Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Daily
Speaker 1: we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance,
Speaker 1: investment and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Never
Speaker 1: a dull moment from yesterday today, with some of these
Speaker 1: surprises in the language of the Bank of England and
Speaker 1: to synthesize it across economics and across the equity markets,
Speaker 1: one m Darta joins us. Michael Darta with MKM Partners,
Speaker 1: thrilled he could be with us this morning. I thought
Speaker 1: the meeting yesterday Michael Darda was absolutely original, I said
Speaker 1: to Michael McKee as I was walking out of the
Speaker 1: starship here yesterday. I wonder what Alan Meltzer would have
Speaker 1: thought of this original policy, How original, how off theory
Speaker 1: was the FED yesterday? Thanks for having me. Tom Well
Speaker 1: Powell described what the Fed did was as very powerful
Speaker 1: for forward guidance, but markets looked at what the Fed
Speaker 1: did did as more or less a nothing burger. Right,
Speaker 1: so inflation expectations didn't really move, and the FED in
Speaker 1: its forecasts actually didn't predict that it would succeed in
Speaker 1: average inflation targeting. Nowhere in that forecast is two p
Speaker 1: plus inflation. Uh. Instead it's two percent inflation, but only
Speaker 1: after four years. And so you know, as you were
Speaker 1: talking and discussing earlier, you know somewhere disappointed in that,
Speaker 1: and and markets didn't really move the immediate response to
Speaker 1: to the Fed is what you want to look at.
Speaker 1: There were some disappointments with the press conference, but um,
Speaker 1: I think you know, the f didn't move the needle
Speaker 1: in the way. Maybe they hoped just to drill in.
Speaker 1: What was the main disappointment that the Fed didn't come
Speaker 1: out and say that they're going to buy an indefinite
Speaker 1: amount of long term debt. Well, I think it's in
Speaker 1: the forecast, right. I mean, average average inflation targeting means
Speaker 1: if you've been below two, then you seek to get
Speaker 1: above two. But nowhere in the FEDS forecast is above
Speaker 1: two percent inflation. Um. And it's a pretty long horizon.
Speaker 1: You know, four years to fully recover is not a
Speaker 1: lost decade, but it's you know, certainly not a speedy
Speaker 1: return to full economic health either. Mike, You've got to say,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely ridiculous to be upset in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. Grant said chaman Pass performance wasn't all that
Speaker 1: in the news conference, November five is the next mating
Speaker 1: for the Federal Reserve. I understand something happens a couple
Speaker 1: of days earlier. Mike. Surely we've got to understand that
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve could not fire all its bullets had
Speaker 1: of the election in America. Yeah, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: that's an argument for sure. And I am encouraged at
Speaker 1: least that inflation expectations are holding up, they're not sinking,
Speaker 1: but the bond market doesn't expect the FED to get
Speaker 1: back to two inflay and really over an indefinite horizon.
Speaker 1: And so you do have to ask yourself the question.
Speaker 1: If the Fed is telling us they are not out
Speaker 1: of AMMO, they could do more, but they're not forecasting success,
Speaker 1: then why are they not changing policy. I think it's
Speaker 1: a very legitimate question that needs to be asked. That
Speaker 1: was the question economists we're asking in the news conference
Speaker 1: as well. Mike. Forgive me, because I've got to do
Speaker 1: this right now. I've got to turn to cable and
Speaker 1: get an intraday chart up and look at pounds sterling
Speaker 1: pound sterling is falling off a cliff right now, the
Speaker 1: pound against the US dollar at one to break at
Speaker 1: one and down by a half of one percent. We
Speaker 1: mentioned this very briefly just five minutes ago with Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: Guy Johnson. Governor Bailey has been flirting with negative interest rates.
