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.
Congress is getting ready to shift into full campaign mode after voting today on a Continuing Resolution that is expected to pass both the House and Senate that will keep the government funded through December twentieth. They're all going to get out of town and focus on winning their re election races. But before that happens, we do still have some time to spend with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and one of them is joining us live from there.
Now.
I'm pleased to say Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider at Illinois is with us here on Bloomberg. Sir, welcome back to the program. It's great to have you. Obviously, unless something goes unforeseen varriably wrong today with the Continuing Resolution, it will pass, a shutdown will be avoided, as we've all expected here in Washington, it will be, and the can will get kicked down the road again. My question to you is did it really need to be this way?
Do we really have to do this whole song and dance over again in December?
Yeah?
No, of course not, and that's what's so frustrating. So yes, hopefully we will pass the bill. It's notable that it's not going to be passed under a rule, but under suspension because Speaker Johnson doesn't have the support of his party to move this through. But it's expected to pass the bipartisan But it's not we're not passing a budget.
We're just kicking the can to December twentieth, because for the last six months we haven't been having the substance of conversations, discussions across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans about how do we want to fund our government, what should be our priorities, how to make the hard decisions that ultimately will have to be made before we pass the fisk Her twenty five budget.
Well, and sir, when we contin when we consider those across the aisle conversations. When everybody comes back to Washington after the election, it'll be with the knowledge of whether you're staying in the minority or will have moved to the majority, whether or not the speaker will be looking at the prospects of still being speaker again, depending on
what the new Congress looks like. Is he the most honest broker Democrats could hope to work with, or are you hoping there will be a change in Republican leadership.
Well, I'm not going to talk about Republican leadership.
I hope there's going to be a change in House leadership, that the Democrats will retake the majority. I'll remind everybody that in the last Congress, Democrats had a five CEA majority, the same margin that the Republicans started.
In this Congress. And in the last Congress, we were able to pass.
Significant major legislation, much of it, most of it in a bipartisan way. This Congress, what we've seen is a Congress that hasn't been able to do anything or almost anything, and it's.
Been exceedingly frustrating.
So I hope when we come back that the Demokrats love the majority, will be on a course to elect King Jeffries as a Speaker, and that in the next Congress, beginning in January, we'll get back to the table, roll up our sleeves and get the work of the American people done.
Well, of course, some of that work you do from your role as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. So with that seat in mind, Sir, i'd like to ask you about what we're seeing in the Middle East. The Associated Press is now reporting today that the Israeli military is preparing for a possible ground operation in Lebanon. This is according to the Israeli Army chief. It of course comes as we're seeing escalation in the exchange of
fire on Israel's northern border. Missile was sent toward Masad near Tel Aviv that Israel intercepted today. Where do you see all of this going, Sir? Is Israel wise to be looking at a potential ground operation or should they be doing everything they can to de escalate?
Well, I think both can be true at the same time, and you have to start where did this begin? On October seventh, as everyone knows, Hamas invaded Israel from Gaza, brutally murdered twelve hundred people to two hundred fifty people hostage, and started the war that has been raging for almost
a year in Gaza. What's also notable is on the next day, the very next day, October eighth, his Ballas started firing rockets into Israel in support of Amas, and that has been going on now for again almost a year. More than eighty five hundred rockets, missiles, drones, anti tank weapons have been fired by his Balla into Israel. Israel has been responding and it has continued to escalate. Eighty thousand people have been evacuated from the border communities in Israel.
Probably an equal number of Lebanese civilians have been evacuated, civilians who are not a part of Hisbola but are suffering the consequences of his Balla's actions. So what Israel is doing is taking action against is Bola to try to secure its communities.
On the border with Lebanon.
But this has also miss sorry to give security to the people in Lebanon, who unfortunately are under the.
Thumb of his ball.
Well, and what role do you see the US playing here? If this continues to ramp up and we see more outward conflict between Israel and Hezballah, is there going to be an added need for the US military presence in the region or just more arms support. What exactly should the expectation be on what this administration and this Congress, frankly is willing to provide.
I think the first thing you see is that the administration is continuing to try to create the off ramps Almos Hochstein is in the region. President Biden has been committed to trying to de escalate and create the space to move his Balla back from the Israeli border and try to resolve the disputes peacefully.
I think the United States will continue to do that.
At the same time, going back to October eighth, when as Balla started striking, President Biden is very clear when he's said don't, but he also backed up his words by sending aircraft characters into the region.
We continue to support.
Israel and Israel's right to defend itself, but we also should be supporting the Lebanese people.
They've suffered. Lebanon.
The economy is literally on its back, not even on its kneeze. The government is dysfunctional, all because his Bola and his Bola is backed by Iran. Ultimately, it is Iran who is responsible is holding back Lebanon from the possibility of moving forward. So I think the United States has a role to play there, and ultimately, as President Biden said, Israel has a right to defend itself.
The United States will stand with Israel as she does.
So I'd like to ask you about another conflict as well, the ongoing war in Ukraine. As the Ukrainian President, vladimir's Lynsky, spoke at the United Nations General Assembly in New York today. Here is a tasterer of what he said, and I have a question for you after greenails.
Will never accept, will never accept why anyone need to do? World believes that such a brutal colonial past, which suits no one today, can be imposed on Ukraine now instead of a normal peaceful life. Do not divide the world, be United Nations and that will bring us peace.
Congressman, of course, Zelensky will be traveling from New York down here to Washington. He will in fact be on Capitol Hill tomorrow meeting with some of your colleagues before everyone leaves town. Should he, in his visit to Washington feel confident that he's going to be able to count on the same support from a Congress or any future administration as Ukraine has had to this point.
I think I'll take us back to a question we asked earlier about who is in the majority next year in Congress. Democrats have state committed to Ukraine throughout this war. Will spend more than thirty months since Russia initiated it's invasion in February of twenty twenty two. As Lensky said, and the piece I heard, and I have not heard his whole speech yet, but he talked about the will of the desire of the Ukrainian.
People to remain independent.
Just after the start of the war, I heard the Ukrainian ambassador speak here in Washington saying that the previous thirty years since the fall of the Soviet Union was the longest period of independence for Ukraine in hundreds of years, and that the people who had come to appreciate their independence, appreciate their freedom. We're going to fight for that freedom with every ounce of energy that they have. And the
Ukrainians have continued that fight. They have fought nobly and bravely against the Russians and the West under the leadership of President Biden. But working with our allies in Europe and other allies around the world, have helped ensure that Ukraine can sustain its fight, and we need to make sure that it sustains it fight and that Russia cannot get either a strategic victory or ultimately take over Ukraine completely.
Will you, sir, be meeting with Zelensky tomorrow or do you know of your colleagues who will be.
I will not be about who's meeting.
I'm not aware of any Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with President Zelensky. If something changes, I would love that opportunity.
Well, finally, before we let you go, sir, we have about a minute left. It's not just Foreign Affairs on which you sit, but you're also on the Ways and Means Committee. Knowing Kamala Harris is about to just about two hours from now give a speech on the manufacturing economy, in which she may mention tax policy and raising the rates on, say corporations or those with more than a
million dollars in income their capital gains tax rate. To what extent can she reliably say those are policies that stand a chance of passing Congress, Knowing we very may well end up with divided government even if she does win the election in November.
Well, irrespective of who wins November, we know that provisions of the twenty seventeen tax code.
Are going to expire and at the end of next.
Year, So Ways and means in particular, but the House and the Senate as a whole, we'll be digging deeply into the tax code and trying to develop new policy, hopefully new policy that will stand the test of time. And whatever tax policy we have has to be one that makes sure American companies, American workers compete on a global stage, that we're investing in new innovations, new products, that we're training our workers, that we're developing the workforce
for the future by investing in our kids. And so what I'm hopeful for next years we open up the tax code and take what I believe and hope will be a deliberative and engage and hopefully bipartisan approach to tax policy. We'll have policy that ensures in American companies lead the way.
All right, Congressman, thank you so much for joining us that Democratic Congressman Bratschneider of Illinois live on Capitol Hill.
Right here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay 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 the many stories our wonderful news team is producing, and one of the most red stories on the Bloomberg terminal today has a headline that reads as follows x NFL linebacker duel Senator Cruise in surprise Texas Nailbier. As you might be able to guess, this is about the Texas Senate race in which the incumbent Republican Ted Cruz is facing a challenger from Democratic Congressman Colin Alred, who yes,
used to play football. Of course, Texas is the state Democrats have long dream of being able to claim could go blue.
It is for now firmly read.
Of course, we saw in twenty eighteen Beto O'Rourke try to unseat Ted Cruz. He lost that race by relatively narrow margin. It does seem, though, looking at poles, that all much chances might be a little bit better depending on which poll, of course, you're looking at. We got one from Morning Consult just last week that found Allread was actually leading Cruise by a single percentage point, which does leave us in.
The margin of error.
So as we consider this race and the other down ballot races to watch. Let's assemble now our political panel. Janie Shanzeno, Senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Today with Lester Munson, of course, principle of the International Practice at BGR Group and Republican strategist. Lester is the Republican I'll come to you first. Obviously, Ted Cruz has faced challenges in the past, as I've mentioned, But does he have more reason to
worry this cycle? Do you actually think he has a risk of being unseated.
Well, I think it's going to be a close race. How I think it's less risky than it looks, but it will be close. Cruz lost or beat Beto o'rouric six years ago by two and a half points. That's not much Texas went two years later, Texas went for Trump by five and a half points. So Cruise trails Trump and polling he's less popular than Trump is in Texas. I think he's still going to win. Colin Allred is a serious guy. He's a charismatic guy. He's a good candidate as far as I can tell. He's making this
thing close. But I think at the end of the day, Texas is probably going to stay Red on this race.
Well, so, Genie, I do wonder what outcome it could actually define victory here for the Democrats, if not a victory for Colin all Red outright? Would it be enough to just force money to be spent in Texas where it could have been spent other places and what was more understood to be the competitive races?
Absolutely, and the spending in this race is enormous. I have to take exception to my friend Lester. I have a few friendly bets on this Texas race and I am gonna I know you do, Jerry, Yeah, that's right, Kayley right, And I'm going to bet Lester. I think Alred can pull this off. Not only did o'roork come close, but Allred, to Lester's point, is an exceptional candidate. He's got an incredible life story. He is more moderate than Beto O'Rourke was. He has an enormous amount of funding
and support on his side. And you can see Ted Cruz struggling to talk about his bipartisanship and the work he's done across the aisle, all of the things that we never expect to hear from Ted Cruz, who used to be the firebrand, you know candidate. So I think Allred does have a real shot here. But even if he doesn't come through and win, which you will, I think it is important because it really does show how
this state has shifted. It is turning increasingly purplish. I know a young man who just moved to Dallas and to work. You see a lot of people going down there working. And Julie's great piece in the on Bloomberg today she talks about the democraphic changes. We don't know the impact because they don't have to register as a party or for a party when they when they go to a register to vote, So we don't know what the impact of these Democrat demographic shifts are, but they may be potentially big.
Yeah.
An excellent point and a well deserved shout out to our colleague Julie Fine, our Texaspirit chief, who is the byeline on this story, on this race. Of course, she has long been warning us here at Bloomberg to keep an eye on this one because she does think it can be competitive. Of course, there's other races we're keeping more of an eye on now than we may have otherwise. Earlier in the cycle, including in Florida Lester, where this is another instance in which you have in in a
Republican incumbent who is facing a Democratic challenger. The incumbent in this case, of course, Senator Rick Scott. The polls are close in this race as well, perhaps not as close as in the crew's already race. But what do you think is more likely that Rick Scott could get unseated or that Ted Cruz could.
Oh, I think it's more likely Cruz is going to lose than Scott. Scott's a popular figure in Florida. He's a two term governor, He's done pretty well in his career. He's not as quite as iconoclastic as Ted Cruz is. And to Genie's earlier point, you know, Ted Cruz is by partisan. He often teams up with the Democrats to oppose what Mitch McConnell is doing. So he does have
some things he could brag about in that respect. But I think I think Rick Scott and Ted Cruz, both at the end of the day, might be a little more marginal in Texas, are going to prevail.
Well.
And of course a lot of this may come down to money as well as we were noting with Genie, there's a lot of money being spent in some of these races where Republicans especially are having to allocate resources when they might prefer to instead just focus on say Montana in Ohio, where the incumbent Democrats are exceptionally vulnerable
as we consider the money lester. Obviously, there's been reporting this about the Trump campaign not giving to the same extent the Harris campaign has to the congressional and senatorial campaign committees on the Republican side. To what extent is that concerning knowing that the Republicans, the Republican congressional and senatorial committees have been being outraised by their Democratic counterparts.
Well, Democrats are outraising Republicans across the board. Harris has a huge fundraising advantage over Trump in Texas, as we're just discussing, already has more money in the bank than Cruz does. So, by the way, one of the things Democrats do when the Republicans outraise them start talking about campaign finance reform as if it's a national emergency. It's weird that they're not doing that now, probably because they're doing they're doing so on this regard, maybe Republicans should
be talking about campaign finance reform. I think at the end of the day, the money advantage for Democrats and all seriousness is a little bit baked in. Republicans have a better effort on the earned media side. In other words, they can go out and grab headlines by saying provocative
things and kind of challenging the system. So it kind of balances, in my mind at least to kind of these campaign advantages kind of balance out at the end, and neither one of them is really going to be determinative. Is all of these races are going to be close house Senate President? They're really coin flips at this point.
Well, and your earned media point is certainly a good one. That genie, as we know, has been a specialty of Donald Trump. He may not have the actual war chest advantage against Kamala Harris, but he is an expert at getting that media attention. Do you think it's working as well this time? Or has Kamala Harris been able to compete with him on that front, giving just the very unique nature of her candidacy and how short it has been to this point.
Any the young people, yes, can you hear me?
Yep? Now? We can, and here we go.
Thanks my fault, she has been able to compete. I was just talking to young people who spend a lot of time in the digital world, and they were talking about the fact that she's been able to compete, not necessarily because the campaign itself is doing that, but because people who are listening to the campaign and taking things like Donald Trump talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs and creating meme after meme after meme about that, and
those have gotten millions and millions of views. So Donald Trump's rather undisciplined campaign, it does get him that earned media. He's the kidnap earned media, as Lester was talking about. But it also has resulted in Kamala Harris having sort of advocates on her side who take some of the off the wall things he is saying and make them into memes that really do go viral. So she's able to compete in that realm. She also is able to
compete from the money. And just to go back to the Senate, I think it a year ago we were here talking about Democrats having a shot of holding the Senate. None of us would have believed it because the math is so much in the favor of Republicans, and that really does speak to how much this campaign really has depended on good candidates on both sides. And I would say Shi and Montana and all writ in Texas on both sides are example of keeping this really really tight.
And of course there's Larry Hogan to consider in Maryland as well, who was a four very popular governor of the state now running against Angela. Also Brooks, the Democrat.
That's all on the Senate side, Leicester. We have to consider the House here as well in our final couple of minutes, because of course Mike Johnson is going to, under suspension of the rules, be able to pass a continuing resolution out of his chamber today after failing on Plan A, which was a six month continuing resolution with
the Save Act attached. Going out for the election season, on that kind of performance, when you know, coming back in November, you're going to know if you're still the majority or put down to the minority.
What does his future look like realistically.
Well, first of all, to kind of echo what Genie said, you know, a year ago, if we thought Mike Johnson would still be I'm not even sure he was speaker a year ago. If we thought Mike Mike Johnson would would still be in this position as Speaker through these last few months. I think we'd all be amazed. And so he's done quite well just to stay where he is. He's survived these votes before where he needs Democrats to come over and support him on the budget to get
things done and avoid a government shutdown. I think he's going to survive this one, I think, and I realized I may sound a little glasses half full Republican here. I've seen him grow in office. He has demonstrated leadership. He got the Ukraine aid package across the finish line, maybe a little later than we all wanted, but he got it done. It was very significant. I've seen him take take these responsibilities on his shoulders and do it in a dignified and responsible way while trying to keep
his caucus as organized as he can. So I think I would give I would put my money if I were a betting person, I would put my money on him being able to stay as the top dog in with the Republicans regardless of what happens on election Day.
All Right, Lester Munson is betting on Johnson. Jeanie Shanzino is betting on Colin Alred in Texas our political panel today. Thank you both so much for joining me, and we'll have more straight ahead here on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo car Play and then Rounto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Right here on Bloomberg.
We are preparing about an hour and a half from now to bring you some remarks live from Vice President and na Kamala Harris as she speaks at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh yes in the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, with remarks that will be targeted specifically on the economy
and the manufacturing economy. At that they, of course, will follow Donald Trump giving remarks of his own in Savannah, Georgia yesterday talking about manufacturing, primarily focusing on tariffs and taxes as ways to incentify, incentivize making more in America. So the question today is what messaging, what policy could Harris put forward and to what extent will it resonate with these key groups of voters that she is trying
to target in states like Pennsylvania. So to help us answer these messaging questions, I'm pleased to say joining us now here on balance of power is Aisha Mills, a Democratic political strategist and social impact advisor.
Welcome to Bloomberry. Ayisha, great to have you.
So as Harris specifically, it seems, is looking at blue collar workers here with this notion of trying to create a vision of the manufacturing economy. What is it that they need to here? And therefore, what is it that she needs to say?
M hm, So, KAYLEI, thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here. I want to just kind of step back for a second because I know that what happens in all of the political conversations is that
we tend to like to marginalize ourselves into factions. Right, So, you've got the working class over here and the blue collar workers over here, as if they are divorced from the manufacturing companies themselves and the corporations who are manufacturing goods but then also purchasing those goods and needing to
use those goods in their own business lines. And so I think that what it is really important for us to do is to remember that the economy is powered by workers, and that we also need to understand that there is such a deep connective tissue there that it's not just them versus us, And that is the thing that the other side tries to do a lot, is to pit business owners and corporations against the actual people
who power them. I think that Kamala Harris is going to go in and she's going to have a really great conversation just to that effect that I just mentioned. It is the people who power our economy, and we need to have manufacturing here in the United States to
make sure that we're growing jobs. That's important. Obviously imports are important too, But we can't just continue to say we're gonna throw blanket taxes out there that end up being taxes on the American public and our pocketbooks, because it doesn't necessarily, you know, affect the overall economic bottom line in a real improvement way. So I think that what she's going to do is she's going to actually
speak to the people. She's going to speak to the workers and remind us all how valuable labor is to the fundamental fabric of our economy. And our society. She's been doing that all along, and I think she's going to do that again today.
And as Pennsylvania the state that most needs to hear that message from her, is it the most appropriate forum to be delivering it, knowing how critical, of course that state and its electoral votes are to the outcome of this election.
Surely, And you know, remember Pennsylvania is a home of American manufacturing, steel industry. President Biden talks about, you know, his roots there in scran where he's from working class community.
His father was a laborer. So absolutely this is the perfect place for her to be bringing home this message where there are generations of families who remember a time when you are a proud union member, a proud working person, a proud manufacturing employee who cared about your job, was able to put food on the table for families, had a good income, was able to own a home. The price of inflation wasn't so crazy that you couldn't buy
goods and put food on the table. And so there are people there who remember how fundamental the manufacturing industry has been two our American economy, and also are experiencing some of the pain of having lost a lot of that, So I think this is absolutely the right audience for her to have this conversation.
Well, and of course I used so she approaches me many of her conversations around the economy with her background as someone who was brought up in a middle class family. She has emphasized that part of who she is quite a lot in much of her messaging. She's emphasized other parts of her identity, though a bit less, including the historic nature of her candidacy as being a woman of color, the first ever leading a major party's ticket in a
presidential election. Of course, she was asked about that kind of demographic question and black voters black men in particular in an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists earlier this month. Will remind our audience here of her response.
