Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on.
Speaker 1: Do not be bullied by bullies. If they're making threats,
Speaker 1: you cannot back down. The administration does not have all
Speaker 1: the power it needs to go after these ill gotten games.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound on Politics, Policy and perspective from DC's top names.
Speaker 1: You know, we've endorsed Dr Ros, We've endorsed JP right,
Speaker 1: j D. Mandel. She's got to talk about I feel
Speaker 1: your pain and we're here to address it. And this
Speaker 1: is how Droomberg sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A need call from Washington to authorize the use of
Speaker 1: force in Ukraine. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics
Speaker 1: as talk of drawing redlines grows. Louder will be joined
Speaker 1: by Congressman Michael McCall, Republican from Texas, ranking member the
Speaker 1: House Foreign Affairs Committee, and by Max Baucher's former democra
Speaker 1: Hadic senator and former ambassador to China. Tomorrow's primary day
Speaker 1: in Ohio, this is getting real. Donald Trump's latest endorsement
Speaker 1: on the line, even though the former president is struggling
Speaker 1: to remember his name, will tell you what to watch
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg National politics reporter Ryan T. Beckwith the panel today.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Gennie Chanzano, along with Republican
Speaker 1: media strategist Adam Goodman with us for the hour. The
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine approaching week ten now and more members
Speaker 1: of Congress are talking out loud about red lines and
Speaker 1: even the possible use of force. What would justify it?
Speaker 1: Congressman Adam Kinsinger, Republican from Illinois who serves on the
Speaker 1: House Foreign Affairs Committee, talked about this move that he
Speaker 1: is making to seek a use of force authorization on
Speaker 1: CBS's face the nation here he is, I just introduced
Speaker 1: an a u m F an authorization for the use
Speaker 1: of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage or
Speaker 1: permission to use it if w M d's nuclear, biological,
Speaker 1: or chemical are used in Ukraine. Doesn't compel the president
Speaker 1: to do it. It just says if it is used,
Speaker 1: he has that leverage. It gives him, you know, a
Speaker 1: better flexibility. But also it is a deterrent to Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin leverage. And it's not the first time we've heard it.
Speaker 1: I spoke earlier about the war, including that particular factor
Speaker 1: with the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee. That
Speaker 1: same panel, Congressman Michael mccaull of Texas was with us
Speaker 1: from the Milk and Institute Global Conference, and I asked
Speaker 1: him to start about both of these issues. The funding bill,
Speaker 1: as I say, and the use of for serious We're
Speaker 1: still looking through it, but I you know, the broad
Speaker 1: picture here is more Lethoid for Ukraine and more humanitarian
Speaker 1: assistants as we're seeing more and more Ukrainians, you know,
Speaker 1: and civilians being killed by the Russians. So I think
Speaker 1: you're gonna see broad based by Parson support. My only
Speaker 1: point is at times of the essence, and we need
Speaker 1: to do this now and outweight several weeks. Really pivotal
Speaker 1: critical time is right now in the fight against the Russians,
Speaker 1: and so they need these weapons right now, not two
Speaker 1: to three weeks down the road. Well, with that said,
Speaker 1: there's talk about attaching potentially COVID funding, maybe even funding
Speaker 1: for the border. Congressman, with that slow this process or
Speaker 1: maybe jeopardize its passage. You know, you could, and I
Speaker 1: don't really like uh attaching non related bills to something
Speaker 1: of this importance. This is a of critical importance to
Speaker 1: the fight in Ukraine against Russia. Russia, I mean, to
Speaker 1: to make it political is the wrong thing to do.
Speaker 1: If the COVID restrictions are code Aid package is put
Speaker 1: in there, I think you would have to put something
Speaker 1: related to the border, particularly Title forty two, that that
Speaker 1: will not be suspended, as the President has talked about
Speaker 1: doing Thomressman McCall. We've seen Congressman Adam Kinzinger introduce a
Speaker 1: Use of Military Force Authorization Bill for the idea of
Speaker 1: drawing a redline essentially of FODIM or putin word to
Speaker 1: use nuclear or chemical weapons. It would trigger or at
Speaker 1: least give the President the opportunity to use American troops
Speaker 1: on the ground. Is this a conversation that you're having
Speaker 1: on the Foreign Affairs Committee? Well, the Foreign Affairs Committee
Speaker 1: is the committee of jurisdiction that would produce an authorization
Speaker 1: of use of military force. We are having this debate.
Speaker 1: If they throw chemical weapons or short range tactical nukes
Speaker 1: into Ukraine, I think that completely changes a dynamic, you know,
Speaker 1: as to whether or not the world is gonna sit
Speaker 1: by highli and watch that happen without doing anything. I
Speaker 1: could be very hard to do that. I think we
Speaker 1: would have to respond in kind. And I think Mr
Speaker 1: Putine needs needs to know that that there are red
Speaker 1: lines he just can't cross. Congressman Michael McCall earlier today
Speaker 1: you can add his name then to members discussing this
Speaker 1: possibility of using American troops. And I'm glad today that
Speaker 1: we can add Max Bochus's voice to this. The former
Speaker 1: Democratic senator, former ambassador to China is with us right now.
