A wave of executives in the finance sector made early donations to Donald Trump's primary opponents in the second quarter, as many on Wall Street look for an alternative to the former president to lead the Republican Party in 2024.

New Federal Election Commission filings show that dozens of Wall Street executives donated the legal maximum of either $3,300 for the primary or $6,600 for the entire election cycle to many of the Republican candidates polling below Trump in the primary, according to a joint analysis of the latest disclosures by NBC News and CNBC.

 

Trump’s chief rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and other candidates regularly registering in the national polling averages — business owner Vivek Ramaswamy, former Vice President Mike Pence, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina — all saw contributions from leaders in finance starting April 1 through June 30.

 

STORY

Not surprising imo they allready got what they wanted out of him (judges and tax breaks)and don’t want the chaos he brings 

Cash or check?

Who is leading in the Republican polls?

 

 

Updating average for each Republican candidate in 2024 primary polls, accounting for each poll's recency, sample size, methodology and house effects.

• Trump49.7%
• DeSantis21.0%
• Pence7.4%
• Ramaswamy4.7%
• Haley4.2%
• Scott3.2%
• Christie3.1%
• Hutchinson1.0%

10 minutes ago, Luuk Chaai said:

Who is leading in the Republican polls?

 

 

Updating average for each Republican candidate in 2024 primary polls, accounting for each poll's recency, sample size, methodology and house effects.

• Trump49.7%
• DeSantis21.0%
• Pence7.4%
• Ramaswamy4.7%
• Haley4.2%
• Scott3.2%
• Christie3.1%
• Hutchinson1.0%

Smart money doesn't care how popular he is. He doesn't even make 50% of his own party and many shoes yet to drop.

The US desperately needs election reform. Too much money being spent and too much dark money going into each election, they are in a constant state of campaigning instead of governing. Most politicians on both sides need to sell their souls to big business just to raise enough money to campaign. Limit the allowable campaign times to a couple months, cap how much any politician can spend on a campaign, stop caproate donations, end super pacs just to start.

8 minutes ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

The US desperately needs election reform. Too much money being spent and too much dark money going into each election, they are in a constant state of campaigning instead of governing. Most politicians on both sides need to sell their souls to big business just to raise enough money to campaign. Limit the allowable campaign times to a couple months, cap how much any politician can spend on a campaign, stop caproate donations, end super pacs just to start.

 

I agree with your comments above. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative justices, starting with the Citizens United case ruling, have pretty well ensured that none of the campaign finance restrictions you advocate above can become law for the foreseeable future.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

 

Last I checked , the electoral decides who is President , not Wall Street!

Edited July 17, 20232 yr by riclag

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

Last I checked , the electoral decides who is President , not Wall Street!

Aww, that's cute. Nope, it's Wall Street. Money talks. Nobody gets to even run for president unless they have formidable fundraising ability.

 

The hyper partisan supreme court green lit dark money PACs with unlimited spending power.

Edited July 17, 20232 yr by ozimoron

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Aww, that's cute. Nope, it's Wall Street. Money talks. Nobody gets to even run for president unless they have formidable fundraising ability.

 

The hyper partisan supreme court green lit dark money PACs with unlimited spending power.

Uhm, Biden??!

6 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

Uhm, Biden??!

um, what?

    Well, the Wall St. execs. are not stupid.  They know Trump is a two-time loser with the American voters in presidential elections.   Could only garner 46.1% of the vote to weak candidate Clinton in 2016.  Lost the popular vote badly but was saved by the cursed Electoral College, America's version of the Thai Senate. 

    Did slightly better in 2020, 46.8%, but that's dismal for a sitting president with all the powers of the presidency, and against another weak candidate.  He lost the popular vote once again, and even more badly than 2016, by over 7 million votes.  So, two elections and he could not come anywhere near to 50% of the vote.   

    Although he, and his supporters, make a lot of noise on social media, the majority of American voters don't like him, don't want him, and have said so twice at the ballot box.  With all his legal troubles--and more to come--he's arguably a more damaged candidate, if that's possible, than 2020's version.  Wall Street is, smartly, looking for a better candidate--which would probably be about any breathing American 35 years or older-- but I'm hoping he'll come up a three-time loser.

1 hour ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

The US desperately needs election reform. Too much money being spent and too much dark money going into each election, they are in a constant state of campaigning instead of governing. Most politicians on both sides need to sell their souls to big business just to raise enough money to campaign. Limit the allowable campaign times to a couple months, cap how much any politician can spend on a campaign, stop caproate donations, end super pacs just to start.

has it ever been any different?

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Aww, that's cute. Nope, it's Wall Street. Money talks. Nobody gets to even run for president unless they have formidable fundraising ability.

 

The hyper partisan supreme court green lit dark money PACs with unlimited spending power.

And anyway it's the electoral college tumor embedded in the system that decides, not the voters..

 

Which is why the loser of the election can still be selected as president. Like Trump in 2016.

Edited July 17, 20232 yr by BusyB

4 hours ago, BusyB said:

And anyway it's the electoral college tumor embedded in the system that decides, not the voters..

