Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Wednesday edition of Balance of Power. I'm Joe Matthew at Bloomberg World Headquarters in New York. We, of course have a constant connection to what's happening in the nation's capital, where most people are gone. Lawmakers on recess, and as we told you, Republican leaders holding forth the Big Confab in Miami at the Mandarin Oriental where the real deals are made their annual leadership retreat over the weekend and generating some news. Guys like Bob Good on
the Freedom Caucus are saying it out loud. Reports suggest that guys like the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson or saying it quietly behind closed doors. The government's going to start shutting down pretty soon the first of March. There's no plan to avoid that. That could change, of course, with a full shutdown kicking in on the eighth of March. If you listen to this program, you know the score here.
Lawmakers will have only three days to manage this when they get back, and that's why folks like Jack Fitzpatrick at Bloomberg Government are scratching their head right now to figure out if there is really a path. And Jack joins us as we speak the reporting today. Jack, when you read the tip sheets, when you read the terminal, would suggest that this might be unavoidable. What's your view?
It's not unavoidable yet. I'm not curing absolute alarm bells and straight up warnings that there will be a shutdown. But there are a few really tough issues. One just being the calendar, the fact that the first four of twelve bills are due on March first and the House doesn't come back until February twenty eighth. Second, they have just struggled with a variety of issues. There's not one issue that's hold them up. But there was never an
initial agreement on how to approach policy. Riders the questions of are we going to make any major policy changes when we fund the government? The House Republicans are pushing for a ton of things they've had to send up. Usually when the subcommittee leaders who write the bills can't solve every problem. They send up problems to the full
committee leaders or even to the Speaker. They've had to send up more issues than ever before, according to Mike Simpson, who's in charge of funding the Department of the Interior as one example. So there are maybe dozens of just unsolved policy debates and not a lot of time. So it's a very challenging situation. But theoretically they can solve this, get to a handshake deal, put a bill out and vote on it in time if everybody is determined to do so.
We talked to Tom Emmer about this last week. Jackie told us on Bloomberg that the government was not going to shut down and that there would not be another cr that they were going to have a minibus approach, you know, put some bills together, try to get some fast action on the floor. If that happens, are we talking about fulfilling the rest of the fiscal year? Is this in fact a short term in the end that gets us through a month, because I know you're looking
at April thirtieth. At that point, if it's not figured out, we have an across the board budget cut that was baked in the cake months ago as part of a deal that Kevin McCarthy made, and it looks like we might actually see that happen.
Yes, so there is not much of a short term solution if they grip over their own feet over the next week or so, if they cannot meet these March first in March eighth deadlines, the House Republicans are so determined not to put forth another continuing resolution, the vote counting would be very, very difficult. You do face the threat of a one percent across the board cut if they're relying on a stop gap beyond April thirtieth, So
that adds another layer, another dimension to the negotiations. They have not figured out exactly how they're going to package these though I've asked a number of lawmakers. Is it going to be a four bill package followed by an eight bill package as the last stopgap would indicate. There's not specifically a plan on how many bills they vote on at each time, So that's another thing that they have to figure out very very quickly before holding these votes.
I got to ask you about this game of survivor that's being played in the House here as we spend time with Jack Fitzpatrick on Bloomberg Radio and on YouTube Jacked. The idea of potentially being fired is driving a lot of decision making for Speaker Johnson. And the idea is that, well, if he does a continuing resolution or maybe does a mini bus approach that members of the Freedom Caucus, maybe Marjorie Taylor Green, will trigger a motion to vacate. There
could be many different opportunities for this to happen. Enter Josh gottheimer, He's got a resolution. This is a Democrat, of course, a resolution that would essentially have new rules applied to the motion of vacate would give Democrats a chance to help protect the speaker. Is this the beginning of some grand deal that Mike Johnson might use to preserve his speakership.
There are a few reasons to think that he might need to end up relying on Democratic votes or non votes. For one, if he's trying to get a majority in a vote for Speaker, then Democrats can help him, not necessarily by voting for him, but by declining to cast
a vote, which would lower the threshold. It seems right now the biggest threat would be over the way these immigration talks and Ukraine aid have kind of melted down, and if he does do something on Ukraine Aid without a grand deal on immigration, but since there are some Centrists pushing for a vote on at least limited measures, you look to Representative Gotttheimer Ice book briefly to Representative Golden Jerry Golden from Maine, who said he wants to
talk to the Speaker about that kind of scenario. There may be democratic help depending on exactly what the deal is. There are not a ton of Democrats who want to broadcast that they would vote for a Republican or sit out vote, but it is potentially on the table.
