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 listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to the Monday edition of Bloomberg Sound On.
I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Glad you're with us.
We have a lot to cover, and I guess we can begin with some pretty simple questions like will the government shut down at the end of this week. It's unclear if anybody really knows the answer to that, but we're coming off a busy weekend with a lot of talk and in fact a piece of legislation that was dropped on Saturday from the new Speaker of the House.
There's your laddered CR.
Everybody, I don't have canned applause, And we talked about the laddered CR. It would have some agencies going out of business or running out of money at different times
than others. Turns out it's not that complicated. As a matter of fact, there'd be two dates on this, one in January, the other in February, and it's looking like without the steep cuts without some of the so called poison pills, the asylum law changes that were in original proposals that some conservatives were pushing for, that this might
actually get enough votes to pass. And we know there's a continuing resolution coming in from the Senate, so dare to dream maybe the government doesn't shut down this weekend, maybe it doesn't shut down at all this year. That's where we start our conversation with Congresswoman Chrissy hulihand the Democrat from Pennsylvania is back with us, just back in Washington. I understand moments ago, Congresswoman, welcome back to the party. It's great to see you and thank you for joining us.
What do you think about this piece of legislation? Is this something that Democrats would consider voting for?
So let's back all the way up to what we're trying to all collectively accomplish it, at least I hope we are. We're trying to get all of the regular order appropriations packages through. That has been a very unseerious process on behalf of both.
The last Speaker and this Speaker.
But because we can't get those appropriations packages through, we're in a condition where we will possibly shut down the government and what the Democrats have been asking for all along is to work together, to work bipartisanally and across the aisle on first the appropriations package, because that's what it's really all about. And second, if we can't get there on the CR. So what we're looking for is
what's called a clean CR. To your point, I think in the an introductory remarks, something that doesn't have a lot of the poison pills in it that we've seen in every single appropriations bill to date, and so it looks like a relatively reasonable request. Your question about the lattering is something that does concern me to some degree because I think it sets a precedent that we're going to sort of piecemeal parts of the appropriation or the
budgetary process. This could splinter into a CR for every one of the different appropriations bills, perceivably or in the future, and that's really concerning because that basically derails what should be the regular process to begin with, and it becomes a constant CR, which is really concerning.
Nice I had a nightmare at congressman. I was watching CNN and there were twelve countdown clocks all staring.
At me at once.
But it turns out it's not actually what we're talking about. In this we got details for the sake of our listeners and viewers. You would see expirations for agriculture, Energy and Water, Military Construction, VA, and Transportation HUD. Those are your four bills on the nineteenth of January. The eight remaining bills spending bills would expire at the beginning of February. Thirty two page bill taken up by Rules Committee this afternoon.
It looks like there will be a vote tomorrow, Congresswoman, Is that what you're hearing, because from what we see here, the Speaker will need Democrats to pass this.
So I haven't yet heard.
Are you saying that it did pass the Rules committee, because that would be news to me.
Is that news?
No, not at all.
I understand that Rules will be taking it up this afternoon, But if are you hearing that it will be on the floor tomorrow and that it will require Democrats.
That's part of the magic, right, First and foremost, it has to pass rules, and then when it gets to the floor, it has to pass another request to pass the rule on the floor for the whole body, and that requires that a majority of us say that we're ready to vote on this, so two things have to happen before we even have the possibility of voting on this cr together as.
A whole body.
And Congress is sort of a wild ride lately, and that's not always a given. And in fact, we've seen rules go down at least once or twice that I can remember in the last six or seven months, so nothing is a given.
Would you vote against it if it hit the floor?
So I don't know yet is the answer to that. I feel as though it's a relatively speaking, earnest effort. I do worry about the precedent that it sets in terms of the splintering of to your point, the twelve different or fourteen different countdown clocks. I am frustrated that we're at this place, and really frustrated that we don't seem to be able to get along with one another of off the aisle, but also within the Republican Party itself.
And so it's just high weirdness, as my father used to say in hig dysfunction right now, and I'm hoping we do the right thing for the American people as quickly as possible.
High weirdness.
Congresswoman, can I tell you how refreshing it is to hear that I don't know? Is that not my favorite answer? Look, we all really appreciate your honesty, because I know that this hasn't been fully baked. Has the Democratic leadership? Is Hakeem Jeffrey's wait in on this or is that the next step for you?