Speaker 1: This is a Bank of England now actively preparing to
Speaker 1: execute negative interest rates. The Bank of England will engage
Speaker 1: with regulators on how to implement negative interest rates. Mike,
Speaker 1: I would love your thoughts on negative rates, not just
Speaker 1: in the UK, but across Europe, Japan, Switzerland. What is
Speaker 1: your response to these kind of headlines on the Morning
Speaker 1: Light this morning? Yeah, well, I mean if the pound
Speaker 1: is moving down on those expectations, then you would have
Speaker 1: to characterize it as an expansionary move, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've heard a lot of commentators say that negative rates
Speaker 1: are contractionary, self defeating. But if you signal a policy
Speaker 1: move and the currency depreciates, that's actually expansionary all other
Speaker 1: things equal. The US doesn't look like it's headed net direction.
Speaker 1: Powell has thrown cold water on it, and obviously, um
Speaker 1: the experience in the Eurozone in Japan have been disappointing,
Speaker 1: but don't forget that we've had many policy missteps in
Speaker 1: those regions where central banks tried to get off the
Speaker 1: zero lower bound prematurely and put business cycles at risk
Speaker 1: or fortified deflationary pressures. So you don't end up in
Speaker 1: a zero rate scenario unless things have gone really wrong
Speaker 1: for a long time beforehand. Right, catch up as always,
Speaker 1: Marco down to that. M campound is right now, Michael
Speaker 1: gap in with us with Barkley's or chief US economists. Michael,
Speaker 1: I want to really get away from Fed policy and
Speaker 1: talk about where we are in terms of g d
Speaker 1: P within Q four and then into two thousand twenty one.
Speaker 1: I think we've lost sight of the guessing of what
Speaker 1: real g d P will be. Good morning, Tom, and
Speaker 1: thank you for that. So I think there's been clear
Speaker 1: evidence of deceleration in the data this week, right, so
Speaker 1: we know we all came out of lockdown and things
Speaker 1: bounced quite strongly, and that gave us solemn momentum into July.
Speaker 1: The retail sales data yesterday coming in the cord down
Speaker 1: on the month, I think tell us that there's a
Speaker 1: lot less momentum as we head into into Q four
Speaker 1: and I know we're all used to every fiscal deadline
Speaker 1: bringing action, but you know phase four is you know,
Speaker 1: it's on life support for sure. Uh. And if we're
Speaker 1: not getting any additional benefits for households and replacement of
Speaker 1: loss wage and salary income, it does look like the
Speaker 1: pace of improvement is certainly going to going to slow.
Speaker 1: So somewhere in the load of mid single digits for
Speaker 1: growth rates in in Q four seems to be reasonable,
Speaker 1: which would be a you know, pretty significant deceleration off
Speaker 1: the roughly twent that that consensus is looking for in
Speaker 1: Q three. So I think it is related to two things.
Speaker 1: The shift where hey, we've we bought all the goods
Speaker 1: we're going to buy, and so further growth has to
Speaker 1: come from services and we know those are COVID affected areas,
Speaker 1: and fiscal stimulus keeps getting pushed out. So those are
Speaker 1: the two forces I think that I mean, things are
Speaker 1: really going to decelerate now, and as we move into
Speaker 1: Q four, Michael, it's all about jobs, And as Mike
Speaker 1: McKee was saying, there is increasing concern that the job's
Speaker 1: data is really messy. How much integrity does this data have?
Speaker 1: It still has? I would say some useful integrity. Um,
Speaker 1: I agree with the need to downplay the signal from
Speaker 1: the pandemic numbers, and even the initial claims data is
Speaker 1: something that that we're paying less attention to. Continuing claims
Speaker 1: still seem to have a pretty good signal to them.
Speaker 1: So the direction seems to be one of more modest improvement. Look,
Speaker 1: this is just one of those periods where it's it's
Speaker 1: a data point that has lost some of its relevance.
Speaker 1: Over time, it will become more relevant again. So we
Speaker 1: we just downweight some of the signal that that's coming
Speaker 1: out of it, but we don't ignore it entirely. Michael,
Speaker 1: you've got your finger on the pulse of the conversation
Speaker 1: that we had through the summer with pretty much everybody.
