Wall Street's chiefs are divided on the presidential election, according to DealScape.

The Federal Election Commission's records show that Hillary Clinton received campaign donations from JP Morgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon, Morgan Stanley chief John Mack and Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein. John McCain received support from Merrill Lynch's John Thain. Dick Fuld of Lehman Brother's is hedging his bets, supporting McCain and Clinton, as well as Barack Obama.

Citigroup's Vikram Pandit didn't contribute to any of the campaigns.

What does this tell us about the political acumen of Wall Street's top men? Find out after the jump.

Most bet on the losing challenger, which might indicate that they aren't that great at picking political winners. On the other hand, donating to the presidential campaign of New York's junior senator probably has payoffs even though she isn't likely to be nominated by her party. Donating to Obama, however, seems like trying to shoot the moon: if he wound up losing, there wouldn't be much benefit to having garnered his good will and there would be the cost of having declared yourself an enemy of the Clintons. So maybe Clinton was the prudent choice.

For those of you who are real political junkies, we point out the first comprehensive study of the electoral college map we've seen. It comes from Robert Novak and Tim Carney (who happens to be the brother of one of our editors). Contrary to what some national polls (which, as we all know after 2000 and 2004, are largely irrelevant) might show, the state-by-state study shows a McCain victory by the narrowest of margins. McCain would receive 270 electoral votes to Obama's 268 if the election were held today. And, of course, it's all likely to come down to Ohio once again.

Wall Street prefers Democrats? [TheDeal.com]