And the trend heavily favors President Obama. From Bloomberg:
Global investors increasingly prefer President Barack Obama to Republican challenger Mitt Romney and most say they believe the incumbent will remain in the White House for another four years.
Asked who would be the better leader for the global economy, 49 percent favor Obama against 38 percent for Romney, according to a quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll. In January, the two candidates tied on the question.
By the same margin, they say Obama has a better vision for the U.S. economy, according to the survey of 1,253 Bloomberg customers, who are investors, analysts or traders.
Obama “managed the U.S. economy pretty well, solving a lot of imbalances created by the previous administration,” says poll respondent Mario Di Marcantonio, 35, a senior portfolio manager at Eurizon Capital in Milan.
“I believe the second Obama term will be better than having a U-turn with Romney,” he says. “More stability will mean more visibility and more investment in the future.”
When your rich buddies don’t think you’re as good as the “community organizer,” you must really suck.
Hmmmmm. I. . .just. . .don’t. . .know. President Obama or RomneyBush?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11/1090859/-Republicans-Ask-Americans-to-Remember-Bush-s-Economic-Disaster
Dante aka The Black Knight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4), what do you think?
I’m studying this article. Not sure what I make of it, some thoughts:
First, I’m not so sure it’s a positive prospect for global investors to favor Obama. especially when I read this from a Milanese portfolio manager: “…more stability will mean more visibility and more investment in the future.” Not sure but is this bankster-speak for market confidence? Are we back to the confidence game when foreign investors favor Obama?
Second, U.S. investors favor Romney by more than 2-1 while “respondents outside the U.S.” favor Obama by almost 3-1. Are these latter respondents foreign nationals or foreign citizens or a combination of both? The answer matters on two counts: the first obviously being opinions of potential FPCA (Federal Post Card Application) voters versus opinions of investors ineligible to vote in the U.S. “Global investors” doesn’t unmuddy the distinction. The second count being of greater import: Is this a rounding out of the Obama-orama phenomenon (i.e. Hooray George W. and any facsimile successor is gone!) that soured a little during the first half of Obama’s presidency but is now moving back to the generally high favorability rating the president receives outside the U.S.?
Third, I’d like to see a little more demographic ferreting, a clearer breakdown of the 80% figure of Obama supporters. How many identify as right of center and how many identify as centrist? What is the breakdown of the other 20%? Presumably left of center, but inquiring minds want to know. If so, that’s the most significant distinction presented in the article.
Fourth, “Investors in every region are betting on an Obama re-election” and “Investors in Obama’s America have been rewarded.” Presumably investors in every region outside the U.S – that’s not sitting well with me, perhaps because I’m not clear on how casually this statement was intended. 74% say he will likely win reelection but their numbers are considerably lower for crediting Obama with “improvements in the U.S. economy.” – 47% and 48% for viewing a second Obama term as “favorable to domestic markets…” 49% of global investors think Obama would be a better leader than Romney for the global economy and, “By the same margin, they say Obama has a better vision for the U.S. economy.” I’m aware the point being made here is that Obama’s numbers have improved, but even so these percentages don’t square with the opening assertions in this “Betting on Re-Election” segment. Something isn’t right here but I can’t put my finger on it. Maybe I’m just uneasy about “global investors” having such a stake in the outcome of the United States presidential election. Maybe I don’t care for how this article is arranged. Again, can’t quite extract what’s gnawing at the back of my skull.
Fifth, The two unchallenged, unscrutinized statements made in the next section, “Not Caving In.” The first maintains that “President Obama hasn’t caved in to the arguments in favor of austerity and deserves some credit for this.” Amnesia? Selective memory? The Budget Control Act and the “negotiations” preceding it? Heavier focus on private sector growth than public sector revitalization? By the latter I don’t mean simply hiring more public employees but examining the public sector and responsibly analyzing it. The claim is erroneous at worst, slanted at best.
The second statement: “The Democrats have fallen into the belief that if one has made a lot of money, it must be by taking other people’s share of a fixed supply of wealth… I believe and hope Romney believes the supply of wealth in the world is not fixed and can be grown.”
This is what Democrats believe? Which Democrats? All of them? This is what a Romney supporter thinks Democrats believe? I find it difficult to believe that the leading economic paradigm within the Democratic Party rejects the notion of unlimited growth, and then there’s the skewed and loaded presupposition about pillaging the wealthy’s wealth…
What exactly do these statements tell us about the poll numbers they frame? No analysis or insights from the writer. Readers are to draw their own conclusions. One may be led to believe that both statements are true given that the poll numbers point to the truth of the article’s premise. I don’t like it. And the under 50% polling number again: 45% choose Obama as the candidate with the “better vision for the U.S. economic future.” Obama’s numbers may be better than Romney’s and they may have improved, but they’re still fairly low as far as favorability ratings go. I’d like some treatment of the numbers, there’s nothing like that here.
I’m unconvinced by Bloomberg. Obama may very well be favored, but this article is too thin and filled with lots of little empty spaces. Maybe I just don’t have a good grasp on global investing – that’s quite possible.
Another reason why one should be suspect of “global investors” favoring President Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/fiscal-futility_b_1513573.html
Romney or Obama – again, lesser of two evils. How much less doesn’t matter much for anyone who isn’t a global investor. Either evil will be painful. What matters to a global investor is globalization status quo or better yet globalization enhancement. Obama has the jump on Romney there – not merely incumbent advantage, but with the Obama administration’s “economic diplomacy” initiatives. Obama hasn’t abandoned austerity at all.
“The lesser of two evils…” Warning, pun alert!
I loved that movie! And I loved that pun!
Your thoughts, Dante?
Oh, that’s right. Not your “cup of tea”. Phil “thuggishly” failed to say “union” at any point in his post.
Never mind, big boy. Sorry to have disturbed you. Anyway, I’ll wake you back up when El Rush-Blimp comes on, or if Snotty Scotty should happen to suspend his 24/7 efforts to craft the economic “miracle” better known as Wisconsin long enough to put in another “rare” appearance on a Wisconsin wingnut radio talk show (*cough* SYKES *cough*), okay?
Hmmmm. Not being of the wingnut persuasion, I wonder which would be the “lesser of two weevils”.
Dante (*shaking Dante*). Wake up, again. I have another question.
If there’s a weevil devouring my biscuit let it be the greater. In that way may I view it clearly and in good conscience.