Our chief economist, Milton Ezrati, has a new post up on Investopedia about Wall Street’s preference in this year’s presidential race. He sums it up with this:
It is easy to conclude that the financial community would have little enthusiasm for either [candidate] in the White House. Both have left too much unsaid to give investors the predictability they always crave. Both, by leaving questions about how they would finance their spending schemes as well as by failing even to address the critical question of entitlements reform, have failed to answer the budget questions on which financial professionals focus.
Click through to read the full post.
This election cycle has certainly been an interesting time for domestic media. Wall Street’s views on the election don’t make the best headlines for much the same reasons as policy analyses don’t make the best headlines, but it is nevertheless important to monitor. And one way to do this is by consulting the editorial pages of Wall Street’s most representative voice: The Wall Street Journal.
“We’ve sometimes thought that the best thing about this election is that one of them will lose,” it wrote on Aug. 30. “But that still means that one of them will take power for four years. Perhaps we need to open ourselves to new possibilities. If ‘neither’ could make it onto the November ballot, maybe we’d reconsider our longstanding editorial policy of not endorsing candidates.”
This is most likely just a cheeky hot take from the newspaper’s reliably conservative editorial board. But it could be a real signal. Will the Wall Street Journal indeed endorse a candidate, or explicitly endorse neither candidate, for president? A member of its editorial board has already made an endorsement.
Then, would a Journal endorsement give Wall Street a meaningful signal to latch on to a candidate?
There are 25 days until Election Day.