Latest / Bloomberg Intelligence / The Chemicals in America's Drinking Water Are A Crisis

Transcript

The Chemicals in America's Drinking Water Are A Crisis · Bloomberg Intelligence

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: that Bloomberg dot com. Do you feel good about yourself
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: because you're drinking water instead of soda? Be wary of
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: that water? Are joining us now? Is that? Seek all?
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: He is author and active as member of the Council
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: of Foreign Relations. Do what I guess here at our
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: interactive broker studio is he is the author of a
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: new book, Troubled Water, What's Wrong with What We Drink?
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about the book and
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: about the sort of larger concept here. And you said
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: right before we went on air, I'm not here to
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: scare anybody. And yet when I was reading through your materials, Uh,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: it's a little bit unnerving to think that a lot
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: of the water that people drink, it's not just flint Michigan,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: is contaminated. It's correct almost everywhere in America, there are
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: contaminants in our drinking water, and this is probably the
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: largest unspoken of public health threat or menace in the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: United States. There's a large number of different chemicals that
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: get into our systems through our drinking water that are
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: having unknown effects on our bodies, on our endocrin systems,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: as the technical phrase that affects growth, attention, spans, sexual interest, fertility,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: as well as the possibility of cancer. Some of those
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: things are already proven scientifically and some are now in
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: the process of being investigated. But I would argue that
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: not being investigated aggressively enough by the e p A
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: an organization that whether it's a Democratic or Republican president
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: or Congress, is unfortunately inactive. We're not active enough in
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: pursuing what we need to have pursued to get the
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: best health profile for all Americans. All Right, So if
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: you don't have the best water, what needs to change
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: within the US to improve the quality of our water. Well,
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: first of all, there aren't nearly There are about a
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: hundred thousand chemicals that are in commerce in the United States,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: maybe even more, and you would think that the would
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: be under some type of investigation or regulation by the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: PA because some significant percentage of them get into our
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: drinking water and some percentage of those have effect on
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: our health. But of that hundred thousand chemicals that are
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: in commerce the United States, sounds hard to believe this,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: but it's true, only seventy seven zero are being regulated
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: by the e p A for drinking water purposes. And
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: as shocking as that low number is, even more shocking
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: given how much chemicals is used in daily life in America.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Even more shocking is the fact that the last time
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the e p A regulated any chemical whatsoever or any
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: contaminant whatsoever, was twenty three years ago. They have been
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: inactive for generation and longer, and that is putting our
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: health at risk. Is there any map of where we
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: can and can drink water? Well, tell me who you
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: live and I'll let you know. Okay, I'll give you
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: my address after this. Seriously, it's anyone tracking or sort
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: of trying to do this scientifically. Well. Actually, there's an
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: organization called the Environmental Working Group where on their website
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: you can punch in your zip code and they can
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: tell you, under the federally filed documents by each hility,
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: what contaminants have been found in that ZIP codes water.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Whether or not that's particularly to your particular tap, Lisa,
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: I can't say for sure, but invite me over for
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: lunch and I'll bring my testing you. All right, So,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: water filtration plans, I thought that was the answer. Yeah,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: you would think so. The problem the problem POLL is
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: that both on the wastewater side and on the water filtration,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: which is the where they distribute the water to our
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: homes from, on both sides, we're using technologies that are
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: about a hundred or more years old. And although in
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: the interim places have been rebuilt and they're pretty and
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: they're nice parking lots and beautiful reception areas, the truth
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: is that the technology is being used never grew up
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: along with the time that America became what will call
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: highly medicalized society, where now one of where seventy of
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: all Americans twelve and overtake at least one pharmaceutical product
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: to day. Um people people about Americans twelve and overtake
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: five or more prescription pills a day, and that all
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: gets into our water a stream. On the inbound side,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: we still do we did a hundred plus years ago
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: to get rid of cholera and dysentery and typhoid fever.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: We put a dot of chlorine or chlorine like product
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: in it to to cleanse the water, but we don't
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: do anything to remove from that water these pharmaceutical residues
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: and other chemicals that have found their way into our
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: water stream, such that I'll give one example of many
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: that are in my book Troubled Water, of just one.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: A scientist, independent scientists, with no act to grind, went
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: ahead in the Great Lakes vast amount of water so
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: be diluted like crazy would think. She tested fish and
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: all five of the Great Lakes, and in all five
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: of the Great Lakes she found in their brains and
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: in their organs and their muscle, she found residues of
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: of all kinds of psychiatric medicines like solof and Selexa
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: and fourteen other medications. Now, if that's going there, that
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: water is then being sent back to our homes for
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: us to drink, and we are getting that dosage is
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: back in micro quantities, and we're getting that in magnified amounts.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Also for eating the fish. I'm just trying. I'm going
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: through the sub extrapolation getting increasingly concerned. I'm just wondering,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: you know, how normal is this with other countries as well?