 

Which is why the loser of the election can still be selected as president. Like Trump in 2016.

Yes, but in general it's won by the popular vote. Only 5 times has it not been. That's usually a sign of tampering like gerrymandering and not a healthy sign dfor a democracy. And, yes, the US is a democratic republic and it can be fairly described as a democracy despite the right wing talking points which are just apologies for fascism.

Just a bunch of neocon warmongers nothing new here. 

27 minutes ago, Venom said:

Just a bunch of neocon warmongers nothing new here. 

I thought I saw a bunch of right wing surrender monkeys.

But but but....according to the majority of republicans trump won 2020....and after only 60 court cases, investigation after investigation, recount after recount,  mostly done by republicans, and over two years without a shred of credible evidence to support their claims they still cling to the same old BIG LIE.   I believe the dictionary would define those people as DELSUIONAL.  If the shoe fits, wear it. 

 

So naturally when  donnie loses by even more in 2024 of course it will be due to some nefarious deep state conspiracy run by hunter biden and nancy pelosi....not because trump is a LOSER.

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I thought I saw a bunch of right wing surrender monkeys.

OUCH!! Touché lmao ???? !!

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, but in general it's won by the popular vote. Only 5 times has it not been. That's usually a sign of tampering like gerrymandering and not a healthy sign dfor a democracy. And, yes, the US is a democratic republic and it can be fairly described as a democracy despite the right wing talking points which are just apologies for fascism.

Two of the three Presidential victories for Republicans in the 21st century have been without the popular vote.

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Two of the three Presidential victories for Republicans in the 21st century have been without the popular vote.

Thank the electoral system for not allowing every vote to count equally....as well as the senate system of two senators per state regardless of the state's population....So some jackoff's vote from a state with 2 million people counts the same as a senator from a state representing 25 million...not exactly fair to the 25 million. 

 

Needs to be changed but of course the very ones....almost all republican,  who would have to vote to change it will never ever do it as they would lose their status as being just as important as every other senator.

Keep up the derision of one of the most successful (albeit not perfect) political systems in the world... the mantra of the super liberal is to change it to follow all of the failed systems in history... go for it.

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I thought I saw a bunch of right wing surrender monkeys.

Name one 

25 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Keep up the derision of one of the most successful (albeit not perfect) political systems in the world... the mantra of the super liberal is to change it to follow all of the failed systems in history... go for it.

"the mantra of the super liberal is to change it to follow all of the failed systems in history"

 

That is the kind of fantasy world nonsense that makes some conservatives very difficult to take seriously. 

 

Prove me wrong--tell us what liberals would do to cause the political system to fail?

31 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Keep up the derision of one of the most successful (albeit not perfect) political systems in the world... the mantra of the super liberal is to change it to follow all of the failed systems in history... go for it.

1 person 1 vote....pretty simple...while the system might have been successful for many many years the world has changed and the system needs to reflect those changes.  There are a lot of 250 year old rules that have been amended over time....those little things like equal rights etc.

9 minutes ago, pomchop said:

1 person 1 vote....pretty simple...while the system might have been successful for many many years the world has changed and the system needs to reflect those changes.  There are a lot of 250 year old rules that have been amended over time....those little things like equal rights etc.

Slavery, vote for women, prohibition, repeal of prohibition, voting rights...

34 minutes ago, pomchop said:

1 person 1 vote....pretty simple...while the system might have been successful for many many years the world has changed and the system needs to reflect those changes.  There are a lot of 250 year old rules that have been amended over time....those little things like equal rights etc.

The problem with that is the coastal elites would end up deciding the course for the real America ie everywhere not in the liberal bubble the coastal elites exist in. Hardly a fair situation IMO

11 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The problem with that is the coastal elites would end up deciding the course for the real America ie everywhere not in the liberal bubble the coastal elites exist in. Hardly a fair situation IMO

So a "coastal elite's " vote should count less than another American's vote?  And of course according to some they are not REAL Americans? 

 

Good thing for those "real Americans" that those coastal elites taxes pay for most of the welfare and govt assistance payments that go to those "red/Real American States."

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

"the mantra of the super liberal is to change it to follow all of the failed systems in history"

 

That is the kind of fantasy world nonsense that makes some conservatives very difficult to take seriously. 

 

Prove me wrong--tell us what liberals would do to cause the political system to fail?

Socialism which is constantly frothed after by the liberals has failed everywhere... welfare... fail... socialized medicine... fail... gov't controlled schools... fail... care to go on???  PS... participation trophies... fail.

Edited July 18, 20232 yr by Skipalongcassidy

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

1 person 1 vote....pretty simple...while the system might have been successful for many many years the world has changed and the system needs to reflect those changes.  There are a lot of 250 year old rules that have been amended over time....those little things like equal rights etc.

It's been mostly successful... why do you think it needs to change?  For the sake of change?  To "keep up" with the Jones'?  Amendments go both ways... how about the current push to eliminate female rights? PS... "one person one vote" is a myth prescribed to by those who have no concept of the republic government model... it was never intended that the USA be ruled by the mob... thank your lucky stars.

Edited July 18, 20232 yr by Skipalongcassidy