Speaker 1: Mr ambassador, thank you for coming back to talk to
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg Radio. Should Congress approve the use of
Speaker 1: force authorization as leverage as they say that that draws
Speaker 1: the red line on weapons of mass destruction? Well, the
Speaker 1: president has authority already. Congress doesn't have to do it,
Speaker 1: But of course presidents would like Congress to enact legislation
Speaker 1: that gives them support national backing. Um, that's a that's
Speaker 1: a presidential call. He knows a situation. Zecutive branchtones a
Speaker 1: better frankly than to's Congress. But that's as good. Well,
Speaker 1: it should be on the table, and that's up to
Speaker 1: the president. Are you worried about that creeping closer to reality?
Speaker 1: The longer this goes on, people are not only outraged
Speaker 1: by the images that they are seeing. But the United
Speaker 1: States now seems to believe Ukraine can and needs to
Speaker 1: win this. Well, I don't know that we're going to
Speaker 1: have a clear win. I think it's it's going to
Speaker 1: be a resolution that where neither side thinks it's one
Speaker 1: totally certainly will not win totally. Um is stuff, he's strong. Um,
Speaker 1: he's a thug. You'll keep fighting as long as he can.
Speaker 1: And he's regrouping a bit in eastern Ukraine. So I
Speaker 1: don't think there'll be a total win. I think states
Speaker 1: that the United States wants to just cripple put In
Speaker 1: as much as possible make it less likely that he
Speaker 1: emerges again. Well, to the extent of crippling Russia. Here,
Speaker 1: should the House and sent it pass this Ukraine eate
Speaker 1: in a clean bill? I don't know if you heard
Speaker 1: Congress of McCall on that, or should Democrats attach COVID
Speaker 1: funding or border funding other things that are needed now,
Speaker 1: even if it means slowing things down a bit. Well, um,
Speaker 1: I think that COVID and Ukraine both are should be
Speaker 1: first urgently passed. But politics is politics, and sometimes members
Speaker 1: of converse have different points of view that is they
Speaker 1: want to UH pursue their own agenda. This case is
Speaker 1: the border issue, and that's leverage. And my guess is
Speaker 1: in the end of his some kind of accommodation UM,
Speaker 1: so that the two are passed. That is COVID in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: but something that's done about the border. We ask you
Speaker 1: about China, ambassador, have warnings by this administration made any
Speaker 1: difference in China's posture towards Russia or or is it
Speaker 1: getting worse. I don't think it's having much effect on
Speaker 1: China and China's China. China will do all that it
Speaker 1: wants to do for China. China straddling UM between helping
Speaker 1: Russia and looking like the world savior at least a broker.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, UM and frankly a, China finds
Speaker 1: that putents invasion of Ukraine is a big farm in
Speaker 1: their side, especially since he's not winning UM. And add
Speaker 1: to that, the Russian invasion Ukraine is causing huge economic
Speaker 1: dislocations around the world, which also affect in China. And
Speaker 1: so it's um. China will pursue its own economic reach
Speaker 1: as much as they can, but it's as us criticism
Speaker 1: of China is not gonna have much effect on China.
Speaker 1: You know, we heard today from General Petreas was speaking
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg TV and Radio on Balance of Power, and
Speaker 1: he was talking about the supply chain issues that are
Speaker 1: even impacting ambassador our ability to provide or refresh weapons
Speaker 1: systems for Ukraine and for ourselves. I think the White
Speaker 1: House sataday it takes two hundred semiconductors to make one
Speaker 1: javelin missile as the President prepares to visit that factory tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And Uh. Interestingly, a lot of this has to do
Speaker 1: with China because of the shutdowns that are impacting supply chainers,
Speaker 1: Petrea said, making things a little bit worse, or going
Speaker 1: back to where we were listening to what he said
Speaker 1: today on Bloomberg. The problem is, of course everyone is
Speaker 1: competing for the same elements in supply chains, a lot
Speaker 1: of these having to do with microchips again, uh, and
Speaker 1: other components that have been frustrated because of actions with
Speaker 1: zero COVID and China and a variety of other places
Speaker 1: around the world. So the supply chain disruptions that we
Speaker 1: saw in the earlier days of the pandemic are actually
Speaker 1: back to some degree right now, and there will be
Speaker 1: limitations to that, Ambassador. The the impact, as you just said,
Speaker 1: of China's COVID policy, almost the same as saying economic
Speaker 1: policy is impacting the global economy. How bad does this get?
Speaker 1: It's bad, Um, It's very bad in fact, and ironically
Speaker 1: it's showing to some degree we need China, we need
Speaker 1: each other. Um. Collateral damage here is that we're becoming
Speaker 1: more decoupled, and that means it's more difficult to get products,
Speaker 1: get supplies, materials. That means there's more inflation, and it's
Speaker 1: it means that we're much less efficient. Now. We want
Speaker 1: to protect ourselves against China. We need to protect our
Speaker 1: national security, but we also, I think, have to start
Speaker 1: look in China a different way. We have to realize
Speaker 1: that China is not going anywhere. It's a big country.
