Do you believe HRC, if elected President, will rein in Wall Street and regulate it properly?

[el_bryanto]

Just curious

Bryant

38 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I'm sure of it
	0 (0%)
	I believe she will
	1 (3%)
	She might, you never know
	1 (3%)
	It doesn't seem that likely but . . .
	0 (0%)
	I'm sure she won't
	34 (89%)
	There aren't any other candidates worth talking about so this poll is a waste of time.
	1 (3%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. If Republicans remain n charge of theHouse or Senate she will never have a chance.

Real regulation of Wallstreet must come from the legislative branch.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. a few facts....

Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

[Logical]

47. Keep trying! But get ready for disappointment! Nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Physician heal thy self...

[Thinkingabout]

78. They do not have anything to counter the facts, she was a corporate attorney, knows more about

their work than many others, I don't know where they come up with their argument, where are their facts except from blogs which runs on like Rush and FOX.

Thanks for your post, we keep on keeping on.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. hmm, that's hard to say

Politico Magazine, November 11, 2014 (“Why Wall Street Loves Hillary”):

Down on Wall Street they don’t believe (Clinton’s populist rhetoric) for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.

[cali]

7. I was just going to look for that. Thanks for posting it, douglas!

[Man from Pickens]

4. Do you have anything stronger?

Such as "not a prayer in Hell" or "I'd sooner believe she's the second coming of Jesus Christ" or something like that?

[cali]

5. certainly not. she's made that crystal clear. those who believe that she will

are as delusional as it gets.

More importantly, Wall Street is completely confident that she'll continue to be their best bud.

[kentuck]

6. Hillary will be whatever you want her to be...

She is a flexible politician.

[Jackpine Radical]

65. That's totally unfair.

She will NOT be what you want her to be. She will not be what I want her to be. She will be what the People Who Matter want her to be.

[merrily]

74. She's likely to be what she wants to be.

[sabrina 1]

77. She will not be what the people want her to be, we already have ample proof of that.

[Fumesucker]

8. I definitely think Hillary will reign in Wall Street

However I think you meant rein and the answer to that is no.

[el_bryanto]

10. Oops - thanks for the heads up. nt

[HappyMe]

15. Actually, it was a kind of cool mistake.

During Hillary's reign, she won't rein in her Wall Street buddies.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. and claim it is rain when they piss on our backs some more?

[HappyMe]

48. lol!

Yeah, that too.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. More and more, that seems to be the norm.

Just as a majority of Russians long for a return of the soviet days (seriously), I long for that non-existent time when our government was not following our every move.

[merrily]

75. I saw what you did there.

[Marr]

9. Not a chance. I expect her administration would be sprinkled with investment bankers

and Wall Street executives, just as Obama's has been. They're from the same small political faction.

[polichick]

92. Exactly, on all counts.

[hrmjustin]

11. Yes I think she will do the right thing in the end.

[cali]

14. Wall Street sure as hell doesn't. and nothing in her past would indicate that in the tiniest way.

[hrmjustin]

16. If she does not do the right thing than the voters will speak.

I trust her.

[cali]

18. specific to the op question and her relationship with Wall Street, why do you trust her?

Her history with Wall Street can't be the reason. It doesn't get any cozier than that. So why do you trust her on this? I can see trusting her on women's rights, but she has a very strong relationship with Wall Street and aside from some recent rhetoric, there is nothing encouraging at all. Wall Street is so sold on her that they don't mind her using anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

[hrmjustin]

20. I think in her heart she dislikes the banks and big ceo's just like we do.

I don't think the party will go for being best buddies with them so I think she will do the right thing.

I trust her. I voted for her 5 ti es and want to vote for her again.

[TBF]

27. She was on Walmart's Board

for six years

I do trust her on women's reproductive issues, but not economic issues.

[hrmjustin]

28. What years?

[TBF]

33. Here's what I found (w/sources):

"As First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992 with her husband as Governor, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas's education system. During that time, she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations." - from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

From the NYTimes:

Mrs. Clinton’s six-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest company, remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career. And it is little known for a reason. Mrs. Clinton rarely, if ever, discusses it, leaving her board membership out of her speeches and off her campaign Web site.

Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.

Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business — a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[hrmjustin]

36. Thanks for the links.

[LawDeeDah]

35. In one of her well paid speeches, paid by Goldman Sachs she

Called banker-bashing unproductive and foolish... poor babies, so misunderstood!

