Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay, and then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We just heard from President Biden describing what he said the hatred of the Holocaust brought back to life on October seventh when he said that Hamas unleashed terror on Israel, going on to describe what he called a quote ferocious surge of anti semitism around the world in the aftermath, saying too many people have been denying, downplaying, or rationalizing the horrors of the Holocaust, and October seventh, saying that's
despicable and it must stop. He also touched on the right to free speech and peaceful protest, but he said there is no place on any campus or any place in America for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether against Jews or anyone else. He also said in this speech that he is calling on all Americans to stand united against anti Semitism and hate in all of its forms. We want to get reaction now to this
speech on Bloomberg Television and Radio from Terry Haynes. He is the founder of Pangaea Policy and is with me now, So, Terry, I'm sure you are just hearing the words of the president. Obviously, this speech comes in a very tenuous political time for him, as he has been facing blame for what we're seeing happening on college campuses across the country, a lot of backlash in regard to his support and policy toward Israel. Did he do what he needed to do with this speech.
Today, Well, I think he didn't hurt himself by the speech. A couple of things. Firstly, it's a fine and necessary thing for the president to do. In that sense, it's a very good thing, and as a citizen I applauded number one. Number two is somebody that knew Tom landis a little bit as an old congressional staff hand. I'm very glad to hear his name and his example raised up and discussed. I think the you know what the
president needs to do is more than that. Though. Those are fine words, and I have no doubt that they are sincerely meant and sincerely delivered. At the same time, what you have in the President's government is the lack of really two things. One is, and this goes back to you know, before the current difficulties of the past six months or even the last week, You've got two problems. One is that the President needs to clearly state and work to persuade people of what the foreign policy of
the United States is. This is really the first time in about eighty years, ever since the Second World War, that a unified view of foreign policy has been challenged, and it's one reason why it took six months to get aid for Ukraine, aid for Israel, aid for the Indo Pacific. The second thing you need to see is clear execution of that foreign policy. What we're getting in the current Middle East situation, I'm sorry to say, is
a lot of muddle. And the suspicion is right from even among allies that what's happening is that the United States domestic politics are making it difficult for the United States to respond strong, forcefully, and consistently. And the President needs to use a lot of that sentiment that he just expressed in order to write that ship. I think.
Well, and I wonder how much of the ability to write this ship is predicated on a temporary ceasefire goeriment being reached Terry not only helping it navigate the situation geopolitically in regard to what's happening in the Middle East, but also at home in terms of pacifying some of those who have been protesting against this warrant against this administration.
My two cents is that you deal with the situation first, straight up, as is, and then you apply the politics to the situation. Other than applying the politics first and
then dealing with the substance later. You've got an awful lot of concerning loose ends out there, in my estimation, loose ends about the degree to which the United States knew about what is now known as a Hamas counter offer, not an agreement, who knew about it, when they knew about it, and whether the United States was trying to pressure Israel into it when Israel had made it clear previously supposedly that they would not agree with those terms.
You know, there's a publicly it looks like what's happening is that the United States is trying to buffalo Israel a little bit through armed shipments, through rhetoric, and a bunch of other things. This is a pretty good time whatever else for the United States and Israel strong allies to get back on the back on the same foot together, and hopefully we see evidence of that in the next days.
Well, of course Biden is still at this event, Terry. He is actually sitted seated right next to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. In the House has passed some anti semitism legislation just last week regarding the definition of anti semitism, a broadening of it is specifically as it's applied by the Department of Education. Raised a lot
of concerns about free speech. Should we expect that that legislative effort or any others to combat and anti semitism can actually make it through both chambers, knowing it's unclear at this time what the Senate's going to do with that particular piece of legislation.
Oh, I expect it will. It's it's difficult to you know, from looking at it from a politician's perspective, it's difficult to argue that what you shouldn't do is is expressed as strongly as possible. You know your your opposition to anti semitism in all its forms. At the same time, you know the President's quite right to say that the government response by itself as much, you know, won't do the job. And you know is I'm I'm not Jewish,
but I know will believe that. You know, governmental statements are well and good and fine, but that's not the sole solution and won't by itself fix the problem. But you have a situation here where you know the government will do things certainly, but at the same time, you know, the more pressing question is not just anti semitism at home,
but it's also what the administration does abroad. And my assessment is the United States needs to be a lot clearer about what they expect, how they expect it, and why they expect it in the Middle East, and also at the same time do things that help the broader peace process that involves Saudi and Jordan and a bunch of other nations along. That's a difficult balancing act. I don't say it because it's easy, but that's the task before the administration.
Well, and we'll see if they ultimately are able to complete that task in its entirety. Terry, there is a separate piece of breaking news I do want to get your take on as well. We just got from two TikTok a filed petition in federal court suing the US government as expected over that divest or ban bill that was passed as part of the Supplemental Package by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Biden. TikTok says it is seeking to overturn what it calls
a quote constitutional TikTok ban. They say a standalone US platform would not be commercially viable and that a qualified divestiture is not possible.
