Bloomberg.com has a piece called
Democrats beat Republicans in 2005 Fund-Raising on Wall Street. If you read it, you will note that the margin of 'victory' for the Dems is only 1%. Not much to crow about.
What's interesting is why Wall Street is still so tentative about where to throw their money. More after the jump...
The investment bankers on Wall Street appear to be hedging - which is a little odd. Public opinion puts Bush and his cronies at only .. what is it today?.... 34%? And you'll note, too, that the article states that Morgan-Stanley and Goldman Sachs have actually upped their contributions to the Republicans this year.
These guys are in the business of making the right investments for their own futures. They don't bet on losers - not often anyway. Makes you wonder why Wall Street would throw so much cash after a clearly losing bet. I think the second-to-last paragraph in the article says it pretty clearly:
"Still, if Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress, bankers and fund managers will have to cultivate relationships among a new set of committee leaders, some of whom have ideas about taxation and regulation that may not be well- received in the industry."
So.. In spite of public opinion which could likely foretell the results of the mid-terms, Wall Street is still supportive of the Republicans to a very large degree. At the same time, they don't want to alienate those who might be their future regulators. Emphasis on "might be." Nothing to see here, I guess.
Or is there?