Latest / Balance of Power / Trump Says US Has Canada Trade Deal

Transcript

Trump Says US Has Canada Trade Deal · Balance of Power

0:02
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
0:10
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ketch us live weekdays at
0:13
Speaker 1: noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
0:17
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
0:20
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
0:25
Speaker 2: Here in Washington, but on Wall Street as well. We're
0:27
Speaker 2: all waiting to see if we do get final word
0:30
Speaker 2: from the White House or from Canadian officials that they
0:32
Speaker 2: have inked a trade agreement to avert higher tariffs going
0:35
Speaker 2: into place on billions of dollars of Canadian goods. Remember,
0:38
Speaker 2: the President punted the deadline by three days that was
0:41
Speaker 2: supposed to happen earlier this week, but talks were going well.
0:44
Speaker 2: He allowed for an extension. The new expiration is at midnight.
0:48
Speaker 2: Of course, we could always see it punted again, that
0:50
Speaker 2: isn't unusual in this administration, or we may see the
0:53
Speaker 2: announcement of a final agreement.
0:56
Speaker 3: Stay tuned.
0:56
Speaker 2: The announcement we got from President Trump instead had nothing
0:59
Speaker 2: to do with Canadian tariffs this morning. It had everything
1:01
Speaker 2: to do with tariffs on ground beef. As the President
1:04
Speaker 2: took to True Social to write, I concluded a deal
1:06
Speaker 2: to substantially lower the price of ground beef for working
1:09
Speaker 2: American families. He says that for the next ninety days,
1:13
Speaker 2: the United States will allow up to three hundred thousand
1:15
Speaker 2: metric tons of products for ground beef to be imported
1:18
Speaker 2: with no out of quote of tariff. We have a
1:20
Speaker 2: commitment that this beef will be sold at a twenty
1:22
Speaker 2: five percent below current market at twenty five percent below
1:26
Speaker 2: current market prices. So let's get more now on this
1:30
Speaker 2: from Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall, who is live at the White House,
1:34
Speaker 2: and Tyler, there's perhaps an attempt to solve one political
1:37
Speaker 2: issue here higher prices at the grocery store, but could
1:41
Speaker 2: it create another political issue for the president and make
1:43
Speaker 2: American ranchers a bit upset.
1:46
Speaker 4: That's a really good point, Kaylee, considering that we've heard
1:48
Speaker 4: the President talk a lot about speaking to those farmers
1:51
Speaker 4: that have supported him in terms of the Canadian trade deal,
1:54
Speaker 4: as the US is trying to perhaps bring down some
1:57
Speaker 4: trade barriers when it comes to certain agri cultural and
2:00
Speaker 4: dairy products. In that discussion, we can get there and
2:03
Speaker 4: get to the Canada talks.
2:04
Speaker 3: But in terms of this beef movement, action.
2:09
Speaker 4: A White House official does tell us that President Trump
2:11
Speaker 4: is expected to sign an executive order related to this
2:14
Speaker 4: in the next one or two weeks. And essentially the
2:17
Speaker 4: deal here is that foreign importers of beef have agreed
2:22
Speaker 4: that they will import their beef teriff free, but they
2:26
Speaker 4: have to sell it at that lower twenty five percent
2:29
Speaker 4: rate compared to two market prices.
2:31
Speaker 5: We'll see how much ben.
2:32
Speaker 4: Impact it will ultimately have moving forward. To get indications
2:37
Speaker 4: earlier this month, and American consumers were starting to push
2:40
Speaker 4: back when it comes to higher prices of beef. Actually
2:43
Speaker 4: an area in the economy where Americans have been bearing
2:46
Speaker 4: the brunt of that cost but haven't really been changing
2:49
Speaker 4: their consumer patterns. But I've held some recent data. According
2:52
Speaker 4: to beef volumes for the thirteen weeks ending in mid July,
2:57
Speaker 4: they fell zero point three percent from a year early.
3:00
Speaker 4: And that is actually considered to be very significant because
3:02
Speaker 4: this is the seasonal time of the year where b
3:05
Speaker 4: prices actually go up because we're in between major holidays
3:09
Speaker 4: July forth and Labor Day. So calle no doubt a
3:12
Speaker 4: bid buy this White House to try to lower prices
3:14
Speaker 4: as they continue to play that defense on affordability.
3:18
Speaker 2: We got to talk to the White House about timing
3:20
Speaker 2: the lawn work better. Poor Tyler's fighting against the man
3:23
Speaker 2: on the riding lawnmower behind her. I guess it's time
3:26
Speaker 2: to cut the grass. But maybe they could wait a
3:27
Speaker 2: few minutes, because I have another question for you, Tyler.
3:30
Speaker 2: You mentioned the potential Canadian deal here. Do we have
3:33
Speaker 2: any sense of timing from the White House is to
3:35
Speaker 2: when or if that's going to be finalized today?
3:38
Speaker 4: That is the number one question. And I can actually
3:40
Speaker 4: tell you now you probably hear the sprinkler's going, but
3:43
Speaker 4: I can tell you that I actually just walked by
3:45
Speaker 4: the US Trade Representative's office and there is a massive
3:48
Speaker 4: crowd of journalists because everybody's waiting for some sort of
3:51
Speaker 4: update as the USTR jamis and Gurum meets with this
3:54
Speaker 4: Canadian delegation for really these last minute talks. We're coming
3:58
Speaker 4: down to the wire. The deadline is tonight at midnight.
4:01
Speaker 4: We have some reporting that the contours of the deal
4:04
Speaker 4: are taking shape. It does feel like we are on
4:06
Speaker 4: the brink of an agreement that very likely will lower
4:09
Speaker 4: those metal tariffs for steel and aluminum, potentially cut them
4:12
Speaker 4: in half to twenty five percent from right now a
4:15
Speaker 4: rather high rate of fifty percent, But the reporting is
4:18
Speaker 4: indicating that maybe there could be a quota on this
4:21
Speaker 4: as well as that it's going to apply at different
4:23
Speaker 4: levels for different derivative products. So that's one aspect to watch.
4:27
Speaker 4: The other, of course, Kaylee, has to do with the
4:28
Speaker 4: auto tariffs. Another big sticking point here. Our reporting indicates
4:32
Speaker 4: that the twenty five percent tariff could come down to
4:34
Speaker 4: fifteen percent. It also may apply differently compared to how
4:38
Speaker 4: much of the content is US made versus Canadian made
4:42
Speaker 4: in the car, So we still got to see those
4:44
Speaker 4: details on paper to actually know these full contours, but
4:47
Speaker 4: feels like we're getting relatively closer.
4:50
Speaker 3: All right.