Speaker 1: It's economies not too many years down the road's gonna
Speaker 1: be large in ours. We just deal with China in
Speaker 1: a way where we're where we find some accommodations, but
Speaker 1: protecting ourselves at the same time. Well, boy, there's a
Speaker 1: lot there to consider here, as as this bill in
Speaker 1: Washington to better compete with China is being debated and
Speaker 1: moving very slowly here, and we sort of watched the
Speaker 1: conversation with China and Russia continue here with regard to
Speaker 1: the war, though the idea potentially of secondary sanctions is
Speaker 1: one that's come up also a lot on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: What would that mean for China's economy in a potential
Speaker 1: spring back on ours? Well, first, China's gonna do it
Speaker 1: I can to avoid secondary sanctions. It does not want
Speaker 1: them because that clearly will hurt their economy. Um, they're
Speaker 1: gonna just walk. They're gonna help rush up to the
Speaker 1: line where they where. Secretary sanctions are not impost, but
Speaker 1: if they were, of course China will probably retaliate. Um.
Speaker 1: It's difficult for Chinese to sit there and just take it. Um,
Speaker 1: they will retaliate. And that's another example of how there's
Speaker 1: gonna be more decoupling, and it means that we have
Speaker 1: to do a better job I think, and finding a
Speaker 1: new way to accommodate China and accommodate but to deal
Speaker 1: with China. The more in nined States moves towards a
Speaker 1: bipolar foreign policy towards China, the more it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a cold war, and the more that we're gonna have
Speaker 1: deeper economic geopolitical military problems. I think we have to
Speaker 1: start thinking about China new way. The President needs to
Speaker 1: meet with President She beyond a video call, I mean
Speaker 1: face to face. It takes more than a meeting. It's
Speaker 1: really a policy. It's a mindset um and it takes
Speaker 1: a lot of time. It takes building up first relationships.
Speaker 1: It takes much more communication between the US and China
Speaker 1: whole different, multitudinous, different number of ways. That's what it
Speaker 1: really does. He knows because he's been there. Ambassador. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Former Ambassador to China. Former Montana Senator Max Bauchus with
Speaker 1: us on the fastest hour in politics as we get
Speaker 1: things rolling on a Monday, Thanks as well to Congressman
Speaker 1: Michael McCall, the Republican from Texas, speaking to us from
Speaker 1: the Milk and Conference. We assemble the panel. Next. Genie
Speaker 1: is with us along with Adam Goodman. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. They're writing the bill
Speaker 1: now to fund more weapons for Ukraine to bring more
Speaker 1: humanitarian relief. As we heard from the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House today in Poland. You see Nancy Pelosi over the weekend.
Speaker 1: She's just offer trip to Kiev where she met in
Speaker 1: person with President Zelenski. Here she is today in Poland.
Speaker 1: We are already writing the bill for the thirty three
Speaker 1: billion dollars for weapons, for security, for humanitarian assistance, and
Speaker 1: for economic assistance for meeting. Though she did not go
Speaker 1: so far as Congressman McCall, Congressman Kinzinger, or for that matter,
Speaker 1: Democratic Senator Chris Coons, all of whom have said, we've
Speaker 1: got to start the conversation here. At least Kinsinger is
Speaker 1: going so far as to write the use of force
Speaker 1: authorization request. And we assembled our panel to talk this
Speaker 1: out a little bit here. Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst
Speaker 1: Jennie Schanzano is with us, of course, along with Adam Goodman,
Speaker 1: National Republican media strategist, columnist Edward R. Murrow, senior fellow
Speaker 1: at Tufts University's Fletchers School. Great to have both of
Speaker 1: you here, Genny. Is this chorus going to grow louder
Speaker 1: and maybe include more Democrats? Because it does seem like
Speaker 1: the longer it goes on, the more of a tug
Speaker 1: there will be despite what Max Bauchus just said, Chris
Speaker 1: Coon's has already suggested it, or we're going to have
Speaker 1: to get this on paper. You know, I actually agree
Speaker 1: with with Max Bochus that it doesn't need to be
Speaker 1: on paper. Congress doesn't need to do this. I believe
Speaker 1: the president has the authority to act if in that situation.