Terry, how do you see all of this going down?
TikTok, pointing out here the law would force a shutdown of the app by January nineteenth of twenty twenty five.
Is this going to be legally resolved by then?
You know, I think it probably by January of twenty twenty five. I think it's more more likely than not that it's not completely resolved. They will, you know, they'll they'll use all their legal tools, including appeals to the Supreme Court and the like to do that. And we're based, so we're basically talking about less than nine months in order to achieve that. So, you know, I doubt that
that happens in the end. The other thing, I'll say about this is from a perspective as an old communications lawyer and a telecom advisor in both Congress and at the FCC, where I was a presidential appointee once upon a time that you know, I don't find TikTok's views here persuasive at all. First Amendment rights fundamentally are those expressed and held and used by citizens. There are limited First Amendment rights for corporations.
And the like.
But you know, the net of this is that nobody's speech rights are are being affected negatively in any way. If TikTok goes away, they you know, just liked in India, they'll migrate to other apps, and you know you'll be.
Done with it.
But the core of this issue here isn't speech at all. It's national security. And you know, TikTok and the Chinese government beyond it probably don't want a situation where the United States government starts talking about exactly how TikTok uses its app. And you know, even if it's done behind closed doors, the least that will happen is that TikTok itself and the Chinese government will be somewhat embarrassed by that.
So it may well be that what happens is you say you have a teeth gnashing today in a legal sense, but in the end they divest or they shut down.
Well, and of course a divestiture, to your allusion to the Chinese government terry would need to be signed off on by China, and I wonder if that really is the rub here, is if the CCP is going to be signing off on this or not.
Yeah, well they you know, I think they'll probably push as hard as they can to the contrary, not only because you know, they want to continue the operations that they're using the app for in the United States, but they want to do so in other countries as well, So you know, yeah, they'll try to push back on that as much as possible. But you know, just like in the in the United States, you can't have foreign entities, you know, even owning broadcasts channels, foreign governments and the like.
You know, the United States government also is not going to stand for situations where data scraped and used for whatever purposes by a foreign government that's thought of as best as a competitor and worst as somewhat less than openly hostile. So what you have is a situation where where the Chinese government is, is you know, much more between a rock and a hard place than I think the United States government is. Frankly all right.
Terry Haynes, founder of PINAGEA Policy, thank you so much for joining not just on this news from the lawsuit from TikTok, but also of course after President Biden delivered his remarks on anti Semitism from Capital Hill.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Ronaldo with them Bloomberg Business Ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg. Eleven thirty.
We're awaiting the latest from Capitol Hill after the second meeting in as many days between the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia, who of course has threatened to act on her motion to vacate the speaker as soon as this week. Before the meeting that was scheduled for twelve thirty pm today, she said she's clear in what her demands to Mike
Johnson are. She would like to see the Hastart rule followed, which means a majority of the majority must support any bill. She wants no more funding for Ukraine, to defund the special counsels who are looking in to former President Donald Trump, and avoid a shutdown before the election by passing ACR to automatically enact a one percent spending cut. The question is what leverage does the congresswoman have over the speaker?
Is he likely to agree to any of this, especially when Democrats have said that they will act to table emotion to vacate if indeed it is brought forward. So we want to get reaction to all of this now from inside the Republican Conference, I'm pleased to say joining me here on Bloomberg Television and Radio live from Capitol Hill is Congressman Byron Donald's, the Republican from Florida. Congressman, welcome back to Bloomberg. It's great as always to have you.
What is your understanding as to what could go down in your chamber in regard to this motion to vacate in the coming days.
Well, I think what's likely is that the emotion will be tabled by large amounts of the Republican Conference and from what we're hearing members of the Democrat conference. Look at the end of the day, there have been questions from many Conservatives about a lot of the bills that have passed on the House floor, where a majority of
Democrats who have been voting for those measures. But I believe that right now going through a battle for the speakership is not in the best centries of the Republican Conference or in Congress overall. I think at the end of the day, it's gonna get tabled and then we're gonna move on. We're gonna move on to the appropriations process for the next fiscal year.
Congressman, is this so much about Democrats being willing to protect the House speaker, which may be the thing that keeps him with the gabble in hand, or about the support from former President Donald Trump to what extent does he influence the outcome here?
I think President Trump has made his views known that he doesn't want to see the House go through this motion of vacate process right now. So I think right now you have a lot of people up here on both sides of the aisle who just want to basically get to the election season and let the American people have their voices heard about which way they want Washington
to go. Do we want to continue to go down the line of the crazy agenda of Joe Biden and the Democrats that's led to massive open borders, massive inflation on the or of World War III? Or do we want to go back to Trump era policies which actually improved wages in our country, kept inflation low, led to a more peaceful planet across the board, and actually secured our nation. And so that's what that's the conversation I think every member on Capitol Hill wants to have. I
think we're probably going to get to that. We're definitely going to get to it. I think the motion of VAKA is probably going to get tabled in the process.