Speaker 1: So many people expected that late summer slowed down, it
Speaker 1: didn't develop, and they capitulated and embrace the idea that
Speaker 1: what we're seeing is a self sustaining recovery. Are you
Speaker 1: saying we're not on What we really need now is
Speaker 1: more fiscal juice. So I think we've been I've tried
Speaker 1: to be consistent in saying we we do think another
Speaker 1: round of of assistance for households, like a three to
Speaker 1: four months, maybe five month kind of period would would
Speaker 1: be critical in terms of providing a greater bridge and
Speaker 1: underpinning that virtuous cycle. Right, it worked coming out of
Speaker 1: lockdown because households had resources to spend. Personal income in
Speaker 1: July was about seven percent above where it was in
Speaker 1: February wage and salary and was about five percent below
Speaker 1: where we were in February. So it was the federal
Speaker 1: assistance that was key in helping to underpin that initial
Speaker 1: rehiring and therefore improvement in production. And I do think
Speaker 1: a little more to bridge us into your end would
Speaker 1: be useful. It doesn't mean the economy can't continue to
Speaker 1: recover without it, but I think it will be slower
Speaker 1: and I think it will be more uneven. Is that
Speaker 1: what shaman Paus's whitey full? I think so? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it sounds to me like the message he
Speaker 1: sent yesterday was we we've done what we're going to
Speaker 1: do uh and and we've implemented flexible average inflation targeting
Speaker 1: where since we're going to be at zero for the
Speaker 1: next three to six years, we'll be buying assets for
Speaker 1: the foreseeable future. The outlook from here is heavily dependent
Speaker 1: on fiscal policy, and whether or not we get a vaccine,
Speaker 1: what happens. We'll have to see how those developed. Well.
Speaker 1: Of course, the President tweeting out here vaccines coming very shortly,
Speaker 1: literally matter of weeks. I believe the science community would
Speaker 1: beg to disagree with that. Michael gabon what if we
Speaker 1: don't get fiscal policy, what does that do in terms
Speaker 1: of tenths of a percentage point to anybody's GDP guests,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's probably more than than tents of a
Speaker 1: of a percent. I think at least what most forecasters
Speaker 1: have been penciling in a trillion or more in fiscal stimulus,
Speaker 1: So those are they would be bringing down growth forecast fairly,
Speaker 1: fairly markedly. The vaccine obviously would push things in in
Speaker 1: the other direction. So we we actually put in just
Speaker 1: a relatively small Phase four package. We put it in
Speaker 1: on our forecast March. It was like billion. You know,
Speaker 1: billions are are not trillions, of course, um, and so
Speaker 1: I would say we have less s adjusting to do
Speaker 1: on that front. But I think you're talking more percentage points,
Speaker 1: not tens of a percent if if we're not getting
Speaker 1: getting Phase four spending or something beyond the election, for sure. Michael,
Speaker 1: how worried are you about scarring on the labor market,
Speaker 1: particularly with younger workers who have some of the highest
Speaker 1: unemployment rates. Ever, I would say there at the at
Speaker 1: the moment, I'd say I'm I have mild worry to
Speaker 1: medium worry. And by that I mean when, yes, the
Speaker 1: unemployment rates come down and the level of unemployment has
Speaker 1: come down, but underneath that, the number of unemployed workers
Speaker 1: that are being classified as permanently out of work, that
Speaker 1: number is rising. It's it's It was a little over
Speaker 1: four million in the last employment reports. So the bad
Speaker 1: news is it's rising. The reason I wouldn't say I'm
Speaker 1: extremely concerned is after O eight oh nine that number
Speaker 1: was over eight million. So there is some evidence that's
Speaker 1: scarring and labor markets is happening, but on a relative
Speaker 1: basis at present, it's only about half as bad as
Speaker 1: we saw after O eight oh nine, and we'll see
Speaker 1: where that number goes. No vaccine likely means that number
Speaker 1: is going to get higher. If we do get a vaccine,
Speaker 1: that's why we available sometime around the middle of next year.
