Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the latest
Speaker 2: the dollar weeker. As investors' reprice bets on a second
Speaker 2: Trump presidency. Kitchooks assault writing a Trump clean sweep and
Speaker 2: a Harris win without a clean sweep remains the two
Speaker 2: most likely outcomes in our view, and equally likely, these
Speaker 2: are the most bullish and most bearerush outcomes to the dollar, respectively.
Speaker 2: Kit joined us now for more so, Kit, I've known
Speaker 2: you long enough to say unhelpful.
Speaker 3: What are you telling people to do?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 5: I was thinking about it. It's a bit like the
Speaker 5: sort of the Brexit story in terms of whether we're
Speaker 5: going to have a hard Brexit or not back in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty, when you know, you really have to be
Speaker 5: careful about where to go. I think, look, I think
Speaker 5: we have to be sort of conscious of the fact
Speaker 5: that at the moment what we're doing is seeing bets
Speaker 5: get taken off. The market got excited about the possibility
Speaker 5: of Trump victory, and the treasury market sold off, the
Speaker 5: dollar rallied. We're giving up back some of that, I
Speaker 5: think in terms of the places where the market has
Speaker 5: skew in its pricing, I think, if Trump doesn't win,
Speaker 5: or if by some chance he didn't get a clean sweep,
Speaker 5: because that's very important as well, then currencies like the
Speaker 5: Australian dollar where they decided not to cut rates this
Speaker 5: morning and where are they don't look like cutting rates
Speaker 5: this year? You know, that looks like an undervalued currency
Speaker 5: on any scenario other than kind of you know, the
Speaker 5: most aggressive Trumpian Trumpian one in terms of fiscal expansion
Speaker 5: in the United States, tariffs on China, and maybe even
Speaker 5: only a modest Chinese policy response to that. So the
Speaker 5: Australian dollar might be the outlier. But if you said
Speaker 5: that the yen is going to follow where bond yields
Speaker 5: are going to go almost regardless. Then frankly, Trump wins
Speaker 5: with a clean sweep, dolly En might be at one
Speaker 5: hundred and sixty and Trump a dozen Harris wins without
Speaker 5: a clean sweep, dolly En might be breaking towards one
Speaker 5: hundred and forty. So it's just a massive gamble that's
Speaker 5: very hard for people to cope with, and they have
Speaker 5: to hold tight until we see if we're going to
Speaker 5: get a result tomorrow morning, but.
Speaker 1: Kit long term, if it isn't Trump win or potentially
Speaker 1: this clean sweep scenario where Congress going red as well.
Speaker 1: Trump has talked about the fact that he wants a
Speaker 1: week or dollar.
Speaker 4: How do you.
Speaker 6: Be able to measure.
Speaker 1: Both of these basically conflicting results.
Speaker 5: No, you know, the dollars strong because the United States
Speaker 5: has had exceptional fiscal policy because the US can as
Speaker 5: it's a lot of bonds, and bondy oards have been higher.
Speaker 5: And of the strength of the fiscal stance in the
Speaker 5: US compared to everything we've done in Europe is that
Speaker 5: it has helped the economy outgrow the rest of the
Speaker 5: world spectacularly. Trump wants more growth. He wants to put
Speaker 5: taris in place to get more people into manufacturing jobs
Speaker 5: in the United States. Okay, at a starting point of
Speaker 5: pretty low unemployment already, he can't have that much cake
Speaker 5: and eat it in terms of an economy that's going
Speaker 5: to be even stronger with fiscal policy continuing to be
Speaker 5: accommodative and have a weak currency because in the end,
Speaker 5: his biggest the biggest threat Trump is going to be
Speaker 5: inflation on what we've heard so far, so we'd have
Speaker 5: to change some of his policies if he wanted a
Speaker 5: week a dollar you We'll see how it plays out.
Speaker 5: But you get the currency your policies give you, not
Speaker 5: the currencies you want.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 3: Kid, when you.
Speaker 1: Look at why the financial markets changed, was it because
Speaker 1: of the pulling out of Iowa? Or is because they're
Speaker 1: basically a little bit nervous that they got two over
Speaker 1: their skis. When it comes to the Trump trade.
