means that the campaign money war gets that much harder.

Seriously Skroe!

These people can piss off.

I read the tweet article from Schwartz of CNBC which is fear propoganda. If I have time Jim Cramer has a video about a month ago with some hyperbolic 'end of the world' bullshit about Warren.

As I claim in my Wokeness (yes snark) I realized that most rich assholes only car about tax cuts and deregulation to make their company or a company more profitable. They don't give a shit about the issue.

So you can single issue voter of 'Selfish Asshole', ok. Are they some progressive on minority rights, climate change, voter suppression, etc. Bleep No!

If they do then make the bleeping sacrifice of being taxed some more and instead of making a few million dollars less.

For those who agree I am going to post a Tweet thread from Paul Krug an who nails these people correctly.

Some more thoughts on reports that Wall Street Democrats will back Trump over Warren. Obviously it's hard to know how big a deal this is — how many of these guys are there, were they ever really Dems, and will they back Trump as more revelations emerge 1/ https://t.co/hcnGcpY4vq

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/stat...687515649?s=19

More to this thread if you choose to read, but I will leave one more post.

Scholars who've studied it say that it's largely about racking up the score against peers — but those peers would also end up paying more taxes under Warren, so again, why should they care? 4/ https://t.co/j1fymmHHYn

My guess: what really drives the desire for wealth is, as Tom Wolfe wrote long ago, "seeing em jump" — the deference wealth commands. The truly rich don't just expect to live like kings, they expect to be treated like kings, praised for their heroism and wisdom 5/