Speaker 1: That should limit the degree of labor market scarring. Michael
Speaker 1: Kaype and always Left catching up with you time this morning,
Speaker 1: and we appreciated Michael. Thank you Michael Cape and that
Speaker 1: of Barcley. You can go back to a girl have
Speaker 1: showed up, I mean literally showed up in New York
Speaker 1: and said hello, I'm here when she was eighteen years old.
Speaker 1: She stopped traffic years ago with a T shirt on
Speaker 1: the Tonight Show and that latch Rebecca Minkoff, after pursues
Speaker 1: in the rest, she joins us now on the state
Speaker 1: of her collapsing fashion industry. Rebecca Minkoff, wonderful I have
Speaker 1: you with us. How are you going to make it
Speaker 1: to the other side. You've been resilient more than anybody
Speaker 1: I know. How do you get to two thousand twenty two?
Speaker 1: I think we get that. We get there by being resilient,
Speaker 1: by being innovative, and you know, you really get to
Speaker 1: go back and flex your entrepreneurial skills. This is the
Speaker 1: test for any entrepreneur. Can you do it? You cannot
Speaker 1: rest on your laurels right now. And my co founder
Speaker 1: and I have done nothing short of a miracle by
Speaker 1: keeping our company together. I can't imagine when you first
Speaker 1: walked into Robert bergs Bergdorf, Goodman and saw your product
Speaker 1: on the second floor or the fifth floor or whatever.
Speaker 1: In two or three years, are people like you gonna
Speaker 1: have product and department stores or are they done? You know,
Speaker 1: we're not done. Obviously, the pandemic has changed everything and
Speaker 1: overnight seventy percent of our business was shut down due
Speaker 1: the due to the pandemic. But we're seeing a resurgency.
Speaker 1: Stores are coming back. It's going to be slower, it's
Speaker 1: going to be different. The relationship will certainly change, but um,
Speaker 1: we're getting requests for orders that currently we can't build
Speaker 1: from these stores. Where are these store or is are
Speaker 1: they in big cities or is the location changing? You know,
Speaker 1: we've had requests from our past stores, whether it's the
Speaker 1: Nords from opening back up or you know the slow
Speaker 1: sort of as these cities get allowances. Um, they are
Speaker 1: in the bigger cities, and I don't know that you'll
Speaker 1: see a huge resurgence with department stores and smaller cities.
Speaker 1: But we are seeing that specialty stores that are allowed
Speaker 1: to reopen are also requesting product. And because of that,
Speaker 1: we're actually bring back certain staff that we're wholesale related
Speaker 1: only because we can't uh service these clients as well
Speaker 1: as we need, and so we're bringing back staff we
Speaker 1: had furloughed in order to service those clients. Rebecca, how
Speaker 1: do you compete with sweatpants and an arrow of working
Speaker 1: from home? Here's the beautiful thing. We have a really
Speaker 1: popular Janine sweatshirt that we've had for several months that
Speaker 1: we cannot keep in stock. It has the perfect zoom shoulder,
Speaker 1: and now we're getting in a sweatsuit coming this holiday season.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get her invaluor you get her in a hoodie,
Speaker 1: you get an address. So we are listening to our
Speaker 1: customer and we're giving her fashion, but a big, very
Speaker 1: very comfortable way. Rebecca, I want you to talk about
Speaker 1: how you got a branch out. You've done a great
Speaker 1: job of that. I mean it was one story of person.
Speaker 1: You've gone so far beyond that. I mean, Lisa A. Bramo,
Speaker 1: it's needs little min cough, There's no question about that.
Speaker 1: But you know that the creative survival, where is all
Speaker 1: that product discrimination going? What's your vision of how you're
Speaker 1: gonna parse brands over the next twenty four months. So
Speaker 1: I think that we're are seeing and it needed to happen,
Speaker 1: a complete fashion reset. I think we were all in
Speaker 1: a hamster wheel. We were designing too much, we were
Speaker 1: clogged with inventory. So one of the things we did
Speaker 1: with launching Little min Cough is partnered with a platform
Speaker 1: called Residents. It's inventory lists by a degradable and made
Speaker 1: with earth friendly chemicals, and there's almost zero waste because
Speaker 1: they literally print the pattern on fabric and cut around it.