4:51
Speaker 2: Bloomberg's Tyler kentl live at the White House. I find
4:53
Speaker 2: myself wondering if a riding lawnmower might classify as an
4:57
Speaker 2: auto that would have tariffs applicable or an although luckily
5:01
Speaker 2: they did calm down for Tyler, their absolute professional Tyler,
5:04
Speaker 2: thank you so much. And as we consider the terroriffts
5:06
Speaker 2: that Canada may be willing to accept for the US,
5:09
Speaker 2: so long as they're lower than what they would face otherwise.
5:12
Speaker 2: This is a discussion that David Weston, the host of
5:14
Speaker 2: Wall Street Week here on Bloomberg, had with Christian Freeland
5:17
Speaker 2: this week, former Canadian finance minister and a special contributor
5:21
Speaker 2: to Wall Street Week.
5:22
Speaker 3: Here's part of their conversation.
5:24
Speaker 5: I think it's a bad outcome for the United States
5:26
Speaker 5: as well. It's really important for people to recognize that
5:32
Speaker 5: you can lose by winning if you've defined winning in
5:35
Speaker 5: a way which is self mutilating. I would say Brexit,
5:40
Speaker 5: the British decision to leave the EU, is a great
5:43
Speaker 5: historic example of losing by winning, and in this case,
5:48
Speaker 5: I think it's really important for Americans to understand that
5:52
Speaker 5: putting permanent tariffs on Canadian steel and on Canadian aluminum
5:57
Speaker 5: hurts US manufacturing. Are inputs into the US manufacturing sector,
6:03
Speaker 5: and you are choosing to make your own manufacturers weaker.
6:08
Speaker 5: The tariffs that were imposed in twenty eighteen, there's been
6:11
Speaker 5: a lot of academic studies on the impact, and the
6:13
Speaker 5: net impact was harming US manufacturing. Aluminum tariffs particularly self
6:19
Speaker 5: harming because aluminium is basically electricity in solid form, so
6:24
Speaker 5: the US is basically imposing attacks on electricity.
6:28
Speaker 6: Those of US who are covering trade negotiations have a
6:31
Speaker 6: tendency focus on what points have been one, what points
6:34
Speaker 6: have been conceded, But ultimately it's about the real economy.
6:37
Speaker 6: If I can say that of the two countries of
6:38
Speaker 6: Canada the United States, if this tentative agreement we're to
6:42
Speaker 6: go forward as it's now described, what would it mean
6:44
Speaker 6: for the economies of the United States and Canada were
6:48
Speaker 6: presumably are for growth and for the enhanced the enhancement
6:53
Speaker 6: of our industries and of our people. What does it
6:55
Speaker 6: mean for the real economy?
6:56
Speaker 5: This agreement is really on agreement meant to restrict trade
7:02
Speaker 5: between Canada and the United States, which I don't think
7:05
Speaker 5: is in the interest of any country. Having said that,
7:09
Speaker 5: you know, the tariffs that had been looming over Canada
7:13
Speaker 5: have been a real sort of damocles. Business hates uncertainty.
7:18
Speaker 5: When I was responsible for trade when I was Finance minister,
7:22
Speaker 5: you know what I always heard from businesses is we
7:25
Speaker 5: care less about the outcome than we care about having certainty.
7:30
Speaker 5: So I think business will be happy with the certainty.
7:34
Speaker 5: They'll be happy that these Smoot Hawley tariffs have not
7:37
Speaker 5: gone into force this week, and I think you'll hear
7:39
Speaker 5: from business that well, you know, at least we seem
7:44
Speaker 5: to have some certainty on the two three two tariffs.
7:49
Speaker 2: That was the former Canadian Finance Minister Christia Friedland alongside
7:52
Speaker 2: David Weston the host of Bloomberg Wall Street Week. And
7:55
Speaker 2: you can find the full conversation on tonight's episode of
7:58
Speaker 2: Wall Street Week, which airs at six Eastern every Friday
8:01
Speaker 2: here on Bloomberg TV and radio. But here on Balance
8:05
Speaker 2: of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. We want to
8:07
Speaker 2: take this conversation further as we turn to someone who
8:09
Speaker 2: was very familiar with the nuances of trade negotiations such
8:13
Speaker 2: as this. Sarah Bianki is joining US now senior managing
8:15
Speaker 2: director at Evercore ISI and former Deputy US Trade Representative
8:20
Speaker 2: in the Biden administration. Sarah, welcome back to Balance of Power.
8:24
Speaker 2: It's good to have you as we consider what may
8:26
Speaker 2: be happening here in the final hours before this deadline
8:31
Speaker 2: obviously looming at midnight behind closed doors. How much work
8:36
Speaker 2: might they still have yet to do, or could what
8:38
Speaker 2: we see ultimately by the deadline just be a kind
8:42
Speaker 2: of broad outline of what a deal could look like
8:44
Speaker 2: with a lot of nuances yet to be ironed out.
8:47
Speaker 7: Well, I think their goal is probably to get as
8:49
Speaker 7: much detail as they can. As you all were discussing,
8:54
Speaker 7: there's a lot of details in trade that matter a
8:56
Speaker 7: lot to industry. So whether it's a quotas on steel,
9:00
Speaker 7: letting a certain amount in terror free, whether it's steel derivatives,
9:03
Speaker 7: all of these things are critical. My sense is they
9:05
Speaker 7: will try to iron out as many details as they can,
9:09
Speaker 7: because again, those details matter for both countries, and I
9:13
Speaker 7: think they're critical to getting across the finish line. But
9:17
Speaker 7: you know, they could leave some dotting i's and crossing t's.
9:23
Speaker 7: But there does seem to be a lot of momentum,
9:24
Speaker 7: which is always a critical and ambassador career knows these
9:29
Speaker 7: issues cold. So my guess is that they will get
9:33
Speaker 7: some kind of agreement by the deadline, if not soon thereafter.
9:38
Speaker 2: And knowing what at least has been reported about the agreement,
9:42
Speaker 2: and obviously understanding that the final details have yet to
9:44
Speaker 2: be announced, is it shaping up to be to you
9:48
Speaker 2: like an agreement that is advantageous to both sides or
9:50
Speaker 2: do you agree with Christiana Freelan's assessment that it could
9:53
Speaker 2: be a bad deal for both Canada and the US.
9:57
Speaker 7: Well, I think we want to see the details. I
9:59
Speaker 7: do think that there has been a lot of concern
10:01
Speaker 7: about the steel tariffs. The United States steel workers also
10:07
Speaker 7: cover Canadian workers, so they're going to be aligned there
10:11
Speaker 7: and they're as as was mentioned, there were inputs. So
10:16
Speaker 7: the Trump administration has been very tough in terms of
10:20
Speaker 7: moving off on the steel tariff. Some of that comes
10:23
Speaker 7: from the fact that they believe there were too many
10:26
Speaker 7: exemptions last time, including exempting Canada and Mexico entirely. So
10:32
Speaker 7: I think that it's in the details, But in general,
10:37
Speaker 7: the most important thing is, as you noted, is for
10:39
Speaker 7: business is to have this certainty and to have these
10:42
Speaker 7: two trading partners that very dependent on each other in
10:46
Speaker 7: many ways, to really have them working together in a
10:51
Speaker 7: unified way. That's that's critical for both economies.