Speaker 1: But I also believe that Congress, if they feel strongly
Speaker 1: about this, and I do think more Democrats get on board,
Speaker 1: by the way, I do think it makes sense for
Speaker 1: them to move forward with this. I think more importantly, though,
Speaker 1: is the aid, and that's where I think they should
Speaker 1: focus their attention first is on getting the all the
Speaker 1: money that has needed over a humanitarian UH, support the economics,
Speaker 1: support the military aid, get that funded. Then they can
Speaker 1: do this because again I believe the presidents have this
Speaker 1: power to begin with. Anyways, Well, you know, it's interesting, Adam,
Speaker 1: because Kensinger specifically said as a deterrent, and that's been
Speaker 1: the idea here with Republicans, hope to frontload sanctions before
Speaker 1: there was ever an invasion. Is is there such a
Speaker 1: thing as that turrent with Vladimir Putin? Uh, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that we should test that. I mean, let's first
Speaker 1: talk about why is I mean, the Nancy Pelosi trip,
Speaker 1: by the way, was an incredible statement. I mean that's
Speaker 1: I didn't think I'd see that in my lifetime. She
Speaker 1: would make that kind of trip, go over and talk
Speaker 1: directly to um Zelinski and Kiev and talk to the
Speaker 1: people and talk to the leaders in Poland. That was
Speaker 1: a major mark. And you know why, Joe and Jenny
Speaker 1: do you know why? Because unlike Afghanistan, where you know,
Speaker 1: after the the we we took down as Sama ben Lauden,
Speaker 1: the incredibly the engagement continued, but beyond cob but we
Speaker 1: the Americans, couldn't name another American city. Ukraine is a
Speaker 1: made for TV social media war. It's a reality war,
Speaker 1: and we know the names of Kiev and odescent on.
Speaker 1: That's gonna Mario Paul and we're following it one day
Speaker 1: at a time, which is why Nancy Pelosi, uh and
Speaker 1: other Democrats are now starting to come over that fence
Speaker 1: and I think making making affirmative statements that we're gonna
Speaker 1: be there when it comes. Okay, well, you know, having
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi there, Uh is one thing, Jeanie, what does
Speaker 1: it actually change when she comes home to Washington, would
Speaker 1: she would she still attempt to attach COVID funding, border
Speaker 1: funding and so forth. If it means slowing down the bill,
Speaker 1: she should not. And you know, you heard your conversation
Speaker 1: with with Representative McCall was so telling, because, of course
Speaker 1: he said, if they attach COVID age, they're going to
Speaker 1: have to attach Title forty two, and right there you
Speaker 1: get into a political firestorm. So, you know, I hope
Speaker 1: and hope that it is a clean bill with just
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian funding, but I'm not optimistic it's going to be.
Speaker 1: And it's not just Nancy Pelosi's decision. Of course, She's
Speaker 1: got a big caucus to contend with, and there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a lot of pressure on her, you know, six
Speaker 1: months before a midterm election to get all of that
Speaker 1: in there, and I do think it would slow things up. Adam,
Speaker 1: what's your thought on the use of force authorization? Is
Speaker 1: it a distraction to have that conversation right now or
Speaker 1: something that lawmakers need to start preparing for. Well, I
Speaker 1: think I think America has to have that conversation to see,
Speaker 1: you know, how far we're willing to go uh to
Speaker 1: defend something that we thought had been settled, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: half a century ago. But the whole idea about you know,
Speaker 1: it's gonna feel different if he drops a nuke. That's
Speaker 1: just it's just going to be a different world. That's
Speaker 1: the point of it, all right. And and you know
Speaker 1: you've see the war planes and Russian war planes that
Speaker 1: are skirting with e U or airspace over the past
Speaker 1: few weeks, or they're testing our limits, and you know,
Speaker 1: none of us want to really get into that. But
Speaker 1: to Genie's point, and she's absolutely right, if this is
Speaker 1: the discussion in Washington will not be limited to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: The Republicans and others are gonna bring Title forty two
Speaker 1: and other things into play. Those are what are bedeviling
Speaker 1: the party in power right now, and those are coming
Speaker 1: to define the mid terms. And that's a massive political
Speaker 1: liability for President Biden at this point. Forget Congress for
Speaker 1: a minute here, Jeanie not being able to deliver that funding.
Speaker 1: But let's say they get deal clean or or otherwise.
Speaker 1: You heard Adam describe Genie what it meant for Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi to show up there. And she wasn't alone. Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff was there. Uh, Congressman McGovern was there other members
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party in this codel? Uh, what would
Speaker 1: it mean if Joe Biden showed up to deliver that funding?
Speaker 1: If they get this done on the hill. You know,
Speaker 1: I have been waiting for this moment, and I do
Speaker 1: think we will see that. Although we understand I do.
Speaker 1: I know that they have said it may not be safe,
Speaker 1: but I still feel like they're going to go. Although
Speaker 1: they did say there was some shelling just hours before
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi got on the ground there, so it is
Speaker 1: a dangerous and fraught situation. But I do think we
Speaker 1: do see him over there, because there were ten days
Speaker 1: where where Keith wasn't hit. So I think he goes
Speaker 1: over there, and he should go over there to deliver
Speaker 1: a funding bill that's clean, with the support that's needed
Speaker 1: and the British security assessment of how much damage has
Speaker 1: been done to the Russian uh Mille Terry amazing. I
Speaker 1: love this panel. Geanie and Adams, stay right where you are.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Thanks for being with us on sound On.