Well, Congressman, you just mentioned there the border, which of course is something that your conference has focused immensely on in passed HR two, though with no Democratic support, never got the chance to vote on that bipartisan border deal that was reached between Senate negotiators and the White House. President Biden has though expressed interest in doing something on
the border legislatively, trying perhaps that effort again. Do you expect you will have a chance to vote on something else before the election.
No, no, I don't, because what Joe Biden wants to do is play politics with the issue of securing our nation. Even the bill that was in the Senate, that was pure politics. The Senate didn't even bring it up for a vote. That's how toxic that bill was. And so the reality is is that what Joe Biden wants to do is give a fig leaf, give a patina to the American people right before the election, to demonstrate that he cares about securing the border. The truth is he
does not. He never has because if he cared about border security, he would have worked with Republicans at any point over the last eighteen months, he has refused to do that, and over the course of his entire presidency, we've now seen anywhere from eight to ten million illegal immigrants come into the United States. So he doesn't care
about the border. He uses it for his own political gain, and now he wants to do something right before the election because his poll numbers suck because he's been worse at his job.
Well, of course, he had been working with one Republican at lease, Senator James Langford, who helped negotiate that bipartisan border deal. But moving on, Congressman, there is another issue with which the president has been grappling. In fact, he's on Capitol Hill today. I understand you are there at his remarks, but he did give an address on anti semitism, talking about how there is a freedom to free speech in this country, not though room for hate speech or
violence on college campuses. Given what we are seeing across the country, including schools like GW where I know you yourself visited here in Washington, what else would you like to see be done to address this issue?
Is the speech itself.
Enough No, the president's speech is not enough. It's nine or ten days too late. Well, why are we surprised? Joe Biden is no leader. He's late to every crisis that faces our country, including the rise of anti semitism from the radical democratic left. So no, the speech is simply not enough. What we should be talking about right now is the fact that you have students whose civil
rights have been violated. So these schools which do not take campus securities seriously, we should be invoking Title six of the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Acts, and we should be defunding these institutions if they're not going to protect the civil rights of students. It's that simple. And this goes back very clearly if you go back to
the Civil Rights era. The reason why Title six was put into the Civil Rights Acts is because you have black students whose civil rights were not being protected on college campuses. So if it was good enough, then it should be good enough.
Now.
Well, Congressman, when we think more widely about what many of these protests have emanated from, Obviously it is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas and Gaza, where we have seen tens of thousands of Palestinian lives lost. There are questions now as to whether or not Israel will be moving forward with a further ground invasion into Rafa,
potentially resulting in more loss of civilian life. Would you be supportive of any alteration to US policy toward Israel if Israel were to do that when the administration has warn't against doing so, conditioning aid for example, No.
I don't think we should do that. This is something where Harmas committed a a disgusting atrocity against the people of Israel on October seventh, and so what the United States government should do is stand behind its ally. If Hamas refuses to surrender. That is because Hamas is a terrorist organization that literally hides behind women and children in Gaza. They would prefer to see Palestinians die so that Harmas
can live. I know that's very strong language for your network, but those are That's the truth of what's happening overseas, and so Hamahs should have surrendered long ago. The only reason why they haven't surrendered to this point is because they are getting political coverage from a lot of news stations around the world and from the radical left in the Democrat Party who continue to give them cover. When it comes to the Palestinians and Gaza who have died
in this conflict. Nobody wants to see the loss of life. But when you have Hamas hide behind women and children, using them as human shields, there is going to be loss of life. And they do that for one very important reason. Hamas hides behind women and children because they believe that Israel will weaken and not follow through with eliminating Hamas. But Israel's resolve is high. They should continue
the incursion in Tarafa as we speak. They should not stop from doing that, because if you let Hamas hide behind women and children and then rebuild themselves by sending aid over there, which, by the way, hamas right now is stealing the aid for their own purposes from the Palestinian people. If you allow them to survive, you're only going to invite more attacks in the future. I think
Israel's doing the right thing. They should proceed forward, and the White House, led unfortunately by Joe Biden and the Secretary of State mister Blincoln, they should stand behind our ally, not behind hamas well.
Congressman, do you not think the White House has done that to this point, considering we have not seen conditions put on aid, and we have heard many times expressed by Biden and other officials within the administration that the US alliance with Israel is ironclad.
Listen, we've heard the words from the Biden administration, but when you go into where they've been talking with the Israeli government behind closed doors, what you've seen is then putting pressure on Israel, trying to get them to change the battle plans that the IDF is going through right now. They've been saber rattling to Israel, saying that there are certain conditions that the United States wants to see and how they proceed in this conflict. That is not the
appropriate response from our government. That is a cowering response from our government, which is sad to see because at the same time, you have the Biden administration is back channeling to the Iranian regime, trying to cut a new Iranian deal with that regime. And we all know that the Iranians are the backstop for Hamas. Hamas is a
puppet regime of Iran. And so when you have Tony Blincoln and President Biden going behind closed doors to back channel to the Uranians and then also to limit what Israel can do, then I would tell you no, the speeches might sound good, but what's happening in reality has not been good and not supportive of Israel.