Speaker 5: I think that if you looked at the dollar index
Speaker 5: and you plotted it against the betting odds from real
Speaker 5: clear politics and how they were going in favor of Trump,
Speaker 5: they moved very closely together. So the betting odds have
Speaker 5: moved back in line with the opinion polls in the
Speaker 5: last week less than a week really, and Iowa played
Speaker 5: a part of that, and I think that's certainly seen
Speaker 5: people taking not his beds off, perhaps in the betting space,
Speaker 5: but taking some of those trades off. And so when
Speaker 5: we look today as if we're closer to a market
Speaker 5: that genuinely doesn't know what's going to happen, and maybe
Speaker 5: that's the right place for it to be.
Speaker 4: Which raises this question kit how violent could the reaction
Speaker 4: be in markets after we get some sort of results,
Speaker 4: given that everyone's going to be racing to it, no
Speaker 4: one really had an edge. Yesterday Mike Wilson of Morgan
Speaker 4: Stanley was talking about how he sees a clearing event
Speaker 4: coming after we get the results from this, and the clearing.
Speaker 6: Event could last a month.
Speaker 4: How violent of a clearing event could it be if
Speaker 4: we get a decisive response results one way or another
Speaker 4: in the base cases that you laid out, No.
Speaker 5: You know, just if you just tracked from the poles,
Speaker 5: so from Harris entering the poles and then Trump sort
Speaker 5: of coming back, and then where we are now we're
Speaker 5: sort of one o seven one oh one in the
Speaker 5: dollar index. I imagine that a sudden sort of you know,
Speaker 5: when you're not sure you get through those levels that
Speaker 5: seems to me most likely outcome. So it's pretty fun
Speaker 5: again if I look at dolly En in terms of that,
Speaker 5: you know, the violence of a dolly In move depends
Speaker 5: on how much treasury yields can move.
Speaker 3: But we've had a big.
Speaker 5: Sell off at the long end of the treasury market
Speaker 5: on concerns about more accommodative fiscal policy, increased bond supply,
Speaker 5: and some inflation worries. If you if you had a
Speaker 5: scenario where those melt away, you know, the treasury market's
Speaker 5: pretty bearish at the moment in terms of sentiments. So
Speaker 5: a snap back rally there, what that could do, what
Speaker 5: that could do to the end is very striking. So
Speaker 5: right the way across the piece, we're not you know,
Speaker 5: I don't think we can avoid having a pretty violent reaction.
Speaker 5: And history says, you know, we sometimes overshoot and then
Speaker 5: come back and settle down and decide that we'll have
Speaker 5: a look because there'll be so many more questions. I mean,
Speaker 5: we have to sort of put in sort of minor
Speaker 5: adjustments in the sense of, you know, whether someone has
Speaker 5: a clean sweep or not is very important how it looks,
Speaker 5: and then we're going to work out whether either president
Speaker 5: can get what they want through Congress, irrespective of what
Speaker 5: that looks like, so that there'll be lots more questions.
Speaker 5: But I think the initial reaction is likely to be
Speaker 5: pretty big really, just because we're caught where we are.
Speaker 4: Kid, Are you watching the election from Mexico City?
Speaker 5: I am not watching the election from Mexico City. No,
Speaker 5: that would be that would be too exciting. But yes,
Speaker 5: you know, you look at the impact on the end,
Speaker 5: on the Australian dollar, on the Mexican play, so on
Speaker 5: all of Latin America really, you know, in fact, for once,
Speaker 5: Europe is likely to be less affected I think than
Speaker 5: the rest of the world. That doesn't mean it doesn't
Speaker 5: have an impact yet. But the big story is Asia
Speaker 5: and Latin America.
Speaker 2: Interesting kit afreciateitsor kit chooks of such chin. We begin
Speaker 2: this out with stocks on hold and the last they're
Speaker 2: voting in America. Cameron Dawson of New Edge right to
Speaker 2: the following. Given how tight poles and odds are, we
Speaker 2: see the election as a source of near term volatility.
Speaker 3: Regardless of the result.
Speaker 2: Each side has boogeyman that could spook markets. Cameron joins
Speaker 2: us now to talk about those men. Cameron, who are
Speaker 2: those men?
Speaker 7: All those men certainly are things like hired deficits, higher
Speaker 7: corporate taxes, tariffs and immigration. And I think Amory's point
Speaker 7: was really important is that if we think of the
Speaker 7: tariffs line of things, it doesn't necessarily matter about the
Speaker 7: makeup of Congress that we could see them if Trump
Speaker 7: is elected, which is certainly some of the questions that
Speaker 7: you've seen raised by the bond market and considering potentially
Speaker 7: stickier inflation. So we think regardless of who wins tonight
Speaker 7: or whenever we get those results, it effectively is going
Speaker 7: to be a surprise because those polls are so very tight,
Speaker 7: which means that it could be a.