Speaker 1: And we're expanding that to women's because we see that
Speaker 1: a woman is actually becoming more conscious about waste, about
Speaker 1: fast fashion and it's harm to the environment and workers,
Speaker 1: and so we're embracing that and fully utilizing everything we
Speaker 1: can to grow that segment. Um. It's called r M
Speaker 1: Green but with any after our store on Green Street,
Speaker 1: and so that launches in the next few weeks um,
Speaker 1: in addition to the Little Minkoff which is already there. Rebecca,
Speaker 1: as an entrepreneur and as a mentor to a lot
Speaker 1: of entrepreneurs, is Amazon the enemy you know today? Uh,
Speaker 1: you know there is a big divide, many divides actually,
Speaker 1: but I think that right now we're selling on Amazon.
Speaker 1: When our entire business, you know, uh, with the exception
Speaker 1: of our own site, went offline, we needed to be
Speaker 1: able to find partners that were nimble and quick and
Speaker 1: would work with us. And so we've had an incredible partnership.
Speaker 1: And I think as long as you can set those
Speaker 1: rules and they are followed, and they're fantastic place to be. Rebecca,
Speaker 1: I look at the tech structure that you have to
Speaker 1: deal with. You've got politicians looking for the rich people
Speaker 1: buying fancy Rebecca Minkoff stuff to crush you in New
Speaker 1: Jersey and other states. Is well, what kind of support
Speaker 1: do you need from fiscally beleaguered politicians. I think they
Speaker 1: need to turn their fight elsewhere. They should probably worry
Speaker 1: more about equality. They should probably worry more about, you know,
Speaker 1: making sure that people who are not with jobs and
Speaker 1: who need more financial help get that support. You know,
Speaker 1: we elect these politicians and they should be worrying about
Speaker 1: the people that need help the most, versus you know,
Speaker 1: crushing businesses that are trying to survive and really contribute
Speaker 1: to the economy. Very good, Rebecca Mankoff. Too short of visit.
Speaker 1: This is a joy, as we had Joyce chatting with
Speaker 1: us of JP Morgan in the last tour Ian Bremer
Speaker 1: joins us now with Euraise your group and somebody asked
Speaker 1: me yesterday, are you doing that New Year's kick off?
Speaker 1: And I'm thrilled to say we're planning that right now
Speaker 1: with the wonderful people at Eurise. Your group, Ian Bremer,
Speaker 1: a new book scheduled here. Maybe it will adapt an
Speaker 1: adjust to the presidential election. Let's start with Ian Bremer
Speaker 1: on our international relations and our next president and what
Speaker 1: does second term presidents do on international relations? If President
Speaker 1: Trump takes the trophy this time, how do presidents adapt
Speaker 1: in a second term? Well, I mean, I think one
Speaker 1: thing to say is that when you have a change
Speaker 1: in president and a changing party, the idea that foreign
Speaker 1: policy is going to be dramatically different is usually oversold
Speaker 1: by the analyst. Is usually more continuity, there's usually more
Speaker 1: constraint um. In the case of Trump, of course, so
Speaker 1: much of what he focuses on his brand building and
Speaker 1: his electioneering that the dangerous period for US foreign policy
Speaker 1: is much more in the run up um to November
Speaker 1: and perhaps right after when votes are still being counted
Speaker 1: and we don't have a solution, than what happens after January.
Speaker 1: For me, the foreign policy differences for Trump if he
Speaker 1: gets the second term um have more to do with
Speaker 1: the constraints on his ability to run if the election
Speaker 1: itself is seen as a legitimate by half of the country.
