WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance October 23, 2024 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:06.800 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. 0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:15.480 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along 0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.720 with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day 0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.280 for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics 0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:24.880 from our global headquarters in New York City. We are 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:27.720 live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine 0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.319 am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or 0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.960 anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg 0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:37.640 Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Ben Godige and Vesco 0:00:37.920 --> 0:00:42.559 remaining bullish on equities, writing, we're seeing resilient growth, moderating inflation, 0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:46.520 and more accommodative monetary policy. Despite challenges, this is generally 0:00:46.520 --> 0:00:49.479 a supportive mix for equities. Ben joins us. Now, Ben, 0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:52.319 let's talk about one of those challenges, the election. How 0:00:52.360 --> 0:00:54.360 do you expect us to trade over the next few 0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:55.280 weeks into that one? 0:00:56.920 --> 0:01:01.600 Well, look, I mean there are multiple outcomes, both of 0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:06.319 different color and different mix, and one would expect the 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:10.640 market to can so easily have a tantrum to one outcome, 0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:13.520 could so easily fly on another. But we would say 0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:16.520 over the fullness of time, markets tend to sort of 0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:21.520 fade extreme reactions I would say, such as the dynamism 0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:24.800 of the US economy and quality of management and innovation 0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:29.800 within businesses that despite hedge funds, you know, whacking on 0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:33.039 and taking off trades, you know, from one day to 0:01:33.080 --> 0:01:35.759 the next, in and around the event, you know stop, 0:01:35.800 --> 0:01:39.800 markets can get through this in a positive would get 0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:41.480 through this in a positive fashion. 0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:43.399 Ben, how much of a constraint is the bond market 0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:45.679 right now? We're tends back up to four twenty two 0:01:45.800 --> 0:01:47.160 and a two year with a four handle. 0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:53.000 It's not a constraint just yet, just yet. I think 0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:56.200 whilst the Fed and the market still believes we're in 0:01:56.240 --> 0:02:01.360 a cutting cycle and that growth can remain resilient to that. 0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:06.800 Alongside that, then markets can continue to perform. I think 0:02:06.840 --> 0:02:11.359 quite as expected, markets will sort of check themselves and 0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:17.520 a showcase volatility as the pace of cuts slows, and 0:02:17.520 --> 0:02:19.799 there are some question marks about where the hikes come 0:02:19.840 --> 0:02:24.280 back to the table, But the trend remains a disinflationary 0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:29.200 one and therefore supports a cutting cycle, and therefore I 0:02:29.200 --> 0:02:33.240 think markets can deal with yields at this level. 0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:36.359 Let's define markets, Ben, when we talk about markets being 0:02:36.400 --> 0:02:39.080 able to deal with rates where they are even as 0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:41.080 they climb a bit. And I say this because we 0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:43.280 have seen a challenge to the rotation trade. We've seen 0:02:43.280 --> 0:02:46.120 a challenge to this idea that small caps and the 0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:48.520 rest of the four hundred and ninety three in the 0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:51.639 S and P can perform and outperform. We've seen a 0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:53.919 challenge to that as yields go higher. Do you think 0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:54.720 that that sticks? 0:02:56.400 --> 0:03:00.320 Yeah, I mean it looks to us as though there 0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:03.480 isn't sort of an imminent catalyst for for a yield reversion. 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:05.960 You know, of course a growth looks better, so a 0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:10.560 reappraisal of how davish the federal reserve might be certainly 0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:14.799 a focus on supply of bonds given the sort of 0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:19.880 political agenda really of both parties, and better better growth. 0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:23.480 So you know, it does look as though yields will 0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:26.240 be well supported. 0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:29.760 At this level. That supports we would say, you know, 0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:34.520 higher quality. The funding challenges that high yields bring suggests 0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:38.800 that higher quality businesses might continue to shine in this environment. 