10:55
Speaker 2: Well, and as you mentioned, it's not just the consideration
10:57
Speaker 2: of Canada as a trading partner, but Mexico two. And
11:00
Speaker 2: I wonder in your mind what perhaps a bilateral agreement
11:04
Speaker 2: here might mean for separate negotiations happening with Mexico and
11:08
Speaker 2: what it might mean, frankly, for odds of renewing in
11:11
Speaker 2: some form or fashion in the USMCA agreement.
11:15
Speaker 7: Well, I think Mexico is obviously watching these negotiations very clearly.
11:19
Speaker 7: They have their own set of conversations going on with
11:22
Speaker 7: the United States, but they too are very interested in
11:25
Speaker 7: relief on some of these two thirty twos, in Mexico's case,
11:28
Speaker 7: particularly AUTO, so they'll be watching, i think will come
11:32
Speaker 7: quite quickly to the United States following this agreement to
11:36
Speaker 7: ask for a similar treatment. Whether that means we'll get
11:41
Speaker 7: an agreed upon us MCA continuation further duration, I think
11:47
Speaker 7: that's less clear. I think there's a lot of different
11:51
Speaker 7: issues to work out, whether it's transshipment of Chinese investment,
11:56
Speaker 7: a whole range of things. So these bilateral agreements don't
12:00
Speaker 7: necessarily mean that the whole that everyone is going to
12:04
Speaker 7: jump on this extension for USMCA, but either way, it's
12:08
Speaker 7: promising for all the trading partners involved.
12:13
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad you mentioned China specifically, Sarah. You obviously
12:16
Speaker 2: oversaw that relationship at the US tr and worked closely
12:20
Speaker 2: on this issue in light of the President's threat of
12:23
Speaker 2: economic d day against Iran and in his suggestion that
12:26
Speaker 2: basically any country that is facilitating or the transfer to
12:30
Speaker 2: smuggling of or the purchasing of oil from Iran could
12:33
Speaker 2: face severe economic consequences themselves. I wonder if you have
12:37
Speaker 2: an idea of what actually that could look like and
12:40
Speaker 2: what China's response may be if we were to say,
12:42
Speaker 2: implement secondary sanctions or more sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods
12:46
Speaker 2: in retaliation, how quickly they could retaliate in turn, or
12:50
Speaker 2: if it's likely to make them compliant with what the
12:52
Speaker 2: US wants when it comes.
12:54
Speaker 7: To well, that is a challenge for the administration is
12:57
Speaker 7: that they are very carefully trying to maintain this dayton
13:00
Speaker 7: with China, particularly coming into the September twenty fourth meeting
13:05
Speaker 7: with the President, and there are so many issues at
13:08
Speaker 7: stake between China and the United States right now, whether
13:11
Speaker 7: it is the safety of AI, whether it is export
13:14
Speaker 7: controls are rareer, So they're going to have to be
13:18
Speaker 7: very delicate in terms of those negotiations, and that will
13:22
Speaker 7: factor in here as well, I think, although I don't
13:28
Speaker 7: think the Canada and Mexico specifically are the biggest fish
13:33
Speaker 7: to fry in terms of conversations with China, but really
13:37
Speaker 7: they need to be mindful of anything they do, as again,
13:40
Speaker 7: neither a leader really wants to disrupt this kind of
13:43
Speaker 7: fragile detent that exists right now.
13:47
Speaker 2: Well, and if I could just press you further on China,
13:50
Speaker 2: are there limits to what the administration realistically would be
13:53
Speaker 2: able to do against China? Knowing how easily China is
13:56
Speaker 2: able to pull the lever of rareers and critical minerals
13:59
Speaker 2: as we have seen in the past, I just wonder
14:02
Speaker 2: if that's the ultimate Trump card. In addition to she
14:05
Speaker 2: getting ready to come to Washington in a few weeks,
14:07
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, that might rein in the worst of
14:11
Speaker 2: what the President might want to do here.
14:14
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think look there, certainly we did see the
14:17
Speaker 7: president pull back quite a bit last year from what
14:20
Speaker 7: we're very high Chinese staris partly because of the rare
14:24
Speaker 7: earth issue, where I think China, who studied this president
14:29
Speaker 7: quite closely recognized that using its leverage would really help
14:34
Speaker 7: in those conversations. So certainly much more leverage than we saw,
14:38
Speaker 7: say in Trump one point zero. The administration has been
14:42
Speaker 7: pretty aggressive in terms of trying to do things domestically
14:46
Speaker 7: and with Ali's and partners on rare Earth. I think
14:49
Speaker 7: they have a bend creative there, but it is not
14:53
Speaker 7: an easy thing to solve, so I think they have
14:56
Speaker 7: to you know, they are bound in some way and said,
15:00
Speaker 7: we have seen them take some actions, whether it be
15:03
Speaker 7: the recent FCC actions around drones and robots. So they're
15:08
Speaker 7: not doing nothing. But I think everyone is just trying
15:11
Speaker 7: to feel their way through how much can get done
15:15
Speaker 7: without again blowing up what I think both sides want,
15:18
Speaker 7: which is again a fragile daytime.
15:23
Speaker 2: Sarah, we just have thirty seconds left. But when we
15:25
Speaker 2: consider the president's announcement today that he's lowering tariffs on
15:28
Speaker 2: ground beef imports, is that in some way to mission
15:30
Speaker 2: that the existence of tariffs makes prices higher for the
15:33
Speaker 2: American consumer.
15:36
Speaker 7: Well, he tried to frame the conversation in terms of
15:39
Speaker 7: low levels of beef, but certainly it is they're Certainly
15:46
Speaker 7: the rising costs are a huge concern to the Americans
15:50
Speaker 7: and to voters in beef in particular. Look, there's trade
15:55
Speaker 7: offs for the president. He is going to anger some
15:57
Speaker 7: in the agriculture industry. That was choice he decided not
16:01
Speaker 7: to make earlier in the year. But I think as
16:04
Speaker 7: the midterms get closer, some of these price issues are
16:09
Speaker 7: of increasing.
16:10
Speaker 3: Sarah Bianki of Ever Chorus is side thanks.
16:12
Speaker 8: For joining us, stay with us on balance of power
16:15
Speaker 8: We'll have much more coming up after this.