Speaker 6: Volatility inducing event.
Speaker 7: I think it's important to note though, that markets aren't
Speaker 7: necessarily primed for volatility to continue. You've seen a huge
Speaker 7: buying of put options for the vicks, effectively people betting
Speaker 7: on volatility collapsing post the election. So again, this could
Speaker 7: simply be a surprise, and it could cause that higher
Speaker 7: volatility given the fact that people aren't necessarily positioned for it.
Speaker 4: I want to pick up on that point because you
Speaker 4: see this across a range of different volatility metrics. Basically
Speaker 4: people expect volatility, price swings to really peak tomorrow and
Speaker 4: then appsolutely fade off as we get results and go
Speaker 4: back to some sort of status quo. From your advantage point,
Speaker 4: how much are you looking to actually take advantage of
Speaker 4: something that could be more significant? How off sides would
Speaker 4: this market be, and what would you do with that?
Speaker 7: We always try to see volatility as opportunity, and i'd
Speaker 7: raise the question of if we would be seeing this
Speaker 7: volatility even if this wasn't election day. If you look
Speaker 7: at things like S and P five hundred, momentum and breadth,
Speaker 7: they've all been deteriorating over the last month.
Speaker 6: You've also seen a deterioration in forward earnings estimates.
Speaker 7: You've seen estimates for four Q as well as twenty
Speaker 7: twenty five get cut and trimmed.
Speaker 6: So I would raise the question of if we could
Speaker 6: have this.
Speaker 7: Volatility even if this was not election day, simply because
Speaker 7: you have a lot of digestion of the strong gains
Speaker 7: that we've had here to date and kind of putting
Speaker 7: some of the seasonality aside. Given that deterioration and breadth
Speaker 7: and momentum, that just sets you up for a little
Speaker 7: bit more churn.
Speaker 4: At this point, Cameron, you have to understand. I have
Speaker 4: to understand and I don't understand exactly how much we've
Speaker 4: already priced in some of these trades, what these trades
Speaker 4: actually are, and thinking in particular in the bond market,
Speaker 4: people have been wondering, you strip out the political influence,
Speaker 4: what does a ten year yield look like?
Speaker 3: Do you have a sense of that.
Speaker 7: Well, we do know that there has been a relationship,
Speaker 7: whether it's correlation causation is up for debate between Trump's
Speaker 7: ogs of winning and the tenure treasury yield over the
Speaker 7: last three months or so. That certainly broke down at
Speaker 7: the end of last week, where Trump's betting ods started
Speaker 7: to fall and you still saw the tenure treasury yield
Speaker 7: moving higher. We think the source of that ten yere
Speaker 7: treasury yield moving higher really comes down to the bond
Speaker 7: market digesting the fact that you have a relatively resilient
Speaker 7: economy that is supported by higher deficit spending at the
Speaker 7: same time as you have a FED that's talking about
Speaker 7: potentially hundreds of basis points of cuts to get to
Speaker 7: their idea of neutral, which could have the potential of
Speaker 7: effectively throwing lighter fluid on some of this tightness within
Speaker 7: the economy, the fact that you still have overall easy
Speaker 7: financial conditions as well, and that seems to be the
Speaker 7: reason why you're seeing these bond yields move higher.
Speaker 6: Not necessarily the election or just the election.
Speaker 3: The wise important, Cameron.
Speaker 2: The wy is important because I think it dictates how
Speaker 2: to trid equity to some extent at least. Would you
Speaker 2: say yields have been rising then for good reasons and
Speaker 2: not bad, and is a reason to stay long equity markets.
Speaker 6: I think the answer to that is in high yield spreads.
Speaker 7: If yields were rising for bad reasons, that the FED
Speaker 7: was tightening policy and it would eventually result in much
Speaker 7: weaker growth, you would see high yield spreads widening out.
Speaker 7: But they continue to remain very contained and actually making
Speaker 7: new year to date lows, which says to us, this
Speaker 7: is not a market that is necessarily in fear of growth.
Speaker 6: It's not priced for a growth slowdown.
Speaker 7: Now you could see that as a risk going into
Speaker 7: twenty twenty five if you start to see a deterioration.
Speaker 6: In economic fundamentals.
Speaker 7: But effectively, the credit market is telling you that yields
Speaker 7: are rising because growth is resilient, So watch those hygyield
Speaker 7: spreads very closely.