Jack Fitzpatrick, thank you, sir, as always reporting for Bloomberg Government. Make sure to subscribe to Jack's newsletter, by the way, on budget at the Terminal and at Bloomberg dot Com. I'm Joe Matthew at World Headquarters in New York. When you consider the lack of action, I mean, I don't know if any of that made sense to you, but it does seem that we're careening toward a likely shutdown.
And even if we're not, a standoff potentially between Speaker Johnson and his own Republican conference, depending on the lever he chooses to pull here, and we want to continue the conversation with Patrick Murray's joining us from Monmouth University's Polling Institute, where he is the director of operations. Patrick, it's great to see you. We tend to ask you about presidential favorability approval ratings and the horse race on the campaign trail, which I will ask you about. But
how's Congress doing these days? We talk so much about Joe Biden's approval rating? Are we in the single digits? Where's Congress in terms of Americans' views of what they're getting done?
Yeah, well, we're getting We're not quite at the single digits, but we're getting close. Fourteen percent of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. Seventy nine percent disapprove. And while we've seen numbers that are very close to that before, that seventy nine percent number is the highest that we've seen since we started pulling nationally back in twenty thirteen. So there's a record high for congressional disapproval right now.
A record high. I guess there's always room for new records.
Here, Patrick, you think, yeah, you think we're getting pretty close to where you can't get them anymore.
But that's actually very true. When you play them against Joe Biden's approval numbers, it starts to put things in context here a little bit. America is sick of Washington, period.
Yeah, I mean, you know, Joe Biden's numbers are in the high thirties to forty percent in most polls. It was thirty eight in our poll. But Congress those numbers have just just been for the last decade, have just been bad. Even if you know, I think that we've seen them as high as thirty five, closing in on forty percent, but they have been in the twenties for most of the past decade. And that's because of you know, we were just talking about it. You know, Congress is broken.
They can't get together on big ticket items. Is that they're looking to, you know, to protect their flanks, and that trickles down. That's part of the problem that we've seen in our polling all along, is that people say they want by partisanship. We've asked them some questions about this.
They always say they want by partisanship. But in the end, I think, you know, some of these leaders know that you have to play to your your your wings, you know, the extremes of your wings if you're going to get re elected in a potentially contested primary, and that's what it seems all about. So then in the end, Congress is broken, and it's reflected in these and these poor results that we get.
Well, I'll tell you for Joe Biden, it's got to be a head scratcher for the administration. We spend so much time here talking about stronger than expected economic data recently, whether it's the job market, whether it's overall economic growth by way of GDP, whether it's prices. That's another problem here, of course, with inflation being a little hotter than expected at the beginning of this year, and you've found just a third of Americans, one third field they're benefiting from
this current economy. It's not likely. And it got a lot better between now and the election.
Patrick, And that's one of the things that I've been explained to folks over the past few years, is that this inflation factor is something that we haven't dealt with. We're basically a generation so we've asked the same question about the growing economy, and it includes a couple of things that hadn't happened during the pandemic such as by Dow Jones average and low unemployment so forth. But now
we're back to that situation. So we were asking the same question that we asked before the pandemic, and Joe Biden does a lot worse than his two predecessors on this mark. As you mentioned, thirty three percent say they're getting some benefit from this growing economy. Forty percent say
they're not getting any benefit at all. And you know, if you look at Trump and if you look at Obama, when we asked the question during their third terms, it was only about a quarter of Americans who said that they weren't getting any benefit from the growing economy then.
And I think the difference that we have with Joe Biden is that the numbers were better in past administrations because it was coming off of pretty consistent boom with just some you know, some roadblocks or roadbumps along the way. With Joe Biden, this inflation factor is significantly dick different than what his predecessors had faced. And this is the thing that keeps people some saying, yeah, the economy is booming, but I'm still paying twenty percent more from my groceries
than I did four years ago. And that's really what's holding up.