16:20
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcasts. Catch
16:23
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm. E's durn
16:26
Speaker 1: on Apple Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
16:30
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
16:33
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
16:39
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
16:40
Speaker 2: Just want to quickly mention a red headline that just
16:42
Speaker 2: crossed the Bloomberg terminal. AI cloud cloud firm n Scale
16:46
Speaker 2: is said to be seeking a USIPO of up to
16:49
Speaker 2: three billion dollars, So another potential AI company coming to
16:54
Speaker 2: the public markets. Of course, this would be much smaller
16:56
Speaker 2: in scale than what we understand in Thropics IPO could
16:58
Speaker 2: look like. Of course, Bloomberg report of yesterday that Anthropics
17:01
Speaker 2: IPO later this year could be even bigger than the
17:04
Speaker 2: SpaceX IPO, which was of course record setting by every metric,
17:09
Speaker 2: raising what seventy five billion dollars in the ipo more
17:12
Speaker 2: than eighty billion if you do the weird calculations. It
17:15
Speaker 2: was valued it over a trillion dollars on its first
17:18
Speaker 2: debut of trading.
17:19
Speaker 3: En scale perhaps a little bit.
17:23
Speaker 2: Smaller in scale ultimately than that, but again, the AI
17:26
Speaker 2: cloud firm n Scale is seeking up to three billion
17:28
Speaker 2: dollars in a US IPO. Never a shortage of news
17:32
Speaker 2: even on a Friday. With the weekend looming here in Washington.
17:35
Speaker 2: By the way, it's going to be a pretty big
17:36
Speaker 2: weekend here in Washington because the IndyCar Race is coming,
17:40
Speaker 2: the Freedom two fifty Grand Prix. This is the last
17:43
Speaker 2: big event of the country Semiquincentennial that we're still celebrating
17:46
Speaker 2: at the end of August, even though July fourth.
17:49
Speaker 3: Is long past us.
17:50
Speaker 2: Because what says two hundred and fifty years of America better
17:53
Speaker 2: than a two hundred and fifty mile road race around
17:57
Speaker 2: the National Mall. The President, by the way, I will
18:00
Speaker 2: be riding in the beast and doing a lap on
18:03
Speaker 2: the track as well. It's going to be a big
18:05
Speaker 2: event this weekend. It's made for a lot of traffic.
18:07
Speaker 2: There's a lot of roadwork that has been involved in
18:10
Speaker 2: It definitely comes at a cost. Penske Corp, who runs IndyCar,
18:14
Speaker 2: said that this has definitely costs more than their Detroit
18:16
Speaker 2: Street Race, which had a budget of about twenty million dollars.
18:19
Speaker 2: Even though we don't have the finer figures on that.
18:22
Speaker 2: And we know that if you didn't get a free
18:24
Speaker 2: ticket in the general admission lottery earlier this year, you
18:27
Speaker 2: would have to buy a suite and that could run
18:29
Speaker 2: you up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
18:32
Speaker 3: Apparently it's quite a big number.
18:33
Speaker 2: Anyway, Speaking of big numbers, what about four hundred and
18:36
Speaker 2: four million dollars? That is how much according to the
18:40
Speaker 2: latest filings which we got yesterday, MAGA Inc. Has in
18:43
Speaker 2: its coffers. This is, of course President Trump's superpack. It
18:46
Speaker 2: is the biggest federal financing committee fundraising committee out there
18:52
Speaker 2: right now, a massive war chest with more money added
18:55
Speaker 2: to it in the month of July about three million
18:57
Speaker 2: dollars more. But while more money came in, not a
19:01
Speaker 2: lot of money was going out, including literally no money
19:03
Speaker 2: to help Republican candidates who are on the ballot in November,
19:08
Speaker 2: less than three months away. So let's get into this
19:11
Speaker 2: now with today's political panel. Rick Davis is with me
19:13
Speaker 2: Stone Court Capital partner, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist,
19:17
Speaker 2: alongside Democratic strategist Sarah Mercer, partner at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek.
19:22
Speaker 3: Welcome to both of you.
19:24
Speaker 2: Rick, As we consider the war chest that the president
19:27
Speaker 2: has at his disposal and is not yet deploying, how
19:31
Speaker 2: much longer realistically does he have to do so? At
19:34
Speaker 2: what point are all the ad bys already in and
19:37
Speaker 2: there's limited impact that those kind of dollars big, while
19:40
Speaker 2: they may be, can have.
19:43
Speaker 9: Yeah, right now, it's a pretty big question in the
19:46
Speaker 9: political world as to what this super PAC's going to do.
19:49
Speaker 9: I mean, as you point out, four hundred and four million,
19:52
Speaker 9: and that's cash on hand, that's after all your bills
19:55
Speaker 9: have been paid, staff's been paid, fundraising costs have been paid,
19:59
Speaker 9: and so that it's a pretty healthy chunk of change. Typically,
20:02
Speaker 9: at least within the Republican Party, places like the Senate
20:06
Speaker 9: Leadership Fund, the Senate's biggest super pack. I've already made
20:09
Speaker 9: announcements of the kind of spending they're going to be
20:11
Speaker 9: making in the fall campaign. They usually make placement of
20:15
Speaker 9: their ad dollars so that you know, media buys are
20:18
Speaker 9: made in advance, so campaigns know what's coming and they
20:22
Speaker 9: can adjust.
20:23
Speaker 10: None of that's occurred.
20:24
Speaker 9: The best we've seen is some people, you know, speaking
20:28
Speaker 9: off the record, have said, well, we're going to wait
20:30
Speaker 9: till after the convention in Dallas. I know you'll enjoy
20:33
Speaker 9: that a great deal, Kaylee, But that's almost too late.
20:37
Speaker 10: I mean, when you think about the amount.
20:39
Speaker 9: Of money that's in American politics they chase in very
20:41
Speaker 9: limited ad opportunities, especially in some of these targeted states,
20:46
Speaker 9: you really wonder what kind of impact it can have.
20:49
Speaker 9: But can they even deploy that kind of money. A
20:52
Speaker 9: lot of skeptics think he's just going to keep it
20:55
Speaker 9: in his pocket and that would really have a very
20:58
Speaker 9: salutary impact on the party and future candidates.
21:04
Speaker 2: So is that good news for Democrats, Sarah if the
21:06
Speaker 2: President doesn't mobilize this pretty soon.
21:10
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think Rick hit the nail on the head there.
21:13
Speaker 11: You know that it's not really about not just a
21:15
Speaker 11: question of how the money is going to be spent
21:17
Speaker 11: and when they'll decide how to spend that money, but
21:19
Speaker 11: whether the money is going to be spent. And certainly
21:23
Speaker 11: the Democrats were banking on the fact that that money
21:25
Speaker 11: might not get deployed. But that said, you know, money
21:29
Speaker 11: is not everything. You know, we've certainly seen candidates in
21:33
Speaker 11: the primary elections thus far who were outraised by establishment
21:37
Speaker 11: candidates who then went on to win. I mean, a
21:40
Speaker 11: really clear example is Democratic socialist candidate a lot Heros
21:44
Speaker 11: here in Colorado who beat thirty year congressional incumbent Diana
21:48
Speaker 11: to get So money is not everything, but I do
21:51
Speaker 11: think the question is not just about how, but really
21:54
Speaker 11: a question of if.