No, to my knowledge, right now, he has not weighed on it. They have not weighed in on it. I'll be interested to see what they say. That being said, I think each one of us has to kind of make our own choices, you know, in this Congress, and I think it remains to be seeing what this particular effort will look like once it comes out of rules or once it goes through you know, it's initial votes, or any of those other processes.
And so I do have to say, I don't know. I think it's the appropriate answer right now.
But Congress has this pot this ability to sort of move at lightning speed or at glacial speed, and I hope that lightning speed effective lightning speed will be that choice this time.
Well, let's say we pass a cr By the grace of God, the government doesn't shut down, then it's the matter of dealing with the supplemental budget request that came from the White House many weeks ago. Now Congress so many you don't need me to tell you. Money for Israel, money for Ukraine. They were packaged with Taiwan and border security. The first thing the new Speaker did was strip apart or bifer Kate, to use his word, the funding for Israel.
How many weeks can this go on for? Because this is.
Clearly delaying things, whether it's the right way to go or not. How many weeks do we have before this becomes an urgent matter in both Israel and Ukraine.
Not many, is the answer to that question. You know, several is I think probably the best estimate. And I agree that it is disappointing that the cr did not include any supplemental funding, and I very much believe that the supplemental funding should be all inclusive all of the things that President Biden has asked for Ukraine, the border, making sure Israel is protected, a lot of the emergency funding as well, and I feel as though that's something
that really is pressing right now. But to answer your question, my impression is within the next several weeks we really need to move forward on that. And if you look at where the votes are. We have the votes on the House side. Certainly somewhere on the order of three hundred or so of US I believe would vote for that sort of a package. What we don't have is necessarily getting through rules and then getting it for a final vote on the floor.
Well, you, I'm sure have a unique view, being on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees. I know these are two very different scenarios here, and maybe we should strip them apart or remove them for the sake of this conversation. When it comes to Israel, do you have a sense of how important US funding is for this war effort? A lot of folks thought there'd be a pronounced ground invasion underway, maybe two or three fronts opening, and that
has not happened. So how much does Israel need and when does it need it?
So I think that they actually are relatively speaking connected, both Israel and Ukraine, and frankly, what would possibly happen in Taiwan and in the Indo Pacific region.
These are all threats.
To democracies, These are all threats to our national security and to global security and peace. I believe that Israel, as well as Ukraine and Frankly, Taiwan as well need support, American support, and I believe that they are being used effectively whatever it is that they're asking for. I hope
that we have the opportunity to send them. And I don't think that we necessarily would see the urgent or chronic need immediately, but rather over, as I mentioned, over weeks and months, and so it's very important that we get the pipeline primed and can keep the pipeline crime for Ukraine in the next weeks.
It seems like Ukraine might be bumping up against a need more urgently than Israel when it comes to actual hardware, when it comes to money. I know you want to address these in the same breath, Congresswoman, and I appreciate the effort behind that, But when it comes to the actual money and hardware, do you worry more about Ukraine being forgotten here?
Yeah? I have to be very blunt, I do.
And that's part of the reason why when I was approached by Israel and the embassy, they're asking if I would support the supplemental for Israel, I responded that certainly I was in favor of doing that, but that I hadn't ask as well for them to ask of us, which was these things are connected. I need to make sure that we're connecting those two ideas. And as I mentioned Taiwan as well as our own security at our own borders as well, I believe them to be fundamentally
and integral to one another. And so I feel like it's probably more acute right now in Ukraine in terms of the compare and contrast with Israel and Ukraine. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to be moving forward with expedients. I mean, look, how long it takes us to get things done. We can't afford a whole lot more time on any of these issues.
We're spending time with Congresswoman Christy who the hand of Pennsylvania. We're talking about funding for two hot wars underway, but of course government funding with regard to the continuing resolution that we started our conversation about Congresswoman impacts money for veterans as well. And it's not lost on me how you spent your weekend as the nation observed Veterans Day. You helped to award a purple heart to a Vietnam veteran who was shot in the head, not once, but twice.
And has quite a remarkable American story to tell, and I wonder if you could talk to us about that before you sure.
I mean, this is sort of the cyclicality and the wonder and tragedy of the world. My dad was born in nineteen forty two in Leviv, so in Ukraine what was Poland now Ukraine. He survived because of the grace and goodness of American soldiers, amongst others. He served in Vietnam in the late sixties early seventies. This gentleman also served in the sixty seven and timeframe, which interestingly enough, is the year I was born.
