Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car
Speaker 2: Play and then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 2: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 2: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Keeping an eye on what's happening across the Swing States today,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump going to appear in Michigan and later on Wisconsin,
Speaker 3: while the Democratic ticket is wrapping up a second day
Speaker 3: of its best tour in Georgia. That's what Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: and Tim Wallas have been doing since yesterday. They will
Speaker 3: of course sit down later today, actually in about forty
Speaker 3: five minutes for an interview, the first big one they
Speaker 3: will have done since they became the Democratic ticket, on
Speaker 3: CNN Air at nine pm Eastern time. And then of
Speaker 3: course they will have a big rally in Savannah to
Speaker 3: wrap up their tour of the Peach State. And it
Speaker 3: comes at a time in which they are pulling better
Speaker 3: in the Peach stat or at least Harris is doing
Speaker 3: better than Biden was at the time that he dropped
Speaker 3: out of the race. So let's get into what's going
Speaker 3: down in Georgia and turn to that state. Someone very
Speaker 3: familiar with it, Andre Gillespie, is joining me from Emory University,
Speaker 3: where she is Associate political science professor. Andre. Always great
Speaker 3: to have you here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. When
Speaker 3: we consider this notion that Kamala Harris and Tim Walls
Speaker 3: are not just investing time and resources in Georgia, they're
Speaker 3: specifically going to more rural areas of the state that
Speaker 3: have a high concentration of black voters, is that is
Speaker 3: what actually is putting Georgia in play for them.
Speaker 4: Well, Georgia's in play because the public opinion polls suggests
Speaker 4: that Vice President Harris is doing better than President Biden
Speaker 4: was when he was the candidate. So Joe Biden could
Speaker 4: still make the claim that most polls had him within
Speaker 4: the statistical margin of error of Joe Biden of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Excuse me, but the trajectory was headed in the wrong direction,
Speaker 4: and it was very likely because there were some polls
Speaker 4: that were indicating it in June that there were going
Speaker 4: to be more polls where Donald Trump was going to
Speaker 4: be clearly ahead of Joe Biden, so statistically outside of
Speaker 4: double what the margin of error was. Since Kamala Harris
Speaker 4: has entered the race. There have been a couple of
Speaker 4: polls that have suggested that she's ahead, but all of
Speaker 4: these polls put Biden Harrison Trump within a couple of
Speaker 4: percentage points of each other, which is clearly a statistical tie.
Speaker 4: So that suggests that Georgia is still in play. Now
Speaker 4: that being said, Georgia still has more Republicans than Democrats
Speaker 4: in the state, and so if Kamala Harris wants to
Speaker 4: win the state, she's got to have a massive mobilization
Speaker 4: campaign that does better than Donald Trump's machine does and
Speaker 4: gets every possible Democratic voter out. And so what that
Speaker 4: means is you cannot just concentrate on Atlanta and think
Speaker 4: you've done your job. You've got to find Democratic voters
Speaker 4: wherever they are. And the truth is is that they're
Speaker 4: all over the state and Atlanta isn't the only blue
Speaker 4: spot in the state of Georgia.
Speaker 3: Well, and when we consider who those Democratic voters actually
Speaker 3: are who they might be, it is of course worth
Speaker 3: noting that Georgia does have one of the highest black
Speaker 3: populations of any state in the country. How much of
Speaker 3: what Harris needs to do is appeal to that demographic,
Speaker 3: specifically when they were not as supportive of Joe Biden
Speaker 3: it seemed in this cycle than they were in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you don't have strong support amongst African American voters,
Speaker 4: So that's not just in terms of vote choice the
Speaker 4: percentage of Black voters who support the Democratic ticket, but
Speaker 4: it's also in terms of voter turnout, you're dooming a
Speaker 4: failure because Black voters make up more than half of
Speaker 4: all Democratic voters in the state of Georgia. So you
Speaker 4: have to have that strong base of support and then
Speaker 4: you have to build on it. So that does include
Speaker 4: college educated liberals in the Metro Atlanta suburbs. That includes
Speaker 4: Latino voters who are spread across the state and might
Speaker 4: not necessarily be in the urban centers in the state.
Speaker 4: That includes Asian American voters in the suburbs. And so
Speaker 4: this idea that you have to campaign across the whole
Speaker 4: state and make sure that you overperform everywhere is going
Speaker 4: to be the ticket to Kamala Harris being able to
Speaker 4: win the state. If she can't do this, then she's
Speaker 4: not going to win the state.
Speaker 3: Well, so let's talk then about her opponent who could
Speaker 3: win the state. Donald Trump, of course, was within twelve
Speaker 3: thousand votes roughly of Joe Biden in twenty twenty, but
Speaker 3: ultimately lost it. Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, who
Speaker 3: has had some difficulty with his relationship with Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: or maybe it's Donald Trump who's having difficulty navigating the
Speaker 3: Kemp relationship on or give with down in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Brian Kemp is obviously a very popular figure in Georgia
Speaker 3: and that's born out in polling or seeing just today.
Speaker 3: How do we need to consider that relationship and what
Speaker 3: Donald Trump needs to do in regard to Brian Kemp
Speaker 3: to get those who might support him. Kemp, the governor
Speaker 3: in Georgia on Donald Trump's side.
Speaker 4: Well, the issue with Donald Trump's iire was is he
Speaker 4: was lashing out publicly against somebody whose political machine he
Speaker 4: needs in order to be able to win the state.
Speaker 4: And so many people argue that it was self defeating
Speaker 4: for Donald Trump to, you know, four years later and
Speaker 4: even too years after his own gubernatorial candidate lost to
Speaker 4: Brian Kemp in the primaries. It didn't make sense for
Speaker 4: Trump to continually attack Brian Kemp, who was a popular
Speaker 4: governor in the state, So we've seen a rap Prochmont.
Speaker 4: Brian Kemp is still a Republican. He's still probably going
Speaker 4: to support the Republican ticket regardless of what happens to
Speaker 4: in his relationship with Donald Trump. And many of us
Speaker 4: in Georgia think that he harbors higher political aspirations for
Speaker 4: the US Senate, so he wouldn't want to alienate the
Speaker 4: Trump base, who he's going to want to support him
Speaker 4: in a Republican primary. And so what we see here
Speaker 4: is just a pragmatic meeting of the minds. Brian Kemp
Speaker 4: is going to support Donald Trump, He's fundraising for him,
Speaker 4: and he's going to avail former President Trump of his
Speaker 4: mobilization operation. And again this is because whichever side does
Speaker 4: the best job of getting their people out is going
Speaker 4: to be the one to win. And so Republicans still
Speaker 4: have a margin in the state. They still have a buffer,
Speaker 4: but it's not as big as it used to be.
Speaker 4: So you cannot have lackluster turnout among Republicans and expect
Speaker 4: to be guaranteed a victory in the state in the
Speaker 4: way that you might have been able to bank on
Speaker 4: that twenty years ago.
Speaker 3: Well, I did catch up with Governor Kemp at the
Speaker 3: Republican National Convention in Milwaukee earlier this summer, who did
Speaker 3: make it clear that he is supporting Donald Trump, he
Speaker 3: wants him to win Georgia, but has said then and
Speaker 3: said repeatedly even now, that there is really no real
Speaker 3: path for Donald Trump to win if he doesn't win Georgia.