Speaker 1: As we turn to electoral politics, you know it's primary
Speaker 1: day tomorrow. It's gonna get busy this month. If you
Speaker 1: look at the calendar, some really important states are coming,
Speaker 1: including Georgia, Pennsylvania. Tomorrow it's Ohio we're watching with the
Speaker 1: headline on the terminal Trump script on GOP gets first
Speaker 1: test via JD Vance in Ohio primary. Did you say,
Speaker 1: j D Vance? Here's Donald Trump at the rally on
Speaker 1: Saturday night. You know, we've endorsed Dr Oz, We've endorsed
Speaker 1: JP great, j D Mandel? What and he's doing great.
Speaker 1: They're all doing good? Well they well, who's doing good?
Speaker 1: He endorsed J. D Vance, who's running against Josh Mandel
Speaker 1: and the president. Boy, I don't know, maybe they had
Speaker 1: a long conversation about which one we should go with.
Speaker 1: Here you think about one, the other name comes out.
Speaker 1: Now I'm talking Josh Mandel, who's actually you know, he's
Speaker 1: gone out of his way to to show himself wrapped
Speaker 1: in all things Trump. Get a taste of this campaign ad.
Speaker 1: Boys are boys and girls are girls. Black lives matter.
Speaker 1: They're the racists, not us. The Bible is a book
Speaker 1: of love, not if you agree with me, please join
Speaker 1: me in saving America. In saving America almost like it
Speaker 1: was written by the Trump campaign. And if you look
Speaker 1: at his stuff, I mean, check it out on social media.
Speaker 1: Look at his fundraising emails. He's with Trump at every turn.
Speaker 1: How about that, though, Let's grab every third rail in
Speaker 1: fifteen seconds and call it an ad. So it's been
Speaker 1: a heck of a little primary to watch here, and
Speaker 1: you know, because of the Trump endorsement. As we've told you,
Speaker 1: j d Vance comes from behind, and he's essentially tied
Speaker 1: in some recent polls within a point or two with
Speaker 1: j Mandel, and so there's going to have to be
Speaker 1: I'm assuming some pretty legitimate voter confusion going into this
Speaker 1: whole thing. But this is why we have Ryan take
Speaker 1: beckwith who joins us now Bloomberg National Politics reporter Ryan or.
Speaker 1: People are going to go into the polls voting for
Speaker 1: Josh Mandel because they thought Trump endorsed him. You know, Uh,
Speaker 1: he's the thing. This is a seven candidate race, and
Speaker 1: in Ohio primaries are determined by plurality. So I think
Speaker 1: that the person who wins the person who manages to
Speaker 1: find just that slightly bigger groups of people who like
Speaker 1: them then who don't like them. This is kind of
Speaker 1: our Trump actually weren't in the beginning of the Republican
Speaker 1: climate is back in Steen that he was he had
Speaker 1: a cord committed people who liked him. Now here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I don't think any of these seven people really have
Speaker 1: a court with people who like them. Um. All of
Speaker 1: them are wearing Trump suits. Um, but you know they
Speaker 1: don't if if not authentic. Uh. And I think it
Speaker 1: shows Jady Vance is the most kind of uh over
Speaker 1: the top. Here's the guy who used to you know,
Speaker 1: he's written for The Atlantic and written movies for Hollywood
Speaker 1: and and you know, now he's kind of done this
Speaker 1: when A D. Trump and a lot of the other
Speaker 1: Candia ads, they usually featured j D events in the past,
Speaker 1: and it's bad guy and now he's all in on Trump.
Speaker 1: And Joshona is similar. Parent it just it sounds like
Speaker 1: somebody basically just uh, you know, reading someone else's campaignac
Speaker 1: out loud um and uh. I think there may be
Speaker 1: an opening here. The Poles are you know, so uh
Speaker 1: Mahaky in his final days here, But there may be
Speaker 1: an opening for Mark Owen, who's kind of just stayed
Speaker 1: under the radar. And it could be that this is
Speaker 1: one of those primaries where the top two guys just
Speaker 1: blister each other with negative ads so much that the
Speaker 1: person who is sort of acceptable. Uh, somehow eats out
Speaker 1: of win. He's he's not nobody, He's a state senitor
Speaker 1: and he is his family owned the Slant Guardian. For
Speaker 1: some reason, Trump has banished him. But he's still very trumpy.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna just go ahead and live here and
Speaker 1: say that no matter who wins this primary, uh, Trump
Speaker 1: really one or whether Trump, whether the person he explicitly
Speaker 1: endorsed one or not, the person who went around voting
Speaker 1: him one or not is a guy who basically says,
Speaker 1: you know all the Trump says, and I like Trump
Speaker 1: and all, and you know, I voted from twice and
Speaker 1: I vote him again. But Ryan, we're having a little
Speaker 1: bit of trouble with your line here. It's uh just
Speaker 1: it's just the telecom God's I presume. But just before
Speaker 1: you leave us here, is it is it likely then
Speaker 1: where you're going with this is that either you have
Speaker 1: a come from behind uh surprise, or this goes to
Speaker 1: a runoff. There's no runoff, So whoever gets the plurality tomorrow, Uh,
Speaker 1: that's the winner. So that's that's where it's going to
Speaker 1: be really creasy, because this could be a person that
Speaker 1: seventy center of the voters voted against. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: so that's gonna be this should be a gimme for Republicans.
