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