I think it's very important to not operate from the assumption that black men are in anybody's pocket. Black men are like any other voting group. You got to earn their vote. So I'm working to earn the vote, not assuming I'm going to have it because I am black.
But when we consider the earning of the voter, the explanations as to why that vote should be cast for her. Does her identity not play a role. If her identity is someone who out of middle class upbringing is supposed to play a role in how voters view her the way she approaches the economy, why can't it go for other things about her as well.
I don't think that that's what she said at all. Kamala is black. Kamala is also Indian. She's a biracial American. Like so many people in this country. We are a multi racial society. And here's the other thing about our demographics is that we are also shifting in our demographics here in the United States, where we are seeing a new American majority of people of color and multi race people who are absolutely on track to be the majority of the population of this nation. So what does that mean?
Certainly from an electoral power standpoint, people of color will ultimately be the outnumber white voters in terms of their electoral power. That is the trend that we are seeing. That's what the demographics say. This directly relates to who she needs to appeal to in order to get out the vote to win. And that's for you know, candidates
of any party on all the sides. But also when you think about it, as a more macro conversation beyond just this political cycle, our economy, our consumers, largest consumer group, one of the largest consumer groups in this country are African Americans. The number one business owners, folks who are starting businesses that are more rapid clip than anybody else in this country are black people, black women in particular. Ninety percent of the businesses in this country are small businesses,
many of which are powered by people of color. Demographically and from a market spend capacity, we certainly are powering the market as consumers, as people of color. So this is a macro trajectory that we are seeing in our
demographics right now shifting. And here's where I think the the fine point on this I'll make around this conversation is as it relates to politics and demography, is that what corporations have always known, what businesses have always known, is that it's good business to do right by people, no matter who they are. And what you're seeing from Kamala Harris is embodying those values of inclusivity, of diversity
being an asset right to the bottom line. What you're seeing on the other side with the Republicans is a real assault and an attack on diversity, an attack on diversity and an attack on inclusion, and an attack on anybody who recognizes the power and not just the power from a social context, but the power in our society of really embracing the majority of the people certainly and
reflecting and representing their values. And so I think that you know, Kamala Harris's conversation across the board, being on culture, be it on her own identity, being on her economic policies, is absolutely reflective of where we're going and reflective of the demographic makeup of our society.
Well, I'd like to focus on another demographic as well, specifically women, in the way that both of these candidates are approaching the vote of women in this election cycle. We heard just this week from Donald Trump about this notion that he will be a protector of women. This is what he said, Ayesha.
As president, I have to be your protector. I will make you safe at the border, on the sidewalks of your now violent cities, in the suburbs where you are under migrant criminal siege, and with our military protecting you from foreign enemies, of which we have many today. Because of the incompetent leadership that we have you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger. You're not going to be in danger any longer. You will no longer have anxiety from all
of the problems our country has today. You will be protected, and I will be your protector.
So it strikes me, Aisha, that he's really focusing on kind of ideas of physical protection. Here are physical threats that people could face. Kamala Harris has been talking a lot about the protection instead of rights and freedoms. That's a lot of where her messaging has centered on what wins out.
Well, let me just first tell you how offended I am, and I speak on behalf of more than half of the population, women who make up more than half the population, how completely insulting and offensive it is for Donald Trump to throw around a very old age patriarchal trope to suggest that all us little women need is some big mouth guy to run around and protect us, when in fact it's him who's causing the things that make us
most and most fearful. I think that you know, fifty seven percent of women fired Donald Trump and rejected him in the twenty twenty election. Fifty seven percent of women. We certainly would never feel safe in a room alone with him, because he has said that he grabs them by the you know what, and he has been found liable for sexual assault. This is not someone who is
any one's protector, and certainly no woman's protector. And the fact that he would even you know, declare that really reflects to a very antiquated sense of patriarchy and this kind of way that he is moving through his campaign, trying to galvanize a very bygone golden era of men thinking that they are dominant to submissive women, that they are just there to take control of and to protect, and whatever other language it is it's being used. I
do believe that it's going to turn off. It has already turned off so many if you just look at the conversations that are happening out in the public discourse, and when fifty seven percent of the women reject you, and that's how you show up, let alone assault on our healthcare, I don't think that it's a winning strategy for anyone other than men who have that same attitude.
Finally, Aisha, in our final minute with you, whether it's women, black voters, any of the demographics we are talking about just the American electorate as a whole.
I think we know that a lot.
Of this outcome could be dependent on just whether or not people turn out. What is the winning strategy for the Harris campaign to actually drive voters to go cast a vote?
Yeah, yeah, I.
Mean that's really important. You know, you've seen so many different constituent groups based on ethnicity, be it black or Latino, or you know, demographics, if it's women, if it's LGBTQ, folks all come together saying we support Harris, including by
the way, white dudes for Harris, right. And why that matters is because the Harris campaign, aside from just having a aultifaceted, diverse coalition that literally reflects the entirety of America, also has a very strong boots on the ground ground game.
So across this country. She has thousands of field offices where there are volunteers and operatives who are going out to be deployed into the community all day, every day, meeting with voters, talking with voters, sharing information, hearing people's concerns, listening to their ideas, being able to take those back to the campaign and help shape the way that she's thinking about the way that she would lead and serve
the American public. The thing that is really most promising right now from a campaign apparatus, if you compare where the Republicans and the Democrats are, is that the Democrats have a very wide, far reaching, boots on the ground strategy in almost every state. And that includes, of course the big swing states that they have to win, but other states as well that we didn't even think we're going to be in play, like North Carolina for example. And so at the end of the day, all politics
is low, and that's what she's doing. She's getting out there and talking to people locally.
All right, Aisha, Great to have you. Aisha Mills is a democratic political strategist and social impact advisor. Joining us here on Balance of Power.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroud 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.
As members return to their districts.
Or wherever they will be campaigning.
As we get closer and closer to the election. It is, of course, not just them, not just Washington that is on edge with the uncertainty of it all.
This applies to business as well.
That's something, of course we spend a lot of time talking about here on Bloomberg Radio, this notion that the policies these candidates are proposing could have an impact on the business and financial world to which we speak, and of course the business and financial world in return is bracing for the potential outcome here. And that's why I was especially struck by the survey that just posted from
the Atlanta Fed. It's it's latest CFO survey in which it finds thirty percent of respondents at firms reported having either postponed, scaled down, delayed indefinitely, or even permanently canceled their investment plans because of election related uncertainty. So we want to dig more into the survey data. Now in turn to Daniel Whites of the Atlanta Fed. He's their survey director and is joining me now here on Bloomberg. Daniel,
great to have you. This is obviously, this thirty percent figure higher than last quarter's figure of twenty eight percent, So perhaps uncertainty being felt more and more as we get closer to the election. But I also wonder how this compares to history. Are firms less likely to be making investment plans in this election cycle than in cycles past?
Well, thank you so much for having me first the usual Federal Reserve disclaimer that any views are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the Atlanta Fed or the Federal Reserve system. With respect to your question, that's a great question. We've only asked this in this particular cycle, this quarter and last quarter. What we see in the literature, though, is it's not uncommon for investment to sort of dip
ahead of some big risk events like presidential elections. But the question is is it going to bounce back afterwards? Historically we have seen bounce backs. I think you know. The question is how big is the holdback this time relative to history? And will that kind of what we see a bounce back afterwards or will investment sort of stay low and will those firms who are on the sidelines not jump back into the fray.
Well, yeah, and of course, I guess only time will tell on that one. I'm sure it also depends that what that bounce back look like looks like dependent on the kind of policies that are actually put into place with whatever administration we ultimately get, what is your sense of what the greatest concern of these firms are now around what that kind of policy could look like, what policy questions it is that are currently keeping them holding back.
So we asked firms about what topics were most important going into this year's elections. They listed a litany of topics that the top four in terms of the most cited were regulatory policy, monetary policy, corporate tax policy, and fiscal policy. They all got I think between fifty and sixty percent of firms indicating that they were thinking about that. So you know, those are all very high on the minds of cfo CFOs and business decision makers. So a lot to think about going into the election.
Well, don't we know it, Daniel, as we consider one of those areas and I understand you are speaking to me from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. You mentioned their monetary policy. Did you ask any questions around FED independence and whether companies are actually concerned about the notion that that could erode depending on what administration we end up with.
No, we didn't specifically ask about that. We do ask firms what their top concerns are every quarter, and monetary pol had figured reasonably highly in recent quarters, but nothing regarding fed independence that we asked about specifically.
All right, fair enough, I guess it would kind of be asking a question about yourselves in some way. It's like a journalist asking questions about media and journalists. It feels weird sometimes, But as we consider what this actually means for companies, you mentioned that there's a question around the bounce back, right, whether or not all of a sudden this investment comes through as soon as the results are known and there's less uncertainty. But I wonder what
happens to them in the meantime. You note here that firms whose investment plans are negatively impacted by election related uncertainty also expected lower revenue and employment growth this year than their peers, So this does have an immediate financial impact.
Yeah, no, that's absolutely right. We also note that they're optimism both about their own firms, but the economy in general is about ten percentage points lower for impacted firms than those that are not impacted. I mean those that pulled back investment versus those that don't. So both optimism lower revenue expected revenue growth this year and lower expected
employment growth this year. What was particularly striking is those firms also you know in the media, and on average expect lower I expect the same employment and revenue growth next year. So that's to say, if you expected amounts back, you might expect them to actually overshoot their peers so that they can catch up. We didn't see that firms were expecting that they expected to lose some growth this year and then catch up with their firms next year, but potentially not regain that lost growth.
Fascinating And when we consider the kinds of firms we're talking about here, is this more true for certain sectors or areas of the economy than others. Does it depend on what kind of space they're in.
From what we've seen, it seems to be fairly broad. But there's not one sector in particular that's that's particularly vulnerable. It seems to be to be fairly widespread across firms.
I'm just looking here at some of those issues that you were talking about. Inclusive of non labor costs is something that does appear here on the list of pressing concerns, But I also am wondering because you have labor quality and availability ranked even higher than that. There is obviously a live conversation in this election cycle happening about immigration and migration, a potential crackdown that could be happening. Frankly, no matter the outcome is, everybody seems to need to
be more hawkish on that issue. How would that translate into companies' ability to fill positions they need to fill to operate to the economy overall? Knowing we have seen a big labor market impact of immigration, depending on what these policies really look like.
Yeah, that's a great question. To the extent we asked about immigration policy as one of the policy topics that was important to the firms, it actually ranked I think in the lower half of the policy topics that were raised. But you're right, labor market concerns are still top of mind overall. I think there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Is kind of put is one potential take away from this as to how the policies will evolve and how
those potential policies will impact the labor market. There's just a lot of questions out there and not a ton of answers right now.
Well, yeah, I wish.
I think a lot of us wish we had answers more immediately on a variety of different issues. Finally, Daniel, before we let you go, we heard Donald Trump yesterday outlining some ideas about manufacturing, in particular essentially giving lower taxes and lower regulatory burden to US companies manufacturing products here in the US. Tariff's being put into place for
companies that don't. What kind of tariff concerns are companies, especially those that are importers and may need components that come from other places even if they're assembling in the US, for example, How are you seeing that show up?
Sure?
I mean to the extent that those would show up in our question about concerns that firms have, it hasn't really risen to the top tier level, at least as it compares to monetary policy, labor market, those types of issues. In terms of the policy topics of firms are thinking about going into the election. Trade agreements are on the list. I think just over somewhere between twenty and thirty percent of firms have indicated that's something that they're thinking about.
International tax policy is also something they're thinking about, but again it doesn't rise to the top of the list at least for the policy topics regulatory policy, monetary policy, or corporate tax policy. So it's definitely on their mind, but it doesn't seem to be the top of mind.
All right, Daniel, it's a fascinating survey. Thank you so much for joining us to break some of the figures down. That's Daniel White's Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta survey director with a look at how the CFOs are viewing this election uncertainty and their investment decisions around it. We'll have more straight ahead here on Balance of Power. I'm Kaylee Lines in Washington.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emocarplay and then roun Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts a watch us live on YouTube.
Today we are watching escalating tension in the Middle East between Israel and Hesbela. Israel today shooting down the first missile ever fired by the Iranian proxy group at Tel Aviv, Hesbela, saying that that missile was aimed at the headquarters of Israel's external intelligence agency Masad, just outside of the city, and in return, Israel is stepping up its heaviest air attacks on Hesbela targets in Lebanon since two thousand and six.
We've already seen hundreds of people die as these strikes go back and forth, at least fifty of them children. Of course, this is all happening as the US and other allies are urging de escalation. In fact, Axios is reporting today that the US is actively working on a proposal for a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hezbela. But of course the US has also been pushing for a seasfire between Israel and Hamas for months now, and we know that has yielded so far, not the outcome they've
been looking for. So let's get into more of this now with an expert on the region. Mara Rudmond is joining me where she is, of course, a professor at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, also director of the Ripples of Hope project focused on democratic solutions. Welcome back to Balance of Power, Maara, Always great to have you as we consider this notion of a ceasefire
on Israel's northern border between Israel and Hezbala. Do we have reason to believe this is easier to accomplish than a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Thanks Kyley, and good to be with you even in these difficult times. To answer your question, no, nothing in this region is easy. Nothing in general, in these types of conflicts and situations not limited to this region, is easy.
But there is reason to believe it may be possible, if difficult, to get to a temporary ceasefire, primarily because it's not in the interests of any of the parties involved to lead to something that would be an all out war in the region and inevitably pull in Iran as well well.
I wonder how close we are that to that line. We keep talking about this notion of potentially it becoming a war between Israel and Hesbelah, But when people are already dying by the hundreds, when we're already seeing these kinds of exchanges, the explosions of hesbola technology, pagers in walkie talkies, of course, are we not already there? How should we be defining the activity that's happening.
It's clearly been an escalation and horrific as it may be that contemplate, it unfortunately can get much much worse. And one of the key lines would be if Israel launches a ground offensive as well, which there are reports of. The Israeli IDF chief of staff has told reservists that have been called up for duty in the north that they need to plan for. So bad as things are, it can absolutely get worse. The one thing I do
want to point out to Achille is hump targeted. These strikes have been to date in terms of southern Lebanon, even though as always unfortunately there are innocent civilians in the region in the area who are directly affected. But the strikes have been targeted strikes, and starting from the most targeted possible, which was has go out pages and walk talkies.
No, that's a very important point, Mara. I appreciate you you emphasizing that. We also have to consider that the body, the individuals or the technology being targeted here does belong to an Iranian proxy, so aroand theoretically is playing a role in this as well. To what extent should we believe if Iran is directing or advising Hesbela on its conduct escalatory or not moving forward from here, and if it is Iran that potentially has the greatest incentive of all to encourage restraint.