Speaker 2: Would you expect you to remain that way even if
Speaker 2: we got a sweep from the GOP in the next
Speaker 2: twenty four hours.
Speaker 7: I don't necessarily know if any of the of the
Speaker 7: policies that would be enacted by a GEOP sweep would
Speaker 7: necessarily affect growth in twenty twenty five. Let's put tariffs
Speaker 7: and potentially emigration to a side, because that is certainly
Speaker 7: something we could see without.
Speaker 6: A GEOP sweep.
Speaker 7: But the question and the risk for a GOP sweep
Speaker 7: really is something that's contemplated later in twenty five and
Speaker 7: into twenty six, where we will be negotiating those four
Speaker 7: trillion dollars of tax cuts, potentially adding a lot to
Speaker 7: the deficit, which is certainly something that the bond markets
Speaker 7: might push back on. But that's not necessarily something that
Speaker 7: we deal with in the next couple of months.
Speaker 3: Cameron.
Speaker 4: A couple of months ago, people came on this show
Speaker 4: talked a lot about how this could be a transformative event,
Speaker 4: how this could mark the difference in an economic cycle
Speaker 4: with respect to inflation, with respect to growth. As we've
Speaker 4: gotten closer to the event, we'll advise, have you suddenly
Speaker 4: people are saying, actually, we just need to get past
Speaker 4: it and whatever the results, things will keep on going
Speaker 4: on the way they were before.
Speaker 6: Where do you fall on that?
Speaker 7: The best news that we always try to bring clients
Speaker 7: back to is that if you look historically that the
Speaker 7: S and P. Five hundred, regardless of the power balance
Speaker 7: within DC, has been able to do what it does
Speaker 7: despite of or in spite of what goes on in DC.
Speaker 7: And that's really good news, which just means that overall
Speaker 7: corporate earnings have been able to operate in times regardless
Speaker 7: of uncertainty and pressures of what's going on within policy.
Speaker 7: And it's something that we always try to remind clients
Speaker 7: of just so that the way that they don't respond
Speaker 7: too emotionally to what is for many people a very
Speaker 7: emotional election day.
Speaker 1: Kener, We know the markets like certainty, what if it
Speaker 1: is a contested election, what's going to be the impact?
Speaker 7: Certainly that would be potentially a source of volatility. It's
Speaker 7: not necessarily volatility that would last for a long time.
Speaker 7: So it gets back to Jonathan's first question. If you
Speaker 7: do see volatility, is it biable? We think the answer
Speaker 7: is yes, that as you start to digest some of this,
Speaker 7: these deteriorations and breadth and momentum that could be happening
Speaker 7: regardless of the election. You get the narrative of uncertainty
Speaker 7: behind it. Then you set up for effectively a great
Speaker 7: buying opportunity into year end with that potential Santa Claus
Speaker 7: rally and year in chase. So a source of volatility,
Speaker 7: not necessarily a source of investment decision.
Speaker 2: A good framework for thinking about this market into your
Speaker 2: end and beyond. Cameron, Thank you, Cameron Dawson of New
Speaker 2: Edge Wealth. Among big donors at the final stages of
Speaker 2: the campaign, one wealthy individual supporting cameras is Mark Cuban,
Speaker 2: the minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks. And I'm pleased
Speaker 2: to say that Mark joined us now. Mark, welcome to
Speaker 2: the program. We spoke to a Trump campaign advisor a
Speaker 2: little bit earlier this morning, and I want to start
Speaker 2: with you in a similar way that I started with him,
Speaker 2: which is basically, I'm waking up this morning, I'm a
Speaker 2: Swings state votes, I'm in Pennsylvania State, and i still
Speaker 2: haven't decided who I'm going to vote for. And I'm
Speaker 2: thinking back to how Harris talked about in twenty nineteen
Speaker 2: that she wanted to Ben Franking. I understand she's changed
Speaker 2: her mind, but I'm worried that she's a bit of
Speaker 2: a shape shift, that she gets back into power and
Speaker 2: she'll change her mind again.
Speaker 3: How do you settle those concerns?
Speaker 8: The world has changed since twenty nineteen. She's open minded,
Speaker 8: she's talked openly about the fact that she wants to
Speaker 8: give dessending opinions a place at the table with her.