Speaker 1: But Democrats up a fairly strong candidate and Tim Ryan
Speaker 1: and you know this primary has been really, really bruising,
Speaker 1: and that they're going to come out of it with
Speaker 1: someone who may get you know, thirty one vote. So
Speaker 1: do you not feel like the Trump kingmaker status is
Speaker 1: on the line here. He's certainly trying to back off
Speaker 1: on those expectations. You know. I look at his endorsements,
Speaker 1: and a lot of his endorsements are people who are
Speaker 1: kind of you know, people are basically going to win already. Um,
Speaker 1: he's kind of tiding the numbers a little bit there.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have a great record of of picking the
Speaker 1: winning horse. Um. Getting back to his presidency, Uh, he
Speaker 1: had some troubles with you know, trying to decide who
Speaker 1: to back early in a race. I think that was
Speaker 1: one reason why he held off so long in this one. Um.
Speaker 1: And I don't know, I mean, I'm only that every
Speaker 1: when we read the t v's and try to say
Speaker 1: that his Trump power waning or waxing based on whether
Speaker 1: or not the candidate wins. But like I said, they're
Speaker 1: all basically seeing from the Trump uneral. So even if
Speaker 1: it's Matt Dolan who he's bashed, you know, it's still
Speaker 1: going to be a guy who's uh, says Trump Ekana, Ryan,
Speaker 1: thanks for the time, Ryan T. Beck with Bloomberg National
Speaker 1: Politics Reporter. Appreciate the insights. That's like the first time
Speaker 1: ever I mentioned on the air that the line was
Speaker 1: bad and it got better for a minute. Was that
Speaker 1: Verizon listening? As I read in Mark Niquette's piece on
Speaker 1: the terminal. Trump has also made endorsements in high stakes
Speaker 1: Republican Senate primary races in Pennsylvania. That's the seventeenth of May,
Speaker 1: and Georgia is the next. Several weeks are going to
Speaker 1: be heavy duty as we make our way into the
Speaker 1: real bulk of primary season. And that's where we'll pick
Speaker 1: up next. As we reassemble the panel. Genie is with
Speaker 1: us Jennie Chanzano. Today, Adam Goodman is here as on
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics, Charley will update the markets,
Speaker 1: will get you home with a look at traffic, and well,
Speaker 1: you know that's why you're here on Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. This is Bloomberg. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: As we reassemble the panel with Jeanie Chantano, Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Speaker 1: Democratic analysts, joined to day by Adam Goodman, Republican media strategist, columnist,
Speaker 1: and Edward R. Morrow, Senior Fellow at Tufts University's Fletcher School,
Speaker 1: following our conversation there with Ryan te beckwith about the
Speaker 1: primary tomorrow in Ohio. A Fox News polled last week.
Speaker 1: This is likely the most recent data we have showed.
Speaker 1: J d Vance had vaulted to the lead from third
Speaker 1: place following Donald Trump's endorsement, followed by the Afreman and
Speaker 1: Josh Mandel. Former Ohio treasurer and investment banker Mike Gibbons,
Speaker 1: State Senator Matt Dolan. Former Ohio Republican Party chairwoman Jane
Speaker 1: Timpkin trailed the leaders there, but a quarter of voters
Speaker 1: remained undecided, and so this is kind of interesting, Uh, Jeanie,
Speaker 1: your take on this as we go into really one
Speaker 1: of the most important primaries that we've had so far
Speaker 1: here that we're gonna get into a much more compressed
Speaker 1: schedule beginning with what happens tomorrow, and and the confusion
Speaker 1: that's out there between a number of candidates who are
Speaker 1: all trying to more quickly wrap themselves in Trump than
Speaker 1: the next guy. Yeah, and I'm so excited, Joe, as
Speaker 1: you know, thirteen states with primaries. It's election season, my
Speaker 1: favorite time of the year. Um And and so you know,
Speaker 1: I think one of the surprises and the latest polling
Speaker 1: by Trafalgar Group and that we've got some by Emerson, UM,
Speaker 1: is that Dolan is creeping up. But to your point,
Speaker 1: Vance is still about twenty six. You know, a quarter
Speaker 1: of the Republicans that have been um that have been
Speaker 1: responding to these polls. So it looks like the endorsement
Speaker 1: did help Vance a good amount m because he wasn't
Speaker 1: in the lead prior to that endorsement. But as you
Speaker 1: mentioned about a quarter of respondents saying they're undecided, and
Speaker 1: as you were just talking with Ryan, because this is
Speaker 1: a plurality, really this could be anybody's game, but you
Speaker 1: could have sevent of Republicans who vote not satisfied with
Speaker 1: who the candidate is. So it's going to be fascinating.