Speaker 3: How should we be considering the map here the way
Speaker 3: it has expanded andrette seems for Kamala Harris to some
Speaker 3: of these stun Belt states, Georgia inclusive, and how now
Speaker 3: that may shift strategies for both campaigns Trump included.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, so if we think about the wall,
Speaker 4: and we think about the seven competitive states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 4: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, the Sunbelt states actually
Speaker 4: contribute fewer electoral college votes to the margins, and so
Speaker 4: most analysts assume that Donald Trump has already banked about
Speaker 4: two hundred and nineteen electoral college votes, has sixteen of
Speaker 4: those votes, It shares second place in terms of being
Speaker 4: the largest share of votes of any of these remaining
Speaker 4: battleground states. So North Carolina is certainly in play. He
Speaker 4: would need both of those and Arizona and Nevada to
Speaker 4: be able to get over the hump to two hundred
Speaker 4: and seventy Electoral College votes. That's assuming that Kamala Harris
Speaker 4: wins the rust belt states. So you know, it's Donald
Speaker 4: Trump's path to victory will probably almost by necessity, require
Speaker 4: that he win five states. Pennsylvania is always going to
Speaker 4: be the plumb prize because it's the largest of those states.
Speaker 4: And if you win Pennsylvania, then if you win the
Speaker 4: larger states, you can take four of those states. But
Speaker 4: if Arizona's going to be part of this discussion then
Speaker 4: and if Nevada is going to be part of this
Speaker 4: discussion in terms of a must win state, that actually
Speaker 4: probably puts the probability of needing five states in order
Speaker 4: to be able to carry the math.
Speaker 3: Yeah, andre I caught up on this show yesterday with
Speaker 3: large from the co chair of the RNC who told
Speaker 3: me that she does see margins tightening in the state
Speaker 3: of Pennsylvania and they're considering investing more resources in that
Speaker 3: state as a result. I do want to talk as
Speaker 3: well before we let you go, Ondra, about the interview
Speaker 3: that Harrison Walls will be sitting down for together within
Speaker 3: the next hour will of course air this evening. What
Speaker 3: is it that Kamala Harris is going to need to
Speaker 3: most answer for in this interview for Georgia's and voter
Speaker 3: who may not yet be decided whether or not they
Speaker 3: want to vote for her, and frankly undecided voters in
Speaker 3: these key states across the board.
Speaker 4: Well, she's been attacked a lot about flip flapping on issues,
Speaker 4: so she's going to have to explain her evolution on issues,
Speaker 4: and it's going to have to be credible. The big
Speaker 4: thing that she's going to have to do is she's
Speaker 4: going to have to speak clearly and not make gaffs
Speaker 4: and present herself as relatable and ready to lead. You know,
Speaker 4: I think this is still very much going to be
Speaker 4: a campaign about vibes, in part because character, I think
Speaker 4: can be characterized as a vibe issue about how candidates
Speaker 4: are are going to make you feel, and so she's
Speaker 4: going to have to present that case as well. But basic,
Speaker 4: she's going to have to present herself as being able
Speaker 4: to handle tough questions, questions that she hasn't seen before,
Speaker 4: so that she can counter the Republican argument that she's
Speaker 4: slippery in that she's basically kind of you know, a
Speaker 4: shadow type of candidate who really has no substance behind her.
Speaker 3: Just really quickly. Andre obviously we hear a Bloomberg TV
Speaker 3: and radio want to focus on policy. Policy specifically is
Speaker 3: where our interest lies. And we're hoping maybe we'll get
Speaker 3: answers from Kamala Harris on some of that tonight. But
Speaker 3: is it going to be about policy in the selection
Speaker 3: or can someone actually win on vibes alone?
Speaker 4: You know, part of the issue with vibes is making
Speaker 4: sure that you're conveying empathy and that you understand the
Speaker 4: problems that the average American voter fases. And so you
Speaker 4: are going to have to name check issues. I think
Speaker 4: it becomes a question of how much detail do you
Speaker 4: need to be do you need to provide in order
Speaker 4: to be convincing, and so like, I don't necessarily know
Speaker 4: that all voters are going to be looking at white
Speaker 4: papers and they're going to be looking at the specificity
Speaker 4: of policies, but they do want to hear that you've
Speaker 4: thought about some issues and that you have some reasonable
Speaker 4: ideas for how to tackle those issues, and that you
Speaker 4: can communicate that effectively.
Speaker 3: All right, So maybe the vibes have to be justified.
Speaker 3: Andre Gillespie, Yes, always great to have me. Thank you
Speaker 3: so much for joining Associate political science professor at Emory University.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple CarPlay and
Speaker 1: then Roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio,
Speaker 3: where we are always keeping track of the latest polling,
Speaker 3: including a new poll that came out today from Fox
Speaker 3: News that looked specifically at the Sun Belt States. This
Speaker 3: was a poll done in the aftermath of last week's
Speaker 3: Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and after RFK Junior, of course,
Speaker 3: who was the third party candidate, suspended his presidential campaign
Speaker 3: and endorsed Donald Trump. And what this Fox poll finds
Speaker 3: in the Sun Belt is as follows. Kamala Harris up
Speaker 3: by one point in Arizona. In Georgia and Nevada, it's
Speaker 3: Harris up by two points. Donald Trump, however, is up
Speaker 3: by one point in North Carolina. Now I would note
Speaker 3: all of these figures are within the margin of error,
Speaker 3: but they still point to an incredibly tight race in
Speaker 3: some of these states that up until roughly six weeks ago,
Speaker 3: it looked like they were Donald Trump's to lose, as
Speaker 3: Joe Biden was pulling much more poorly than Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: is now in these states, including of course North Carolina,
Speaker 3: which also happens to be the home state of the
Speaker 3: co chair of the RNC and Trump's daughter in law
Speaker 3: Laura Trump. I talked to her about it yesterday.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, listen, North Carolina is definitely a state where
Speaker 5: we've seen some movement. It looked very positive for Donald
Speaker 5: Trump and whenever he was going against Joe Biden, it
Speaker 5: still shows Donald Trump up on Kamala Haras. But we
Speaker 5: want to make sure that we increase that lead, so
Speaker 5: we certainly aren't prepared to put more money into that state.
Speaker 3: So for more on the state of the race and
Speaker 3: the states in which more resources are being deployed by
Speaker 3: both campaigns, Our Political Panel joins me now Rick Davis,
Speaker 3: Stone Court Capital Partner, Republican strategist, and Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Speaker 3: together with Kristin Han, Democratic strategist and partner at Rock Solutions, Rick,
Speaker 3: I'll come to you on this first, as you obviously
Speaker 3: have plenty of experience deciding how to allocate resources. Is
Speaker 3: it North Carolina where Trump and the RNC need to
Speaker 3: think about spending more money? Is it Georgia where Harrison
Speaker 3: Walls are today? Is it all of the above, and
Speaker 3: how do they do that when they don't have the
Speaker 3: cash advantage right now?
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's a tricky situation for the Trump campaign. As
Speaker 6: you've been pointing out. This new Fox Bowl shows at
Speaker 6: eight point swing in a month to Harris from Trump,
Speaker 6: this is really bad news. One because trajectorily, they're on
Speaker 6: the wrong path. They're losing support rather than gaining support.
Speaker 6: And two, as has been mentioned in this broadcast already today,
Speaker 6: Georgia is critical to Trump's path to two seventy electoral votes,
Speaker 6: and so he's got the electoral vote math going fevershly
Speaker 6: right now because they're trying to figure out what could
Speaker 6: we string together in order to be able to find
Speaker 6: that magic two seventy and just a month ago, he
Speaker 6: was sitting on a pile of those options, and he
Speaker 6: probably had five or six ways of getting to that
Speaker 6: magic number when as for the sloot very few. So
Speaker 6: it's still very much focused on Pennsylvania. The Trump campaign's
Speaker 6: pouring resources into there. But the reality is, as you
Speaker 6: point out, Kayley, they can't compete dollar for dollar on TV,
Speaker 6: and so they've got to get Donald Trump out of
Speaker 6: mar Lago and onto the campaign trail where they can
Speaker 6: dominate the news media. You know, yesterday he had no
Speaker 6: campaign events, and so you know today he'll be traveling
Speaker 6: to a couple of the states Wisconsin, Michigan that are critical.
