Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Roun.
Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Thank you for joining us today on Balance of Power, whether you're watching us on YouTube, listening to us on the radio on satellite radio. Perhaps, and I certainly hope you will be able to continue doing so far into the future. But like so many things in modern life, we do need satellites for that to happen. Whether it's communicating with friends and family, using the GPS in your car, listening to Bloomberg Radio, a lot of it requires that
satellite technology. So what would happen if potentially, say a Russian nuclear space weapon took that out. I know it sounds like a doomsday scenario, it might be within the realm of possibility, and it was the subject of a speech earlier today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies given by the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, and the congressman from Ohio is here with
me now in our Washington, d C studio. Mister chairman, thank you so much for joining us here at Bloomberg. It's a terrifying proposition. How close is something like a Russian nuclear space weapon being to a reality we're going to have to face.
Well, Katy, thank you for having me today and thank you for your characterizing really what the threat is. And that's why this is so important for us to push the administration to take actions here. The Administration has acknowledged that Russia is developing an anti satellite nuclear weapon, and
that's really all that they have told us publicly since then. Unfortunately, the outcomes that you were describing and the catastrophic effects if a NUCO weapon was detonated in space really go all the way back to the vulnerability of if that satellite is put in orbit. JERLD Saltzman, the Chief of Staff or Space Force, has said that if this weapon is put in orbit, that would be day zero because the very next day we would not be able to count on space, and really space is so important for
everything that we do. It would be destabilizing both for international security but also our economic systems, foundational our communication systems. So the administration needs to step up the plate. I'm calling on them to declassify the status of this threat and then also take action to prevent it. They should impact the outcome and make certain this satellite does not get in space.
So, just on the classification question, obviously there's a ton of material that me, as a civilian member of the public, don't have access to. That information is classified, and I would assume a lot of it is classified for a reason. Is there not danger in making threats like this so visible to the public? Potentially so panic.
Wells generally a panic issue as much as is instilling confidence that the administration's doing something. I mean, in this instance, Vladimir Putin thrives in secrecy, and also so does the administrations in action. By the administration not acknowledging the threat, the administration is free to not make this on their to do list or not to accomplish tasks that would
protect us. You know, in this instance, the fact that Russia is acknowledged by the administration is pursuing This is a threat that should be of a critical objective of this administration.
So what is it that the administration can do to protect us? Is it making sure that Russia doesn't have access to certain technologies. How would you guarantee that happens? Is it a sanction question and an export control question? What exactly is the action required here in your lie?
Well, I think this is sort of all in the above. But the real way to look at this is this is the Cuban missile crisis in space. Jim Times, my ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, coined that, and it really is the case. Imagine if President Kennedy had done nothing when Russia had looked to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, it would have changed the entire dynamics of the world. Europe probably would not be free because we would have been held hostage by nuclear weapons just off the coast
of Florida and not taking action in Europe. Similarly, if Putin is allowed to put a nuclear weapon in space, he is going to hold hostage all of the space assets of the world, and certainly that would give him free reign to be able to reassemble the Soviet Union and threaten our critical allies.
Could we do it first, Well, would that make a difference here in terms of deterrence?
Well, the UN Space treet of nineteen sixty seven we all agreed that we would not do this because we wanted to reach the promise of space's mankind. As you just described, You and I today wouldn't even be here in this studio doing this if it wasn't as a result of space, in our hospitals, in our economics. All of the things that we've accomplished in the space age would come to a halt, and we would have to look for alternative sources of being able to accomplish those things.
If there's a nuclear weapon in space, even if it hasn't been detonated, its threat will require that we have alternative access, and it just doesn't exist right now.
When we're considering threats posed by Russia. Do those only grow exponentially when you have, say, Vladimir Putin visiting North Korea for the first time since the year two thousand and inking, a deal that Kim Jong un called the most powerful treaty ever signed between the two countries. What do you make of that?
Well, remember, North Korea is under sanctions by the United Nations as a result of what they have done in violating nonpliferation treaties their nuclear weapons program. So Kim jongung gets great credibility by standing next to Vladimir Putin, who then embraces all of the action that he's doing and imprisoning his people. That I think is probably a greater benefit to him. I think a military lines economic alliance,
they already have those. I don't think there's anything else that's wrapped into this, but the benefit to him around the world to stand next for Putin is certainly a danger.
Well, North Korea is under sanctions, as is Russia. Those were expanded last week at the G seven, now including secondary sanctions. But Russia does have North Korea to turn too.
They also have.
China to turn to in many instances, can any of those sanction policies, the kind of international economic policies that have been put into place to try to restrain Russia as it engages in an ongoing war with Ukraine, can any of them really be effective so long as these other adversaries exist and are im Putin's corner.