Speaker 8: She's not dogmatic, that's how you explain it. And she's
Speaker 8: looking to put together the best policy. She's said in
Speaker 8: twenty twenty that she supported fracking, So I think that's
Speaker 8: a non issue. And in terms of you know, is
Speaker 8: she just an extension of Biden? Just look at Biden's
Speaker 8: budget proposal versus what Kamala Harris has actually proposed. Biden
Speaker 8: wanted much higher taxes. Kamala Harris came in twenty eight
Speaker 8: percent for tax rate for cap gains in twenty eight
Speaker 8: percent for corporation and did not say a word and
Speaker 8: will not say a word about unrealized capital gains. And
Speaker 8: so I think she's completely different. She's not a shape
Speaker 8: shift in the least bit.
Speaker 1: Well, that individual we were speaking to Scott Bessant, this
Speaker 1: key economic policy advisor to the Trump campaign, says that
Speaker 1: Harris what he hears from a lot of Wall Street journals,
Speaker 1: that she would be moderated by a Republican Senate, and
Speaker 1: that's why Wallstreet would be willing to vote for her,
Speaker 1: because of that moderating effect that she would get from
Speaker 1: a red Senate.
Speaker 6: Is there any truth to that, Yeah, of course.
Speaker 8: I mean balance is not a bad thing necessarily. I'm
Speaker 8: not opposed to a divide in Congress, you know. But
Speaker 8: the bottom line is what will Kamala Harris do? And
Speaker 8: I think she's better for the economy in so many ways.
Speaker 8: You know, there's three hundred and thirty five million people
Speaker 8: in this country. Four million make four hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 8: or more. The other three hundred and thirty million make less.
Speaker 8: Is she has been very specific that if you make
Speaker 8: four hundred thousand dollars or less, your taxes aren't going up.
Speaker 8: In fact, for one hundred million people, they're going down.
Speaker 8: The other big expense that every household is fearful of
Speaker 8: is healthcare expenses. Donald Trump said he has a concept
Speaker 8: of a plan. Kamala Harris has been very specific on
Speaker 8: the pharmaceutical side, saying she's going after the pharmacy benefit managers,
Speaker 8: the middlemen, and she'll introduce transparency. I know from my
Speaker 8: own personal experiences with costplus drugs that'll lead to a
Speaker 8: twenty thirty percent or more deduction in the cost of
Speaker 8: medications for households and businesses. And then you've got terriffs.
Speaker 8: As Michael I think it was said earlier, tariffs are
Speaker 8: a bad idea. I mean, it's so bad.
Speaker 1: Then why did Biden and Kamala Harris keep them?
Speaker 3: They keep the trouble.
Speaker 8: Let's talk about that, right, because that's not completely that's
Speaker 8: not completely accurate. First look at the EU. They Biden
Speaker 8: sided the deal saying that there would be no terriffs
Speaker 8: between the two EU and the United States for the
Speaker 8: next five years. So those tariffs are gone. And then
Speaker 8: you look at what Trump tried to introduce. He had
Speaker 8: four years to try to implement teriffs that work, and
Speaker 8: he got his butt kicked by China. The retaliatory terriffs
Speaker 8: almost destroyed the soybean in the farming industry, and he
Speaker 8: had to pay out twenty million dollars. But as it
Speaker 8: applies to households. Right, he's talking about a sixty percent
Speaker 8: across the board terras for Chinese imports. China makes just
Speaker 8: about every Christmas present that we buy for a kid,
Speaker 8: So families would be looking at a sixty percent or
Speaker 8: more increase and what they'd spend on Christmas, and the
Speaker 8: downstream impact of that would be significant to small and
Speaker 8: large businesses.
Speaker 1: Mark, Let's talk about something you've been very vocal on.
Speaker 6: This is regulation.
Speaker 1: You've said that you don't think Harry should keep Lena
Speaker 1: Khan at the head of the FTC. On and Alexandro
Speaker 1: Cassio Cortez, the congresswoman from New York, went to Twitter
Speaker 1: and she said, billionaires like you, Mark are trying to
Speaker 1: play foot seat with the ticket. If anyone goes near
Speaker 1: Lena Kahn, there will be quote an out and out brawl.
Speaker 1: Where is Harris when it comes to things like the FTC.
Speaker 8: I don't know. I haven't talked about personnel with her
Speaker 8: or her team. I have no intention about talking about personnel.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 8: I was asking a question about what I thought about
Speaker 8: the FTC, and I thought that, you know, the possibility
Speaker 8: of breaking up the big technology companies would be a
Speaker 8: negative because I think, you know, winning the AI battle
Speaker 8: for the United States is paramount from military in and
Speaker 8: economic perspective. So I voiced my opinion, but I'm not
Speaker 8: involved in those conversations at all.
Speaker 4: But it really raises this ultimate question, which is what
Speaker 4: policies will she follow. She's been engaging with AOC quite
Speaker 4: a bit in terms of the campaign trail, and there's
Speaker 4: a real question of how much there will be an
Speaker 4: effort to cater to the further left sides of the
Speaker 4: Democratic wing versus the sort of centrist appeal that she's
Speaker 4: been trying to have. How much are you actually getting
Speaker 4: confidence that she's going to have business executives in cabinet
Speaker 4: positions in top areas where she really is listening to
Speaker 4: what they have to say.
Speaker 8: I talked to her campaign almost every day. I'm one
Speaker 8: hundred percent certain. I'm much as confident. I'm certain that
Speaker 8: that's what they're going to do. I've been on the
Speaker 8: trail with Doug Amhoff, who, as part of his presentation,
Speaker 8: talks about what a capitalist she is. She's talked about,
Speaker 8: you know, wanting to create twenty five million new businesses.
Speaker 8: That's not a reflection of anything far left. One of
Speaker 8: the first things she did was introduced a tax deduction
Speaker 8: or increase the tax deduction for startup cost of fifty
Speaker 8: thousand dollars. That's very important. She recognizes that if the
Speaker 8: thirty three million companies in this country, ninety nine percent
Speaker 8: are passed through, ninety nine percent are run by people
Speaker 8: making four hundred k or less. Those small businesses are
Speaker 8: what drive the economy. They create most of the new
Speaker 8: jobs every single year. So she's focused on an opportunity economy.
Speaker 8: I don't think she can be any more clear.
Speaker 4: Mark, do you think that this campaign for Kamala Harris
Speaker 4: could have done more to reach out to the mail voter.
Speaker 4: This seems to be an election that is unique in
Speaker 4: just how bifurcated the mail and the female vote really
Speaker 4: has been. There were some questions around Joe Rogan and
Speaker 4: how to appeal to the mail vote and how to
Speaker 4: really bring the genders together. What's your take on this
Speaker 4: campaign's approach to that.
Speaker 8: I think it was very data driven. I mean, women
Speaker 8: have a high propensity of voting, and you know, with
Speaker 8: all with reproductive rights and other issues that were gear
Speaker 8: towards women, I think she did a great job of
Speaker 8: connecting to them. You know, maybe she didn't. She didn't
Speaker 8: do everything she could have with men, but that's okay
Speaker 8: because she went to the people who are going to
Speaker 8: vote more. You go, you know, as a business person,
Speaker 8: you go to the people you have the best opportunity
Speaker 8: to sell to, who's going to buy your product, who's
Speaker 8: going to vote for you. In this particular case, and
Speaker 8: the fact that she's only been in the race fourteen
Speaker 8: weeks and she's caught up completely and now I believe
Speaker 8: Pastor and will win today, I think she's done the
Speaker 8: exact right thing.
Speaker 2: Speaking of business and product, there's a famous quo from
Speaker 2: Michael Jordan, which I'm sure you know well, Republicans by
Speaker 2: sneakers too, and raise the question about you. And I
Speaker 2: wanted to ask you about this from Mann, who's got
Speaker 2: a line of businesses, why was this important to you
Speaker 2: to put your name and reputation on the line and
Speaker 2: really get deep into politics when ultimately Republicans by sneakers too.
Speaker 8: So I'm not going to get deep into politics, but
Speaker 8: I think this, You know, this is a close election
Speaker 8: for a reason, and I think Kamala Harris will be
Speaker 8: the best president and is a better choice than Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: It's that simple. I mean, I love this country. I'm
Speaker 8: in this position because of everything this country has given me.
Speaker 8: I'm blasted and I thought, you know, I truly believe
Speaker 8: that she will be the better president for the United
Speaker 8: States of America. And that's the only reason I'm doing this.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for sharing your time with us this morning. We
Speaker 2: appreciate it, Mark, and hopefully we can share it again soon.
Speaker 2: Mark Cuban there on the latest campaign effort from the
Speaker 2: Harris campaign. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you
Speaker 2: the best in markets, economics, an gio politics. You can
Speaker 2: watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from
Speaker 2: six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast
Speaker 2: on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as
Speaker 2: always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business Out