Speaker 6: But he can't take days off. They don't have that
Speaker 6: kind of optionality. They've got to focus him on doing
Speaker 6: more with less, and I don't see that strategy being
Speaker 6: employed right now.
Speaker 3: Well, on the subject of trying to do more, the
Speaker 3: Financial Times just reporting that JD. Vance, of course, Trump's
Speaker 3: running mate, is now urging Peter Tiel, of course, the
Speaker 3: tech billionaire who Vance has a long standing relationship with,
Speaker 3: to get off the sidelines and help bankroll his and
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's bid for the White House. So perhaps trying
Speaker 3: to inject some more funding into this give them more
Speaker 3: resources to compete across these states, Kristen, But just to
Speaker 3: come to you on kind of this same question. The
Speaker 3: same arguably goes for Kamala Harris to what extent should
Speaker 3: resources be invested most aggressively in the blue Wall Michigan
Speaker 3: and Wisconsin. Rick was just talking about Pennsylvania as well,
Speaker 3: and then how should she consider spending it in states
Speaker 3: that aren't necessarily must wins for her but might be
Speaker 3: nice to have.
Speaker 7: Well, I think that the path to victory, or the
Speaker 7: multiple paths to victory have really kind of expanded since
Speaker 7: Kamala took over the ticket. So you know, I think
Speaker 7: it's obviously extraordinarily important that that we invest in the
Speaker 7: blue Wall. I mean that just goes without saying. But
Speaker 7: if you're seeing states where we have an opportunity like Arizona, Nevada, Georgia,
Speaker 7: I think that with the influx of cash, we're able
Speaker 7: to go in and spend some resources there. And I'll
Speaker 7: also point to the you know, not only the the
Speaker 7: number of events campaign rallies that are all over the place,
Speaker 7: the infrastructure that was originally set up by the Biden
Speaker 7: campaign is really unprecedented in a lot of these states.
Speaker 7: So that'll be we call it, you know, boots on
Speaker 7: the ground, people knocking on doors is going to be
Speaker 7: really important in these states, and I know the campaign
Speaker 7: is investing heavily in that as well.
Speaker 3: There's also demographics I want to talk about here. In
Speaker 3: this Fox poll in the sun Belt, they find that
Speaker 3: Harris is receiving seventy nine percent support among Black voters
Speaker 3: and fifty six percent among Hispanics. And there's also a
Speaker 3: separate poll out today from USA Today and Suffolk University,
Speaker 3: which is a national poll, so we have to keep
Speaker 3: that in mind. But of likely voters, that finds nationally
Speaker 3: Harris is up on Trump forty eight to forty three percent.
Speaker 3: But the demographics are fascinating. With Hispanics, they went from
Speaker 3: supporting Trump by two points to supporting Harris by sixteen points.
Speaker 3: For Black voters, they move from supporting Biden by just
Speaker 3: forty seven points to Harris now by sixty four points.
Speaker 3: The spread in Black voters between Harris and Trump seventy
Speaker 3: six to twelve percent. Kristen, what is that signal to you?
Speaker 7: I mean, it's signals very good things for the Democrats.
Speaker 7: We know that, you know, the black voters have always
Speaker 7: played a critical world, particularly black women voters, in taking
Speaker 7: us over the finish line. You just have to look
Speaker 7: back four years to the last presidential election between Trump
Speaker 7: and Biden to see that that is true. So I think,
Speaker 7: you know, this is where you've seen the campaign also
Speaker 7: with the younger voters prioritizing talking to content content creators
Speaker 7: because they realize that people are getting their news from
Speaker 7: all different kinds of sources, not just network television. So
Speaker 7: you know, it's an interesting dynamic one that is positive
Speaker 7: for the Democrats. And I think that, you know, I
Speaker 7: think Coach Wallace said at the convention that was right.
Speaker 7: I mean, it was anecdotal. He was talking about, you know,
Speaker 7: driving down the field, we're down.
Speaker 4: By a.
Speaker 7: Field goal, about needing to persist that that's going to
Speaker 7: be really important going forward. Rick.
Speaker 3: If Donald Trump wants to arrest the swing back toward
Speaker 3: Harris that voters of color seem to have underway right now,
Speaker 3: how should he do so? What is the message that
Speaker 3: actually matters to these groups? Obviously neither of them are
Speaker 3: a monolith that should go said, But how could he
Speaker 3: reach back out to them and get the support that
Speaker 3: he was gaining when Biden was still the Democratic.
Speaker 6: Nominee and he's still got to appeal to them on
Speaker 6: economic factors. We know from the focus groups that we've
Speaker 6: seen all throughout this election that especially young black men,
Speaker 6: felt like they had more disposable income in the four
Speaker 6: years of Donald Trump's presidency than they've had in the
Speaker 6: Biden presidency. He's got to keep hammering home those economic
Speaker 6: message to that group specifically. And look, I mean, Kamala
Speaker 6: Harris still doesn't have the numbers that Joe Biden had
Speaker 6: on election Day in twenty twenty. Right, this is a
Speaker 6: big shift back to the Democratic base for a lot
Speaker 6: of these voters. But she is still subpar when it
Speaker 6: comes to the winning margins that Joe Biden had. And
Speaker 6: of course we know he only won by a fraction
Speaker 6: of a percentage point most of these states where he
Speaker 6: declared victory. So this is still an incredibly close election.
Speaker 6: And I do think that the Trump campaign is posed
Speaker 6: with a real dilemma, which is do we go after
Speaker 6: those persuadable young men African American who lives in ex
Speaker 6: verbs without college educations, or do we try and pump
Speaker 6: up our white vot boy vote in rural America and
Speaker 6: try to do that as an offset. And of course
Speaker 6: that's what you see playing out today in Georgia with
Speaker 6: the southern swing by the Harris campaign trying to arrest
Speaker 6: that ability, to let them pump up their numbers in
Speaker 6: the rural areas.
Speaker 3: Well Rick to drill down on the idea that it
Speaker 3: is the economy that ultimately is going to matter most
Speaker 3: for these groups. She obviously is going to have a
Speaker 3: chance to speak to her ideas of how to better
Speaker 3: their economic circumstances in this interview on CNN, which she
Speaker 3: set to sit down along with Tim Walls with Dana
Speaker 3: Bash about fifteen minutes from now. It's scheduled to be
Speaker 3: recorded at one forty five pm, even though we won't
Speaker 3: actually see it until nine pm Eastern. When we consider
Speaker 3: the economic messaging that she's putting out there, these ideas
Speaker 3: about the middle class, about doing or to address housing
Speaker 3: affordability and price gouging, are those ideas that can resonate
Speaker 3: with American voters without them being explained in actually a
Speaker 3: fiscally responsible sense, without talking about the way in which
Speaker 3: that may add to inflationary dynamics, or whether or not
Speaker 3: any of these things are realistic without Congress. How much
Speaker 3: of that does she need to do or are the
Speaker 3: broad strokes enough.
Speaker 6: It always helps if these kind of proposals are realistic.
Speaker 6: But at the end of the day, she is doing
Speaker 6: something different than what Joe Biden did in his campaign,
Speaker 6: which brand the economy in general as Bynomics. It was big.