Back, even if you're making more than you were or four years ago, even if you're making more than inflation, which is really interesting to me here Patrick, this is very difficult to quantify. People want the same grocery bill they had in twenty nineteen before COVID, and talk about some tough comparisons there and this case coming out of COVID. My goodness, it's been a surge when you look at the job market and so forth. But the fact of the matter is, in many cases their wages have not
only kept up with, but topped inflation. The White House cannot seem to connect with people on this.
Yeah, this is like a key thing where they just simply cannot you know, get basically, it is just that there's that Benchmarket's that twenty nineteen grocery build benchmarket. You
can't get away from it. And even if we just talk in general about the growing economy and we ask people, how much credit does Joe Biden, you know, even if you're not getting benefit, how much credit does Joe Biden get for the fact that these other factors are doing better than they were before, And only about half will give them at least grudgingly some credit for that. So he can't even get credit for the things that are happening elsewhere in the economy.
Well, that's true. As we spend time with Patrick Murray from Monmouth University, important headline from this White House is the President has wrestled with the idea of student loan debt forgiveness, his administration announcing more than one hundred and fifty thousand borrowers will receive one point two billion dollars in student loan forgiveness under this program unveiled in January,
seeking to provide relief. Does this move the needle here or these are not the folks the president needs to worry about.
Yeah, this is really geared if you're just looking at it in terms of its political impact in a presidential election year. This is geared towards some base Democratic voters that have drifted away from Joe Biden. These are particularly lower income voters of color, black voters, Hispanic voters, because they're the ones who are impacted significantly more by that student loan debt in terms of their overall debt and their economic well being.
As you find though in your research that when it comes to helping poor families. Biden does better than Trump, but much worse than Obama.
How come?
Yeah, and I get it. It's just this simple sense that in big boom times with Obama that the rising tide raises all boats. I think was kind of kind of this sense, and it's not here. And it's interesting, you know, that student loan thing, because when we ask about student loans, majority of voters overall are against, including Democrats, are against relieving all debt because there's a sense you
entered that debt. But it's different among Black voters. It's different among Hispanic voters, and that's a core group that Biden needs to get back on his side. He still has a majority of them supporting him, but nowhere near the two thirds or more majority that he had in twenty twenty.
Patrick, we started our conversation talking about congress woeful approval ratings. If we have a shutdown, I suspect that this pulls pretty can consistently when you're looking at blame game and what people think of Congress. Would that be something Republicans should worry about?
Are both parties?
I think you know in the in the end, it's it's both parties should worry about it. The Republicans may be a little bit more because you know, we've seen this gameplay out a little bit as partisan voters get more entrenched in just supporting one side or the other. It doesn't matter to them what happens. They'll blame the other side. But there still is a core group of voters.
They're small, but they're going to be decisive in a high turnout election where a lot of these margins are going to be very thin, both for the president and the electoral College and some key states, but also for some members of Congress up for reelection where this sense that Congress is broken. Those voters are our voters who are unhappy with a focus on social issues like abortion. They want to go back to bread and butter issues. You know, what are you doing on taxes? What are
you doing on the economy? And this kind of sense that you can't even keep the government open will probably on the margins have more of a negative impact on Republicans and Democrats.
Patrick Murray, you have the best background on the show so far today. If you were with us on YouTube, you'd see my favorite Richard Nixon poster behind him there. It's great to see if Patrick come back and see us soon from Monmouth University. He's the director of the Polling Institute. A deep dive, a great clinic with Patrick here on the fastest show in politics, This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
We haven't even mentioned Ukraine and Israel war Taiwan for that matter. The Emergency Supplemental funding request Kayley that passed the Senate but does not appear to have have a path in the House. There's an incredible debate happening right now while that is on hold in Washington before the UN Security Council.
Isn't there, Yeah, there is regarding Israel and the actions it is taking in the Gaza strip the threat it poses to civilian life as we have seen civilian casualties according to the Health Ministry in Gaza that are roughly at thirty thousand.
Now.
The US yesterday vetoing a security Council resolution that would have called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. That resolution, of course is put forward by Algeria, which is the Arab member that is rotating on the Security Council currently. But the reason for the US veto this time was they have an alternative Joe, a ceasefire still but of a temporary nature.
That's exactly right, and so we'll see. Of course the US with veto power blocking this first draft. Now maybe the US version will be taken up. That's where Carmel Arbit comes in with the Atlantic Council. Carmela has been a a reliable voice for US helping to understand the contours of all of this since the war began. Senior fellow at the Atlantic Council for Middle East Programs and the Skullcroft Middle East Security Initiative. Cartmeil, thanks for being
with us well. The US version of this cease fire pass the Security Council.
I think what's really remarkable, and you noted this earlier, is that the US has really been unwavering in its support for Israel during this war. And we've seen that really from day one, where they have said Israel has a right to defend itself to take out him US, and we will stand with it. It has defended Israel at the ICJ today, and as you noted, is bringing
forth its own proposal in front of the UN. What it has sought to do is to essentially shield Israel from international community pressure to immediately pursue a permanent ceasefire. What the US is calling for instead is the release of all hostages in exchange for a temporary ceasefire. Whether or not it will pass remains to be seen.
Well, Carmeil, how telling is it to you that we are using the words the US is using the words temporary cease fire, when before it was pauses, I.
Would say, potato, potato. The truth is in practice, Really, those are.
The thing seemed.
It mattered initially.
It mattered because the rhetoric mattered to the people who were hearing it. So Israel needed to hear at the beginning of this war that the United States was going to stand behind it through a pause, and by not using the word ceasefire, they avoided joining the international community and pressuring Israel to stop its operation in Gazo or to restrain itself. The US has shifted in its rhetoric in part because as the war has gone on, the
toll has been, in fact devastating. It's been devastating for nearly thirty thousand Gozins who have been killed, and it's remained devastating for Israelis who are displaced from their homes and remain in fear so long as Hamas remains in power. Said, the US is also conscious of its own domestic constituency and the pushback that it is getting for its support for Israel, and so with that in mind, they've started to adopt language like a temporary ceasefire, mirroring calls for
a permanent ceasefire, but not actually demanding it. And so in practice the reality is the same. The question will only be that through negotiations how long a pause or a ceasefire actually lasts.
The vote in the Security Council yesterday fifteen members was thirteen to one the UK abstained Carmeil. What did the other members think of the US veto.
The United States faces a huge amount of opposition and pressure around the world, particularly among its Arab allies, for its support for Israel. That's not new to this conflict. That's something that has gone on for a long time. But the US has also shown that it is willing to stand up at the UN, to stand on its own two feet, to use its veto power at the
Security Council to assert itself as a world leader. The reality is that the international community and specifically the UN, has been ineffective to date in driving peace or progress between Israelis and Palestinians. That has been done most effectively, although with limits, between the parties themselves, through the support of negotiations and through the support of countries like the United States and other Arab allies who are bringing the countries together behind closed doors.
Well, Carmilla, as you talk about the US standing up to those at the UN, I wonder about the US standing up more so the Biden President Biden, specifically to Benjamin Netanyahu. One of our opinion columnists here at Bloomberg, Andreas Kluth, had a peace out this morning. That says, the right wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and it's seemingly indiscriminate war in the Gaza Strip, which may
yet be ruled genocidal, is leaving Biden little choice. He must distance himself if he doesn't want to sacrifice American credibility in the so called Global South forever? Is that really? What is it risk?
Here? I think that Joe Biden is dealing with a difficult dilemma in that he deeply supports Israel, the state, to the country, the cause, but she has always had challenges with Natanyapu, and we have seen that all the way through. He does not support the government itself or
many of the positions that Natanyapu has pursued. Particularly is Natagnan, who has both veered to the right with his righting government, but also is making decisions in many cases that are motivated by his own personal interests in remaining in power as he faces corruption charges. And so those tensions have always been there, and so Biden has done a really good job of differentiating between the needs of the State
of Israel and the politics of Nataniyapu. We are seeing that conflict really come into the spotlight, and I would frankly expect it to worsen as we come into the Ramadan holiday, where Natanya, who was thinking very much about his domestic political audience, and Biden is much more concerned about the safety and security of the region and the US's role.
Carmel that US proposal for the Security Council that we're talking about here warns against an Israeli assault on Rafa. We're separately seeing stories today on the terminal of the UK IS considering restricting arm sales to Israel if, in fact, Israel launches an offensive in Rafa. It appears that it's just a matter of timing here. It's a question of when, not if that occurs. Will that be a turning point in Western support for Israel.
Yeah, So the Israelis say that they have taken out about half of Hamas operatives and that Rafa really remains the one major stronghold of Hamas battalions. It's notable that Israeli operatives extracted to hostile who are being held in Rafa. This is really only the second time they've successfully done this through an operation. And so the Israelis have made clear that in order to achieve their objectives in Gaza removing Hamas from power, that they believe they must enter Rafa.
This is, as you know, deeply concerning for the international community. There are more than one and a half million Kalstinian civilians who have been displaced into Rafa, who have been pushed further to the south. Many have been displaced multiple times or living in tent encampments. If they are displaced yet again, we could be talking about only a worsened
humanitarian crisis in the region. It will cause significant tensions between Israel and the international community, and that's part of the reason that the US is trying to fold this in through a UN effort, but really also focusing on negotiations privately with the Israelis, where they have insisted that they must put forward a credible, implementable proposal for dealing with those civilians.
All right, Karmil, thank you so much as always for joining us, Carmel Arbet joining us from the Atlantic Council. And as we talk about Rafa, Joe, we did hear from Israeli Minister Benny Gance earlier today who said an operation in Rafa will begin after the population is evacuated from the area. Reiterates that if there is no hostage deal, which he does say there are signs that could move forward, the Israeli military will operate in Rafa during Ramadan.
It's fascinating stuff as we understand moment by moment what's happening over there. Kaylee will of course keep our listeners and viewers attuned to what's happening at the Security Council. The panel's next.
On Bloomberg, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
From World Headquarters in New York. Kayley is in Washington, d C. The most frequently asked question on this program, I think since the beginning of the year, Kaylee, or at least since Iowa, has been when is Nicki Haley going to drop out of the race? Pretty tough for Nicki Haley, I guess, particularly when she continues to raise gobs of money. It's a fascinating dual narrative here. We had our fundraising deadline last night. We're looking at the
numbers today, Kaylee. For the first time, she outraised Donald Trump.
Yeah, raised sixteen and a half million dollars in the month of January, which of course is when we saw her coming in third in Iowa, coming in a distant second in New Hampshire, when hopes had been higher for her performance in that state, and yet she still was able to raise that amount relative to former President Trump, who took in just eight point eight million dollars for his campaign. And of course you have to think about the money coming in versus the money going out, because
the Trump campaign spent more money than it raised. Their burn last month was eleven point four million dollars. And it speaks to a very tricky financial picture for the former president who has a lot of legal bills.
He needs right another three million dollar dollars from the leadership pack Save America just for attorney's fees in the month of January. And we're talking about trials beginning later in this calendar year, Kayley. But there were a lot of interesting narratives to come out of this. Joe Biden continues to out raise everybody.
Forty two million dollars in January. He's sitting on a pretty pile of one hundred and thirty million dollars. I guess the question is how well can you put that to loose use in a general election campaign when right now you are lagging behind Trump in most polls, especially
in swing states. So on that note, let's get to our political panel joining us now with me here in Washington, Genie Shanzano, our Bloomberg Politics contributor, and with Joe and New York Chape and Fay Act a managing director and Republican strategist. So Genie, just to start with you, we often talk about how Trump is just a different kind of candidate. He gets all of this free earned media going in and out of court. Yes, may cost him money in attorney's fees, but it also gets him airtime
because all the networks are covering it. To what extent is traditional camp financing matter to a candidate like him.
You know, it has been so fascinating to watch Donald Trump. I was just thinking back to twenty sixteen when I would say, you know, sort of naive things like Hillary Clinton likely has the upper hand because she raised famously over one billion dollars. But Donald Trump obviously won, and he won pretty handily in the electoral college, and part
of that was because of this earned media. And he is such a master at getting that earned media in a way other politicians like Hillary Clinton, like Joe Biden have not been as proficient as so he can still do that and certainly these court cases will help. But as you were, just talking to Joe about the burn rate is tremendous. I'm thinking, you know, you're reporting he spent how much on legal fees in three million in January and the court case is that barely kicked in.
Imagine as we get into March and then April and May, so he's gonna have hefty bills. The burn rate's gonna be higher. But nobody is more masterful than Donald Trump at getting that free media. So that is going to be important. And that's why Joe Biden, this juggernaut that he is, a fundraising has got to use the time now to fundraise big and they are doing.
That, they sure are. I'm going to put a finer point on what Kaylee was mentioning Chapin in terms of Donald Trump, the exception to every rule. He's not even been on the air in South Carolina. He's about to win the primary by twenty to thirty points against the hometown candidate here, and so I wonder is fundraising actually a mechanism for him to pay legal fees as opposed to pay for the campaign, the advertising and all the
traditional stuff. Because if he's the king of earned media, what does it matter?
Well, he is the ultimate disruptor in politics, right, I mean, he turns every rule on its head. You know, it cuts both ways. The you know, his name recognition has got to be close to one hundred percent, so electorally, the people who have not made up their minds yet about the two candidates or the presumably two candidates, that that group is shrinking, I think by and he does have a lot of legal jeopardy going on, and that
is what is eating up all of his fundraising. But his base is so behind him, you know, forcefully behind him, that he can raise those small dollar donors fairly easily. I'd be curious to see the breakdown between Nicki Haley's and Donald Trump's you know, small dollar grassroots donations. And the other thing I would I would just point I would make about the fundraising is as the non Trump candidates sort of got whittled down to one, you know,
it was that they're voters. The money all of that was always going to coal us or likely call us around one person, which is what Nickki Haley is benefiting from right now. The problem numbers wise for her is that he got more than everyone else combined, you know, and all the polls and all the all the and now that we're seeing election results, so so you know, query whether she can make a dent electorally, but certainly she'll have the funds to keep going because there are
a lot of people who just HiT's so polarized. You either love Donald Trump where you don't or you don't, right, and she's taking getting all the money.
I'd like to ask you about the fact that she's getting money. This is Bloomberg. We talk about investments here. Typically people don't like to put good money after bad investments. There is no poll in which Nikki Haley shows that she can beat Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee. There's no clear path. What does it say that people are still throwing a ton of money at her as she tries and ultimately very likely will fail.
That's a great question, you know. I always like to say in campaign finance and fundraising for clients that you know it's an investment, right, you have to prove to the donor why they should invest in you. I think it's a little different than that on the political side.
People are ideological. People give because they're emotional. The limits, the federal limits are such that you know you can't be giving fifty thousand dollars one candidate through you know, the traditional campaign apparatus, So that tampers that down a little bit. And listen, you know, politics is about on Campaigns are about putting yourself in the best possible position to capitalize on opportunity. So that's what's happen happening right.
Who knows if President Trump will be in jail or not right or who knows, you know, what his ability to run after you know, he goes through this legal process will be. So that's sort of what all the Republicans earlier in this race we're planning on, right, be in the best possible position when whatever happens happens. Right, general election is in November, still a lifetime away. There's still you know, questions as to who the candidates are going to be. I don't know if they're real questions,
but there's still questions. So I think there's plenty of time for something. You know, I don't know what that crazy thing would happen, because around President Trump, crazy things always happened. But to preclude him from being the nominee, who knows, you know, and you know she'll run into the convention. You know hope, you know, she's hoping she'll run strong and have the money in this important see what happens.
I don't know, Genie. We haven't seen the money from the shoes yet, the gold sneakers, that's still pre order money. And I'm just the jury's out until this happens. But we're playing the deepstakes today after Donald Trump held a town hall on Fox last evening. They are all very familiar names, and I wonder if any of them might move the needle for you, whether it's Ramaswami, Tim Scott somehow. Ron de Santis is on this list. I don't think
we're going there Byron. Donald's also Florida Governor Christy Nome and Tulsei Gabbert both on this so called short list, Genie, is he gaslighting us? Or is this the actual list? Will it be one of these?
Yeah?
I trust him completely. Joe Matthew never to gaslight anyone. And I'm going to get you and Kayley those sneakers as soon as this pre order session is over. A little money, it's a lot of money, but it's you guys are worth it, you know, I think you know there's there were the name I think that stuck out to most of us on the list from last night
was Tulsi Gabbert. But you know, as you think about it, you know, I like to follow what's going on in the right wing, and she has been somebody who has been turning up at Turning Point USA, and she is somebody who is attractive to people on his side. So when you think of it from that perspective, it's not
that surprising. But I think in the end, if you go back to what he did with Mike Pence, the reality is he's gonna want somebody who brings something to the table like the evangelicals, and who does not steal his thunder and the earned media. And so I think those two things combined. You know, perhaps we aren't seeing the complete list yet, and we will, that'll be forthcoming.