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, is there just sort of this problem globally
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: or is the US particularly bad. The more the more industrialized,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the more industrialized society is, the more likely you are
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: to have these problems. Now, there are some countries, UH,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: particularly Israel and Singapore that have very aggressive systems for
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: purifying their water for reasons unrelated to UH necessarily health reasons,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: but really for water scarcity reasons. They have a reason
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: to do this. And there are some parts of the
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: United States, and I talked about in a chapter Orange County, California,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: which has made a decision to basically ignore the e
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: p A guidelines, go way above it, and they demonstrate
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: the fact that using known technologies at very reasonable prices,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: you can have the safest drinking water possible you can
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: of pure water. All you would think that if they
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: had Zoloft in the water, Prozac or something, everybody'd be
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: a little b happier a little bit exactly. So it's
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: seth So private versus public water utilities tell us the
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: compare and contrast there. Okay, So, so this was a
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: piece that I wrote the other day for The Wall
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: Street Journal, and I wanna I wanna highlight something that
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: is a completely unknown fact in American life. Even when
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: I talk to members of Congress and senators, they have
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: no idea. This is the case. You would think, rationally speaking,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: fifty states, maybe every state should have at least one
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: water utility, maybe two, maybe three. So maybe there should
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: be three hundred, four hundred, maybe five. What are utilities?
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: United States? Tops? Even though you could say that one
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: utility could cover several states, we have in the United
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: States over fifty thousand what are utilities? One county, Los
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Angeles County has two hundred separate water utilities. These are
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: very tiny. They have no ability to have the financial
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: well wherewithal in order to get the financing that they
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: need to make sure that they can hire up to
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: date up that they can buy up to date technologies,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: hire the most advanced scientists and engineers, and also fix
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: their broken infrastructure. Because this is crazy, just real quick, here,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: who has the interest of keeping all of these smaller
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: util it is open the utilities, okay, so, but no
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: one in the public, Lisa, nobody in the public should
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: for a second think that this is a good idea,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: and it isn't a good idea. That's why one of
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: the main thrust of my book talking about public health
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: and water is to say that four big takeaways from
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: my book, one of which is we must consolidate our
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: drinking water utilities. And by the way, a second point
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: that I made in the Journal article is that it
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: turns out that about fift of American utilities are in
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: private hands, which is invest your own hands, whether they're
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: public companies or private companies. Remarkably, digging deep into e
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: p A health data, which a couple of professors have done,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: you you learned something remarkable, which is that although you
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: would think that public utilities have the public's interests in mind,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: actually there's a much higher incidence of contaminated water in
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: public utilities. And the reason for that is because mayors
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: want to keep the price of water low and therefore
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: they don't get the outcomes you want. Set Segal, thanks
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: so much for joining fascinating thing discussion. Set single activist, author,
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: member of the Council Foreign Relations, author of Troubled Water,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: What's Wrong with What We Drink? That's coming October one,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: and also author of Let there Be Water Israel Solution
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: for water star starved world. I am very interested in that.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: Tom Freedom of New York Times op ed today on
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: that topic, using the work of Seth. Very interesting. Time
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: to check in with Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by Pining
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: columnist Eric Outunus. He's a senior et F analysts for
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence and Eric, when you come in here, typically
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: we talk about what new cool et F. Vanguard is
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: launching a little bit different twists. Today Now they're talking
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: about getting into the private equity business. What's going on
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: one of our favorite ETF issuer. Yeah. I mean, anytime
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: you hear Vanguard getting into something, most people shutter, especially
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: if you're in that business. But I would say, if
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: you're in private equity, don't worry so much. This is
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: really aimed at the advisory business, wealth management. This is Vanguard.