Speaker 6: You couldn't get really a fix on what he was
Speaker 6: talking about. There was all this discussion about growth and
Speaker 6: our position in the world being an advantage, and nobody understood, like,
Speaker 6: how does that affect me? So I do think one
Speaker 6: of the tactics that they Harris campaign has taken is
Speaker 6: with this housing idea, is to say, look, we're actually
Speaker 6: going to affect you personally. We're going to give you
Speaker 6: extra cash to buy a house. We're going to give
Speaker 6: you more pressure on lending agencies to put money into
Speaker 6: the system. I mean, in other words, they're taking a big,
Speaker 6: amorphous economic improvement that Biden was claiming and saying, here's
Speaker 6: something that's very specific that you could literally put in
Speaker 6: your bank account if we're able to put my policies
Speaker 6: into effect. And that's where it sort of crosses the
Speaker 6: you know, do you have enough votes in Congress to
Speaker 6: do something like that? Here, so enough money in the
Speaker 6: federal budget for it? I mean, you're not going to
Speaker 6: answer any of those questions till after election day, so
Speaker 6: you know, it is a tactic. It'll be interesting to
Speaker 6: see how they parse that out in this interview today
Speaker 6: with CNN. I have no doubt that will be part
Speaker 6: of the discussion. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 6: that is her ability to then go local, which is
Speaker 6: what they need to do to be able to communicate
Speaker 6: economic terms to voters.
Speaker 3: And Kristen finally, we just have a minute left, But
Speaker 3: what is the toughest question Vice President Harris could asked today.
Speaker 7: I think that the tough things to address or are
Speaker 7: going to be around immigration, just because and I'm not
Speaker 7: saying it's anything that she has done, but it's where
Speaker 7: we know that the attacks have really landed on in
Speaker 7: the Democrat you know, for the Democratic Party by Republicans.
Speaker 7: So I think that that's something but they'll be prepared.
Speaker 7: They have been speaking about it very clearly. But that
Speaker 7: is something you know that that's a major issue that
Speaker 7: we're going to have to address.
Speaker 3: All right. Kristin Han, partner at Rock Solutions, and Rick Davis,
Speaker 3: partner at Stone Cord Capital, thank you both so much
Speaker 3: for joining me here today. It's worth pointing out Kristen's
Speaker 3: in Vegas, So maybe some gambling going on. Rick has
Speaker 3: an arcade in the basement or wherever he is. You
Speaker 3: guys are certainly having fun on this Thursday, but thank
Speaker 3: you for spending some time with me here on Balance
Speaker 3: of Power. We still have much more ahead. We'll be
Speaker 3: joined by Brett Brun of the Global Situation Room next
Speaker 3: to take a look at what's happening in the Middle East.
Speaker 3: So don't go far. This is Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and
Speaker 2: then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 2: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 2: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Wet out past our eyes toward the Middle East as
Speaker 3: Israel's military operation in the West Bank continues, the IDF
Speaker 3: saying today that it's killed five gunmen at a hideout
Speaker 3: in a mosque in the West Bank, and Israel's foreign
Speaker 3: minister has said some of the operations there could require
Speaker 3: the evacuation of Palestinian civilians. He went on to say
Speaker 3: that all of this action is in response to an
Speaker 3: Iranian effort to quote establish an Eastern Terror Front. The
Speaker 3: idea that Israel has now gone into the West Bank,
Speaker 3: perhaps preemptively, if they are to be believe, is something
Speaker 3: I discussed last night on Balance of Power with former
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and this is what he
Speaker 3: told me.
Speaker 8: The Israelis have made it clear they're not going to wait.
Speaker 8: They're preempt whenever they can. My hope is they don't
Speaker 8: adopt the same plan of making a desert and calling
Speaker 8: it peace. They're simply level all of the infrastructure in
Speaker 8: the West Bank and say now we have peace. I
Speaker 8: don't think that will work. I think they'll all be
Speaker 8: more specific in their targeting.
Speaker 3: So let's get another take now, and please to say
Speaker 3: joining me here in our Washington, DC studio as Brett Bruin.
Speaker 3: He is president of the Global Situation Room and also
Speaker 3: former Director of Global Engagement at the White House during
Speaker 3: the Obama administration. Brett, great to see you. When we
Speaker 3: consider what we're seeing happen in the West Bank, how
Speaker 3: do you read this move on the part of Israel.
Speaker 3: What does this signal about the way they feel or
Speaker 3: the status they feel is the war in Gaza right now?
Speaker 3: If they're shifting their energies elsewhere.
Speaker 9: Well, I think it's important to take into account Kley,
Speaker 9: that they are trying to preempt They're trying to disrupt
Speaker 9: efforts by Iran to retaliate for the assassination of a
Speaker 9: important Hamas leader on Iranian territory. And so what you've
Speaker 9: seen in Lebanon, what you're seeing now in the West
Speaker 9: Bank are pretty precision efforts to try and go after
Speaker 9: the different access that Iran has to strike back against Israel.
Speaker 9: And I think it is important to take into account
Speaker 9: that what we have seen over the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 9: the last couple of days has actually been pretty precision
Speaker 9: in its effort. At the same time, obviously, the collateral
Speaker 9: consequences could be significant if this operation expands well, and
Speaker 9: so when.
Speaker 3: We consider the collateral consequences, obviously that is why there
Speaker 3: has been such uproarly here at home over Israel's ongoing
Speaker 3: conduct in Gaza in the war with Hamas. How are
Speaker 3: these things related? If this really is just about preempting Iran,
Speaker 3: does it have anything to do with that ongoing conflict.
Speaker 3: I guess it's not entirely possible to separate them.
Speaker 9: It's not entirely possible to separate them, and yet I
Speaker 9: think it is actually an effort that is distinct from
Speaker 9: what we are seeing take place in Gaza. So it
Speaker 9: is important on the one hand to understand they are interrelated,
Speaker 9: and yet in Israel's mind, they are working very assiduously
Speaker 9: to try and protect civilian lives to preempt that attack
Speaker 9: by whether it is the likes of Hesbala, whether it's
Speaker 9: the likes of Iranian backed extremist groups in the West Bank.
Speaker 9: I think all of this ought to create a greater
Speaker 9: sense of urgency on the part of the international community,
Speaker 9: but especially on the part of regional allies, to intervene
Speaker 9: to work towards pressuring both Israel and Hamas towards the ceasefire.
Speaker 9: Ideal time is of the essence well.
Speaker 3: And much time has been spent in that effort Brett,
Speaker 3: and it's yielded nothing. Yet we continually get the Biden
Speaker 3: administration and various officials saying that we're getting closer. Israel
Speaker 3: has agreed that they do think they're closer than ever before,
Speaker 3: and yet nothing has come to fruition, if not.
Speaker 9: Now, when And as a recovering diplomat, I can say
Speaker 9: that is one of the tried and true tactics. You
Speaker 9: you know, publicly project we are getting close. You add
Speaker 9: that element of press and public pressure to say we
Speaker 9: need to get this thing done. And yet time and
Speaker 9: time again, I have said it multiple times and Bloomberg,
Speaker 9: it felt like we were close, We were at the
Speaker 9: five yard line. And yet the funny thing about these
Speaker 9: kind of negotiations is you can be at the five
Speaker 9: yard line, you get a penalty, and you go back
Speaker 9: another ten yards.
Speaker 3: So is this over optimism or being disingenuous?
Speaker 9: I think quite frankly, it is a degree of optimism
Speaker 9: on the part of the Biden administration that really really
Speaker 9: wants this deal. But you know, on the other hand,
Speaker 9: things happen. All you know, of the events of the
Speaker 9: last year have shown how whether it's Iran, whether it's
Speaker 9: the likes of Hamas has Blot itself or other actors,
Speaker 9: the Russians, we have seen factors and events overtake the
Speaker 9: best laid plans and that you know consistently has disrupted
Speaker 9: efforts at trying to push us closer to that deal.