21:56
Speaker 2: Well, very good points, Sarah, and we saw more evidence
21:58
Speaker 2: of that, frankly this week in the flor A Democratic
22:00
Speaker 2: Senate primary, where Angie Nixon, also a Democratic Socialist, was
22:03
Speaker 2: at a massive fundraising disadvantage and still was able to
22:06
Speaker 2: handily beat alex Vinman, who was running against her with
22:11
Speaker 2: way millions more in the bank. Of course, Angie Nixon
22:14
Speaker 2: prior to that primary vote had raised less than a
22:16
Speaker 2: million dollars. Apparently, according to her campaign, she has doubled
22:19
Speaker 2: that money since her win. I do wonder, though, Sarah,
22:22
Speaker 2: if you expect that any more money, frankly, is going
22:25
Speaker 2: to be funneled into that race, at least coming from
22:27
Speaker 2: national committees, knowing that a socialist is now facing Ashley Moody,
22:32
Speaker 2: and this may be a far longer shot.
22:35
Speaker 11: Yeah, there's certainly no It's no secret that the Democrats
22:37
Speaker 11: are that we're having a bit of an identity crisis
22:40
Speaker 11: here and really trying to wonder what to do with
22:43
Speaker 11: these Democratic socialist candidates. I think you're right that there
22:46
Speaker 11: is strategy that's happening about where to put those dollars
22:50
Speaker 11: where real gains can be made, and you know, certainly looking.
22:54
Speaker 11: I think Democrats at a national level are certainly looking.
22:56
Speaker 11: I think most closely at the seat in Texas, where
22:59
Speaker 11: I think there is a strong sense that James Tallerico
23:02
Speaker 11: may have a shot at defeating Ken Paxton in the general.
23:07
Speaker 2: Well and the Cook Political Report of course moved that
23:09
Speaker 2: race to a toss up this week, which raised a
23:12
Speaker 2: lot of eyebrows and may raise a lot of dollars
23:15
Speaker 2: along with it. To your point, Sarah Rick, if we
23:17
Speaker 2: could go back to the MAGA Inc. Money though, if
23:20
Speaker 2: he doesn't deploy it in this midterm cycle, what do
23:24
Speaker 2: you spend four hundred million dollars on? I just wonder
23:26
Speaker 2: if you have a theory of the case here of
23:28
Speaker 2: what he might be saving this for.
23:31
Speaker 9: Yeah, look, I mean he's not going to be on
23:32
Speaker 9: any more ballots, so it's not going to be spent
23:34
Speaker 9: for him. And the question then is is there an
23:38
Speaker 9: heir apparent somebody who will run for the Republican nomination
23:43
Speaker 9: for president in twenty eight who could benefit from that money.
23:48
Speaker 9: Enormous amount of influence he could have on the political
23:51
Speaker 9: system with that kind of chunk of change at his disposal. Remember,
23:54
Speaker 9: that doesn't belong to anybody else but Donald Trump. That's
23:57
Speaker 9: a super pac that reports to him, and the staff
24:02
Speaker 9: is all loyal to him, and the donors are giving
24:05
Speaker 9: primarily because of him, and so you know, if he
24:09
Speaker 9: wants more influence in the future, even in a lame
24:12
Speaker 9: duck presidency, four hundred plus million is a significant card
24:19
Speaker 9: at the table.
24:20
Speaker 10: I would say, you.
24:21
Speaker 9: Know, Democrats have a trickier time this cycle than most
24:25
Speaker 9: because there's a lot of Republican money floating around in
24:28
Speaker 9: a state like Florida, where they, you know, would love
24:31
Speaker 9: to salivate over having an opportunity to pick off a race.
24:34
Speaker 10: Is a hugely expensive break campaign.
24:37
Speaker 9: It's it's like Texas, very expensive media markets and lots
24:41
Speaker 9: of them. I mean, without fifty million dollars to spend
24:44
Speaker 9: in a state like that, better off not spending at all.
24:46
Speaker 9: So the exciting part right now is we see the
24:49
Speaker 9: national committees moving around trying to figure out where to
24:52
Speaker 9: lay off their money and who's going to get their backing,
24:55
Speaker 9: and we'll know very shortly by Labor Day what this
24:58
Speaker 9: real race is going to look life with the kind
25:00
Speaker 9: of spending commitments they're going to have to make.
25:04
Speaker 2: Well, speaking of the national committees, it wasn't just the
25:06
Speaker 2: MAGA Inc. Pack that had to report other fundraising figures
25:10
Speaker 2: for July. We got them from the congressional campaign and
25:13
Speaker 2: Senatorial campaign committees as well. It's interesting that the fundraising
25:18
Speaker 2: advantage at least seems to be with the Democrats right now.
25:21
Speaker 2: D TRIP raised twelve point three million dollars in July.
25:24
Speaker 2: The NRCC raised just shy of eight million dollars. But
25:27
Speaker 2: it is the House GOP campaign arm that has more
25:30
Speaker 2: money in the bank ninety two million dollars compared to
25:34
Speaker 2: just eighty million or so for the Democrats. They have
25:37
Speaker 2: a twelve million dollar advantage there. It's a similar story
25:40
Speaker 2: when it comes to the Senate races as well. The
25:42
Speaker 2: DSCC raised more than the NRSSE in July, but Republicans
25:46
Speaker 2: have about sixteen million more in the bank than Democrats.
25:49
Speaker 2: Rick at this point in the midterm cycle, would you
25:52
Speaker 2: rather have the kind of momentum indicated by greater fundraising
25:56
Speaker 2: figures or would you rather have more money in the bank?
26:00
Speaker 9: Well As a campaign measure, you always want the money
26:03
Speaker 9: in the bank. Momentum is a nice to have, but
26:06
Speaker 9: you want to cash on hand because you're literally going
26:09
Speaker 9: to be buying today media time in October and you
26:13
Speaker 9: hope that momentum continues on until election day. But you
26:17
Speaker 9: can't hope for the money to be there later, because
26:20
Speaker 9: what if it doesn't come, you've made the wrong decisions
26:23
Speaker 9: on what you could possibly spend and be competitive, I
26:25
Speaker 9: would say too, one thing, Republican candidates have done an
26:28
Speaker 9: exceptional job of raising money themselves. We tend to focus
26:31
Speaker 9: on the super PACs, We tend to focus on the
26:33
Speaker 9: big committees. But one of the things that I think
26:35
Speaker 9: has been the hallmark and standout is Republican candidates themselves
26:39
Speaker 9: are out raising their Democratic counterparts.
26:41
Speaker 10: And that just means more.
26:43
Speaker 9: Money than has to be spent by these national committees
26:45
Speaker 9: just to get even into the game. And for is
26:48
Speaker 9: a good example, means a good example in the Senate race.
26:52
Speaker 10: So at the end of the day, it starts right.
26:54
Speaker 10: Money does not buy.