0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:42.000 But I think ultimately we return to a disinflation narrative 0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:46.360 and that the sort of softer, softer landing, resilient growth 0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:50.040 becomes the focus once again, So in time, I think 0:03:50.040 --> 0:03:52.040 there is a sort of a catch up trade from 0:03:52.040 --> 0:03:54.080 the sort of small midcaps, but perhaps that's not the 0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:58.400 immediate position to take today given the we are we 0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:00.080 are there is some nervousness about this sort of h 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:00.880 yield environment. 0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:03.600 Then we're talking about the higher yield environment in the US. 0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:06.480 But as Joma's mentioning, it's global and we've seen yields 0:04:06.480 --> 0:04:09.080 really tick up around the world, even when the data 0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:12.240 might not be as obviously supportive as in the US. 0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.040 How much is the US setting the tone and the 0:04:15.040 --> 0:04:17.160 rest of the world gets subjected to it, and that's it? 0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:21.600 Well, I mean I think, I mean, I think that's 0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.039 that is that is the case. I mean, it's I'm 0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:27.200 sure it's not quite such a surprise for everyone that 0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:28.279 that is the case. 0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:29.920 I mean, it's interesting at this moment. 0:04:30.120 --> 0:04:31.880 I think, as you sort of said, is that Europe's 0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:35.680 going through quite an appreciable sort of growth wobble at 0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:40.120 the moment. Certainly some you know, the manufacturing weakness weighing 0:04:40.120 --> 0:04:44.680 heavy on the European economy, and yet bond yields moving higher, 0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:47.320 sort of dragged higher by what's happening. 0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:50.920 In the US. But you know, such is that the dominance. 0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:57.160 Of the US economy and such such support avoidance of 0:04:57.200 --> 0:05:00.400 recession in the US offers the global economy. 0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:03.440 But that is sort of dominating at the margin on 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:04.000 bond yields. 0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:07.920 But for sure, the growth challenges look a little more 0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:12.240 precarious in Europe, and therefore the opportunity for duration fine 0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:15.360 for buying bonds, and the opportunity in neils looks but 0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:17.840 a little bit more apparent at this moment in Europe. 0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:19.840 One place in Europe, though you do like, is the 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:22.080 United Kingdom. Why do you view that as a hedge. 0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:26.599 Well, I don't know if you've heard the argument before, 0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:29.479 but valuation looks interesting. You tend to get a bit 0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:31.080 of eye rolling at that because it's been sort of 0:05:31.080 --> 0:05:33.680 trotted out, I don't know, for the last fifteen years 0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:37.400 or something. But valuations certainly look interesting relative to some 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:43.320 global comparators. Certainly, dividends look are always interesting, but I 0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:48.920 think relatives some very downbeat expectations growth could impress. But look, 0:05:48.960 --> 0:05:53.320 the hedge reflects, you know, sort of commodity rich components 0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:57.560 of the UK market, And thinking about a geopolitical hedge 0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:02.720 in amongst evaluation, hedge makes it a reasonable portfolio compliment 0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:07.080 to a more substantial position in US equities that we harbor. 0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:09.320 Hey, Ben, it's going to hear from you. Ben Gunnrich, 0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:21.400 the investor on the mass more than stanle these Matt 0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:24.200 Hornback thinks the bond market is less exposed this time around. 0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:27.760 Writing many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most 0:06:27.800 --> 0:06:30.800 bearish for US treasuries. We think any rise in treasury 0:06:30.839 --> 0:06:33.800 yields would be more contained than in twenty sixteen, based 0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:38.000 on a comparison between expectations for FED policy today versus then. 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:39.680 I'm pleased to say that a good friend of ours, 0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:41.919 Matt Hornback, joined us. Now, now let's jump into that 0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:44.279 story together. Give me some more detail on that the 0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:48.040 bigger difference now between now and twenty sixteen. 