So we're in this sort.
Of timeline of the American contribution to world order and stability and world peace and the sacrifice that individual people such as he have given for their nation. He got shot not once but twice in two separate instances in the head, and this is just something that went for
fifty six years without him being acknowledged and honored. It was my privilege to be able to give the Purple Heart to him, and frankly to his family as well, who are just as instrumental as making sure he was getting recognized for this.
We were of course talking about Air Force veteran Andrew Lipper, who helped to secure the award my staff. Yes, I'm looking at a photograph here Congressman as he's watching you pin the medal on Army veteran Robert Fields. It's a pretty remarkable story and it's one I'm glad.
That you could share. Thank you for a Congresswoman.
Thank you, Congresswoman Christy Houlihan, the Democrat from Pennsylvania with us representing the sixth districts Here on Bloomberg Sound On, I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington as we assemble our panel with Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzeno.
Happy Monday, guys.
Great to see both of you, hear Jeanie, what's your thought from the Democratic view here? Christy Julihan isn't sure what she wants to do. What should Democrats do when that CR hits the floor, because it looks like they will be needed to pass it.
Yeah, I mean, I.
Was so impressed by what she had to say. The reality is she's right, it is a clean CR. There is there are no poison pills in there. It is something that Democrats should take seriously. There is of course always going to be reason that you feel a bit concerned, and she is every right the latter component of this, and of course the lack of the supplemental but beyond that,
I think it is something Democrats should take seriously. You know, I agree with her that the lattered approach is a bit problematic perhaps going forward, but in a negotiation you're not going to get everything you want. And the fact that they put forward a clean cr this is a serious proposal that Democrats need to take seriously. And I think the question is if Democrats go along with Mike Johnson, is he going to have even more trouble on his
right going forward? I think as we look at what Moodies did on Friday or set on Friday, rather, it is critically important we avoid a shutdown. That is what everybody wants, and we have absolutely a bill here that can be worked on with both sides to ensure that for all of our economic security.
Well, I want to get into the Moody stuff a little bit later on with both of you. Rick, in our moment that we have left, you believe the conventional wisdom that odds are looking better that we will avoid a shutdown.
Yeah, I don't know.
Why Representative Hulahan isn't doing handsprings over this deal. First of all, the most important thing the Democrats has been that the second tranch of this layered cr is the defense side, and normally defense has always done first taken away their domestic spending.
Well, let's get into the fine print with Rick and Jeanie. Straight Ahead. Our signature panel is with us on the fastest show in politics, and we've got campaign news to talk about. As the Republican fields loses another it's all straight ahead on sound Off.
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 alf 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.
And if you were listening to our conversation with Congresswoman Chrissy Hoolihan, she said just a moment ago that she does not know what to do when it comes to voting on this, and we'll see what happens in rules later, but we are definitely realizing the uncertainty here. At the same time, odds seemed to be improving as the Senate does its work with these two crs could come together into something real by the end of the week.
Let's see what Mick thinks.
We do this conversation every week around this time, every Monday, certainly with Mick mulvaney, the former OMB Director. I just like putting that first co founder of the Freedom Caucus, former acting chief of staff in the Trump White House.
Mick, it's great to have you. Do you think we avoid the shutdown?
Joe Happy Monday?
Yeah, it's you.
You know. Listen Washington, Yeah, exactly, you can hear my voice. Washington is sort of it's a subjective kind of place, right, and there's a lot of good news. There's a lot of good chatter. I was in the I was in the Capitol Hill Club last week, hung out at dinner. There were a couple of folks and the tension in the building. For those of you who don't know, except that you listens who don't, Republican dining club. The Democrats
have a club that Republicans have a club. So I go there, have dinner, and attention was was the likes of which I've not seen before. Joe. It was just that the building felt tense and well, I hear a lot of good things come atter Washington. I also get the feeling there's not a lot of good will built up amongst the members right now. It's not an every person for himself type of situation, but it's close. So when you hear people say I don't know how I'm going to vote on this, which is what you just
mentioned with the congresswoman, Yes, I get that sense. A lot of people are in that vote that they don't know how they're going to vote. They're going to vote whatever they think is best for their particular seat. And if that means the government shutdown, shut down, and then that's what happens. If it means they vote to keep the government open, that's what happened. No, there's no team mentality right now amongst the Republicans, if that makes any sense.
