A President Obama would obviously pursue slightly different policies from a President Clinton, and very different policies from a President Romney or President Huckabee.
But maybe the real significance of these results is something more basic. In a nutshell: I suspect they sharply increase the chance that the Democrats will capture the White House next November.
Why? Sen. Obama's victory in Iowa makes it more likely than before that he will be the Democratic nominee. And Sen. Obama, with his broad appeal to many independents, would probably be a stronger candidate in a general election than Sen. Clinton. Meanwhile the Republicans are in disarray. And Mitt Romney, who could be formidable in a general election, has suffered a serious setback in trying to get there.
So the chances have risen that Washington could see single party rule again, with Democrats in charge at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119950534723469747.html?mod=googlenews_wsjThe WSJ are beginning to give investors advice for a new era. That says soomething pretty obvious. The 'pointer' I found most interesting was this:
"Sen. Obama has already said he'd be willing to increase taxes on capital gains and dividends. Investors won't like that. On the other hand, maybe it will take a Democratic president to tackle the massive federal budget deficit. A deal to do that would bring relief on the Street, even if it did entail higher taxes. The investment world did not seem to be in a funk the last time this happened, in the 1990s. And that would presumably be much better news for the dollar...."
The hard money is starting to look for an upside to a Democratic win. That doesn't bode well for contributions to the Rrpublicans. 2008 is a good year to say GOBAMA.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