But it's gonna be fun because this looks like it may be a very long general election, so we may have a lot of time to think about the veepsteaks.
Indeed, can't wait. Gonna be very very exciting. Chap And I want to ask you though about something else that Trump said in that town hall on Fox last night. He was talking about all the legal issues he's facing, including that ruling that came down in New York that he has to pay well over three hundred perhaps over four hundred million dollars in that civil suit related to the Trump organization. He compared that to what happened to Alexi Navalney, who died in Russia in a prison in
the Arctic last week. He said, it is a form of Navalney, it is a form of communism or fascism. Who is buying that argument that these things are in any way comparable.
Well, first of all, as supporters, the people who support Donald Trump, you know, believe the things that he says.
What I would say about some of the things Trump says is he you know, he has his style, and the way he says things tends people tend to grasp onto the way he says things, and you know, talk about how awful it is when the point that he's trying to make is about you know, political opponents coming after they're using the courts and the court system and and sort of trying to use every method other than the ballot box to defeat their opponents, which is what
he feels like is happening to him and his supporters certainly feel like it's happening to him, and even non Trump Republicans are very uncomfortable with the way things seem to be going down. You know, the Attorney General of New York said she was going to find a crime to prosecute him for right. That's not how prosecutors in this country are supposed to conduct themselves. So it makes people wonder what exactly is going on. So to answer your point, I think the people, you know, he needs
to keep his people motivated. Saying stuff like that will keep it motivated. And to I forgot who made the point earlier. I think it was Genie about his just mastery of earned media. Saying things like that gets him right back in the news, gets him right back to the top of the top of the hour on every single show, gets his supporters all up and angry. He probably can raise money off of it, so there is a method to his madness. Do we like what he says all the time? No, of course we don't. But
oh hope that answered your question a little bit. That's that's fill about there.
It is quite a line. When asked about the you know, the fine from his New York business fraud case, he said quote. It is a form of Navonniquote with our panel, great conversation, shape and faith. Thank you for being with us here in New York. Genie Shanzino in Washington, DC, you're.
Listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say playing Bloomberg eleven.
Kaylee Lines and Joe Matthew on Bloomberg TV and Radio live from both Washington where I am and New York where Joe Matthew is today and as Charlie was just checking the markets though, I'm doing my hourly scroll of my ex feed and you know what caught my attention
yesterday on X Joe. It was a post from Stephen Chung, who's a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, responding to what Nikki Haley said in her State of the Race speech in South Carolina yesterday, in which she said she feels no need to kiss the ring, the ring being Trump's,
she has no fear of Trump's retribution. He said She's going to drop down to kiss ass when she quits, like she always does, to which her campaign manager, Betsy Anthony responded, what a move, Stephen Chung is key to winning back suburban women, Joe.
Pretty remarkable language to see this thrown around in a public space like that, Kaylee. But you know, it does kind of fulfill a theme, or at least underscore a theme of this campaign, whether it's misogynistic comments from Donald Trump about women or just the fight for suburban women. Going back all the way before the Roe decision, it was Trump himself who said that that would be stupid that we will lose suburban women in there for the election.
And based on some of the elections that we have seen, including the mid terms, he might have been onto something.
Yeah, and we'll see how potent of force it still is come November of this year, when women especially go back to their voting booth. So we wanted to dig more into this subject. Joining us now and pleased to say as Jane Hall, she's American University Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies. Jane, great to have you on the program as we look ahead just four days from now, not even getting to November, but to South Carolina, the primary in which Trump and Nikki Haley are competing just
a few days from now. The Suffolk University USA Today poll on that race, released yesterday showed forty percent of women said they would support Haley. Fifty eight percent said they would support Trump. So does he really have a problem with female voters or maybe just not one in South Carolina?
He has got a problem with female voters. And I am so glad you all are talking about this today. You know, she is staying in the race against a barrage of hate, hateful statements that unfortunately, Trump has a history of attacking her husband's military service, attacking her as an impostor because he said she went up there in her fancy dress at New Hampshire and there are all these men frankly behind her, Tim Scott, Vivik Pramaswami laughing,
and there's laughter in the audience. And if you're a woman watching that, I do not think that that is what you want to see in somebody you're going to vote for for president. I think she's playing the long game. As your previous guest said, we don't know what it's going to look like in November. She is saying to the media, also, why do you keep asking me? And I think this is a really good point. I'm a student of media coverage. I've written a lot about this.
Why do you keep asking me when I'm getting out? Why don't you ask whether he's going to win the general election? Now she may not win, but I have to say that this kind of attitude towards women gets women out to vote. I mean, after twenty sixteen, we had the second year of the Woman, when women voted to bring many more women into Congress. After Trump won in twenty sixteen, the gender gap, as you all know well,
between women voters for the Democrats is very high. Now Trump is Trump, you know, has cut into Latino voters in some ways. I mean, we'll have to see how this all plays out, but I think that people may be selling Nikki Haley short. You know, she will probably lose in South Carolina, but I don't think that that should be interpreted as she should get out or frankly, whether she might not ultimately either be positions herself for
a soubsequent presidential or she might even get votes. I mean, I know a lot of young women who might vote for her because they see what quit kind of barrage she's taking.
Well, Jane, what do you think of the way she's handling it? Because Nikki Haley has begun referring to the fellas, and this has been part of her narrative the past couple of weeks. I got rid of all the fellas. I'm just down to the last one, she says. She's made it a point of humor. She's been self deprecating in talking about this. Is that the right approach?
I think?
So?
You know, I think she's I have to say, just speaking personally, I think she's handling this very well. You know, she got choked up talking about how he attacked her husband's military deployment, but largely dealing with this as she's kind of cutting him down to size, I think in a way and other men by saying, you know, I am going to push back, I am not going to respond. I mean, women always have a hard time with this kind of stuff if they get too emotional. They're too emotional.
So to say the fellas, to say, you know, to kind of laugh at him, I think is part of what's driving him crazy. I'm not speaking to him, but I would be willing to bet that the fact that she's not getting out when all these other people have gotten out who condemned him. I mean, she's playing it, I think very wisely. The only way probably that she can play it is to say, oh, come on, you know, you all know that this is ridiculous what he's saying.
She could be responding and saying he's racist and sexist, but I think it's wiser to probably say, you know, I'm not going to respond that way. I'm going to say, hey, isn't he ridiculous? That's what I personally think is what's going on with her.
What about her handling of the abortion issue in particular. She has said repeatedly that presidential candidates need to be honest with the American people about what could get sixty voter in the Senate. But what that essentially has been is her not actually committing to any week at which she thinks abortion should be banned, not taking a firm stance on this very critical, as we have seen in the midterms, reproductive issue that's on the minds of voters
when they head to the polls. Is her lack of taking a firm stance on the abortion issue, something that's likely to actually hurt her with the women who may be more likely to pick her over Trump and yet may not like what they see on that.
Well, you know, I think that's a really good point she has. You know, Trump tried to make the quote unquote practical case too, but he is the person who put three support Spreme Court justices. A lot of people think on there to overturn Rugby Wade. She is, I think, what you know, if you look at her stance, if she were to become the nominee, she would have to be more clear about what her stance is, you know,
and I don't believe that. I mean, I think that would be tricky because there are a lot of people who've voted for Donald Trump in part because he you know, of his stance and evangelical voters. So so her not stating it specifically, I think is wise. But she's if she were to get more into into this, she would have to say is she for a band? What does she really mean about this? Now, she's sort of making
the practical case a band would never pass. That's okay for now, but I think you're right, she would have to speak more specifically about what does she really believe about this, and she hasn't said that she opposes the overturn of Roe v. Wade as far as I know.
Yeah, and she consistently says that she is pro life, so of course we keep that in mind as well. Jane, thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate
your insight on this topic. Gene Hall, American University Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies and also author of Politics and the Media, Intersections and New Directions, and interesting to have the abortion conversation with her, in particular, especially in light of yesterday's ruling in Alabama, the Supreme Court there ruling that frozen embryos should be treated as children, raises a lot of questions about the future of IVF
treatments that Something will continue to cover for you right here on 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.