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: That's what they want to disrupt here. So if you
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: are an advisor and you want to get bigger clients,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: institutional clients, you need private equity. So this is just
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: to sort of round out their other offerings. It's right
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: in the press release. It says here part of an
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: ongoing effort to further expand the suite of products to
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: our advisory clients, and Tim Buckley said back in March
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: of last year, we have been really he's the CEO,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: He's the CEO of Vanguard. To me, this quote is
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: really who should be on alert here. We have been
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: really pleased with the price competition we have introduced in
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: the mutual fund sphere. We liked that we have had
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: that much of an impact that the area that really
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: needs to come down in price is advice. Okay, this
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: is this is really a compelling point because my first
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: initial uh take on this was this is where the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: fees are private equity, and so of course Vanguard's gonna
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: want to get into private equity, but it's being submanaged
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: by somebody else. This isn't necessarily them building out their
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: own private equity capacity within the house. This is more
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: about what are saying, which is to have a bigger
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: suite of offerings to institutions. Is that is that the
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: right read of this? Yeah, I'm gonna bet there's no
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: uh that. There was nothing in the press release about
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the what the cost would be, But I'm gonna bet
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: it's going to be on the cheaper side for a
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: private equity fund, probably on the expensive side. If you're
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: talking et F prices, but Vanguard is not going to
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: do anything that's like, you know, too controlled price wise.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: So then granted, the big loser here is the advisory business.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: But does this also start to put pressure on private
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: equity fees in a way that we really haven't seen
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: until now. It can, and you know, you cannot underestimate Vanguard.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: I was looking at the flows this year. Vanguard takes
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: in more than everybody every year, but this year what's
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: interesting is Fidelity, black Rock, Schwab, they're all starting to
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: catch up to Vanguard. But the reason they're catching up
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: is because they've all just copied Vanguard and they offer
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: dirt cheap beta. So in a way, Vanguard is responsible
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: for the whole enchilada. Now, if they get into private
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: equity and they see clients, maybe come over and work
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: with them, possible, But I see the price pressure in
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: private equity and it talked to Paul Goldberg RP Analysts
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: and he's very adamant about this as well. That's not
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: gonna come for a while. We think medium long term
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: at best. But right now their advisory business is up
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: to a hundred and sixty one billion, and it basically
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: is only a couple of years old, so that's a
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: fast growth for that business. And remember they have all
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: these fund investors who grew up with them and now
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: have more complicated life matters. So they've got this natural
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: pool of money coming in that they're gonna offer advice on.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: And their fees are low. The highest fee you can
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: pay is thirty basis points, but if you have over
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: twenty five million, they charge you five. Wow, it's just extraordinary.
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: So who are going to be initially kind of the
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: customers for this private equities I wouldn't think it would
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: be appropriate for every you know, individual investor for example, Uh, institutions, right,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: so you're gonna have to be qualified. So here, I mean,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: here's the quote from the Pressure least many institutional clients
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: seek alpha sources not readily available in the public markets.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: This also speaks to a bigger issue, which is, Uh,
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: the private equity markets are growing, public equity markets not
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: growing as much, and some people estimating that regular fund
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: companies are going to have to get into private equity
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: to keep up at the times. So who are the
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: big advisory firms that should be onnotice? I'd say, well,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: all the big ones Meryl ubs uh. And then also
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: I think r A is to a degree. I think
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: the r A business. If you are a specialist and
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: your local probably fine. But anyone in the middle middle level,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: we're bigger. I think that's who Vanguard typically takes out
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: the big guys. How does Vanguard lower the advisory fees here?
