Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then droud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
This is the Monday edition of Balance of Power. Thank you for joining us on Bloomberg TV and radio. But of course this isn't just like any other Monday. This is the Monday when we are marking one year since the October seventh attack on Israel by Hamas, and of course over the course of the last twelve months we have seen ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. In Gaza, Hamas firing fresh fire at Israel today, largely those missile
Senate Tel Aviv were intercepted. But of course we also are seeing Joe not no longer just fighting in Gaza, but other regions as well, as Israel is continuing to conduct its strike operations in southern Webin against Hesbla, another Iranian proxy.
Yeah, that's right. We've continued to see across border skirmishes and air strikes against Beirut, but also Hamas firing rockets at Israel from Gaza. So the fact that we are at this solemn date does not mean that fighting is stopping or even pausing here. And we want to talk about this with Nick Watdams, who runs our national security coverage here out of Washington. It's great to see you, Nick.
This is a precarious moment and I wonder what this day means for Iran and the proxies that have been attacking Israel.
Well, there's so many uncertainties right now. I mean, the big issue obviously is that Israel has threatened to retaliate against Iran after its missile barrage a week ago, so we are all waiting to see what happens. Obviously, the signals are very cloudy. We don't really know what Israel
will do, how severe they will go. But also given the fact, as you mentioned, they are essentially keeping up attacks on Hamas and has Bela, So you know, just saw an alert come across the system that Israel is telling people to move out of some of the coastal southern areas in Lebanon in advance of likely strikes there.
So it looks like the Israeli attacks on has Belah are only widening, you know, I think it's just an extraordinarily said and a challenging moment to think that, you know, this all started a year ago, and here we are. This campaign is getting even more intense as Israel looks to eliminate Hamas and his bluff.
For good well.
And this also marks a full year being held hostage for many individuals that are still being held by Hamas. Obviously there has been domestic pressure on Netanyahu to reach some kind of agreement to bring those hostages home. Do we have a sense of whether or not that is moving forward at all, as we're still seeing the fighting on multiple fronts.
At the moment, it appears there is absolutely no progress on the hostages. There had been talks some weeks ago about the possibility that we were inching tour to cease fire. I mean, it's been moving in fits and starts, but what it really seems like right now is a ceasefire is just in neither side immediate interest, at least militarily.
I mean Prime Minister Netanyah who says he wants to get the hostages home, but he also wants to continue to prosecute this war against Hamas and you can't do both. You can't have a ceasefire that allows the hostages to return while also continuing that war. Hamas also, i think, understands that if it loses those hostages, it loses a point of leverage. There would be absolutely no reason for Israel to negotiate with Hamas if there were no hostages.
So it's a terrible tragedy. We're in a situation where it feels like there has absolutely been no progress. I think the US officials are extremely skeptical that anything would happen on a Hamas ceesfire deal anytime soon, and that is partly why you also see Israel shifting to Hasbolav. They do not see any sort of conversation or about restraint with hamas As being a priority.
We talk about the presidential race, of course, every day here on this program, and it does make you wonder if the next president, whether it's Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, will inherit this conflict at its lowest stage here.
Certainly, it's been as tense as I can recall it being in the last year, especially given that Israel says it's not going to settle for just a limited message sending kind of strike against Iran that it's likely to be something much more severe, So that is a deep concern. And then you have the whole US element. I mean, obviously everybody's going to say, Okay, this Trump says, this
wouldn't have happened on my watch. It's not clear to me what either of them would be able to do once they come into office to stop this thing, because Israel has shown over the last year that it is going to do exactly what it feels compelled to do without the approval of the US, and sometimes in direct opposition what the US wants.
Well, the next president may also have be tasks with signing, for example, supplemental funding Israel as we talk about them intercepting rockets sent today by hamas of course having to intercept the missile barrage that was sent by Iran last week. Are we getting closer to a timement which in Israel stockpiles of both defensive and offensive weaponry are going to need to be replenished by the US.
Yeah.
I mean, they get a fair number of their weapons that do not rely on the US and on that supplemental funding. Israel does have stocks, but I think that is not a huge concern at the moment, at least because there's such broad bipartisan support for Israel. There are some senators, some lawmakers who are calling for a restriction on weapons and ammunition sales to Israel, particularly those big two thousand pound bombs that it's dropped in some cases.
But generally speaking, there are no real voices who have any power who can stop this thing. So the only challenge I think would be is if you have Israel funding somehow linked to Ukraine funding, because then it really would slow down because there is so much opposition to another supplemental for Ukraine. But I would suspect the Israel money will continue pretty much uninterrupted.
All right.
Nick Wadams leading our national security coverage here in Washington, thank you and thank you for your coverage over the last year. It's hard to believe that it's now been twelve months. And to Knick's point, we did see in the last supplemental package Israel and Ukraine funding and funding for the Asia Pacific as well, all of it attached together, and there is a question of how these will be
addressed going forward. When sorting out any kind of funding here in Washington, is we know it's quite difficult.
This again is why so many defense hawks did not want that six month cr to bring us into March without the opportunity to enhance funding. Whether there is an emergency request has yet to be seen, but this could be a very interesting lane duck as we also wait for another Category five hurricane.
Well, that's absolutely true, Milton now barreling toward the Gulf coast of Florida once again. So as we have these conversations around funding and look forward to what kind of funding the picture will be in twenty twenty five, we want to bring in now Maya McGinnis, who, of course is that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget where
she serves as president. Because the committee put out today a fiscal impact paper on the potential Harris and Trump presidencies based on their campaign plans, and these figures are quite striking. The central estimate for how much a Harris presidency based on her campaign proposals would add to the debt three and a half trillion dollars. For Donald Trump, it's seven and a half trillion dollars. So for more on this, Miyamaguinnis is joining us now here on Bloomberg TV.
And Radio Maya. There's a lot to unpack here. If we could just begin with with the thesis around Donald Trump specifically, because while that central figure is seven and a half trillion, the high figure is over fifteen trillion dollars. What would get us there and why is that your base case?
Absolutely?
So to start, obviously, this is not great news for the overall fiscal pitch Richure, and the reason is because candidates are promising to do so many things that they think will win over voters. When it comes to former President Trump, obviously he has an agenda that is very tax heavy. He is going to extend his tax cuts, and he's going to add numerous new tax cuts, including potentially bringing the corporate tax down significantly.
Lower than it already was.
He also has very significant spending commitments, and one of the big ones that would get you to that highest number is he's talking about higher levels of spending for defense, and this could mean a huge range of things.
One of the challenges we have in this effort is.
To figure out what is the specific proposal of a candidate. They're not very specific on the stump, and what the overall effects would be. So we see huge differences in the effects of his policies on the economy, and some of the responses in things like how much he'd spent on defense, and in particular the big tariffs that he's
talking about, which would raise a lot of revenue. But they are huge questions about what the overall effects, both in terms of retaliation and effects on the economy would be of those tariff policies.
The cumulative deficits from twenty twenty six to twenty thirty five. What we're talking about here, Maya, Your research is driving the fiscal conversation today in Washington. You're in all of the tip sheets this morning. You're here on Balance of Power talking about this, and I can only imagine what your inbox looks like. You do right, if the next president does not lead in putting a fiscal reform plan in place, will hit the record debt level this country
has ever seen. What does that fiscal reform look like? If they're taking advice from Mia mcguinnis.
Yeah, I mean, and I think the reason we're getting a lot of attention for this report is it is such an important moment of consequence for the fiscal picture, and we are on track to be bar borrowing twenty trillion dollars over the next decade before all those emergencies which you just talked about, which seem to be coming more and more quickly.
And yet I think.
Partially due to the huge polarization right now, we have candidates who really do compete on who can give away more things. So those are norms that are going to be difficult to change. Not being a politician, though, I get to talk about what we really should be doing. We're focusing right now from both the candidates overall, on big tax cuts and big spending increases before we consider any of those, and there are lots of smart policies
within there. But the first thing we have to do is get a plan so that our debt is not growing faster than the overall economy. We have to look at all the things that aren't on the table from these candidates. We have to look at how we're going to raise broad amounts of new revenue. It's not just going to be in millionaires and billionaires. It's not just
going to be in corporations. Those things can be a part of it, but there's going to have to be significant new revenue just to keep the debt where it is as a share of GDP would take nine trillion in savings. The candidates haven't proposed anywhere close to that amount, and that will have to be coupled with big spending reductions. The caps that they put in place as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Those should be continued going forward.
But we're going to have to look at the biggest drivers of the debt, which is where the candidates don't really want to talk, but the aging of the population, are growing healthcare costs, and right now the fastest growing part of the budget is interest. The way you cut that one is by bringing your deficits down. But we do have to look at Social Security and medicare, both of which are headed to be insolvent in a very
short amount of time. And instead of kind of pandering to seniors and trying to scare them about fixing the programs, we need real fixes for them, probably looking at both revenues and spending reductions to make sure they will be solvent.
But we have to talk about the fact that there are.
Trade offs and budgets, and if the candidates want to pursue the things they're looking at, that should only come after a debt deal, and then they should guarantee that every new policy would be fully paid for and put out the details of the pay fors are just as specific as the details of all the new things they want to promise to do.
That kind of the.
Opposite of p That's what we're always asking about here here on Bloomberg. How do you pay for it? You don't often get necessarily a straight answer. Maya to your point on just to keep stasis, keep things steady. You do find in your low cost estimate that the Harris plan would be roughly deficit neutral. Your lower end estimate for the Trump plan would still increase the debt by one point four or five trillion. So maybe it's it's not enough just to try to keep the status quo,
but to bring that down. What assumptions are you making about where interest rates will be when you do this analysis, Because as we talk about some of their plans also being inflationary, that could mean a higher for a longer interest rate environment as well.
You know it could, and we've seen that that can happen.
We've seen that big amounts of borrowing push up and cause inflation, lead to inflation and push up interest rates, and that could certainly happen under the scenario.
We stick with the scenarios that.
Are put out there by the Congressional Budget Office, and it actually is often as possible we rely on estimates from the CBO or other impartial evaluators of these plans, so that doesn't get overly political and we don't have to make huge assumptions in doing this. But it's rather conservative where we're assuming interest rates will be, and there is a real risk that the more we put push into the borrowing, the more.
That we'll push up rates.
And what we know is that with the high levels of debt, we currently have just a small increase in interest rates, like one percentage point above what we're assuming can lead to about three hundred billion dollars more a year in interest costs. So there's a huge range of changes that could have from the economic effects.
Maya we've only got a minute left, But we tend to hear from those representing the Trump camp and Donald Trump surrogates and supporters say, you're not factoring in the growth. We're going to drill, baby, drill, bring prices lower, and we're going to grow out of this. As we saw revenues increase when the Trump tax cuts were first enacted.
Respond to that, Yeah, we will absolutely hear that.
Oh, you're ignoring the huge, massive dynamic gains in all of this first and many of our assumptions we do assume behavioral changes and dynamic changes to GDP.
We look at that.
In order to evaluate a whole plan, you have to look at the positive and negative effects on growth. By the way, seven and a half trillion and new borrowing has tremendously.
Negative effects on growth.
So it's quite likely the dynamic effects of this plan would do more harm to the economy than growth. And if you look at what happened in the tax cuts last time, they actually came in pretty much as assumed, which was they created some growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves. They led to large revenue losses and sort of the bump up we saw a couple of years ago didn't come from tax cuts. They came from coming out of COVID and some timing changes and
market performances. But it is just a truth. As sad as it is, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Same spending increases they don't pay for themselves.
Maya It's great to see you. Thank you for sharing your new research with us. Maya McGinnis back with us on Bloomberg Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget where she is president. You can find a lot more on this online and on the terminal with Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then ron 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 we hear some new remarks from Kamala Harris on the situation in Israel, she sat down for an interview with sixty Minutes. This is not something that you would have seen last night. It's actually part of their election special that will air later today. This is the special we talked about that Donald Trump chose to not take part in, and they did speak about the situation in Israel. The Vice President was asked about the vera of our
alliance between Washington and Benjamin nettan Yahoo. Here's how she.
Answered, I think with all due respect.
The better question is do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people, And the answer to that.
Question is yes.
Kamala Harris out with a statement on this October seven, much like Joe Biden each separate statements, Vice President Harris calling the Hamas attack a year ago today pure evil, reiterating her commitment to the security of Israel as unwavering. That's a quote, also saying she is heartbreaking, heartbroken over
the scale and death and destruction in Gaza. It's where we pick up our conversation with Brad Schneider, Congressman Democrat representing Illinois tenth district and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He's also co founder co chair of the Abraham Accords Caucus. Congressman, thank you for being with us on such an important day. This is obviously something
that is not becoming more quiet. It's escalating, and I wonder if you see any chance that this will be resolved by the election on November fifth.
Well, thank you for having me. And it is a very auspicious day. It was exactly one year ago where Hamas launched thousands of terrorists, thousands of rockets, killing twelve hundred, taking two hundred and fifty hostage, and leading to the conflict we've seen over the past year. It's hard to imagine that a resolution is on the near horizon. As was mentioned, I don't think i'd call it a widening conflict in the region. His ballas started firing rockets at
Israel on October eighth. The houthis from Yemen. Iran has launched two strikes in April in October first. It's certainly escalating, and it's hard to imagine that it'll be resolved within
the next four weeks. But the United States has you just had Vice President Harris said very clearly, United States stands united with Israel, the people of Israel and their fight existential battle against the Iran and its proxies, and we need to make sure that Israel defeats Amass, it defeats his Bala, and that ultimately we can get onto that road for peace where all the people in the region can give their children the future they deserve.
Well, with all of that said, here you're attending and speaking at an event in Highland Park today honoring those murdered and taken hostage on October seventh. I wonder if we have moved on from the idea of an agreement that would secure the release of the rest of the living hostages. As we learned today, another Israeli hostage has been confirmed dead. We talk so much about the two
front conflict that's happening, the potential for a ceasefire. We don't talk enough, Congressman, about the hostages who are still being held.
No, you're right, and I hadn't heard about the confirmation of another hostage killed. There's one hundred and one hostages in Gaza, people who were taken from Israel on October seventh. We know that many of those are no longer living. It doesn't change the fact until they are returned, their bodies are returned. The families can't get closure, can't bury their loved ones, and have observed the morning period that they all rightly should be able to observe. And we
know that some, hopefully many, are still living. The goal is to get them home as quickly as possible. I've worn this yellow ribbon now for three hundred and sixty seven days, hoping to bring the hostages home, hoping for
a pathway. It rests with Yahya Sinwar. He has the ability to release the hostages, to bring this war to an end in Gaza, to free the people of Gaza to rebuild and renew their lives and their communities, but renew it in a way free from the terrorist infrastructure that Hamas has built in the terrorists and threats against Israel.
Well, Congressman as I mentioned you remember of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. What will be the US commitment militarily here to help defend Israel if this continues to escalate. We know that Israel is working on a response to Iran right now, and we've surged an enormous number of military equipment, thousands of troops to the Middle East. What are we preparing for?
Well, I think we have to be prepared to confront Iran. Iran launched almost two hundred ballistic missiles at Israel a week ago tomorrow. It was an escalation unlike anything we've seen in the region before. Thankfully, with US support and others, Israel was able to thwart the attack second time in a year, in less than a year, and the response against Iran, as President Biden said, it needs to be proportionate. One hundred and eighty ballistic missiles is not a small strike.
It's a major strike. It targeted all ten million people living in Israel. Israel needs to restore us to terms as it's done with hisballa in Lebanon, and we need to get to a place where the regime understands that they don't have a free hand. They continue to support terrorism in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Jeaven. They're a disruptive influence.
Horanda is disruptive influence to the region, to the interests of peace in the region as well as the interest of the United States, So I expect in Congress as well as the Administration stands by Israel, our most important ally in the region, but also stands with our other allies in confronting the existential threat that a ramposes.
You know what's interesting to me, Congressman, is that the analysis always leads us to the point where we hear that nobody wants to go to war. Israel is not looking to go to war with Iran, and Iran is not looking to go to war with Israel. Everyone's trying to save face. And when this tit for tat continues, they feel no option but to respond. And with that said,
as Israel prepares to respond to Iran. Now once again, if you see any diplomatic off ramps or if this really is only a military solution.