Speaker 9: And obviously Netnyahu himself has his own designs on power.
Speaker 3: Well, that's very true. There's domestic pressures on him to consider.
Speaker 3: I do want to talk more about Iran, though not
Speaker 3: just because we are still awaiting potential direct Iranian retaliation
Speaker 3: against Israel, but also because the UN's nuclear watchdog said
Speaker 3: today that Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium
Speaker 3: enriched to near weapons grade levels. Brett, how concerned should
Speaker 3: we be by that news.
Speaker 9: I think we ought to be concerned. We also ought
Speaker 9: to remember that it didn't have to be this way,
Speaker 9: and that by pulling out of the JCPOA, the Iran
Speaker 9: Nuclear Deal, what former President Trump did was effectively set
Speaker 9: the clock ticking towards Iran restarting those programs and getting
Speaker 9: to weapons grade uranium. Which is this ought to be
Speaker 9: a five alarm fire that is sounding in foreign capitals
Speaker 9: around the world because the notion that not only Iran,
Speaker 9: that Iranian proxies and other countries could have access to
Speaker 9: weapons grade uranium is really, really dangerous, and it ought
Speaker 9: to push us towards and tonight we'll wait and hear
Speaker 9: from Vice President Harris in terms of what her foreign
Speaker 9: policy will be, but it ought to push us back
Speaker 9: to the negotiating table, not just for a ceasefire with Hamas,
Speaker 9: but also a return to the JCPOA.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad you raised that interview. She's going to
Speaker 3: be sitting down for it. In fact, she might already.
Speaker 3: It was scheduled to begin at one forty five Eastern.
Speaker 3: How does she need to address the Middle East? What
Speaker 3: kind of policy do you hope she says.
Speaker 9: She'll pursue one that is distinct from Biden.
Speaker 3: It is impass so there will be some daylight between them.
Speaker 9: There absolutely needs to be both her domestic political consumption,
Speaker 9: but also for the foreign policy necessity. I think our
Speaker 9: allies as well as our adversaries need to hear from
Speaker 9: her that she is going to deviate when it comes
Speaker 9: to issues like Israel. She's going to deviate when it
Speaker 9: comes to issues like how she handles major challenges afghan withdrawal. Obviously,
Speaker 9: just having marked the third anniversary, she can project a
Speaker 9: different policy from Biden. I think one thing that's important
Speaker 9: for observers is we need to see a different team
Speaker 9: in place. This cannot be the same figures that governed
Speaker 9: foreign policy over the last three and a half years.
Speaker 3: Well, because you raise Afghanistan withdrawal, obviously, Donald Trump has
Speaker 3: been making a big deal out of that. This week,
Speaker 3: as we mark three years since that happened, he was
Speaker 3: in Virginia on Monday paying tribute to the thirteen service
Speaker 3: members who died in the suicide bombing there. How should
Speaker 3: we be considering the role of the vice president in that,
Speaker 3: because he has put a lot of blame on Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris for the chaotic nature of that withdrawal to what
Speaker 3: extent is it deserved.
Speaker 9: I've sat in the situation room with then Vice President Biden,
Speaker 9: and quite frankly, the vice president doesn't hold a whole
Speaker 9: lot of sway over these major foreign policy decisions. Yes
Speaker 9: they have a voice, but they are one voice of many.
Speaker 9: The Defense Secretary, the Secretary of State, the director of
Speaker 9: the CIA, all of those, quite frankly, hold greater weight
Speaker 9: than the vice president, and Vice President Harris has not
Speaker 9: played a major role on foreign policy. Now, obviously that's
Speaker 9: also going to be a criticism that Trump and his
Speaker 9: allies are going.
Speaker 3: To level what are the qualifications?
Speaker 9: Well, that's true, and yet she's had the benefit of
Speaker 9: three and a half years of working on these issues,
Speaker 9: and that is some of the best training that you
Speaker 9: can get in the situation room. I think quite Frankly,
Speaker 9: her service during the last three and a half years,
Speaker 9: her interaction with international leaders is far better preparation than jd.
Speaker 9: Vance will have gotten, you know in his short tenure
Speaker 9: in the Senate.
Speaker 3: Fair enough, he was just elected two years ago. On
Speaker 3: the subject of Harris's experience, this is actually we heard
Speaker 3: Jake Sullivan addressing this in his trip to China this week.
Speaker 3: The National Security Advisor, of course, talked about how Harris
Speaker 3: is prepared, that she's interfaced which Chinese leaders before, but
Speaker 3: also seem to signal that she will bring continuity when
Speaker 3: it comes to China policy from what the Biden administration
Speaker 3: policies have been. Will there be daylight between the two
Speaker 3: of them on this issue.
Speaker 9: I don't think so, because quite frankly, it has been
Speaker 9: a successful policy, and it also is the continuity from
Speaker 9: a Trump policy which has been pretty hard when it
Speaker 9: comes to sanctions, tariffs, and just an overall more aggressive
Speaker 9: stance towards Beijing that tries to get the messages across
Speaker 9: deshijingping to others in China that the US is done
Speaker 9: with being pushed around. We had that for too many
Speaker 9: years on an economic front. On a political front, we're
Speaker 9: seeing the consequences of it in the sounds China see
Speaker 9: with these literal crashes between Chinese Coastguard vessels and the
Speaker 9: Philippines Navy or even just maritime vessels. It has got
Speaker 9: to stop. And I think what we're seeing in signals
Speaker 9: from Beijing is that they are ready to turn the
Speaker 9: page on this because obviously the pressure has started to
Speaker 9: mount domestically on Chijingping.
Speaker 3: Do you think Beijing would prefer the outcome of a
Speaker 3: Harris presidency or second Trump one?
Speaker 9: You know, it's interesting, Beijing likes predictability, they like stability.
Speaker 9: I think that Harris will be tough, but she will
Speaker 9: be predictable. So that is not to say that she's
Speaker 9: going to go any easier. The challenge with Trump, and
Speaker 9: this is important I think to bear in mind. I
Speaker 9: was just in London last week talking with your colleague Crity,
Speaker 9: and one of the questions that came up is, isn't
Speaker 9: you know Trump better for business? The problem with Trump
Speaker 9: in business is you don't know what he's going to
Speaker 9: do from one minute to the next, from one ex
Speaker 9: post or truth social post to the next. And I think,
Speaker 9: especially on the foreign policy front, foreign leaders came to
Speaker 9: understand that at least there were some guardrails. There were,
Speaker 9: you know, the likes of Chairman Miley, There were the
Speaker 9: likes of the former Secretary of Defense under Trump, Mark Esper.
Speaker 9: All of these were figures who they could guarantee were
Speaker 9: going to be an emergency break on Trump's know more
Speaker 9: ill considered tendencies. They're not going back into a Trump
Speaker 9: administration by all accounts, and so we find ourselves in
Speaker 9: much riskier territory and a lot of foreign leaders right
Speaker 9: now are trying to figure out who would be a
Speaker 9: Secretary of State, who would be a Secretary of Defense,
Speaker 9: and the options up there aren't great ones.
Speaker 3: Do you have an idea of who the options might
Speaker 3: be for Kamala Harris?