Speaker 1: And I think, frankly, we're in that situation no matter
Speaker 1: who wins, coming up in November. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: that's unprecedented here. But it doesn't have as much to
Speaker 1: do with second term or not. It has more to
Speaker 1: do with the nature of this election, the nature of
Speaker 1: this backdrop, um and and the nature of President Trump himself.
Speaker 1: There's a derby for the Nobel Peace Prize Senator around
Speaker 1: our foreign policy with the Persian golf, the Arabian Sea,
Speaker 1: or whatever you want to call it. And depending on
Speaker 1: which side of the shore you're, Mr net you know
Speaker 1: who's involved in that as well as our president deserve
Speaker 1: the Nobel Peace Price. I mean, if you want me
Speaker 1: to say something UH really controversial, I can say he
Speaker 1: deserves one more than Obama did. At the time that
Speaker 1: Obama received it, of course, that was a symbolic UH
Speaker 1: prize at that point. It was a hopeful prize. It
Speaker 1: was aspirational, and it was overtly political, which is why
Speaker 1: everyone thought it was kind of a mistake, sort of
Speaker 1: including Obama himself at the time. Of course, Trump's had
Speaker 1: a lot of foreign policy missteps on his on his watch,
Speaker 1: but he's also had some successes. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: nothing will drive out the trolls more than when I
Speaker 1: give the president credit um for things he's done on
Speaker 1: foreign policy when he's gotten in right. One of those
Speaker 1: things has been uh normalization of relations between Israel and
Speaker 1: the UAE, Israel, UM and Bahrain. Uh. You know, with
Speaker 1: every president for decades now had has tried to cut
Speaker 1: their teeth in the Middle East on being an honest
Speaker 1: broker between Israel and the Palestinians. We're not an honest broker.
Speaker 1: Israel is our best ally in the region, and the
Speaker 1: Palestinians we have at best poor relations. Um that that
Speaker 1: band aid has been ripped off. Our best relations are
Speaker 1: with the Israelis and the Gulf monarchies. And Trump embraced
Speaker 1: that from day one. He knew that the first trip
Speaker 1: he made outside the U S as president, first to
Speaker 1: Riad and then to Israel went very well. And and meanwhile,
Speaker 1: our biggest adversary in the region is Iran, and we
Speaker 1: share that adversary with the Israelis and the Gulf State.
Speaker 1: So the fact that you've had an administration that's not
Speaker 1: been in a sense constrained by or burdened by American
Speaker 1: history in the region made it much more possible to
Speaker 1: effect this breakthrough. And it's a real breakthrough. And by
Speaker 1: the way, if Biden wins, it's actually gonna be there's
Speaker 1: a shot that he could actually move on Israeli Palestinian
Speaker 1: peace because of what Trump has done here is now
Speaker 1: obvious to the Palestinians that they actually don't have friends
Speaker 1: in the region, so they're under a lot more pressure
Speaker 1: to get something done than they were before. What are
Speaker 1: the chances he in that that Joe Biden wind Um
Speaker 1: I would say today, I think they're about six thirty five,
Speaker 1: but it's tightening over the next seven weeks. I suspect
Speaker 1: that we'll get closer than that. I've got high confidence
Speaker 1: that the U. S economy continues to improve, about moderate
Speaker 1: confidence that numbers around coronavirus cases and hospitalizations and debts
Speaker 1: will continue to flatten somewhat. And I've got moderate confidence
Speaker 1: that social instability and violence um in overwhelmingly blue urban
Speaker 1: centers in the US will continue to increase. All three
Speaker 1: of those at the margins helps Trump in a race
Speaker 1: where the overwhelming majority of Americans have already decided how
Speaker 1: they're going to vote, So it's gonna be close. But
Speaker 1: I think more importantly, I think it is almost certain
Speaker 1: that it's going to be contested. We're not going to
Speaker 1: find out who has won the election on the day,
Speaker 1: and President Trump will probably have announced that he's one,
Speaker 1: and how we deal with that it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot more challenging than Bush Gore had two thousand. Let's poway.
