If The Election Is So Close, Why Is The Smart Money Acting As If It Isn't?

Attribute whatever motive you want to Jeff Bezos, for instance:

ex washington post editor: “Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people,” he said on Saturday. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made."

The implication is that Bezos offered to squash a potential Washington Post endorsement of Harris in return for giving Bezos's Blue Origin favorable treatment for contracts in an upcoming Trump administration. Let's accept this -- Bezos has never had Rockefeller-level PR -- but then, let's also grant him the cupidinous instincts this implies.

Why would Bezos see the point in making this deal? If the election were flip-a-coin close, which among other things might imply that a WaPo endorsement could tip it to Kamala, why change course? I think a reasonable conclusion is that insiders seem to think it's not close at all. Here's the headline at CEO Today: Trump’s VIP Tech List: CEOs Scramble to Suck Up to the Ex-President!

In a series of recent statements, Trump asserts that several tech CEOs are actively reaching out to him. Prominent figures like Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, and Mark Zuckerberg, head of Meta, have faced criticism from Trump in the past, particularly regarding what he perceives as the suppression of conservative voices on their platforms. Yet, as the polls tighten in the race against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump claims these leaders are becoming more favorable toward him, aligning their interests with the possibility of a Trump victory.

According to reports from the Washington Post, influential business leaders are adopting a cautious approach, potentially recognizing the implications of Trump’s return to power. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has made his support for Trump explicit, contributing financially to his campaign.

The link goes into more derail on Bezos's business interests as they relate to Trump:

Former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has recently faced scrutiny for the Washington Post’s decision to refrain from endorsing presidential candidates, which Trump criticized. According to Trump, Bezos called him after the assassination attempt, expressing amazement at the unfolding events. Trump noted, “Despite the fact you own the Washington Post, I appreciate it.” Bezos' connection to government contracts, particularly through Amazon Web Services and Blue Origin, adds another layer of complexity to his relationship with Trump.

A Trump presidency could lead to significant changes in how Amazon operates, particularly regarding government contracts. Historically, Trump has leveraged federal contracts as a tool for both rewarding and punishing companies based on their alignment with his administration’s agenda. If Trump were to regain office, Amazon might find itself navigating a landscape with more direct ties to the federal government, influencing everything from regulations to contract awards. Additionally, Trump’s focus on domestic manufacturing could pressure Amazon to adjust its logistics and supply chain strategies to prioritize U.S.-based operations.

Again, if the election were the tossup we're being told it is, why would people like Zuckerberg, mentioned here, Bezos, or Warren Buffett, via Business Insider, suddenly be hedging their bets?

Warren Buffett has not endorsed Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, and made it clear this week he will not publicly back either presidential candidate.

. . . The Berkshire CEO's reticence may seem surprising as he's previously thrown his weight behind Democratic presidential candidates. He organized fundraisers for Barack Obama in 2011 and stumped for Hillary Clinton in 2016, even walking on stage at a rally to hammer Donald Trump over his bankrupt businesses, reluctance to publish his tax returns, and rude treatment of others.

Yet the 94-year-old billionaire explained why he's now keeping his mouth shut during Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting in 2022. Buffett said he'd learned that "you can make a whole lot more people sustainably mad than you can make temporarily happy by speaking out on any subject."

Translation: Buffett doesn't want to make Trump sustainably mad at him, when it's not worth making Harris temporarily happy, because it's certain Trump will win on November 5, and she will lose. His BNSF Railway won big when Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, because it meant oil shipments from Canada would continue to come by rail. It was to his advantage to support Biden early in 2020; now he needs to appease Trump early in 2024, because he needs to control the damage when Trump reverses this policy.

Yet the Wall Street Journal, thought to be the organ of plutocracy, still feigns obtuseness:

A week from the election, we have bipartisan consensus on two points regarding Pennsylvania.

The first is that the presidential contest is way too close to call. The second is that only one contender has coattails. Both candidates for Senate—Republican challenger Dave McCormick and Democratic incumbent Bob Casey—agree on who that is: Donald Trump.

If the election were really "way too close to call", why is Casey acting as though Trump is going to win? Now we even have Alan Dershowitz saying he can't vote for Harris:

Like everyone else here, he won't say he's voting for Trump, but if he;'s saying he won't vote for Harris, that's the same thing. I think he's too smart to throw his vote away by voting for Jill Stein.

November 5 isn't going to be cloae at all.