Does she have to say it any clearer or louder where she stands?

[hrmjustin]

38. She also just said businesses don't create jobs.

[cali]

41. and almost immediately retracted it.

[hrmjustin]

51. I am sure she said things she wished to retract.

[LawDeeDah]

50. but she creates her own jobs with those speeches...

to the Master Thieves, and walks away with a nice coin purse.

or does the likes of Goldman Sachs create that job for her... hmmm.

I have no idea what she meant by 'businesses dont' create jobs' so I haven't commented much on it. I do get the idea that that is some borrowed talk from what Elizabeth Warren is best at explaining and Hillary is using that to polish up her 'populist' image.

[hrmjustin]

53. A primary will sort all this out.

[LawDeeDah]

56. Yes it will, and I am looking forward to it and the more the merrier.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Hey, they pay to listen to her, who else do you know gets to do the same?

[LawDeeDah]

81. Maybe they don't pay to listen to her, but for what she can and did for them?

[TBF]

37. The thing is

in the end I would probably vote for her against any republican because she would at least look out for women.

And I don't know that there are any populists who could do better given what we're dealing with in terms of capitalism.

Maybe Bernie Sanders could reign it in a little? He's about the only one who would have a chance because he at least has years of experience to know how things work in Washington. I like Elizabeth Warren a lot but I think she might get steam-rolled like Obama did.

I dunno. I guess I don't have a lot of hope in the process at this point. But I also didn't want to come off as a hater either. Hillary Clinton does have some very good points especially in terms of civil rights.

[hrmjustin]

39. I hope a primary pushes her to the left.

[TBF]

40. It couldn't hurt. nt

[LondonReign2]

58. Even if a primary pushes her to the left

I believe she'd move right back to the right if elected.

[hrmjustin]

59. I don't agree but we shall see.

[HappyMe]

61. I agree.

Say any damn thing to get elected, and then.....

[bvar22]

83. Thats what Obama did.

Worked out well for Wall Street and Mega-Corps.

[Maedhros]

69. Why would she move to the Left when she knows everyone will vote for her

just because she has a "D" next to her name?

When we, the voters, choose the LOTE approach we are voluntarily surrendering any leverage we have over what our elected officials do.

[hrmjustin]

70. I disagree and believe she will do just fine.

[Maedhros]

72. I think the notion that Hillary will "move Left" is farcical.

Her campaign rhetoric may indeed take on a Leftist sheen, but it will be empty rhetoric.

[hrmjustin]

73. Well we disagree.

[Autumn]

12. I'm pretty sure that's a great big fucking NO. Not only NO, but Hell fucking NO

In fact I predict wall street would just flourish under her. Just as they will if a republican wins.

What are we voting for?

[leftofcool]

17. Laws are passed by Congress not by the President

Any laws regulating Wall Street would have to go to the Legislative Branch of Government.

[Autumn]

19. Well I'm just positive that a President has absolutely no influence at all on those things

none at all.

[aspirant]

22. What about the Sherman Anti-trust laws and breaking up Wall Street. Will she do that?

[el_bryanto]

24. The laws are enforced by the Executive Branch

The issue isn't that we don't have laws its that the laws are enforced by people who have more sympathy with wall street than with the rest of us.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. No. But she may give them a disapproving look. A long shot, I admit.

[Buns_of_Fire]

32. I was thinking of maybe a "Strongly-Worded Letter." nt

[Marrah_G]

21. Nothing about her past actions would make me think that

I think she would be much the same type of president that Pres. Obama has been. I supported her in the primaries in 2008 after my first choices dropped out, but I never expected for her to suddenly move to the left.

[LawDeeDah]

43. Ha! I wish she'd be the same type of Pres as Obama, I would support her fully then

but she is not.

Not even close.

[tularetom]

23. Lolololololol!!!

[Autumn]

30. Perfect response.

[NCTraveler]

25. Big Clinton fan here and I answered not likely but.

I think she is very similar to Obama. Fiscal conservative, social liberal. Unfortunately, the two don't mix and it is not possible to truly be a fiscal conservative and social liberal. There is just too much overlap. I would really like to see a more fiscal populist run and I do think we are going to. I am highly confident that Obamas Wall Street friends won't even get out of their chairs in the Oval Office if she is elected.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. she will do it as well as any other elected democratic president

there are far bigger structural issues regarding wall street that no president can fix by themselves

[vi5]

29. Not a fucking chance...

Obama at least pretended/campaigned on doing so, and then did next to nothing.