Speaker 1: You know. My take is that either way, Trump wins because,
Speaker 1: as you've pointed out, all of them have been running
Speaker 1: to the Trump except for Dolan. Well how about that?
Speaker 1: As it turns out here, Adam, you know we've seen
Speaker 1: Josh Mandel wrapped himself in Trump and try to make
Speaker 1: this a contest about, you know, the Trump purity test.
Speaker 1: If if I could put all I could put those
Speaker 1: three words together with a straight face. But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm where I'm going with this. They're trying to
Speaker 1: paint j. D Vance is kind of a fake Trumper
Speaker 1: because he didn't always say the nicest thing about him
Speaker 1: and in fact, will that be how this race has decided? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, when Josh Mandel's slogan is pro God,
Speaker 1: pro gun, and pro Trump, I think you pretty much
Speaker 1: know where he's coming from. And some might suggest it's not.
Speaker 1: I don't believe this. But even if the supposed club
Speaker 1: by Trump of the names of Vans and Mandel that
Speaker 1: some might say that was, that was brilliant because he
Speaker 1: wins either way. J d Vance, who's back by Peter TiAl,
Speaker 1: PayPal and Facebook, big buddy of the foreigner presidents, that's
Speaker 1: a big Trumper. Josh Mandel a big Trumper. So the
Speaker 1: I that's an iron The irony is that he kind
Speaker 1: of put them together. It's like it's like in the
Speaker 1: horse and the horse business, the horse race business, it's
Speaker 1: like you have an entry one A and one B right,
Speaker 1: one over one A. But Matt Dolan would be the spoiler.
Speaker 1: Matt Dolan, who comes from one of the richest families
Speaker 1: in Ohio. He was very involved in buying the Cleveland
Speaker 1: baseball team. Uh who said Biden legitimately one that would
Speaker 1: be a problem. But even with that said, if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump does not win in some of these endorsed situations,
Speaker 1: and everyone's gonna try to read into this, oh my god,
Speaker 1: he's he's falling, uh his report card, which is critical
Speaker 1: many things to a potential twenty four run. The reality
Speaker 1: is he could lose a few and blame it on
Speaker 1: the candidates or their campaigns are both and say it
Speaker 1: wasn't me, and he'll get fine with the nominees. So
Speaker 1: I think I think he's gonna come out of this
Speaker 1: looking very good. Dr Oz. You suggested in Pennsylvania ring
Speaker 1: against David McCormick and others. Another major test, like Jeanie
Speaker 1: I cannot wait where they were funning games to begin,
Speaker 1: and we won't have to wait long since Ohio is tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It's like Netflix just dropped the new series. You know,
Speaker 1: you've got one each week for the next three weeks
Speaker 1: to get really excited about here you guys. By the way,
Speaker 1: while we're talking, the White House announcing Joe Biden traveling
Speaker 1: to Ohio Friday May six, gonna be Cincinnati. Uh. In
Speaker 1: interesting timing. They're coming off of the contest. You know,
Speaker 1: the anatomy of political ads is always fascinating. We talked
Speaker 1: about the idea here of of of trying to make J. D.
Speaker 1: Vance look like less of a Trump supporter, and boy,
Speaker 1: the Club for Growth went for it, coming out hard
Speaker 1: against Vance. Uh. To be clear of the Club for
Speaker 1: Growth superpackets. Club for Growth Action, which endorsed Mandel in
Speaker 1: the primary, out with a new ad using some creative editing,
Speaker 1: and we kind of broke this up for you to
Speaker 1: get a sense of what we're talking about here. It
Speaker 1: uses tape from J. D. Vance being interviewed previously about
Speaker 1: Trump and Trump supporters. First listen to the bit in
Speaker 1: the ad and then we'll play you the actual source tape.
Speaker 1: Here's the ad from Club for Growth Action. People who
Speaker 1: voted for trumpeted form for racist reasons. Where does he
Speaker 1: get off saying that we've got our own eyes in
Speaker 1: our own ears. J D. Vance is a fraud. Okay,
Speaker 1: So people who voted for Trump did so for racist reasons.
Speaker 1: They've been they've been blasting out that clip. Here's the
Speaker 1: full statement from that interview where they got this from.
Speaker 1: Listen again to J. D. Vance. Some people who voted
Speaker 1: for Trump or racists, and they voted for him for
Speaker 1: racist reasons. I always resist the idea that the real
Speaker 1: thing driving most Trump voters was racial anxiety or racial animus,
Speaker 1: partially because I didn't see it right. I mean, the
Speaker 1: thing that really motivated people to vote for Trump, first
Speaker 1: in the primary and then in the general election was
Speaker 1: three words jobs, jobs, Jobs. So he's asked, if you
Speaker 1: know the racist thing was an issue, and he's actually
Speaker 1: explaining that it was not in his view. And now
Speaker 1: it's because of a very you know, careful edit there.
Speaker 1: It's it's he's saying exactly the opposite in this ad.