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: What's their secret sauce? Well, the secret sauce is the
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: mutual ownership structure. They're basically designed like a co op,
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: so their investors are vanguards, not a public company. That's
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: why not much is known about it. But it's rest
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: as Mounvern Pennsylvania private company there. They keep such a
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: low profile and yet six point two trillion assets under management. Yeah,
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: every time they get new profit in they instead of
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: you know, doing things with that money, they typically vote
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: because the fund investors are the shareholders, so of course
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: they're going to vote to lower the fees. So for
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: fifties some years they've been lowering the fees on funds,
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: and I'd like to say they they were lowering fees
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: before it was cool. Now everybody wants to do it.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: They're already at ten bibs everywhere, so in their mind,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: I think they are much more playing a different game.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: They're not looking for profits, They're looking to just lower
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: costs for investors everywhere. So if Fidelity gets UH flows
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: offering index mutual funds for two basis points, I think
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: Vanguard takes that as a win for them, And I
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: think if they can maybe have an effect on private equity,
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: they'll probably take that as a win as well. But
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: I think ultimately, right now their purpose is to build
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: out this advisory business called the Personal Advisory Service p
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: AS probably the three scariest letters if you're an advisor
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: right now. Yeah, p AS, Eric Valcinez, thank you so
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: much for being with us of Bloomberg Intelligence r et
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: F grew here. It is a busy time down in Washington,
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: d C. What with the State of the Union address
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: last night by the president, impeachment wrapping up today in
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: the Senate UH, and then the Democratic presidential race well underway.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: Let's get the latest returned to Lonnie Chen. Lonnie is
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: a David and Diane Stephie research Fellow WHOEVER Institution, also
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: a director of Domestic Public Studies and a lecture in
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: the Public Policy program at Stanford University. Based in Stanford,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: Lonnie Thanks so much for joining us. Let's start with
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: the State of the Union address last night. What are
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: your key takeaways? Well, you know, I thought that the
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: speech was effective, as you know, the president's sort of
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: campaign kickoff in earnest. You know, obviously the President has
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: been running for re election, but the speech last night
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: was an opportunity for him to articulate what he believes
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: the accomplishments of his administration has been. And if you
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: look at the policy he discussed, a lot of it
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: was aims squarely at the base of the Republican Party,
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: really trying to animate and turn out those voters, which
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: is going to be key to the success of his
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: reelection campaign. So you saw themes like immigration, cultural issues
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: like abortion. These are issues obviously that aren't necessarily aimed
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: at swing voters or independent voters, are aimed at Republicans
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: and getting that vote out is going to be critical.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: So I thought as a re election campaign speech, the
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: President did what he needed to do. Uh And and
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: now I think it's up to Democrats to define their
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: race and pick a nominee. Lonny, You're an incredible guest
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: for us to have today. I'm very glad you're here.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: Given the fact that you've advised the Romney and Rubio
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: Republican presidential campaigns, and you've seen the way that the
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: sausage is made in a lot of ways. I'm wondering,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: especially as some of the polls come out, the Gallop
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: one in particular, showing President Trump with a record high
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: approval rating, the bifurcation right now, the sort of dispersion
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: between the Republicans and the Democrats becoming increasingly sort of
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: excuse me, a hard line in their approaches. And I'm wondering,
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: from your perspective, do we have a sense of whether
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is getting bigger
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: in terms of representing overall population in the country. Yeah,
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: that's a really good question. I think the Republican Party,
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: by and large, the base has consolidated in the Republican Party.
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: And what I don't think you're seeing necessarily a whole
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: lot of people affiliating with the Republican Party now. I
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: think what you are seeing is a lot of people
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: who have decided that they'll support President Trump regardless of
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: the partisan label. Uh. You know, we oftentimes talk about,
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: for example, Midwestern voters in states like Iowa and Michigan
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: that voted for President Obama twice, but in voted for
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: President Trump. I don't know they would consider themselves Republicans
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: or Democrats. I think they might consider themselves Trump voters
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: first and foremost on the Democratic party side. I don't
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: see their share of the electorate growing, unless you're talking
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: about again, because solidating their support in coastal and urban areas.
