Tech leaders like Romney, think Obama will win

Technology leaders President Obama will be re-elected, but think Republican nominee Mitt Romney would give a bigger boost to the technology economy, according to a new survey.

The DLA Piper Technology Leaders Forecast Survey found, among other things:

    76 percent of tech leaders expect President Obama to be re-elected
    64 percent believe Romney would be better for the technology economy
    64 percent see an increased threat of regulation for the private equity and venture capital

DLA Piper, a global law firm, distributed its survey in late September and early October to senior executives and advisors in the technology industry, including CEOs, CFOs and other company officers at tech companies, as well as to venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and consultants. The study was released today in conjunction with DLA Piper’s Global Technology Leaders Summit taking place at the Rosewood Sand Hill in Menlo Park.

Sixty percent of business leaders are skeptical that a second term for the Obama administration would have a positive impact on the technology sector. The partisan tables have turned since the 2008 election, when nearly 60 percent of tech executives believed that then-Senator Barack Obama would have a more positive impact on technology development and investment than his GOP opponent, U.S. Sen. John McCain.

“Regardless of the election’s outcome, it seems clear that what technology leaders want out of Washington is greater clarity on regulation and tax policy. Those themes surfaced prominently in our latest version of the survey,” Peter Astiz, global co-head of the Technology Sector at DLA Piper, said in a news release.

The survey found 78 percent of respondents believe that the presidential campaign dialogue surrounding private equity – namely, attacks upon Romney’s record at Bain Capital – has damaged the reputation of the private equity and venture capital industry, and 65 percent expressed concern that this focus could likely lead to new regulation of the industry.

Most respondents – 60 percent – think letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire would negatively impact tech-sector investments; 33 percent think the tax cuts’ expiration would have no direct impact on the tech sector’s growth.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • JohnW

    Regret to say their prediction on the POTUS race seems pretty out of synch with the post-debate polls. That’s likely to impact the down ticket races too — especially control of the Senate.

  • Elwood

    Talk about a doofus! Obama thought he won the debate!



  • JohnW

    Re: #2

    They’ll be talking about that debate 25 years from now when Chelsea Clinton or Joseph Kennedy III and George P. Bush are running against each other.

    Romney lobbed slow and easy pitches, and Obama did’t even swing the bat.

    Republicans had given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania and taken their ad dollars elsewhere. Now, they are virtually tied in those states. Romney had almost no electoral map path to victory. Now, it’s wide open. When undecideds break, they usually break in favor of the challenger. Seems to be what has happened here.

  • RR senile columnist

    Last Repub who was good for the economy was Reagan. Why? He wasn’t a mush mouth. Big Biz knew where he stood. Pinko Californios are too bigoted to
    Appreciate him. In Berkeley, Jimmy Carter is loved. Sorry libs, Camp David owes as much to
    Baba Wawa as it does to the Sage of Plains.

  • JohnW

    Re 4 “Last Repub who was good for the economy was Reagan…”

    That case can be made. Getting rid of 70% marginal tax rates was a good thing. I was paying a 49% marginal rate when my income was only about $50k. He went too far, and Bush and Clinton had to fix it, but it’s still good that we broke the back of those high rates.

    Under Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, capital gains and dividends were taxed at the same marginal rates as ordinary income, topping out at 28%. Mitt would have paid nearly double his 2010 and 2011 taxes under Reagan.

    The recession during Reagan’s first term was not as bad as the recent Great Recession in terms of its causes, structure and global economic headwinds. Also, Reagan still had the Baby Boom generation as a driver of economic growth. Even so, the unemployment trajectory was remarkably similar to Obama. It was 7.5% the month he took office, grew to 10.8% by December 1982 and declined from there to 7.3% by September 1984 (the last year of his first term). For Obama, it was 7.8% the month he took office, rose to 10% by Oct. 2009 and declined from there to 7.8% by September 2012. Why didn’t it get as high or even much higher under Obama? Hmmm. Could it be the auto bailout and the “it failed” stimulus?

    Paul Volcker and the Fed get as much credit for long-term economic growth as anything Reagan did, using monetary policy to break inflation. Volcker was appointed by Carter late in his term and began the monetary tightening while Carter was still in office.

    Reagan was a big spender and piled on the debt due to the Defense build-up.

    Reagan talked a good game on de-regulation, but can you think of anything he actually did on that front? For better or worse, the de-regulation movement began under Carter in the transportation and telephone industries.

  • JohnW

    Re: #4

    “Camp David owes as much to Baba Wawa as it does to the Sage of Plains.”

    Would you care to elaborate?

    My recollection is that Israel and Egypt started the process with secret bilateral talks but that it took 13 days at Camp David, with Carter relentlessly shuttling back and forth between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to get the deal done.

  • RR, Senile Columnist

    It was Baba who got Begin and Sadat to publicly agree upon an exchange of visits. Jimmy C almost wrecked the talks, according to some observers, by siding with Sadat and pressing Begin to yield. In the end, the agreement by Begin to cede the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt and the promise of aid was too much for Sadat to reject.

  • JohnW

    Carter and the UN wanted multilateral talks involving not only Egypt and Israel, but also Jordan, Syria and the other Arab countries. They wanted the ever-elusive comprehensive Mideast solution, including the Palestinian and Jerusalem issues. Begin and Sadat rejected that in favor of bilateral talks, leading up to the Camp David meeting. It’s true Carter pushed for a deal that would include the West Bank but ultimately had to settle for a framework for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt — something Begin and Sadat both wanted but couldn’t have achieved without Carter’s strong mediator and go-between role, not to mention the money pledged to both countries. For an American president to have invested 13 straight days 24/7 in something like that was truly remarkable.

    As for Baba, all I know is she did a joint interview with Begin and Sadat. My guess is that Begin and Sadat initiated that as a way of pressuring Carter on the bilateral approach. Government leaders often use big name TV news people in that manner. But to suggest that Baba somehow instigated the Egypt/Israeli peace process or had any role whatsoever in getting a deal done strikes me as a pretty wild claim.