Congressman, your displeasure with the way that this president has conducted himself in regard to this conflict is well noted. I would like to ask you, though, about the former president with whom I know you have a close relationship. I'm sure this will come as no surprise to you that your name has come up quite repeatedly in terms of who may potentially be Donald Trump's vice presidential candidate join him on the ticket.
Come November.
What conversations have you had, if not with him, with others on his team about that.
There's really not been any conversations. I think everybody is aware of kind of what this the short list is to use your language, But what we're focused on is making sure that the Trump campaign is in the best position possible to retake the White House this November. Look, whatever President Trump decides to do when it comes to the vice presidency, I'm gonna fully support because I just want to win and get our country back on track.
We have an amazing country if our leadership is actually smart and gets out of the way of the American people. I think four years ago the American people were lied to. Joe Biden said that the adults were going to be in the room, and the adults are going to come back to Washington, DC. But what we have seen in the last three and a half years is the most disastrous policy, both domestically and on a foreign policy basis,
our country has ever seen. Joe Biden is the master of disaster and he needs to go whoever the vice president is, that'll be fine. President Trump's gonna make that decision. I will support that. But we got to get our country back on track. The American people deserve no less, and our allies deserve no less.
Great Congressman Iron Donald, the Republican from Florida, thank you so much for joining us on Bloomberg Television and Radio live from Capitol Hill. We appreciate your time, sir, and we want to get a bit of reaction now from our political panel. And pleased to say Genie Shanz, a no Bloomberg Politics contributor, is joining me alongside Republican strategist Lester Months and co head of the International Group at BGR.
So Lester, if I could just first go to you.
Obviously, a lot of criticism of the Biden administration dealt there by Congressman Donald's. At the same time, while Biden is navigating the situation with Israel, Donald Trump is spending his days, including today, in court in New York. When a voter is considering these two choices, potentially disagreements over policy versus something about character. What will win out in November?
What a wonderful question. I don't think we know yet. This is a pretty close election. I think mister Donald's just demonstrated why he's on that list. That was a lot of forceful messages, master of disaster, as he called Joe Biden. He's he would be a great you know, just objectively, you're looking for an attack dog vice presidential candidate, he would be terrific. He hit all the marks that
those messages resonate with Republicans. That's that's going to help Donald Trump, who might be trapped in a courtroom for the next few months, either in New York or in Florida or DC. He's going to be trapped in courtrooms Byron Donalds. Could is one of the people who could be out there, you know, bringing the attack on behalf of the former president. I thought that was pretty effective.
Well, Genie, when you consider what exactly the attacks were, everything from the way that he has conducted his Israel policy to the way that he has handled the situation on the US border. Are these not two issues that are actually among perhaps the highest ranking in terms of what's going to be weighing down Joe Biden's re election effort.
They are. And the third one, of course, would be the economy and inflation. And so he did hit those talking points. You know, Unfortunately, the veracity of some of what he said was not something that many people who have looked, for instance, at the Jim Langford bill on border security would agree with. You know, he talked about it as if it was, you know, Joe Biden's bill uninterested in border security. Well, you asked Jim Langsford, you
asked the Wall Street Journal, this conservative editorial board. They described it as the most conservative security bill, not an immigration bill, that we had seen in a hundred years. And so, of course it was the House of Representatives, the Republicans who punted on that because it wasn't in Donald Trump's interests as it pertains to the election in November. He didn't want Joe Biden to get a win on that before the election. So you know, yes, is he
making good talking points on behalf of Donald Trump. Absolutely, But when it comes to governor, big, big questions have to be asked, you know, just going back to the issue of Israel, for instance, I listened to Joe Biden speak carefully. He talked about an iron cloud commitment to Israel, and I'm not sure how that could be questioned at this point.
All right.
Jeanie Shanzo, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Lester Munson of BGR Group wish we had more time with you both today, but thank you so much.
As always, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Eppo car Play and then Proudo with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to Balance of Power on Bloomberg Television and Radio, where the markets, of course trading all day with no break. There is a break, however, up in New York in the trial of Donald Trump, the criminal hush money trial that is is on the lunch break until the end of this hour. But before that break started, we got multiple hours of ten testimony from porn stars Stormy Daniels, who of course has been in focus in this case.
She was the recipient of this one hundred and thirty thousand dollars hush money payment that prosecutors alleged was intended to influence the results of the twenty sixteen election in Donald Trump's favor, and of course that the payments to Michael Cohen, the fixer who made the payments to Stormy Daniels, were misclassified improperly as legal fees thus the charges of
falsification of business records. We want to get more now with June Grosso, who of course is the host of Bloomberg Law, has been following this trial incredibly closely, So June, it's unclear what else we'll hear from Stormy Daniels when the lunch break returns. How much longer she could be on the witness stand. Have we gotten though, all of the details that really prosecutors likely wanted to get at from her.
Well, it's hard to know because I don't know what else she has they have that she could testify to. But the most important thing, and she's talking about it now, is the hush money trial, and they certainly have gotten into that also. I think what's in important for prosecutors is, you know, the jurors have been hearing Stormy Daniels, Stormy
Daniels to this whole trial. They want, you know, the jury to meet Stormy Daniels and also to talk about the sexual encounter she had with Donald Trump, which she recounted in great detail. And what they want is to show the jury why Donald Trump wanted to keep this so secret, desperately didn't want it coming out before the election. And when you hear some of the details she gives, you can imagine that this is something that someone running
for president would not want to be out there. I mean, he said things like, first of all, he asked her a lot of intimate questions, and he said at one point, do you remind me of my daughter? So this whole scenario is unsavory, and that's putting it mildly, and it's a good reason for Donald Trump to want it to stay out of the public eye.
Yeah, well, when it comes to some of the detail, of course, the judge had previously ruled that not all of the sexual detail needed to be born out by Stormy Daniels on the witness stand, though certainly she did get into.
Some of it. But she got into a lot of this positions.
Right because she talked so fast. From everyone I've been hearing, she talks so fast that it comes out before, you know, minutes too late. And the defense hasn't been objecting that much. But you got a lot of detail. I don't know what other details she could have really talked about. So I think that the judge I understand that he was
none too happy. And this is a very even tempered judge not much gets him, you know, concerned, but he was unhappy about this thing and sounded as if he was losing his temper a little bit.
So.
Of course, the detail of the actual sexual sexual encounter June is one thing. The detail on the actual NDA and the payment is another. Before the break, we did hear Daniels talking about that non disclosure agreement.
She said that it was intended to keep information secret.
She was asked by the prosecutor who the beneficiary of the NDA was. She answered Donald Trump, adding that it was arranged by Michael Cohen. She went on to say she had wanted the deal done by October fourteenth, prior to the November twenty sixteen election, because she was afraid if it wasn't done before the election that she would not be safe. And she raierated that the deal was for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, that she could not tell the story and he could not contact her.
Of course, another name, though, has come up in that testimony from Daniels, which is Michael Cohen June, who we have yet to hear from.
How could her.
Testimony and his ultimately be attempted to be pieced together by the prosecution.
Well, so a lot of the witnesses that we've heard from up until this point from the prosecution, are there to buttress what Michael Cohen is going to testify. You know, as I've said, Michael Cohen is comes to the courtroom with a lot of baggage, a lot of ways for the defense to attack his testimony. I mean, we could
count them many ways. So he is a witness whose credibilities has to be bolstered by the prosecution, and they're going to do that with documents, but also with some of the testimony, for example, the testimony that she's giving about how Michael Cohen set this up and how also how she was afraid she wouldn't get paid before the election, and you know, we have that whole thing about how Michael Cohen was trying to get the payment and finally had to put it up, you know, with an equity
loan on his own home. So all these little things are going to be brought together by the prosecution, or at least they hope it'll be brought together in one big piece where the jury will say, well, he has his problems.
He has a lot of problems.
You know, he perjured himself and all this, but he's backed up by all these witnesses and by all this paper that we have here. So I think that's what the prosecution is tempting to do with her testimony. But also, as I said, you know, they're also getting in a lot of sort of details about Donald Trump that might disturb some jurors because they come off as slazy. So who knows what the jurors are thinking at this point.
Yeah, of course I will wait and see ultimately how this jury rules whether or not or decides he's convicted or acquitted. The prosecution has said it it does expect it could be calling witnesses for another two weeks, so it could be weeks still until this whole affair wraps up. June Grasso, host of BLOOMBERGLAS, thank you so much, as always for your expert insight and analysis as to what
exactly is happening in the courtroom in New York. And of course, what happens in this trial in New York has broader ramifications considering this is not just a former president Donald Trump on trial, but current presumptive Republican nominee who is actively campaigning to once against it.
In the Oval Office.
So we want to talk now more about how this case factors into voter opinion as we get closer and closer to that vote in November, and bring in Cliff Young. He is US Public Affairs President IPSOS and is joining me here in our Washington, d C.
Studio.
Cliff, always great to see you. Thank you so much for coming back to Bloomberg. If we just start with the impact of this trial or potential impact ultimately of the verdict if Donald Trump is convicted, and then depending on potentially whatever the sentence is after that conviction, how does that impact as odds of winning in November.
Well, first and foremost, we don't know, because it is the future and they're sort of extraordinary events. They're not events that we can sort of compare to in the past. We don't have a database of convicted former presidents that
we can draw from. But we do test things, We experiment on these sorts of issues in our polling, and what we do find is a conviction and more importantly, a conviction and prison time has an effect on the margins that it basically sort of rattles moderate Republicans, They sort of migrate to undecided That doesn't mean they wouldn't come back again if the messages were right, But without a doubt, this sort of event probably, like I said, has an effect on the margins, is.
