The Goldman Sachs primary

[sun rise]

Many on the left dislike Hillary Clinton for just this reason - she's part of the crony system (as is Jeb Bush). The sad part is that the current system of campaign financing means that selling out is almost required to win.

It’s Bush vs. Clinton at Wall Street’s wealthiest bank.

Forget the Democratic and Republican primaries: The two biggest names in the 2016 presidential race are competing directly against each other in an elite forum, the halls of Goldman Sachs.

The events signal that Bush hopes to go head to head for Goldman money and support with Hillary Clinton, who also has strong ties to the bank and is expected to raise large sums from its executives to help fund her likely presidential campaign. And it means the nation’s richest investment bank is increasingly putting its money on the two best-known candidates, both of whom are viewed across Wall Street as centrists who could cool some of the scorching anti-banker rhetoric and policies emanating from the Elizabeth Warren wing on the left and the tea party movement on the right.

“Goldman likes to play both sides of the fence and that’s especially true of a race like this where either of these two candidates — Bush and Clinton — could ultimately be helpful to them,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College.

 

[Sunstone]

As Chris Hedges once said, "You can vote anyway you want, but you cannot vote against Goldman Sachs." Or something along those lines.

 

[Bunyip]

As Chris Hedges once said, "You can vote anyway you want, but you cannot vote against Goldman Sachs." Or something along those lines.

God I wish that didn't make sense.

 

[Augustus]

The sad part is that the current system of campaign financing means that selling out is almost required to win.

Just a thought: Is this is actually true? Or is it only that many politicians believe it is true, and therefore act as if it were true.

I (think I) remember last time around reading about the effects of many super-PACs, and studies showed they had practically zero effect on voting behaviour. I haven't looked closely enough to make a definitive statement, but, while it certainly helps, could corporate financing of politics be overstated in its importance as regards winning an election?

[ignoring all of the other aspects that make the system rotten, which it certainly is]

 

[sun rise]

Just a thought: Is this is actually true? Or is it only that many politicians believe it is true, and therefore act as if it were true.

I (think I) remember last time around reading about the effects of many super-PACs, and studies showed they had practically zero effect on voting behaviour. I haven't looked closely enough to make a definitive statement, but, while it certainly helps, could corporate financing of politics be overstated in its importance as regards winning an election?

[ignoring all of the other aspects that make the system rotten, which it certainly is]

That's a very good question. The last time I read anything, there was an effect of money but it was small. I can't remember where and when but my impression is that it could change the outcome of elections which are within 1% or perhaps a bit more.

 

[Iti oj]

That's a very good question. The last time I read anything, there was an effect of money but it was small. I can't remember where and when but my impression is that it could change the outcome of elections which are within 1% or perhaps a bit more.

its not so much controlling the out come, but the start, who runs, etc.