Well, at the end of the day, there has to be a diplomatic solution. It has to be Iran reversing course. They are moving towards a nuclear weapon. The policy the United States, the right and correct policy the United States,
is that Duran will never have a nuclear weapon. That is a policy shared by not just Israel, but our allies in the region, are arabellies in the region, and so it would be far better to get to a diplomatic solution without having to take other measures for Iran to back away, to get back in compliance with an agreement that said they wouldn't enrich uranium, to highly enrich what near weapons grade levels that they would allow ine vectors in to ensure that their nuclear program is a
civilian nuclear program and not a military program. There's every reason to believe that it is a military program, and the United States, working with our allies, has to be prepared to do everything necessary to ensure that Iran can never have that nuclear weapon they so desire.
Congressman Schneider I started our conversation by asking you if you thought this might resolve by the election. I don't think you do, and I don't think anyone does at this point. So in our remaining minute here, I wish we had more time, But in our minute left, will the result of the election here in the United States help to determine the outcome of what's happening in the Middle East.
Well, thanks, I'm happy to come back and talk more about this. I think the results of the election will have a significant impact. President Biden, to his credit, has stood by Israel longer than any previous president US president in a time of war. He's the only president to
have visited Israel during a time of war. It's imperative that the United States remains committed to Israel's right to defend itself, to secure its borders, protected citizens, and as we talked about at the beginning, to rescue the hostage. We need to make sure that the United States continues to lead on a global stage, that we stay engaged with our allies, that we strengthen the alliances like NATO, like other alliances, build on the Abraham of courts, and stay Thank you.
For engaging with us today. Congressman. Let's get more time next time. Brad Schneider, Democrat from Illinois with us on this seventh of October. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play and then Froudoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube. Show.
It is October seventh. That has now been one full year since the Hamas attack on Israel, which of course killed more than a thousand people and resulted in hundreds more being taken hostage. Many of those hostages have also died over the course of the last twelve months.
And so imagine what it was like this morning for Israeli's to wake up in communities along the Gaza Strip to air raid sirens as they did on this day one year ago. In fact, there was shelling from Gaza from Hamas. Most all of the projectiles were brought down by Israel. But the idea that we're marking this solemn date does not indicate that the fighting is stopping today, Kaylee.
No.
In fact, it points all signs point to this fight continuing for some time. So we want to turn now to Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute, where she is executive director. She's also a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Welcome back to Bloomberg
TV and Radio. Evelyn, I know you yourself. This past summer visited some of the scenes of the death of October seventh, including where the Nova Music Festival was being held, where four hundred more than that were killed and forty taken hostage, including a kaboots as well where sixty four civilians were killed nineteen were taken hostage into Gaza. Can you just give a first your personal reflections on the events of that day and the year that has followed.
Yeah, I mean, Kaylee, obviously there's no way to take in the tremendous loss of life and also just the brutality. You know, the Nova Music Festival. It's out there, it's a very kind of dry, but then there are trees and it's it's as open, almost like a field of trees, of small trees, and you can imagine these young people just having a party, enjoying themselves, and then to see just you know, sign after sign with a remembrance of all of these young people, like a field of people
mowed down by the brutal Hamas terrace. So that was really dramatic, and you know, walking through there, it was just sort of like.
A holy site.
Almost going to the kibbutz I went to far Asa, that was different because we had a guide in that case,
and it was a woman who was a survivor. She wasn't there on the day of the actual attack, but her family was, and she told all kinds of stories, and I think the biggest takeaway that she had was that she no longer believed that she could sit and peacefully have tea in the big field between her kibbutz and Gaza where the Palestinians lived, whom many of whom she had known, and have tea and live together in harmony.
But she said very clearly that I need them to have security and prosperity in order for US Israeli Jews to have security as well. So it was a very somber visit, and of course this anniversary just dredges up all of the anxiety which has not been put to rest over the past year. I think that much is clear, Evelyn.
We've frequently heard the events of October seventh, the attack on October seventh, compared to nine eleven, that this was Israel's nine to eleven, and some see it if in fact impacting by many magnitudes larger. When you consider the population and the percentage of people whose lives were taken on this day, how many more nine to elevens will it take to end this?
Well at the nine to eleven comparison is actually pretty good, Joe, because first of all, while there were warnings, the government didn't take proper action in advance, so there were intelligence failures, just as we had intelligence failures here in the US and the run up to nine to eleven. The second comparison that's app is that it took first responders a while to get to the scene, but then they actually couldn't save very many people, so the killing was very quick,
and in that respect it's similar. And then, of course the shock to the entire society, the fact that Israel, a country that has the strongest military in the Middle East, the nuclear power in the least the country that we have always the United States provided military assistance to in order to make sure that they have what we call a qualitative edge militarily, that somehow they could be vulnerable to such an attack, such an existential attack. I think
that is just like nine to eleven. How do we avoid it? I think we need to make sure that for once and for all, there is a solution to the Palestinians' right to self determination. And as the woman that I spoke to in far As of the Kibwutz said, and actually Palestinians that also I met with in Ramala, they also spoke about the need for security for both sides, I think we need to find a way back to
a two state solution. It will be very hard because right now the current Israeli government has been talking about a one state solution, and the far right members of Nateyahu's government they're not interested in a two state solution. But the only way to have lasting peace is for the Palestinians also to see their rights respected.
Well.
And that lasting piece may feel far away to many, as we are seeing instead of a cooling in the conflict and escalation in it. As Joe and I were mentioning, not only were rockets fired at Israel, but Israel is
continuing to conduct its strike operations in southern Lebanon. As we consider, and you just mentioned the intelligence failures that led to the events, or at least were a contributing factor to what happened on October seventh, When we consider the safety of Israel, which clearly was not safe on
that day. Is Israel safer now that it has to at least a certain extent, been able to attack the capabilities of those that would threaten it, including Hamas and Hesbalah, or because of their actions, has it actually created more danger in the region, including from Iran that set missiles Israel's way last week.
Yeah, I would say, Kelly, if you're looking at the threat picture at the moment, Israel has bought itself some time. So the Iranian proxies Hamas in Gaza and Hesbola coming from the north, so coming from Lebanon, they have been beaten down badly. Even the Israeli Defense Minister said in September that Hamas was no longer a real capable military threat to the state of Israel. I don't know what his latest assessment is. Clearly Hesbola has been incredibly weakened.
But let's not forget that the real threat is coming from Iran. Iran is using these two groups plus the Houtis in Yemen to attack Israel so that it doesn't get into a direct war with Israel. That appears to perhaps have changed, and that would put Israel in a more dangerous situation if indeed it did get into direct war with Iran potentially.
Well, some think this is an opportunity to strike Iran to change the order in the balance of power in the Middle East. Evelyn, what should Israel do is it calculates its next move?
Well, Joe, I think that Israel, together with the United States, we are their treaty. Ally, we should be talking about how do we bring about regime change without invading Iran and putting pressure on Iran, using military force, using diplomatic pressure, using all of our other allies in the Middle East is an important part of this, and we haven't seen
a strategy articulated by the Israeli government. There is a bit of an opportunity here when it comes to the nuclear program, because the biggest threat to Israel is that Iran gets a nuclear weapons program, which means that Iran can neuter Israel's advantage in the nuclear Arena if they did come to blows direct war, and so we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapons program for that reason, also because we don't want more countries in the Middle
East deciding and around the world frankly deciding that they also want their nuclear programs. That makes the world a lot more dangerous. So there may be calculations going on. I think they should be behind the scenes and not out through the media that pertain to the nuclear facilities in particular.
Well, as you describe something that could make the world more dangerous, I think it's fair to say, Evelyn, that the world feels pretty dangerous already, and it could be a very dangerous world that the next president of the
United States inherits. How do you if we operate under the assumption that this conflict will not be resolved when the next president is inaugurated, how could the nature of a change depending on who it is in the White House and what kind of administration we'll be looking at.
Kayly, if it's Kamala Harris, I believe that she would be more engaged in trying to solve the conflict. First of all, there's the personal element. Her husband is Jewish. Second, of all, there's the reality that for the United States, we need to protect Israel's right to exist, and it's really in jeopardy right now, so that's a US national security interest. We also want to protect as much as we can stability in the least and, as I said, address the nuclear and terrorist threat posed by Iran. So
I believe that she'll get more engaged. Right now. The Biden administration, frankly, is probably somewhat hamstrung by the fact that we have upcoming elections and anything they do, if it doesn't turn out in the short run, if it causes friction or controversy in the short run, it could be bad for Kamala Harris. But I do think that if the vice president were to win, she would be
more engaged. With regard to Donald Trump, we know that he's generally given a carte blanche that he's been in office before as president, so he's given a carte blanche to the far right and to Natanyahu in Israel before.
That doesn't, frankly make me optimistic because he would be more willing than to go along with what they call the one state solution, which means essentially just putting the Palestinians in these kinds of settlements in Gaza in the West Bank, which, as we've seen, is just a powder keg and a recipe for more conflict. So I think that the hands off of approach of Donald Trump would be the much more dangerous one for the US and for Israel.
As we consider the preparations underway here for a response to Iran Evelyn. The US has sent ships, it has sent missiles, fighter jets, and thousands of troops to the region. What else is needed?
I think aggressive diplomacy. We had an opportunity back in the fall, when the Israeli Defense Minister was saying that Hamas is severely degraded and it's no longer an organized military threat to the State of Israel, to negotiate a release of the hostages, who you know, this is the anniversary of them being held in captivity. That was an opportunity that was lost, but it's not permanently lost, and so I think that's what we need to focus on
right now, trying to get those hostages out. Whatever short term deal you have to make with Hamas, I think again, you know, as long as it's a prisoner exchange and within the normal bounds of this kind of negotiation should be worth it to the Israeli government, certainly to the Israeli people, and to the US government.
Evelyn's great to have you back. Evelyn Farcas's executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University.
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.
There was no mistaking the second rally in Butler and the difference between the second rally and the first one Butler, Pennsylvania. Donald Trump back at this time in a glass box, of course, prompted by the assassination attempt that took place upon his first visit to the farm in Butler, came back to mark the spot where the campaign changed in July, and he had a very famous man with him, the richest man in the world, decided to show up. We knew he would be there Elon Musk and as we
asked out loud here on this program on Friday. Would he actually speak to the crowd, Would he come up on the stage, stand at the podium. You know, Donald Trump's gonna call him up there, And yes it happened. Here is Elon Musk from Saturday in Butler.
President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America. This is a must win situation. Must win. So I have I have won. One ask for everyone in the audience, everyone who watches this video, everyone in the live stream, this one request. It's very important. Register to vote.
He got up there with the black hat. If you're with us on YouTube, you see the black Maga hat. He's called himself Dark Maga, although he was lighter than air. If you watch the event, literally two feet off the ground, jumping up and down with his arms up in the air as the crowd went wild. Charlie Dent is back with us, the former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, senior advisor to the group are Republican Legacy Congressman. It's great to
see you. Welcome back. Does Elon Musk bring any new votes, any extra votes to Donald Trump from Pennsylvania?
Yeah, I really don't think so I've never been one to believe that these celebrity endorsements matter that much. You know, maybe Taylor Swift does, because she's a cultural icon and a unique singular figure, but I don't think it really matters. And you know what I find it interesting is that Elon Musk is talking about preserving democracy, and that's of course to the argument that Democrats are making about Trump. Each side is claiming that the democracy is on their side,
and each is the other side is a democracy. It's really it's really remarkable.
I'm so happy you pointed that out, Congressman. I spent all Sunday morning because I like to torture myself watching the Sunday morning news shows, and I saw the likes of Speaker Johnson and many others calling out Democrats. And Donald Trump has blamed Democrats for the assassination attempts that he has withstood because of what you just said, this line that Donald Trump could be in the end of democracy.
But as we just heard from Elon Musk, and we hear at every speech from Donald Trump, Kamala Harris would be the end of the country. In fact, Elon Musk said if she was elected, there would never be another election. Can we forget to just move past the double standard?
Here?
Both sides are saying this, aren't they?
Well, yeah, what's so incredible about this whole election cycle is that the stakes have been raised so high. Donald Trump and his supporters say we won't have a country anymore if he's not elected. The Democrats say, if Trump is elected, we won't have a democracy anymore. And so now we've raised the pitch this such a high fever that we see these radicals coming out now, like we saw in Butler, that disturbed young man who attempted to
assassinate Donald Trump. Thankfully Donald Trump survived that. And then we also had the situation in Florida where the individual down there seemed to be politically motivated. Of course Secret Service boarded that assassination attempt. And so I can see how we have reached this point of political violence or perhaps civil disorder, which could of course occur after the election regardless of outcome. But we've had violence in our
political system. We saw that Donald Trump and his supporters did attempt to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and try to overturn an outcome they did not like we saw that in leading up to January sixth, and certainly on January sixth. Obviously the system helped. But I mean, you can make a case of Donald Trump did try to overturn a free and fair election.
Yeah. I think a lot of people have been making that case. And we also remember Elon Musk aforementioned on his own ex formerly Twitter amusing openly about why no one had tried to assassinate Joe Biden or Kamala Harris following the second one against Donald Trump. But I'll tell you what, Congressman, your state is sure is something. We've got new numbers from Emerson College, new polling. This isn't even a one point race. This is just flat tide
Emerson College polling, real clear Pennsylvania survey. Forty eight percent of voters support Donald Trump, Forty eight percent of voters support Vice President Kamala Harris. Half voters expect Harris to win, forty nine percent expect Trump to win. Pennsylvania still the state to decide the election, and what makes it break one way or the other?
Yeah, Pennsylvania is the keystone. It is the battleground state of all battleground states. Muhlenberg College just did a poll. They do good pulling public polling. They did a poll last week also had it tied I believe at forty eight eight. So this is a dead heat no matter how you look at this, if you look at if you really dissect Pennsylvania, though, Harris needs to do extremely well in the Philadelphia media market, specifically the city of
Philadelphia and the four collar counties. She needs to run up the numbers there. She needs to do well in the Lehigh Valley, and she will win only a handful of other counties around the state. She'll win Monroe County, probably in the Poconos Center County where penn State is in the middle estate in Alleghany County. But the two counties to watch in Pennsylvania are Northampton County, my old district is the ultimate bell Weather county in the state
and perhaps the nation, and Erie County. Those are the two counties. And I don't I'm not big on predictions, but I will say this, I will predict this. Whichever candidate wins Northampton in the Erie Counties will likely win the president. We'll win Pennsylvania and we'll win the presidency. So this state is if you look at Pennsylvania, you know East of the Susquehanna River south and east, it's
really more like a Northeastern state. And if you look at Pennsylvania, maybe west of the Essquehanna, it's kind of more like a Midwestern state. And so it's it's a few different states out there, and the issue sets in the economy is always a big issue out in the western part of the state. The eastern part of the state in many ways is more prosperous, and you know, I think social issues play a more dominant role there.
What was it, James Carvel said, you've got Philadelphia in Pittsburgh and Alabama in the middle. With that said, conference, if it's really coming down to Pennsylvania here, why didn't Kamala Harris pick your governor Shapiro?
Well, you know that mystified me. I thought, Okay, for Kamala Harris, there is no path to her victory without Pennsylvania. Trump is probably true for Trump, but he has to win Georgia. But probably true for both candies, but especially for Harris. So I was surprised she didn't select Shapiro because Shapiro was particularly strong in the Philadelphia media market, and he also won in many counties where Joe Biden did not, and Tim Waltz, who's a friend I served him.
He's a good man, you know. He basically if you look at the map of Minnesota, Waltz and Biden won in the same places. So Shapiro I thought, brought more value and in the state that she must win and where she is frankly not performing as she needs as well as she needs to. So I thought it was a I thought it was an error that she didn't select him. You know, she obviously had her reasons. In the end, she may win and she'll look like a genius.
But I just thought, if Pennsylvania as the ballgame, Shapiro could have really helped her because he does present well, he's smart, he's got a more centrist path and could help her on issues like fracking in Pennsylvania and others where she's.
Stuck with it. Interesting spending time with former Republican Congressman Charlie Dennis. I mentioned you're a senior advisor to a group called Our Republican Legacy, and I wonder where your head is looking forward to November. If Donald Trump wins or if he doesn't win, is this last stand of maga will MAGA end with Donald Trump or is it the new direction of the GOP.
Well the reason why we exist at our Republican legacy. We are trying to create that counter argument to MAGA or a counter narrative. You know, if Trump loses, I think that we will be in a much stronger position to present an alternative case, as we've talked about before, based on core principles like the constitution, the rule of law. We believe in free and fair elections, we believe in free markets. We are against these ridiculous and destructive tariffs.
We believe in peace, due strength, and instructive international engagement that embraces allies that rejects autocrats like Putin. And so we think we can make this argument, and we intend to make this argument not just now, but after the election, and particularly if Trump loses. I believe there are significant numbers of Republicans who want a different direction, as do
many other Americans. The principles that we outlined and our five to four principles are ones that have sustained a Republican party for over one hundred and seventy years one hundred and seventy years, and we believe they can carry us forward, There's no question about it, and a lot of Republicans need to hear an argument too. Often Republicans who are critical of Trump, maybe particularly an elected office, they will complain about them behind closed doors, but nobody's
hearing that. Silence is not an alternative narrative to MAGA. That's why we have to have a proactive agenda, which is what we are presenting. And we think that not just Nicky Haley voters, but a lot of people who vote for Donald Trump wants something better too. And I don't think we believe independence and many Democrats will also read with what we're talking about.
Haven't heard anyone refer to Nicki Haley voters for a minute. Congressman, it's good to see you come back. We only have four weeks to go here, and obviously Pennsylvania couldn't be more important. A former Republican Congressman from the great state of Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Our signature panel back together today. We've got Rick and Jeanie following another wild weekend on the campaign trail. We'll get their take on Trump and Musk and Butler and Kamala
Harris starting the new media Blitz. It starts right now. We'll have a lot more coming up on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroun Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
I'm Kaylee Lines alongside Joe Matthew here in Washington, will continue to bring you the latest from the campaign trail and also on the issues that could move the needle in swing states, including this latest headline out of Georgia. Remembering last week, a judge in Fulton County overturned the state's six week abortion band, found it unconstitutionally prohibited abortions. Now, Georgia Supreme Court today has struck struck down that ruling, putting back into place that six week band while it
considers the appeal here. This, of course, putting a spotlight on the issue of reproductive rights in a state that ultimately could decide the electoral College and ultimately the election. And it comes Joe just after Kamala Harris sat down for an interview on the popular podcast Call Her Daddy with Alex Cooper, a conversation centered very much around women's rights and reproductive rights. And of course it's just one part of a media blitz Harris will have underway this week.
Is we'll also hear from her tonight in a sit down on sixty minutes, which Donald Trump initially agreed to and then decided not to do.
Yeah, I'll be curious to hear what they tell us on CBS about how that all transpired. Apparently there will be a bit of a background story on why it is only one of the two candidates. Tim Walls will also be involved. But yeah, you're right, this is quite the media blitz and somewhat different than what you might suspect, not sitting down with journalists or news agencies. It's the view. She's headed to New York tonight the View Howard Stern, The Howard Stern Show, and then Stephen Colbert all, I
think we can argue you friendly audiences. We'll see how the panel feels about it. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano are with us our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors. She is, of course, political science professor at Iona University. He is partner at stone Court Capital and Genie, I wonder your thoughts on the selections here. We're going to have a lot of eyeballs and ears on these interviews. They are mainstream programs. The View of course will have its own brand,
and so will Howard Stern. What do you make of the selections, knowing specifically that Howard Stern has made a career on racist and sexist humor.
Yeah, I mean it.
Is quite a list as I'm here listening talk about Howard Stern, and then Kayla is talking about Call Her Daddy, which we know is a show primarily for young women and primarily about sex and dating and all those things.
You know. You just I think back to like remember.
When Bill Clinton went on like our Sineo Hall or Boxers versus Briefs, and we.
Were all in uproar.
It's down right tame compared to where we are now and these selections. But you know, to me, she's been getting a lot of heat for not doing interviews.
So they are flooding the zone, so to speak.
They have a variety of media outlets they're talking to or she is talking to as well as her running mate Tim Waltz, and you know, they are trying to appeal to certain segments. For my mind, the most important is Howard Stern. She also did this podcast called All the Smoke, which is very appealing to young African American men. These are constituencies she needs to reach. And then the call her daddy is of course doubling down on her, you know, enormous support with young women.
So she is hitting all the bases here.
I think she should add to these, go to the local media in the Swing States. Local media still matters an awful lot on the campaign trail, so I think she should continue to do that. She's done some, but the more the better in my mind.
And we'll resteat state here that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have a standing invitation to come sit down for an interview here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. So Rick, with that in mind, we would like to see them here if you were running this campaign, where else would you send her? Frankly, both of the candidates, what audiences are they not actually reaching that they still need to as they try to get every last vote.
Well, if you talk about Howard Stern, and you're talking about ten million viewers a week listeners. Then you got to talk about Joe Rogan, like what an interesting interview that would be if Kamala Harrison and Donald Trump individually booked the end of that show. But look, I think that one of the things you mentioned earlier is that these are all very targeted. I mean, Howard Stern's demographic is, you know, wealthier, you know, thirty five to forty five
year old. You know, these are profiles of swing voters, younger women, young black men. You're going to see a lot of focus on those people who have a message into those demographics. And I think the ultimate slam dunk is going to be deploying Barack Obama later in the campaign. Here later in the campaign we only got twenty eight days ago, because one of the places that the Harris campaign needs shoring up is with those young black men
who have had flirtations with Donald Trump's messaging. So I think that it's the best thing I did, and the most fun I've ever had as a campaign manager, was matching up news outlets with demographics and finding people who had great input but maybe not nationally nationally recognized so much more fun than just booking your Canada on the nightly news or a Sunday talk show.
Well, we saw Donald Trump interviewed by Elon Musk. Of course, Genie and Elon Musk showed up in Butler, Pennsylvania this week, and we told you he'd be there. This is, of course, the site of the first attempted assassination against Donald Trump. And while we're talking about one campaign's leveraging of pop culture and celebrity, we should talk about this. Elon Musk was brought up on the stage inside the glass box that Donald Trump speaks in the bulletproof box. Here's what he said.
President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America. This is a must win situation. Must win. So have I have one one ask for everyone in the audience, everyone who watches this video, everyone in the live stream. This one request. It's very important. Register to vote.
I don't know if that will be as powerful as
Taylor Swift's attempts to register voters at vote dot org. Genie, but I want to ask you about the double standard and the rhetoric here because I spent all Sunday morning watching news programs in which we heard from the likes of Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans who said that Democrats were responsible for Donald Trump and the attempt at assassinations because they have framed him, as we hear from Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and others as the end of democracy.
But we just heard as well from Elon Musk as we do from Donald Trump, that Trump must win to preserve democracy in America. Elon Musk went further to say that if Trump loses, there won't be another election. So is this coming from both sides or not?
It is coming from both sides, that both sides are using this provocative language. We heard it also, just to add to your litany, from Lara Trump on CNN saying that it was a choice between good and evil. We heard from Eric Trump talking about the fact that Democrats are trying to kill his father. So the rhetoric is
on both sides. And you know, we've talked about this a little bit before, but it's important to underscore what happens when both sides use this kind to provocative Brederick is sort of a dilution where voters throw up their hands and say, I'm just.
Going to discount all of it.
It's sort of like when they play those medicine commercials and they give you the litany of bad things that can happen to you if you take this aspirin. Well, you start to say, can't be all that bad because everything from the smallest to the biggest issues can happen. And so that's a known theory. It has an impact
on people and they sort of start to discount. And can I just say my favorite part of Elon Musk's appearance was not just the dark maga, but his jumping, which reminded me of time cruise on over Free's couch.
What is happening?
Why is he?
Oh?
The jumping memes have been plentiful in the last forty eight hours. That is all I will say about that. There also is, to Joe's point, Rick, this question about how much having someone like Elon Musk in your corner actually matters. Bloomberg and Morning Consoles actually, in our latest swing state poll found that Elon Musk across the seven battleground states has a forty percent favorable reading thirty four unfavorable.
Taylor Swift, who of course came out and endorsed Harris after the debate with Donald Trump forty seven percent favorable, thirty six percent unfavorable. So I'm not sure as we consider the favorability here how much that might make a difference Rick. But it also is a question of the platform. Surely both can reach a large audience. We all know about Taylor Swift's Instagram following, but Elon Musk literally owns x one of the social media platforms in which information
true or falls about this election is being propagated. Is that the most powerful weapon of all?
It may be one of the most powerful.
It depends upon what motivation you have, and whether or not those motivations are generating positives or negatives for the candidate you choose to endorse. The Taylor Swift thing is pretty benign, right. First of all, they're both popular, which is better than most politicians can say. Second, you know, does Taylor Swift's support actually make a voter looked twice at the candidate she's endorsing, And I would say that's probably true based on the pulling I've seen.
You know, she can drive eyeballs, and of.
Course there's a negative effect when she endorsed Kamala Harris after the first after the debate, we saw Republicans saying she's much more unfavorable than they had in larger numbers before the endorsement. And I have no doubt that this will have the same effect on someone like Elon Musk.
But when you control a huge media outlet that's out there twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, like X, I would say your leverage to influence the dialogue in the campaign, and therefore, potentially the outcome is significantly higher. And unless Taylor Swift decides to hit the road and start campaigning every day, Elon Musk is going to have a little more influence than she's going to have on the outcome of this selection.
The New York Times with quite a piece today on Donald Trump's speaking style and cognitive ability, pointing to a computer analysis that finds Trump's rally speech is now last an average of eighty two minutes, up from forty five in twenty sixteen. He uses thirteen percent more all or nothing terms like always or never, thirty two percent more negative words than positive, and making references to the eighties and nineties, Hannibal Lecter, Johnny Carson, carry Grant, and so on.
I guess it goes further back. Genie and our remaining thirty seconds. Will Democrats make a bigger issue of age in these last four weeks?
Yeah, I think they should.
And speaking of the New York Times, they have been running a lot of pieces, as you mentioned, talking about age because of course it fell by the wayside after Joe Biden Withdrew and Donald Trump is an elderly man. And let's just say another difference between Taylor Swift and Elon Musk of many, Taylor Swift doesn't get billions of dollars in government contracts, just saying there is.
Yeah, last I checked, no uh rocket company owned by Taylor Swift, Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis, our signature political panel.
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.