Speaker 9: Well, you know, it's interesting. I think Harris would and
Speaker 9: should lean more on experienced diplomats. We ought to see
Speaker 9: folks who have spent time in multiple foreign tours, because
Speaker 9: you know, at the moment, with wars in Ukraine, wars
Speaker 9: across Gaza, and risks around the world, this is not
Speaker 9: the time for amateur ambassadors. This is not the time
Speaker 9: for somebody who donated a lot to a political campaign
Speaker 9: becoming the ambassador to London or Berlin. We need folks
Speaker 9: who have the requisite experience, who understand the sophistic cat
Speaker 9: kind of strategies that have to be deployed right now.
Speaker 9: That's not what we saw all the time from Biden.
Speaker 9: We saw, unfortunately, a reversion to a lot of those
Speaker 9: old political party favors that were being handed out. And
Speaker 9: quite frankly, friends who still are at the State Department,
Speaker 9: who still serve on the National Security Council have said
Speaker 9: there were too many of these political appointees, and I
Speaker 9: think it was an effort, if you will, at trying
Speaker 9: to mark a departure from the Trump administration. Harris needs
Speaker 9: to go back to some of that institutional knowledge and
Speaker 9: experience within our national security structure.
Speaker 3: I've got a minute left. Would you join a Harris administration?
Speaker 9: I would not. I have served my time over twelve years.
Speaker 9: I'm not looking for another stint in government.
Speaker 3: A right, fair enough, Brett Bruin, of course, now with
Speaker 3: the Global Situation Room where he is president. Thank you
Speaker 3: so much.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play
Speaker 1: and then roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 2: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 2: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Balance of Power, where we're keeping tabs
Speaker 3: on domestic politics, but geopolitics this week as well, especially
Speaker 3: as US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is wrapping up
Speaker 3: his three day trip to China. He actually met on
Speaker 3: his final day with Chinese President Xijinping, the first time
Speaker 3: those two have met one on one, and it set
Speaker 3: the stage for a call between President and She and
Speaker 3: President Biden that they say could happen in the coming weeks.
Speaker 3: This is, of course, as the two countries work to
Speaker 3: keep relations stable ahead of the presidential election, when, of
Speaker 3: course a new president will be chosen and potentially China
Speaker 3: policy could change when one is now. Jake and did
Speaker 3: say today that Kamala Harris has experienced dealing with Chinese leadership,
Speaker 3: saying that she would continue the China policy implemented by Biden,
Speaker 3: or at least signaling that. And then, of course there's
Speaker 3: Donald Trump to consider, who has threatened to sixty percent
Speaker 3: tariffs on all Chinese exports, and his China policy is
Speaker 3: included in a new piece in Foreign policy. It's authored
Speaker 3: by Gabriel Shyman, executive director of the Alexander Hamilton Society,
Speaker 3: who writes, and this is a quote, the strength of
Speaker 3: the US economy would give Trump the leverage to strike
Speaker 3: the free and the fair and reciprocal trade deal he seeks,
Speaker 3: going on to say those dynamics may lead to a
Speaker 3: far broader trade war with and decoupling from China. And
Speaker 3: pleased to say, Gabriel is joining me now for more
Speaker 3: so we have seen this administration, Gabriel, and welcome to
Speaker 3: balance of power. It's great to have you take pains
Speaker 3: to not say decoupling, to talk about diversifying or friend shoring,
Speaker 3: but not decoupling. Isn't decoupling a dangerous thing?
Speaker 10: Thank you for having me. No, it's not a dangerous thing.
Speaker 10: I think what's actually a lot more dangerous is continuing
Speaker 10: on the autopilot of policies that we are right now
Speaker 10: and have been for nearly forty years. I think that
Speaker 10: you can use different words for decoupling, diversifying, near shoring, offshoring,
Speaker 10: French wearing, whatever it is. But I think at the
Speaker 10: end of the day, the Chinese government does not play fair.
Speaker 10: A number of its trade deals, and it's sought to
Speaker 10: establish leverage over the American economy American society in a
Speaker 10: lot of ways. And one of the things not only
Speaker 10: the first Trump administration a putative sequent and to some degree,
Speaker 10: I think the Biden administration as well, is how do
Speaker 10: they deleverage, how do they make it enact policy in
Speaker 10: such a way where the US economy is not under
Speaker 10: the thumb of the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 3: Well, but couldn't that make the US economy once again
Speaker 3: under the thumb of inflation if you do have a
Speaker 3: decoupling from such a major trade partner where cheaper goods
Speaker 3: do tend to come from, and if you have high
Speaker 3: tariffs on those exports that are still coming to the US,
Speaker 3: all that raises costs.
Speaker 10: Right, Yeah, unquestionably. And I think you've seen both the
Speaker 10: bid administration and then the Trump campaign now talking about
Speaker 10: how actually it doesn't raise costs.
Speaker 1: That's just not true.
Speaker 10: It absolutely will raise costs on the cost of good
Speaker 10: in the United States and ultimately possibly on the cost
Speaker 10: of living as well. The flip side of that, though,
Speaker 10: is what are you giving up in return? And here
Speaker 10: the idea is the concern is that for national security reasons.
Speaker 10: Where we are not able to control the supply chains
Speaker 10: of core components for our military, we're not able to
Speaker 10: have full control and supply chains of core components for
Speaker 10: our pharmaceuticals. I think people remember during the early days
Speaker 10: of COVID, how there was a mask shortage in the
Speaker 10: United States and lo and behold, something like seventy percent
Speaker 10: of the mask were being produced in China. And so
Speaker 10: these are bargaining chips that they have used and leverage
Speaker 10: against us in important situations. And so while it may
Speaker 10: indeed cause an increase in prices for quite a number
Speaker 10: of American household goods, especially if Donald Trump wins and
Speaker 10: pursues the pretty large tariff policies talking about on China,
Speaker 10: the flip side of that is also be able to
Speaker 10: reclaim a sense of kind of national independence and national
Speaker 10: sovereignty and a lot of these issues.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 3: On this notion of sovereignty, it is worth noting that
Speaker 3: it's not just the economic considerations when it comes to
Speaker 3: the China relationship to talk about here, but more geopolitical
Speaker 3: ones as well. For example, Donald Trump did an interview
Speaker 3: with some of my colleagues in a Bloomberg Business Week
Speaker 3: piece earlier this summer, suggesting he thinks Taiwan should be
Speaker 3: paying the US for any defense. How do you expect
Speaker 3: policy when it comes to Taiwan and the South China
Speaker 3: Sea and all these kind of territorial disputes could be
Speaker 3: handled differently under a Trump administration.
Speaker 10: Well, it's a good point. I mean, it is important
Speaker 10: to note that it was actually under the Trump administration
Speaker 10: the first term where American policy did Taiwan flourished. I mean,
Speaker 10: they caused it, ruffled a lot of feathers. But then
Speaker 10: President Elect Trump during the transition time in late twenty
Speaker 10: sixteen h twenty seven, took a call with the with
Speaker 10: the Taiwanese president, which was on presdent of the time.
Speaker 10: The increase of visits to the island, the increase of
Speaker 10: trade included in a lot of international forms or attempts
Speaker 10: to do so, so that the United States under Trump
Speaker 10: ship broke a lot of taboos, and to the Bide
Speaker 10: administration's credit, they actually took those and continued it in
Speaker 10: that way. So there actually is quite a lot of
Speaker 10: bipartisnship I think, specifically vias of the Taiwan at the
Speaker 10: same time, and I mean I wouldn't use the words
Speaker 10: in which Trump used. At the same time, there is
Speaker 10: this concern that our allies are just not doing enough
Speaker 10: or don't seem to take the threats to their own
Speaker 10: sovereignty as seriously as they ought to. I mean, I
Speaker 10: think Taiwan is spending something like two point five percent
Speaker 10: of its GDP on national defense, and while that is
Speaker 10: higher than a lot of our European allies, it is
Speaker 10: still not commeasure it where it needs to be, given
Speaker 10: the threats that they face on a daily basis from Beijing.