That more that would be Trump voters would be more likely to gravitate towards say an alternate choice, a third party candidate, or that they actually would then go out and vote for Joe Biden, because there is a difference there.
I don't think there's any sort of world where a Trump voter would decide not to vote for him and then vote for Biden. There's a likelihood that they migrate to a third candidate RFK as an example, but more than likely they would not vote at all. They just stay home and just wait for the next election.
So ultimately, Cliff, a lot of this is probably not about that base Trump voter who would be voting for him no matter what, or certainly not voting for someone else who isn't him, versus a base Biden voter who
is already committed to voting for the Democratic candidate. It's about that basket of undecided, and I just wonder how big that basket realistically is and whether or not we're talking about that undecided group potentially growing larger because of issues like this or others that more people become person waitable.
Yeah, this is a very uncertain electoral cycle. So already from the get go we have between fifteen to twenty percent of the population, depending how we ask the question, I'm unsure about their answer about how they would vote. This obviously increases as the legal troubles sort of expose themselves over time. They hurt Trump specifically. I think it probably translates more into not showing up and voting than somehow someone changing their vote and voting for the other side.
But obviously we will see.
Well on that note of really ultimately it being about who turns out and actually decides to cast a vote.
In November, you did.
Some polling with ABC that came out just a few days ago that did suggest looking at the headline of just you know, American voting age people, donald Trump is leading. When you narrow that basket to likely voters, it's Joe Biden that is ahead. So how should we be thinking about the turnout elements of this? And ultimately, when we're seeing Donald Trump leading consistently across national pulling swing state
polling as well, including our own here at Bloomberg. How turnout is ultimately going to factor in whether he's as strong with people who are actually going to show up.
Yeah, we have to be very careful right now looking at sort of likely voters, that is, those who are going to show up on election day or vote in the election. It's fuzzy at best. We're six months out, but it is suggestive that Trump has a lot of voters on the ledge, on the fence. There's uncertainy about him. There's uncertainly because of illegal troubles and frankly because of many of those sort of related sort of issues that could work itself out over the course of electoral cycle.
But today, when you look at likely voters, they like Biden more than they like Trump.
Well, Biden has his own share of issues though as well, while Donald Trump has legal problems. We saw Joe Biden's perhaps on full display today when he was at Capitol Hill giving a speech on anti Semitism. As we're seeing college campuses across the country royaled by protests many who are unhappy with his handling of.
His policy toward Israel.
Given the high civilian death toll in Gaza, how much is that going to influence more so than other issues like the economy or immigration, voters who are deciding whether or not to show up in November for Biden.
Yeah, I really think that Gaza and Israel is a false negative. Let's call it for Biden, It's not the issue. The real issue is actually inflation, and younger Americans really hit by high price levels, like minorities as well. When we look specifically at the data, we put sort of Gaza on the one hand, inflation on the other. Across all demographics, inflation wins out in terms of the number one issue, though number one worry, and that's really a Biden's achilles heel today. It's inflation.
Well, you mentioned young people specifically, who of course have really been at the heart of a lot of this protest activity, and so to hear that maybe it is perhaps more about the economy for them than other issues. Your point is well taken. Yet, in the primaries, the Democratic primary we have seen across a number of states, Michigan perhaps most predominantly comes to mind, given its importance as a swing state of primary voters choosing uncommitted or
something to that effect. Different languages depending on what state we're talking about, but actively choosing not to vote for Joe Biden in the primary. Are you saying that that protest vote over Israel policy is limited to the primary, isn't likely to be as much of a factor in the general.
Now, I was saying that inflation is more important, Okay, And to understand sort of where younger Americans stand. It's really about inflation. It's not about Gaza and Israel. That's not to say that you can have a specific effect in a specific state. We know all these elections are very very close. That's not to say that once again on the margins, that the issue can't have an effect,
But when looking overall, it's really about inflation today. Biden's problem is bringing those constituencies most affected by inflation back into the fold.
Would one of.
Those constituencies include black voters, Because we've also seen some ipsos pulling with the Washington Post on the idea that fewer black voters say they're highly likely to turn out and vote in November this time around. I believe it's twelve points less than in twenty twenty.
It's very worrisome. Indeed, it's not just black voters. It's Latinos as well. Those two constituency groups have been very important for Democrats, and they've been majorly hit by inflation over the last few years, and they're less enthusiastic in sort of their outlook in terms of voting for Biden than they were just two years before.
When we think about enthusiasm as well in many different states, and I mentioned one of them being Michigan, a swing state that we pay a lot of attention to. Typically we look at, you know, there's roughly seven of these
swing states that we think will be highly influential. We heard from down in Florida over this past weekend Donald Trump's campaign at a donor event suggesting Minnesota and Virginia could also be in play, that their polling suggests Donald Trump might actually be able to win those states.
What do you think about that, Clinton, No, I don't think that's I don't think that hits some Mark. I think that Trump is overstated right now. Now Biden is week and Biden has problems with his numbers, and that's something that the Biden campaign is going to have to worry about. But Minnesota and Virginia, especially Virginia sort of turning I don't think that's when you look at the historical data, that's possible. Anything's possible. But I don't think that's the case.
Okay, fair enough, So maybe it is going to ultimately come down to just those seventh I think so seven states. To what the point the polling now is showing that Biden is losing, if not in all of them, depending on the poll you're looking at, in the vast majority. But certainly there could be some room for that to change over the next one.
Now, without a doubt, over six months, those things can change. We expect it to narrow these Historically these states have shown differences of one to two percentage points. They're at four and five some of them. It's much too large, much too in favor of Trump. As the economy improves, we expect Biden to improve. Yes, but today Trump wins and all the keys winging states.
Of course, there's still a long way to go.
So we'll probably keep having you back here on Bloomberg Television and Radio to talk about it over the next six months. Cliff Young, of course, is US Public Affairs president.
Over at episodes.
Thank you so much for joining me here.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then royd 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.
We got you covered all across the East Coast from New York to Washington and the West Coast as well. And that's where we go next, out to California where the Milkin Institute Global Conference is taking place. Romain Bostik and Carol Masser are there and they're joined now by a very special guest, Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari.
Carol Romaine, Thanks Kelly.
We are sitting here right now with Neil Cashcari, President of the Minneapolis Fed. There's been a lot of talk about how persistent inflation has shown itself to be. You were pretty early on, at least amongst FED members are saying, don't get too ahead of yourselves and talking about cutting rates. A lot's change, at least from the data that we've gotten over the last I don't know three months or so. Has that changed your view as well about staying where we are?
Well?
The second half of twenty twenty three surprised us at how rapidly inflation fell. That was really good news, and the economy remains strong. We all hope that was going to continue the first quarter of this year.
It seems like it's stalled out.
So it's a little too soon to declare that we're definitely stalled out, or maybe it's just taking more time. I think we're in a good place right now. Labor market is still strong. We can take our time to get more data to see if disinflation is going to continue, and if it does, great, If it doesn't, then we need to take that on board.
What is the complexion right now of disinflation? What actually drove us at least down to the level where we're at right now.
Most of the gains that we saw last year were supply side improvements. Supply chains getting better, are Americans coming back to work, a lot more workers entering the labor force.
That's really positive.
I don't think monetary policy actually brought demand down that much, and so most of the gains will because of the supply side. Now, the question is if monetary policy has to take us the rest of the way there, is it tight enough to do that. I wrote an essay today on our website raising that question. And I'm not sure how tight monetary policy is. We need more data to assess it.
How do we know that the inflationary process has still some ways to go, or how do we know that maybe this is it, this is the new normal.
Well, it's not the new normal because it's three percent and the FED can and will achieve two percent. The question is if disinflation is still underway, then maybe it'll continue on its own, and we can.
Then take that on board.
If we need to hold rates where they are for an extended period of time to tap the brakes on the economy, or if we even needed to raise we would do what we need to do to get inflation back down.
I have to dis ask you, though, about two percent, and I know why the FED stands by that two percent, But I talk to people around the room this week here and their cost of capital. They're basing that more on closer to a three percent rate. And the idea is they're saying, look, the two percent target that needs to come up, that that's not the reality long term structurally, at least not for the folks in this room.
Yeah, I disagree with that.
I mean, I think that ultimately the central bank, whether it's the FED or the ECB or the Bank of England, can determine whatever the inflation rate is, and over time, if they conduct their policy appropriately, people will come to understand that will adjust their behavior. We're committed to two percent, we will get to two percent, and we will get an interest rate environment necessary in order to achieve two percent.
You know, one of the arguments, though, Neil, is that the idea of near shoring, bringing things back home, building chips in America, that's going to create They're going to be more expensive than if we were building them overseas, and that is going to be consistent. Inflationary pressure is longer term. There are some macro forces underway. Why not think that it's got to be above two perceptions.
I think those trends are real. But those who suggest to.
Me a one time increase in the price level not necessarily an ongoing increase of inflation at a higher level that we believe and I believe that the monetary authority can ultimately long run determine the inflation of the economy, but the rate environment necessary to achieve that may be different depending on these broader macro forces.
So rate cut this year, should we take it off the table? Is it still a possibility?
It's certainly still a possibility. We need to let the inflation data tell us. I mean, I think my colleagues and I we all have a range of views on where the economy is going, but we're all committed to letting the data guide us. And if the data comes in in a positive manner suggesting disinflation continues, will adjust.
Hey, go ahead. But is it just housing pressure?
Like you write a lot about housing pressure, We talk about it, we're talking to with a lot of people in the real estates. There's not enough supply of houses out there, and that's creating inflation on the housing front. Is it just housing pressures that you guys are really focusing on, or that you're focusing on.
I'm focusing on housing first of all, because it's traditionally the most interst right sensitive sector of the economy. And if the most interst rate sensitive sector is not showing as much disinflation as I would have thought, For example, new lease rates appear to be climbing back again.