0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:54.320 Yeah, John, will the differences extend well beyond what people 0:06:54.360 --> 0:06:56.719 expect the FED to deliver over the course of the 0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.560 next couple of years. But certainly the FED is a 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:03.520 very big part of the story. In twenty sixteen. We 0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:06.880 have to remember that, you know, Janet Yellens, FED was 0:07:07.000 --> 0:07:11.000 about to embark on a rate hiking cycle. It was 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:13.880 the second time they were trying to start it up, 0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:19.040 and investors generally expected the FED to be hiking rates 0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:24.440 very gradually going into that election. In the wake of 0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:28.400 that election, of course, investors changed their minds very quickly, 0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:32.160 and over the course of that next year revised higher 0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:36.360 their expectations for FED policy to the tune of about 0:07:36.600 --> 0:07:39.360 one and a quarter percent. Now, one and a quarter 0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:42.400 percent doesn't sound like that big of a deal today, 0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:46.040 because we've just lived through five hundred and twenty five 0:07:46.120 --> 0:07:49.160 basis points worth of rate hikes in twenty twenty two 0:07:49.320 --> 0:07:53.040 and twenty three. But back then, one hundred and twenty 0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:56.120 five basis points was quite a big deal. And so 0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:59.360 if we take that number, John and we apply it 0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:03.280 to day's environment, that would essentially be the same thing 0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:07.080 as saying that investors would go from expecting the FED 0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:11.440 to cut rates modestly to know more rate cuts in 0:08:11.480 --> 0:08:15.120 this cycle. And that's a leap that I don't think 0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:19.000 investors are going to make in this particular cycle, which 0:08:19.080 --> 0:08:22.160 ultimately means that the bond market sellof will be more contained. 0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:24.880 Matth the's an argument that this time is different because 0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:27.920 a deficit is different, it's significantly bigger. We just had 0:08:27.920 --> 0:08:31.240 a cycle where we essentially we got fiscal stimulus into 0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:35.440 a growing economy, a healthy economy by many measures. Why 0:08:35.600 --> 0:08:37.719 is a deficit issues not a concern for you? And 0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:40.240 I'm not talking about the short end or the specific 0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:42.760 rates tied to Fed policy, but the long term rates 0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:44.959 that are more hinged to the fiscal outlook. 0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:48.840 Potentially, Lisa, I'm really glad that you asked me this question. 0:08:49.640 --> 0:08:52.320 I have a strong view that in the end, what 0:08:52.480 --> 0:08:57.360 moves the bond market are how investors change their expectations 0:08:57.600 --> 0:09:02.720 for fiscal policy or or treasury supply. And if you 0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:05.719 ask every investor in the marketplace today whether we are 0:09:05.760 --> 0:09:09.559 going to have bigger deficits in the future, irrespective of 0:09:09.600 --> 0:09:13.520 the election outcome, to a person, you will hear the 0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:17.240 view that, yes, we will have larger deficits. It's already 0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:22.000 expected by most investors, and therefore it is already in 0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.439 the price to a certain degree. And the question then 0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:28.760 is what type of deficits do we get over the 0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:34.400 next five years relative to what people expect already. That's 0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:37.640 going to be the most important part of the bond 0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:42.360 market reaction to this election. And so in the end, 0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:47.679 it's how people's expectations change visa via the deficit is 0:09:47.720 --> 0:09:50.800 what ultimately moves bond markets in any given period of time. 0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:53.839 That said, Matt, given how vers some people are getting 0:09:53.840 --> 0:09:56.440 on bond deals and the expectation we heard from ti 0:09:56.559 --> 0:09:59.120 row price, potentially we can get five percent on a 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:02.600 ten year yield aggressively. Are you buying longer term bonds 0:10:02.640 --> 0:10:06.040 right now on some of the backup Yeah? 0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:09.440 Well, look, I certainly think that there's value and the 0:10:09.480 --> 0:10:13.160 treasury market, but a lot of that value depends on 0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:17.040 knowing an outcome that at this point in time is unknowable. 