Speaker 10: And so I do think that there is a need
Speaker 10: for US to be able to encourage our allies to
Speaker 10: spend a lot more on their defense than they are
Speaker 10: already are well.
Speaker 3: And of course, and you kind of alluded to this, Gabriel,
Speaker 3: that doesn't just go for the Asia Pacific, right, You're
Speaker 3: talking about Europe and NATO here. Donald Trump has suggested
Speaker 3: those in NATO not paying their fair share may not
Speaker 3: get requisite support from the United States should the need arise.
Speaker 3: How do you think that alliance actually would be different?
Speaker 3: Do you think Article five would still stand in Trump
Speaker 3: two point zero?
Speaker 10: I think it absolutely would still stand. And then you
Speaker 10: can you know, that by looking at the record. So first,
Speaker 10: under Trump one point zero, the Trump administration actually welcomed
Speaker 10: two new nations into NATO, neither of which at the
Speaker 10: time actually met their two percent of GDP spent on
Speaker 10: the military's obligations. So despite the rhetoric, the record is
Speaker 10: different there. The Trump administration actively wanted to move US
Speaker 10: forces further east in Europe. This is before the Russian
Speaker 10: invasion of Ukraine, and talked about extensively, in particular in
Speaker 10: Poland and the Baltics to be able to do that.
Speaker 10: That's a greater commitment in that way. And although it
Speaker 10: might come across as haranguing. When Trump took office the
Speaker 10: first time, I think there was only five out of
Speaker 10: then twenty eight NATO members had met their two percent.
Speaker 10: When he left office, it was ten, and now I
Speaker 10: think we're a twenty out of thirty two and next
Speaker 10: year there and in a speech he just gave earlier
Speaker 10: this week, he established a policy saying that rather than
Speaker 10: two percent floor, it actually should be increasing to a
Speaker 10: three percent floor. And I don't think it actually it
Speaker 10: would be that crazy that if he were to be
Speaker 10: elected president at the next NATO summit, which would be
Speaker 10: in June twenty twenty five, that he actually might even
Speaker 10: be able to declare a mission accomplished on a number
Speaker 10: of those things. And so I actually think the trend
Speaker 10: lines are such that there is there's starting to be
Speaker 10: some rearmament in Europe as a consequence of concerns about
Speaker 10: American withtraal and obviously concerns about the threat from Russia.
Speaker 10: The Europeans are picking up a greater share of the burden.
Speaker 10: They contribute the majority of actually aid to Ukraine, not
Speaker 10: the United States. And so for all those reasons, I
Speaker 10: actually think that Trump two point zero is likely to
Speaker 10: solidify our alliances with Europe rather than abandon them.
Speaker 3: Well, as you raise Ukraine here, Donald Trump has maintained
Speaker 3: that he could end the war in Ukraine in one day. Gabriel,
Speaker 3: is that credible? How would he do that?
Speaker 10: I think that's a rhetorical flourish. So I think ending
Speaker 10: the war twenty four hours out there. But if you
Speaker 10: actually follow the next sentences that he says after that,
Speaker 10: how would he do that?
Speaker 1: What does he say?
Speaker 10: How do you do He said basically that he would
Speaker 10: turn to Presidence Lenski and say you got to negotiate
Speaker 10: with Putin and if you don't, maybe we'll cut you off.
Speaker 10: But then he said he'll turn to Putin and say,
Speaker 10: if you don't actually negotiate, end to the steel Zelenski,
Speaker 10: we're going to like double the amount of arms that
Speaker 10: we give to the Ukrainians. So the Russians are the
Speaker 10: ones that actually have not been willing to negotiate at
Speaker 10: all because they want all of Ukraine. They see it
Speaker 10: as a half nation. It's pretty evident from Putin's Rhticicus there.
Speaker 10: Whereas the Ukrainians, you know, obviously they want the Russians
Speaker 10: to withdraw from their sovereign territory given the aggression, but
Speaker 10: they've been trying and open to negotiation in a different ways.
Speaker 10: So again the twenty four hours thing is a bit
Speaker 10: of a rhetorical flourish. But the concept here is that
Speaker 10: the Trump could be expected to actually put a lot
Speaker 10: more pressure on Putin to be able to do it.
Speaker 10: And you know, maybe you'll get to this, but American
Speaker 10: energy policy is a perfect example of how to be
Speaker 10: able to do that. The current administration has been trying
Speaker 10: to restrict American fossil fuel production American fossil fuel exports,
Speaker 10: even though America is functionally an energy superpower. We've never
Speaker 10: produced or exported more oil and gas than ever before
Speaker 10: and under Trump administration that I think is pretty clear
Speaker 10: about these things. If you can bring more of that
Speaker 10: to market, you can dilute the Russian economy or dilute
Speaker 10: the pressure or the leverage he has the European economy,
Speaker 10: then it actually puts more pressure on the Russians to.
Speaker 7: Be able to negotiate.
Speaker 3: Just to clear follow up on that, Gabriel, As you know,
Speaker 3: we are producing a record amount of oil and natural gas.
Speaker 3: So what exactly is it that we think more will
Speaker 3: be produced in the US under a second Trump administration,
Speaker 3: that he will just handle the exporting of it differently,
Speaker 3: is what you're saying.
Speaker 10: Well, I think it's both. I think you give example
Speaker 10: of the Biden administration. I think it was like six
Speaker 10: months ago moratorium on new LNG gas export licenses. For example,
Speaker 10: the Bide administration, because of its concern over climate change,
Speaker 10: has been trying to more or less kill demand for
Speaker 10: fossil fuels and basically kill the combustion engine in a
Speaker 10: lot of different ways. Gas prices of the United States
Speaker 10: today are roughly a dollar more than they were, you know,
Speaker 10: pre COVID. Let's say, under Donald Trump, because of a
Speaker 10: lot of these policies, and so I do think that
Speaker 10: by basically reducing regulation, cutting back in a lot of
Speaker 10: these subsidies for electric vehicles, doing cars, things that Trump
Speaker 10: is pledged to be able to do, You're actually going
Speaker 10: to see more demand, which is going to lead to
Speaker 10: more supply, which is going to lead to more interest,
Speaker 10: especially overseas in Europe and so forth.
Speaker 3: Drill, Baby, Drill, I think is what this might come
Speaker 3: back down to. Gabriel, Thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 3: Great to have you, Gabriel Scheinman. Alexander Hamilton, Society Executive Director.
Speaker 3: We appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo CarPlay
Speaker 2: and then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app Listen
Speaker 2: on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
Speaker 2: live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Then this worth pointing out. Also in that Fox poll
Speaker 3: that I was mentioning, it does find that voters in
Speaker 3: the Sun Belt still give Donald Trump the edge on
Speaker 3: the economy, and in fact, four and ten of them
Speaker 3: say that the economy is the most important issue for
Speaker 3: them when they are casting a vote for president. Of course,
Speaker 3: got some news on the US economy today, and it
Speaker 3: was better news than expected. Upward revision to GDP growth
Speaker 3: in the second quarter. It grew at three percent. That's
Speaker 3: up from the previous estimate of two point eight percent.
Speaker 3: And of course the consumer engine that's driving that you
Speaker 3: look at personal spending also revised hire two point nine percent.
Speaker 3: The prior estimate was two point three percent. So let's
Speaker 3: get in to some of this now and more on
Speaker 3: the economic policies of these candidates. In addition to that,
Speaker 3: Lindsay Owens is with me. She is Groundwork Collaborative executive director.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Balance of Power, Lindsay, It's always good
Speaker 3: to have you. Obviously, the data we got this morning
Speaker 3: is backward looking. It's taking a look at the second
Speaker 3: quarter when we are now most of the way through
Speaker 3: the third at this point. But does this help put
Speaker 3: to bed any notions of a potential growth scare that
Speaker 3: may have arisen, especially in light of the latest jobs report.
Speaker 11: Yeah, if the fundamentals of the economy are absolutely strong.
Speaker 11: We have low unemployment, we have inflation that has come
Speaker 11: down considerably off its peak by some measures has already
Speaker 11: reached the feds two percent target and we have strong
Speaker 11: GDP growth. But the risks ahead are in two spaces.
Speaker 11: The first is the continued concerns that many Americans have
Speaker 11: about the high cost of living. And the second, of course,
Speaker 11: is that the FED could be behind the eight ball.
Speaker 11: We heard last week in care pals jackson Hole speech
Speaker 11: that they're going to cut rates in September. So that's
Speaker 11: great news and we just have to hope it'll be
Speaker 11: you deepen and fast enough to ward off any potential downturns.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 3: And what that ultimate depth of the cut next month
Speaker 3: could come down to is, of course, the data we
Speaker 3: have yet to get. Lindsay we're going to get PC
Speaker 3: data tomorrow. We know that that's the Fed's preferred inflation gage.
Speaker 3: We have a jobs report coming up next Friday in
Speaker 3: addition to that. What picture are you anticipating that these
Speaker 3: data data will paint. Do you think it will be
Speaker 3: supportive of a fifty basis point cut or potentially send
Speaker 3: the message to the FED that they can go slower
Speaker 3: on the way down.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 11: I think the inflation numbers are going to look pretty soft,
Speaker 11: and I think they will support a strong rate cut
Speaker 11: of fifty basis points or more.
Speaker 3: Of course, Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, had
Speaker 3: said she'd like to see seventy five. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: that anyone thinks that that's highly likely at this point,
Speaker 3: because it could potentially send it a bit of a
Speaker 3: panic signal, right, lindsay, if the FED all of a
Speaker 3: sudden words to ease dramatically, could that not have have
Speaker 3: some repercussions. I mean, look, I think SCHERA.
Speaker 11: Powell was pretty clear in his statement at Jackson Hole
Speaker 11: that he feels like when he balances the risks of
Speaker 11: continued high inflation and further softening in the labor market,
Speaker 11: he's now a bit more concerned about softening in the
Speaker 11: labor market. So he's sort of thinking about that side
Speaker 11: of the dual mandate with more granularity and with more focus.
Speaker 11: So I think if he, you know, if he had sought,
Speaker 11: he has effectively softened the ground for a pivot to cuts.
Speaker 11: And I think if he goes a little further than
Speaker 11: folks expect, you know, I don't I don't anticipate a
Speaker 11: huge swing in the markets, but I do think, you know,
Speaker 11: we'll send a clear signal that you know he wasn't
Speaker 11: kidding when he said the risks are now more skewed
Speaker 11: towards softening the labor market.
Speaker 3: Well, of course, monetary policy is one thing, lindsay, fiscal
Speaker 3: policy is another, and we may get some more clarity
Speaker 3: into the kind of fiscal policy Kamala Harris muld actually
Speaker 3: pursue if she does when the election in November. When
Speaker 3: she sits down for her first interview tonight on CNN,
Speaker 3: what does she most need to answer for? Knowing that
Speaker 3: she has given us broad strokes of things she would
Speaker 3: like to do when it comes to housing or price gouging,
Speaker 3: but how much more explaining is necessary?
Speaker 11: Yeah, So Vice President Harris is going to have to
Speaker 11: talk to the American people about their number one priority
Speaker 11: when it comes to the economy, which is the cost
Speaker 11: of living, the cost of things that matter most a
Speaker 11: roof over your head and food on the table. And
Speaker 11: I think she has a lot to talk about that
Speaker 11: Americans are going to be interested to hear. And I
Speaker 11: think she has a lot to boast about in some respects.
Speaker 11: This week alone, we have had two stunning developments when
Speaker 11: it comes to our understanding of the high cost of
Speaker 11: living in America. Friday, the Department of Justice sued Real Page,
Speaker 11: the largest real estate data company, for price fixing. What
Speaker 11: they determined in their complaint I looked at the one
Speaker 11: hundred page complaint over the weekend, is that there has
Speaker 11: been a vast, widespread conspiracy among corporate landlords to set
Speaker 11: the price of rent well above market levels, according to
Speaker 11: Real Page's own materials, between two and seven percent higher
Speaker 11: than what you would expect absent there price fixing. And
Speaker 11: by the way, millions of tenants live in houses whose
Speaker 11: landlords use Real Page, So this isn't small ball. This
Speaker 11: is substantial. And her administration's Department of Justice sued on
Speaker 11: Friday to put a stop to this conspiracy. And I
Speaker 11: think Americans are going to be really happy to hear
Speaker 11: that she and the Department of Justice have been cracking
Speaker 11: down on the corporate profiteering that we're seeing in the
Speaker 11: housing space. The second thing that we learned is yesterday
Speaker 11: in the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit to block the merger
Speaker 11: of two of the largest grocery giants in the country,
Speaker 11: Kroger and Albertson's, we heard from Kroger's top pricing official,
Speaker 11: senior director for pricing that Kroger has been passing along
Speaker 11: higher pricing than is justified by inflation alone for milk
Speaker 11: and X. What he said under sworn testimony is that
Speaker 11: retail inflation is higher than cost inflation. So the high
Speaker 11: prices that are coming their way, they're absorbing those, or
Speaker 11: they're passing those along and then they're going for more.
Speaker 11: They're passing along higher prices on milk and X, and
Speaker 11: the Federal Trade Commission is suing to ensure that this
Speaker 11: merger doesn't exacerbate their market position and their ability to
Speaker 11: do that on an ongoing basis in food and grocery,
Speaker 11: and so I think Vice President Harris can take credit
Speaker 11: for that as well. So I think when it comes
Speaker 11: to both housing and grocery, what she can do is
Speaker 11: talk about what she plans to do with four more years,
Speaker 11: but also what she is already doing this very week
Speaker 11: in her administration to bring down the cost of things
Speaker 11: that matter most a roof over your head and food.
Speaker 6: On the tape.
Speaker 3: And finally, lindsay, we just have a minute left. But
Speaker 3: in addition to the price fixing kind of conversation, she
Speaker 3: also was talking about, for example, twenty five thousand dollars
Speaker 3: assistance for first time home buyers. Those are things that
Speaker 3: cost money. Doesn't she need to explain the pay for
Speaker 3: us as well.
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's such a great point. She you know, she
Speaker 11: really has done that already, but I think you're right
Speaker 11: she should do that again tonight. And I think the
Speaker 11: American people will actually be quite pleased with her plans
Speaker 11: to bring in more revenue to cover investments in their communities,
Speaker 11: investments in their families. She has endorsed all five trillion
Speaker 11: of the Biden Harris' budget taxes on the wealthy in corporation.
Speaker 11: That's bringing the corporate rate back up to twenty five
Speaker 11: or twenty eight percent. That's restoring some of the taxes,
Speaker 11: the tax cuts, you know, on the wealthiest Americans. So
Speaker 11: I think she's laid out more than enough and you know,
Speaker 11: in revenue to cover the cost of her key agenda items.
Speaker 3: All right, Lindsay, we got to leave it there. Lindsay Owens,
Speaker 3: Groundwork Collaborative and Groundwork Action executive Director.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 11: Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 10: You can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC
Speaker 10: at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.