Smart money betting on Dems?
I really think this sort of development is more about hedging bets than predicting a winner, but this isn't the first report of placing these hedging bets on a Dem win in 2006. If you believe in the market predictor models for non-market events, this shows a "smart money" move towards the Dems gaining serious ground. (Lots of specific case details in the article.)
WASHINGTON -- Some big companies are boosting their share of campaign contributions to Democrats this year, a sign that executives may be starting to hedge their political bets after a decade of supporting congressional Republicans....
Most companies say they give political donations to candidates who support their businesses, regardless of party affiliation. But corporations also tend to channel funds to politicians they think will hold power. So any shift in corporate campaign giving toward Democrats could signal that businesses believe Democrats will have more sway in Washington after the 2006 midterm elections or the 2008 presidential contest.
posted by mikevotes at
8:02 AM
2 Comments:
On Sat. 6/17 Nancy Pelosi announced the action plan for Democrats, if they win power back in the 2006 election.
I would not put my money on that plan swaying enough Americans to put the Dem.'s back in office.
If the Dem.'s can't do better than the plan they announced on Sat., they deserve to lose.
By
Unknown, at 8:38 AM
Time, I saw bits of the plan, and from the paltry press coverage I think we could call it a fizzle. But there's a long time until the elections and fires catch quickly. Remember that the "Contract with America" wasn't formally presented until September or so of 94.
Carrying my metaphor way too far, It's been a hard dry year for the Repubs, and at this point, the most important thing for the Dems is to gather the kindling. Then, when they find that spark, that individual, face or message, it'll go quickly.
Tele, I'm not sure if vote massaging will be easier or harder with more localized elections. You'll have tighter local interest, but much less money and skill spread out.
AND, the "circular funding apparatus" that you describe is HUGE. That's the whole money backbone of the Repubs right now. I know what you're speaking about specific to defense contracts, but on a broader level, the aggressive nature of the "circular funding apparatus" has been the basis of the current Republican majority. And in congressional elections, money is worth more than anything because the familiarity with Congressmen or candidates is so much lower the ability to paint you opponent with TV money is very effective.
That's why the Repubs have been pushing earmarks so hard, they give money to a supporter for a local project and some percent funnels back to the candidate. (works for tax cuts, too.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:34 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home