So Iron absolutely has an incentive to encourage restraint. I'm not sure that Hezbelah itself.
Is in a position either where they would they would their leadership would say this is the opportune time for an all out assault.
And frankly, Israel doesn't have an interest in going to the next level, which is a ground invasion, given that that did not work out well for them in the past, even at the same time that it decimated southern Lebanon, but it ultimately in the nineteen eighties for Israel led to the growth of the hes Blah that they confront today. So it's a complicated situation. No entity, as I said, has an interest and has a real interest in escalation.
But because of the relationships back and forth, and because of the interest in all of to turn the other's actions, we could end up there. And this is why the United States and other leaders in the region and throughout the world are working hard to de escalate.
Well and working hard still at a ceasefire between Israel and another proxy hamas we have heard Israel say its end goal with this action in the North is to be able to return the Israelis from the North who have been displaced back to their homes. Hesbula says, if you want to do that, if you want the strikes on the North to stop, you need to end the war in Gaza. Is that really the lynchpin to all
of this? If a ceasefire agreement could be reached to end the fighting in Gaza, is that a credible solution to these other problems?
So I am a strong believer that these are all interlinked. Whether one solves a reason helps another harder to say. But to me, it's very clear that reaching a ceasefire in Gaza between Hermas and Israel, getting the hostages out, getting more humanitarian aid, in starting to plan for a day after which frankly should have been going on already in terms of innocent civilians in Gaza, and frankly pass needs in the West Bank as well that are being
increasingly affected by this. Having a way forward, all those things will help make more credible, give more tools to
get to a ceasefire as well. With hesblog, that's not to say they shouldn't the same time be trying for a temporary cease fire with has Blah given the increase in actions there, but in general, reducing tensions throughout the region is critical, and the steps forward that the United States laid out frankly back in June for a three stage cease fire with Hamas would be appolutely be a huge help.
Well and Mara.
It's incredible to consider that this conflict, this war with Hamas, has now been ongoing for almost a full year. We are approaching less than two weeks from now one year since the October seventh attack on Israel. Are you concerned, given what we're seeing of what that day that market could bring. Should we expect to see even greater activity around October seventh.
It's hard to know on what the anniversary date itself will bring, other than it is a point of recognition, or it should be. We're all involved about how long this has gone on, certainly about what triggered the actions in Gaza, the horrific attack on Israel on October seventh. It is a reminder of just how long the hostages have been enduring. Hostages who are still alive have been enduring what they are enduring under a monster's control of
them in the tunnels and other places in Gaza. So all of that is very difficult, for sure, and further increases should increase the interest of all involved in getting to the cease fire agreements before we reach that anniversary.
Well certainly, and of course, just less than a month
after that anniversary will bring the US election. And I wonder, Mara, the degree to which you think the uncertainty around that is to what kind of administration the United States will be offering in January, what that administration will look like, the kind of policy it's likely to pursue, is actually disincentivizing some progress in these areas, because everybody could wait and see if they end up with a friendlier outcome to their interests.
Yeah, I understand why you're asking the question, and I understand why from the United States perspective that would seem to be something others are considering.
I'm not sure for those in the region, as they're making day to day.
Calculations, that weighs all that heavily, and so I think that we may overestimate how others throughout the world weigh their day to day actions. Not to say that who the United States elects in November would not have big consequences for the rest of the world, and most of the world recognizes that. I guess the point I'm making is just for the specific actions with respect to the conflicts we have ongoing there. I'm not sure it's that
much of a factory. You can weigh it different ways for a number of the different players.
Well, that's fair enough and understood. Morrow.
Finally, before we let you go, if we consider what happens if this de escalation or ceasefire agreement doesn't happen in the immediate term, to what extent would you expect that the US has to get more actively involved that
US involvement could actually look like. Knowing that if we look back to the attacks Iran attempt to attack Israel that was largely intercepted with the assistance of the US and other allies, would you expect that any US involvement would stay that kind of defensive in that defensive support realm, or could we actually be talking American troops on the ground, in the air, on the water.
So there's already been an increase in American troops to the region, I think, probably primarily to help with evacuation
and to shore up regional stability. I think that's happened just in the last week or so, and I think it's important to keep in mind that for the broader overall US national security interest, Iran is a real concern and Iran's behaviors are a real concern, and part of trying to resolve the immediate issues between Israel and Hamas and Israel has a law that the United States shared that interest with other key players in the region to be able to shore up an overall strategy and approach
and respect to Iran for the region, which is part of the importance of getting as well to getting us back on a two state pathway for a path to new Israeli state. All of that is part and parcel of being able to deal with and address the Iranian concern, which remains at the forefront for the United States.
All Right, we'll leave it there, Marara, thank you so much for joining us here on balance of power. Maura Rudman is a professor at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, also director of the Ripples of Hope project focused on democratic solutions.
We always appreciate her time.
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