0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:20.400 So what we've been telling investors is to hug their 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:26.120 benchmarks tightly and wait for the opportunity to arise in 0:10:26.160 --> 0:10:29.760 the wake of the election, an outcome of which is 0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:33.679 very uncertain. In addition, the timing that we will know 0:10:33.760 --> 0:10:38.160 that outcome is also somewhat uncertain, and therefore I think 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:42.599 investors are best place to hug their benchmarks tightly. And 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:47.520 so in terms of the duration exposure, Lisa, really about 0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:51.800 where you think any additional Treasury supply will come. And 0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.240 in the end, when the Treasury increases coupon issuance, they 0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:58.560 don't do so just in the thirty year Treasury bond, 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:02.640 they increase supply generally across the yield curve, and so 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:06.319 for investors out there who are worried about higher deficits, 0:11:06.320 --> 0:11:09.319 who think that those deficits will be larger than the 0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:14.400 marketplace is priced for, my recommendation is to be underweight 0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:17.560 the intermediate sector of the yield curve, not necessarily the 0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:20.840 long end, because in the end, when the Treasury increases supply, 0:11:21.400 --> 0:11:24.440 they're going to do it, you know, across the curve, 0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:27.200 and so the weighted average of that supply is going 0:11:27.240 --> 0:11:30.760 to hit most strongly in the intermediate sector of the curve, 0:11:30.840 --> 0:11:31.920 the five to ten year sector. 0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:34.040 Matt, I've got forty seconds left. I want to squeeze 0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:37.080 this in dollar stronger against everything in G ten. The 0:11:37.080 --> 0:11:38.959 inter date chat of Dolly Yen today is just a 0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:41.640 slow and steady march up into the right one fifty 0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:44.199 ninety six, about to break through one fifty three. What's 0:11:44.240 --> 0:11:44.880 the story there? 0:11:45.960 --> 0:11:48.960 Well, I think the largely of the story is the 0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:53.760 US economy has once again proven more resilient than fears 0:11:53.760 --> 0:11:57.640 had suggested, and as a result of the interest rate 0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:02.440 complex moving higher, taking real returns in the US higher, 0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:06.240 that's going to attract capital into the into the US. 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:08.800 It's gonna it's gonna put upward pressure on the US dollar, 0:12:09.240 --> 0:12:13.559 of course, just like there's some degree of you know, 0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:17.559 a pricing of a potential election outcome. Uh, there's probably 0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:20.440 something going on in the dollar just the past week 0:12:20.520 --> 0:12:25.400 really that is perhaps putting some higher probabilities on an 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:29.280 outcome involving tariffs. And yeah, a lot of investors think 0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:30.800 that the dollar is going to go up on tariffs. 0:12:30.960 --> 0:12:43.600 Matt, appreciate it, Matt holmback of moment. Stanley close to 0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:47.120 Evan roth Smith writing the best testing closing goncuments against Trump, 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:50.120 those that emphasize his lack of support from his former 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:54.240 cabinet and numerous Republicans sling shots Evan roth Smith, Johns 0:12:54.280 --> 0:12:56.040 to snaph for Moore, Evan, welcome back. It's good to 0:12:56.040 --> 0:12:56.320 see it. 0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:56.840 Thank you. 0:12:56.920 --> 0:13:01.360 I see commercials like that absolutely everywhere, which makes the question, 0:13:01.760 --> 0:13:04.800 if that's the best testing case, why is this race 0:13:05.000 --> 0:13:05.800 still so tight? 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:09.439 Well, the race is tight because the electorate is tight. 0:13:10.120 --> 0:13:12.120 You know, we have a structure in our electorate right 0:13:12.200 --> 0:13:14.760 now where Democrats need to overperform at the national level 0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:16.640 to even have a chance in the swing states, and 0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:20.480 every poll shows this closing up to a very very 0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:22.439 tight race. This is what every polster has been saying 0:13:22.600 --> 0:13:24.559 for months, Right, this is going to not just polsters. 0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:26.400 It's going to be a fifty to fifty race. It's 0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:28.160 going to be really, really tight. But now we're living 0:13:28.160 --> 0:13:30.160 that reality because the Poles have gotten there. 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:33.760 Evan, you say this is their best test in terms 0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:35.560 of their messaging to get out and it comes at 0:13:35.559 --> 0:13:37.360 a time you have John Kelly speaking to the New 0:13:37.440 --> 0:13:41.040 York Times and he basically says that Trump is the 0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:45.760 definition of fascism? Is this though diluted in the sense 0:13:45.800 --> 0:13:48.640 that we have heard this for years for members who 0:13:48.679 --> 0:13:50.720 were part of Trump one point zero. 0:13:51.080 --> 0:13:53.679 Well, so this was the best closing argument we had 0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:56.599 in terms of going after Trump. Right, the kind of 0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:00.040 language you saw from her around her mission, her go 0:14:00.320 --> 0:14:03.719 around the economy, around working people and Donald Trump as 0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:07.960 a patsy of the wealthy and who will cut taxes 0:14:08.000 --> 0:14:09.760 and who will be fiscally or responsible, as well as 0:14:09.800 --> 0:14:12.920 sort of the undertone to that is still the best 0:14:12.960 --> 0:14:15.559 thing for her to say about herself. But yes, many 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:19.280 people in the electorate are worried about this, Nicki Haley, voters, 0:14:19.280 --> 0:14:22.560 people who supported her in the primary, who are Republicans 0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:26.040 instinctually on policy, are worried about things like a former 0:14:26.080 --> 0:14:27.880 Trump White House chief of staff coming out and saying, 0:14:27.880 --> 0:14:29.440 the guys of fascist don't let him back in. 0:14:29.920 --> 0:14:32.640 They've been doing a lot of campaign events with Liz Cheney. 0:14:32.800 --> 0:14:35.680 But then you hear from Governor Tim Walls who says, well, 0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:39.160 we want her to be a part of Kamala Harris's campaign, 0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:41.880 to talk about the fact to give basically this idea 0:14:41.920 --> 0:14:44.560 of Republicans It's okay, you can vote for Kamala Harris. 0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:45.840 At the same time, he said we're not going to 0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:48.520 take any of their foreign policy advice. So what are 0:14:48.720 --> 0:14:52.240 you getting if you are saying a Nicki Haley Republican 0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:54.720 and thinking about voting for Kamala Harris. 0:14:54.560 --> 0:14:57.200 You're getting some sense of security that the Democrats are 0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:01.880 not this foreign entity that you can't crossover. That would 0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:04.040 be verboten for you to cross over to Nicki Hilly 0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:07.640 voters in our pulling, you know, these people are really Republicans. 0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:10.720 They are Republicans on economic policy, They're Republicans on immigration policy, 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:13.760 the Republicans on just about everything. They love George W. Bush, 0:15:13.800 --> 0:15:18.360 they love Condolleza Rice. They love that era of Republican politics, 0:15:18.800 --> 0:15:21.480 and there's a lot of push out of the Republican 0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:24.080 Party from Donald Trump on them. They do not like 0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:27.520 Donald Trump, but we need to establish some pull into 0:15:27.520 --> 0:15:30.160 the Democratic Party if they're ever going to cross over, 0:15:30.200 --> 0:15:33.120 because they've already voted against Donald Trump once in the primary, 0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:34.720 and what the Democratic Party needs to do is to 0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:37.360 get them to vote against him a second time. That's 0:15:37.360 --> 0:15:38.880 a fairly tall order, but you need to make them 0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:42.120 comfortable doing something that their entire lives they've rarely done, 0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:44.040 which is vote for a Democrat for president. And that's 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:45.160 what Liz Cheney is there to do. 0:15:45.200 --> 0:15:47.280 Kamal Harris was asked in The View what separates her 0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:49.320 from Joe Biden. She said, well, really, nothing really comes 0:15:49.360 --> 0:15:51.040 to mind. How bad was that for her? 0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:54.920 That was pretty bad. We tested it out. It was 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:56.520 the worst possible thing she could have said in that 0:15:56.560 --> 0:15:58.000 moment compared to the other things we did. 0:15:58.000 --> 0:15:59.600 Why wasn't she prepared for that question? 0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:03.600 I think she was prepared. I just think she she 0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:05.800 has hang ups, and I don't think they're they're they're 0:16:06.240 --> 0:16:09.720 you know, ill considered or dismissable around how it's perceived 0:16:09.720 --> 0:16:12.800 for a vice president to be disloyal to their president. Also, 0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:14.760 by the way, for the first female vice president to 0:16:14.800 --> 0:16:17.520 be disloyal to their president, for the first black vice 0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:19.200 president to be disloyal to their president. You know, sort 0:16:19.200 --> 0:16:21.360 of a cruel joke of history that to elect the 0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:23.480 first woman president, she's now been tasked in the final 0:16:23.480 --> 0:16:28.280 weeks with some supreme act of disloyalty against against Joe Biden. Right, 0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:32.200 that's that's that's pretty pretty messed up. But she's dialed 0:16:32.200 --> 0:16:34.520 that answer in, right, we saw yesterday in that in 0:16:34.560 --> 0:16:37.600 that NBC interview, I believe she gave a much more 0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:41.320 pointed answer about price gouging and housing prices. So she's 0:16:41.320 --> 0:16:43.760 gotten there, she's you know, she's gotten more comfortable with it, 0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:47.680 but she's she's a loyal, dedicated member of this administration. 0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:49.200 Do you think that it's a good thing for her 0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:51.040 to go on Joe Rogan Show after Trump? 0:16:51.480 --> 0:16:52.840 Yeah, I think it's a great idea. I think she 0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:56.480 should absolutely do it, not just because any time that 0:16:56.520 --> 0:16:58.520 she goes out and does an interview and talks to people, 0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:01.000 it works. You know, we test all sorts of clips, 0:17:01.000 --> 0:17:03.400 even moments we didn't think we're particularly good from those 0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:06.520 first rounds of things she did with people like Oprah, 0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:09.560 and sixty percent of anyone who's of voters who saw 0:17:09.560 --> 0:17:11.680 clips of her doing interviews were like, that was great. 0:17:12.119 --> 0:17:13.879 Even if those of us in the media and politics 0:17:13.880 --> 0:17:15.399 would have gone, oh, I coul would have tweaked that 0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:17.880 this way that way. So when she goes on these 0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:19.560 media appearances, it works for her. 0:17:19.920 --> 0:17:22.439 At this point, we are seeing the polls seem to 0:17:22.440 --> 0:17:25.200 favor Donald Trump. We're seeing that pretty much across the board. 0:17:25.280 --> 0:17:27.560 You're kind of nodding back and forth. Last time you 0:17:27.600 --> 0:17:30.400 were on, you said that you think pollsters are so 0:17:30.480 --> 0:17:33.440 self conscious about getting it wrong in terms of not 0:17:33.520 --> 0:17:35.960 skewing the data enough to Donald Trump, that they're actually 0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:37.760 overweighting him. Do you still think. 0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:41.359 That, I think the odds of an error in this 0:17:41.440 --> 0:17:44.040 election a polling air likely, or a polling air in 0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:46.399 favor of Kamala Harrison. There are a couple pieces of 0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:48.760 evidence that might support that. One is, frankly, the last 0:17:48.760 --> 0:17:50.159 time we had a black candidate at the top of 0:17:50.160 --> 0:17:53.560 the ticket, Barack Obama in twenty twelve, polling underestimated him 0:17:53.600 --> 0:17:55.879 by six points in any given swing state. Because you 0:17:55.960 --> 0:17:59.640 have polling is good at establishing what a given electorate 0:17:59.720 --> 0:18:01.719 is going to do. It's not always so good at 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:03.760 picking up at changes in the electorate, like the kind 0:18:03.760 --> 0:18:06.120 of high turnout you get from black voters when there's 0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:09.560 a black president on offer. And the other thing is 0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:12.280 the last election we have, the twenty twenty two elections, 0:18:12.640 --> 0:18:16.159 was a polling miss in favor of Republicans, right that 0:18:16.640 --> 0:18:19.399 overestimated Republican sports. So people like to talk about the 0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:22.760 twenty twenty miss, the twenty sixteen miss, but the last 0:18:22.960 --> 0:18:25.240 national election we had in the twenty twenty two midterms, 0:18:25.480 --> 0:18:29.679 was a large, multi point miss that overestimated Republican support. 0:18:29.800 --> 0:18:32.760 So I think there's plenty of reason to believe that 0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:35.119 if there is a polling error, and by the way, 0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:37.000 I don't think there necessarily will be a polling air, 0:18:37.080 --> 0:18:40.479 but if there is one, that Kamala Harris is a 0:18:40.560 --> 0:18:43.680 likely beneficiary of that error rather than someone who will 0:18:43.720 --> 0:18:44.560 be punished. 0:18:44.160 --> 0:18:47.199 By We've got to squeeze this in this weekend. Harris 0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:50.439 is in Texas, Donald Trump is around the color at 0:18:50.480 --> 0:18:53.080 Madison Square, gun and here in New York City. What 0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:55.440 is gvin on that? What do you think that's soil about. 0:18:55.320 --> 0:18:57.919 It's the attention war. It's the attention warner there. You 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:00.520 can go to Wisconsin twenty million times, you can go 0:19:00.520 --> 0:19:03.760 to North Carolina twenty million times. But these closing weeks 0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:05.919 of the election, you have to get into people's living rooms, 0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:08.240 not just the people who come out to a rally 0:19:08.280 --> 0:19:11.199 to see their favorite candidate. You have to get attention. 0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:13.679 You have to get cairns. You have to you know, 0:19:13.720 --> 0:19:17.159 you have to win the news day and doing a 0:19:17.160 --> 0:19:20.520 big rally at MSG or doing a big appearance potentially 0:19:20.520 --> 0:19:24.439 with some sort of celebrity, maybe in Houston is a 0:19:24.440 --> 0:19:26.000 way to do that, in a way to at least 0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:27.639 you know, these people have jets. They can go back 0:19:27.680 --> 0:19:30.760 into the swing states the next five minutes. So winning 0:19:30.800 --> 0:19:32.920 the attention battle with a couple hours of your time 0:19:33.160 --> 0:19:35.159 and then going back to the campaign trails is not 0:19:35.200 --> 0:19:36.040 a silly way to spend here. 0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:38.120 It's getting a lot of attention. That's the sure. Evan, 0:19:38.160 --> 0:19:40.679 It's good to see you, Thank you sir. This is 0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:45.080 the Bloomberg Sevenants podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, 0:19:45.119 --> 0:19:48.040 angio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg 0:19:48.080 --> 0:19:51.240 TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am. Eastern, 0:19:51.560 --> 0:19:54.920 Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else 0:19:54.960 --> 0:19:57.600 you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and 0:19:57.640 --> 0:19:58.840 the Bloomberg Business Amp.