Markets Start to Anticipate Obama Victory in November
CNBC
By: John Melloy Executive Producer, Fast Money & Halftime Published: Wednesday, 29 Feb 2012 | 3:11 AM ET
While President Obama may not be Wall Street's ideal candidate, stock prices are rising on growing expectations he will be re-elected this November.
Part of that, market pros say, is simply that investors feel more certain about who will be in the White House for the next four years and which policies they will have to deal with.
Obama's chances of winning in November increased to above 60 percent on Tuesday, up from about 50 percent at the beginning of the year, according to the odds on prediction market Intrade.com.
Meanwhile, the S&P 500 [.SPX 1372.18 --- UNCH (0) ] has hit a new bull market high and is up 9 percent on the year.
The stock market’s rise comes as the supposed Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, continues to contend with Rick Santorum in an effort to win the GOP nomination. Romney won primary battles in Michigan and Arizona on Tuesday.
The surge in President Obama’s chances at a second term also have coincided with a string of better-than-expected domestic economic data this year, including an all-important drop in the unemployment rate.
The latest reading of U.S. consumer confidence on Tuesday blew away economists’ expectations. That contrasts with the Republican debates, many of which have centered on social issues.
“The Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich infighting has done irreparable harm to the Republican Party’s ability to present an alternative economic platform to voters,” says Joe Terranova, chief market strategist for Virtus Investment Partners. “As long as manufacturing and other key data continues to improve, the market is growing comfortable with Obama being President again.”
History shows the market tends to rise during election years. Gains tend to be even greater if the incumbent party wins.
To be sure, not everyone is buying the old adage that the “market hates uncertainty.” Some feel it is still way too early to predict what will happen in November and that Obama’s policies will be harmful to business, causing a sell-off in 2013 if he is re-elected.
“As to penciling in Obama, while the market likes certainty, certainty of bad news will not be good for the market,” said Stephen Weiss of Short Hills Capital. “Although the effect of an Obama second term will be muted if economy continues to improve.”
Weiss and others can at least take heart with the Congressional odds.
Intrade puts the Republicans’ chances of controlling the Senate and House after the November elections at 72 percent and 64 percent respectively.
That brings up another Wall Street maxim: “Market likes gridlock.” This way, a single party can’t mess it up.
David Dreier Retirement: California Congressman Will Not Run For Re-Election
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Rules Committee, announced Wednesday he would not seek re-election.
The California Congressman explained why he chose to make his announcement on the House floor. "First, this is where my fellow Californians sent me to represent them. Second, I am a proud institutionalist, and I believe that this institution is as great as it has ever been," he said.
He added that he considered retiring three years ago, but ultimately chose not to for four reasons. "(1) to reverse the very dangerous 82% increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we had in the previous two Congresses; (2) to finally pass the job-creating free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea; (3) to enhance our national security by working to strengthen the legislatures of new and reemerging democracies across the globe through the bipartisan House Democracy Partnership; and (4) to ensure, through the Rules Committee, that both Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to offer their solutions by proposing amendments on the House floor," he said.
Dreier has served in the House since 1981, representing the foothills of the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California. He has been Chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee for nine of the past 13 years. His decision has been long expected due to a redistricting process leaving him without an obvious district to run in.
Dreier, a bachelor, was passed over for a GOP leadership position in a controversial decision in 2005 that some observers speculated had to do with questions about his sexuality. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is openly gay, was asked if Dreier was passed over because he was too "moderate."
“The Holocaust is probably a bad example. Americans should not forget that it did happen,” he said. “I apologize to the Jewish Americans who feel offended. I also apologize to the Japanese Americans who were put in prison during World War II and I also apologize to those people who were accused of being Communists under McCarthyism, because that’s not the American way.”
But LePage still believes the IRS is on track to become the new Gestapo.
“What I’m trying to say is that the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated,” he said. “Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad. Yet.”
LePage explained that the connection between the Holocaust and “Obamacare” comes from what he called “rationing” contained in the law:
“Do you want to know why?” LePage said when asked by the Seven Days reporter if he really worrys the IRS will kill people under the health care reform. “Rationing. They ration health care in Canada and that’s why a lot of people in Canada come down to the U.S.”
Here’s the audio: [inside]
This is the second time LePage has tried to apologize for the Gestapo remark. The first time, he also pressed the point that the modern Gestapo is coming.
.. some of paraphrased from the audio inside the link above ..
'The IRS is headed in the direction of killing a lot of people? .. Yes .. Why? .. Rationing, that's why so many Canadians come to the US ..'
Hmm, Guvnor, please consider ..
Healthcare rationing in the United States
Healthcare rationing in the United States exists in various forms. Access to private health insurance is rationed based on price and ability to pay. Those not able to afford a health insurance policy are unable to acquire one, and sometimes insurance companies pre-screen applicants for pre-existing medical conditions and either decline to cover the applicant or apply additional price and medical coverage conditions. Access to state Medicaid programs is restricted by income and asset limits via a means-test, and to other federal and state eligibility regulations. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that commonly cover the bulk of the population, restrict access to treatment via financial and clinical access limits.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 will prohibit insurers from limiting coverage to people with preexisting conditions beginning in 2014, which will alleviate this type of rationing.
[...]
Contents
1 Background 2 Definition 3 Types of rationing 3.1 Rationing by Insurance companies 4 Rationing by price 4.1 Rationing by pharmaceutical companies 4.2 Rationing through government control 5 Arguments for enhancing rationing processes 5.1 Rationing based on economic value added 5.2 Rationing using comparative effectiveness research 5.3 Rationing as part of fiscal discipline 5.4 Old-age-based health care rationing 6 Consequences of not controlling healthcare costs
06 April 2012 - 5:56pm - David K. Sutton- Human Interest
Health Care Is Rationed By Private For-Profit Insurance Companies. Is That Really What We Want?
We are told by conservatives that we don’t want government-run universal health care because it would mean rationing care. During the health care debate in the summer and fall of 2009 we heard talk of ‘death panels’ and ‘killing grandma’. Of course all of this was nonsense meant to scare people into thinking and voting a certain way, and it was quite effective, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. The truth is we already ration health care in the United States. 50 million people are uninsured. How is that not rationed care? Health care costs are higher than they need to be (due to insurance company profits and waste) which means in some cases people forego treatment because they can’t afford it (even if they have insurance). How is that not rationed care?
On an episode of Up with Chris Hayes from last December, Donald Berwick .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Berwick .. (former CMS .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services .. administrator) said, “we are either going to ration with our eyes closed or eyes opened.” Right now health care is rationed by private, for-profit insurance companies. Where is the accountability? Who decided that was a good idea? If a particular procedure is not covered by insurance, who was responsible for making that decision to ration care? And what is the motivation of that decision? Profits?
I realize a lot of people in this country have incredible distrust of the federal government, but at least the government is supposed to be accountable to the people. In fact, the government is supposed to be ”we the people.” How do we make private insurance companies accountable to the people? Right now corporate executives in boardrooms are making our health care rationing decisions. Shouldn’t these decisions be out in the open for all to see?
As Berwick said back in December, “We need the lights on. We need that kind of decision making to be done in daylight.”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