HRC doesn't even pretend so there's absolutely zero reason to expect that she would actually do anything.

[TheNutcracker]

31. It's obvious! GET ANOTHER CANDIDATE!!! FAST!!!

She's already burned herself out...making sure she's up front. With her record on speeches of late, she has nowhere to go....but down.

[Autumn]

42. I have a very good inside tip from a dear friend of mine. Hillary is polling at 64% !!! 64 %

[HappyMe]

60. Well, that's it then!

It's all decided! No need for that pesky voting.

[bigwillq]

34. Don't think she will.

Obama hasn't done a good job in that department either. For some reason, these popular DEMs haven't done a good enough job of reining in Wall Street, imo.

[tenderfoot]

44. No. She won't.

eom

[badtoworse]

46. Define "properly".

[JoePhilly]

52. "Properly" is an ambigioius term used so that no matter what happens ...

... it won't have been done "properly".

[el_bryanto]

66. So for the poll to to be honest I'd have to list out a specific set of prescriptions

for Hillary Clinton to follow? Is that your contention?

Bryant

[badtoworse]

67. Define "properly" is a fair question. "Properly" can mean many things to many different people.

A serious investor might define it one way and someone who lost their house to foreclosure might see it quite differently. What would you expect HRC to do?

[JoePhilly]

68. At least a couple ... otherwise people can use their own definitions.

I create surveys in my work, and I know a fair amount about survey design.

Its very easy to create a poll that gets the responses you want by simply using ambiguous terms.

So for instance, here on DU, an ambiguous term like "properly" is going to allow folks who dislike Hillary to attack her, without saying much of anything at all. Other than she won't regulate "properly", whatever that means.

Which you can see is what happened in your poll. Almost everyone picked the same choice.

A well constructed poll provides a set of choices which separate people on some dimension. In this case, the extent to which Hillary would regulate Wall Street (which technically really means whether she'd support regulations of various types, given she has to deal with Congress too).

Your poll doesn't do that. It does not discriminate.

Basically, your survey could have just had the choices, Yes and No, and you'd get about the same outcome.

Your poll doesn't have sufficient choices that discriminate sub-groups in your sample. Which is why one usually creates a poll.

[el_bryanto]

76. But by the same notion those who think that HRC will regulate Wall Street effectively

Can also voice their opinion. If you think that Clinton will keep a firm hand on Wall Street you are free to vote yes.

Bryant

[Iggo]

49. No.

I do not believe that.

[yurbud]

54. Is there any evidence you would do so?

[JEB]

55. Where is the no fucking way option?

Wall street is who she represents.

[LanternWaste]

57. More so than any potential Republican nominee.

More so than any potential Republican nominee.

[cali]

62. I don't believe that for a second. and neither does Wall Street. They love hilly.

[LanternWaste]

63. I will most certainly allow your disbelief all the credibility it warrants.

I will most certainly allow your disbelief all the credibility it warrants.

[LondonReign2]

64. Helluva bar you set there

"Slightly Less Horrible Than a Republican"

[2banon]

71. Not just "No" but HELL NO.. Are you kidding? Haven't you been paying attention at all?!!!!

[One_Life_To_Give]

79. Where is "Defer to Goldman on what to do" nt

[KamaAina]

84. Nope. But Bernie would.

Q.E.D.

[iandhr]

85. HRC is a very savvy politician.

Many people still fall for that regulation kills job crap. She is going to wait and see which way the wind is blowing.

[Le Taz Hot]

86. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Good one!

[TexasProgresive]

87. I doubt any president could really rein in Wall Street.

It would take all 3 branches of government to effectively do that, and I don't see that happening.
But, it could happen.

[hifiguy]

88. You ARE kidding, right?

Her BFF Blankfein and those like him will make her dance to their tune as if she were Margot Fonteyn.

[LordGlenconner]

89. I voted I'm sure of it because I like being a contrarian.

[oldandhappy]

90. She will not and neither will a republican.

She will keep the ACA and what ever we get for immigration reform and support efforts to equalize voting. The repubs will not do that.

[Orsino]

93. I trust Clinton to follow rather than lead.

Once Americans clearly articulate preferences on the banksters, and XL, our next president will be right behind us, doing as little of it as she can.