Speaker 1: And this is what politicians, of course love about. Uh
Speaker 1: editing and media and all the rest of it. And
Speaker 1: is this fair game, Genie? I mean, does this actually
Speaker 1: have an impact on what we're talking about here. Of
Speaker 1: Josh Mandel doesn't need a lot to win. You know,
Speaker 1: their their neck and neck, that's right. And the Club
Speaker 1: for Growth has been hitting Trump very hard in Ohio
Speaker 1: and you know they also and talking that ad about
Speaker 1: the fact that he endorsed Romney in and you know,
Speaker 1: they say, look how that turned out. You know, of course,
Speaker 1: Club for Growth really important in Republican conservative circles. And
Speaker 1: you know Trump's famously sent a profane message to the
Speaker 1: president with all of these attacks, but they have kept
Speaker 1: it up. You know, I think you know, the reality
Speaker 1: is when you look at the numbers, these ads do
Speaker 1: men do matter? Negative ads work, Positive ads don't work.
Speaker 1: I love the editing and the music they put behind it.
Speaker 1: It's classic um and you know, so it will likely
Speaker 1: have some impact. The question is going to be how much.
Speaker 1: And you know, the fascinating thing here is that you
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, they are within a margin of error
Speaker 1: depending on which poll you look at. And again we
Speaker 1: don't get a lot of polling in the state races,
Speaker 1: so it is very possible any one of these three
Speaker 1: from Vance, Mandel or Dolan can come up with the
Speaker 1: plurality in this case, and and that could really be
Speaker 1: up you know, big upset if it's Dolan. And you know,
Speaker 1: I have to laugh because I can't believe Adam just
Speaker 1: suggested that Trump would take you know, would would take
Speaker 1: credit regardless what happens. That doesn't sound like our former president.
Speaker 1: That would never happen. So connect the dots here a
Speaker 1: little bit, though, Adam, you heard us play Donald Trump
Speaker 1: from earlier, earlier this hour from the rally. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we can play that again from the rally
Speaker 1: on Saturday night where he screws up J. D Vance's
Speaker 1: name and actually calls him, you know, JP Mandel or
Speaker 1: something like that. You know, add that to this advertisement
Speaker 1: knocking J d Vance's uh, you know, prior statements about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Are they onto something? Does it work? I'm
Speaker 1: still smiling by what because of what Jeanie just said.
Speaker 1: Uh uh, let me let me put it this way.
Speaker 1: Never lets and I'm an ad maker, really, That's what
Speaker 1: I did in the business for a long time. My
Speaker 1: My response would be, never let the facts get in
Speaker 1: the way of great ad copy. There's that's what you
Speaker 1: saw in this act that when you've played out the
Speaker 1: real quote versus what was used. But the bottom line is,
Speaker 1: I you know, I hail from Florida, or at least
Speaker 1: over the last twenty five years. I was there in
Speaker 1: the beginning of the race for governor between Rhonda Santis
Speaker 1: UH and a very popular Adam Putnam. Putnam was up
Speaker 1: points midway through the primary. The president Um decides he's
Speaker 1: going to weigh in. He endorses Rhonda Santis. I'm being
Speaker 1: I'm interviewed on some panel and they said, what do
Speaker 1: you think that means? I said, it's over. He said,
Speaker 1: what do you mean? I said it's over. And Rhonda
Speaker 1: Santis went from twenty five down to winning by like
Speaker 1: twenty over a very popular mainstream conservative Republican. So with
Speaker 1: all that we've just talked about, do not enter undersk
Speaker 1: to made. The power is still don't bet against Inhio, Ohio.
Speaker 1: It may don't bet against Donald Trump in this primary,
Speaker 1: but we played it at the very beginning. Let's bring
Speaker 1: it back again. Here's Trump at the rally Saturday night.
Speaker 1: You got that justin. You know, we've endorsed Dr Oz,
Speaker 1: We've endorsed JP, right, J D. Mandel, and he's doing great.
Speaker 1: They're all doing good. JP is is actually well, Mandel
Speaker 1: is doing good. They're both doing good. Genie, is this
Speaker 1: just for people like us to hash around or or
Speaker 1: or is it remembered? Will that become its own ad
Speaker 1: after primary day if Mandel wins. You know, Democrats are
Speaker 1: loving the fact that Donald Trump is out. You know,
Speaker 1: the one thing we hear from Democrats is they're they're
Speaker 1: hoping Elon Musk gets this Twitter deal done and by
Speaker 1: October Trump is right back on there. The more he talks,
Speaker 1: the better for Democrats. So I bet we keep hearing
Speaker 1: more of this great talk with Genie and Adam Adam
Speaker 1: Goodman with us and Jeannie Chanzano our panel for the
Speaker 1: Monday edition of Sunda. We'll meet you back here tomorrow
Speaker 1: on primary day and a lot more to talk about.
Speaker 1: Get up early. I'll meet you on Bloomberg's surveillance tomorrow
Speaker 1: morning six o'clock. Until then, I'm Joe Matthew. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg