Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Echoes from Detroit still in our heads, of course, Kayley. Donald Trump speaking to the Economic Club of Detroit yesterday. We brought you some of his remarks here on Bloomberg. It was a long speech. We went through it together, and about an hour and a half into this address, we got a new deduction, another piece of news to help round out what has been a series of economic policy proposals put forth by Donald Trump, creating the mosaic that we're going to be talking about here with Scott Besstt.
Let's go to Detroit now, remembering this is motown and what Donald Trump had to offer yesterday.
Today, I am also announcing that as part of our tax we will make interest on car loans fully deductible. This will stimulate massive domestic auto production and make car ownership dramatically more affordable for millions and millions of working American families.
So for more on these policy proposals. We turn next to someone who is advising Donald Trump on economic policy, Scott Bess and his promises here with us here on Bloomberg TV and radio. He is Key Square Capital CEO joining us in Washington. Good to see you, Thank you for being here. So we have a new deduction on car loans. You also have no tax on tips, on overtime, on social Security permanence to the twenty seventeen tax cuts, but undoing part of it because the salt cap will
be lifted. This is a lot of proposals. Can we now call this the full picture of what tax policy would look like under Donald Trump? Have you talked through other ideas with him? And we might still see in the next three and a half weeks.
So first of all, thanks for having me. President Trump is a big idea guy and he generates a lot of these himself. I had a meeting with him on the Monday after he mentioned or proposed and no tax on tips, and I said, sir, what inspired you to do that? He said, I was looking at this hard working woman and a diner in Nevada, and I thought it's not fair to tax these tips.
So you guys have a chance to talk about things before we get to hear about them. Maybe you're surprised by some of them too, But I've been looking forward to running around the track with you on a couple of these ideas because you hear the same conversations that we have every day here. A lot of economists say
that these tax proposals are inflationary. We just got a new number from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget that Donald Trump's economic proposals could add as much as fifteen trillion dollars to the deficit over the course of ten years. Where are they wrong?
Well, the good news is we have a roadmap for what Donald Trump did, and Trump one point zero it was not inflationary. The government revenues went up. And my friends at the committee are they are anti growth and higher taxes. Because if you look at the way the scoring works, and I'm a Wall Street person, I've just become familiar with this, and I think most of your viewers and listeners don't understand the way it works, and it is heavily skewed towards higher taxes and less growth.
You end up you begin with a baseline GDP estimate that doesn't move. So I believe it's unreasonable to think that if Donald Trump's proposals are to cut taxes that growth will not accelerate. If Vice President Harris's tax proposals are to raise taxes, that growth will not be lower. But in the scoring, it's always at one point eight percent, straight line for ten years.
Okay, So what is the figure you think is realistic if all of these tax cuts are implemented, If we're to grow our way out of this, what does that translate to and annualized GDP growth?
Well, for annualized GDP growth, I think, like under Trump one point zero that we can get moved back towards three percent. But right now you know our GDP growth. And I find this very interesting that we're hearing that Kamala Harris is the one who is going to have some kind of budget rectitude, because I will tell you I am very concerned about what is happening right now.
We have never had a budget deficit like this. We are at seven percent of GDP in terms of the deficit, We've never had this when it's not a recession, not a war. And what do we have to show for it? We have eighteen they have created eighteen thousand manufacturing jobs. Last year, the economy only created two hundred and fifty thousand private sector jobs. This is a takeover of the
government of the private sector. The jobs are being created in the government and government adjacent And I think President Trump's goal is to reprivatize the economy, get the private sector creating jobs. And I think we could bring down the deficit to GDP to something with a three on it by twenty twenty eight.
The three, three and three that we keep hearing about. You've got another idea that's generating a lot of talk right now that Congress create a FED chair designate who would essentially serve alongside J. Powell for the.
Remainder of his term.
You said quote based on the concept of forward guidance. No one is going to care what J. Powell has to say anymore. Interestingly, Donald Trump told Bloomberg Business Week a couple months ago that he would allow J. Powell to finish out the rest of his term. What does Donald Trump think of this idea?
Well, first of all, I'll say I don't speak for the Trump campaign, and it's not for Congress to create. It would be for President Trump when he wins to nominate because if we go back, and I've gotten blown up on the Twitter sphere on this, and I think it is a serious lack of understanding because the original sin, in my mind, that unleashed the Great inflation on the American people. The Biden administration waited until the last possible moment to renominate J.
Powell.
It was the latest nomination in the twenty first century for a FED chair. It was clear in his Jackson Hole speech in August of twenty one that he thought inflation was accelerating. He was still calling it transitory, but was open to the idea was accelerating. They kept their thumb on him until November and renominated him at the end of the month. He was confirmed in December, and then he didn't do the first rate hike until March.
If they had announced his reappointment in June July, he could have been hiking rates in October.
So they were reappointing the same man. If it's to be someone new, couldn't that create massive market uncertainty If you're not clear on which voice is providing forward guidance?
Well, I think no, I disagree, because I actually think it provides more certainty because you could do one of two things that the current FED chair could be reappointed, so you created a path there, and the new FED chair nominee would give forward guidance beyond the current Fed shares the sell by date, so you would have for ad guidance up until May twenty May twenty six with j Powell, and then you would know the market could
structure a forward curve since then. So you know, I call this if and I'm not such a big fan of Ford guidance, but if you believe forward guidance is good, why can't you give Ford guidance? And who the Fed shair is going to be?
Where's Donald Trump's head on this? And I know you're not speaking for the campaign, but your relationship with him is why we're here right now. He wants to play a role in setting interest rates. How deliberate will he be if he's reelected on that front?
Well, he wants to have a voice, but every president has a voice. Joe Biden told us in the State of the Union, I think we're about to get.
In it as opposed to setting actually.
And I think what's very interesting about President Trump. He understand he's been in the financial markets through his real estate holdings. He under he has a deep understanding of financial markets as opposed to most politicians, so he wants to be involved in the conversation. He has very well formed opinions. He has a lot of private sector friends,
so he just wants to be a voice. Senator Warren and two other senators right before the FED decision came out and said, oh, it should be seventy five basis points, which no, there's no model that said that it should have been. But they opined that's their right, and I think it's his right. I just think his opinions might better informed.
Well, certainly has many of them, including around the issues of migration, which he probably will be focusing a lot on as he visits Aurora, Colorado today. He has floated mass my mass deportation rather and if you're looking at a figure of over thirteen million people who have not legally or do not have legal status in the US as of April of this year, if they were to go away, there's studies, including from the American Immigration Council, that say that could produce GDP by four point two
to six point eight percent. The economic policy Institute found that without immigration, the prime age workforce would have essentially seen no growth at all in the past quarter century. What is the economic impact potentially of the kind of deportation he's talking about. Where would you find those workers otherwise?
Well, let's go back, because I find all this pretty duplicitous for my entire career, probably most of your entire lives. The academic economists said, oh no, absolutely they unauthorized new arrivals do not put downward pressure on wages. Then lo and behold. In this cycle, when we we had the massive inflation, we get, whether it's eleven million new arrivals or as President Trump thinks, twenty one million new arrivals, it does push down wages on the bottom quintile, which
I think is abominable. These are working people, Americans who are seeing their wages get pushed down. So now it's what I always believed, what you could see, what you could observe, it does push wages down. And you know, I would just say I dispute those GDP numbers because if it were good, why wouldn't we just have a road from Terra del Fuego to the Rio Grande and let everybody who wants to come in in. We could double GDP, but per capita GDP per American would drop substantially.
It is about American citizens' standards of living. So and you know, to talk about the mass deportation. I really like the Senator Vance's answer on that said, well, how are you going to do it? He said, the same way I eat a large subway sandwich, one bite at a time.
Scott Besstt he's CEO Key Square Capital and has the former president's here. We appreciate your time being with us year at the table today. Thanks for talking policy. We'd like to stay in touch with you as we get closer to the election.
I think there's gonna be a lot of action between now, a lot.
Of action I'm about. Thank you very much for being with us.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ken just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then roun Oo 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.
The date we're focusing on is November fifth. Of course, the election and November twelfth, because that is the date that Congress returns to Washington, and this town gets a little less empty. It's just Joe, Matthew and I seem to be here at the moment, but that is the
return date set in stone. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, says that he is not planning to change that, despite President Biden saying yesterday thinks Congress should come back immediately to address the emergency funding needs that have emerged because of these massive hurricanes that have hit the US Helene of course, and then Milton after that this week.
The word from Mike Johnson so far remains no. We did hear from ATHENA Lawson spokesperson last evening to be clear, Congress will act again upon its return in November, so we'll keep that twelve, I guess circles on our calendars here. There are still a lot of questions though about how much money FEMA has to work with here when it comes to individual assistants, public assistance. The SBA, as we heard from Joe Biden last evening, is a completely different
ballo axe here. And that's where Tyler Kendall comes in. I want to bring you into our newsroom in Washington with Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall and some reporting on exactly where the funding stands for these agencies.