Well, there are sanction regimes that can be put in place, and I think some of those need to be looked at with respect to this issue of this evolving threat of the development of an anti satellite nuclear weapon. This administration has been very slow in implementing sanctioned policies and in their weapons provisions to Ukraine and the permission to
use those weapons in the exchange of intelligence. So there's a lot this administration could do that where they've really put Ukraine in a situation where they're fighting with one hand behind their back.
Well, we've seen some changes on the margin to that recently, perhaps the allowance of Ukraine using weapons offensively, at least in certain areas, only to hit certain military targets. Does that need to be expanded in your mind or do you do you think the escalation concern that the administration has voiced repeatedly is justified.
I think this administration is way too timid. Their view of escalatory acts is are to implement defensive acts for Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor they're the ones who have escalated. We're just responding in a deficient defensive manner. This administration allowing Nearer Kharkiv a limited use of US long range weapons will not change the dynamics on the battlefield. There are ways to accomplish that, and this administration needs to fully get behind Ukraine and support them.
This administration also has express support for Israel, and yet we have seen the withholding of certain large bombs, over concerned and of how what kind of civilian casualties they can cause. Prime Minister Benjaminette Yahoo yesterday was accusing the US of withholding other weapons as well. You sit as chair of the Intelligence Committee. How is their merit to that? Or is net and Yahoo saying things that aren't true?
Well, you silly have the administration stepping up and saying that that they are providing them everything and that they did not see the restrictions. But I think the problem here is that the administration in each of these conflicts needs to pick a side, and unfortunately they half heartedly or lukewarm support a side, and our adversaries have no restrictions. Our adversaries are not going to restrict the atrocities that they're willing to perpetrate or what they're willing to do
against our allies. And yet we continue to restrict our allies in there and their ways to defend themselves.
There's been a lot of buzz in recent days about Israel potentially opening a new front to this war in the north border with Lebanon going after Hesbelah directly. Is that a real threat?
Well, Hesbola continues to be a threat to Israel, And again we have to we have to unmask all of these really franchises of Iran. Whether it's Hohothi's or it's Hesbila and Lebanon or Hamas in Gossip, they're all proxies of Iran, and all of this is being funded, armed, trained, and perpetrated as part of Iran's destabilization in the in the area. So hitting one or other of the tentacles of Iran really is somewhat indiscernible.
But is Hesbela not more closely tied with Iran than than Hamasis. Could that potentially going against a second proxy be something that draws Iran more directly into this conflict than we've seen this far.
I don't.
I don't think so.
Again, the taking defensive action against someone else's provocation is not escalatory, and in this instance, Esbula represents a significant threat. Now I'm not advocating that they attack Hesbola, but if they find themselves in a situation in their defense where they need to defend themselves against Hesbla, I think we still have to unmask them and understand this is still just part of the overall tentacles of Iran, and they're nefarious acts in the region, And.
Of course those tentacles may come back to Russia in some way as well, as we consider Russia China Ran the way in which all of these conflicts kind of are not isolated, if you will, They're not happening in a vacuum. How does especially the rather public tension we're seeing between the Israeli government and the US government potentially factor into the decision making by other adversaries, including Russia.
Well, I think this is just weakness on the part of the Biden administration, where it be in Ukraine, whether it be the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, where it's the talking one way and providing support to Israel the other way. These inconsistent signols in bolden those who want to do our Ali's harm.
All right, mister chairman, thank you so much for joining us here at Blimbert today. We appreciate your time again fresh off giving that speech on the Russian nuclear power in space that they are developing at the CSIS. Congressman Mike Turner, we appreciate your time.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Kim Jong un is calling it the most powerful treaty ever signed between his North Korea and Russia. He and Vladimir Putin yesterday inking a deal in Pyongyang to provide immediate military assistance if one of them is attacked. Survives in agreement that dates back to the Cold War and elevates the ties between the two countries to an alliance.
Keep in mind this happened is leader Imputin visited North Korea for the first time since the year two thousand and of course, comes against a backdrop of North Korea providing missiles and other ammunition to Russia and its ongoing war against Ukraine. We want to turn out to Angela Stent. She is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the book Putin's World, Russia Against the West
and with the Rest. Angela, welcome back to Bloomberg. Thank you so much for joining me as we consider what exactly this most powerful treaty ever, really means. Does it make both Russia and North Korea all that more dangerous?
I think we shouldn't exaggerated, But the short answer to that is yes, it's very much, as you said, like the nineteen sixty one treaty between the Soviet Union and North Korea. But it does promise that they will help each other mutual defense assistance of one of them is attacked. Now we don't quite know what that means, but that's not something that Russia has in most of its treaties with other countries, and it sounds a little bit like
NATO's Article five. So I think we need to be concerned about this, even though there was a lot of rhetoric and pomp and circumstance when Putin went there, and we don't know what the substance is. We haven't seen the treaty, the details of the treaty, but we should be concerned.
Well, is this also just a sign that Putin needs maybe not this defensive deal, but just needs North Korea and has to do something to keep Kim jongun in line with him?
Right, So this is part of Putin's new access of resistance with China, Iran and North Korea. Putin needs the artillery shells from North Korea. He needs the ballistic missiles that apparently are intelligence people say that the North Koreans have been supplying him so in order to keep this war in Ukraine going, in order to keep killing Ukraine, he needs this. The question is what is he giving
Kim Jong un in return? Russia used to be part of the Six Party talks trying to denuclearize North Korea. Not a word about denuclearization. Is Russia going to somehow help North Korea's nuclear program, its satellite program and make it that much more of a dangerous, aggressive enemy for South Korea, for Japan and for the Indo Pacific region.
It's interesting to hear you bring up nuclear capability because I just earlier today had a conversation with the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Mike Turner, who was warning and did so in a speech at CSIS earlier today about Russia developing a nuclear weapon that could be used in space to take out satellites. It's something he
is very concerned about. But we went beyond that, Angela to also talk about the ongoing war against Ukraine and what could be playing to Russia's advantage, including the US military or the Biden administration specifically still putting restraint on the way in which Ukraine could use military assists. It's provided by the US. This is what the chairman told me earlier.
I think this administration is way too timid. Their view of escalatory acts is are to implement defensive acts for Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. They're the ones who have escalated. We're just responding in a deficient defensive manner. This administration allowing a nearer Kharkiv a limited use of US long range weapons will not change the dynamics on the battlefield.
So he Angela didn't seem to convince that allowing Ukraine to do more offensively was going to be escalatory in terms of getting more of a response out of Russia. But you know Russia and Vladimir Putin quite well. Would that be something that would escalate things?
So I tend to agree with him. I think that we have been too intimidated by the threats that emanate from Putin. But he is threatening sometimes to use tactical nuclear weapons. He's both threatening armed countries that are near Ukraine on allies of Ukraine with weapons that they can
use against Ukraine, maybe even against other European states. You can't dismiss his threats altogether, but I do think that the Biden administration and many European countries have been too cautious about allowing Ukraine to use the advanced weapons that we're supplying them with further into Russian territory. You can't say one hundred percent that there wouldn't be a worse reaction from Russia, but so far we haven't seen that, and so far Russia has not attacked a NATO member country.
Well, Angela, I'm glad you raised that other European countries are a factor in all of this as well, considering the develops we've seen on developments we've seen on the European continent in recent weeks, parliamentary elections that saw much more power going to far right parties, a snap election called by French President Emmanuel Macron in the aftermath, the growing concern that perhaps Europe is leaning more toward the right and therefore more towards skepticism them about further support
for Ukraine.
How do you read it?
Yes, I think that's a real danger. Let's see what happens in the French election. If the far right comes to power there, even though President Macron will still be in office, it will be much more difficult for France to continue its support for Ukraine. And we've seen that in other countries. The far right did very well in Germany, in the European elections in some of the other countries, and these are all groups and parties that are much more pro Russian and that don't want to support Ukraine.
So there are the European countries nearest to Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland and also the UK are very strong supporters. But I think in some of the other parts of Europe support will be weakening for Ukraine. And I think obviously we don't know what's going to happen in our own presidential election in November, but things could looked rather different next year.
It's an excellent point. So is really all Vladimer Putin needs to do Angela is keep things going, even if in stalemate for him until next January.
That's always been his calculation. He's waiting to see what happens in November, obviously hoping that the next US president will not be supporting Ukraine and waiting to see what happens in Europe. He can wait, he can bind his time. He's getting these weapons now from North Korea, from Iran, and even though we've then post even more severe financial sanctions on Russia, his wartime economy is now doing better than we thought it would.
Well, I'm glad you raised that, especially as we began this conversation talking about North Korea. So long as North Korea and China exist in are in Russian's corner, is there going to be any kind of international sanctions that ultimately will be effective enough to help precipitate an end to this war? Is that something that just isn't going to work?
Well, it doesn't look as if it's worked so far. We're now are also sanctioning some Chinese entities that have been supplying chips and other sanctioned goods to Russia. But so far Russia has managed to the Russian economy has managed to survive, even though they can't trade in dollars anymore. And I think we may be overestimated the impact of
these Western sanctions on the Russian economy. So I don't see them bringing down the Russian economy anytime soon or forcing Putin to rethink his calculus in Ukraine.
All right, Angela, it's always great to have you here on Balance of Power. Thank you so much for joining me on Bloomberg TV and radio. Angela Stent is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and also author of Putin's World, Russia against the West and with the rest.
You're listening to. The Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast catches live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple.
Car Play and then broud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Some news today from Israeli military suggesting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyah, whose long stated goal of destroying Hamas is unachievable. This is the quote to say we are going to destroy Hamas to make it disappear. It's simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public. Hamas is an idea. Whoever thinks we can make it disappear is mistaken, mistaken. This is a real admiral in Israel's military, and we wanted to turn out to someone who probably has a
thought or two on this. Former Ambassador James Jeffrey is with me now. He is chair of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center. Also former US Ambassadors to a Rock and to Turkey. Ambassador, welcome back to Balance of Power. Thank you so much for joining me. Does the military have a point? Can Hamas realistically be completely destroyed?
Thank you for having me on. The military is right. First of all, Hamas cannot be destroyed as an ideology and all of its people cannot be wiped out. But for several years I was involved in the Defeat Islamic State campaign two and eighteen twenty nineteen twenty, and we knew we couldn't destroy it, but we could defeat it in the sense of removing it from power and taking away its offensive capabilities. That's exactly what the Israelis have
been doing. The Israeli admiral is right that you can't defeat Hamas, but he's being a little bit disingenious because he knows that Prime Minister Netanyao at least understands this, and from time to time Netanieo speaks in less apocalyptic terms about dismantling Hamas. The problem is, Netaniao has to deal with some very right wing members of his cabinet, who do not want to end this war, who do
not want to have a day after. But Netanyao, of course has advanced this ceasefire proposal that would have all Israeli forces leaving Ganza. The question is under which conditions? So I think there's probably less than meets the eye, but it still indicates that there's friction within the Israeli.
Government well on the ceasefire proposal. We of course had that outlined in a big address from the White House by President Biden. Almost immediately it seemed that Netanyahu was trying to walk part of it back. You saw pushback, obviously from Hamas. They submitted a counter proposal. Is that original ceasefire, a three stage deal that the President had outlined, now dead in the water. Where exactly do we stand?
Not at all.
The administration is still pressing through Kuta in Egypt. Hamas to give an answer, stands by it. The problem is the President glossed over the core part of this whole thing.
Israel is putting on the table a cessation of the war and withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, but it has condition Those conditions would be the subject of negotiations during the first of the three stages, and it's not guaranteed that Hamas would agree to them, or that Israel would even compromise on any of its positions and thus leave it has to see Hamas not in power, and it has to be ensured that and reassured rather that Hamas will not reconstitute as it has done before. Those
are realistic war goals. The Israelis are advancing them, and we'll see what Hamas will do.
Well.
And that goes back to something you mentioned a moment ago, the idea that you take out the power of Hamas or the ability for it to conduct operations like what happened on October seventh. We heard when President Biden was outlining this deal at the White House weeks ago. The idea that, yes, Hamas is military capability, their ability to conduct another October seventh has been eliminated. Is that not entirely true, Ambassador.
That is true today. But if Hamas is left in control of Gaza, and if it regains control of the Philadelphi corridor to Egypt and the Rafa crossing and thus is able to bring in the hundreds of millions of dollars of supplies concrete rebars, steel and most importantly Iranian weapons. It will soon have that capability to attack Israel again the next time, possibly coordinated better with Iran and Hisbola.
This is an existential threat to Israel. So Israel will not accept to cease fire, will not leave Gaza unless it is assured of several things. One is that some international or other entity will come in and govern Gaza, and that Hamas will be forced to accept that. In two that Hamas never gains control of the Egyptian border again. I think those are the key conditions that Israel will be advancing in any talks if they get to them with Hamas.
Of course, all the while, Israel is under a great deal of pressure from the US government, and we've seen the US government holding specific shipments of weapons, specifically large bombs, over concern of the kind of civilian casualties that could result from their use. But we did hear earlier this week ambassador from Prime Minister Netanyah who himself about the shipments of weapons from the US. This is what he suggested.
I said, it's inconcealable that in the past few months administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel during World War Two. Churchill told the United States, give us the tools, we'll do the job. And I say, give us the tools, and we'll finish the job a lot faster.
And that video from the Prime Minister was addressed by White House spokesman John Kirby earlier today, who said the US did not know in advance that Netanya whose video was coming. It disappointed us greatly and was puzzling. There is no other country that did more than the US to protect Israel. He goes on to say, netnya who's words were incorrect, I don't know what was going through his mind. Ambassador, what went through your mind when you heard those words from Menou?
Right, these are very hot things to pass because they involved diplomatic behind the scenes pressure on one side and the other for sure, and the administration has acknowledged that it did hold back on two hundred two thousand pound bombs several months ago because of the effect on civilian casualties. That Netaniel was raising involves more recent decisions taken by Congress that have not yet been fully executed within the bureaucracy.
I've dealt with that bureaucracy for years, and Armship minster Turkey, in Iraq, it is very slow, it's very opaque. It could well be that there is no real problem. It is just bureaucracy. That certainly is what Kirby is suggesting. Nonetheless, Netanyeo by going public, created yet another tempest in a chief pot, and we're going to have to see how this works out. But his people aren't talking with the White House on next steps if there is a ceasefire, and that's the good news.
And of course, just over a month from now, on July twenty fourth, Netyahoo is planning to be here in Washington for a joint address to Congress and address that not all members of the Democratic Party certainly are planning to attend. Where do you think we will be by a month from now when he makes that trip to Washington.
A good point. But what I want to underline is We're already in a better place. Despite Netanyahu's outburst the other day, Israel, by advancing this ceasefire proposal, is signaling it's ready to end the war if it gets the right conditions for the day after, and the United States and Israel are actually talking right now on what those
conditions might be. That's the first thing. Secondly, by taking on American advice on how to conduct the last campaign in Rafa for the last month, avoiding massive civilian casualties to the degree scene elsewhere, the Israelis have basically won
a certain amount of support from the United States. Combine that with their advancing the ceasefire proposal, a lot of the pressure on the Israelis from the international community, the UN and human rights groups has diminished significantly because now it's Hamas that is refusing to enter into negotiations for
a permanency spire, and that gives Israel running room. I believe that the twenty fourth of July, Netanya will announce the end of major combat in his readiness to find a negotiated solution.
Okay, that's quite a call. What about where Israel and Hesbalah will stand by that time, Well, we have seen a new front open just as one closed.
I don't so.
Actually, because from a military standpoint, Israel has pretty much finalized, as I said, the fighting in Gazer. It only has one division plus involved there, so it now has the forces to respond if his Bulah were to attack. In the end, I don't think Israel will attack Isbelah certainly
while Gazar is going on. But once this is all over, the Israelis will demand, as they should, that in accordance with the two thousand and six UN resolution that ended the last exchange of fighting between the two, his Bulah withdraw north of the Tiny River and reduce its threat to Israel. If his Bulla does not do that at that time, then I think we might see a new conflict.
All right, Well, it gives us a lot to pay attention to. Thank you so much for joining us, Ambassador, appreciate your time as always. That's Ambassador James Jeffrey, Chair of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, former US Ambassador to Iraq and to Turkey, former Ambassador to Albania as well, and former Deputy National Security Advisor. The man has a lot of titles and we appreciate his sharing his expertise with 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 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 playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
We'll bring in Andre Gillespie. She is Emory College Associate Professor of Political Science. Andre, welcome back to Balance of Power. Thank you so much for joining us. We've seen recently on the campaign trail and a number of appearances from President Biden, him talking about the Court and the notion that a second Trump pet presidency could bring two ultra conservative justices to the Court, that the court is something that people should vote on. It's the argument he's making.
Is it an argument that is actually likely to translate into people voting with that in mind, Well.
Let's put this in a historical context. The Supreme Court was certainly a galvanizing issue for Republican voters in the years between Roll versus Wade and the Dobs decision, So we saw Republicans successfully appeal to social conservatives around changing the court. What we've seen in public opinion data since the Dab's decision is that Democrats are now more activated by kind of abortion. And what the hope in this strategy is is that they are now more attuned to
issues related to the Supreme Court. And so the same way that anti abortion activists were motivated by trying to change the court. When the Supreme Court sort of laws on reproductive rights kind of went against them, Democrats and liberals are now hoping that the opposite will work for them in this particular moment.
And certainly you saw evidence of it working in twenty twenty two, but we were much closer to the actual Dobbs decision at that point. It was still fresh, and there's a question of whether it can have the same galvanizing ability this far removed from Dobbs. But of course, the Court continually has to decide abortion questions. Last week they did uphold access to miphipristone, the widely used abortion pill.
They have yet to rule. We're waiting the ruling on the Idaho case whether abortions can be performed in emergencies when the life of the mother is dependent on it. The state rule outlaws them, Andra, Could that be a case in which you do see that galvanizing force come back.
Well, Democrats are hoping that by bringing abortion up again and again and again, that it's priming Democratic leaning voters. They're likely constituents, young women, you know, in particular, to be mindful of this issue and to put it at the top of their list when they're thinking about the decisions that they're going to be making on voting. And similarly,
the things that are constantly in the news cycle. So whether it's about mephipristone, whether it is about abortion bands when the life of the mother is at risk, when we're talking about miscarriage care and IVF, these are things that are actually still making reproductive issues a salient issue for at least a critical segment of the electorate.
Well, when we're considering segments of the electorate, we know it took many different segments to get Biden elected in twenty twenty. These suburban women question certainly is what you're speaking to, but there's other demographics to consider as well, including black and Latino voters, which polling suggests are starting to turn away from President Biden. Not necessarily turned directly toward Trump, but at least aren't enthusiastic about showing out
for Biden a second time. Do you believe those polls, Andra.
It's not that I don't believe those polls, but I think we should just be really aware of what the limitations of these polls are. We can more accurately assess shifts in the population if we were talking to a representative sample of the same people at multiple time points in a discussion, so panel data would actually be really
ideal to get the shifts. We are using cross sectional data, where the margins of or big, and so it's really going to have to take a big shift of movement in order for us to really be able to stay with some type of statistical confidence that we see population shifting.
There are folks who are looking at sort of changes in say the Latino vote population, who may not be accounting for the fact that Latinos were actually more Republican than African Americans were, and that's actually been pretty consistent over time. And you know, one of the things that has actually hampered sort of interpreting the African American vote is the fact that we're relying on survey subsamples with small sizes. So this is not to say that there
isn't a shift underway amongst Latino voters. Colliagu's of mine who study that, you know, are looking at sort of the extent to which this is true. And it doesn't mean that Donald Trump could possibly increase his vote share amongst African American voters by a percentage point or two.
But you know, I think looking at a survey sample poll, even if it says that Trump is polling at thirty percent when it talk to two hundred black people, is something that you have to take with a grain of salt because the margin of error and sort of the confidence interval for that thirty percent is actually quite big.
All right.
That's an excellent point, Andre, and it gives me a sense of how you're likely to answer this next question as well, because I want to point to a Fox national poll that we just got out again. This is national President Biden leading former president Trump by two points fifty percent to forty eight percent. That is a three point improvement for Biden since last months Fox poll, where Trump was leading by one point. Can we put much
credence in that at all? Knowing as well that these margins are well within the margin of error.
Yes, no, we can't put any It's all within the margin of air. All these poles tell us is that this race is going to be close. And so so we see some movement now, I mean, we'll pay attention to the trend line over time, and so if we start to see, you know, one of the candidates break ahead significantly of the other candidate, we might be able to point to this moment in time being the start of that trend line. But you know again, I you know, I'm not surprised when I see them up by one
or two points. And so, given the fact that the margins of error usually for a lot of these polls would say that they one of them would have to be ahead by six or more percentage points in order for one of them to statistically be ahead. The idea that one is up by two in one survey and then the other one is up by two when the next survey, it sort of is all kind of well within the realm of possibility, and it still tells us the same thing, this race is going to be very close.
Yeah, So things like say a presidential debate could be incredibly important in deciding whether or not there is what the outcome is when a race is as close as this one, Andre, How are you looking at that event, which is a week from today, it's next Thursday night. How pivotal is that going to be for both campaigns?
Well, it's pivotal for a number of reasons. Debates are really important for folks who have not made up their minds who need more information. This is going to be a really important point at which they are able to gather and form. So how the candidates comport themselves is actually going to be really important. I think most voters in this election have already decided who they're going to vote for. Turnout is going to be the thing that's
most important. So what really matters is after the debates, how strong are the turnout operations, How strong is the outreach are both the Trump and the Biden campaigns reaching out to voters and reminding them to turn out to vote.
But for that small slver of undecided voters who could possibly in battleground states determine the outcome of the election, there could be something that is said, or there could be a way that one of the candidates acts that could actually be determinative in helping them decide who to
vote for. So I think what we're lively going to be looking for is whether or not both Joe Biden and Donald Trump performed to type, whether or not they exceed expectations, whether or not one of them makes a gas that is so shocking that it might cause people to kind of change their minds, and by changing their minds. It could be making a decision to vote for, you know,
one candidate or the other. But the more likely decision is is it the type of thing that could depress voter turnout, that can make somebody less likely to want to turn out and vote?
Yeah, and turnout. It's going to be everything in an election that, as you were just saying, is going to be so incredibly close more. Thank you so much for joining us, Andra, I mean Andre Gillespie, Emery College Associate Professor of Political Science. We appreciate you joining us here on Balance of Power. Look forward to getting you back
on the program. Stonent to Andre's point, as she speaks about gaffes, in the way that these candidates are conducting themselves on the stage, it speaks to the idea that that debate is going to be just as much about performance as it is about policy. Considering we're talking about the two candidates who will be the oldest ever to go head to head like this, Donald Trump having just turned seventy eight, Joe Biden, of course, being an octagenarian
at eighty one. We have so much to look forward to as Donald Trump and Joe Biden prepare for this thing. Joe Biden is heading to Camp David this evening to get his debate prep underway.
For more material, play Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern.
On APO, car Play and Androud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
The federal government was off for Juneteenth yesterday, but some were still hard at work, including Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina, who we understand to be on Donald Trump's shortlist for vice president. He was together with a bunch of big names attending a summit slash fundraiser with the likes of Bill Ackman, Ken Griffin, Marc and Dreesen, showcasing a powerful and rich network that he has access to as he devised to join Donald Trump on the ticket.
Let's bring in now our political panel Jeanie Shanzeno, she is a Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. And Lisa Camuso Miller, former RNC Communications director and host of the Friday Reporter podcast. So, Lisa, the first to you is the ability to bring in money enough to vault Tim Scott to the top of the VEEP shortlist.
You know, Kayley, that is probably the biggest piece of this competition right now for Donald Trump is he's looking at every one of these candidates and how quickly and how much access they have to resources, and so, yes, I think the ability to raise money is absolutely one of those items that he will say is top of the list because it's really it's going to cost that much more every single day in order to win back
the White House for him. And so having someone like Tim Scott who has access to those resources, I think still very much makes him a very very viable candidate for the VP, for the vice presidents.
Of course, he's not the only one that has that. Senator jd Vance of Ohio is a former venture capitalist. He's a Peter tiel Acoalte. He's hosted fundraisers for Donald Trump out in San Francisco. You have Governor Doug Bergham, who is a self made multime millionaire many times over after selling his company to Microsoft Genie. It feels like a lot of these candidates do have the money thing in common. So what differentiates them?
Yeah, I mean, you have a lot of big fundraiser there and Tim Scott has proven this over and over again. He is a formidable fundraiser and the juneteenth fundraiser was a big one for him. That said, he is lacking to a certain extent something that is also important for a VP candidate and for Donald Trump in particular, and
that's the ability to perform well on TV. Once again, Sunday, we saw him on the Sunday Shows where he continued to be pressed on where he stands on things like bump stocks, and he had trouble answering in a way
that appeared authentic and strong. Similarly, a month ago or about a month ago, when he was on Meet the Press with Kirsten Welker and he was asked repeatedly, would you certify the twenty twenty four election, And he repeatedly kept getting pressed and had difficulty answering beyond Donald Trump
will win. So his ability to perform on television, on the stump, so to speak, is something else to keep in mind, because that's something any presidential candidate would want in a vice president, and of course Donald Trump in particular.
Do we think Donald Trump really wants that and a vice president? Though Lisa knowing that Donald Trump does have a certain command of media attention.
I think Genny makes a really good point, and I think that that is absolutely something he's going to need. As much as he absolutely demands and sucks the oxygen out of every conversation, he does really need someone that can defend and can step forward. He has to have that.
He did not have that with Mike Pence. To some degree, people looked at that as an example of what needs to change, as if we look to another Trump administration, He's absolutely going to want someone that can be viable, can be strong, and can be defensive of this administration if in fact that Trump's return to the White House, And so if you're him, you're looking for someone that can be smart and can be articulate and can command the room, because there's nothing Trump wants more than someone
to distract from the fact that Trump is really strong when it relates to communicating his message.
Well, Trump doesn't look particularly strong in terms of one new poll that we got from Fox. There's many caveats I could go through here, one being this is a national poll, another being that it is only June. It's still pretty early. We don't even know who is on the ticket with Donald Trump at this point. But in this Fox poll, President Biden leads Donald Trump by two points fifty to forty eight. That's a three point improvement for Biden over their poll from last month, where Trump
led by one point. Another caveat here, Genie, is that this is all within the margin of error. But if we see poles like this again, does it show that maybe we're going to start to see a new pattern established post Trump conviction.
Yeah, that pesky marge of error. And I'm so glad you raised that because I think this just supports everything we've talked about, which is that this is a jump ball, This is too close to call. You know, this is the right trajectory to your point for Joe Biden, you know, to be up three since the last.
Bowl they did.
Again, it's national within the margin. So this is continues to be a dead heat now if he keeps moving in this direction and we get into July, August, September, and more and more polls show this. Yes, and it's obviously the way he wants to move, but it is still too close for anybody to call at this point.
And you know, Joe Biden knows that, and That's why they've been on a swing in terms of they're advertising, you know, trying to fundraise to keep up with Donald Trump, because this is a formidable opponent for Joe Biden.
Well, Genie, I'm glad you brought up fundraising because we know Donald Trump had a really good fundraising month in the month of May one hundred and forty one million dollars. A lot of that came after his conviction in court in New York. We don't know what Joe Biden's numbers looked like. We're about to find out within the next twenty four hours because the FEC demands it. He's facing a deadline. How bad would be bad for Joe Biden, Jeannie, how low that number could be?
Yeah, I mean, since we're looking at, you know, something really historic from the Trump campaign, you know, in the one hundred and forty one million range, if it holds up, you know, Joe Biden certainly wants to keep abreast of that. I wouldn't put a number on how bad would be bad, but he did have a good five day swing about forty million, So they want to come in strong, and he wants to maintain at least even or the lead
that he had before. But you know, if he's around forty million, fifty million, I think anything above that they're going to feel okay with that. Obviously they'd like to be a lot closer, and if they break big that would be great. Much below that is a big problem.
Lisa, I don't know if you're willing to put numbers on it as well. But of course it's not just the amount raised in May, it's what the different cash cushions look like, because so far in this campaign, the Joe Biden cash pile has been significantly larger than the Trump cash pile. If that starts going away, does the advantage too.
Yeah, it's hard to say what the number would be, Kelly, but I think that the point that Genie's made is correct is that he's going to want to stay at pace with the Saint with the Republican Canada because he wants to make sure that he has enough cash on hand and enough access to resources so that he can
then really activate when he needs to. But the other thing too is that he probably doesn't need to wait too long to get going on messaging and spending and advertising, because the truth of it is is that people are starting to harden their decisions already, as you're seeing in this very very close race. Genie's point about the fact that it's in the margin of error and there's only
up a couple of points. This is going to be the narrowest election in the history of the country, according to every point and every smart political scientist I've spoken to, And that alone tells me that he needs to not only be raising, but he also needs to be spending in order to get people to his side of thinking and to the ballot box in favor of Joe Biden.
And perhaps also need to be performing at say a presidential debate that happens one week from tonight, Lisa, who are the stakes higher for knowing that Joe Biden, there is an expectation that as an eighty one year old, perhaps he might be low energy, maybe a low bar to exceed relative to Donald Trump, who has the greatest opportunity to net a win next Thursday, evening Joe Biden.
Absolutely, Joe Biden, I mean, I think the president absolutely has to perform strongly. He has to show that he's deaf, that he can answer quickly, that he can be perceived to have full command.
Of the issues.
I mean, that's this is the biggest challenge he has to get over, is the fact that people have perceived the fact that he's over eighty, that he's it's time for him to step aside and not be in the White House anymore. And so he has to show strength and show command of this debate. And look, it's like it's a car crash. We know that's going to happen already.
I think it's probably going to be the most watched presidential debate ever in the history of I mean, if we're in the middle of the summer, I mean people are not necessarily watching any big sporting events next Thursday.
I think this is I think the stakes are incredibly high for the incumbent, and as long as Donald Trump doesn't do any damage, as long as he is measured, as you were discussing earlier in the show, if he's measured, if he's thoughtful, if he's not full of gaffs, he nets the win on this as far as I'm concerned.
So I think that Joe Biden absolutely has the most to lose as this debate on folds, because for Donald Trump, they've already set the stage and he will continue to do that with his audience, because if things don't go the way he likes it to go, he'll tell people exactly how to think about it.
Genie, we have less than a minute left, but do you agree with Lisa.
Actually think that they both have to go into this and number one, do no harm. I mean, the biggest problem for both of them is if they harm themselves. So that's the number one rule. And I do think we are hearing some interesting change in the rhetoric out of the Trump campaign and Trump himself over the last
few days. They know they have set expectations for Joe Biden so low that if he just comes on stage and is barely afloat, he is going to surpass those And so now you see the Trump campaign saying, well, this is rigged against us, you know, blah blah blah. So I think they are wising up to the fact that the expectations game has gotten away from them here and that's a problem. But they both have to perform.
But that means do no harm, don't damage yourself, and that's hard on both of their side, particularly for Trump who likes to talk all right.
Jeanie Shanzano and Lisa Camuso Miller. Thank you both for talking to me today. Appreciate your time.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, 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.