Yeah, that's surprising to me. Why is that that makes me.
Wonder is policy as tight as I would have otherwise assumed. We are seeing some effect of monetary policy on credit card delinquencies, on auto loan delinquencies, especially for lower credit score borrowers. So it is having some effect, but it's not having as much effect as I would have guessed.
By now, I know we have the benefit of hindsight. But you go back to whin the rate hiking cycle effectively pause. Do you think that the FEDS should have kept going with hikes meeting additional hikes?
I don't know.
I mean, I think that there are lags in monetary policy, and we saw such rapid disinflation in the second half of last year. I mean, it was a really wonderful scenario that was real and that surprised.
Us, and so it's reasonable to say, let's just let that continue. Maybe it'll take us all the way home. It ended up strolling out at least for a little bit.
You feel like you can accurately assess those lags what those lags are, because even when you talk about disinflation, you acknowledge yourself a lot of that is driven by supply side issues and not just monetary policy. How do you assess what the balance is.
Yeah, it's hard.
You know.
For example, in the housing market, which we're talking about, we know a lot of Americans refinanced their homes at when the mortgage rates were very low, and so they're not feeling the pinch of higher rates because they have not had to refinance.
And so that happens. That happened in the.
Late nineteen seventies and early eighties as well. That's part of the lag in the policy process. So we have a lot of data that we look at and we ultimately have to use judgment to try to put it together.
Speaking of data, growth, we're doing okay.
Jay Powell consistently reminds this is a good thing. We hear it, we feel it here at Milton. Is there the possibility that you don't even have to cut rates at.
All this year because the economy is strong? Well, no, that's you're right.
So if inflation moves sideways, and if the labor market continues to be strong and growth continues to be strong.
Then I would be in the camp of we shouldn't.
Do anything, just let this play out for an extended period of time. If, on the other hand, we start to see inflation come back down or meaningful weakness in the labor market, then that might say we need to start dialing back, or if inflation proves to be more in trench, we.
Could have to go up. Yeah, but is the economy is its strong.
For every market?
Well, no, it's of course not. And we know that.
We know that the way policy works, it slows down parts of the economy, and the lower income workers tend to feel the pain the most, and that's I mean, I wish that were not the case. It's also frustrating that every time there's a piece of good news you see the Wall Street rally, Ufouria returns to Wall Street, though, and yet there are people who are feeling the pain.
So it's definitely uneven how this gets felt. You did mention that.
If inflation starts to go up, I thought I heard you say we could have to increase the FED. That's a smart narrative still to have out there, that you could that the Fed could possibly have to raise rates again.
Well, of course, I mean, we are data dependent.
We are committed to getting inflation back to our two percent target, and we will do what we need to do. Nobody has taken any rates completely off the table.
I think the bar is high.
Much more likely we would stay put for an extended period of time and then we'll see where we are.
How would you actually prepare those the markets for that. That's not the kind of thing you just want to go into a meeting and surprise the markets on.
I mean, you need a little build up there.
I agree, but like there's no shortage effect, and there is no shortage effects to signal when people's perspectives are changing.
Is that fed communication?
Though?
Do you think it's fair? And by that, I mean is it too much? Because you get so many different opinions? And in the media it's great, we love it, but I feel like for investors sometimes it feels like, Okay, we're getting too many people.
Tell them I understand their concerns. They're twelve reserur banks.
We represent regions of the country here, so people across the six states that the Minneapolis Fed represents want to hear from us.
Often I turn down ninety.
Five percent of my speaking invitations that I get, So I go out across the district. I'm usually saying the same thing, but in the spirit of transparency, I live stream it so that can so I'm not giving any secrets away, and if people want to watch it and cover it, I can't control that, and so it's a balancing act where we want to be transparent to the constituents that we represent, and yet we also want to be show that we're not giving secrets.
Away doesn't cost Cory.
I feel like there is more clarity of thought about what the Fed may do next, certainly here at Milcote this year around.
But having talked to.
You, we could cut rates, we could raise rates. Your data dependent, I get it. Do you at the and the FMC feel like there is where clarity that kind of where we are in the economy and where the.
Trouble spots are. Well.
I think there's more clarity on our reaction function, which is we are all committed to watching the data. We've been our models have not worked very well in the last few years, so we have to watch the actual inflation data that will guide us. We all agree on that now, whether inflation goes sideways or continues to fall, we have a range of perspectives on that. That's where the deviations lie. But our commitments are doing what we need to do. There's no deviation around the table.
On that you're still paying a lot of attention to financial markets and how they are reacting to absolutely.
I mean, it is a channel through which monetary policy affects the real economy. And when you know it took three negative inflation prints in a row, markets started to take that on board, and then one positive job report in euphoria returns.
All right, I guess I forgot. Yeah, we got a wrap.
You don't see all those people in the background Carol like that saying that that means wrap.
Neil.
Always great to talk to you, Great to see you.
Thanks You'll Cash Minneapolis President live here at the Bilpit stage.
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 Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.