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: So I think what's happening is increasingly a phenomenon where
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: voters are are trying to say that they're independent, and
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: we have to really dissect what independent means. That mean
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: that they're truly independent in the sense that they could
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: vote for a Republican or a Democrat, or does it
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: mean that they're independent in a more traditional sense, which
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: is that they lean one way or the other and
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: are inclined to vote for a Democratic Republican. I tend
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: to think we're in an era where people are are
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: dealigning themselves from political parties, and what that means is
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: opportunity for politicians like Trump who are a little bit
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: out of the box, a little bit Lonnie. So the
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: impeachment process wrapping up today, officially at least within the Senate,
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: what do you think, if anything, the lasting impact will
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: be on President Trump, particularly as he heads into reelection mode. Yeah,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: I've been saying for a while, I think that this
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: impeachment saga is going to be a distant memory by
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: the time we get to October and the fall campaign
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: leading into the November elections. I really think that, you know,
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: while it's dominating the news now, I think by and large,
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: voters are going to be concerned about a whole different
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: set of other issues, not not impeachment, by the time
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: they go to cast their votes. I think the pocketbook issues,
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: jobs in the economy, healthcare, those are going to be
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: the important ones that voters are going to turn to.
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: So I know the the impeachment saga is difficult to
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: to not cover, but the reality is that for most
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: voters this is not going to be an issue that
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: they particularly care about. Lonnie, Since you've advised both the
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: Marco Rubio and Romney campaigns, both of those individuals have
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: come out against President Trump throughout his presidency, certainly early
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: on and before he became presidents have their views changed?
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: I mean sort of among moderate Republicans, are they are
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: they more supportive of President Trump now? Well, I think
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Senator Rubio has has been, you know, pretty supportive, particularly
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: over the last couple of months or so. I think
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: he's been supportive on policy. I think with respect of
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: this impeachment debate, it's been pretty clear. He's been pretty forceful,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: I think, in arguing that he doesn't believe this is
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: a removable offense. And he also, you may recall, voted
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: against trying to hear from additional witnesses. So I think
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: he's been fairly conventional. He has spoken out against the
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: president a few times on on some foreign policy issues,
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: but by and large, I think he's been he's been
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: pretty consistent in supporting the president. Senator Romney, I think,
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: has been in a slightly different position, and he's obviously
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: been seen as more of a maverick. I think that
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: reflects the fact, first of all, that, um, you know,
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Senator Romney has been somebody who comes politically from a
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: different kind of constituency. He's got got some more political safety,
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: one would argue, than Senator Rubio does in Florida, which
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: is a swing in your state. And I do think
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: that Senator Romney is a different phase of his career.
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: Quite frankly, Um, you know, he's been the nominee the
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: Republican Party, he's been somebody who's been an elder statesman
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: in the Republican Party for a while. Um, I think
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: he's had the latitude in the freedom to frankly speak
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: his mind or but this is this is a this
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: is a compelling point. He's more in a position to
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: speak his mind. Do other Republicans feel similarly to him
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: when they're not speaking in public? Yeah, Well that's the
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: that's the key, uh modifier there, lisays when they're not
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: in public. I think a lot of Republicans privately, are
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: are you not happy with the president's behavior on the
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: Ukraine situation? They would say that privately, but publicly they haven't.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: They haven't stood out and said that because they fear
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: the repercussions and or they believe that the way the
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: Republican Party is now, there would be electoral consequences to
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: speaking out against presidents. So yeah, there definitely is this
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: dichotomy between private and public. Lonnie, just real quickly thirty seconds.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: How do you handicap the democratic field? We had that
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: Debacco in the Iowa caucus is just right now? How
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: do you handicap that field? I think it's going to
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: consolidate to you know, one progressive and one moderate. I
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: see probably Bernie standards as the inside track on the
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: progressive side. On the moderate side, it's tough to tell.
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: Pete Bota did well in Iowa, but it remains to
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: be seen if he can win in diverse states. And
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: I think the biggest beneficiary from last night might actually
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: be Mike Bloomberg because of the opportunity he has going
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: forward to compete and really the only person with the
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: resources to compete once we get the Super Tuesday, which
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: is a big hall of delegates, which is at the
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: end of the day, what matters. Lonnie Chen, thank you
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: so much for being with us. Lonnie Chen is the
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: David and Diane Stephy Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: also Director of Domestic Policy Studies and lecturer in the
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: Public Policy Program at Stanford University. We should say Mike
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP,
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: which owns this radio station. Just as a disclaimer, and
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: we will continue to follow what happens with respect to
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: the ongoing elections. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pen
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney and Lisa Brahm Woyd's
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: I'm a Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio h