Politico: Wall Street may back Hillary if Rand Paul gets the nomination

[jct74]

Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016

By: Ben White and Maggie Haberman
April 28, 2014 05:04 AM EDT

NEW YORK — The biggest parlor game on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms these days is guessing whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will run for president and save the GOP’s old establishment base from its rising populist wing.

The second most popular game is guessing what happens if Jeb says no.

Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton.

Most donors and Wall Street titans have not lined up with any candidate yet, waiting for the field to take shape after the midterms. But if Bush doesn’t run, the list of Republican saviors could be short. Some donors fear Christie will never overcome the Bridgegate scandal. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin so far seems more inclined to stay in the House than to run for president. And to varying degrees, other candidates — such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio — are either unknown or untrusted.

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

Most top GOP fundraisers and donors on Wall Street won’t say this kind of thing on the record for fear of heavy blowback from party officials, as well as supporters of Cruz and Rand Paul. Few want to acknowledge publicly that the Democratic front-runner fills them with less dread than some Republican 2016 hopefuls. And, to be sure, none of the Republican-leaning financial executives are so far suggesting they’d openly back her.

...

read more:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9A8719BC-0553-4D46-926E-893AD6698616

 

[jct74]

more:

This is not to say that Clinton is the preference of Republicans in the financial sector — far from it. Most shake their heads when asked directly if Clinton is someone they could support. But when the contrast is against some of the non-establishment hopefuls, their comfort level becomes clearer.

This line of thinking is a direct response to fiery rhetoric from people like Rand Paul, who used the 2013 CPAC conference in Washington to rip the financial industry, saying “there is nothing conservative about bailing out Wall Street.”

Ted Cruz, whose wife works at Goldman Sachs, is viewed negatively by many in the industry for his support of last year’s government shutdown and scorched earth approach to political battle. Cruz fired up an activist gathering in New Hampshire earlier this month with the kind of provocative populist message that makes bankers very nervous. “The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy,” Cruz thundered. At the same event, Paul argued that the GOP “cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

That kind of talk leaves some rich people contemplating the notion of supporting Clinton in what would amount to a reversion to 2008, when Wall Street money went nearly 2 to 1 for then-Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain. Even those who could never back her don’t see her as a huge threat to the business community.

 

[jct74]

One Christie backer said the New Jersey governor’s political fate could rest on the ascension of people like Paul and Cruz, arguing their rise could force the party’s donor class to embrace Christie’s positives as a candidate, even with the baggage that Bridgegate may bring.

“The bulk of the big money guys are either Big Boy or Jeb,” said one top GOP donor, referring to Christie. “Rand Paul still is a grass-roots phenom and a boardroom horror show.”

//

 

[thoughtomator]

As sophisticates, they buy only the CFR label.

 

[supermario21]

As long as you can get money from other places, I'd rather be the anti-Wall Street candidate. Most of these big shots live in blue states anyway. I'd rather run ads in the Upper Midwest swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that I'm opposed by big business on Wall Street. It would be a total role reversal and a dent in the "Democrats are for the middle class" argument.

 

[Crashland]

As if "wall street" acts like an individual that decides to back one candidate. The whole premise is flawed

 

[erowe1]

As long as you can get money from other places, I'd rather be the anti-Wall Street candidate.

I'd hate for Rand to be what Wall St. wants him to be. But what other places are there?

 

[Eddie Burke]

I can see Wall St. support finally backfiring.

 

[jbauer]

As long as you can get money from other places, I'd rather be the anti-Wall Street candidate. Most of these big shots live in blue states anyway. I'd rather run ads in the Upper Midwest swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that I'm opposed by big business on Wall Street. It would be a total role reversal and a dent in the "Democrats are for the middle class" argument.

Right, but the "old people" in all the other red states have their investments (IRA/401k/stock/bond) in wall street. Running against wall street and hoping that you'll survive the primary wont happen.

Of course none of this matters and this article is complete BS because no matter who the R's and D's have running there will be massive campaign contributions given on both sides.

 

[supermario21]

At that point I'd enjoy having the Kochs on my side. Seriously, they've invested in many noble causes, and they run good businesses. Dems love to attack them but Wall Street is worse than the Kochs.

 

[pmbug]

"The Aristocrats!"

 

[Inkblots]

Frankly, if Rand can get Silicon Valley on his side, I say let Hillary have Wall Street. It just makes the politics of the future vs. the politics of the past theme all the more apparent.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Frankly, if Rand can get Silicon Valley on his side, I say let Hillary have Wall Street. It just makes the politics of the future vs. the politics of the past theme all the more apparent.

This sort of framing and Hillary's hawkishness are the reasons why my most progressive friends assure me they would vote for Rand over Hillary. They all secretly hope Elizabeth Warren can somehow steal the nomination though.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton.

In other words, the people who donate to both parties, but are probably Democrats.

 

[surf]

f#ck Wall St.

let them wallow in their collective self-grandeur and perceived self-importance, but they really can't hurt us.

 

[Matt Collins]

corporatists gonna corporatist

 

[enoch150]

In other words, the people who donate to both parties, but are probably Democrats.

All of the rich towns in southwestern Connecticut, where the Wall Street people live, are Republican. They're anti-gun, pro-bailout Mitt Romney Republicans, but they still vote Republican.

 

[Anti Federalist]

corporatists gonna corporatist

How about that?

I find myself in complete agreement with Matt.

Bankster oligarchs supporting the Establishmentarian candidate?

Imagine my surprise...

Get old Rupert Murdoch to run some more fundraisers for her.

 

[Anti Federalist]

All of the rich towns in southwestern Connecticut, where the Wall Street people live, are Republican. They're anti-gun, pro-bailout Mitt Romney Republicans, but they still vote Republican.

Which is to say, they are not.

So, when given a real "choice" for the first time in generations, they will vote for the Establishment.

 

[devil21]

As if "wall street" acts like an individual that decides to back one candidate. The whole premise is flawed

They usually donate to BOTH candidates heavily, to ensure ownership, regardless of who wins. They probably wouldn't donate to Rand though....

Would Americans really tolerate a Bush v Clinton 2016??? If it comes to that, we are officially done as a country. It'll just be another monarchy.