You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
We're ten days away from a government shutdown. While Senators are aimy for a bypartisan deal that could package ade for Israel and Ukraine with funding to keep the government operating, House Republicans seem to be exploring multiple competing options to avert a shutdown. Jack, I know you cover this minute by minute. It seems like we've been here before. Is this any different?
This is different? At least we can say that it got pretty nasty at the end of September and led to the ouster of the speaker at the time, Kevin McCarthy. So at the very least, I think it's different because he's gone, we have a new speaker. There does seem to be some understanding among House Republicans that you need to give a new speaker a runway. So I haven't
heard too much discussion about people threatening a shutdown. But yeah, they killed a lot of time and now we're ten days out and they're talking about more or less an immigration reform being tacked on to this. So many different challenges they face, and I'm looking forward to getting the congressman point of view on this because they don't have very much time.
At all Before we go to the Congressman, Let's listen to what Mike Johnson, the House Speaker, had to say.
With regard to the funding of the government. We're working earnestly on that. We certainly want to avoid a government shut down. It's a dangerous time around the world right now.
We recognize that and we're doing our job. So we had a very i would call it a refreshing, constructive family conversation in our House Republican Conference meeting for an hour ago, very deliberate, positive discussions about the many options that are on the table, and we'll be revealing what our plan is in short order.
Joining us now is Congressman Steve Wollmack, the Republican representing the third District of Arkansas. Thanks so much for joining us.
Congressman Hey good afnon June Good to be with you and Jack both.
The Senate is discussing a legislative package I just mentioned that would avoid a shutdown and include measures for Ukraine, Israel, and the US Mexico border. Do you think that kind of wide ranging bill can come together by next Friday or we'll have to be narrowed?
Well, you know, you would like to think that cooler heads will prevail, and we have an interest in making sure that we don't lapse in appropriations and force a government shutdown. You know, I try to be optimistic about the whole thing. Let's be honest. There are ten days left before that magical date of November the seventeenth, which, in political speak is a heck of a long time. Remember, we don't do anything till the last minute around here,
which frustrates the dickens out of me. I will tell you, when you are facing an issue, rational people try to deal with the options on the front end and settle it all before it becomes a matter of urgency, because I do believe you make some of your biggest mistakes in life when you're either heavily emotional or in a hurry or running out of time. And that's precisely where we are. But we have in the House, and I
can only speak to the House. I try not to render opinions about the Senate because it's a different animal over there. But in the House, we have seven of the twelve appropriation bills that are done on an annual basis all the way through the House we have turned down ag so that one still hangs out there. We have Transportation on the floor today, we have my bill, a financial services bill on the floor tomorrow and Thursday, hoping to get final passage on both of those that
would put our count up to nine. And we have two hanging out there that haven't even made it through the full committee yet, and that's Commerce, Justice, Science read FVII, and also the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education piece, and that one becomes problematic as well because of the deep cuts to labor.
Ah.
So that's precisely where we are right now, and it is obvious to me that we are looking down the barrel of a continuing resolution next weekend in order to prevent a lapse in appropriations. Now, a lot of people think, well that maybe there's time left for Congress to be able to get all this work done, match it up with the Senate, and get it signed in the law. Well, that's just simply a fool's era. That's futile, it's not going to happen, So we're going to need a CR.
So what Mike Johnson talked about in conference today, the different options out there, time is not on our side. It's not our friend right now. And frankly, I think it's going to require us to be able to last past some sort of a clean continuing resolution for a date certain once we get closer to the end of next week.
And Congressman, when you say that seems like it's necessary. One is there support broadly among House Republicans for a clean CR? And two what does that mean for the bigger questions about how the US responds to requests for aid, especially I'm thinking of Ukraine. Israel might be more bipartisan. But what does that mean if you follow through on a clean CR.
Well, I think we have to look at this and through each different lens. For example, we do have a need right now to be able to answer to the requests and the need for us to participate in some of the other larger issues that are happening abroad. But let's set that aside for a minute, because appropriators right now are singularly focused on trying to get their work finished so that we can have full year appropriations for
the remainder of this fiscal year. And we're already over a month into the fiscal year, so we're talking about, you know, the better part of eleven months right now. So that's what that's I think that's how we need to look at it. What can we do to take the issues about funding the US government that's discretionary spending. How can we take that off the table and solve for that issue right now and then turn our attention back to the supplemental bill that the Biden administration wants,
and because it's got mixed reviews. I mean, there are members of our caucus on the right in the House that certainly do not want to do anything in Ukraine, and of course there are those that do believe that we have a vested interest in what's going on in Eastern Europe. But I do think you have to separate the two, and I think we need to move straight ahead with as clean as we are as we possibly can to get the government funded beyond the seventeenth day
of November to eight dates. Certain now we can argue about whether that should be before Christmas, or whether that should be mid January or whenever let's just make let's just take the idea that the federal government is going to enter a partial shutdown ahead of the holiday season. Let's just get that issue off the table and then turn our attention to some of the other issues of the day.
So, what does a proposal for a stop gap funding bill with two different deadlines December seventh and January nineteenth, what is your take on that?
Look, I've tried to keep an open mind and listen to other alternatives, but at the end of the day, Look, I'm an appropriator. The way this is supposed to work, we're supposed to do budgets earlier in the year. We're supposed to kick out top line numbers. We call those three two A numbers. That's Washington speak for the top
line number for discretionary spending. Then the appropriator subdivide that money twelve ways, and we fund defense, and we fund transportation, and we fund cancer research and all that other kind of stuff, and we carve out what we call the three O two b's, and that's the amount of money for each of the various twelve titles. That's the way this is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be
done in October or November. It is supposed to be done in June and July, so that when we get to October first, the agencies know exactly what their budget is. I would say to any competent, rational business person listening to this interview right now, do not try this at home. This is not the method that you should be using in order to fund your business, because it will meet
with certain failure. But that's the way the federal government operates, and without guardrails, without any incentives, carrots, sticks, or otherwise. To be able to hold Congress accountable right now for the way it handles budgets and appropriations. Without those I'm afraid we're condemned to this, this groundhog day scenario of continuing resolutions, omnibus packages, threats of a government shut down, anything other than regular order.
So Congressman, given that that frustrated answer, with the state of how Congress doesn't always do its job, I have to ask, when you hear about this laddered cr with two different deadlines, is the House Republican conference or are the members who bring this up grasping for straws now for some sort of creative idea, or what should we make of that proposal.
Well, I think what you're finding is they're looking for anything that might work. I am not sold on the idea of a laddered CR because I don't think we need to get into the business of having multiple deadlines, because Congress has a hard time walking and chewing gum at the same time, meeting various deadlines for various titles. And oh, by the way, what do you put in that first omnis this package? You know, what are the funding, what are the agencies that you first one? What's going
to be in the second one? Is one supposed to be real easy? Is the second one that you could get bogged down and trying to figure out what you do next? And look, I think what we need to do is just finish our work on appropriations. And like I say, we've got seven of our twelve bills through the full House ready to go to conference with the Senate. I said, I had dinner last night with Susan Collins, you know, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
She and I talked about the way forward over on the Senate side. I think we just need to buy some more time and then finish our work house and Senate, get them to conference, and then come back with a conference report that could be appealing and get approval from both chambers of Congress and be signed in the law. That is the way this thing was designed to work, and I don't see any other method that's going to trump that one. If you will, as as a way forward, do.
The other members of your conference feel the same way about negotiating with the Senate to move forward?
I think if you're talking to appropriators, yes, If you're talking to the House Freedom Caucus, probably not so.
Yes.
And there are a lot of people caught in the middle because this, you know, basically becomes, you know, an issue that gets played out in the general public, and people have very strong feelings about it, and they start calling their member offices. Do this, don't do that. And look, at the end of the day, Congress just needs to a job. This is what we're This is the most fundamental of our duty funding the government. It should not be this difficult. There is a process that our framers
established for how we should operate. We have violated that process, and we find ourselves here at the eleventh hour trying to figure out what to do when we've got so many different mixed opinions, but I do agree with what was said early in the interview when you established that Mike Johnson is a brand new Speaker of the House and he does bring to the table a bit of
patients with all sides. You know, he's still on his honeymoon period, and I think the conference really wants to give Mike a victory, and so maybe handing him a victory on funding the government on the seventeenth of November, after we just went through how many three and a half weeks of basically inaction in the House while the clock was ticking, I think there is a I think
there's a groundswell of support. How much so don't know, but I think there is support for giving Mike some leeway and so whatever he does come up with in terms of a solution before the seventeenth of November, I think he has a reasonable chance of making that, making getting that across the finish line.
And Congressman, we only have a minute or so left. But I do want to ask specifically about your Appropriations Bill, the Financial Services Bill, especially because I know pulling back old IRS funds that were included in the Inflation Reduction Act seems to be a big priority for House Republicans. I'm curious how you see it when you eventually have to compromise with the Senate on a funding package. Is the irs recisions a red line for Republicans or how high a priority will that be to.
Be determined, But you're right, we use some of the money from the Inflation Reduction Act as a pay for, if you will, a recision like that in order to be able to soften the blow on some of the cuts that we're taking. That I've said repeatedly at the end of the day, the Senates marked its bills to a certain level Senator Haggarty and in his counterpartner, Senate, and then we're marking ours to a certain level. They will be different. Our priorities are different, and we will
have to reconcile those. But as I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, we do need to get a bill across the floor so we can go to conference, and that means that we're going to have to maybe accept some things we may not like, whether it's the FBI
issue or you know, maybe the reproductive health issue. In the District of Columbia, we got some members that are concerned about that, but you know, at the end of the day, we need to be able to reconcile our differences, get a conference report, get this stuff signed in the law, and then move on because it won't be long before we're into the calendar year of twenty four and needing to be concentrating on FY twenty five. But we're not there yet.
Thank you so much for joining us. Congressmen, We really appreciate hearing your insights on this matter. That's Congressman Steve Willmack, Republican from Arkansas coming up next. We're going to be talking about not only about the spending, but also about today's election day. Did you remember, We're going to be talking about all the issues that are up that may provide a roadmap for what's going to happen in twenty twenty four, So with us that's coming up on Bloomberg Radio right out now.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and 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.
Joining us are Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist Almater. So, Rick, tell us what you thought about sort of. I thought it was very refreshing to hear the congressman talk about how they're not doing it the way you're supposed to do it.
Yeah, well done, guys. I thought that was really an illuminating and informational conversation, sort of cuts through all the weeds and smoke that exists in the caucus and in the Congress and says, here's what we got to do. It's very simple, and from the perspective of an appropriator whose job it is to fund the government. And he of course starts out by reminding everybody that, you know, the fiscal year ended about a month and a half ago, and so we are way behind on schedule, you know.
I thought he also shed some interesting light on this notion of a laddered cr and these two sort of deadlines, you know, one that we're hearing about in December and one in January.
And and he said.
Something that I thought was interesting about how those would be potentially like omnibus bills that would be packaged up together to meet those two deadlines, depending upon you know, the agencies that they were covering. And gosh, that sounds complicated. I know it's coming out of the you know Andy Harrison, another appropriator who you know, has come up with this idea, But I honestly could not see that flying in the
House of Representatives or in the Senate. So yeah, lots to chew on for the next ten days while we wait and see the government potentially shut down.
Well, I'm I'm curious also based on what the Congressman said about these conversations about a stopgap measure to avoid a shutdown and what could and couldn't get tied to it.
When I talk to senators, they seem to think that this is their chance to get Ukraine Aid passed, tying it to the stopgap measure, do everything in one big package al. When Congressman Congressman Womack says, let's just do a clean cr get to the supplemental spending stuff later, what does that mean practically for the state of congressional discussions around Ukraine Aid in particular.
Well, look, I mean the House has been consistent on the Republican side in terms of not being as supportive of a to Ukraine as both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the administration. And that's a problem. It's a problem because we don't have a solution to a funding crisis that's going to escalate in a week and a day. And so while I agree that your interview with Connors and Womack was good, what I didn't hear
was how is this going to be solved. I heard a lot of platitudes about what you shouldn't do at home and how rational people ought to act. But the bottom line is that the House is engaging in a risky game here and is not really operating in a reality that politically exists, and that reality is that Ukraine Aid is going to be funded at some point in the next several months, whether they like it or not.
So, Rick, we heard him talk about meeting with Senator Susan Collins last night, and you know, seem to be open to dealing with the Senate on this. I mean, how do much do you think that his viewpoint is different from the other House Republicans.
Yeah, I would say a lot different, June. I mean, appropriators always sort of get along, right the Senate, both Republican and Democratic readership in the in the in the Senate, and and the same in the House in the Appropriations Committee. You know, they're they're they're simple guys. They just deal
with numbers. Uh They they they get these numbers, you know, from a from a caucus or or a party that is in control, and then they apply those across the boards and and there they are the classic being counters. And in all that, as outpoints out, is a bunch of policies, you know that some get you know, plussed up and given more money, and some get cut. Uh and and and frankly, the Senate, you know, they've they've
sort of been chugging away. They're still behind too, but but they've been chugging away at their appropriations bills in a very bipartisan fashion. Uh and and and frankly, if you look inside the Appropriations Committee of the House, it's pretty bipartisan too as far as what their markups are. It's just they can't get things out of committees and
they can't get things in the floor action. So they're going to abdicate to the Senate, you know, procedurally, because the Senate is just going to move on, and the sooner or later you're going to wake up and realize, well, how did the Senate get ahead of us on all this stuff? How did they wind up getting the advantage of dictating terms which includes Ukraine funding. Well, it's because the House just didn't do enough quick enough, and that's you could almost see that train wreck coming.
Well, if I could provide one little counterpoint, I don't necessarily disagree with your point Rick about the House abdicating the potential advantage they have by not moving so fast. But the honeymoon period that the Congressman referenced with Mike Johnson as the new speaker seems relevant. They have passed a couple bills since he was elected speaker. It sounds like maybe there's not really an appetite to push for
a shutdown. Al I'm curious if you really buy it that there is this honeymoon period in which the House Republican conference can rally behind their new speaker and there won't be quite as much chaos because of that.
I mean, the problem they face is that there's such a small margin for error. And I mean, yeah, I guess he's in a honeymoon period. But Historically, speaking speakers didn't typically have honeymoon periods of a week or two or three weeks. They were speakers for years and years.
What just happened with Kevin McCarthy was unprecedented in our nation's history, and so he may have a honeymoon period, but it's not gonna last long, and those folks like Matt Gates and others who pulled McCarthy out of his office and shoved him into the ranks of the rank and file will agitate again at some point soon. I do think, however, that there will be a continuing resolution and we're unlikely to have a shutdown of any significant length,
if at all. But then there'll be a fight next year. In April, there will be one percent cuts unless there is an agreement on appropriation. And again back to my comment about fantasy versus reality, the House Republicans, led by Speaker McCarthy, negotiated a spending that is not what they are now insisting on. And so if they insist on a number that was not negotiated to and say we need one percent cuts, we're going to have a problem.
And Democrats won't mind to pick that battle in an election year.
What role do you think Democrats will play in these negotiations.
I think we'll do what we always do, which point it is to point out if these cuts were put into place, which and we will argue that Republicans favor these cuts. Here are the people who will be hurt. People who get food stamps, people who are dependent on SNAP, which is a food program, people who are dependent on the government for healthcare or for social Security, or perhaps people who care about our national parks, or perhaps people
who care about government employees being paid. We'll have a whole litany of examples that will be harmed adversely impacted if these across the board sequester cuts go into place, and then if Republicans play the game the way they often do, there'll be a shutdown, which will then lead to more examples of harm and disadvantaging people across America.
And it's not a winning game for them. I get why the conservative wing wants to do what they want to do, but ultimately, politically this always seems to benefit us.
Right Rick, real quick before we go, do you see this getting dragged out in what a full year cr going to April? What's the actual timeline do you think.
Well, That's the funny part is that nobody, even Republicans, don't like full your CRS because then their favorite programs don't get funded. So that does tend to be a problem, especially the military budgets, you know, the Department of Defense, and so I don't see that happening. I think that they'll come to some kind of a deal.
But Al's right.
I mean, like, you know, they got to come to grips with the fact that they already cut a deal on the top line numbers, and it sounded like Steve Omack earlier wasn't alluding to the fact that they were going to apply a cut on top of that. But of course, you know, you never know, right, I mean, you've got the crazy eights, the people who unseated Kevin McCarthy who are still there, and we're going to see what kind of honeymoon they give to the news speaker.
But I don't think we've heard the last chapter of discord within the House Republicans at this stage.
We'll have more with our panel, our politics panel with Bloomberg contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist Al Mater, and you're going to be talking about election day whatsaw on the ballot and what it means for twenty twenty four.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast Catch us Live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App. We're listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Rick. In Ohio, abortion is actually on the ballot and voters could put abortion rights in the state constitution. But while abortion may not be on the ballot in others states, it's very much part of campaigns and states like Virginia and Kentucky. So what will the results today tell us about the strength of that issue in twenty twenty four.
Yeah, well, I think you could wind up with three different scenarios, right, I mean, abortion supporters could win out, you know, and so they win the initiative in Ohio and the support of candidates they're backing, as you said,
in places like Kentucky and Virginia. Virginia of course very close to determine whether or not the Senate and the House are in Republican or Democratic hands, and of course that would then indicate a willingness or not of the legislature to support Governor Younkin's views of putting some limits on abortion that currently don't exist in Virginia. So it's
a big it's a big task now. The other option is also available where Republicans and abortion opponents went out, and of course that would take a lot of win going into the twenty twenty four election for Democrats who hope to use abortion again in that election is a means of getting people elected. Then of course the third option is just a mixed bag, right. All these states kind of do a different thing, and there's not a
clear path. And I would actually expect that to be the most likely option only because I don't think there's the intensity with the vote right now. It's certainly not seeing it in the polls that would indicate that you have that driver, you know, post Supreme Court decision of two years ago, going into the twenty twenty elections, you know where you had enormous energy and turnout by certain
groups that were supportive of abortion. Just don't see that happening right now in the polls, but will know tomorrow.
All from a Democrats perspective, do you think that Democrats are going to be looking at the Ohio results of this ballot initiative and using that to any degree to decide how much to emphasize abortion access in twenty twenty four.
I do what's interesting about the Ohio referendum or vote is that this is the first initiative in which Democrats are pursuing a constitutional right. All of the energy that Rick was referring to in the twenty twenty two election came in opposition to concerns that Republicans wanted to restrict abortions to either no opportunity at all or essentially in fact no opportunity at all with draconian restrictions up to six weeks. In Ohio, the vote is on a constitutionally
protected right. So that's an affirmative vote. And I'm curious to see how far the movement goes. But I will say it's crafted to reflect the law predobs and should it pass, Ohio will essentially have a law that reflected the law under Roe v. Wade, And so I think
it has a decent chance in passing. And I would note in the Virginia races, where Governor Younkin is trying to flip the Senate and gain a Republican majority, he may have honed in on what is, in my opinion, the best political position for Republicans, which is to support a fifteen week ban, which is in essence what I think Chief Justice Roberts was trying to do when the
Dobbs decision was reached. And perhaps, and this is not conventional wisdom, but perhaps a Republican clerk or Justice office released the draft decision because they were trying to stop that, and they ultimately voted six to three for a more restrictive, restrictive outcome.
A lot of legal scholars think that that's what happened, that it was a Republican who leaked that. So let's there are a few important governor's races in the South. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Basheer, one of the few remaining democratic red state governors, is running for a second term against Republican state Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who's a Trump back conservative and though not explicitly on the ballot, abortion
has featured prominently in the campaign. So Rick, can a popular governor overcome the national negative trends on Biden in a state that Trump won by twenty six points.
Yeah, I would say it would really be amazing if he can do that because, in addition to that big Trump win in the state of Kentucky, and obviously every other statewide elected official is a Republican, we are in a period of time where that just doesn't exist.
Anywhere in the United States anymore.
They're only five states now where there are mixed statewide elected officials from one party and the other. I mean, we used to have that normal in twenty twenty five states where maybe two of the senators were from different parties, or the governor was a different party like this case,
and the senators were from another party. Those we've turned into such a polarized country that right now, I mean, if you have a governor and two senators and a majority of your delegation is usually in one party, and that then translates into state legislatures. All politics is national now.
And so if Governor Basher can avoid that, he'll he'll prove the negative in a way that I just think is very hard to predict, and more likely the norm takes hold, and that is that you know, it gets rationalized back to being all state wide elected officials in Kentucky, You're going to be Republican.
Al real quick before we go. I do want to follow on Kentucky. Andy Basheer looks competitive, surprisingly competitive for a Democrat in Kentucky. How much does the Basher name help him? His dad was governor. I'm wondering if he's an exception to the rule because of such a strong identification with the Sheer name there.
I think that's right, and I think he's I mean,
Pauline shows this. He's very popular in Kentucky, which means he must be doing something right as the incumbent governor, and so generally speaking, it would be tough for him, but he's not on the ballot next year, when he'd be competing against the Republican nominee at the top of the ticket, and most if you were a betting man, and I am, I would say that he slightly favored to win, and it would be remarkable in a sense, but also not surprising because he's delivered results for Kentuckians
and he's immensely popular.
As I said, well, thank you both. That's Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist Al Matter. We will see if any of these predictions come true.
You're listening to the Bloomberg sound on podcast Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in alf Bloomberg, and 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.
Jack, Nice to see you. Thanks for stepping into Joe's shoes today. And it's election day. Granted, it's twenty twenty three election day, which is maybe not as big of a deal as the election day to come a year from now, but this still could tell us a lot about what that election is going to look like.
What races do you have your eye on?
You know, I am skeptical about Bellweather races from an off year to an on year. I don't know that the Virginia results means something for the next year's Virginia results. But they do mean something for Glen Youngkin. Yeah, probably mean something for his fundraising ability, whether he's seen as somebody who can lead a party. You can tell him kind of getting toward a twenty twenty eight look ahead
as much as anything else. There are a lot of interesting races, but in general, I am very curious how we start to talk about Glen youngkin in a couple days.
Yeah, I am as well, especially because there's a lot of big money donors who have been pushing for him to pursue the presidency. But of course a lot of that may depend on how he and his party fair in the Virginia elections today. Remember, the Democrats currently control the state Senate, Republicans have control of the House of Delegates, but it's all up for grabs today, so we'll see if they can cement Republican control up the legislature or not.
And we want to add a voice to this conversation now. I'm very pleased to say joining us is the former governor of Virginia, also a Republican, Jim Gilmore. He also served as the US ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and was the chair of the RNC for a brief period of time. So, Governor, thank you very much for joining us on the program today. How do you think this shakes out in Virginia? You think the Republicans can do it?
Well, yes, we don't know yet because this is a brand new election. This is right after a redistricting, so all the districts are scrambled up. The candidates are relatively new, some of them, so we just don't know how this is going to work out yet. The issues, of course, have been fully argued out for quite a long time. Governor Yunkin has done a significant amount of fundraising and has been very vigorous in his support of the Republican tickets.
But on the other hand, the Democrats nationally, I think, have poured a tremendous amount of money. The environmental community, particularly the business leaders in the environmental community, have poured a ton of money in for the Democrats. So we just don't know yet how this is going to shake out.
Tonight, Governor, when you mentioned the issues have been argued, some election cycles are very much focused on an issue. We've had election cycles that felt like they were on the Dobbs ruling. We've had Obamacare election cycles. Is there an issue that Virginians feel they are effectively voting on or is it less clear this time?
No.
I think it's been very widely publicized on purchase television advertising, and the principal issue has been abortion. The Democrats have decided that abortion is their strong suit. They're throwing a lot of television commercials against the Republican candidates claiming that they want to ban abortion, which is factually not true,
but nonetheless you put it on radio and TV. The Republicans are actually chose to meet that argument, and instead of avoiding the abortion issue, they are actually addressing it and talking about the governor's proposal to ban abortions after fifteen weeks with reasonable exceptions. But that is what has been argued out now. I would say that the people
of Virginia are very concerned about high inflation. The costs of the grocery store, the costs of gasoline are very significant and I think has led to some discontent in Virginia, but that has not been the primary debate within these elections.
Well, and of course we talk about these elections because they will have significance for the state. But to what Jack was discussing earlier, this potentially could be of national significance if indeed it puts a momentum behind Governor Glen Youngkin. If you were to ever pursue higher office, especially as you yourself went from being governor of Virginia to multiple times entering the presidential race, do you see a path for Glen Youngkin to do the same.
Well, certainly, while I was not nominated during these Trump years, I'm very proud that I entered, and I have no regrets for entering. It's a wonderful thing to run nationally and get to know everybody across the entire country when you're a candidate. Clint Yunkin has a lot of advantages.
The biggest advantage of courses. He's a prominent governor of the state of Virginia, and he's quite wealthy, and he has a lot of financial backing, and he has a message, and his message they got him elected, and his message remains parental rights, particularly in education. I think people are very concerned about the Democrats' efforts to remake education, to
remake the cultural issues there in the United States. Parents are just want their kids to be educated, and they've basically had a sort of a rebellion in Virginia against the far have to approach to education, and that's why Glenn got elected. So all of these things are very current. I don't know whether or not he's in a position to go in twenty four or not.
He'll have to.
Make that decision, but he is an attractive, prominent man and could still run in twenty eight Governor.
I know I've said I'm a little skeptical that twenty twenty three tells us something about what happens in twenty twenty four. But I am curious if you see this as a bell weather for congressional races. Should members of Congress be looking at the map that comes out of these election results? Do we have anything to learn from the results that come out looking forward to twenty twenty.
Four, Jack, I think you learned something every year. But politics in Virginia, we're an unusual state and we have an election every year. There's historical grounds and reasons for that. But we elect somebody either at the federal level or the state level every year, either the governor or the presidency or just the legislature like we have this year. And yes, I think you learn a lot naturally. Politics and issues shift in the United States of America year
to year. I myself have been devoting my attention to foreign policy as the former ambassador, and particularly the Ukraine issue. In fact, I sent a letter yesterday to the members of the Republican members of the House of Representatives here in Virginia insisting that they be sure that they vote for the funding of Ukraine. So I'm doing that, and that issue may shift into the federal elections next year.
In fact, I think it would. The foreign policy is certainly emerging, between the Ukraine issue, which I think is the hinge of the future, and the Israeli issue, which of course we are all very engaged in. So foreign policy is emerging, but it won't be the only thing next year, either in the House races or in the presidential races.
Well to that point, Governor, when you were talking about really what you think is on Virginian's minds as they head to the polls today, you mentioned two things, really infleetion and abortion, both of which seem like internal facing issues to me, more domestic affairs than international. Do you really think that's going to change in a material way in the span of a year, considering there may be a little bit more fatigue setting in in terms of some of those conflicts you just mentioned.
This is the most disrupted time I have ever seen in my life in American politics. I've never seen anything quite like this. So you can't predict what's going to happen, but I'll do my best.
I can.
I think that the issue of abortion is going to continue to be a debate because I think the Democrats want it to be a debate and they want that to be the principal issue. I think inflation remains a problem. There's no doubt that the people of the United States and the people in Virginia are blaming President Biden correctly in my view, for this inflation that they're seeing at
the grocery store, in the gas pump. And I think the pocketbook issues are always an issue, but I insist to you that the foreign policy issues, the issues of warrant piece are emerging very strongly. So we always say, you know that foreign policy and national security is never an issue in elections until it is, and I think maybe it is growing that way right now.
I've got to follow up on your point on Ukraine AID, in particular, as I speak to members of Congress, I see a big difference between Republicans in the House and Senate on how they want to move forward or if they want to move forward with Ukraine AID. There's a really interesting intra party divide there, especially given your foreign policy expertise in your time as RNC chairman, I have to just ask you your view on a simple question of what is the Republican position on Ukraine AID.
Right now, the Republican Party is divided, but all the noise and attention is being given to the anti Ukraine group. But I believe they are a vocal minority. The majority of the Republican Party remains committed to Reagan type of foreign policy and national security. The Democrats traditionally have not been that way, but they are that way now because they're so supportive of President Biden. But my view is that President Biden needs to do a great deal more.
He's done too little, too late, and I think that there's an aggressive need to fund the Ukrainian war. As a matter of fact, damage has already been done by this debate in the United States because it makes our allies and our allies less certain, and our adversary is more enthusiastic because of this division. But I believe that at the end of the day, the Republican Party will in a strong majority vote for the support of Ukraine.
Governor. I should ask about timing. I heard from Senator Chris Murphy yesterday, who's involved in these negotiations, that they really want Ukraine AID to go on a funding package that has to happen by November seventeenth. There are so many convoluted issues they're negotiating tied to Ukraine. How much longer can Congress wait to send additional aid before it really really undermines Ukraine.
I don't think that the undermining Ukraine financially is imminent. I think that it's most important about the messaging.
Right now.
Vladimir Putin and his allies are looking to American resolve. They want to see whether Americans will quit. They want to see whether Americans will come either bored or frustrated or distracted by other issues, particularly the Israeli war. That's what they're looking for, to see whether American resolve will crack if America stays solid, and I believe they should, and my letter which went to the Virginia congressman will
of course be published nationally. Also, I believe that as long as we stay resolved, we're going to be fined in Europe and probably fine in Israel. But these elections right now, of course, in Virginia, turning on domestic issues, you would expect that this is a state legislature. But next year, when the Congress is up and the president is up, then I think you'll see all kinds of issues education, inflation, jobs, and foreign policy and war and peace.
I think all of that will be on the agenda for next year.
Okay, so, Governor, let's talk more about that presidential race, specifically the Republican primary race, because all of our attention will be on Miami tomorrow the third primary debate, in which once again the front runner, former President Donald Trump, will not be making an appearance. And especially considering your former position as chair of the RNC, why are we still doing these if he's not showing up, what's the point.
Well, they're in exposure of the other candidates, and I think that what's going on is all is somewhat unpredictable. I think actually there's a lot of truths that you can figure out here. In my opinion. Number one, President Trump is the old, far and away the choice of the Republican Party right now, and you can't change that. All the polls are perfectly consistent, even into the states.
They're consistent.
Now. It doesn't mean that President Trump is necessarily going to win. It's pretty much close or attie. But President Trump is showing winning in many of the swing states. These debates, though give other candidates an opportunity to go out there and expose what they believe is right, because, after all, these races are quite unpredictable, and these attacks on President Trump and the courts are unpredictable, so there's there's still time to do these things. I might say.
I participated, I think in two or three of the national debates, and there are great service to the people in the community because they give the public an opportunity to take a feel for not only the candidates, but for what topics they're addressing. So I think it's healthy for the United States. I'm not sure that I agree with everything the RNC does or says right now, but the debates people want to be on them because they do give national exposure.
Does that mean that someone who does a good job in these debates is the actual alternative to Trump? Do you see a valid person competing with Trump? Or is it exposure for future races, for a VP nomination or something else.
Right now, there's no evidence that any of the other candidates running for president are able to overcome President Trump, and I think maybe there's something I need to say to you about this. I watched the Democrats, particularly on National Tell Division shows on the Sunday shows, and they
seem to be puzzled about Donald Trump. I think I understand this, and what I understand is this, the far left in this country has taken over the Democratic Party and is actually aggressively assaulting the society today on education issues, on various and sundricultural issues in this country, and conservative the Republican Party rank and file are frightened. They feel attacked and as a result, they're going to choose a leader who they think will fight for them, and that
person is Donald Trump. And I think that's what's going on right now. If the Democrats were more mainstream, there might never be a Donald Trump. But the Democrats are not mainstream, all right.
We really appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us today. That's former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, of course, also former chair of the RNC and former US Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We really appreciate your time on this election day, and of course, before we can get to twenty twenty four, Jack, we have to get through today when it's not just Virginians heading
to the polls. Ohio abortions on the ballot. There's a few gubernatorial races as well that could sun some pretty strong signals on where exactly voters are.
Yeah, especially with an eye on the national repercussions. I am very interested in the Ohio results. It's not a true swing state right now, but the question of how motivating abortion access is that will matter a lot in twenty twenty four.
Yeah.
Well, we see people showing up to vote on issue one and the same way we saw turnout really driven in the immediate aftermath of Roe versus Way. We certainly saw that in the midterms last year, but we'll see how much that remains as a force. We're going to have much more coming up on this second hour of sound On, so make sure you stick with us.
This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven.
And we're getting some news, not necessarily on what form. The continuing resolution is going to take if one jack, but instead from the Senate side about a supplemental. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell apparently talked to President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about that yesterday and he says that you need a credible border solution in that bill.
Yeah, So what they mean by credible is not just money. The President asked Congress for more money for the Department of Homeland Security for border needs, but the response from Republicans has been if you want to get Ukraine money, politically, you need to attach something quote unquote credible on the border. And that means policy changes. That means restrictions on people's ability to come in and stay in the US if
they're seeking asylum, effectively that kind of thing. So that opens up a big can of worms, because it's not easy to do immigration reform and get into all of those policies in a week and a half. And the conversation is about tying that to a stop gap measure. We don't know if the House will go along with that, but as I said, opens up a big can of worms. Yeah, if they're trying to legislate on all of these issues.
Yeah, I would imagine just the bigger it gets, the harder it gets, and we're quickly running out of time. I also have to wonder, given that immigration reform in the border is such a big topic on the hill, if that really is something that is going to drive
voters when they're heading to the polls. We just had a great conversation with the former governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore, who says he really thinks voters right now are voting on abortion, and they're voting on the economy and on inflation. And on that note, I was really struck by a new survey from Ipsos and Yahoo Finance about the economy and specifically President Biden's job with the economy. Seventeen percent of those responding in the survey said policies have helped them.
Forty six percent said Biden's policies have hurt them. Looking great for the man currently sitting in the Oval office, Jack.
It's looking rough. It makes sense why there are non economy focused issues that Democrats are pushing hard for. And they did have success in the twenty twenty two midterms and in terms of not losing too many House seats to Republicans in a tough year with a lot of people running on abortion access and making that a big focus.
So it worked in twenty twenty two.
The question is it going to work again today as people hedge the polls and then again in twenty twenty four. So let's get more on this now joining us as Cliff Young, he's president of US Public Affairs at IPSOS. So Cliff, just talk to us more about the data you are seeing. How much trouble does it really spell for Biden and potentially Democratic hopefuls and incumbents more broadly.
Well, we're still pretty far off from the election with more than a year, right, and so we have to take that, take that with a bit of grain of salt any sort of data we see today. But that said, Biden is a historically weak incumbent. We have him as thirty nine percent of overrating, which is at the tipping point. It's about forty percent. That's the tipping point for a sitting president having better than a fifty to fifty chance
of winning the next election. We know that he's not connecting with voters on the economy, and it is the economy, the economy, the economy, and more specifically inflation, and to date the administration has not been able to make that bridge that gap, make that connection, and really voters at this point are really surly when it comes to the economy.
Cliff when you mention that mark of being under forty percent for an incumbent and the bad news that is for their chances of reelection. There is time, there's about a year until election day. Is thirty nine percent so low that historically that is very very bad news even with a year left, or what can what should we keep in mind with the runway that President Biden has to try to slow the rate of inflation and win people over on the economy.
Well, thirty nine percent is not a death sentence. It's it's about forty nine percent chance of winning. So that's not you're not out of the game, right. We have a year. The economy could change, so the contextual variables could change, driving up the numbers. And we know that incumbents do pretty well during the campaigns. So what happens ultimately is that the administration, in this case, Biden's administration, will hammer home the sort of accomplishments during the campaign
communicate that. So typically approval ratings improve, you know, during that period of the electoral cycle, but once again he's not in a good place today.
Yeah, on the economy, especially as you've been outlining, Cliff, what about some of these other issues that we were just hearing from former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore. He thinks Democrats are really trying to focus on maybe because of the weakness on the economy, issue like abortion. Is that going to be the same kind of galvanizing force that it had been in the immediate aftermath or more immediate aftermath of the overturning of Row.
What does your polling suggest.
Well, at the at the national level for president, I think it's going to be the economy unless some other issue comes to four. I think the down ballot races and the state races and more local races, the abortion issue is going to be important in deciding outcomes. So
I do agree there. The other point I wanted to make, and you made this point at the beginning about the border, the number one issue among Republicans today is immigration, and so while it might not galvanize Americans in general, it definitely energizes the Republican base and makes a complete sense the initiative to today in Congress to have that as some sort of demand in any sort of any sort of deal.
How how does that compare? As you said, it makes sense to tie something on the border to Ukraine funding. Is what do we know about the in the enthusiasm of skeptics or opponents of Ukraine eight We talked to Governor Gilmore about where exactly the Republican Party comes down on Ukraine aid. It's a bit of a complicated answer, but I mean, is that enough to win people over or are Republicans really moving away from foreign aid to Ukraine.
Well, at this point, Americans in general are more isolationists than they were a generation to go, and Republicans especially. So that said, I wouldn't say it's a galvanizing issue. Immigration in my mind among for Republicans is key, but definitely on the margins. On the margins it is. You know, it is a change, right, is a change relative to a generation generation half ago. It goes towards the Israel
Israel conflict as well and Gaza. Now it's not much as Republicans more Democrats, but the younger generation is less interventionist than older generals.
So just to expand on the idea of public sentiment around Israel and its war with Hamas. It feels like there is more pressure, especially in certain portions of the Democratic Party, for humanitarian considerations to begin trumping that of Israel's objectives in trouncing Hamas. Is that reflected in public sentiment? Is there a shift underway in terms of support for Israel?
Yeah, so in general, just Americans in general, there's about eighty five eighty seven percent of Americans are in favor of humanitarian aid and relief. So that's not something that varies that much from party to party. I would say there is a there is a pro Palestinian or maybe more of an agnostic bent in the Democrat Party today,
and that's especially among younger voters. The younger generation has less, i would say, linkage less relationship with the issues in in the Middle East compared to a generation or two ago, and that definitely is manifesting itself today in public opinion.
All right, really fascinating stuff.
We always appreciate you joining us and your insights and your great data. Cliff Young, the President of US Public Affairs at episodes, thank you very much, and Jack. It just kind of returns us to this calculus. So if you're thinking about the mind of a voter, where really some of these internationally oriented issues are going to rank when they go to the ballot box and are thinking about what's going on at their kitchen table.
Yeah, well, I find it really interesting the point that the border is so much more of a motivating issue for conservatives that maybe this whole negotiation in Congress, where Republicans are saying, if we're going to do Ukraine, we need border stuff, isn't so much opposition to Ukraine but just an opportunity for them to get a win that their voters will help them on. I found that very very interesting.
Yeah, maybe just a chance to use leverage while you have it right, because again the clock is sticking and day tick and louder and ticking faster again. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, says that there needs to be a credible border solution in a supplemental spending bill. We'll see if they can kind of coalesce around what exactly that solution is.
Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern
Time at Bloomberg dot com.