Tyler, Yeah, hey, Joe. The federal government is rapidly using its disaster relief funding. FEMA came out earlier this week saying that it had already gone through about nine billion of the twenty billion dollars in congressionally a funding for fiscal year twenty twenty five, which just started and is supposed to take the agency through September thirtieth of next year.
But as you mentioned, it's not just FEMA. The Small Business Administration has been highlighted in its role for helping the federal government when it comes to disaster relief efforts. The SBA provides low interest loans to homeowners and businesses, in some cases up to two million dollars to rebuild
after natural disasters. And as you mentioned, President Biden yesterday, as we wait for him today to address the nation, yesterday he came out and urged Congress I wanted to take a listen here to what he said to lawmakers when it comes to pushing for that additional emergency funding.
I think in terms of the SPA. It's pretty right at the edge right now, and I think the Congress should be coming back and moving on emergency needs immediately. They're going to have to come back after the election as well. This is going to be a long haul for total rebiliting. It's going to take several billion dollars. It's not going to be a matter of just a little bit.
In a letter to Congress last night, the SBA administrator said that that emergency loan program will likely run out by the end of next week if it does not have additional funds to replenish it. They did say that the SBA will continue to process loans though up to the point of payment. But Joe and Kayley experts are saying that once that SBA loan program runs out, that's only going to put a bigger drag on the FEMA funds as people look elsewhere if they can't get that that SBA funding.
So as we consider the rule Congress has in providing more funding, the argument that lawmakers who are not eager to return to Washington right now, Tyler, is that it's because it's campaign season. They're in the final stretches of their own races ahead. Of election day. But that kind of is an important point here. It is the last weeks before the election. This storm and everything that comes with it might have massive political implications, including the ability of voters to vote at all.
Right, exactly, you two have been covering closely how the storm and electoral politics have kind of been intertwining here.
We've been talking a lot about rhetoric at the top of the ticket, but I would also say I'm watching voter access, for example, in some of these hard hit states, including battleground states like North Carolina, where we're already seeing them implement some emergency provisions to allow for mail in ballots to be more easily attained if you are in a disaster zone, even in Florida, of Florida's governor Ron de Santis, for example, is reevaluating some of the polling
sites to make sure that there are in accessible areas. And then beyond that, as we've been covering, the economy is always repeatedly the top issue according to our Bloomberg News Morning Console polling, and we're going to be watching how the economic impacts from the storm could impact voters in some of these key states. For example, if you look at Florida. A lot of those key ports, like the Port of Tampa, the largest port in the state,
being closed. How that's going to impact supply chain issues taking us right up to election day.
Very good point, Bloomberg, Tyler Kendall, great reporting, Thank you so much, and Joe, it is something to consider here. The optics of all of this, let alone the actual physical, tangible impact on ability of people to vote in that kind of thing. The optics of the response, how federal officials and other elected members of office respond to this, including whether or not they returned to Washington, could be something very impactful on the ultimate vote just weeks from now.
Well, that's for sure. And if the Speaker holds the line on this and we wait for everybody to come back after the election, we are really getting a good sense of what this lame duck session is shaping up to be. We knew it would be an emergency request. A lot of folks thought it might be for the Pentagon. Looks like it will be for a disaster relief once again.
Indeed, so for more on the disaster relief that's needed and the kind of funding issues we seem to be running into again and again We're pleased to be joined now by former FEMA Deputy Administrator for Resilience, Daniel Kanuski. He is now marsh mcclenn in Public Sector Managing Director, and he's here with us in our Washington, d C. Studio.
Thanks for being here. On balance of is we consider this funding question the idea that FEMA now after these two storms, may not be in a very strong position to respond to anything else that could come this hurricane season or any other disasters because of the extent to which resources have been depleted. How great of a problem is it that we even have to consider these vulnerabilities in the first place.
Well, certainly, the two hurricanes back to back have strained FEMA's resources. It strained its budget, it's strained its personnel, and it's trained its ability to respond effectively to future disasters. Now, knock on wood, let's hope that there's not any major disasters that happen right now. But assuming not, we're really you know, they're going to be really focused on that recovery and prioritizing all of those resources, whether they be
personnel or funding, to those two major disasters. But let's not forget there are many other disasters that FEMA is still on the ground for a still helping communities recover from those disasters number in the hundreds.
So to that end, that's exactly what I wanted to ask you about. Are we two weeks from now playing triage with money and turning away from recovery from fires in California or in Hawaii for that matter.
Well, the FEMA administrator does have the authority to prioritize those immediate needs, and that there is precedent for That's happened several times even recently, so I would expect that if funding started to get lower than what the FEMA administrator felt comfortable with, she would prioritize funding for those
immediate response needs. With the two disasters we've recently experienced. Now, long term, you're absolutely right, like the concern would be that those communities that are still recovering from those disasters that were weeks, months, even years ago are going to be slowed down in their long term recovery, in their ability to bounce back from those disasters and build resilience. So certainly a concern, but prioritizing the current response needs would be the priority.
Well, as you mentioned, resilience which of course is what you focused on at FEMA. To what extent is this conversation one that needs to be had not just about making sure enough money is there, that you aren't constantly having to request emergency supplementals, but also that adequate investment is being made in resilience, in mitigation, in adapting to a climate that is changing and storms that we've seen can grow more powerful over warm ocean water for example.
Well, certainly resilience needs to be a priority, and I'm so heartened that FEMA is now largely known as the disaster resilience Agency. It wasn't always that. That wasn't always the case. Quite frankly, it was always known as this agency that would provide funding and support after disaster, which
is absolutely critical. But in those times we're not experienced a disaster, FEMA and the emergency management community should really be focused on investments that can reduce future disaster losses.
Were we in a world in which funding should increase along with the temperature.
Well I think that, no question, funding will have to increase for funds like the Disaster Relief Fund, which needs to constantly be replenished based on these large disasters. There is an increasing amount of funding being spent on the pre disaster programs, and again, that is the right direction to go because we know that for every one dollar invested in risk reduction programs, save six dollars when the disaster occurs. And that's just the savings to the federal government.
If you layer on top of that the economic savings. Thanks to a recent report by All State in the US Chamber of Commerce, they found that number is actually thirteen to one.
Do you feel like lawmakers in Washington recognize that or is this just something that happens in the agency?
I think it was. Let's go back to twenty seventeen. When I was at the agency. We had back to back hurricanes, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, and policy makers, to their credit, came to us and said, what can we do to prevent this in the future. What can we do to lessen the impact on taxpayers and lessen the impact on disaster survivors? And we said, give us a pre disaster hazard mitigation program, let us invest ahead
of time before that aster occurs. And that report from the National Institute of Building Sciences, that six to one number had just come out, So it's really the confluence of that data, empirical data that says mitigation saves combined with those increasing disaster losses.
How quickly does it save?
Though?
I mean, if we're talking about these kind of investments and rethinking the way you build, perhaps where you build the kind of infrastructure required to better withstand these natural disasters, you can't just do that overnight.
Right.
This is not something that's going to change the game for hurricane season twenty twenty.
Five, that's right.
It will lessen the impacts of that future disaster. So in the interim, there's a number of steps that can be taken too. Well mentioned preparedness, so being prepared to effectively respond to that disaster, realizing you can't reduce that disaster risk to zero. And you've seen communities that are prepared and those that are less prepared. There are federal dollars available to help those communities prepare. The second point
I would make is insurance. Insurance fills that gap, right, that fills the gap between that level of preparedness or the risk being fully mitigated, and the disaster that's inevitably going to occur. So everyone needs to have insurance. The homeowners, governments need to have it, and that insurance is what protects you against the financial consequences of these inevitable disasters.
We reached out to you because you were FEMA's deputy administrator for resilience. It's tough to be resilient when people don't trust you. And I wonder, based on your experience, your unique perspective, how corrosive has been this round of miss and disinformation to the reputation and effectiveness of FEMA.
Well, unfortunately, misinformation is part of a catastrophic disaster response. It's simply because during a catastrophic disaster, communications are knocked out. People aren't having access to the information that they would normally have access to, and in the absence of information, they grasp at anything that might be available and that might not be a trusted government source. So what I can say is in disasters, what we often say is
make sure you have multiple ways to communicate. Make sure you have things like, you know, a radio and backup generators in ways so that you can get that information directly from government officials who will give you who are the truth tellers during a disaster, and in that way, you're not going to be swayed by this misinformation.
If we could go back to something you were just mentioning about the importance of having insurance in some of these areas, including Florida, which was just slammed by Milton. Insurance can be prohibitively expensive in some areas. We understand it's not even provided because the risk is so great a flooding and what have you. How do we solve that problem.
Well, if we're talking about home if we're talking about insurance for individuals as opposed to governments. But for individuals, there's homeowners and renters insurance and there's flood insurance, and oftentimes you know, those are two separate policies. Now, for homeowners insurance, you're seeing increasing strain on the homeowner's market. It could be because of disasters such as what we're seeing in Florida, wildfires in California, or it could be
because of other reasons, including inflation that we're all dealing with. Nonetheless, homeowners need to have obviously adequate homeowners insurance. Renters need to have insurance. But let's focus on flood for a second. Flood insurance is something that the federal government provides. The federal government has to offer that to you. So it's not a matter of availability for flood insurance. It's more a matter of affordability to reduce the cost of flood insurance.
I think there's a couple of important points here. One is we need to reduce the risk, going back to the earlier points. To the extent that the reduce the risk is reduced, those flood insurance premiums will be more affordable. The second point, though, since we're sitting here in Washington, is that we need to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. The program is in desperate need of reform. There are a dozen or so reforms that have been not only
floated but proposed by FEMA. If you go to the FEMA website, you can actually see the legislative language that they have proposed, and yet action has not taken. And until those actions are taken, until there's reforms made to the National Flood Insurance Program, we're going to be dealing with the situation again and again in the future.
So you get to the heart of the matter here, and of course that I don't mean to set you up with a minute left, but clearly Ashville has shown us that something needs to be done. What do you do to the flood maps, What do you do to the system to make this work better?
Yeah, the cold, hard truth is only about four percent of American households have flood insurance. That's a huge problem, and as big of a problem as that is, it's much bigger in those areas hardest hit. In North Carolina, one percent or less of those households had flood insurag. That means they're going to be completely dependent on their own savings, on government programs and other community wide, hopefully efforts that can help safeguard those individuals. But the reality
is it's not going to be enough. Those in North Carolina are going to have a tough, long recovery.
So throw the map out and start over.
I'm just saying something needs to be done. Innovative solutions do exist in the flood insurance market. We have community based catastrophe insurance that we've been talking about for two or three years now. But very few communities are taking up these innovative flood programs because either they don't realize the risking says, or they've grown dependent on the government programs.
Really lucky that you came by. We were looking forward to the conversation. Daniel, Thank you. Daniel Kanuski is at Marshall mcclennan, now public sector Managing Director, but was famous Deputy administrator for Resilience. Smart talk here as you would expect on Balance of Power, Daniel, thank you, as we bring you voices of experience every day here when it comes to policy and politics in Washington, we'll have much more ahead our signature panels up next, Rick and Jeanie
alongside Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I'm Cailey Lines alongside Joe Matthew here in Washington, where, of course we always bring you the latest policy analysis and the most relevant polling. As we get closer and closer to November fifth, and while we've been looking at the breakdown Joe of just Trump voters versus Harris's voters
and those who still remain undecided. Although that's a very small basket, we're talking about there's a lot more nuance within these figures than that, including the demographic breakdowns of who is supporting who are more importantly, who is choosing not to support the other candidate, and numbers we've seen historically.
We know that there's a big difference in terms of gender, men more likely for Trump, women more likely for Harris, but also other demographics as well, including black voters and Hispanic voters.
Yeah, you're going into the cross tabs here where things get actually interesting and it's really affecting the strategy, the travel decisions, the advertising decisions for both campaigns. Is it as simple as that? Is this bros versus gals? Because when you start reading some of the tipsies this morning, you really start to think that Donald Trump is acting that way, is going on a series of podcasts and
interviews that are geared toward young men. Of course, we know that Kamala Harris has been doing the exact opposite, talking about reproductive rights in some more favorable forums. Last evening at the Univision town hall, things got pretty emotional as a matter of fact, talking about a lot of
kitchen table issues. But it was Barack Obama who made the headline on his first night out in the series of events for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh, we should hear that the former president speaking to young black men about their views of Kamala Harris. Let's listen part of it, I'm.
Speaking two men directly. Part of it, Well, you just aren't feeling and you're coming up with other al Harness. I'm a breathe explorer. Anybody you are talking to a barbershop, anybody who are talk through your house, your family, Uh, the church was coming and then you have to ask them, well how did that because the women in our lives have been in.
That's this entire time, Barack Obama talking about you just aren't feeling the idea of a woman as president. Let's assemble our panel. Genie Shanzano is with US and Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics Contributors. Genie is Senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress. Rick is, of course partner at Stone Court Capital. Surely, Genie, it couldn't be as simple as men versus women in this campaign, or is it?
It is a huge gender gap. And I like how you said bros versus gals. I mean we are seeing it in poll after poll, the New York Times poll, the Siena poll, also Quinnipiac in the some of the key battle ground states. And I would just add one and that is the Harris Harvard Youth poll where they show that the divide is enormous, with young people, young women going for Harris by almost fifty percent if you
can believe it. So the divide is real. It is there, and you know, I think there's a lot of factors that contribute it, to contribute to it rather but one that is really important, and I see it with young
people in the classroom. These two groups are getting information from very different media outlets, and I think we need more work to back this up, but I would suspect the research will show that that is helping drive this division, as some of the media outlets where they are depending on not just for political news, but news and information of all kinds, has embraced political talk in a really heightened election year.
Rick, to bring you into this conversation as we consider the message of the reaching out to different demographic groups or who they just seem to be doubling down on through the selection, say of Jade Vance's vice president you might be doubling down on young men, not necessarily trying to bring in women alongside. For Kamala Harris, it does seem that a bit of work here was delegated to Barack Obama, a former president who also happens to be
a black man. Is he the most effective messenger of the Harris campaign has in its corner right now for the voters that she does not yet have?
You know, I think that's a big question that you have to even go deeper into the cross stabs. I mean, Genie's right, the younger you get, the bigger the divide between male and female voters. But then you slice and dice that to in the group that the former president was referring to as young black men, and young black men are a weak spot in the Democratic coalition right now.
They used to be able to depend upon the homogeneity of black vote and that seems to be starting a splinter And part of that is because they're getting information the young black men from different sources than they used to, and a lot of this has emerged over the course of this campaign. This was We've always had a functional gender gap between Republicans and Democrats, but only a couple dozen percent. This is much different than what has existed
in previous campaigns. So in the case of young black men, yes, does that impact young white men the way they hope Barack Obama impacts young black men, Probably not young Hispanic men, probably a different source. I think ultimately this has got to be on Harris's top priority list. You know, she has to create the bond between her and these constituencies, and they're moving around, and so if she doesn't close that deal soon, then she's going to lose them to
the Republicans and to Donald Trump. And a lot of their issues are not the ones the Harris campaign talking about. They care about these woke issues. They they're there. They're anti transgender, they're you know, anti cancel culture because they've been the victims of cancel culture. You know, the TV they watch is not acceptable, the foods they eat aren't appropriate, the way they exercise is not the right way to
do it. I mean, like there's a there's a whole cause and effect of this, and it's usually cultural issues that bring the young male voters into the Republican caucus.
It's quite a dynamic genie, and I wonder does it help Donald Trump to be going to Aurora to talk about the border in Venezuelan gangs. When it comes to either holding or winning over that demographic.
Yeah, I mean, this is gonna be what we hear from Donald Trump going forward. He is doubling down on the base and he has enormous support obviously from non college educated white men, particularly young. The challenge for Donald Trump with them group is that this is the same group that doesn't vote in as large numbers, so that's a challenge, and also the challenge that women tend to vote more than these men. So those are a couple challenges he's facing. And but if anybody can get them out,
it is Donald Trump. Because you look historically, Donald Trump, I think, better than anybody I can remember in recent American politics, gets people who aren't energized interested in voting out to the polls. So he's able to do it, and he's going to try, and that, I fear means we will hear a lot more of this doubling down
on rhetoric. And just to underscore what Rick was talking about, the biggest ad that they are spending on right now on Trump's side is the anti transgender ad That is an ad that has gone you know, viral many social media accounts. They've spent big on it, according to ad Impact, and that is supposed to do double duty by the way of appealing not just to these you know anti cancel culture young men.
You're listening over the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast just Live weekdays at Newneaster on Emo car Play and then royd 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.
That about the advice of Kamala Harris her sheer power to invest not only in advertising but also in the ground game. As she's raised over a billion dollars since becoming the Democratic candidate, what do you see as her ability to have something to show for that when what we have actually seen, by and large in most polls is the race tightening, not materially moving more in her favor.
Yeah, I mean the billion dollar mark is incredible when you think of the short period of time she has been in it. I think we always knew this was going to be a tight race, and it has remained remarkably stable despite the change of one candidate from the top to the other. You know, she has just three weeks left, so she is going to have to hit hard.
I think number one on the economy, number two on the issue of healthcare tied to reproduction and abortion, and she is going to have to try to reach those Nicky Haley voters who just can't see themselves voting for Trump and are not quite convinced that she's the person to do it. She's going to have to also, I
think go on the offensive against Donald Trump. We haven't seen her do that as much, but I think she is going to need to do that and let people see and remember who Donald Trump is on January sixth and those other times. We're just talking about about one point five million voters in seven states who still are undecided in this race that she needs to reach and quite frankly, Donald Trump needs to reach as well.
Rick Jenny just said an important name we haven't heard in a bit, and that's Nicky Haley. I think it was just last weekend Liz Cheney was on stage with Kamala Harris. Correct me if it was two weekends ago. It's all just kind of a blur at this point, and the hope was to unlock that vote, to let them know former Nikki Haley supporters that it was safe to vote for Kamala Harris. How large is this group? How important will it be in November?
Yeah, when I asked pollsters that question, you know, how much Nikki Haley vote may be available to a Harris candidacy, you know, they plug it in as about ten percent, you know, And that's an extrapolation of numbers based on what we saw the vote against Donald Trump late in the primary season for Nicki Haley, things like that, And so it's a big chunk. There's no question that it
could be a material difference. State by state would have a different impact based on, you know, the amount of campaigning and name I d that Nikki Haley had in places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. So so it's not immaterial, But it's also one of these hardest votes to get because you're really trying to get a functional Republican to
vote for a Democrat. And obviously, using the Cheneese and other Republicans who have endorsed Nikki Hailey or Harris as a permission structure to do that has worked in the past for Biden. But that's a big question right now. I think what's really most amazing is just how hard the campaigns are working to get people to expand the
base of this electorate. It's not so much who's already available in making up their minds, it's who's never voted and are going to show up this time, and that's inefficient.
All right, Very good point from Rick Davis. As always, thank you so much. Alongside g Schanzeno.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on APO CarPlay and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcast are watch us live on YouTube.
There's a lot I wanted to talk about with Aisha Mills. This is where we're going to start our conversation. The democratic political strategist and social impact advisor is back with us here on Bloomberg. Aisha, I'm happy to see you. Thanks for coming on. We talked a couple of days back about this idea of the former president visiting Springfield, Ohio, or,
in the case of today, Aurora, Colorado. He's talked about Venezuela and gang's taking over the town, and this is an opportunity, I guess for the campaign to talk about border security. And I'm sure we're going to hear a lot about Kamala Harris as the so called borders are. What is this doing to the campaign?
Though?
And from a strategic standpoint, We're not spending time in swing states here, We're going to Aurora to make what point.
You know, Look, there are so many things that we could actually be talking about subsnatively with regards to our immigration policies generally and the root causes of migration to the United States and the economic impact of that. Right Like,
there are some real conversations to be had. Kamala Harris was actually charged with thinking about and figuring out what those root causes were, trying to come up with some diplomatic approach with Central American countries, with Mexico to be able to stem the crisis that is sending people here, and then certainly to make sure that where we need to be tough in our laws, that we are not bringing folks here who are going to do Americans harm in any way, right, that we are not emboldening sex
trafficking or drug trafficking. Or on and on and on. Right, there are conversations that I absolutely agree matter to Americans that are important to have about immigration. What we shouldn't be doing is demonizing, stereotyping people based on falsehoods and
just flat out lies. And I think that, you know, that is one of the problems with the Republicans and certainly with the Trump campaign, is that they are missing an opportunity to have a real conversation about immigration in the United States, that we can all find some common ground around solutions, and instead they are literally talking about people as if they are villains, as if they are criminals.
They are making up lies about entire populations of people, and they're doing it in a way that is lifting up this trope of nationalism and frankly white nationalism that I don't think that most people agree with in this country. I think it's toxic, and I don't think that it's going to win them any favors or any votes.
I guess I'm just trying to figure the strategy here. Donald Trump says that the city has turned into a war zone. Those are the words that he used. So I went on Google earlier with producer James and we checked out the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Center, where he's going to be holding his rally later on. It's really nice. I'd kind of love to go there for a weekend. I have to admit issue, What is the purpose of demonizing a city like this? He talked last evening.
We'll get to this in a minute about he was in Detroit. He's talking about, you know, how awful it would be to make the whole country like Detroit. I guess that it's counterintuitive to me in a race that is so close. Why we're using this method instead of talking about, say the economy.
Yeah, well, listen, I appreciate you doing your due diligence and homework to get a sense of where it is that Donald Trump is standing when he's actually making all of these accusations right, and assertions about the world. Here's the thing. I live in a real community that happens to be a low income city in America, not unlike a Detroit. We are going through a lot of evolution and changes. I am on the ground here with real people.
We are walking the streets, living our lives. We understand crime, we understand education, we understand the need for healthcare, for jobs, all those things. Donald Trump is making these accusations and coming up with these false narratives from mar A Lago, his mansion, from golf courses that he owns, from beautiful hotels like the one that you see that he's going
to be doing this rally out there. He is standing in a place of elitism, making accusations about what's happening in on Main Street right a place that he doesn't actually go. And the reason why, to your point strategically is that, look, we are twenty days out from, you know, from the actual election day. We people are voting right now all around this country, and the way the path to two seventy to be able to win this election is really at this point a turnout game. It's about
getting your base out to vote. Kamala Harris is out there talking to everybody that she possibly can that is going to come out and vote for her. We're kind of outside of a place now of moving new people, and I believe that what he is doing is he's trying to stoke his base. Now it's a very narrow swath of Americans, but they are very religiously having feels to him and are going to show up for him.
So he makes up these stories about how frankly brown people coming to the United States are doing harm to his base of you know, white working class Americans in order to get them briled up to make sure that they come out and vote. And you know, he thinks it's a winning strategy. Did in twenty sixteen, didn't work in twenty twenty, and I don't think it's going to work this time.
All right, Let's turn to the other campaign, and that is the Harris campaign. And what well, frankly just broadly political is labeling it the Bros. Campaign. Today they're both fighting over young men, more deliberately over young men of color and Aisha. We heard from Barack Obama last night. He started the series of events he's doing next four weeks for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh. Listen to this sound of the former president speaking to young men about their perceptions of Kamala Harris.
Part of it basically, well, you just are a feeling and the other man a woman president, and you're coming up with other alternis on areas exported, anybody you are talking to, any barbershop, anybody you are talking to in your house, in your family, at church was coming with that. I think you have to ask them, well, how can that be, because the women in our lives have been in our backs this entire time.
That might have been a little bit difficult to hear. He was in a campaign headquarters there speaking a bit off Mike that you just aren't feeling the idea of a woman as president. He said, Ayesha, how real is this?
I think that's very real. It's very real. Look, we have not had a woman president in the United States, and when you listen to the rhetoric that is happening on one side, it's really a hearken to whatever may make America great again means. But it's this idea that women are subservient, that women shouldn't have bodily autonomy, right. The assault on abortion rights is really an assault on
women's ability to manage our own health care. That women who don't have children and a husband are useless and have no purpose in nothing to live for. These are things that are coming out or the other side. There's a real sexism and a real patriarchy that are still part of the undercurrent of our society, whether we like it or not. Right, whether we want to admit it
or not. And I think what Barack Obama is saying, and what he's always said having been raised by a single mother, is like, look, we've got to remember that the women in our lives have raised us, supported us, are the ones who are out there in the world, more than half the population of America, by the way, doing the hard work and order for us to be great. So why would we have any blink of an eye about a woman leading this country as president of the
United States. It's an important conversation to have because there are so many other messages that are being pushed to suggest that women's place is only in the home, and that if she's single and has cats, then she is useless and you know, not healthy for society, and that all she should be doing is raising kids, when in fact that isn't true. And so that's what you're hearing this appeal to men to be reminded that men, you know, you have mothers, you have sisters, many of them have
daughters themselves. That the world moves, their world moves because of women and because of the strength of women, and certainly we can have a president that's a woman.
Well, look at the Trump strategy here. This is I mentioned the battle for the bros. This is political writing. They refer to the NLK boys. Producer James had to tell me who that was. Pro Trump millennial pranksters with more than eight million YouTube subscribers. These guys do like college drinking games or whatever on YouTube, launching a multimillion
dollar voter registration campaign aisha. They plan to capitalize on college football game tailgates, gaming sites, male friendly podcasts, even Tender and another podcast I can't even read on the air. He's going for broke on this. What's Kamala Harris doing?
You know, listen, But let's talk about that going for broke though, because it's such a broken sense of masculinity and bros and who bros are, right, like, when you look at the two the men who are present on either side, the Democratic ticket or the Republican ticket, when
you look at who Donald Trump is advertising to. With all of that, their conversation is very much a patriarchal old school like man that does locker room talk right, that is held liable for sexual assault because you should be able to do whatever you want to a moment, right, And it's all just locker room talk. Saying nasty things, being a bully, being a bully. Really, on the other side, you've got Doug Kamala's husband, right, who's a kind, compassionate
guy who's a father figure. You've got Governor walt Coach Waltz who is is a veteran and also a coach and a teacher and tender and kindness. So I think that this idea of a bro is really something that's
on the ballot right now. The definition of a bro is it Ted Lasso, who is a kind, compassionate football guy, right, But someone who is taking that and that's the thing that's going to be on the ballot is this, Do we want a small segment of the population that still thinks that we should have locker room talk and be bullies and nasty and that's who they're appealing to, or do we believe that like men are decent, kind, respectful,
wholesome humans. Right. We'll see how that plays out, but that's who they're going after with those ads for sure. Is that small segment of the bully population of bros.
Are we getting Ted Lasso on James? I feel like that would be a great show. Are we working on that come back? On issue with Ted Lasso's son. Great to talk to you. As always, Aisha Mill's democratic political strategists social impact advice her with usun Bloomberg. Thanks for
listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.