Yeah, that's incredible.
What do you make of the products that Speaker Johnson decided to go with here, no so called poison pills.
You don't have the steep cuts.
I guess Chip roy already doesn't like this, and there are several members who say that they will vote against this Republican members, so Democrats will be required. Was that the most effective path for the speaker to take?
Yeah, which is the most effective path for Kevin McCarthy. No, And that's talked about this a couple of times, which is, you know, the real precedent that got set with McCarthy. One of several precedents was that if a speaker brings a bipartisan spending bill to the floor to keep the government open, is that mean the speaker's term is over? Certainly McCarthy had a lot of a lot of animosity directed towards him by some members, but he also had
a lot of good will built up. I don't know where Mike Johnson is on that, And I don't know if bringing a bill that Democrats like automatically make him look bad in the eyes of a bunch of Republicans, And I just I don't get a sense that will making this up as we go along as analysis. I heard the other day a sports analogy which I don't like, but it's sort of like putting in your four string
quarterback in the middle of late in the game. And not only is it not the person who's practiced with the first team, it's something that not a lot of people know, they're not familiar with. And that's where we are with the Republicans in the House. Again, I hate sports analogies, but that one seemed to strike home.
Yeah, I kind of like that one too.
But boy, I guess I'm curious your thoughts on a on an individual who is framed as an extremist, someone who is going to side with the right flank, would would read the Bible before he made a decision, And this sounds like a like a pretty mild approach for someone who you would describe that way.
What do you make of this? What does it tell us about Mike Johnson?
Well, I mean, I don't and I know you don't intend that, but I don't. I don't equate reading the Bible before you go do stuff as being you know, extreme, or or be a hardcore conservative and so forth. But that's not your question. The question is this maybe what we expected from this this this you know, this more conservative speaker, I don't know. And maybe he got there and realized that the only way you can fund the government is on a bipartisan basis. Again, you and I've
talked about that for months. Any spending bill, any spending bill that is going to pass the Congress, has to be by parts is because of the nature of the Senate. And I can't get over the number of Republicans in the House who just don't get that. And maybe Mike is just now figuring it out that he cannot pass a bill by himself, and that's a tough tough spot to be. But listen, I give him. I'll give him credit for creativity that you know, the two step the
ladder approach. I thought, very creative. Never heard of that before. It sounds like it's getting at least some attention from all sorts of folks, So I give I give him credit for them.
Last question, the supplemental requests for Israel for Ukraine?
Do those both wait until next year?
I can't imagine the Israel thing waiting until next year. There's just too much support for it. I agree with what the Republicans in the House trying to do in terms of splitting off Ukraine and Israel, because there is no reason for them to go together. There's nothing nothing
about the since of the matter. There's nothing about the politics of the matter that there's no reason for them to go together other than I think the administration feels like it's the last time they will get any money from Ukraine, so they're trying to marry it to Israel. They're trying to ask for a bunch I mean, sixty billion dollars, so they can't spend that in a year or two. We spent sixty billion on super soilm sandy,
and I don't think all that money is even spent yet. Anyway, I do think Israel will pass, but I don't think it'll be married in the Ukraine. Ukraine is gonna be tough, but it will pass as well. Ukraine money might have to wait till next year.
Nick Malvany, great to have you back. Happy Monday. To your point, Mick, we'll see where we are next Monday. Are we open or are we closed? Mick Malvaney joins us every Monday here Unsound on and we'll find out as we reassemble the panel for their take on what we just heard. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano. Rick, what do you think about Israel and Ukraine. There is a thought that this is the last train leaving the station before the end of the year in this continuing resolution?
What do you see not here in Rick?
If that's me or not sure, I think there'll be enormous pressure or Israel to fund this week, you know, or right after the CR You're gonna have one hundred thousand supporters of Israel come to Washington, DC tomorrow, shut the town down.
They're all going to be seeing their members and talking about this. So I think that the pressure campaign is just starting. And I can't imagine these these Republicans and Democrats getting out of town without showing some support for Israel.
Okay, I gotta tell you, Genie.
We showed this map last week of the potential windfall for states that are home to companies like artsy X, like Raytheon, like Lockheed Martin, like Northrop Grumming. We're a lot of this. If not the bulk of this sixty bill for Ukraine would be going. Are more lawmakers going to warm up to that? We're showing it now for our viewers on YouTube. Does this become something that Republicans can warm up to when that is the pitch?
I think so. And in your conversation with the representative, she just said, and we know this that there is widespread bipartisan support for this. Yes, there are people on both sides, on the right and the left, particularly in the House, who will not support it, but a number over three hundred these days in the House is pretty darn good. So I think you know your point about the economics of this is critical. We're going to see
the meeting with Biden and jijin Ping. I mean, all of these things go together, and this is a case that's got to be made and I made, and I think it will pass. But I do think they have to do it sooner rather than later, which is a concern about the fact that it's not included in this build of right the Speaker has put forward. But of course, you know you can't get everything in one bill, and so they're going to have to do it as a supplemental Rick, you know.
The power of branding and politics.
Why not come back around with a supplemental request for America's defense industrial base about sixty billion dollars.
Well, I would have thought even more compelling was the pitch that the Biden administration did do, which is, let's support the democracies around the world, including our own I do think what unlocked how much Ukraine money. What unlocks the Ukraine money is is border security money. And nobody needs that border security plan funded more.
Than Joe Biden.
If he has any chance of winning reelection, He's got to do something proactive about border security. It can't just be, you know, to pay people who are processing immigrants coming into the country. It's got to be about security. And I think if the Senate can give him something like that, there could be a grand bargain over the end of the year.
Jennie, if only got thirty seconds to news, is that the way this sends border security unlocks Ukraine funding.
I think so. And you heard the rhetoric when we may talk about it Donald Trump over the weekend. They are playing hard and Trump's team on the issue of immigration and security. Biden has a perfect, perfect run here to try to get the upper hand on that, or at least a hand, and he desperately needs that as he goes into this election. So it is almost a gift to Joe Biden if they can couple this and get all four of those things at once in a supplemental.
Great great conversation. Thanks to Rick, Thanks to Jeanie. Thanks to Mick Mulvaney and Congresswoman hul Hand, we covered some ground.
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 podcast.
You made it the Monday, so did Kaylee Lynes. Nice to see you.
Likewise, we're counting down to a government shut down. We've got what five days to make this work.
Yep.
We've got another candidate out of.
The race in the Republican field, the race for president, and we're talking about neither right now because we have breaking.
News the other branch of government. Amazing to me, Yes, absolutely, we do have three.
I might forget Legislative, Executive, and it's the judicial branch making news.
That well, yes it is, Kayle Lyins.
I wonder sometimes when you hear us talk about the White House, Senate House, how many people think those are the three? And I hope I never hear the answer to that, because we're talking about the Code of Conduct ethics, and you think about the work that Pro Publica has done that has led to an extreme level of doubt, lack of confidence in the institution here based on these yachting trips and the fishing trips and everything that certain justices were taking.
Apparently the Court has its own answer.
Yeah, the Supreme Court today adopting a code of conduct, a binding code of conduct for the first time, Joe, we mad all of these ethics controversies the Court has been facing. Of course, what you were referring to a series of ProPublica of reports, specifically around Justice Clarence Thomas and his relationship with billionaire Harlan Crowe, raised a lot
of concerns on Capitol Hill. Of course, the Senate Judiciary Committee had been trying to get many of these individuals to testify before them, but even some of the Court justices themselves had been suggesting that a code of ethics was needed, and that seems to be what the Court has adopted today.
Well, as a matter of fact, I'll sneak up on you with that. Alena Kagan was talking about this in August. She was one of a couple of justices, to your point, who had opened the door to this to at least give us a sense that they were talking amongst themselves not just waiting, for instance, for the Judiciary Committee to do something, because they've been talking about it too.
Here's Justice Kagan.
You know, we could decide to adopt a code of conduct of our own that either follows or decides in certain instances not to follow the standard code of conduct. That would remove this question of what can Congress do, or at least, you know, it would put it in a different light if Congress continued to act. And you know, look, it's not a secret for me to say. You know, there's been that you know, we have been discussing this issue.
And that was in August. Fast forward a few months. This is real, yeah, Kaylie. The headlines that are crossing the terminal also indicating that the code largely codifies existing principles.
So we need to learn more here.
Yeah, and of course we'll bring more details to our listeners and viewers as we get it. But it seems what the argument had been jo was that there were certain practices that justices were supposed to follow, even if it wasn't necessarily codified in a binding format or may be binding anything.
Right that was taking So now there'll be repercussions for following these rules.
Maybe some enforcement here.
You could call it pretty remarkable breaking news. Find more on the terminal and at Bloomberg dot com. Right now, the Supreme Court announcing its own code of conduct that it apparently has already adopted.
We'll see how this works out.
Greg's store is the best Supreme Court reporter in the country. He's with us here at Bloomberg, and I'm sure is chasing this down right now. We'll have a lot more free as we make our way through it. I wonder what Kyle thinks about this, because I think she just made the point too. Congress off the hook again. He joins us from Sabato's Crystal Ball, where he's managing editor at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Kyle, good to see if thanks for joining Kaylee and myself here.
This is just one last thing that the Congress has to worry about, now, isn't it.
Well.
I think also it's kind of hard for I mean, I'm no expert in this, but I'm just shooting shooting from the hip here. But you know, there are some question as to how how well Congress could sort of regulate the conduct of Supreme Court justices, and like with anything else, like, what what would the penalties be for actually breaking this code, because sort of impeachment, you really
can't get rid of someone on the court. So I'd be curious to see, like what what this actually says and whether there's some sort of like internal enforcement metric
for it. But you know, I think part of what probably has happened here is that, you know, these these Court justices are you know, that there's not a whole lot of accountability once they actually be you know, are sworn into office and they have got lifetime appointments, and so it could be hard even if there are you know, stricter or more codified rules, it can be harder to actually to actually figure out where to enforce those against the against the justices.
Yeah, and Kyle Joe mentioned it at the top that the trust in the Court as an institution is really low right now, in part because of these ethics concerns, which clearly they're trying to address, but also in part because of the way that this Supreme Court in particular
has ruled. We've seen the ramifications of specifically the Dobbs decision, the overturning of Roe v. Waight in election after election, including most recently last week, and I just wonder how much you really do expect that to continue to be a driving force going into twenty twenty four.
Yeah.
Look, I think that the Court has been kind of partisanized, just like a lot of other things in American life. And of course, these Supreme Court vacancies are these these prizes for the party to parties to cash in on. You know, just so happened that that trumpack got three vacancies. You know, Biden's only had one so far. And you know, it's it's sort of like a lot of it can just be random, you know, depending on if someone someone lives or dies or decides to retire at a specific time.
But clearly the the Dobb's decision was unpopular.
Uh.
And when abortion has been on the ballot in various states, be it red states, purple states, and blue states, it's done well since the Dobbs decision, and at least on that issue, you expect Democrats to have an advantage going forward. It's just a question of, you know, how important overall it is. But of course it's going to be a topic of the presidential election and a whole lot of races for all starts offices.
Next year, I'm.
Spending time with Kyle Condicatet Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Been looking forward to talking to you about this stack data research out today.
Kyle.
I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it, but it's taking the view of the Electoral College in projecting winners and losers in the presidential race. It's making state by state projections using national data. So I realized some folks have a little bit of trouble with this, and we're a year out. All of that said, you put this together, it's the same states we've been talking about for some time here in the same states that we were looking at in our own polling here
at Bloomberg, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This says Trump flips them all, might even pick up Nevada thanks to third party candidates and beats Joe Biden in the Electoral College by two ninety two to two forty six. Are you rolling your eyes as I'm talking to you a year out here, or are you looking closely at this as an important marker with a year to voting.
Mega projections and doing polls. You know, I think it's I think it's too early for that. I will say the numbers have been pretty bad for Joe Biden and all sorts of different metrics of this this fall. You know, there have been a number of polls from from Bloomberg, from the New York Times, from other places that show Biden in a fairly weak position and a potential rematch
with Donald Trump. I do think part of what's going on here is that while both Biden and Trump clearly have warts and clearly have favorability problems, I think Biden's problems are sort of more front of mind, in part because he's the incumbent, in part because he's in the
news more that Donald Trump. There are probably a time when Donald Trump's warts become clear, but you know, obviously if he's if he's renominated, My only expectation is I'm thinking that we should have another closeer competitive presidential election, just like we've had really for the most part since two thousand.
Sounds like a big grain of.
Salt on that one.
Huh, Yeah, that would be my take as well, Joe. As we think about what the contours of the twenty twenty four primary race, though, ar Kyle, because of course we have to get through that verse before we can get to a general and we do have news on that front in that the Republican field has gotten smaller. Tim Scott, the Senator from South Carolina, has dropped out. Where do those would be Scott voters vote go Does
all of that go to former President Trump? Or could that be a boon to another South Carolinian?
You know, look, I mean Scott was not polling particularly high, particularly in national surveys. He did have some kind of mid single digit support in Iowa high to minted single digit support in South Carolina. You might expect that that. You know, Nikki Haley is the only South Carolinian left in the race. Maybe she benefits more in that specific
state from Tim Scott getting out. But you know, we're still at a point where where Donald Trump is over fifty percent nationally in polls, and he's close to fifty percent, if not surpassing fifty percent in some of the.
Key early states.
So even if you add up all the opposition and everyone who wasn't voting for Trump was voting for a single alternative, Trump might still be in these states. So you know, Trump's got to fall off some more. I will say that, you know, for people who don't want Trump to be the no nominee, they should want more winnowing of the field. And so Scott getting out I think is probably good if you're a non Trump Republican because at least that frees up some portion of the vote.
Although it's also not clear that all of those Tim Scott voters would go somewhere out or we'd go, you know, we go to someone else as opposed to vote to Trump. You know, maybe it ends up being splintered a little bit, but you know, you've still got you know, a number of other candidates in the race, although you know, even at the debate last week there were only five people on stage. Of course one of them is gone. Of course,
you know Donald Trump was not on that stage. So long way to go still from the non Trump Republicans, but at least some of these other candidates are dropping out, which I think should be good from their perspective.
Speaking of dropping out, Rick Davis was just suggesting last hour, Kyle on this program that run de Santis may not make it to Iowa or New Hampshire. And when you look in I don't mean to dwell on the stack data here. He's the one guy Joe Biden can beat, and it's overwhelming. Biden beats DeSantis three fifty nine to one seventy nine in the electoral College. You know, Kaylee
just framed her question around Nicki Haley. I don't hear anybody talking about the next surge or a path to anything for Ron DeSantis.
How about you.
Well, look, I still think if Trump were to collapse, and I don't know what exactly would make that happen at this point, if we haven't seen it already, I kind of still think DeSantis is better equipped to pick up more of Trump's support than Haley is, mostly because DeSantis, I think his positioned to the right of Nicki Haley, he still shows up as sort of a more popular second choice vote amongst you know, amongst people who say they'
supporting Trump in the primary. But I will say, you know, I mean, DeSantis has had some money problems, you know that, you know, hypothetically could be something to drove him from the race, although you know, again he is bolstered a little bit by by the field getting a little bit a little bit smaller. Here, I also don't really believe that the Santists would ultimately be a dramatically weaker presidential
nominee than Donald Trump. I think it's possible that that there are people who say they support Trump now who maybe say they don't support the Santists, but that they would come come around in the end. You know, my guess is maybe there won't be that big of a difference, you know, between the two, you know, when it's all said and done. So that that I that I questioned
a little bit. Polls have been kind of back and forth on that, but you know, you got to you got to remember, there's a whole campaign to go after you get general election nominees. There's a consolidation period, there are conventions, there's a campaign to run. You know, there probably wouldn't be as dramatic a differences among these candidates when it all, when it's all said and done, as opposed to what things may suggest right now.
Well, and again, the way things are looking right now, we do have two presumptive nominees on both the Republican and Democratic side. Into the point Show was making for all the talk before really just more recent history. It was the idea that Trump was the only Republican that Biden could beat. It seems like that narrative is kind of shifting in a material way. If you're the Biden campaign,
what are you looking at here? Where are you trying to focus and what what do you think is within their power to change?
And I think they need to, you know, continue to try to address people's conservatives with Joe Biden. Be it his age, and again it's not like he's going to get any younger, but maybe there are things that they can they can do in that regard and try to highlight what they think are some of the positive things they're doing. You know, there is a real disconnect. People think the economy is terrible, and you could point to
some numbers and say that it's not. But you know, I do wonder this sort of focus on quote unquote Bidenomics and trying to paint a rosy picture of that. There's been some kind of anecdotal evidence that that maybe is turning people off, that people just don't feel that way. So you know, there's and you know, in the midst of a campaign, there there's only so much that the
campaigns themselves can control. And I think one thing that is really important for Biden is he needs to have a weak opponent, and Trump may or may not end up being that. You know, I have the time if he gets nominated and what not. Work there's some other Republican.
He's the managing editor at Savageo's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Kyle Condick, Kyle, thanks.
For always being a reliable voice for us here at Bloomberg. We look forward to the next conversation here.
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.