26:55
Speaker 9: A seat, And we've seen spectacular crash in burns this
26:58
Speaker 9: year with wealthy candidates basically not being able to get
27:02
Speaker 9: to the finish line. But at the end of the day, yeah,
27:04
Speaker 9: cash on hand is really the card to play right now.
27:07
Speaker 10: Labor Day is when the races really begin in earnest.
27:10
Speaker 9: And you've got to have your money to be able
27:12
Speaker 9: to buy that media time.
27:14
Speaker 10: It still matters.
27:16
Speaker 2: Well, And obviously it's Sarah, this is Bloomberg. We love
27:19
Speaker 2: talking about money. It's literally what we do here. But
27:22
Speaker 2: if money isn't everything in a cycle like this one
27:24
Speaker 2: and in the year twenty twenty six, where there's so
27:26
Speaker 2: much earned in social media out there, if you don't
27:30
Speaker 2: have the money advantage right now, how can you capitalize
27:34
Speaker 2: on some of those other trends.
27:36
Speaker 3: Like what's the way to win a race without the cash?
27:41
Speaker 11: Yeah, we certainly are seeing it on the ground that
27:44
Speaker 11: the way to win a race is really to talk
27:46
Speaker 11: to voters directly. So, yeah, social media channels have been
27:49
Speaker 11: away for candidates.
27:51
Speaker 10: To reach voters.
27:53
Speaker 11: It's just very easily and without a lot of cost,
27:56
Speaker 11: but also just that traditional you know, going and knocking
27:59
Speaker 11: on doors, holding town halls.
28:01
Speaker 9: You know.
28:01
Speaker 11: One I think reason that more establishment candidates in the
28:05
Speaker 11: primaries have struggled is because they have pulled themselves away
28:09
Speaker 11: a little bit from their constituents and have been reluctant.
28:14
Speaker 11: We saw this both on the Democrat and the Republican
28:16
Speaker 11: side to hold town halls to talk to voters. Voters
28:19
Speaker 11: are really the ones that matter in elections. They're the
28:21
Speaker 11: ones who cast the vote, and voters, I do believe
28:25
Speaker 11: our voting with their feet when the candidates are not
28:28
Speaker 11: coming to them and meeting them where they are and
28:30
Speaker 11: having real conversation. The money money really also has a liability,
28:36
Speaker 11: and we're certainly seeing this in blue states in that
28:39
Speaker 11: if the message is not seen by voters as being
28:42
Speaker 11: authentic and that it's really coming from a more of
28:46
Speaker 11: a corporate place, that is certainly hurting candidates on the
28:49
Speaker 11: Democratic side across the country.
28:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has been pretty incredible to see how much
28:56
Speaker 2: in terms of blowback on corporate spending or just interest spending.
29:01
Speaker 2: APAC is a very good example that we've seen evident
29:03
Speaker 2: in a number of primaries this cycle. Rick, there has
29:07
Speaker 2: there has been that was Abdullah, I'll say, it's whole thing,
29:10
Speaker 2: get the money out of politics. I'm not taking any
29:13
Speaker 2: of this. Are Republicans going to have to get on
29:15
Speaker 2: that train too. At some point.
29:17
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think everybody's realizing that the cycle is going
29:20
Speaker 9: to be defined to some degree by the kind of
29:22
Speaker 9: money you take. And you think about that, like what
29:25
Speaker 9: you were saying with you know, some of these special
29:27
Speaker 9: corporate interests, how would you like to have a bunch
29:30
Speaker 9: of money from you know, a uh uh you know
29:34
Speaker 9: AI company right now, or crypto or you know, especially
29:38
Speaker 9: data center builders. I mean, you can't run fast enough
29:40
Speaker 9: away from that right now. And so, yeah, money comes
29:43
Speaker 9: with strings, and those strings sometimes, uh, you know, really
29:48
Speaker 9: helped define an election. And the Democrats want to make
29:51
Speaker 9: it a rallying cry, they better make sure their purse
29:54
Speaker 9: is clean too. So it'll be interesting to see how
29:57
Speaker 9: the money story plays out. But I would say definitely
30:00
Speaker 9: Republicans win the money primary.
30:04
Speaker 2: All right, Rick Davis and Sarah Mercer our political panel
30:06
Speaker 2: on this Friday.
30:07
Speaker 3: They'll be back for more.
30:08
Speaker 8: Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much
30:10
Speaker 8: more coming up after this.
30:15
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
30:18
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern on Apple, Cocklay,
30:22
Speaker 1: and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can
30:25
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
30:29
Speaker 1: York station. Just say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
30:34
Speaker 2: I'm Kayleie lines here in Washington, where President Trump will
30:38
Speaker 2: be leaving this afternoon or later this evening. He has
30:42
Speaker 2: a big rally tonight down in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
30:45
Speaker 2: where he'll be stumping for Darling Graham, of course, the
30:48
Speaker 2: current Senator from South Carolina, having taken over the seat
30:51
Speaker 2: on a temporary basis for her late brother, Lindsey Graham,
30:54
Speaker 2: but she is now running to replace him on a
30:56
Speaker 2: permanent basis, and she's in a runoff that is Tuesday,
31:00
Speaker 2: August twenty fifth, up against the Congressman Ralph Norman, who
31:03
Speaker 2: of course is fresh off of a loss in the
31:04
Speaker 2: gubernatorial race, but did advance to the runoff in this
31:08
Speaker 2: Senate race. That is the horse that President Trump decided
31:10
Speaker 2: not to back. He is very much behind Darlene Graham
31:13
Speaker 2: at least at this point, keeping in mind that President
31:16
Speaker 2: Trump did endorse ultimately two candidates in the gubernatorial race
31:19
Speaker 2: when his first endorsement didn't look like it was going
31:22
Speaker 2: to pan out.
31:23
Speaker 3: It's not just President Trump.
31:24
Speaker 2: That's going to be down at this rally in Myrtle
31:26
Speaker 2: Beach for Graham tonight. There's also going to be the
31:29
Speaker 2: chair of the NRSC. Senator Tim Scott is there. Another
31:31
Speaker 2: member of Senate leadership, John Barrosso, will be there as well.
31:35
Speaker 2: And while Darlene Graham does have those advocates, perhaps to
31:39
Speaker 2: her benefit as well as the name recognition, she may
31:41
Speaker 2: be facing a bit more of a headwind after the
31:44
Speaker 2: debate against Ralph Norman earlier this week, in which she
31:47
Speaker 2: was asked a question as to whether Taiwan and the
31:50
Speaker 2: South China Sea are national security issues for the United States,
31:54
Speaker 2: and her response was, and I quote, I'm not that
31:57
Speaker 2: informed on national security. So let's get more on this
32:01
Speaker 2: race and this presidential endorsement being tested in particular, as
32:04
Speaker 2: we turn to our political panel here on Balance of Power.
32:07
Speaker 2: Rick Davis, a Bloomberg Politics contributor, Republican strategist and stone
32:10
Speaker 2: Court Capital partner, is with me alongside Democratic strategist Sarah Mercer,
32:14
Speaker 2: partner at Brownstein Hyatt Farber, Shrek. Welcome to you both, Rick,
32:19
Speaker 2: If we could first kind of set the baseline here
32:21
Speaker 2: as to where Darlene Graham is in this race relative
32:25
Speaker 2: to Ralph Norman. How much did she set herself back
32:28
Speaker 2: with that response in the debate.
32:30
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think prior to the debate, everybody would have
32:33
Speaker 9: said this was starts to lose. I think there's an
32:36
Speaker 9: instinct that she did as best she could to try
32:39
Speaker 9: and put this race in play. Now it's i'd say,
32:42
Speaker 9: still very much advantage Darlene Ram but I think she's
32:47
Speaker 9: made it a contest. And the fact that President Trump
32:50
Speaker 9: and the congressional delegations coming down to support her is
32:55
Speaker 9: indicative of the fact that this is a bit of.
32:57
Speaker 10: A rescue mission.
32:58
Speaker 9: Probably not a lot of good even internally on this
33:01
Speaker 9: at this stage, but I don't think anybody who saw.
33:03
Speaker 10: That debate didn't think that she needed some life support.
33:06
Speaker 10: So here they come.
33:08
Speaker 9: No telling whether Navimus is going to be good or
33:10
Speaker 9: bad for Darling Graham.
33:11
Speaker 10: You know, when Donald Trump shows up, it's all about
33:13
Speaker 10: Donald Trump.
33:14
Speaker 9: And you know, but it's a definite signal to his
33:17
Speaker 9: supporters in the state to be for her well.
33:21
Speaker 2: And we should keep in mind obviously Trump is throwing
33:24
Speaker 2: his support behind her. He endorsed her for this on
33:27
Speaker 2: a permanent basis quite early, just after the death of
33:29
Speaker 2: her brother and her taking over his seat in the
33:31
Speaker 2: Senate for the time being, and he likes those who
33:34
Speaker 2: he endorsed to win, obviously, Sarah, and we haven't seen
33:38
Speaker 2: necessarily a perfect track record on that. There's been a
33:40
Speaker 2: number of losses of Trump endorsed candidates, including just this
33:43
Speaker 2: week in primaries in places like Florida. So how much
33:48
Speaker 2: do you see that as a factor in the President's
33:50
Speaker 2: participation in this rally tonight, that maybe it's less about
33:53
Speaker 2: her and more about the idea that if she wins,
33:56
Speaker 2: it reflects well on him.
33:59
Speaker 11: I think you're exactly right. President Trump is a risk taker,
34:02
Speaker 11: and I really see this race as a test of
34:05
Speaker 11: his influence and his endorsement power, and I would imagine
34:09
Speaker 11: that he sees that as well, and he's not afraid
34:12
Speaker 11: to gamble, and he really has put all of his
34:14
Speaker 11: eggs in this basket. He also, you know, plays loyalty
34:19
Speaker 11: politics and certainly sees that if Darling Graham wins that
34:24
Speaker 11: he's going to have a very loyal member of the
34:27
Speaker 11: Senate to him. And also, though I wonder if he's
34:32
Speaker 11: able to defeat Ralph Norman, if that really divorces MAGA
34:37
Speaker 11: from the sort of place that many of us on
34:41
Speaker 11: the outside looking in see the trajectory of Republican politics
34:44
Speaker 11: going from the Tea Party to Freedom Caucus and to MAGA.
34:47
Speaker 11: If he's able to say no, look, this is really
34:50
Speaker 11: about this is really about me and her winning I
34:53
Speaker 11: think helps to solidify that narrative as well.
34:58
Speaker 5: Well.
34:58
Speaker 2: As you used the phrase all eggs in one basket, Sarah,
35:01
Speaker 2: that hasn't been the case recently in South Carolina necessarily, Rick,
35:06
Speaker 2: we saw him endorse two candidates in the South Carolina
35:09
Speaker 2: gubernatorial runoff. At the end of the day, would you
35:12
Speaker 2: be surprised to hear President Trump maybe suggest Ralph Norman
35:17
Speaker 2: would be a perfectly fine senator as well, or does
35:19
Speaker 2: Norman support for Nicki Haley early on in twenty twenty
35:22
Speaker 2: four perhaps make that a non possibility.
35:26
Speaker 9: Yeah, Ralph Norman's been a bit of an irtant to
35:28
Speaker 9: Donald Trump throughout his current term, and I would be
35:33
Speaker 9: highly shot if he watered down his endorsement of Darlene Graham, who,
35:39
Speaker 9: as Sarah said, he literally convinced her to run for
35:42
Speaker 9: the permanent seat on his own, probably against some of
35:46
Speaker 9: the wishes of the local Republican hierarchy in South Carolina,
35:51
Speaker 9: who thought it was great to have her serve out
35:53
Speaker 9: the term, but to open it up and have a
35:55
Speaker 9: real primary contest, So yeah, you could even see it
36:00
Speaker 9: lining up now. I mean Mark Sandfergo came in fourth,
36:03
Speaker 9: I think during the early stage of this special primary.
36:08
Speaker 10: Who's no friend of Donald Trump's endorsed Ralph Norman.
36:11
Speaker 9: So the anti Trump crowd definitely embraces Ralph in this
36:14
Speaker 9: and that's enough to scare Trump away from hedging his
36:16
Speaker 9: bets with a dual endorsement.
36:21
Speaker 2: Well, obviously, all this makes South Carolina very interesting in
36:24
Speaker 2: this cycle in twenty twenty six, but it's going to
36:26
Speaker 2: be especially interesting looking forward to twenty twenty eight. As
36:29
Speaker 2: of course, it's going first in the Democratic primary process
36:32
Speaker 2: in terms of the presidential contest in twenty twenty eight.
36:36
Speaker 2: The DNC just recently decided this, and that's perhaps why
36:39
Speaker 2: it is extra interesting to see Pete Budajetge making tracks
36:42
Speaker 2: there today as well, Sarah. He's going to campaign for
36:45
Speaker 2: Democrat Nancy LaCour, who's running in the first congressional district.
36:49
Speaker 2: But I would imagine it's not a coincidence that he
36:51
Speaker 2: finds himself in South Carolina now that we know the calendar.
36:56
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
36:57
Speaker 11: I see this as nothing but a step forward for
37:00
Speaker 11: Pete boudhaj Jedge in looking at whether a path towards
37:04
Speaker 11: a presidential candidacy is viable for him. I also see
37:07
Speaker 11: him doing the same thing that we're seeing California Governor
37:11
Speaker 11: Gavin Newsom and AOC doing, which is really using these
37:14
Speaker 11: as opportunities to test messaging with Democrats and to see
37:18
Speaker 11: what might resonate in a twenty twenty eight presidential race
37:23
Speaker 11: for them individually as candidates, but for the Democratic Party
37:26
Speaker 11: more broadly.
37:28
Speaker 10: Well.
37:29
Speaker 2: And so when we consider then what message will resonate
37:31
Speaker 2: in a state like South Carolina, there's a reason why
37:34
Speaker 2: they selected it to go first, Sarah, that they feel
37:37
Speaker 2: like demographically it's more representative of the base of the
37:40
Speaker 2: Democratic Party than Stay Iowa or New Hampshire. And I
37:44
Speaker 2: wonder who might be the best messenger to that kind
37:49
Speaker 2: of electorate, who you would expect to have strength there.
37:52
Speaker 2: If Pete boudha Judge is one of them, or that's
37:53
Speaker 2: exactly what he's working on.
37:56
Speaker 11: I think that is still very much yet to be seen.
38:00
Speaker 11: But certainly Pete boudajedg wants his name out there and
38:03
Speaker 11: wants to be talked about in that way. In the
38:06
Speaker 11: same way as I mentioned with AOC. Obviously, Gavin Newsom
38:10
Speaker 11: is doing that. He's got his podcast that where he's
38:12
Speaker 11: testing a lot of messaging, having a lot of conversations.
38:15
Speaker 3: But I think we also, you know, are looking to
38:17
Speaker 3: you know, other.
38:18
Speaker 11: Democratic state governors, uh, Josh Stein in North Carolina, Josh
38:23
Speaker 11: Shapiro in Pennsylvania, Andy Basher and Kentucky. I think all
38:28
Speaker 11: of they all also are looking at what are what
38:32
Speaker 11: is their appeal to the Democratic base and who is
38:37
Speaker 11: the Democratic base right now? I think that is also
38:40
Speaker 11: an important question that Democrats writ large are asking themselves,
38:44
Speaker 11: especially with the rise of the Democratic socialist candidates who
38:48
Speaker 11: are winning in these primaries across the country.
38:53
Speaker 3: Well, does that go for both sides?
38:54
Speaker 7: Rick?
38:54
Speaker 2: Are Republicans considering who their base is at least when
38:57
Speaker 2: Donald Trump isn't on the ticket in the same way
39:00
Speaker 2: that Democrats are right now?
39:03
Speaker 7: Yeah.
39:03
Speaker 9: Look, you always, especially in a primary of any kind,
39:07
Speaker 9: whether it's off your election like we're having now or
39:11
Speaker 9: a national election like we'll have next cycle. U primaries
39:15
Speaker 9: are controlled by your base, right, I mean it's it's
39:17
Speaker 9: not a fair fight. Uh, you know, people just don't
39:20
Speaker 9: wander into a primary fight and so yeah, base politics
39:24
Speaker 9: is really critical. I would say, you know, Democrats did
39:27
Speaker 9: something that nobody really I thought, you know, gave them
39:30
Speaker 9: credit for. Is they blew out Iowa and Hampshire as
39:33
Speaker 9: important states because they just didn't have the amount of
39:36
Speaker 9: black vote in them that they felt adequately described their base,
39:40
Speaker 9: which the black vote makes a large portion of it,
39:43
Speaker 9: and it's a huge advantage for them.
39:45
Speaker 10: And so when candidates look at where.
39:48
Speaker 9: They want to play and how they're going to play,
39:49
Speaker 9: they have to now go through South Carolina, and it
39:52
Speaker 9: means they must be right with the African American black
39:55
Speaker 9: vote in South Carolina. And I think that's what we
39:57
Speaker 9: see candadates like Bootage that's doing right now is trying
40:00
Speaker 9: to figure out how to have that conversation and how
40:04
Speaker 9: much progress they can make with.
40:07
Speaker 5: Well.
40:07
Speaker 2: And we're paying close attention the results of primaries recently,
40:10
Speaker 2: including in Michigan, to the black vote, which was far
40:14
Speaker 2: less likely to support a socialist or a progressive like
40:17
Speaker 2: Abdul I'll say it. And obviously there's been a lot
40:19
Speaker 2: of talk about the work at which the far left
40:22
Speaker 2: has to do to try to bring that part of
40:24
Speaker 2: the party in line.
40:25
Speaker 3: Here just on socialism.
40:26
Speaker 2: Quickly, I want to mention a tweet that crossed from
40:30
Speaker 2: Congressman Tom Massey, who of course was ousted himself and
40:33
Speaker 2: his primary in Kentucky by a Trump backed challenger. Referring
40:36
Speaker 2: to President Trump's decision to reduce tariffs on ground beef today,
40:40
Speaker 2: Massey says, what a slap in the face to American
40:43
Speaker 2: cattlemen and consumers. Worse than socialism. He says, dumping foreign
40:47
Speaker 2: beef in US markets contemporarily lower prices, but it won't
40:51
Speaker 2: incentivize American farmers to raise more beef. I wonder, Sarah,
40:55
Speaker 2: if you see what the president's move today, that maybe
40:56
Speaker 2: he's addressing one political problem higher prices, but creating another
41:01
Speaker 2: backlash from America's heartland.
41:05
Speaker 10: Yeah.
41:05
Speaker 11: I think there's a real I really think there's a
41:07
Speaker 11: question around whether the democratic socialist agenda is it socialism
41:13
Speaker 11: or is it populism? And it's just maybe just a
41:15
Speaker 11: different version of populism than the populism that we're seeing
41:19
Speaker 11: on the right. And you know, being pro competitive, being
41:23
Speaker 11: you know, pro American, you know, I do think that
41:26
Speaker 11: there is a there is a question today about whether
41:30
Speaker 11: you know, this trade off of trying to lower prices
41:34
Speaker 11: on beef which have been extraordinarily high and are really
41:37
Speaker 11: hurting the American consumer. This trade off with farmers and ranchers.
41:42
Speaker 11: How that's going to play politically come November and then
41:46
Speaker 11: certainly come twenty twenty eight.
41:49
Speaker 2: Rick, we just have thirty seconds lifted. Trump just make
41:51
Speaker 2: his problems worse or better.
41:54
Speaker 10: Yeah.
41:54
Speaker 9: Look, he's been doing this throughout this term, kind of
41:57
Speaker 9: confusing what a Republican position would be with what a
41:59
Speaker 9: Trump position would be. And I think this point about
42:03
Speaker 9: it's all being about him is going to confuse the
42:06
Speaker 9: ideological pushback to the socialists, because there are some very
42:10
Speaker 9: similar policies.
42:11
Speaker 10: Of this administration with what a socialist would endurese.
42:15
Speaker 2: All right, Rick Davis and Sarah Mercer our political panel
42:18
Speaker 2: on this Friday on Balance of Power.
42:20
Speaker 3: Thank you both so much for joining me.
42:23
Speaker 8: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
42:27
Speaker 8: sure to subscribe if you haven't already an Apple, Spotify,
42:30
Speaker 8: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
42:32
Speaker 8: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
42:36
Speaker 8: at Bloomberg dot com.