Speaker 1: You know, is there something that Joe Biden can do
Speaker 1: to get ahead in the polls, or is there something
Speaker 1: that you know President Trump can do, or no matter what,
Speaker 1: is it going to be close? Well, this election is
Speaker 1: going to be overwhelmingly a referendum on Trump. Biden is
Speaker 1: not offensive to most Americans, but they don't have the
Speaker 1: same level of enthusiasm. You're not going to get vote
Speaker 1: parades out there for Biden the way you do for Trump.
Speaker 1: Having said that Trump's support base is narrower than Biden's,
Speaker 1: what do you do in that environment? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's almost impossible for Biden to make it about him
Speaker 1: unless he makes really significant gaps. I think his choice
Speaker 1: of running mate Kamala Harris was a very smart one. Um.
Speaker 1: It won some votes indeed, Americans for example, UM. And
Speaker 1: it also helped them with some independence in a way
Speaker 1: that others that were being considered would not have. So
Speaker 1: that was a win. I worry about the debate. UM,
Speaker 1: you know you. I think Biden has to get Um.
Speaker 1: He can't. He can't try to hit Trump. One for one,
Speaker 1: he has to play the character card. He has to
Speaker 1: talk directly to the American people. He has to sort
Speaker 1: of with Trump say oh there you go again. Donald.
Speaker 1: There has to be the subtext of this is insane
Speaker 1: and I'm the real presidential character. But he also has
Speaker 1: to come across as strong and as capable, because you know,
Speaker 1: we all know that if Biden looks like he's missing
Speaker 1: a step or two, that's a vulnerability for him. And
Speaker 1: the Republicans are doing a better job going after and
Speaker 1: playing dirty than Project Lincoln and the Democrats are against Trump.
Speaker 1: That's just a reality. And we've got so much more
Speaker 1: to talk about. I want to ask you one question.
Speaker 1: I want you to play domestic political guy. Here. I
Speaker 1: was standing four years ago watching a TV attend something
Speaker 1: PM when I realized President Trump was gonna win, and
Speaker 1: he one in the suburbs of Philadelphia and the other
Speaker 1: suburbs across this nation. What are those suburbs gonna do?
Speaker 1: What is your sense, is an outsider to the domestic
Speaker 1: political game, what is your sense of what the vaunted
Speaker 1: suburbs are going to do? Yeah, I suspect they're going
Speaker 1: to swing a little bit more for Biden. But let's
Speaker 1: be clear, Republicans in those suburbs are more concerned about
Speaker 1: law and order. Democrats in those suburbs are more concerned
Speaker 1: about the pandemic. Republicans in those suburbs are overwhelmingly going
Speaker 1: to vote in person on the day. Democrats in those
Speaker 1: suburbs are going to vote overwhelmingly by mail. The pandemic
Speaker 1: matters here, and the fact that the president has decided,
Speaker 1: with a lot of help from the Attorney General, the
Speaker 1: voting by mail is I legitimate it and so you
Speaker 1: shouldn't count those votes. Those votes are gonna be stolen,
Speaker 1: Those votes are gonna be rigged. That's enormously important, And
Speaker 1: what plays out in the two weeks after election day
Speaker 1: in terms of those ballots is really much more about
Speaker 1: what we're gonna play for than than just how the
Speaker 1: members of those suburbs end up deciding themselves. This is
Speaker 1: this is an election, Tom Francine, where afterwards, I think
Speaker 1: almost no matter how it plays out, unless it's a landslide,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's gonna be a landslide. I
Speaker 1: think a decent piece of the American public is gonna
Speaker 1: believe that the election is unfree and unfair, and by
Speaker 1: the way, I think there's a decent chance that will
Speaker 1: indeed turn out to be the case. I've never said
Speaker 1: that in the US election performer. I'll say that about
Speaker 1: elections in developing countries, I'll say that about authoritarian states,
Speaker 1: never said about the United States before. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: a very ugly few months. There's no question about that,
Speaker 1: all right, even thanks so much Inny Bremmer there if
Speaker 1: you're Ratio, some pretty strong words. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio