Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Roun.
Speaker 2: Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Thank you for joining us today on Balance of Power,
Speaker 3: whether you're watching us on YouTube, listening to us on
Speaker 3: the radio on satellite radio. Perhaps, and I certainly hope
Speaker 3: you will be able to continue doing so far into
Speaker 3: the future. But like so many things in modern life,
Speaker 3: we do need satellites for that to happen. Whether it's
Speaker 3: communicating with friends and family, using the GPS in your car,
Speaker 3: listening to Bloomberg Radio, a lot of it requires that
Speaker 3: satellite technology. So what would happen if potentially, say a
Speaker 3: Russian nuclear space weapon took that out. I know it
Speaker 3: sounds like a doomsday scenario, it might be within the
Speaker 3: realm of possibility, and it was the subject of a
Speaker 3: speech earlier today at the Center for Strategic and International
Speaker 3: Studies given by the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 3: Mike Turner, and the congressman from Ohio is here with
Speaker 3: me now in our Washington, d C studio. Mister chairman,
Speaker 3: thank you so much for joining us here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: It's a terrifying proposition. How close is something like a
Speaker 3: Russian nuclear space weapon being to a reality we're going
Speaker 3: to have to face.
Speaker 4: Well, Katy, thank you for having me today and thank
Speaker 4: you for your characterizing really what the threat is. And
Speaker 4: that's why this is so important for us to push
Speaker 4: the administration to take actions here. The Administration has acknowledged
Speaker 4: that Russia is developing an anti satellite nuclear weapon, and
Speaker 4: that's really all that they have told us publicly since then. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: the outcomes that you were describing and the catastrophic effects
Speaker 4: if a NUCO weapon was detonated in space really go
Speaker 4: all the way back to the vulnerability of if that
Speaker 4: satellite is put in orbit. JERLD Saltzman, the Chief of
Speaker 4: Staff or Space Force, has said that if this weapon
Speaker 4: is put in orbit, that would be day zero because
Speaker 4: the very next day we would not be able to
Speaker 4: count on space, and really space is so important for
Speaker 4: everything that we do. It would be destabilizing both for
Speaker 4: international security but also our economic systems, foundational our communication systems.
Speaker 4: So the administration needs to step up the plate. I'm
Speaker 4: calling on them to declassify the status of this threat
Speaker 4: and then also take action to prevent it. They should
Speaker 4: impact the outcome and make certain this satellite does not
Speaker 4: get in space.
Speaker 3: So, just on the classification question, obviously there's a ton
Speaker 3: of material that me, as a civilian member of the public,
Speaker 3: don't have access to. That information is classified, and I
Speaker 3: would assume a lot of it is classified for a reason.
Speaker 3: Is there not danger in making threats like this so
Speaker 3: visible to the public? Potentially so panic.
Speaker 4: Wells generally a panic issue as much as is instilling
Speaker 4: confidence that the administration's doing something. I mean, in this instance,
Speaker 4: Vladimir Putin thrives in secrecy, and also so does the
Speaker 4: administrations in action. By the administration not acknowledging the threat,
Speaker 4: the administration is free to not make this on their
Speaker 4: to do list or not to accomplish tasks that would
Speaker 4: protect us. You know, in this instance, the fact that
Speaker 4: Russia is acknowledged by the administration is pursuing This is
Speaker 4: a threat that should be of a critical objective of
Speaker 4: this administration.
Speaker 3: So what is it that the administration can do to
Speaker 3: protect us? Is it making sure that Russia doesn't have
Speaker 3: access to certain technologies. How would you guarantee that happens?
Speaker 3: Is it a sanction question and an export control question?
Speaker 3: What exactly is the action required here in your lie?
Speaker 4: Well, I think this is sort of all in the above.
Speaker 4: But the real way to look at this is this
Speaker 4: is the Cuban missile crisis in space. Jim Times, my
Speaker 4: ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, coined that, and it
Speaker 4: really is the case. Imagine if President Kennedy had done
Speaker 4: nothing when Russia had looked to put nuclear weapons in Cuba,
Speaker 4: it would have changed the entire dynamics of the world.
Speaker 4: Europe probably would not be free because we would have
Speaker 4: been held hostage by nuclear weapons just off the coast
Speaker 4: of Florida and not taking action in Europe. Similarly, if
Speaker 4: Putin is allowed to put a nuclear weapon in space,
Speaker 4: he is going to hold hostage all of the space
Speaker 4: assets of the world, and certainly that would give him
Speaker 4: free reign to be able to reassemble the Soviet Union
Speaker 4: and threaten our critical allies.
Speaker 3: Could we do it first, Well, would that make a
Speaker 3: difference here in terms of deterrence?
Speaker 4: Well, the UN Space treet of nineteen sixty seven we
Speaker 4: all agreed that we would not do this because we
Speaker 4: wanted to reach the promise of space's mankind. As you
Speaker 4: just described, You and I today wouldn't even be here
Speaker 4: in this studio doing this if it wasn't as a
Speaker 4: result of space, in our hospitals, in our economics. All
Speaker 4: of the things that we've accomplished in the space age
Speaker 4: would come to a halt, and we would have to
Speaker 4: look for alternative sources of being able to accomplish those things.
Speaker 4: If there's a nuclear weapon in space, even if it
Speaker 4: hasn't been detonated, its threat will require that we have
Speaker 4: alternative access, and it just doesn't exist right now.
Speaker 3: When we're considering threats posed by Russia. Do those only
Speaker 3: grow exponentially when you have, say, Vladimir Putin visiting North
Speaker 3: Korea for the first time since the year two thousand
Speaker 3: and inking, a deal that Kim Jong un called the
Speaker 3: most powerful treaty ever signed between the two countries. What
Speaker 3: do you make of that?
Speaker 4: Well, remember, North Korea is under sanctions by the United
Speaker 4: Nations as a result of what they have done in
Speaker 4: violating nonpliferation treaties their nuclear weapons program. So Kim jongung
Speaker 4: gets great credibility by standing next to Vladimir Putin, who
Speaker 4: then embraces all of the action that he's doing and
Speaker 4: imprisoning his people. That I think is probably a greater
Speaker 4: benefit to him. I think a military lines economic alliance,
Speaker 4: they already have those. I don't think there's anything else
Speaker 4: that's wrapped into this, but the benefit to him around
Speaker 4: the world to stand next for Putin is certainly a danger.
Speaker 3: Well, North Korea is under sanctions, as is Russia. Those
Speaker 3: were expanded last week at the G seven, now including
Speaker 3: secondary sanctions. But Russia does have North Korea to turn too.
Speaker 5: They also have.
Speaker 3: China to turn to in many instances, can any of
Speaker 3: those sanction policies, the kind of international economic policies that
Speaker 3: have been put into place to try to restrain Russia
Speaker 3: as it engages in an ongoing war with Ukraine, can
Speaker 3: any of them really be effective so long as these
Speaker 3: other adversaries exist and are im Putin's corner.
Speaker 4: Well, there are sanction regimes that can be put in place,
Speaker 4: and I think some of those need to be looked
Speaker 4: at with respect to this issue of this evolving threat
Speaker 4: of the development of an anti satellite nuclear weapon. This
Speaker 4: administration has been very slow in implementing sanctioned policies and
Speaker 4: in their weapons provisions to Ukraine and the permission to
Speaker 4: use those weapons in the exchange of intelligence. So there's
Speaker 4: a lot this administration could do that where they've really
Speaker 4: put Ukraine in a situation where they're fighting with one
Speaker 4: hand behind their back.
Speaker 3: Well, we've seen some changes on the margin to that recently,
Speaker 3: perhaps the allowance of Ukraine using weapons offensively, at least
Speaker 3: in certain areas, only to hit certain military targets. Does
Speaker 3: that need to be expanded in your mind or do
Speaker 3: you do you think the escalation concern that the administration
Speaker 3: has voiced repeatedly is justified.
Speaker 4: I think this administration is way too timid. Their view
Speaker 4: of escalatory acts is are to implement defensive acts for Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Russia is the aggressor they're the ones who have escalated.
Speaker 4: We're just responding in a deficient defensive manner. This administration
Speaker 4: allowing Nearer Kharkiv a limited use of US long range
Speaker 4: weapons will not change the dynamics on the battlefield. There
Speaker 4: are ways to accomplish that, and this administration needs to
Speaker 4: fully get behind Ukraine and support them.
Speaker 3: This administration also has express support for Israel, and yet
Speaker 3: we have seen the withholding of certain large bombs, over
Speaker 3: concerned and of how what kind of civilian casualties they
Speaker 3: can cause. Prime Minister Benjaminette Yahoo yesterday was accusing the
Speaker 3: US of withholding other weapons as well. You sit as
Speaker 3: chair of the Intelligence Committee. How is their merit to that?
Speaker 3: Or is net and Yahoo saying things that aren't true?
Speaker 4: Well, you silly have the administration stepping up and saying
Speaker 4: that that they are providing them everything and that they
Speaker 4: did not see the restrictions. But I think the problem
Speaker 4: here is that the administration in each of these conflicts
Speaker 4: needs to pick a side, and unfortunately they half heartedly
Speaker 4: or lukewarm support a side, and our adversaries have no restrictions.
Speaker 4: Our adversaries are not going to restrict the atrocities that
Speaker 4: they're willing to perpetrate or what they're willing to do
Speaker 4: against our allies. And yet we continue to restrict our
Speaker 4: allies in there and their ways to defend themselves.
Speaker 3: There's been a lot of buzz in recent days about
Speaker 3: Israel potentially opening a new front to this war in
Speaker 3: the north border with Lebanon going after Hesbelah directly. Is
Speaker 3: that a real threat?
Speaker 4: Well, Hesbola continues to be a threat to Israel, And
Speaker 4: again we have to we have to unmask all of
Speaker 4: these really franchises of Iran. Whether it's Hohothi's or it's
Speaker 4: Hesbila and Lebanon or Hamas in Gossip, they're all proxies
Speaker 4: of Iran, and all of this is being funded, armed, trained,
Speaker 4: and perpetrated as part of Iran's destabilization in the in
Speaker 4: the area. So hitting one or other of the tentacles
Speaker 4: of Iran really is somewhat indiscernible.
Speaker 3: But is Hesbela not more closely tied with Iran than
Speaker 3: than Hamasis. Could that potentially going against a second proxy
Speaker 3: be something that draws Iran more directly into this conflict
Speaker 3: than we've seen this far.
Speaker 6: I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 4: Again, the taking defensive action against someone else's provocation is
Speaker 4: not escalatory, and in this instance, Esbula represents a significant threat.
Speaker 4: Now I'm not advocating that they attack Hesbola, but if
Speaker 4: they find themselves in a situation in their defense where
Speaker 4: they need to defend themselves against Hesbla, I think we
Speaker 4: still have to unmask them and understand this is still
Speaker 4: just part of the overall tentacles of Iran, and they're
Speaker 4: nefarious acts in the region, And.
Speaker 3: Of course those tentacles may come back to Russia in
Speaker 3: some way as well, as we consider Russia China Ran
Speaker 3: the way in which all of these conflicts kind of
Speaker 3: are not isolated, if you will, They're not happening in
Speaker 3: a vacuum. How does especially the rather public tension we're
Speaker 3: seeing between the Israeli government and the US government potentially
Speaker 3: factor into the decision making by other adversaries, including Russia.
Speaker 4: Well, I think this is just weakness on the part
Speaker 4: of the Biden administration, where it be in Ukraine, whether
Speaker 4: it be the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, where it's the
Speaker 4: talking one way and providing support to Israel the other way.
Speaker 4: These inconsistent signols in bolden those who want to do
Speaker 4: our Ali's harm.
Speaker 3: All right, mister chairman, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 3: us here at Blimbert today. We appreciate your time again
Speaker 3: fresh off giving that speech on the Russian nuclear power
Speaker 3: in space that they are developing at the CSIS. Congressman
Speaker 3: Mike Turner, we appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Speaker 2: Roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Kim Jong un is calling it the most powerful treaty
Speaker 3: ever signed between his North Korea and Russia. He and
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin yesterday inking a deal in Pyongyang to provide
Speaker 3: immediate military assistance if one of them is attacked. Survives
Speaker 3: in agreement that dates back to the Cold War and
Speaker 3: elevates the ties between the two countries to an alliance.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind this happened is leader Imputin visited North
Speaker 3: Korea for the first time since the year two thousand
Speaker 3: and of course, comes against a backdrop of North Korea
Speaker 3: providing missiles and other ammunition to Russia and its ongoing
Speaker 3: war against Ukraine. We want to turn out to Angela Stent.
Speaker 3: She is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
Speaker 3: author of the book Putin's World, Russia Against the West
Speaker 3: and with the Rest. Angela, welcome back to Bloomberg. Thank
Speaker 3: you so much for joining me as we consider what
Speaker 3: exactly this most powerful treaty ever, really means. Does it
Speaker 3: make both Russia and North Korea all that more dangerous?
Speaker 5: I think we shouldn't exaggerated, But the short answer to
Speaker 5: that is yes, it's very much, as you said, like
Speaker 5: the nineteen sixty one treaty between the Soviet Union and
Speaker 5: North Korea. But it does promise that they will help
Speaker 5: each other mutual defense assistance of one of them is attacked.
Speaker 5: Now we don't quite know what that means, but that's
Speaker 5: not something that Russia has in most of its treaties
Speaker 5: with other countries, and it sounds a little bit like
Speaker 5: NATO's Article five. So I think we need to be
Speaker 5: concerned about this, even though there was a lot of
Speaker 5: rhetoric and pomp and circumstance when Putin went there, and
Speaker 5: we don't know what the substance is. We haven't seen
Speaker 5: the treaty, the details of the treaty, but we should
Speaker 5: be concerned.
Speaker 3: Well, is this also just a sign that Putin needs
Speaker 3: maybe not this defensive deal, but just needs North Korea
Speaker 3: and has to do something to keep Kim jongun in
Speaker 3: line with him?
Speaker 5: Right, So this is part of Putin's new access of
Speaker 5: resistance with China, Iran and North Korea. Putin needs the
Speaker 5: artillery shells from North Korea. He needs the ballistic missiles
Speaker 5: that apparently are intelligence people say that the North Koreans
Speaker 5: have been supplying him so in order to keep this
Speaker 5: war in Ukraine going, in order to keep killing Ukraine,
Speaker 5: he needs this. The question is what is he giving
Speaker 5: Kim Jong un in return? Russia used to be part
Speaker 5: of the Six Party talks trying to denuclearize North Korea.
Speaker 5: Not a word about denuclearization. Is Russia going to somehow
Speaker 5: help North Korea's nuclear program, its satellite program and make
Speaker 5: it that much more of a dangerous, aggressive enemy for
Speaker 5: South Korea, for Japan and for the Indo Pacific region.
Speaker 3: It's interesting to hear you bring up nuclear capability because
Speaker 3: I just earlier today had a conversation with the chair
Speaker 3: of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Mike Turner, who was
Speaker 3: warning and did so in a speech at CSIS earlier
Speaker 3: today about Russia developing a nuclear weapon that could be
Speaker 3: used in space to take out satellites. It's something he
Speaker 3: is very concerned about. But we went beyond that, Angela
Speaker 3: to also talk about the ongoing war against Ukraine and
Speaker 3: what could be playing to Russia's advantage, including the US
Speaker 3: military or the Biden administration specifically still putting restraint on
Speaker 3: the way in which Ukraine could use military assists. It's
Speaker 3: provided by the US. This is what the chairman told
Speaker 3: me earlier.
Speaker 4: I think this administration is way too timid. Their view
Speaker 4: of escalatory acts is are to implement defensive acts for Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Russia is the aggressor. They're the ones who have escalated.
Speaker 4: We're just responding in a deficient defensive manner. This administration
Speaker 4: allowing a nearer Kharkiv a limited use of US long
Speaker 4: range weapons will not change the dynamics on the battlefield.
Speaker 3: So he Angela didn't seem to convince that allowing Ukraine
Speaker 3: to do more offensively was going to be escalatory in
Speaker 3: terms of getting more of a response out of Russia.
Speaker 3: But you know Russia and Vladimir Putin quite well. Would
Speaker 3: that be something that would escalate things?
Speaker 5: So I tend to agree with him. I think that
Speaker 5: we have been too intimidated by the threats that emanate
Speaker 5: from Putin. But he is threatening sometimes to use tactical
Speaker 5: nuclear weapons. He's both threatening armed countries that are near
Speaker 5: Ukraine on allies of Ukraine with weapons that they can
Speaker 5: use against Ukraine, maybe even against other European states. You
Speaker 5: can't dismiss his threats altogether, but I do think that
Speaker 5: the Biden administration and many European countries have been too
Speaker 5: cautious about allowing Ukraine to use the advanced weapons that
Speaker 5: we're supplying them with further into Russian territory. You can't
Speaker 5: say one hundred percent that there wouldn't be a worse
Speaker 5: reaction from Russia, but so far we haven't seen that,
Speaker 5: and so far Russia has not attacked a NATO member country.
Speaker 3: Well, Angela, I'm glad you raised that other European countries
Speaker 3: are a factor in all of this as well, considering
Speaker 3: the develops we've seen on developments we've seen on the
Speaker 3: European continent in recent weeks, parliamentary elections that saw much
Speaker 3: more power going to far right parties, a snap election
Speaker 3: called by French President Emmanuel Macron in the aftermath, the
Speaker 3: growing concern that perhaps Europe is leaning more toward the
Speaker 3: right and therefore more towards skepticism them about further support
Speaker 3: for Ukraine.
Speaker 6: How do you read it?
Speaker 5: Yes, I think that's a real danger. Let's see what
Speaker 5: happens in the French election. If the far right comes
Speaker 5: to power there, even though President Macron will still be
Speaker 5: in office, it will be much more difficult for France
Speaker 5: to continue its support for Ukraine. And we've seen that
Speaker 5: in other countries. The far right did very well in Germany,
Speaker 5: in the European elections in some of the other countries,
Speaker 5: and these are all groups and parties that are much
Speaker 5: more pro Russian and that don't want to support Ukraine.
Speaker 5: So there are the European countries nearest to Ukraine, the
Speaker 5: Baltic States, Poland and also the UK are very strong supporters.
Speaker 5: But I think in some of the other parts of
Speaker 5: Europe support will be weakening for Ukraine. And I think
Speaker 5: obviously we don't know what's going to happen in our
Speaker 5: own presidential election in November, but things could looked rather
Speaker 5: different next year.
Speaker 3: It's an excellent point. So is really all Vladimer Putin
Speaker 3: needs to do Angela is keep things going, even if
Speaker 3: in stalemate for him until next January.
Speaker 5: That's always been his calculation. He's waiting to see what
Speaker 5: happens in November, obviously hoping that the next US president
Speaker 5: will not be supporting Ukraine and waiting to see what
Speaker 5: happens in Europe. He can wait, he can bind his time.
Speaker 5: He's getting these weapons now from North Korea, from Iran,
Speaker 5: and even though we've then post even more severe financial
Speaker 5: sanctions on Russia, his wartime economy is now doing better
Speaker 5: than we thought it would.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad you raised that, especially as we began
Speaker 3: this conversation talking about North Korea. So long as North
Speaker 3: Korea and China exist in are in Russian's corner, is
Speaker 3: there going to be any kind of international sanctions that
Speaker 3: ultimately will be effective enough to help precipitate an end
Speaker 3: to this war? Is that something that just isn't going
Speaker 3: to work?
Speaker 5: Well, it doesn't look as if it's worked so far.
Speaker 5: We're now are also sanctioning some Chinese entities that have
Speaker 5: been supplying chips and other sanctioned goods to Russia. But
Speaker 5: so far Russia has managed to the Russian economy has
Speaker 5: managed to survive, even though they can't trade in dollars anymore.
Speaker 5: And I think we may be overestimated the impact of
Speaker 5: these Western sanctions on the Russian economy. So I don't
Speaker 5: see them bringing down the Russian economy anytime soon or
Speaker 5: forcing Putin to rethink his calculus in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: All right, Angela, it's always great to have you here
Speaker 3: on Balance of Power. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 3: me on Bloomberg TV and radio. Angela Stent is a
Speaker 3: senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and also author of
Speaker 3: Putin's World, Russia against the West and with the rest.
Speaker 1: You're listening to. The Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast catches
Speaker 1: live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple.
Speaker 2: Car Play and then broud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Some news today from Israeli military suggesting that Prime Minister
Speaker 3: Benjamin Netanyah, whose long stated goal of destroying Hamas is unachievable.
Speaker 3: This is the quote to say we are going to
Speaker 3: destroy Hamas to make it disappear. It's simply throwing sand
Speaker 3: in the eyes of the public. Hamas is an idea.
Speaker 3: Whoever thinks we can make it disappear is mistaken, mistaken.
Speaker 3: This is a real admiral in Israel's military, and we
Speaker 3: wanted to turn out to someone who probably has a
Speaker 3: thought or two on this. Former Ambassador James Jeffrey is
Speaker 3: with me now. He is chair of the Middle East
Speaker 3: Program at the Wilson Center. Also former US Ambassadors to
Speaker 3: a Rock and to Turkey. Ambassador, welcome back to Balance
Speaker 3: of Power. Thank you so much for joining me. Does
Speaker 3: the military have a point? Can Hamas realistically be completely destroyed?
Speaker 7: Thank you for having me on. The military is right.
Speaker 7: First of all, Hamas cannot be destroyed as an ideology
Speaker 7: and all of its people cannot be wiped out. But
Speaker 7: for several years I was involved in the Defeat Islamic
Speaker 7: State campaign two and eighteen twenty nineteen twenty, and we
Speaker 7: knew we couldn't destroy it, but we could defeat it
Speaker 7: in the sense of removing it from power and taking
Speaker 7: away its offensive capabilities. That's exactly what the Israelis have
Speaker 7: been doing. The Israeli admiral is right that you can't
Speaker 7: defeat Hamas, but he's being a little bit disingenious because
Speaker 7: he knows that Prime Minister Netanyao at least understands this,
Speaker 7: and from time to time Netanieo speaks in less apocalyptic
Speaker 7: terms about dismantling Hamas. The problem is, Netaniao has to
Speaker 7: deal with some very right wing members of his cabinet,
Speaker 7: who do not want to end this war, who do
Speaker 7: not want to have a day after. But Netanyao, of
Speaker 7: course has advanced this ceasefire proposal that would have all
Speaker 7: Israeli forces leaving Ganza. The question is under which conditions?
Speaker 7: So I think there's probably less than meets the eye,
Speaker 7: but it still indicates that there's friction within the Israeli.
Speaker 3: Government well on the ceasefire proposal. We of course had
Speaker 3: that outlined in a big address from the White House
Speaker 3: by President Biden. Almost immediately it seemed that Netanyahu was
Speaker 3: trying to walk part of it back. You saw pushback,
Speaker 3: obviously from Hamas. They submitted a counter proposal. Is that
Speaker 3: original ceasefire, a three stage deal that the President had outlined,
Speaker 3: now dead in the water. Where exactly do we stand?
Speaker 2: Not at all.
Speaker 7: The administration is still pressing through Kuta in Egypt. Hamas
Speaker 7: to give an answer, stands by it. The problem is
Speaker 7: the President glossed over the core part of this whole thing.
Speaker 7: Israel is putting on the table a cessation of the
Speaker 7: war and withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, but it
Speaker 7: has condition Those conditions would be the subject of negotiations
Speaker 7: during the first of the three stages, and it's not
Speaker 7: guaranteed that Hamas would agree to them, or that Israel
Speaker 7: would even compromise on any of its positions and thus
Speaker 7: leave it has to see Hamas not in power, and
Speaker 7: it has to be ensured that and reassured rather that
Speaker 7: Hamas will not reconstitute as it has done before. Those
Speaker 7: are realistic war goals. The Israelis are advancing them, and
Speaker 7: we'll see what Hamas will do.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: And that goes back to something you mentioned a moment ago,
Speaker 3: the idea that you take out the power of Hamas
Speaker 3: or the ability for it to conduct operations like what
Speaker 3: happened on October seventh. We heard when President Biden was
Speaker 3: outlining this deal at the White House weeks ago. The
Speaker 3: idea that, yes, Hamas is military capability, their ability to
Speaker 3: conduct another October seventh has been eliminated. Is that not
Speaker 3: entirely true, Ambassador.
Speaker 7: That is true today. But if Hamas is left in
Speaker 7: control of Gaza, and if it regains control of the
Speaker 7: Philadelphi corridor to Egypt and the Rafa crossing and thus
Speaker 7: is able to bring in the hundreds of millions of
Speaker 7: dollars of supplies concrete rebars, steel and most importantly Iranian weapons.
Speaker 7: It will soon have that capability to attack Israel again
Speaker 7: the next time, possibly coordinated better with Iran and Hisbola.
Speaker 7: This is an existential threat to Israel. So Israel will
Speaker 7: not accept to cease fire, will not leave Gaza unless
Speaker 7: it is assured of several things. One is that some
Speaker 7: international or other entity will come in and govern Gaza,
Speaker 7: and that Hamas will be forced to accept that. In
Speaker 7: two that Hamas never gains control of the Egyptian border again.
Speaker 7: I think those are the key conditions that Israel will
Speaker 7: be advancing in any talks if they get to them
Speaker 7: with Hamas.
Speaker 3: Of course, all the while, Israel is under a great
Speaker 3: deal of pressure from the US government, and we've seen
Speaker 3: the US government holding specific shipments of weapons, specifically large bombs,
Speaker 3: over concern of the kind of civilian casualties that could
Speaker 3: result from their use. But we did hear earlier this
Speaker 3: week ambassador from Prime Minister Netanyah who himself about the
Speaker 3: shipments of weapons from the US. This is what he suggested.
Speaker 1: I said, it's inconcealable that in the past few months
Speaker 1: administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel during
Speaker 1: World War Two. Churchill told the United States, give us
Speaker 1: the tools, we'll do the job. And I say, give
Speaker 1: us the tools, and we'll finish the job a lot faster.
Speaker 3: And that video from the Prime Minister was addressed by
Speaker 3: White House spokesman John Kirby earlier today, who said the
Speaker 3: US did not know in advance that Netanya whose video
Speaker 3: was coming. It disappointed us greatly and was puzzling. There
Speaker 3: is no other country that did more than the US
Speaker 3: to protect Israel. He goes on to say, netnya who's
Speaker 3: words were incorrect, I don't know what was going through
Speaker 3: his mind. Ambassador, what went through your mind when you
Speaker 3: heard those words from Menou?
Speaker 7: Right, these are very hot things to pass because they
Speaker 7: involved diplomatic behind the scenes pressure on one side and
Speaker 7: the other for sure, and the administration has acknowledged that
Speaker 7: it did hold back on two hundred two thousand pound
Speaker 7: bombs several months ago because of the effect on civilian casualties.
Speaker 7: That Netaniel was raising involves more recent decisions taken by
Speaker 7: Congress that have not yet been fully executed within the bureaucracy.
Speaker 7: I've dealt with that bureaucracy for years, and Armship minster Turkey,
Speaker 7: in Iraq, it is very slow, it's very opaque. It
Speaker 7: could well be that there is no real problem. It
Speaker 7: is just bureaucracy. That certainly is what Kirby is suggesting. Nonetheless,
Speaker 7: Netanyeo by going public, created yet another tempest in a
Speaker 7: chief pot, and we're going to have to see how
Speaker 7: this works out. But his people aren't talking with the
Speaker 7: White House on next steps if there is a ceasefire,
Speaker 7: and that's the good news.
Speaker 3: And of course, just over a month from now, on
Speaker 3: July twenty fourth, Netyahoo is planning to be here in
Speaker 3: Washington for a joint address to Congress and address that
Speaker 3: not all members of the Democratic Party certainly are planning
Speaker 3: to attend. Where do you think we will be by
Speaker 3: a month from now when he makes that trip to Washington.
Speaker 7: A good point. But what I want to underline is
Speaker 7: We're already in a better place. Despite Netanyahu's outburst the
Speaker 7: other day, Israel, by advancing this ceasefire proposal, is signaling
Speaker 7: it's ready to end the war if it gets the
Speaker 7: right conditions for the day after, and the United States
Speaker 7: and Israel are actually talking right now on what those
Speaker 7: conditions might be. That's the first thing. Secondly, by taking
Speaker 7: on American advice on how to conduct the last campaign
Speaker 7: in Rafa for the last month, avoiding massive civilian casualties
Speaker 7: to the degree scene elsewhere, the Israelis have basically won
Speaker 7: a certain amount of support from the United States. Combine
Speaker 7: that with their advancing the ceasefire proposal, a lot of
Speaker 7: the pressure on the Israelis from the international community, the
Speaker 7: UN and human rights groups has diminished significantly because now
Speaker 7: it's Hamas that is refusing to enter into negotiations for
Speaker 7: a permanency spire, and that gives Israel running room. I
Speaker 7: believe that the twenty fourth of July, Netanya will announce
Speaker 7: the end of major combat in his readiness to find
Speaker 7: a negotiated solution.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's quite a call. What about where Israel and
Speaker 3: Hesbalah will stand by that time, Well, we have seen
Speaker 3: a new front open just as one closed.
Speaker 2: I don't so.
Speaker 7: Actually, because from a military standpoint, Israel has pretty much finalized,
Speaker 7: as I said, the fighting in Gazer. It only has
Speaker 7: one division plus involved there, so it now has the
Speaker 7: forces to respond if his Bulah were to attack. In
Speaker 7: the end, I don't think Israel will attack Isbelah certainly
Speaker 7: while Gazar is going on. But once this is all over,
Speaker 7: the Israelis will demand, as they should, that in accordance
Speaker 7: with the two thousand and six UN resolution that ended
Speaker 7: the last exchange of fighting between the two, his Bulah
Speaker 7: withdraw north of the Tiny River and reduce its threat
Speaker 7: to Israel. If his Bulla does not do that at
Speaker 7: that time, then I think we might see a new conflict.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, it gives us a lot to pay
Speaker 3: attention to. Thank you so much for joining us, Ambassador,
Speaker 3: appreciate your time as always. That's Ambassador James Jeffrey, Chair
Speaker 3: of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, former
Speaker 3: US Ambassador to Iraq and to Turkey, former Ambassador to
Speaker 3: Albania as well, and former Deputy National Security Advisor. The
Speaker 3: man has a lot of titles and we appreciate his
Speaker 3: sharing his expertise with us here on Balance of Power.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud.
Speaker 2: Oro with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: We'll bring in Andre Gillespie. She is Emory College Associate
Speaker 3: Professor of Political Science. Andre, welcome back to Balance of Power.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for joining us. We've seen recently
Speaker 3: on the campaign trail and a number of appearances from
Speaker 3: President Biden, him talking about the Court and the notion
Speaker 3: that a second Trump pet presidency could bring two ultra
Speaker 3: conservative justices to the Court, that the court is something
Speaker 3: that people should vote on. It's the argument he's making.
Speaker 3: Is it an argument that is actually likely to translate
Speaker 3: into people voting with that in mind, Well.
Speaker 6: Let's put this in a historical context. The Supreme Court
Speaker 6: was certainly a galvanizing issue for Republican voters in the
Speaker 6: years between Roll versus Wade and the Dobs decision, So
Speaker 6: we saw Republicans successfully appeal to social conservatives around changing
Speaker 6: the court. What we've seen in public opinion data since
Speaker 6: the Dab's decision is that Democrats are now more activated
Speaker 6: by kind of abortion. And what the hope in this
Speaker 6: strategy is is that they are now more attuned to
Speaker 6: issues related to the Supreme Court. And so the same
Speaker 6: way that anti abortion activists were motivated by trying to
Speaker 6: change the court. When the Supreme Court sort of laws
Speaker 6: on reproductive rights kind of went against them, Democrats and
Speaker 6: liberals are now hoping that the opposite will work for
Speaker 6: them in this particular moment.
Speaker 3: And certainly you saw evidence of it working in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty two, but we were much closer to the actual
Speaker 3: Dobbs decision at that point. It was still fresh, and
Speaker 3: there's a question of whether it can have the same
Speaker 3: galvanizing ability this far removed from Dobbs. But of course,
Speaker 3: the Court continually has to decide abortion questions. Last week
Speaker 3: they did uphold access to miphipristone, the widely used abortion pill.
Speaker 3: They have yet to rule. We're waiting the ruling on
Speaker 3: the Idaho case whether abortions can be performed in emergencies
Speaker 3: when the life of the mother is dependent on it.
Speaker 3: The state rule outlaws them, Andra, Could that be a
Speaker 3: case in which you do see that galvanizing force come back.
Speaker 6: Well, Democrats are hoping that by bringing abortion up again
Speaker 6: and again and again, that it's priming Democratic leaning voters.
Speaker 6: They're likely constituents, young women, you know, in particular, to
Speaker 6: be mindful of this issue and to put it at
Speaker 6: the top of their list when they're thinking about the
Speaker 6: decisions that they're going to be making on voting. And similarly,
Speaker 6: the things that are constantly in the news cycle. So
Speaker 6: whether it's about mephipristone, whether it is about abortion bands
Speaker 6: when the life of the mother is at risk, when
Speaker 6: we're talking about miscarriage care and IVF, these are things
Speaker 6: that are actually still making reproductive issues a salient issue
Speaker 6: for at least a critical segment of the electorate.
Speaker 3: Well, when we're considering segments of the electorate, we know
Speaker 3: it took many different segments to get Biden elected in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty. These suburban women question certainly is what you're
Speaker 3: speaking to, but there's other demographics to consider as well,
Speaker 3: including black and Latino voters, which polling suggests are starting
Speaker 3: to turn away from President Biden. Not necessarily turned directly
Speaker 3: toward Trump, but at least aren't enthusiastic about showing out
Speaker 3: for Biden a second time. Do you believe those polls, Andra.
Speaker 6: It's not that I don't believe those polls, but I
Speaker 6: think we should just be really aware of what the
Speaker 6: limitations of these polls are. We can more accurately assess
Speaker 6: shifts in the population if we were talking to a
Speaker 6: representative sample of the same people at multiple time points
Speaker 6: in a discussion, so panel data would actually be really
Speaker 6: ideal to get the shifts. We are using cross sectional data,
Speaker 6: where the margins of or big, and so it's really
Speaker 6: going to have to take a big shift of movement
Speaker 6: in order for us to really be able to stay
Speaker 6: with some type of statistical confidence that we see population shifting.
Speaker 6: There are folks who are looking at sort of changes
Speaker 6: in say the Latino vote population, who may not be
Speaker 6: accounting for the fact that Latinos were actually more Republican
Speaker 6: than African Americans were, and that's actually been pretty consistent
Speaker 6: over time. And you know, one of the things that
Speaker 6: has actually hampered sort of interpreting the African American vote
Speaker 6: is the fact that we're relying on survey subsamples with
Speaker 6: small sizes. So this is not to say that there
Speaker 6: isn't a shift underway amongst Latino voters. Colliagu's of mine
Speaker 6: who study that, you know, are looking at sort of
Speaker 6: the extent to which this is true. And it doesn't
Speaker 6: mean that Donald Trump could possibly increase his vote share
Speaker 6: amongst African American voters by a percentage point or two.
Speaker 6: But you know, I think looking at a survey sample poll,
Speaker 6: even if it says that Trump is polling at thirty
Speaker 6: percent when it talk to two hundred black people, is
Speaker 6: something that you have to take with a grain of
Speaker 6: salt because the margin of error and sort of the
Speaker 6: confidence interval for that thirty percent is actually quite big.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: That's an excellent point, Andre, and it gives me a
Speaker 3: sense of how you're likely to answer this next question
Speaker 3: as well, because I want to point to a Fox
Speaker 3: national poll that we just got out again. This is
Speaker 3: national President Biden leading former president Trump by two points
Speaker 3: fifty percent to forty eight percent. That is a three
Speaker 3: point improvement for Biden since last months Fox poll, where
Speaker 3: Trump was leading by one point. Can we put much
Speaker 3: credence in that at all? Knowing as well that these
Speaker 3: margins are well within the margin of error.
Speaker 6: Yes, no, we can't put any It's all within the
Speaker 6: margin of air. All these poles tell us is that
Speaker 6: this race is going to be close. And so so
Speaker 6: we see some movement now, I mean, we'll pay attention
Speaker 6: to the trend line over time, and so if we
Speaker 6: start to see, you know, one of the candidates break
Speaker 6: ahead significantly of the other candidate, we might be able
Speaker 6: to point to this moment in time being the start
Speaker 6: of that trend line. But you know again, I you know,
Speaker 6: I'm not surprised when I see them up by one
Speaker 6: or two points. And so, given the fact that the
Speaker 6: margins of error usually for a lot of these polls
Speaker 6: would say that they one of them would have to
Speaker 6: be ahead by six or more percentage points in order
Speaker 6: for one of them to statistically be ahead. The idea
Speaker 6: that one is up by two in one survey and
Speaker 6: then the other one is up by two when the
Speaker 6: next survey, it sort of is all kind of well
Speaker 6: within the realm of possibility, and it still tells us
Speaker 6: the same thing, this race is going to be very close.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So things like say a presidential debate could be
Speaker 3: incredibly important in deciding whether or not there is what
Speaker 3: the outcome is when a race is as close as
Speaker 3: this one, Andre, How are you looking at that event,
Speaker 3: which is a week from today, it's next Thursday night.
Speaker 3: How pivotal is that going to be for both campaigns?
Speaker 6: Well, it's pivotal for a number of reasons. Debates are
Speaker 6: really important for folks who have not made up their
Speaker 6: minds who need more information. This is going to be
Speaker 6: a really important point at which they are able to
Speaker 6: gather and form. So how the candidates comport themselves is
Speaker 6: actually going to be really important. I think most voters
Speaker 6: in this election have already decided who they're going to
Speaker 6: vote for. Turnout is going to be the thing that's
Speaker 6: most important. So what really matters is after the debates,
Speaker 6: how strong are the turnout operations, How strong is the
Speaker 6: outreach are both the Trump and the Biden campaigns reaching
Speaker 6: out to voters and reminding them to turn out to vote.
Speaker 6: But for that small slver of undecided voters who could
Speaker 6: possibly in battleground states determine the outcome of the election,
Speaker 6: there could be something that is said, or there could
Speaker 6: be a way that one of the candidates acts that
Speaker 6: could actually be determinative in helping them decide who to
Speaker 6: vote for. So I think what we're lively going to
Speaker 6: be looking for is whether or not both Joe Biden
Speaker 6: and Donald Trump performed to type, whether or not they
Speaker 6: exceed expectations, whether or not one of them makes a
Speaker 6: gas that is so shocking that it might cause people
Speaker 6: to kind of change their minds, and by changing their minds.
Speaker 6: It could be making a decision to vote for, you know,
Speaker 6: one candidate or the other. But the more likely decision
Speaker 6: is is it the type of thing that could depress
Speaker 6: voter turnout, that can make somebody less likely to want
Speaker 6: to turn out and vote?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and turnout. It's going to be everything in an
Speaker 3: election that, as you were just saying, is going to
Speaker 3: be so incredibly close more. Thank you so much for
Speaker 3: joining us, Andra, I mean Andre Gillespie, Emery College Associate
Speaker 3: Professor of Political Science. We appreciate you joining us here
Speaker 3: on Balance of Power. Look forward to getting you back
Speaker 3: on the program. Stonent to Andre's point, as she speaks
Speaker 3: about gaffes, in the way that these candidates are conducting
Speaker 3: themselves on the stage, it speaks to the idea that
Speaker 3: that debate is going to be just as much about
Speaker 3: performance as it is about policy. Considering we're talking about
Speaker 3: the two candidates who will be the oldest ever to
Speaker 3: go head to head like this, Donald Trump having just
Speaker 3: turned seventy eight, Joe Biden, of course, being an octagenarian
Speaker 3: at eighty one. We have so much to look forward
Speaker 3: to as Donald Trump and Joe Biden prepare for this thing.
Speaker 3: Joe Biden is heading to Camp David this evening to
Speaker 3: get his debate prep underway.
Speaker 1: For more material, play Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern.
Speaker 2: On APO, car Play and Androud Otto with the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: The federal government was off for Juneteenth yesterday, but some
Speaker 3: were still hard at work, including Senator Tim Scott, the
Speaker 3: Republican from South Carolina, who we understand to be on
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's shortlist for vice president. He was together with
Speaker 3: a bunch of big names attending a summit slash fundraiser
Speaker 3: with the likes of Bill Ackman, Ken Griffin, Marc and Dreesen,
Speaker 3: showcasing a powerful and rich network that he has access
Speaker 3: to as he devised to join Donald Trump on the ticket.
Speaker 3: Let's bring in now our political panel Jeanie Shanzeno, she
Speaker 3: is a Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the
Speaker 3: Study of the Presidency and Congress. And Lisa Camuso Miller,
Speaker 3: former RNC Communications director and host of the Friday Reporter podcast. So, Lisa,
Speaker 3: the first to you is the ability to bring in
Speaker 3: money enough to vault Tim Scott to the top of
Speaker 3: the VEEP shortlist.
Speaker 8: You know, Kayley, that is probably the biggest piece of
Speaker 8: this competition right now for Donald Trump is he's looking
Speaker 8: at every one of these candidates and how quickly and
Speaker 8: how much access they have to resources, and so, yes,
Speaker 8: I think the ability to raise money is absolutely one
Speaker 8: of those items that he will say is top of
Speaker 8: the list because it's really it's going to cost that
Speaker 8: much more every single day in order to win back
Speaker 8: the White House for him. And so having someone like
Speaker 8: Tim Scott who has access to those resources, I think
Speaker 8: still very much makes him a very very viable candidate
Speaker 8: for the VP, for the vice presidents.
Speaker 3: Of course, he's not the only one that has that.
Speaker 3: Senator jd Vance of Ohio is a former venture capitalist.
Speaker 3: He's a Peter tiel Acoalte. He's hosted fundraisers for Donald
Speaker 3: Trump out in San Francisco. You have Governor Doug Bergham,
Speaker 3: who is a self made multime millionaire many times over
Speaker 3: after selling his company to Microsoft Genie. It feels like
Speaker 3: a lot of these candidates do have the money thing
Speaker 3: in common. So what differentiates them?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, you have a lot of big fundraiser
Speaker 9: there and Tim Scott has proven this over and over again.
Speaker 9: He is a formidable fundraiser and the juneteenth fundraiser was
Speaker 9: a big one for him. That said, he is lacking
Speaker 9: to a certain extent something that is also important for
Speaker 9: a VP candidate and for Donald Trump in particular, and
Speaker 9: that's the ability to perform well on TV. Once again, Sunday,
Speaker 9: we saw him on the Sunday Shows where he continued
Speaker 9: to be pressed on where he stands on things like
Speaker 9: bump stocks, and he had trouble answering in a way
Speaker 9: that appeared authentic and strong. Similarly, a month ago or
Speaker 9: about a month ago, when he was on Meet the
Speaker 9: Press with Kirsten Welker and he was asked repeatedly, would
Speaker 9: you certify the twenty twenty four election, And he repeatedly
Speaker 9: kept getting pressed and had difficulty answering beyond Donald Trump
Speaker 9: will win. So his ability to perform on television, on
Speaker 9: the stump, so to speak, is something else to keep
Speaker 9: in mind, because that's something any presidential candidate would want
Speaker 9: in a vice president, and of course Donald Trump in particular.
Speaker 3: Do we think Donald Trump really wants that and a
Speaker 3: vice president? Though Lisa knowing that Donald Trump does have
Speaker 3: a certain command of media attention.
Speaker 8: I think Genny makes a really good point, and I
Speaker 8: think that that is absolutely something he's going to need.
Speaker 8: As much as he absolutely demands and sucks the oxygen
Speaker 8: out of every conversation, he does really need someone that
Speaker 8: can defend and can step forward. He has to have that.
Speaker 8: He did not have that with Mike Pence. To some degree,
Speaker 8: people looked at that as an example of what needs
Speaker 8: to change, as if we look to another Trump administration,
Speaker 8: He's absolutely going to want someone that can be viable,
Speaker 8: can be strong, and can be defensive of this administration
Speaker 8: if in fact that Trump's return to the White House,
Speaker 8: And so if you're him, you're looking for someone that
Speaker 8: can be smart and can be articulate and can command
Speaker 8: the room, because there's nothing Trump wants more than someone
Speaker 8: to distract from the fact that Trump is really strong
Speaker 8: when it relates to communicating his message.
Speaker 3: Well, Trump doesn't look particularly strong in terms of one
Speaker 3: new poll that we got from Fox. There's many caveats
Speaker 3: I could go through here, one being this is a
Speaker 3: national poll, another being that it is only June. It's
Speaker 3: still pretty early. We don't even know who is on
Speaker 3: the ticket with Donald Trump at this point. But in
Speaker 3: this Fox poll, President Biden leads Donald Trump by two
Speaker 3: points fifty to forty eight. That's a three point improvement
Speaker 3: for Biden over their poll from last month, where Trump
Speaker 3: led by one point. Another caveat here, Genie, is that
Speaker 3: this is all within the margin of error. But if
Speaker 3: we see poles like this again, does it show that
Speaker 3: maybe we're going to start to see a new pattern
Speaker 3: established post Trump conviction.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that pesky marge of error. And I'm so glad
Speaker 9: you raised that because I think this just supports everything
Speaker 9: we've talked about, which is that this is a jump ball,
Speaker 9: This is too close to call. You know, this is
Speaker 9: the right trajectory to your point for Joe Biden, you know,
Speaker 9: to be up three since the last.
Speaker 5: Bowl they did.
Speaker 9: Again, it's national within the margin. So this is continues
Speaker 9: to be a dead heat now if he keeps moving
Speaker 9: in this direction and we get into July, August, September,
Speaker 9: and more and more polls show this. Yes, and it's
Speaker 9: obviously the way he wants to move, but it is
Speaker 9: still too close for anybody to call at this point.
Speaker 9: And you know, Joe Biden knows that, and That's why
Speaker 9: they've been on a swing in terms of they're advertising,
Speaker 9: you know, trying to fundraise to keep up with Donald Trump,
Speaker 9: because this is a formidable opponent for Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Well, Genie, I'm glad you brought up fundraising because we
Speaker 3: know Donald Trump had a really good fundraising month in
Speaker 3: the month of May one hundred and forty one million dollars.
Speaker 3: A lot of that came after his conviction in court
Speaker 3: in New York. We don't know what Joe Biden's numbers
Speaker 3: looked like. We're about to find out within the next
Speaker 3: twenty four hours because the FEC demands it. He's facing
Speaker 3: a deadline. How bad would be bad for Joe Biden, Jeannie,
Speaker 3: how low that number could be?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, since we're looking at, you know, something
Speaker 9: really historic from the Trump campaign, you know, in the
Speaker 9: one hundred and forty one million range, if it holds up,
Speaker 9: you know, Joe Biden certainly wants to keep abreast of that.
Speaker 9: I wouldn't put a number on how bad would be bad,
Speaker 9: but he did have a good five day swing about
Speaker 9: forty million, So they want to come in strong, and
Speaker 9: he wants to maintain at least even or the lead
Speaker 9: that he had before. But you know, if he's around
Speaker 9: forty million, fifty million, I think anything above that they're
Speaker 9: going to feel okay with that. Obviously they'd like to
Speaker 9: be a lot closer, and if they break big that
Speaker 9: would be great. Much below that is a big problem.
Speaker 3: Lisa, I don't know if you're willing to put numbers
Speaker 3: on it as well. But of course it's not just
Speaker 3: the amount raised in May, it's what the different cash
Speaker 3: cushions look like, because so far in this campaign, the
Speaker 3: Joe Biden cash pile has been significantly larger than the
Speaker 3: Trump cash pile. If that starts going away, does the
Speaker 3: advantage too.
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's hard to say what the number would be, Kelly,
Speaker 8: but I think that the point that Genie's made is
Speaker 8: correct is that he's going to want to stay at
Speaker 8: pace with the Saint with the Republican Canada because he
Speaker 8: wants to make sure that he has enough cash on
Speaker 8: hand and enough access to resources so that he can
Speaker 8: then really activate when he needs to. But the other
Speaker 8: thing too is that he probably doesn't need to wait
Speaker 8: too long to get going on messaging and spending and advertising,
Speaker 8: because the truth of it is is that people are
Speaker 8: starting to harden their decisions already, as you're seeing in
Speaker 8: this very very close race. Genie's point about the fact
Speaker 8: that it's in the margin of error and there's only
Speaker 8: up a couple of points. This is going to be
Speaker 8: the narrowest election in the history of the country, according
Speaker 8: to every point and every smart political scientist I've spoken to,
Speaker 8: And that alone tells me that he needs to not
Speaker 8: only be raising, but he also needs to be spending
Speaker 8: in order to get people to his side of thinking
Speaker 8: and to the ballot box in favor of Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: And perhaps also need to be performing at say a
Speaker 3: presidential debate that happens one week from tonight, Lisa, who
Speaker 3: are the stakes higher for knowing that Joe Biden, there
Speaker 3: is an expectation that as an eighty one year old,
Speaker 3: perhaps he might be low energy, maybe a low bar
Speaker 3: to exceed relative to Donald Trump, who has the greatest
Speaker 3: opportunity to net a win next Thursday, evening Joe Biden.
Speaker 8: Absolutely, Joe Biden, I mean, I think the president absolutely
Speaker 8: has to perform strongly. He has to show that he's deaf,
Speaker 8: that he can answer quickly, that he can be perceived
Speaker 8: to have full command.
Speaker 5: Of the issues.
Speaker 8: I mean, that's this is the biggest challenge he has
Speaker 8: to get over, is the fact that people have perceived
Speaker 8: the fact that he's over eighty, that he's it's time
Speaker 8: for him to step aside and not be in the
Speaker 8: White House anymore. And so he has to show strength
Speaker 8: and show command of this debate. And look, it's like
Speaker 8: it's a car crash. We know that's going to happen already.
Speaker 8: I think it's probably going to be the most watched
Speaker 8: presidential debate ever in the history of I mean, if
Speaker 8: we're in the middle of the summer, I mean people
Speaker 8: are not necessarily watching any big sporting events next Thursday.
Speaker 8: I think this is I think the stakes are incredibly
Speaker 8: high for the incumbent, and as long as Donald Trump
Speaker 8: doesn't do any damage, as long as he is measured,
Speaker 8: as you were discussing earlier in the show, if he's measured,
Speaker 8: if he's thoughtful, if he's not full of gaffs, he
Speaker 8: nets the win on this as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 8: So I think that Joe Biden absolutely has the most
Speaker 8: to lose as this debate on folds, because for Donald Trump,
Speaker 8: they've already set the stage and he will continue to
Speaker 8: do that with his audience, because if things don't go
Speaker 8: the way he likes it to go, he'll tell people
Speaker 8: exactly how to think about it.
Speaker 3: Genie, we have less than a minute left, but do
Speaker 3: you agree with Lisa.
Speaker 9: Actually think that they both have to go into this
Speaker 9: and number one, do no harm. I mean, the biggest
Speaker 9: problem for both of them is if they harm themselves.
Speaker 9: So that's the number one rule. And I do think
Speaker 9: we are hearing some interesting change in the rhetoric out
Speaker 9: of the Trump campaign and Trump himself over the last
Speaker 9: few days. They know they have set expectations for Joe
Speaker 9: Biden so low that if he just comes on stage
Speaker 9: and is barely afloat, he is going to surpass those
Speaker 9: And so now you see the Trump campaign saying, well,
Speaker 9: this is rigged against us, you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 9: So I think they are wising up to the fact
Speaker 9: that the expectations game has gotten away from them here
Speaker 9: and that's a problem. But they both have to perform.
Speaker 9: But that means do no harm, don't damage yourself, and
Speaker 9: that's hard on both of their side, particularly for Trump
Speaker 9: who likes to talk all right.
Speaker 3: Jeanie Shanzano and Lisa Camuso Miller. Thank you both for
Speaker 3: talking to me today. Appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 4: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 4: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 4: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg dot com.